U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix A

National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Goals
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix A: National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Goals 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

National Wildlife Refuge System Strategic Goals

1.	 Conserve Manage, and Where Appropriate, Restore Fish, Wildlife and Plant Resources and Their

Habitats to Fulfill Refuge Purposes, Trust Resource Responsibilities, and Biological Diversity/Integrity.

2.	 Provide Quality Environments with Adequate Water.

3.	 Ensure that Unique Values of Wilderness, other Special Designation Areas, and Cultural Resources are

protected.

4.	 Welcome and Orient Visitors.

5.	 Provide Quality Wildlife Dependent Recreation and Education Opportunities.

6.	 Facilitate Partnerships and Cooperative Projects to Engage Other Conservation Agencies, Volunteers,

Friends, and Partners in the Refuge System Mission.

7.	 Protect Resources and Visitors through Law Enforcement.

8.	 Provide Infrastructure and Equipment Adequate to Support Mission and Maintained in Good Condition.

9.	 Complete Quality and Useful Comprehensive Conservation Plans on Schedule and with Full Engagement

of Partners.

10.	 Strategically Grow the System.

11.	 Reduce Wildfire Risks and Improve Habitats.

12.	 Promote and Enhance Organizational Excellence.
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix B

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS) Charts
This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Refuge Transportation Service Asset Management System Summary
ii Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
2 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760100 Roads Paved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Lane Miles Count Replace Value

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0

74525 Kenai 6.71 11 $9,590,600

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 1.01 1 $1,401,822 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 7.72 12 $10,992,422 Failed > .70

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 3.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.26 Kenai 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 1.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.01 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 4.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.27 Total: 3.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.45

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Fish and Wildlife Service - Refuge Transportation Asset Summary

Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Lane Miles Lane Miles Lane Miles Count Length in LNFT Length in LNFT Length in LNFT Count Count Count Count Count Count

Alaska Maritime 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alaska Peninsula 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Arctic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Becharof 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Innoko 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Izembek 0 8 63 17 0 0 0 0 0 143 0 0 0

Kanuti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kenai 7 27 102 65 3,784 758,659 2,733 67 0 0 2 1 0

Kodiak 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Koyukuk 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nowitna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Selawik 0 0 0 0 0 0 800 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tetlin 1 0 6 4 0 138,960 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Togiak 0 0 0 0 0 20,390 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Yukon Delta 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,563 0 0 0 0 0 1

Yukon Flats 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 35 173 90 3,784 918,009 5,096 67 0 143 2 2 3

Total DM $0 $14,423,736 $248,095,716 $27,724,561 $420,582 $30,254,771 $3,349,111 $209,744 $0 $1,919,916 $24,505 $829,182 $9,709,862

Refuge Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Excellent 100% 86% 96% 89% NA 75% 50% 100% NA 100% 100% 100% 100%

Good 0% 0% 0% 4% NA 13% 25% 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0%

Fair 0% 0% 1% 6% NA 0% 0% 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0%

Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% NA 0% 0% 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0%

Failed 0% 14% 3% 1% NA 13% 25% 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0%

Refuge Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Excellent 100% 100% 99% 96% 83% 88% 75% 100% NA NA NA NA NA

Good 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Fair 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 25% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Poor 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Failed 0% 0% 1% 4% 17% 2% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Quantity Units

Road 216 Lane Miles

Trail* 926,889 Miles

Bridges (Road and Trail) 210 Each

Parking Lot 90 Count

Docks 4 Count

Airstrip 3 Count

* Includes boardwalks

Refuge

Major Asset Summary

FWS Region 7 Core Refuge Transportation Assets

Low Priority Asset Condition (API < 60)

High Priority Asset Condition (API >= 60)
4 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760300 Roads Dirt

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Lane Miles Count Replace Value

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0

74520 Izembek 7.92 7 $13,711,787

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0

74525 Kenai 26.87 3 $711,949

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 34.79 10 $14,423,736 Failed > .70

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $5,726,056 74520 Izembek 3.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.61 7.92 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 25.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.07 Kenai 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $5,726,056 Total: 28.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.61 32.99 Total: 1.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.80

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.40 86% 0% 0% 0% 14% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760200 Roads Gravel

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Lane Miles Count Replace Value

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0

74512 Alaska Peninsula 2.50 2 $4,482,457

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0

74520 Izembek 62.65 16 $90,694,185

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0

74525 Kenai 101.81 26 $144,611,671

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 6.18 3 $8,307,403 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 173.14 47 $248,095,716 Failed > .70

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $9,977,225 74520 Izembek 59.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.41 62.65 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $2,461,249 74525 Kenai 64.44 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 64.62 Kenai 36.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 37.19

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $742,500 75630 Tetlin 4.18 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 6.18 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $13,180,974 Total: 130.36 0.00 2.00 0.18 3.41 135.95 Total: 36.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 37.19

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.05 96% 0% 1% 0% 3% 99% 0% 0% 0% 1%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
6 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40660100 Parking Lot

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 8,333.33 1 $1,925,786 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 622.22 1 $165,908 -1.00

74520 Izembek 14,649.81 17 $2,581,649 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 112,760.28 65 $19,640,478

74530 Kodiak 354.23 1 $705,073

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 6,137.56 4 $1,532,715 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 5,888.89 1 $1,172,954 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 148,746.32 90 $27,724,561 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 8,333.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,333.33 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 622.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 622.22 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $240,900 74520 Izembek 10,414.15 0.00 3,402.33 0.00 833.33 14,649.81 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $632,229 74525 Kenai 87,509.75 4,918.78 5,164.23 0.00 0.00 97,592.76 Kenai 14,618.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 549.23 15,167.52

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 354.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 354.23 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 6,137.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,137.56 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 5,888.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,888.89 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $873,129 Total: 119,260.13 4,918.78 8,566.56 0.00 833.33 133,578.80 Total: 14,618.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 549.23 15,167.52

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.03 89% 4% 6% 0% 1% 96% 0% 0% 0% 4%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751000 Trails Paved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 3,784.00 6 $420,582

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 3,784.00 6 $420,582 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $57,000 74525 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kenai 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $57,000 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 6.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.14 NA NA NA NA NA 83% 0% 0% 0% 17%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
8 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751100 Trails Unpaved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 758,659.00 42 $24,076,183

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 138,960.00 6 $5,586,316 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 20,390.00 3 $592,272 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 918,009.00 51 $30,254,771 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $700,400 74525 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kenai 37.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 42.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $198,788 75630 Tetlin 3.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 5.00 Tetlin 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $899,188 Total: 6.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 8.00 Total: 38.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 1.00 43.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.03 75% 13% 0% 0% 13% 88% 5% 5% 0% 2%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751300 Boardwalks

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 2,733.00 5 $1,902,555

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 800.00 1 $441,448 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 1,563.00 2 $1,005,108 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 5,096.00 8 $3,349,111 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $759,000 74525 Kenai 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2.00 Kenai 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $137,500 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $35,000 74540 Yukon Delta 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $931,500 Total: 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 4.00 Total: 3.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 4.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.28 50% 25% 0% 0% 25% 75% 0% 25% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
10 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760800 Trail Bridges

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 66.66 2 $209,744

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 66.66 2 $209,744 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 Kenai 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33 Total: 33.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.33

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760700 Culvert Road Bridge

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 0.00 0 $0

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) #DIV/0! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
12 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760500 Road Bridges

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 143.11 4 $1,919,916 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 0.00 0 $0

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 143.11 4 $1,919,916 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 143.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143.11 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 143.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 143.11 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 13

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40130300 Docks Floating

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 27.11 2 $24,505

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 27.11 2 $24,505 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 27.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.11 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 27.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.11 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

 The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
14 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40130200 Docks Stationary

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75600 Arctic 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 44.44 1 $67,877

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 112.78 1 $761,305 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 157.22 2 $829,182 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQFT)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $0 74512 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 44.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.44 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $48,014 75630 Tetlin 112.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 112.78 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $48,014 Total: 157.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 157.22 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.06 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40120200 Airstrip

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula 41,666.67 1 $9,628,928 -1.00

75600 Arctic 17,555.56 1 $40,746 -1.00

74515 Becharof 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75605 Innoko 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74520 Izembek 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75610 Kanuti 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74525 Kenai 0.00 0 $0

74530 Kodiak 0.00 0 $0

75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0 $0

75621 Nowitna 0.00 0 $0

75625 Selawik 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

75630 Tetlin 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74535 Togiak 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74540 Yukon Delta 5,666.67 1 $40,188 Fair .15 - .50

75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

Total: 64,888.90 3 $9,709,862 Failed > .70 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Deferred Maint. ID Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Natl. Wildlife Refuge Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74500 Alaska Maritime $0 74500 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Alaska Maritime 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74512 Alaska Peninsula $368,500 74512 Alaska Peninsula 41,666.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41,666.67 Alaska Peninsula 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75600 Arctic $0 75600 Arctic 17,555.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,555.56 Arctic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74515 Becharof $0 74515 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Becharof 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75605 Innoko $0 75605 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Innoko 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74520 Izembek $0 74520 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Izembek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75610 Kanuti $0 75610 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kanuti 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74525 Kenai $0 74525 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kenai 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74530 Kodiak $0 74530 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75615 Koyukuk $0 75615 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Koyukuk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75621 Nowitna $0 75621 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nowitna 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75625 Selawik $0 75625 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Selawik 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75630 Tetlin $0 75630 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tetlin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74535 Togiak $0 74535 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Togiak 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74540 Yukon Delta $0 74540 Yukon Delta 5,666.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,666.67 Yukon Delta 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75635 Yukon Flats $0 75635 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yukon Flats 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $368,500 Total: 64,888.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,888.90 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.04 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

 The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
16 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Administrative Site Transportation Service Asset Management System Summary
ii Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

This page intentionally left blank
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Fish and Wildlife Service - Administrative Site Transportation Asset Summary

Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Lane Miles Lane Miles Lane Miles Count Length in LNFT Length in LNFT Length in LNFT Size in SQYD Size in SQYD Size in SQYD Count Count Count

Aleutian Islands Unit 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

Aviation Manager 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bethel Administrative Site 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bettles AS 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cold Bay Hangar 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dillingham AS 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fort Yukon AS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Galena Administrative Site 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Homer Visitor Center AS 0 0 0 2 1,880 1,015 1,400 122 0 0 0 0 0

Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ketchikan Administrative Site 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

King Salmon AS 0 0 0 9 240 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kodiak AS 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kodiak Office 0 0 1 3 0 1,320 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Kotzebue AS 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McGrath AS 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tok AS 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 2 0 2 56 2,120 2,335 1,400 122 0 0 1 4 0

Total DM $5,646,310 $0 $4,545,329 $14,570,638 $120,094 $248,505 $722,315 $344,346 $0 $0 $17,076 $15,527,468 $0

Refuge Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Excellent 100% NA 100% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100% NA NA NA 100% NA

Good 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% NA NA NA 0% NA

Fair 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% NA NA NA 0% NA

Poor 0% NA 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% NA NA NA 0% NA

Failed 0% NA 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 100% NA NA NA 0% NA

Refuge Roads (Paved) Roads (Dirt) Roads (Gravel) Parking Lot Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved) Boardwalks Bridges (Trail) Bridges (Culvert) Bridges (Road) Docks (Floating) Docks (Stationary) Airstrips

Excellent NA NA NA 94% NA NA NA NA NA NA 100% 100% NA

Good NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0% 0% NA

Fair NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0% 0% NA

Poor NA NA NA 6% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0% 0% NA

Failed NA NA NA 0% NA NA NA NA NA NA 0% 0% NA

Quantity Units

Road 4 Lane Miles

Trail* 5,855 Miles

Bridges (Road and Trail) 122 Each

Parking Lot 56 Count

Docks 5 Count

Airstrip 0 Count

* Includes boardwalks

Refuge

Major Asset Summary

FWS Region 7 Core Transportation Assets

Low Priority Asset Condition (API < 60)

High Priority Asset Condition (API >= 60)
18 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760100 Roads Paved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Lane Miles Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 2.30 1 $5,646,310

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 2.30 1 5,646,310 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 2.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.30 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760200 Roads Gravel

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Lane Miles Count Replace Value 

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.80 3 $2,692,615 

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.27 5 $994,035 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 1.00 2 $858,679 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 2.07 10 4,545,329 

Condition:

 These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 2.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

 The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
20 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760300 Roads Dirt

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Lane Miles Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 0.00 0 0 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Lane Miles)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) #DIV/0! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 21

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40660100 Parking Lot

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQYD Count Replace Value

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 13,266.67 3 $1,908,812

70134 Aviation Manager 18,175.00 1 $959,564

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 2,697.33 2 $1,136,326

75611 Bettles AS 2,166.67 2 $221,476

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 1,244.45 2 $235,377

74536 Dillingham AS 9,400.00 7 $2,602,629

75636 Fort Yukon AS 155.56 1 $32,920

75616 Galena Administrative Site 4,519.98 9 $741,340

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 9,522.22 2 $2,002,774

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 6,342.21 9 $1,632,380 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 765.33 1 $98,016 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 3,054.66 3 $486,495 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 3,000.00 5 $974,150 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 5,102.21 4 $1,254,597 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 1,666.68 5 $283,781

Total: 81,078.97 56 14,570,638

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 7,933.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,933.34 Aleutian Islands Unit 5,333.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,333.33

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 18,175.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,175.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 2,697.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,697.33 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 2,166.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,166.67 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 1,244.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,244.45 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $20,000 74536 Dillingham AS 9,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,400.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 155.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 155.56 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 4,519.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,519.98

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $80,680 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 8,622.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,622.22 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 900.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 6,342.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,342.21 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $120,000 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 765.33 765.33 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 3,054.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,054.66 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 1,600.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,600.00 Kotzebue AS 1,400.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 1,768.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,768.88 McGrath AS 3,333.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,333.33

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 1,666.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,666.68 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $220,680 Total: 64,827.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 765.33 65,592.33 Total: 14,586.64 0.00 0.00 900.00 0.00 15,486.64

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.02 99% 0% 0% 0% 1% 94% 0% 0% 6% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
22 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751000 Trails Paved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 1,880.00 2 $81,898

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 240.00 1 $38,196 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 2,120.00 3 120,094 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751100 Trails Unpaved

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 1,015.00 1 $129,497

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 1,320.00 1 $119,008 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 2,335.00 2 248,505 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
24 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40751300 Boardwalks

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Length in LNFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 1,400.00 1 $722,315

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 1,400.00 1 722,315 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Length in LNFT)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0

20

40

60

80

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 25

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760800 Trail Bridges

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 122.22 1 $344,346

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 122.22 1 344,346 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 122.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 122.22 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 122.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 122.22 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
26 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760700 Culvert Road Bridge

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) #DIV/0! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 27

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40760500 Road Bridges

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 0.00 0 0 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) #DIV/0! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
28 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40130300 Docks Floating

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQYD Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 84.00 1 $17,076

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 84.00 1 $17,076 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQYD)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 84.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 84.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 84.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 NA NA NA NA NA 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts 29

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40130200 Docks Stationary

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Size in SQFT Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 1,495.56 2 $13,485,676 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 300.67 1 $744,850

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 693.88 1 $1,296,942 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 2,490.11 4 15,527,468 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Size in SQFT) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Size in SQFT)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 94.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 94.67 Aleutian Islands Unit 1,400.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,400.89

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 300.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300.67

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 693.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 693.88 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 788.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 788.55 Total: 1,701.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,701.56

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) 0.00 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
30 Appendix B: Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) Charts A Drop-Down Plan to the Alaska Federal Lands Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Asset: 40120200 Airstrip

Inventory Summary:

The inventory is distributed across the region as follows:

ID Administrative Site Count Count Replace Value -1.00

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0 $0 -1.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0 $0

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0 $0

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0 $0 Class FCI Range

74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0 $0 Excellent <=.10

74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0 $0 Good .10 - .15

74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0 $0 Fair .15 - .50

75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0 $0 Poor .50 - .70 

75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0 $0 Failed > .70

75631 Tok AS 0.00 0 $0

Total: 0.00 0 0 -1.00

Condition:

These assets have the following accumulated deferred maintenance and are in the condition class noted

High Priority (API>=60) - Condition Class (Count) Low Priority (API<60) - Condition Class (Count)

ID Administrative Site Deferred Maint. ID Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total Administrative Site Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Total

74502 Aleutian Islands Unit $0 74502 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aleutian Islands Unit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

70134 Aviation Manager $0 70134 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Aviation Manager 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74541 Bethel Administrative Site $0 74541 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bethel Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75611 Bettles AS $0 75611 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bettles AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72137 Cold Bay Hangar $0 72137 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cold Bay Hangar 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74536 Dillingham AS $0 74536 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Dillingham AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75636 Fort Yukon AS $0 75636 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Fort Yukon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75616 Galena Administrative Site $0 75616 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Galena Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74505 Homer Visitor Center AS $0 74505 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Homer Visitor Center AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office $0 71440 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Fish and Wildlife Field Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site $0 72138 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Juneau Hangar Wildlife Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site $0 71441 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ketchikan Administrative Site 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74513 King Salmon AS $0 74513 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 King Salmon AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74533 Kodiak AS $0 74533 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

74531 Kodiak Office $0 74531 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kodiak Office 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75626 Kotzebue AS $0 75626 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Kotzebue AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75606 McGrath AS $0 75606 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 McGrath AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

75631 Tok AS $0 75631 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Tok AS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total: $0 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

 Summary FCI (DM/CRV) #DIV/0! NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Investment Strategy:

The distribution of Assets by API vs FCI is:

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

API

FCI

Public Use

Admin Use Only
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix C

Region 7 Refuge Transportation Factsheets
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Factsheet

Introduction

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 7 factsheets were prepared to provide a high 

level overview of transportation systems within each refuge. Information includes location, size, 

number and condition of transportation assets, transportation planning needs, as well as other 

relevant data. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Region 7 Refuges

Page 1 of 3 Last updated October 2011
Data Sources

Data used in the factsheets came from local, regional, and national sources including:

Data Inputs

Source Data Date

Alaska Department 

of Transportation 

and Public Facilities 

(ADOT&PF)

ADOT&PF regions, reported crashes, Alaska Marine Highway, 

highways and roads

2003 to 

2007

Refuge Interviews

Access points, transportation needs, alternative transportation 

opportunities, climate change threat, as well as natural and cultural 

known and possible threats

March 2011

U.S. Census Alaska boroughs, and cities 2010

Service Asset 

Management System 

(SAMMS)

Roads (paved), roads (dirt), roads (gravel), parking lot, trails (paved), 

trails (unpaved), boardwalks, bridges (road), bridges (trail), bridges 

(culvert), docks (floating), docks (stationary), airstrips, asset priority 

index (API), and facility condition index (FCI)

July 2011

U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 7 Long 

Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP)

Transportation needs, proximity to urban areas, proximity to other 

FLMAs

Internal 

Draft, 

August 

2009

FWS Refuges, acreage 2010

Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) Scenic byways 2010

Refuge Comprehensive 

Conservation Plans 

(CCP)

Gateway communities, existing partnerships

Various 

publish 

dates

Refuge Annual 

Performance Plan Visitation count 2009

FWS Annual 

Performance Handbook Visitation count methodology 2009

USGS Basemap

Various 

publish 

dates

API/FCI Charts

Included in the factsheets are service asset maintenance management system (SAMMS) charts. 

SAMMS charts show the relationship between the asset priority index (API) and facility 

condition index (FCI). API is a ranking for how critical assets are in serving FWS mission and 

Page 2 of 3 Last updated October 2011
goals. Assets with an API closer to 100 are of higher priority whereas assets with ratings closer 

to 0 are of lower priority. Among other purposes, FWS uses the API metric to ensure that 

maintenance activities focus on the highest priority assets. Similarly, API is used to identify the 

for possible decommissioning. The FCI is the ratio of the deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value; therefore, a larger FCI value indicates higher costs to bring an asset back to 

full repair, while a lower value indicates that less cost is required to bring an asset back to full 

repair.

As illustrated in the “How to Read API versus FCI” chart below, API and FCI results can be 

thought of as four quadrants. The top-left quadrant represents assets that are high priority and 

in better condition, and should therefore receive preventative maintenance. Assets in the topright quadrant are higher-priority assets in poor condition, and should therefore be repaired or 

replaced. Assets in the bottom-left quadrant can be classified as lower-priority assets in good 

condition. These assets can perhaps wait to receive additional maintenance if maintenance 

funds are needed elsewhere. Assets in the bottom-right quadrant are facilities in poor condition 

and of low priority. Management strategies for these assets include keeping poor condition as 

the target condition or considering these assets for decommissioning.

How to Read Asset Priority Index vs. Facility Condition Index Charts

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Condition Index (FCI)

Public Use

Admin Use Only

Better

Condition

Higher

Priority

Asset

Lower

Priority

Asset

Worse

Condition

High priority assets in better condition

(Focus on preventative maintenance)

High priority assets in worse condition

(Invest in deferred maintenance

or complete replacement)

Low priority assets in better condition

(If very low priority asset is consistently maintained 

in excellent condition, reexamine level of maintenance 

programmed for the asset)

Low priority assets in poor condition

(If very low priority and poor condition,

consider decommissioning)

Page 3 of 3 Last updated October 2011
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Alaska Maritime 

National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Alaska Marine Highway, aircraft, Dutch Harbor, boats from Shelikof Straight, Bering Sea, or 

Pacific Ocean

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies

Izembek NWR, Kodiak NWR, Alaska Peninsula/Becharof NWR, Aniakchak National Monument 

and Preserve, Katmai National Park and Preserve

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region; Aleutians West Borough

Gateway Communities Adak, Akutan, Atka, Cold Bay, Dutch Harbor, False Pass, Homer, King Cove, Kodiak, Point 

Hope, St. George, St. Paul, Sitka, Sand Point, Umnak, and Unalaska

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Alaska Marine Highway (State; National Scenic Byway)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Alaska Maritime NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 3,417,757 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 120,000 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 16

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs CCP update; Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships

Kachemak Bay Research Reserve, Friends of Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges, City of Homer, 

Coast Guard, RAP, Alaska Marine Ferry, numerous state, national and international science 

collaborations

Alternative Transportation Opportunities None reported

Climate Change Threats Storm frequency and intensity

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Roads (runoff, invasive species, etc); public off-road vehicle use; and vandalism, looting, and 

trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills, severe weather, invasive species

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

No Transportation Assets Reported in SAMMS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Alaska Peninsula/Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Alaska Marine Highway, boats from Shelikof Strait or Bristol Bay, aircraft from King Salmon

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies

Alaska Maritime NWR, Izembek NWR, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, Katmai 

National Park and Preserve

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region; Aleutians East Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough

Gateway Communities Chignik, Chignik Lagoon, Homer, King Salmon, and Naknek

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Alaska Marine Highway (State; National Scenic Byway)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Alaska Peninsula Becharof NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 4,776,135 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 9,438 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 16

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 3 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 1 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 1 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships DOI, Coast Guard, NOAA, NPS, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Togiak NWR, Izembek 

NWR

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Fewer motorized vehicle trips by staff

Climate Change Threats Storm frequency and intensity

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Roads (runoff, invasive species, etc.); and vandalism, trampling, and looting of archaeological 

sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills (including hazardous material), other vehicle fuel/hazmat spills, severe 

weather, invasive species

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in accomplishing FWS mission and goals. Assets 

with an API closer to 100 are of higher 

priority whereas assets with ratings 

closer to 0 are of lower priority.

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel)

Airstrip
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Arctic Village, Kaktovik, aircraft from Fairbanks

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies

Trans-Alaska Pipeline Utility Corridor (BLM), Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, 

Yukon Flats NWR, and Ivvavik and Vuntut National Parks (Canada)

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region; North Slope Borough

Gateway Communities Arctic Village, Coldfoot, Fairbanks, Kaktovik, and Fort Yukon

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Dalton Highway (State)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Arctic NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 19,286,722 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 12,600 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - none reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 13

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 1 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs None reported

Existing Partnerships North Slope Borough, Dalton Highway Working Group, Game Commercial Service Board, Air 

Force, local university

Alternative Transportation Opportunities More fuel efficient fleet, trail connections

Climate Change Threats Flooding, storm frequency and intensity, sea and lake level change

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; roads (runoff, invasive species, etc); wildlife; coastal erosion; and vandalism, 

looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats On-site fuel storage, fuel barge spills (including hazardous material), invasive species

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in accomplishing FWS mission and goals. Assets 

with an API closer to 100 are of higher 

priority whereas assets with ratings 

closer to 0 are of lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Airstrip
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Galena, Grayling, Kaltag, Koyukuk, Nulato, Yukon River

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Koyukuk NWR, Nowitna NWR, Yukon Delta NWR, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region and Central Region; Yukon-Koyukuk Borough

Gateway Communities Anvik, Fairbanks, Galena, Grayling, Holy Cross (Northern Unit), Hughes, Huslia, Kaltag, 

Kotzebue, Koyukuk, McGrath, Nome, Nulato, Poorman, Ruby, Shageluk, Tanana, and Willow

Connections to State or National Trails Kaltag Portage Trail

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Innoko NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 3,850,481 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 1,400 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 1

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 1 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs None reported

Existing Partnerships None reported

Alternative Transportation Opportunities None reported

Climate Change Threats Storm frequency and intensity

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; and vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats On-site fuel storage, fuel barge spills (including hazardous material)

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in accomplishing FWS mission and goals. Assets 

with an API closer to 100 are of higher 

priority whereas assets with ratings 

closer to 0 are of lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Parking Lot
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Cold Bay and King Cove via ferry, air, road via Cold Bay

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Alaska Maritime NWR, Alaska Peninsula NWR

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region; Aleutians East Borough

Gateway Communities Anchorage, Cold Bay, and King Cove

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Alaska Marine Highway (State / National Scenic Byway)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Izembek NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 311,088 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 7,600 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 1

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 8 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 63 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 17 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 4 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs CCP Update; Izembek Land Exchange and Road Corridor EIS; Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships Alaska Fish and Game, USGS, FWS, Coast Guard, Aleutians East Borough

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Trails, biking, kayaks

Climate Change Threats Flooding, storm frequency and intensity, freeze and thaw cycles

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; off-road vehicles (public use); and vandalism, looting, and trampling of 

archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats None reported

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair. 

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel)

Roads (Bridges)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Bettles, Koyukuk River, Fairbanks, Alatna, Allakaket, and Bettles ice road

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region; Yukon-Koyukuk Borough

Gateway Communities Alatna, Allakaket, Bettles, Coldfoot, Evansville

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Dalton Highway (State)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Kanuti NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 1,430,160 76,837,023 1331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 4,283 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - None reported

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships City of Bettles, Evansville Tribe, NPS, Friends of Alaska

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Trails

Climate Change Threats Flooding; freeze and thaw cycles, sea and lake level change

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; roads (runoff, invasive species, etc); off-road vehicle (ORV); wildlife; and vandalism, 

looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats On-site fuel storage, invasive species

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair. Worse Condition

No Transportation Assets Reported in SAMMS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Sterling Highway, Swan Lake Road, Kenai River, Moose River, Swanson River, aircraft

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Chugach National Forest, Kenai Fjords National Park

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region; Kenai Peninsula Borough

Gateway Communities Anchorage, Cooper Landing, Kenai, Homer, Ninilchik, Seldovia, Seward, Sterling

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Sterling Highway (State)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None

!

!

!

! !

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

UV1

UV1

UV1

UV9

UV1

Chenega Bay

WASILLA PALMER

STERLING

SOLDOTNA

COOPER 

LANDING

UV3

Tatitlek

Homer

Valdez

Seldovia

Whittier

Susitina

Kenai 

NWR

FWS Region 7

Location Map

Alaska 

Maritime

NWR

Alaska 

Maritime

NWR

Alaska

±

0 20 40 10

Miles

Canada

Communities

FWS Lands

!( Ferry Terminal

Alaska Marine Highway

Highway

Railroad

!
Page 2 of 2

Kenai NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 1,912,425 76,837,023 330,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 1,074,379 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - 1,648

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 10

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 7 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 27 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 102 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 65 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 1 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 144 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 5 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 2 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 2 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 1 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Road safety audit (RSA); Issue driven plan regarding parking; Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships ADOT&PF, Chugach National Forest, Kenai Watershed Forum, Kenai River Special 

Management Area, State Troopers

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Trail connections

Climate Change Threats Flooding

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; wildlife; animal/vehicle collisions; coastal erosion; and vandalism, looting, 

trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel spills, invasive species, vandalism, looting, trampling of archaeological sites

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Docks (Stationary) Docks (Floating)

Trails (Paved) Trails (Unpaved)

Boardwalks

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel) Roads (Dirt)

Roads (Paved)

Trail Bridges
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Akhiok, Karluk, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, aircraft, ferry through Kodiak, boats from nearby towns

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Alaska Maritime NWR, Becharof NWR, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region; Kodiak Island Borough

Gateway Communities Akhiok, Karluk, Kodiak, Larsen Bay, Old Harbor, Ouzinkie, and Port Lions

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Alaska Marine Highway (State / National Scenic Byway)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Kodiak NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 1,990,418 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 48,951 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 5

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 1 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships Coast Guard, Kodiak Electric (Terror Lake Road)

Alternative Transportation Opportunities More fuel efficient fleet

Climate Change Threats Flooding, storm frequency and intensity, invasive species

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; roads (runoff, invasive species, etc); hazardous materials spills; human-caused 

fires; and vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites 

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills (including hazardous material), other vehicle fuel and hazardous material 

spills, severe weather, invasive species, human-caused fires, ocean acidification

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Parking Lot
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Koyukuk/Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Air access from local villages, Anchorage, Fairbanks, Galena, Kotzebue, boat access on the 

Yukon and Koyukuk rivers as well as Ruby, Tanana, Nulato, Kaltag, Yuko, and Hughes

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Selawik NWR, Innoko NWR, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region; Northwest Arctic Borough, Yukon-Koyukuk Borough

Gateway Communities Tanana, Ruby, Galena, Koyukuk, Nulato, Kaltag, Huslia, Hughes

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Koyukuk and Nowitna NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 5,110,161 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 4,000 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 2

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships BLM, Louden Tribe Youth Program, Friends Group

Alternative Transportation Opportunities None reported

Climate Change Threats Flooding

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; roads (runoff, invasive species, etc.); public off-road vehicle (ORV) use; and 

vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills (including hazardous material), invasive species

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

No Transportation Assets Reported in SAMMS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Selawik National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Selawik, Noorvik, Kiana, aircraft from Kotzebue, boat access on the Kobuk River, Hotham 

Inlet, and Selawik Lake

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Koyukuk NWR, BLM lands, Kobuk Valley National Park, Noatak National Preserve

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADO&PF Northern Region; Northwest Arctic Borough

Gateway Communities Ambler, Buckland, Kiana, Kobuk, Kotzebue, Noorvik, Selawik, Shungnak

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Selawik NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 2,150,162 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 4,342 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 1

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 1 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 1 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships BLM, NPS, Northwest Arctic Borough (NWAB) , ADF&G, Native Village of Selawik

Alternative Transportation Opportunities More fuel efficient fleet, bikes

Climate Change Threats Sea and lake level change

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats None reported

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Boardwalks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Alaska Highway 2, Northway, aircraft

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies BLM lands, Wrangell-St. Elias Preserve and Wilderness

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region; Southeast Fairbanks Borough

Gateway Communities Northway, Tok, Tetlin

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Tetlin NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 700,059 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 38,168 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - 163

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 3

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 1 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 6 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 4* 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 26 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 2 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Road safety audit (RSA); Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships Department of Community and Economic Development, ADOT&PF, Native Corporations and 

Tribal Councils, Alaska Public Lands Information Center

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Trail connections

Climate Change Threats Flooding, freeze and thaw cycles on permafrost

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; roads (run off, invasive species); off-road vehicles; wildfire; wildlife; and vandalism, 

looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Other vehicle fuel and hazardous material spill, invasive species 

*Numbers updated based on Refuge input.

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Docks (Stationary)

Trails (Unpaved)

Parking Lot

Roads (Gravel)

Roads (Paved)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Goodnews Bay, Quinhagak, Bethel, Dillingham, Togiak, aircraft, boat from Bristol Bay and 

Bering Sea

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Yukon Delta NWR, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central Region

Gateway Communities Bethel, Dillingham

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Togiak NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 4,102,927 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 8,000 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 11

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 4 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships Alaska State Parks

Alternative Transportation Opportunities None reported

Climate Change Threats None reported

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Public off-road vehicle use, and vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills (including hazardous material)

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Trails (Unpaved)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Hooper Bay, Tuntutuliak, aircraft from Bethel; boat from the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers, and 

Bering Sea

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies Togiak NWR, Innoko NWR, BLM lands

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Central and Northern Regions; Wade Hampton Borough and Bethel Borough

Gateway Communities Bethel, Chevak, Mary’s Village, St. Mary's, St. Michaels

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway None

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

 Yukon Delta NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 19,163,016 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 64,000 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - 75

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 0 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 2 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 1 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs CCP Updates; Traditional use determination

Existing Partnerships Yukon Health Corporation, FAA

Alternative Transportation Opportunities Sled dogs

Climate Change Threats Storm frequency and intensity

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Roads (runoff, invasive species, etc.); public off-road vehicle use; and vandalism, looting, and 

trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats Fuel barge spills (including hazardous material)

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Airstrip

Boardwalks
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Page 1 of 2 Last updated October 2011

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge

Access Methods and Locations Dalton Highway, Fort Yukon, Fairbanks, boat on Yukon River, aircraft

Nearby Federal Land Management 

Agencies

BLM lands (Steese National Conservation Area, White Mountain National Recreation Area, 

and Trans-Alaska Pipeline Utility Corridor), NPS lands (Gates of the Arctic National Park, and 

Yukon Charley Rivers National Preserve)

Alaska DOT Region and Borough ADOT&PF Northern Region; Yukon-Koyukuk Borough

Gateway Communities Circle, Coldfoot, Fort Yukon

Connections to State or National Trails None

Scenic Byway Dalton Highway (State)

Air Quality Non-Attainment Area None
Page 2 of 2

Yukon Flats NWR Region 7 Total All Other Regions Total

Acres 8,635,511 76,837,023 331,751,420

Traffic Counts Not available Not available Not available

Visitation Count 10,537 1,407,698 43,074,701

Visitation Count Methodology FWS Annual Performance Plan Workbook

Safety - Reported Crashes

Vehicle - None reported

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF) 

Airplane - None reported

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

Vehicle - 1,811

(2003 to 2007, ADOT&PF)

Airplane - 145

(1990 to 2011, FAA) 

No comparable 

data available

Paved Road (Lane Miles) 0 8 595

Dirt Road (Lane Miles) 0 35 3,610

Gravel Road (Lane Miles) 0 173 4,391

Parking Lot (Count) 1 90 2,045

Paved Trails (Miles) 0 1 21

Unpaved Trails (Miles) 0 174 256

Boardwalks (Miles) 0 8 47

Trail Bridges (Count) 0 4 27

Culvert Bridges (Count) 0 2 52

Road Bridges (Count) 0 0 238

Floating Docks (Count) 0 2 37

Stationary Docks (Count) 0 2 68

Airstrips (Count) 0 3 4

Identified Transportation Planning Needs CCP Updates

Existing Partnerships BLM, ADOT&PF, Alaska Fire Service

Alternative Transportation Opportunities None reported

Climate Change Threats Flooding

Natural and Cultural Known Threats Flooding; wildlife; and vandalism, looting, and trampling of archaeological sites

Natural and Cultural Possible Threats None reported

Distribution of Core Transportation Assets by API vs. FCI

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Asset Priority Index (API)

Facility Conditon Index (FCI)

Better Condition

Higher Priority Asset Lower Priority Asset

Worse Condition

API: The asset priority index (API) ranks 

how critical assets are in 

accomplishing FWS mission and 

goals. Assets with an API closer to 

100 are of higher priority whereas 

assets with ratings closer to 0 are of 

lower priority. 

FCI: Facility condition index (FCI) is the 

ratio of deferred maintenance costs to 

replacement value. A larger FCI value 

indicates worse asset condition as 

there are higher costs to bring an 

asset back to full repair. A lower FCI 

value indicates better asset condition 

as less cost is required to bring an 

asset back to full repair.

Parking Lot
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix D

Transportation Planning Needs
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix D: Transportation Planning Needs 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Service Unit

Planning Needs Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCP Transportation 

Safety Audit

Traffic 

Studies Transportation Studies Comprehensive

Traditional 

Use Defined 

in Plan

DOT Region DOT Component Plans DOT Corridor and / or Subregions

Alaska Maritime National Wildlife 

Refuge S Need Identified. See LRTP Table 22

Administrative 

access routes, 

military roads, etc

No Central and Southeast Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan Pacific Coast Marine Corridor 

Alaska Peninsula and Becharof 

National Wildlife Refuge C No Central Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan

Pacific Coast Marine Corridor, Alaska 

Peninsula Corridor and Cook Inlet to Bristol 

Bay Corridor

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge I Aviation, fuel availability Visitor Use StepDown Plan Yes Northern Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan North Slope Borough Subregion

Innoko National Wildlife Refuge 

(Southern Unit) S To be determined in 

upcoming CCP Visitor Services Plan Yes Central/Northern Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation Plan Modal plans

Izembek National Wildlife Refuge S Need Identified. 

See LRTP Table 22

Identify priority 

transportation system

Other studies to be in 

upcoming CCP

Need support during 

CCP development No Central Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan Pacific Coast Marine Corridor

Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge C No Northern Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan Middle Yukon River Basin Subregion

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge C Need Identified. 

See LRTP Table 21

Need 

identified

Russian River congestion 

management No Central Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan (No overlapping corridor)

Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge C No Central Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan Pacific Coast Marine Corridor

Koyukuk, Nowitna, and Northern Unit 

of Innoko National Wildlife Refuge C

Non-Service proposed 

roads (ADOT&PF Roads to 

Resources)

Visitor Services Plan No Northern Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan Middle Yukon River Basin Subregion

Selawik National Wildlife Refuge C Winter route 

marking

Winter route marking, 

potential for proposed 

roads

No Northern Northwest Alaska Transportation Plan Northwest Arctic Borough Subregion

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge C Need Identified. 

See Table 21/22

Need 

identified No Northern Interior Alaska Transportation Plan Modal plans

Togiak National Wildlife Refuge C

Need CCP 

amendment 

to address 

transportation

No Central

Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan/ 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation 

Plan

Dillingham/Bristol Bay Area Corridor 

Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge S Snow machine 

route

Snow machine, aviation 

use, moving communities

Need support during 

CCP development No Central/Northern

Southwest Alaska Transportation Plan/ 

Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Transportation 

Plan

(No overlapping corridor)

Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge S

Aviation, fuel availability, 

non-Service road 

proposals

Need support during 

CCP development Yes Northern Interior Alaska Transportation Plan Modal plans

C = Complete I = Complete, but update is in-progress S = Complete, but update is scheduled
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix E

Partnership Review
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Partnership Review 1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Partnership Review 

This document is a collection of partnership excerpts from published U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region

7 documents and brief interviews conducted to support the development of the FWS Region 7 Long Range

Transportation Plan. Documents include Comprehensive Conservation Plans, newsletters, and official web

pages.
2 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Richardson-Highway. Credit: BLM

Table of Contents

Innoko NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Izembek NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Kanuti NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Kenai NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Kodiak NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Koyukuk NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Alaska Peninsula – Becharof NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Selawik NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Togiak NWR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Yukon Delta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Yukon Flats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Appendix E: Partnership Review 3

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Innoko NWR

CCP Information

Refuge biologists routinely cooperate with biologists from the ADF&G and Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) to assess status and trends of moose on and near the refuge. The refuge has cooperated with the U.S.

Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, on regional projects ranging in subject from bird monitoring

to goose loafing studies, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service

on monthly snow depth surveys. A revised landcover map and report was developed for part of the refuge

and surrounding areas in 2002 in cooperation with BLM and Ducks Unlimited (Bureau of Land Management

et al. 2002). The refuge assists the Department of Defense (U.S. Air Force) by conducting annual breeding

bird surveys at Tatilina Air Force Base. The refuge is an active participant in Boreal Partners in Flight, an

organization comprised of bird biologists from agencies and organizations in Alaska and Canada. Boreal

Partners in Flight provides a venue for biologists to share information on species of concern, discuss inventory

and monitoring techniques, and pool resources and data to address questions about bird populations.

Interagency cooperation is crucial when undertaking fire management activities. The BLM Alaska Fire

Service (AFS) provides suppression services for Department of Interior agencies and is in charge of detecting,

monitoring, and when appropriate and requested, suppressing fires on Federal lands in Alaska. The refuge’s

fire management officer works closely with AFS when developing fire management plans, attends AFS

briefings during the fire season, and coordinates with AFS on activities on the refuge. The refuge staff also

works closely with fire personnel with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, fire

center in McGrath.

The refuge has worked cooperatively with facility and students at the University of Alaska Fairbanks and at

other universities, and with other agency biologists and tribal council representatives.

The refuge has been awarded Service challenge cost-share grants for activities on and near the refuge and in

McGrath. Projects have included environmental education during Earth Week and a five-day summer science

camp hosted by the refuge. Partners in McGrath-based cost-share projects included the Iditarod Area School

District, Alaska Sealife Center, Alaska Bird Rehabilitation Center, Arctic Chapter of the Audubon Society, and

ADF&G.

Wildlife research and public use are expected to increase on the refuge. Public and private partners will

be routinely sought where mutual interests exist in research and monitoring topics and objectives. Such

collaboration would be consistent with the tradition and pattern of cooperative research and monitoring used by

the refuge since 1981.

Refuge Interview Information

Innoko NWR ensures that at least 80 percent of District K-12 students have an opportunity to participate in

at least one environmental education program; and continuing to maintain and develop the partnership with

the Alaska Geographic (formerly Alaska Natural History Association) and/or other cooperating associations

to provide interpretive and environmental sales items on the natural and cultural history of the refuge and

surrounding public lands.
4 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Izembek NWR

Refuge Interview Information

A harbor proposal for the nearby town of Cold Bay is on the horizon for the Izembek NWR. This proposal

would add a supply route and additional access to the refuge. Since the proposal would indicate more risk for

fuel spills and invasive species, it would require refuge involvement.

The refuge partners with Aleutians East Borough for bus tours (19-seat bus). A lottery system held on the

AMHS as there is not enough space for demand. FWS has 14-seat bus. There is also a naturalist on the ferry

to provide visitor information. The Borough has a hovercraft (Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday) – and now has

naturalist on the hovercraft as well. From April-October there is a ferry system. It is a symbiotic relationship

between all the agencies and departments involved.

The following partner agencies include:

 AK Fish and Game, for wildlife surveys, etc.

 USGS for research (via boats)

 USGS for volcano observatory (via helicopter)

 Coastguard for exercises.

 FWS Migratory Birds (via planes)

 Biking community
Appendix E: Partnership Review 5

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Kanuti NWR

CCP Information

Refuge biologists routinely cooperate with biologists from the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game (ADF&G), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and National Park

Service (NPS) to assess status and trends of moose on and near the refuge. They also

cooperate on projects involving other species such as wolves and caribou. The refuge

has cooperated with the U.S. Geological Survey on regional projects ranging from bird

monitoring to heavy metals in snow. A landcover map and report were developed for the

refuge and surrounding areas in 2002 in cooperation with BLM and Ducks Unlimited

(BLM et al. 2002), and refuge staff assisted these partners with landcover mapping

fieldwork elsewhere in interior Alaska. The map will be used as basis for evaluation of

wildlife–habitat relationships and long-term, landscape level monitoring of vegetation

resources.

The refuge is an active participant in Boreal Partners in Flight, an organization

comprised of bird biologists from various agencies and organizations in Alaska and

Canada. Boreal Partners in Flight provides a venue for biologists to share information

on species of concern, discuss inventory and monitoring techniques, and pool resources

and data to address questions about bird populations.

Interagency cooperation is crucial when undertaking fire management activities. The

BLM Alaska Fire Service (AFS) provides suppression services for Department of

Interior agencies and is in charge of detecting, monitoring, and—when appropriate—

suppressing fires to protect identified values or meet land and resource management

objectives on Federal lands in Alaska. The refuge’s fire management officer works

closely with AFS when developing fire management plans, attends AFS briefings

during the fire season, and coordinates with AFS on activities on the refuge.

The refuge is fortunate to have ready access to expertise at the University of Alaska

Fairbanks (UAF). Refuge staff has worked cooperatively with researchers at UAF

to develop research proposals. UAF research staff have participated in refuge field

projects and provided insight on study design, data analysis, and interpretation of

results. The refuge has developed contracts with the UAF Museum bird, mammal,

invertebrate, and herbarium departments. Researchers from UAF and other

universities have served as advisors for graduate studies conducted on the refuge, and

along with other agency biologists and tribal council representatives, have participated

in the refuge’s biological program reviews.

The BLM, NPS, and the Service are in partnership to manage and maintain the Arctic

Interagency Visitor Center in Coldfoot. Since 1989, staffs from the three agencies have

provided information to people traveling the Dalton Highway. The Alaska Natural

History Association (now Alaska Geographic) financially supports interpretive and

volunteer programs at the visitor center.

No permanent refuge staff members are stationed in Bettles year-round, although the

need for that capability is documented in this Plan. The refuge shares an office and

visitor center with the NPS in Bettles. The refuge cooperates with NPS to operate

a small visitor contact station to provide information on both the Gates of the Arctic

National Park and Preserve and the refuge. The NPS provides the refuge with exhibit

space in their contact station.
6 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Partners for Fairbanks-based Cost-Share projects have involved the Alaska Bird

Observatory, Friends of Creamers Field, Arctic Audubon, ADF&G, and the UAF

Student Activities Office. These projects have included International Migratory

Bird Day events, Dragonfly Day at Creamer’s Refuge, and co-hosting the Far North

Conservation Film Festival as part of National Wildlife Refuge Week.

The refuge participates in Fairbanks-based activities that promote the role of the

Service in conservation efforts and provide environmental education and outreach.

These activities and the partners involved have included: Earth Day celebrations with

local non-profit organizations, school group presentations during Outdoor Days and the

Fifth Grade Bird Watch, and guest lecture presentations for groups such as the local

Audubon chapter.

Wildlife research and public use are expected to increase on the refuge in the future.

Public and private partners will be routinely sought where mutual interests exist in

research and monitoring topics and objectives. Such collaboration would be consistent

with the tradition and pattern of cooperative research and monitoring used by the

refuge since 1992.

Refuge Interview Information

The following partner efforts are underway:

 Bettel nature trail efforts (City of Bettels, Evansville tribe, Park Service in Bettels)

Tripods marking the trails (If DOT approached the refuge again, they would approve

maintenance, which deals with the heavy equipment they would use)

Partner: A lot of shared activities with the Park Service, and cooperation with BLM

Partner: Invasive research work with Friends of Alaska
Appendix E: Partnership Review 7

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Kenai NWR

CCP Information

Cumulative Impacts: Although the Refuge has a well-developed Geographic

Information System (GIS), it does not have the capability to forecast future impacts

well. The Refuge recently partnered with several agencies and organizations to develop

a model that is capable of projecting the cumulative effects of natural and anthropogenic

processes in the boreal forest landscape on the Kenai Peninsula over 100 years. The

Alaska Landscape Cumulative Effects Simulator (ALCES) is spatially stratified

whereby GIS data are input by user-defined strata, and output is in tabular or graphic

format for each spatial stratum. The user can track the number, area, and length of

each land use footprint (e.g., seismic lines, roads) within each landscape stratum (e.g.,

coniferous forest, tundra).

Animal Conflicts: The Sterling Highway near mileposts 70 and 72 has some of

the highest moose-vehicle collision rates for a rural road in the State. The Alaska

Department of Transportation and Public Facilities proposed reconstructing the

highway between mileposts 58 and 79, of which 18 miles occur within the Kenai Refuge.

There is a growing national concern for reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions through

wildlife crossing structures, signs, fencing, lighting, and other techniques.

Wildlife-vehicle collisions result in major financial costs in property damage, human

injuries and/or fatalities, and wildlife losses. Moose—as the largest member of the deer

family—cause the highest cost per accident. While moose make up 85 percent of the

wildlife-vehicle collisions on this 21-mile stretch of highway, black and brown bears and

caribou are also killed. The Refuge is working in partnership with the Federal Highway

Administration, Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska

Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Public Safety, and the Alaska

Moose Federation to reduce the number of wildlife-vehicle collisions while maintaining

the permeability of the highway and enhancing habitat connectivity.

The Refuge is collecting three sets of data: movement data of GPS collared moose,

wildlife-vehicle collision data and road kill reports, and data collected from a call-in

wildlife hotline. These data, collected two years preconstruction, will be used to identify

“hot spots” where significant crossings of the highway occur and use that to aid in the

design and placement of wildlife crossing structures and other methods and techniques

to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions while maintaining wildlife corridors across the

Sterling Highway. A postconstruction phase of the study will help determine the success

of our cooperative effort.

Data: Refuge biologists and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

routinely collaborate to assess status and trends of brown bear, moose, mountain goat,

caribou, and Dall sheep populations. They also coordinate fisheries activities with

the Kenai Fish and Wildlife Field Office and ADF&G. These activities range from

management and research to gathering baseline data on fishery use on waters within

the Refuge.

Christmas Bird Count Partnership: Refuge staff assists with the annual Audubon

Christmas Bird Count.
8 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Long-Term Ecological Monitoring Partnership: The Long-Term Ecological

Monitoring Program (LTEMP) continues to be developed. The goal of LTEMP is to

inventory and monitor biota on permanent points systematically distributed across the

Refuge at five-kilometer intervals. Through a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU), LTEMP is formally linked with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest

Inventory and Analysis program as an adjunct inventory.

Alaska Landscape Cumulative Effects Partnership Simulator: The Refuge

continues to sponsor development of the Alaska Landscape Cumulative Effects

Simulator (ALCES) through the nonprofit Kenai Watershed Forum (http://www.

kenaiwatershed.org/effectsmodel.html). ALCES models the cumulative effects of

natural processes and anthropogenic disturbances on the Kenai Peninsula (Peninsula).

As a planning tool, ALCES can be used to evaluate future scenarios of management

alternatives at the strategic level. An ALCES consortium was formally established

among 11 partners with the signing of an MOU in 2005.

Invasive Species Partnership: The Refuge continues to expand its invasive species

work through collaborative efforts with the National Wildlife Refuge System Invasive

Species Program, U.S. Geological Survey-Biological Resources Division (USGSBRD), National Institute of Invasive Species Science, and Burned Area Emergency

Rehabilitation (BAER).

University Partnerships: Refuge biologists serve as adjunct faculty at the University

of Alaska Fairbanks, Colorado State University, and the Alaska Pacific University, which

furthers opportunities for graduate research in such topics as ecological constraints on

marten distribution, climate change, arthropod taxonomy and distribution, rising tree

line, and shrub invasion of drying wetlands.

Visitor Contact Partnerships: The Refuge Visitor Center, located in the headquarters

area and operated in conjunction with the Alaska Natural History Association

(ANHA), provides information and educational services highlighting natural and

cultural resources and recreational opportunities on the Kenai Peninsula. In addition,

the Visitor Contact Station located in the Skilak Wildlife Recreation Area—which is

operated seasonally by volunteer Student Conservation Association interns—provides

information and educational services to travelers along the Sterling Highway.

Environmental Education and Outreach Partnerships: Environmental education

and outreach programs are conducted in coordination with the Kenai Peninsula School

District, local homeschool groups, Scout groups, State agencies, other Federal agencies,

local libraries, and other community organizations.

Refuge Interview Information

The following partner efforts are underway:

Partners with Kenai Watershed Forum for issues related to boating, fishing, etc.

 Kenai River Special Management Area

 ADOT&PF on right-o-way in the Sterling and Hidden Creek Culvert, and the

highway crossings

The refuge also partners with non-profits for trail maintenance, volunteering, etc

Troopers is a partner since they store helicopter at the Kenai hanger
Appendix E: Partnership Review 9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Kodiak NWR

CCP Information

A Kodiak Archipelago Vegetation Cover Map, database, and report were completed

in 2005. This information will be used as the basis for evaluating wildlife-habitat

relationships and long-term, landscape-level monitoring of vegetation resources and

human development. The project was initiated by Kodiak Refuge and the Alaska

Geographic Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey. Partners who contributed funds

necessary to complete the project included ADF&G, Kodiak Brown Bear Trust, Koniag,

Inc., Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Bureau of Land Management, and the National

Park Service.

The Kodiak Archipelago Bear Conservation and Management Plan, completed in

winter 2002, was led by ADF&G and instrumentally supported by citizens of the Kodiak

vicinity and by the Service. The plan recommends Refuge leadership and cooperation in

a wide range of education, management, and research initiatives to benefit bears of the

Archipelago. Because the Refuge supports many of the new initiatives, it incorporated

them as objectives in the Conservation Plan.

Proposals to initiate Canada goose hunting in Game Management Unit 8 (Kodiak

Island and vicinity) prompted population and genetic assessments. Objectives included

determining the size of the winter resident goose population and subspecies type of

birds using the Old Harbor vicinity for breeding and fall migration. Assessment results

will guide decisions about goose hunting. Partners in the project include ADF&G,

Alaska Maritime Refuge, Kodiak Refuge, Old Harbor citizens, and Alaska Biological

Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey.

The Refuge, in cooperation with the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository,

supports an active archaeological inventory program as well as a highly successful and

expanding stewardship monitoring program to protect archaeological sites on Kodiak

Refuge. The contributions of the Alutiiq Museum make these projects happen.

Refuge staff regularly assist with the annual Audubon Christmas Bird Count.

Refuge staff work with U.S. Coast Guard helicopters and crews to complete forwardlooking infrared radar ( FLIR) deer surveys.

The Refuge coordinates fisheries activities with ADF&G, several universities, National

Marine Fisheries Service, and local Native village corporations. These activities range

from management and research to gathering baseline data on fishery use on waters

within the Refuge.

Wildlife research is expected to increase on the Refuge over the next 10 years. Public

and private partners will be routinely sought where mutual interests exist in research

topics and objectives. Such collaboration would be consistent with the tradition and

pattern of cooperative research established by the Refuge during the last 15 years.

The Refuge visitor center provides information and education services highlighting

natural and cultural resources and recreation opportunities on Kodiak Archipelago. It is

operated in conjunction with the Alaska Natural History Association (ANHA).
10 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Kodiak Summer Science and Salmon Camp offers week-long summer science camps.

Camp sessions run throughout the summer and give local youth the opportunity to

learn about Kodiak’s most valuable resource—salmon. This camp is supported by a

unique blend of public and private partners. A challenge cost-share agreement is made

among the Service, the Alaska Natural History Association, and many private Kodiak

contributors.

Environmental education and outreach programs are conducted in coordination with the

Kodiak School District; village schools, councils, and elders; ANHA; Alaska Audubon;

other state and federal agencies; and local museums.

Refuge Interview Information

The following partner efforts are underway:

Partnership with the marine highway system

Partnerships with some private corporation’s land that they have easements

The ferry system has plans for the entire length of their system and the refuge

participated and had input in this process

 Local non-profit called Island Trails is discussing the development of a foot trail

from town but the land ownership from village to refuge is mixed. The Refuge is

contributing to this process.

The refuge recalls proposals from adjacent communities to interconnect the villages

on the island which would indicate new roads. Although the communities are of 100

people or less, the refuge is involved in these conversations.
Appendix E: Partnership Review 11

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Koyukuk NWR

CCP Information

Refuge biologists routinely cooperate with biologists from the Alaska Department of

Fish and Game and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to assess status and trends

of moose on and near the Refuge. The Refuge has cooperated with the U.S. Geological

Survey, Biological Resources Division, on two regional projects (swan marking and

banding and moose calf performance on winter range) and the Natural Resources

Conservation Service (monthly snow depth surveys). A revised land cover map and

report was developed for the Refuge and surrounding areas in 2002 in cooperation with

BLM and Ducks Unlimited. The Refuge annually cooperates with the Boreal Partners

in Flight and Friends of Alaska National Wildlife Refuges.

Interagency wildland fire cooperation is crucial when undertaking fire management

activities. The BLM Alaska Fire Service (AFS) provides suppression services for

all of the Department of Interior agencies in Alaska. AFS is in charge of detecting,

monitoring, and suppressing fires on all federal and Native-owned lands.

The Refuge has been awarded Service Challenge Cost-Share Grants, which have

focused on activities on and near the Refuge and in Galena. Cost-share projects have

included Galena Science Camps, co-funding the UAF Interior-Aleutians Yukon-Koyukuk

Center at Galena, a solar energy demonstration project housed at the Yukon-Koyukuk

Center, a swan nesting ecological study, Nogahabara sand dunes cultural artifact and

beetle surveys, oral history interviews with local trappers, and village invasive species

workshops.

Wildlife research is not expected to increase considerably on the Refuge. Public and

private partners will be routinely sought where mutual research interests exist and

study objectives are similar.

From Refuge Interview

The following partner efforts are underway:

 Friends groups want to contribute to River Guide.

 BLM is a partner for invasive species along the river corridors and Poorman Road.

 Lauden Tribe youth program volunteers to pull weeds (takes place off site, but

impacts refuge)

 One Road to Nome EIS alternative would bisect the refuges, so the refuge will

participate in the process.

The road to the dump that is along river will be gone soon because of erosion. The

refuge is involved in the planning process for this.

 Also partnering with the tribe of Hossly for airport work because they want

transportation through refuge. They managed to fill need without going through

refuge.

 Hog River Mining company – getting ROW permit for existing road (not a traditional/

official, SAMMS road or trail) for transferring equipment.
12 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Alaska Peninsula – Becharof NWR

CCP Information

King Salmon Visitor Center, providing information and educational services

highlighting the natural and cultural resources and recreation opportunities on the

Alaska Peninsula; operated in conjunction with the National Park Service, Bristol Bay

Borough, Lake and Peninsula Borough, and the Alaska Natural History Association

(ANHA)

“Spirit of Becharof Lake” Ecosystem Science Camp, a week-long residential camp for

rural high school students operated in partnership with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Alaska Science Center, Bristol Bay School District, Lake and Peninsula School District,

Alaska Audubon Society, ANHA, and the Native American Fish and Wildlife Society.

Environmental education and outreach programs in coordination with Bristol Bay

School District, Lake and Peninsula School District, scouting organizations, traditional

village councils, village elders, Alaska Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, and Alaska

Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).

Moose trend surveys to determine population trends and composition conducted in

conjunction with ADF&G and the National Park Service.

Design, development, and production of refuge-related interpretive education materials

in cooperation with ANHA A creel survey of the sport fishery conducted at the Ugashik

Narrows in conjunction with ADF&G

Annual spring breeding birds surveys conducted in conjunction with the National Park

Service

Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) continuing studies of bird

populations conducted in conjunction with the Institute for Bird Populations

Bird counts conducted several times per year with the cooperation of partners,

including the National Audubon Society, Partners in Flight, and USGS’s Biological

Resources Division

Annual bird banding performed in conjunction with USGS’s Biological Resources

Division

Participation in planning efforts with gateway communities, including the Bristol Bay

Borough, the Lake and Peninsula Borough, and local villages (in recognition that the

Refuges are important in the economic and social life of neighboring communities)

Ecoregional plans to identify key habitats and vegetation communities developed for all

lands on the Alaska Peninsula, in the cooperation with the Nature Conservancy

Bristol Bay Native Corporation has suggested that the Ugashik Narrows is an area in

which it could cooperate with the Service on studies and planning. The Service would be

willing to participate in this. The State of Alaska would be included in any planning in

this area because of the fishery resource and potential navigability issues.
Appendix E: Partnership Review 13

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Studies of archaeological sites at Ugashik Narrows conducted by the University of

Oregon

Kanatak Trail Project: In all of Becharof National Wildlife Refuge’s immensity, there

are no designated hiking trails. The Kanatak Trail will become the first. For centuries,

people have climbed over the mountains along the Pacific Coast to reach Becharof Lake

and the Bering Sea. Every spring, the Alutiiq people who lived in Kanatak used the

trail. In spring, they climbed over the mountains to reach Becharof Lake. In the fall,

they returned to Fish Village, on the lakeshore, to prepare salmon. They went back

over the mountains to Kanatak with their supplies of food to spend the winter where

firewood was plentiful. The upper section of the trail is still there, with ancient rockpiles

marking the way. But the lower sections of the route are now hard to find. The route is

in danger of vanishing. The Student Conservation Association (SCA) has partnered with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to rescue this historic trail.

During the month of June 2011, Student Conservation Association volunteers will work

to clear the lower route of the trail, especially on the Becharof side. Work is expected to

be completed by July 4, 2011.

The Kanatak Trail can be reached by airplane, landing on the Pacific Coast year-round,

or by floats on Becharof and Ruth lakes. This limited access is a part of the appeal of the

place, providing an experience of remoteness and solitude in a setting rich with wildlife.

Rather than provide signs along the trail, GPS points and maps will be available at

the King Salmon Visitor Center and on the Refuge website. The Kanatak Trail is not

intended to be highly developed. Visitors are expected to use their own good sense and

route-finding abilities throughout the Refuge.

Telling the Story of Kanatak: The stories of people who know a place are part of what

makes the landscape come to life. Refuge staff are interviewing former residents of

Kanatak to capture their memories and pass them on. In written form and as video and

audio podcasts, the stories of Kanatak will be available on the Refuge website and in

the King Salmon Visitor Center. The Refuge is also collecting copies of old photos of the

Kanatak area. Photos that have major landmarks in them can be retaken decades later,

giving us a glimpse into how the landscape is changing over time.

From Refuge Interview

The following partner efforts are underway:

Working with the DOI and coast guard on GRP

 NOAH and NPS are partners

Togiak and Izembek are other refuges they coordinate with for the ferry

Visitors center at the airport with NPS, Bristol Bay and Lake

 Canatik trail project

 ADFG (Alaska Department of Fish and Game) is another partner
14 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Selawik NWR

CCP Information

Commercial guides and transporters for big game hunting provide public access to the

Selawik refuge and wildlife resources on refuge lands. These services are regulated

by the State of Alaska (i.e., Division of Occupational Licensing, Division of Natural

Resources, Big Game Commercial Services Board, and Board of Game). It is essential

that the refuge closely coordinate with each of these agency’s respective programs when

implementing program objectives and actions that involve harvest of wildlife on refuge

lands.

The refuge is also adjacent to lands administered by the BLM and NPS. Guided clients

and other hunters utilizing BLM lands adjacent to the Selawik refuge often harvest

wildlife that regularly move in and out of the refuge. The refuge will work to benefit

the public and the programs of both agencies by coordinating with the BLM when

establishing numbers of guides and locations of base camps in drainages in and adjacent

to the refuge.

The use of commercial guides and transporters for big game hunting has been a

controversial topic in the region for a number of years (e.g., Georgette and Loon 1988;

Jacobson 2008; Chapter 3, Section 3.4.2.3). There are numerous stakeholders involved

in resolving the complex issues of access to wildlife resources and related social conflicts

between non-local hunters and local subsistence hunters. The Game Management Unit

23 Working Group (Working Group), of which the Selawik refuge is a member, was

formed in 2008 to collaboratively address these issues. The initial purpose of this group

was to develop proposals and recommendations for ways to minimize user conflicts

resulting from increasing numbers of hunters in GMU 23 through coordinated planning

and management. The initial phase of this group’s work has been completed. The group

successfully established a one-time, mandatory training orientation for all commercial

operators in the region that carry big game animals or their parts. The Selawik refuge

intends to support the next phase of the Working Group as an active participant

(Chapter 2, Goal 4, Objective 3). The next phase of the Working Group would serve as a

way to monitor the effects of the preferred action alterative proposed in this Plan and a

forum to address new issues on this topic as they arise.

In addition to the coordinated interagency efforts, a strong partnership with local

village tribal councils and the private trespass officer program will remain paramount

when making permit decisions, accurately analyzing the effect of the refuge’s

permitting program on subsistence users, and assisting in the enforcement of permit

stipulations. Communication between the various law enforcement entities and those

living within the refuge boundaries during the hunting seasons has many benefits.

This is an example of improved communication that has resulted from the collaborative

efforts of the Working Group and should continue to be encouraged and facilitated by

the Selawik refuge and Service leadership.

From Refuge Interview

The refuge partners with BLM and NPS on trail marking projects.
Appendix E: Partnership Review 15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Togiak NWR

CCP Information

Biologists of Togiak Refuge and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G)

routinely collaborate to assess status and trends of Mulchatna caribou, moose, salmon,

Dolly Varden, and other species for which shared concerns for management exist.

The Nushagak Peninsula caribou herd, which was reintroduced in 1988, is managed in

partnership with the Nushagak Caribou Planning Committee with representatives from

the six village councils that were instrumental in making the reintroduction successful.

The committee meets to discuss herd management, harvest allocation, and other issues

related to the herd.

The Mulchatna caribou herd occupies range that in recent years has encompassed parts

of the Togiak Refuge Lake Clark National Park and Preserve, the Becharof and Yukon

Delta National Wildlife Refuges, and BLM land interspersed throughout the region.

In addition to cooperating with ADF&G in the status assessment and management of

this herd, the refuge partners with the other affected Federal agencies and refuges that

share this resource.

The Natural Resources Department of the Bristol Bay Native Association (BBNA)

works with the Refuge in accomplishing a number of mutual objectives. Summer

interns employed by BBNA provide valuable assistance on refuge projects each year.

A traditional and ecological knowledge project undertaken by the Refuge with funding

provided by the Office of Subsistence Management has received broad support from

BBNA, including funding and staff time to complete the project. A partnership with

BBNA to complete Office of Subsistence Management funded projects has been

undertaken in the past and continues to be a component of any project for which the

Refuge shares mutual objectives of information collection.

The Togiak Refuge serves as the setting for a number of Universities conducting

studies on climate change. The Refuge has partnered with the University of Colorado,

Northern Arizona University, Mount Holyoke College, and the University of Chicago to

conduct analysis and long-term climate studies to help assess how flora and fauna may

have changed over time in the region.

Education and outreach continues to be a central component essential to successful

management of the Refuge. Partnerships with Southwest Regional Schools, Dillingham

School District, and the Lower Kuskokwim School District, as well as all of the affected

communities, allow this to be successful. Some of the elements of this partnership

include the Bristol Bay Salmon Camp, Cape Peirce Marine Science and Yup’ik Culture

Camp, and the Ecology and Outdoor Skills Camp held each summer. Classroom visits

by refuge staff are made periodically during the school year to conduct environmental

education programs, generate interest for the science camps, provide migratory bird

calendar contest information, and other purposes.

A program of inholding acquisition has been taking place on the Refuge for a number of

years. To implement this program, the Refuge works in partnership with the Southwest

Alaska Conservation Coalition, which includes an array of Native interests, commercial

operators, conservation groups, land managers, and others working together to protect

natural resources of southwest Alaska.
16 Appendix E: Partnership Review

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

The common occurrence of moose on many parts of the Refuge is a fairly recent

phenomenon. Refuge staff work in partnership with ADF&G and the villages of Togiak,

Twin Hills, Manokotak, and Dillingham through the Unit 17A Moose Management

Working Group to monitor the status of the moose herd in that unit and develop

management strategies. Work continues with the villages of Goodnews Bay, Platinum,

and Quinhagak to develop management goals for expanding moose herds in drainages

most used by those villages.

Refuge Interview Information

The refuge is informed about what is happening in state planning projects.

The refuge’s visitor center is a joint effort with Alaska State Park. The land has been

purchased and the design work is done.

 Dillingham floatplane facility will be working with ADOT&PF to study to improve the

facility. Every two years STIP review for the region as it pertains to the Refuge.

The refuge coordinates policy and procedures for travel with local Native corporations

and Alaska State Park.
Appendix E: Partnership Review 17

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Yukon Delta

Refuge Interview Information

Yukon Delta is working with local villages regarding hardening trails for ATV use. FWS

serves as a consultant on these efforts.

Yukon Heath Corporation offers boating safety classes

 Regulations cover airport construction when birds are migrating

 FAA/refuge pilot testing equipment – “capstone project”

Yukon Flats

Refuge Interview Information

Working with ADOT&PF on refuge roads issues. They are very receptive to the

refuge needs.

The refuge provided comments on an oil and gas exploration project in and around

Steven’s Village
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Partnership Review I

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix F

Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads Program 

Guidance
This page intentionally left blank
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

&

U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE

GUIDANCE ON THE

FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY

REFUGE ROADS PROGRAM

September 14, 2005
This page intentionally left blank
INDEX

Background ..................................................................................................1

Public Roads.................................................................................................1

Scope of Improvements ...............................................................................2

Roads .....................................................................................................2

Bridges...................................................................................................2

Safety Projects..............................................................................................2

Design Standards ........................................................................................3

Program Effectiveness Measures................................................................3

Project Selection Priorities..........................................................................3

Appendix.......................................................................................................4

Eligibility ...............................................................................................4

Work Items Eligible for Funding........................................................4

Work Items Generally Not Eligible for Funding...............................7

Work Items Not Eligible for Funding 8
This page intentionally left blank
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 1

Guidance Document For The Refuge Roads Program

Prepared by the Federal Highway Administration

in cooperation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Revised September 14, 2005

Background:

The document provides guidance to help identify projects and project enhancements that may be 

funded under the Refuge Roads program (RRP) category. The basic eligibility requirements were 

established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and modified by Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). 

The legislation is codified in Title 23 - United States Code (23 USC). Section 204 of 23 USC 

requires that funds made available for refuge roads shall be used only to pay the cost of:

A) Maintenance and improvements of refuge roads. 

B) Maintenance and improvement of eligible enhancement projects noted below that are 

located in or adjacent to wildlife refuges:

1) Adjacent vehicular parking areas,

2) Interpretive signage,

3) Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles and 

4) Roadside rest areas including sanitary and water facilities

C) Administrative costs associated with such maintenance and improvements.

Examples of eligible items are included in the Appendix.

The construction of new roads is not authorized.

Title 23 USC 202(e) requires that the funds be distributed base upon relative need of the various 

refuges. In order to establish priorities, Title 23 USC 204(a)(6) requires that the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) develop and adopt by 

rule, safety, bridge, pavement, and congestion management systems as appropriate. 

Public Roads:

Title 23 USC 101 (a) (28)) defines Refuge roads as public roads that:

1) Provide access to or within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System and,

2) Title and maintenance responsibility are vested in the United States Government.

Public roads are defined by 23 USC 101 (a) (27) as any road open to public travel. Because of 

the unique usage of refuge roads, this has to be further clarified by these guidelines. In order to 

be considered Public Roads, refuge roads must be opened to the general public during substantial 

parts of the year. Seasonal closures during nesting periods and inclement weather are permitted. 

However, roads only opened by permit to specific public interests, such as to hunters for 
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 2

specified hunting periods or photographers to access photo blinds, are not considered public 

roads.

Scope of Improvements:

Roads:

The refuge road funds may only be used for rehabilitation to extend the service life of an existing 

road and enhance safety. Such work is also known as Resurfacing, Restoration, and 

Rehabilitation, (3-R). 3-R work includes the placement of additional surfacing materials and/or 

other work necessary to return an existing roadway including shoulders, the roadside, and 

appurtenances, to a condition of structural adequacy. 

Most 3-R work occurs on the existing road bench. Refuge Roads work generally will not involve 

widening beyond the existing road bench or require the construction of new retaining walls, or 

cuts and fills. Exceptions where RRP projects could occur off of the road bench include work on 

drainage structures, existing retaining walls, slope failures, bridges, and spot traffic safety 

improvement work.

Construction of new roads is not authorized. 

Bridges:

Eligible refuge road funded work on bridges includes approach fill rehabilitation, superstructure 

(deck, rails & girders) replacements, abutment and foundation repairs, abutment slope protection, 

foundation scour repair and protection work, and piling replacements. Small bridges or large box 

culverts may be replaced as part of a road improvement project. 

Safety Projects:

Reconstruction of refuge roads for spot traffic safety improvement project work to correct 

identified safety problems at high accident locations may be undertaken with RRP funds. Such 

work is limited to specific sites (e.g. a curve or intersection) where a history of accidents have 

been documented, and where solutions have been developed to reduce accidents at the site. 

Studies of high accident sites may be funded out of a Region's RRP program. 

Many of the limitations noted in this guidance do not apply to safety improvement work. Work 

could include roadway widening, realignments, new paving, new guardrails or walls, new 

sidewalks or bicycle paths for separation of traffic, street lighting, traffic signals or other 

improvements which can be expected to reduce the rate or severity of accidents at that location. 

In addition, needed safety work such as turning lanes on non-refuge roads intersecting with 

refuge roads may be included in RR funded projects. These projects must be coordinated with 

the agency having jurisdiction of the intersecting roadway and funding should be split with that 

agency if possible.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 3

Design Standards:

Because this is a 3-R program and designers will be required to stay within the existing roadway 

prism, design standards for new construction and re-construction are typically not applicable. 

Since FWS has not developed 3-R design criteria, AASHTO design criteria should be the basis 

for development of design exceptions where traffic safety experience does not warrant 

improvements to full design criteria. Achievement of AASHTO standards usually will not be 

possible without demonstrated and documented safety deficiencies as noted above. 

Program Effectiveness Measures:

The planned performance measure for refuge roads is the change in the condition of roads and 

bridges as measured by the Road and Bridge Inventory systems. Besides this degree of 

improvement shown for FWS Regions in the annual Road Inventory Program (RIP) condition 

surveys, the ratio of administrative costs to construction costs, and the average cost per mile for 

projects in each Region will be used by FWS and FHWA to measure how efficiently and 

effectively each Region operates its program. 

Project Selection Priorities:

23 USC 202 (e) and 204 (k) (3) also provides guidance on criteria for selection of projects to be 

improved under the RR program. Projects shall be selected taking into consideration:

(1) The comprehensive conservation plan for each refuge.

(2) The need for access as identified through land use planning

(3) The impact of land use planning on existing transportation facilities

(4) The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966

Since 23USC requires funding to be eligible based upon the relative needs of the various refuges, 

the selection process should favor project items that improve the condition rating factors that 

help establish the needs. These factors include the road condition rating which considers the 

number of miles of fair, poor, and failed (deficient) roads. 

23 USC 204(a)(6) also requires that roads in the Federal Lands Highway program develop asset 

management systems to help insure the efficient use of FLH funds. These include safety, bridge, 

pavement and congestion management systems as applicable. The guidelines for the Fish and 

Wildlife Service management systems are codified in 23 CFR 972.

The requirement for a bridge management system is being met by existing FWS bridge 

management program. The requirement for a pavement management system is being met by the 

FHWA inventory and condition assessment program for FWS managed public use roads. Given 

the limited number of areas with congestion and safety programs, these programs are not 

applicable to most refuges. The Regions will consider congestion and safety in project selection, 

and identify any areas of specific concern to the national refuge roads coordinator.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 4

Appendix 

Eligibility

Except when unusual safety concerns require, the following work that will not be funded under 

the RRP program: 

1) constructing new parking areas or pullouts, widening off of the present road bench,

2) realigning and relocating roads (vertical or horizontal realignments), and

3) constructing new pedestrian trails or bicycle paths. 

4) recurring maintenance practices such as grading roads and mowing roadsides.

Regions can obtain assistance for RRP project planning, design, compliance and construction 

contracting services from the Regional Engineering Offices, their respective Federal Lands 

Highways (FLH) Divisions, other Federal agencies (e.g. Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 

Reclamation, Forest Service, etc.) or consulting engineering firms. Such activities, including 

program formulation and coordination and project tracking, may be paid for out of available 

Regional RRP funds.

Project administrative costs such as travel for on-site reviews and meetings related to the RRP 

program may be included in estimated project costs. However, salaries of permanent staff in 

FWS Regions and Refuge field stations, who are base funded, can not be charged to the FLH 

Program project accounts. The only exception to this may occur to pay the overtime portion of 

force account work. However, this higher rate should have been used in the documentation 

justifying the use of force account work versus doing the work by contract.

The costs for any planning studies such as Road System Evaluations, or RRP Engineering 

Studies, will be the responsibility of each Region using their RRP funds.

As part of an overall RRP improvement project, Regions may use RRP funding for sign upgrades 

to meet the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices standards. However, routine replacement 

due to wear and age is ineligible for FLH Program funding. 

On a specific road improvement project, no more than 5% of the individual RRP improvement 

project funds may be used for non-roadway related improvements. Stand alone enhancement 

projects not associated with a specific road improvement project are not eligible for funding.

Specific Examples of Project Refuge Road Eligibility Criteria

The following lists provide general guidance as to what may be funded. 

WORK ITEMS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING:

Project Support Items:

• Traffic engineering and safety studies.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 5

• Identification and surveillance of accident locations.

• Road Inventories.

• Bridge, pavement, safety and congestion management systems.

• Necessary environmental studies and resource investigations confined to the general 

roadway construction limits.

• Project-related re-vegetation and control of invasive plants.

• Necessary architectural and landscape engineering services.

• Engineering design for roads, bridges, adjacent vehicle parking areas, provisions for 

pedestrian and bicycles, and roadside rest areas including sanitary and water facilities.

• Construction engineering for contract administration, inspection and testing.

• Necessary interagency program/project formulation meetings.

• Interagency program review meetings (per interagency agreement).

• Necessary interagency project coordination.

• Research part of coordinated technology implementation program.

Construction and Improvements Items:

• Resurfacing (milling, recycling and overlaying) existing pavements.

• Excavating and replacing failed base courses and poor subgrade materials.

• Replacing, upgrading or relocating deteriorated, undersized or poorly located drainage 

structures (aprons, inlets, culverts and headwalls etc.).

• Improvements to facilitate wildlife crossings, passage of aquatic organisms and habitat 

connectivity.

• Repair or upgrading existing guardrails or guardwalls.

• Minor widening of the roadway, realigning of intersections, adding of turn lanes, intersection 

islands, or pullouts, flattening of curves, or adjusting curve superelevation if the work can be 

accomplished on the existing road bench.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 6

• Repairing, rehabilitating or replacing existing retaining walls if the estimated cost of a single 

wall or site is $200,000 or less.

• Repairing and or stabilizing landslides, severely eroding or failing slopes if the estimated 

cost of a single site is $200,000 or less.

• Projects off of the roadway bench may be allowed to widen or realign the road, construct 

new pullouts or add other features such as comfort stations and interpretive signage provided 

that they total no more than 5% of the project's construction costs.

• Removing or grinding existing pavement to convert a road to an aggregate surface.

• Replacing, upgrading or adding new pavement markings and signage to address changing 

traffic patterns, new uses or safety problems as well as to meet current standards if occurring 

in conjunction with an RR roadway project. Sign or marking replacement due to age, damage 

or deterioration is not eligible for funding, unless undertaken as part of a road rehabilitation 

project.

• Engineered pavement overlays that add structural value, design life or improved skid 

resistance.

• Double bituminous surface treatments and chip seals that are part of predefined stage 

construction or form final surface on low volume roads.

• Engineered rehabilitation or reconstruction of pavement structures, bridges and bridge decks.

• Engineered spot safety improvements resulting from safety studies.

• Upgrading of substandard traffic barriers and bridge rails to current standards.

• Replacement of nonstandard traffic regulatory and guide signs.

• Upgrading substandard or nonconforming traffic markings (one time only).

• A single refuge entrance sign if the sign conforms to FWS standards, is in a safe location, is 

part of an adjacent Refuge Roads project, and is of reasonable cost ($10,000 maximum 

including design, materials and installation).

• Accommodating traffic and pedestrians through construction zones.

• Public approach roads and interchange ramps that are under the jurisdiction and 

responsibility of the FWS.

• Installation of warranted roadway lighting.

• Adjustment of utilities directly related to roadway work.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 7

• Conduits crossing under the roadway to accommodate future planned utilities.

• Landscaping and native plant seeding of areas disturbed by the RRP program projects.

• Landscaping required to meet Environmental Impact Study mitigation measures resulting 

from roadway construction.

• Construction of erosion control and environmental mitigation measures directly related to 

roadway construction.

• Experimental features where there is a planned monitoring evaluation schedule.

• Public parking lots or pull-offs to trail heads adjacent to RRP projects, interpretive areas, 

public lodging, visitor center, (including necessary supporting retaining walls, protective 

railings and adjacent perimeter sidewalk).

• Provisions for pedestrians and bicyclists within/adjacent to roadway prism when warranted 

for safety reasons.

• Maintenance and improvement of existing recreational trails in accordance with the 

FHWA/FWS Recreational Trails Guidance with total funding not to exceed 5% of the 

national program funds.

• Restoration of borrow pits created by projects funded from the RRP program.

• Force account and day labor, including materials and equipment rental being performed in 

accordance with approved plans and specifications, that has been determined to be costeffective (public interest).

• All the aforementioned work can be performed on existing parking areas, pullouts, sidewalks 

or bicycle paths if the work is incidental to a RRP roadway project.

WORK ITEMS THAT WILL GENERALLY NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING: 

(Funding will be determined on a case-by-case exception basis taking into consideration overall 

relative Refuge Road program priorities)

Project Support Items:

• Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.

• Brochures for public use unless they are prepared for refuges with roads impacted by 

improvements.

Construction and Improvements Items:
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 8

• Acquisition of alternative transportation systems unless it would facilitate visitor access and 

improve usage of the roadway system.

• Bike paths, unless they are part of the refuge unit's approved Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan, constructed in conjunction with RR program projects, and are: 

• part of a roadway prism necessary for safety reasons and if bike traffic warrants.

• independent paths used for transportation and safety reasons based on accident and 

traffic data analysis.

• Construction of visitor information centers and related items.

• Construction of roadside rest area including sanitary and water facilities.

• Bridge painting work on structures (painting of major large structures considered on a caseby-case exception basis).

• Public roads which provide access to areas under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the 

FWS but which are not owned by the Service and/or are not required to be maintained by the 

Service.

WORK ITEMS THAT ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR FUNDING:

Project Support Items:

• General refuge planning.

• Non-program specific conferences, field trips, or training conferences.

• Cultural resources investigations and work outside roadway construction limits

Construction or Improvements Items:

• Construction of new access roads, new campground roads and related parking areas.

• Cyclic roadway maintenance work including chip and slurry seals (seal coats), pavement 

patching, roadway grading, shoulder and ditch grading, cleaning culverts, snow removal, 

roadside mowing, vegetation control, normal sign repair and traffic markings.

• Seal coats on top of new asphalt concrete pavements.

• Cyclic bridge maintenance work including cleaning and repairing bridge joints, cleaning 

repairing bridge drainage, and repairing other bridge appurtenances.

• Landscaping and irrigation systems of areas not disturbed by refuge road construction.
FHWA Refuge Roads Guidance Page 9

• Landscaping of disturbed areas with non-native plant species.

• Utilities and buildings not disturbed by construction.

• Sanitation facilities not disturbed by construction.

• Walls and erosion protection that are not part of or support the roadway prism.

• Recreational boat launching facilities and ramps.

• General refuge development projects.

• Roads that serve only an administrative site such as refuge housing, maintenance area or 

refuge dormitory (or a combination of these).

• Roads that provide access to Refuge Headquarters which are not open to the general public 

(i.e., not a visitor center).

• Roads that are primarily used for administrative purposes and open to the public only for 

very limited periods during the year under restrictive conditions.

• Restoration of borrow pits (or portions of borrow pits) created by projects funded with non 

Refuge Road program funds.

• Repairs to or replacement of fences not disturbed by Refuge Road construction.
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Partnership Review III

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix G

2011 Region 7 Transportation Partnership 

Update Memorandum
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7

1

Memorandum

To: Seve Suder

National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program

From: Troy Civitillo

Region 7, Facilities Programs, Refuge Roads Coordinator

CC: Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan, Appendix E

Date: 8/01/2011

Re: Region 7 Annual Transportation Partnership Update

In accordance with the partnership goal and communication objectives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan’s, the following partnership update memorandum 

has been prepared. This memorandum is intended to communicate the status of on-going activities 

and deliverables that relate to matters of partnership.

5-Year plan

The most recent 5-year transportation improvement plan was prepared in July 2011.

RIP / BIP data

RIP data was last collected in June of 2007 (Cycle 4). The next update is scheduled for 2012.

BIP data was last collected on June of 2007 (Cycle 4). The next update is scheduled for 2012.

Research Studies

No research studies have been recently completed or are currently underway.

Completed/Active Partnership Transportation Projects

No partnered transportation projects have been completed recently or are currently underway. 

Nevertheless, 13 of 14 Region 7 CCPs mention a desire for partnerships.

Performance Measure Reporting

Long range transportation performance measures are being reported in the Region 7 Long Range 

Transportation Plan. A draft of the plan will be released in the fall of 2011.
This page intentionally left blank
Appendix E: Partnership Review V

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Region 7 Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix H

Roadway Design Guidelines
This page intentionally left blank
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

August 2012
This page intentionally left blank
Cover: A Great Blue Heron flies off with 

its catch at William L. Finley NWR

in Oregon. Roadways on National 

Wildlife Refuges provide opportunities

for wildlife viewing and photography, 

two of the Big Six activities supported 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Photo: George Gentry, USFWS

Prepared By

FWS Pacific Region, NWRS Branch of Transportation

Portland, Oregon

Alex Schwartz, PLA 

Landscape Architect

Alex_Schwartz@fws.gov 

503/736 4723 

Contributors 

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

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

Peter Field - Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Special Thanks

Steve Suder - National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program, FWS

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

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

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

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

Patrick Stark - Visual Information Assistant, R1 Visitor Services and Communications

Consultant Team

SvR Design Company 

 Tom von Schrader, PE

 Nate Cormier, RLA

 Justin Martin, ASLA

Quatrefoil, Inc. 

 Brian Bainnson, ASLA

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
This page intentionally left blank
Purpose

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(FWS) is the world’s premier 

conservation agency, managing over 

150 million acres of wildlife habitat 

on National Wildlife Refuges alone. 

FWS is in a unique position to 

demonstrate the land ethic so deeply 

interwoven in the rich fabric of our 

national heritage. 

This guide highlights state of the 

art ecological, planning, design 

and engineering considerations 

for roadway projects that heed 

both the significant benefits and 

impacts these projects present. 

Roadway projects on FWS 

managed lands should conform to 

planning and design criteria that 

have been established to support 

the FWS mission. This document 

provides such criteria in the form 

of guidelines. These guidelines are 

summarized in a table of contents 

that serves as a project checklist. 

The Roadway Design Guidelines 

are a wayfinding tool intended to 

facilitate dialog and decision making 

among project teams. The guidelines 

have been crafted to support the 

interdisciplinary team typically 

Brian Bainnson Eva Paredes/USFWS

involved with decision making 

regarding a roadway project: 

Project Leaders, Project Managers, 

and technical experts from various 

disciplines. 

This document includes 30 individual 

project planning and design 

guidelines, organized around 6 major 

themes. The project checklist serves 

as an overview of these guidelines, 

and has been provided as a tool to 

assist in project planning, design and 

implementation.

In the pages that follow you will find 

information and resources that will 

be useful in your work on roadway 

projects. Using these guidelines 

is not an end in itself. Rather, the 

guidelines are a starting point 

from which to explore solutions to 

implement a roadway project of the 

highest standard. Every guideline 

begins with a brief discussion of the 

intent for presenting a particular 

topic, followed by supporting 

principles central to honoring the 

guideline, as well as associated 

metrics. Selected resources 

are provided to gain a deeper 

understanding of the topic. 

More Than Just A Road

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

the suite of typical improvements associated with a vehicle-focused 

transportation project, but also related facilities such as parking, 

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

summarized as follows:

 Typical transportation improvements extend from the centerline 

of an existing or proposed road outward and include associated 

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

and planting. 

 Other facilities and infrastructure commonly associated with 

vehicular transportation, include parking, visitor contact facilities, and 

pullouts. 

 Ecological connections and impacts beyond the edge of the 

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

disturbance, pollution and aquatic and terrestrial species conflicts. 

Visitor contact facilities are often 

located in close proximity to 

roadways like this one at McNary 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

(top). Bison herd as viewed from 

roadway at the National Bison 

Range (bottom).

Moving Ahead for Progress

in the 21st Century

Effective October 1, 2012, the 

existing Refuge Roads Program 

funded through previous Federal 

transportation authorizations is 

now called the FWS Transportation 

Program within the new Federal 

Lands Transportation Program. 

These new program details are 

described in the new transportation 

legislation called Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21 st Century 

(MAP-21). While still applicable to 

all refuge roads, these guidelines 

are generally applicable to all FWS 

transportation infrastructure and 

future improvements performed on 

this system of facilities and assets.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Steve Hillebrand/USFWS

Dalton Highway river crossing at 

Kanuti NWR

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American People.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Project Checklist

Project Checklist Project Checklist

LE – Landscape Ecology

 LE-1 Improve habitat connectivity

 LE-2 Reduce impacts to wildlife and habitat

 LE-3 Understand hydrologic processes of regional landscape

 LE-4 Respond to intrinsic qualities of regional landscape

 LE-5 Address climate change

PC – Planning Context

 PC-1 Review relevant planning, policy and regulatory information

 PC-2 Define level of service for the project

 PC-3 Evaluate multiple siting and alignment alternatives

 PC-4 Assess full costs and impacts of transportation system

 PC-5 Communicate with team and stakeholders

DE – Design and Engineering

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

 DE-2 Consider and plan for invasive species management

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

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

 DE-5 Consider construction impacts and best practices

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

 DE-7 Consider maintenance

OP – Organism Passage

 OP-1 Develop your corridor plan for crossing

 OP-2 Provide and enhance aquatic organism crossings

 OP-3 Provide and enhance terrestrial wildlife crossings

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

 OP-5 Consider warning and safety systems for drivers

SM – Stormwater Management

 SM-1 Buffer habitat from polluted runoff

 SM-2 Protect habitat from erosive flows and flooding

 SM-3 Monitor and maintain stormwater facilities

 SM-4 Promote stewardship of aquatic resources

VE – Visitor Experience

 VE-1 Preserve and highlight scenic value

 VE-2 Promote and facilitate multiple modes of transportation

 VE-3 Comply with accessibility standards and guidelines

 VE-4 Facilitate compatible wildlife dependent recreation and education

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Landscape

Ecology

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Overview

Pattern and Process

Roads and ecological function are 

intrinsically intertwined. Roadways 

on FWS managed lands in particular 

are frequently located in areas of high 

ecological importance.

This section, Landscape Ecology, is 

intended to help you consider the 

broad-scale environmental impacts of 

your decisions regarding roadways 

and transportation infrastructure. It 

addresses a range of issues, providing 

you with a set of tools for decisionmaking.

Any new roadway construction or 

improvements to existing roadways 

on FWS managed lands requires 

unique treatment, consistent with the 

mission of the Service and supported 

by a detailed understanding of refuge 

management goals. Improvements 

need to be made in a manner 

consistent with applicable laws 

such as the Migratory Bird Treaty 

Act (MBTA), Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA), Bald 

and Golden Eagle Protection Act 

(BGEPA) and Endangered Species 

Act (ESA). While the guidelines in 

this section cover principles which are, 

in general, applicable across a broad 

range of environments, take time 

to consider the guidelines and their 

specific implications within the unique 

bioregional context in which your 

projects will occur.

Research in the field of road ecology 

demonstrates that the multitude 

of adverse impacts of roads on 

landscapes, and the healthy function of 

the natural systems they traverse, are 

reduced by designing for slower travel 

speeds and lower traffic volume. 

A significant component of a roadway 

project may be to remove roads from 

ecologically sensitive areas and restore 

those areas.

 

Landscape Ecology 101

Landscape ecology is the study of the relationship between spatial 

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

organizational levels. Some key landscape ecology concepts are:

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

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

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

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

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

patch edges affects their performance and utility for various species.

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

may promote or inhibit movement between patches. A roadway may 

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

field for some species.

Mosaic - The bigger picture that includes the various patches and 

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

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

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

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

variety of habitat patches. They significantly affect connectivity, creating 

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

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

patches.

Landscape Ecology | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

LE-1 Improve Habitat Connectivity

Principles

 Identify and prioritize habitat 

restoration and connectivity 

opportunities at the landscape 

scale

 Review state habitat connectivity 

plans as well as applicable 

recovery plans for listed species

 Consider impacts and footprint of 

the entire roadway as defined in 

these guidelines

 Develop partnerships among land 

management agencies and the 

local FWS Ecological Services (ES) 

office

 Partner with neighbors

 Identify opportunities for 

individual projects to minimize 

impacts to wildlife and restore 

habitat connectivity

Metrics

 Trends in species mortality, 

avoidance, low population 

survival, sensitive or endangered 

species populations

 Decreased wildlife-vehicle collisions 

and/or roadway avoidance

 Distance between habitat patches

 Distribution of species/population 

along and across roadway

Resources

Overview of road ecology and 

guidelines for ecological road 

planning and design.

Patricia White/Flickr.com

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Graphic explanations of landscape 

ecology principles.

Dramstad, Olson, and Forman. 1996. 

Landscape Ecology Principles in 

Landscape Architecture and LandUse Planning.

Discussion of positive and negative 

impacts of roadways on adjacent 

vegetation.

Forman, Richard. 2002. “Roadsides 

and Vegetation.” In Proceedings 

of the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation, 

Keystone, CO, September 24-28, 2001. 

Roadway design guidelines from 

applied ecology and experiential 

perspective.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards.

Effects of roadways on wildlife 

(see also entire February 2000 

Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Wildlife conservation and planning 

efforts among the western states.

Western Governors’ Wildlife Council. 

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

include the Wildlife Corridors 

Initiative Report (2008) and Wildlife 

Sensitivity Maps.

Terrestrial under-crossing 

facilitates wildlife movement 

across a landscape fragmented by 

a highway in Banff NP, Canada

Habitat connectivity is disrupted 

along any road corridor

Intent

Roadways should be examined for their potential to impact habitat 

connectivity. Wherever possible such impacts should be minimized and/

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

abrupt edge conditions are created. Such habitat fragmentation is generally 

undesirable. Hydrologic and soil community connectivity are also affected. 

Native plantings and other restoration activities associated with roadway 

improvements can be designed to support multiple habitat objectives, 

including buffering patch interiors and mitigating roadway impacts. In rare 

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

otherwise fragmented communities.

Habitat Connectivity

Habitat connectivity is a term 

commonly used in landscape 

ecology to describe the degree 

of connection between nearby or 

adjacent habitat areas. Distinct 

habitat areas are frequently 

referred to as ‘habitat patches’. 

If the connection between 

these patches is not good, the 

resultant fragmentation can 

lead to loss of diversity within a 

given population of a species and 

potentially local extinction of that 

species from one or both patches. 

Even for fairly mobile species, a 

roadway can present a significant 

barrier to movement between 

patches.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Identify and limit the ‘road-effect 

zone’ and determine the potential 

exposure of ESA listed species 

and critical habitat to road effects 

within that zone. Minimize 

adverse effects to ESA listed 

species and critical habitat, and 

ensure any such effects are 

addressed through the ESA 

section 7 compliance process, as 

appropriate.

 Design for lower speeds, in order 

to minimize disturbance

 Consider management techniques 

to minimize disturbance to 

wildlife on auto tour routes

 Examine how road alters wildlife 

use patterns

 Examine how future effects on 

wildlife could make a project 

compatible (or not) with 

management goals

 Consider effects of noise, light 

and chemical pollution on 

habitats and wildlife

Metrics

 Reduction of wildlife-vehicle 

collisions

 Health of wildlife populations 

with habitats fragmented by or in 

proximity to roadways

 Road density (landscape ecology 

metric, see Definitions)

 Mesh size (landscape ecology 

metric, see Definitions)

Florian Schulz Mac Danzig Photography

Resources

Overview of road ecology, guidelines 

for ecological road planning and 

design. See especially discussion of 

road-effect zones, pp. 306-16.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Latest information on road 

ecology as it relates to mitigating 

interactions between roads and 

wildlife.

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

Passages.

Identifying & prioritizing habitat 

connectivity zones, and guidelines 

for design solutions.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices Manual, 

Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction 

Study (Report to Congress).

Effects of roadways on wildlife 

(see also entire February 2000 

Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Buffer design guidelines.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

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

bufferguidelines/

See also: 

Section OP - Organism Passage

Roadways have significant 

impacts on both individuals 

and populations.

Impacts to wildlife and habitat 

extend outward from the 

roadway in various degrees, 

creating the ‘road-effect zone’.

Landscape Ecology | LE-2

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

the potential for conflict. 

Consider roadway alignment, design, construction, and future maintenance 

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

Section OP (Organism Passage) discusses terrestrial and aquatic organism 

passage in more detail. 

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Consider how road design may 

protect hydrologic processes 

 Consider how to adapt an 

existing roadway for greater 

permeability

 Consider what effects the 

roadway might have on 

subsurface flows, water tables, 

and nearby aquifers, as well 

as how these elements affect 

construction options and 

feasibility

 Consider balance between 

restoring to pre-development 

conditions and maintaining 

historic alterations to hydrology

 Consider how development 

and roadway work will support 

current hydrologic and habitat 

management goals

Metrics

 Hydrologic modeling showing 

potential changes from roadways

 Stream flow data

 Changes in species composition 

(invasives vs. natives)

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

Resources

General reference on road ecology. 

See in particular overview of 

roadway effects on hydrology in 

Chapter 7.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington D.C.

Guidelines that address hydrology 

impacts of roadways.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA. 

Guidebook on design and best 

practices for providing aquatic 

organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

See also:

Section SM - Stormwater 

Management

Roads both affect and are affected by 

hydrology. Floodwaters wash out a 

road at Flint Hills NWR (top); levee 

road at Blackwater NWR (bottom).

Roadways disrupt 

natural hydrology.

Landscape Ecology | LE-3

Intent

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

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

habitat caused by roadways. Impervious surfaces have a cumulative effect 

across a watershed, altering its hydrology and often creating detrimental 

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

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

management. Project teams should consider carefully how a roadway will 

impact local hydrology, or conversely how hydrologic processes can inform 

design decisions. Roadway improvements might support FWS management 

goals by addressing known issues and/or restoring historic hydrologic 

processes.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Eva Paredes/USFWS

LE-4 Respond to Intrinsic Qualities of Regional Landscapes

Principles

 Consider Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) for general 

design guidelines and engage a 

landscape architect

 Develop benchmarking tools for 

ecological performance

 Consider what local land use 

traditions are consistent with 

FWS goals and management 

activities

 Respond to visual appearance of 

regional landforms, vegetation, 

and other natural features

 Review historic land use patterns 

and cultural practices

 Consider visitor experience 

and potential educational and 

interpretive benefits of road and 

visitor facility designs

Metrics

 Visitor satisfaction

 Ecological literacy of visitors

 Documentation of visual analysis 

(visual resource assessment) 

process (see Resources below)

Resources

Context-sensitive highway planning 

and design case study.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. 

Performance metrics for CSS 

design.

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc., and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Items to address or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Roadway design guidelines from 

applied ecology and experiential 

perspective.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139), 

and Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

In Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Available at: http://

www.jonesandjones.com/news/

publications.html.

Guidelines for visual and context 

considerations for roadway design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 

2002. A Guide to Best Practices 

for Achieving Context Sensitive 

Solutions (NCHRP Report 480).

Regional design guidelines.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Nevada Department of 

Transportation. 2002. Pattern and 

Palette of Place: A Landscape 

and Aesthetic Master Plan for the 

Nevada State Highway System.

Leota Butte overlook at Ouray NWR 

provides an excellent landscape view.

Historic land use patterns 

and natural features can 

help drive design.

Context Sensitive Solutions

The term Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) refers to a 

decision-making process used 

by roadway designers and 

transportation engineers that 

accounts for many factors of a 

site’s context—from topography 

and geology to cultural history 

and the intended users—during 

the planning, design, and 

maintenance of transportation 

facilities. Landscape architects 

played a leading role in 

developing this concept and are 

valuable team members for their 

expertise in determining how a 

project can appropriately respond 

to its context. Fundamental 

landscape architecture 

capabilities include identifying 

and expressing in built form the 

intrinsic qualities of a project’s 

regional landscape.

Landscape Ecology | LE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

approach should be taken when planning and designing all roadways on 

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

location of visitor facilities. Consider local vernacular architecture and 

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

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

seasonal access to recreational opportunities.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Provide alternative modes 

and means of access to FWS 

managed lands

 Consider potential climate 

change impacts when making 

decisions on location, scale and 

design life of infrastructure 

investments

 Consider construction materials 

and methods that have lower 

carbon footprints and climate 

impacts consistent with FWS 

and Department of the Interior 

(DOI) policies

 Use climate change research to 

inform transportation planning 

efforts at the landscape scale

Metrics

 Regional trends in weatherrelated damage and maintenance 

needs

 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on 

FWS roadways and associated 

greenhouse gas emissions

 Transportation modes used by 

visitors to reach and use FWS 

facilities

 Reports and data from the 

Emergency Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads (ERFO) program

Resources

Overview of transportation industry 

connection with climate change.

Transportation Research Board. 

1997. Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Potential climate impacts of 

transportation sector and work 

towards reducing them.

Sperling, Daniel and Deborah 

Gordon. 2008. Two Billion Cars: 

Transforming a Culture. In: TR 

News, No. 259 (Nov-Dec).

Overview of general impacts of 

climate change on transportation 

infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation (TRB 

Report 290).

Regionally specific climate change 

impact information.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. 

The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. 

Information, resources and 

organizations relating to 

sustainable transportation systems.

Green Highways Partnership. http://

www.greenhighwayspartnership.org. 

Assistance with emergencies and 

data on federally owned roads.

Emergency Relief for Federally 

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

fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/.

Official FWS climate change 

information and strategy.

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

climatechange/.

Climate change will impact roads on 

FWS managed lands. Road damage 

due to flooding at Arrowwood NWR 

(top); washed out bridge at Flint 

Hills NWR (bottom).

Facilitate greener 

transportation options.

Landscape Ecology | LE-5

Intent

Responding to climate change is a growing imperative for land managers 

and natural resource professionals, as well as the transportation and 

infrastructure sectors. Roadways on FWS managed lands may be 

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

wetlands and floodplains. Factors to consider include how might roadways 

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

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

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

and multifunctional manner that serves not only transportation, but perhaps 

other purposes such as protecting valuable facilities or habitat.

Eva Paredes/USFWS Eva Paredes/USFWS

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Planning 

Context

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Planning the Process

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

addressed.

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

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

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

as developing a communications plan that addresses both internal and external 

communications about the project. Information regarding project prioritization, 

selection, and delivery is discussed in the Region’s Long Range Transportation 

Plan (LRTP). Contact your Refuge Roads/FWS Transportation Coordinator for 

more information.

Planning Context

Overview

Planning Context | Overview

Selected project phases where the Roadway Design Guidelines

are used by the project team

 Project identification and establishment

 Project scoping meeting(s)

 Establishing goals for the project

 Establishing scope, schedule, and budget for the project

 Establishing roles and responsibilities for the project

 Preliminary / schematic design phase

 Completed project assessment and monitoring

* Contact your Refuge Roads/FWS Transportation Coordinator 

for more information regarding how projects are planned and 

delivered in the region.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Information

Principles

 Review local, regional and 

state transportation plans to 

determine how efforts by other 

agencies may inform your project 

planning and design

 Contact GIS staff to initiate data 

gathering and discuss mapping 

and analysis needs

 Review your Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

step down plan sections on 

transportation planning

 Conduct survey work and 

geotechnical investigations

 Review the Regional Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP)

 Review existing asset 

management data and any asset 

management plans

 Review requirements of NEPA 

as well as other applicable state 

and local regulations

 Address ESA requirements as 

applicable

 Ensure consistency with 

applicable environmental laws 

such the FWCA, MBTA, and 

BGEPA.

Metrics

 List of related documents or case 

studies reviewed

 Concurrence from project team 

and stakeholders that relevant 

information has been reviewed 

and is ready to be applied to 

future phases of work

Brian Bainnson USFWS

Documents are shared and 

discussed during a project kickoff 

meeting at Umatilla NWR (top); 

a multidisciplinary team reviews 

resource documents

during a project meeting in the 

Regional Office (bottom).

Use in-house and online 

resources to find relevant 

case studies and up-to-date 

regulatory requirements.

Resources

Overview of various systems of 

performance metrics. 

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 

23. Prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

NEPA information for EPA Region 

10 (Pacific NW).

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

ECOCOMM.NSF/webpage/national

+environmental+policy+act.

Guidelines for developing projects 

that work for local communities.

WSDOT. 2003. Building Projects 

that Build Communities: 

Recommended Best Practices.

Planning Context | PC-1

Intent

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

relevant background information ensures your project team is considering 

the most advanced and applicable contextual information related to a specific 

project. Consider what applicable legal and FWS policy requirements your 

project must respond to in order to be successful.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Develop performance based, 

rather than prescriptive, goals 

and objectives

 Avoid unnecessarily overdesigning facilities

 Consider utilizing partnerships 

and alternative transportation 

to accommodate special events 

that generate traffic or atypical 

demands on roadways

 Determine jurisdiction

 Decide whether roadways should 

enable more direct access to 

facilities or amenities

 Balance needs with resources 

and intended capacity and vehicle 

or user types

 Decide if and how it may be 

appropriate to promote lower 

design speeds

 Consider seasonal and multimodal issues

 Examine case studies for other 

similar facilities in order to “right 

size” your facility for current and 

anticipated demands

 Consider Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) or 

other means of sharing traveler 

information to distribute traffic, 

inform visitors of seasonal 

closures and provide more trip 

planning

 Consider how the roadway can 

serve as a link to communities – 

gateways, access, etc.

USFWS

Wide gravel shoulder allows 

visitors to pull off of a 2-lane 

highway to view wildlife.

Determine the intended vehicles and 

traffic volumes for the roadway.

Metrics

 Visitor use statistics (vehicle and 

trailhead)

 Visitor satisfaction

 Traffic and parking violations

 Traffic or congestion statistics

 Existing parking and roadway 

capacity

Resources

Design recommendations for 

various road types. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Design recommendations for 

various road types.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Public involvement may help clarify 

visitor needs.

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public Roads 

(Mar./Apr. 1999).

Level of Service

The term Level of Service 

(LOS) is commonly used among 

transportation planners to refer 

to the number of vehicles served. 

However users of these guidelines 

should also consider the term 

to include other elements, such 

as types of users, seasonality of 

use and modes of transportation 

that a particular roadway serves. 

Multimodal access refers to the 

ability of a transportation facility 

to provide access via a variety 

of modes, such as car, bicycle, 

public transit or walking. In 

keeping with the FWS mission, 

consider where it is possible 

and appropriate to provide 

multimodal access to FWS 

facilities, and whether the scale 

and type of roadway is in line with 

local management objectives.

Planning Context | PC-2

Intent

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

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

facility compatibility with current and anticipated demand. Designing for 

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

Plan to balance roadway improvements with wildlife conservation and 

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

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

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
SvR Design

PC-3 Evaluate Multiple Siting and Alignment Alternatives

Principles

 Determine if a roadway or road 

improvement is necessary

 Consider whether the roadway is 

in the right place

 Consider physical elements (e.g. 

hydrology), ecological effects 

(e.g. habitat fragmentation) 

as well as experiential factors 

(e.g. views, openness, arrival 

experience)

 Consider appropriateness of 

existing alignments versus 

potential alternatives

 Consider benefits or drawbacks 

of decommissioning existing 

facilities

 Determine how and when 

vehicles and people will move 

through the FWS managed lands

 Consider alternative modes of 

travel and potential for facility 

conversion, such as road to trail, 

trail in lieu of road, etc.

 Determine whether funding is 

tied to existing facilities

Explore and assess the 

effects of alternative road 

alignments.

Planning Context | PC-3

Intent

Project teams should explore multiple design alternatives for roadway 

projects. A systematic alternatives evaluation process can be effectively used 

to arrive at a preferred alternative for further development. Alternatives 

development can reveal opportunities for projects to enhance visitor 

experience, protect wildlife, reduce ecological impacts to landscapes, 

minimize habitat fragmentation and provide alternative transportation 

methods. Reviewing a suite of alternatives will ensure that roadway 

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

best possible information. The evaluation of alternatives will also support 

your NEPA process.

Evaluate Alternatives

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

A decommissioned roadway is 

restored with native vegetation.

Metrics

 Comparison of road density for 

options considered

 Analysis of potential habitat 

fragmentation (e.g. vegetation 

or habitat mapping, wildlife 

tracking)

Resources

Case Studies.

Conboy Lake NWR, Visitor 

Experience Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple vehicular and pedestrian 

circulation routes at HQ site. 

Contact Alex Schwartz, Project 

Manager (503/736 4723) for more 

information.

Umatilla NWR, McCormack Unit, 

Quarters Area Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple roadway realignment 

concepts in conjunction with a new 

bunk house and residence. Contact 

Alex Schwartz, Project Manager.

Roadway design guidelines using 

applied ecology and experience.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Environmental impacts should be 

considered

 Evaluate the embodied energy of 

materials used

 Minimize externalization of 

environmental impacts through 

emissions and materials used

 Include comparison of costs of 

facilities for alternative modes of 

transportation in analysis

 Consider projected maintenance 

costs (often 65% of life cycle cost 

of an asset)

Metrics

 Carbon footprint (or ecological 

footprint)

 Vehicle miles traveled

 Long-term maintenance costs

 Life of pavement and other 

materials

 Greenroads rating system

 Life cycle costing (of total costs 

for construction and maintenance 

of a proposed transportation 

alternative)

USFWS

Resources

Overview of various systems of 

performance metrics.

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 23. 

Performance metrics for CSS.

TransTech Mgmt., et al. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Info & data on sustainable material.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Overview of climate change impacts 

on transportation infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation.

Sustainability metrics.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

Example of triple bottom line 

assessment of infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

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

Flint Hills NWR. 

Examine the characteristics 

of materials used in a project, 

including embodied energy and 

recyclability.

Planning Context | PC-4

Triple Bottom Line in Transportation Management

The triple bottom line concept 

originates in business and 

accounting practices. It stipulates 

three key areas or ‘resources’ that 

should be addressed in measuring 

sustainability:

 Society (human capital) 

 Environment (natural capital)

 Economy (financial capital)

This concept, also known as 

“people, planet, profit,” offers an 

expanded spectrum of values and 

criteria for measuring a project 

or organization’s success. Using 

this perspective in transportation 

management means that you 

would not only consider the longterm economic costs and benefits 

of a project, but also account for 

potential environmental and social 

costs and benefits over time.

Intent

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

to the traditional design and construction costs. Consider the environmental 

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

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

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

assigning monetary value to environmental costs.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Address both internal and 

external communication needs in 

your project management plan

 Define clear roles and 

responsibilities for members of 

the project team

 Designate key agency contact(s) 

for all agencies/organizations 

involved

 Create a cross-functional (multidisciplinary) team

 Develop design visualization 

and communication tools, such 

as graphics, plans, models, 

newsletters, web pages

 Identify the audience and develop 

solutions for communicating with 

people who don’t read plans or 

technical documents

 Coordinate with transportation 

planning partners

 Contact Transportation 

Biologists in Ecological Services 

(ES) State Field Office to ensure 

project delivery is consistent 

with the mission of the Service

 Schedule project team meetings 

at regular intervals

Metrics

 Character and amount of public 

feedback on project

 Level of support and 

understanding of project within 

the organization

 Achievement of project goals

USFWS

Resources

Guidelines for community and 

interdisciplinary planning process.

Lennertz, Bill, and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Case studies in collaborative 

management of wetlands and 

wildlife areas.

Porter, Douglas, and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning for 

Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and 

Examples.

Public involvement for CSS.

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

Getting It Right in the Right-of-Way: 

Citizen Participation in ContextSensitive Highway Design. Scenic 

America. Available at: http://www.

scenic.org/.

Public involvement for 

transportation projects.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available at: 

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

public_involvement/pubinvolve.htm. 

Project staff and stakeholders 

meet in the field at Pelican 

Island NWR (right).

Develop a communications 

strategy and network.

Planning Context | PC-5

Intent

Craft and document your approach for communications among your 

project team and with stakeholders. Ensure that roles and responsibilities 

are clearly defined in a project management plan. Carefully coordinate 

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

support of the best possible design outcome. Interdisciplinary project teams 

are the modern standard to ensure that work products are comprehensive 

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

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

appropriate opportunities for involvement and review among your project 

team and stakeholders. 

Members of Your Team

There are many professionals 

and stakeholder groups that 

you may want to include as part 

of your project team. Some 

possibilities include:

 Professional Engineers (PE)

 Landscape Architects (RLA)

 Transportation and Natural 

Resource Planners

 Field Biologists

 Project Leaders and Refuge 

Managers

 Refuge Roads Coordinators

 ES Transportation Biologists

 Representatives of other 

jurisdictions and agencies 

with local involvement

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Design and

Engineering

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
From Concept to Construction

This section recognizes that 

embedded in the technical aspects of 

a roadway project is the ability to 

directly support the mission of the 

Service. This section will guide you 

though a suite of considerations 

regarding the nuts and bolts of a 

roadway project, such as earthwork, 

alignment, safety, materials 

selections, vegetation preservation 

and management, construction 

practices and maintenance 

considerations.

Designing a complete roadway 

project includes using methods and 

materials that minimize the 

environmental impacts of the 

roadway and associated construction 

work. It also involves developing a 

design that leads the roadway to 

function more often as a restorative 

system, helping to heal previously 

impacted or damaged natural 

environments. Working with an 

interdisciplinary team can greatly 

facilitate a holistic design and 

engineering process. Early 

coordination through the FWCA, 

and the ESA can provide valuable 

insight and expedite permit 

processes. A roadway design process 

can be approached methodically, 

beginning with a broad vision and 

narrowing down to the technical 

details and ultimately construction 

activities to make it happen. In the end, 

the project should be implemented in 

a manner consistent with FWS 

goals, applicable laws, and ideally, 

such that there is a benefit to the 

conservation of listed species and 

other FWS trust resources.

Design and Engineering

Overview

Design and Engineering | Overview

Process - Design to Construction

Planning

Site 

Analysis

Schematic 

Design

Construction 

Documents

Maintenance

Design 

Development

& Permitting

Construction

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Explore ways to integrate 

restoration opportunities into 

project

 Consider how road surface 

conditions will affect nearby 

vegetation (e.g. dust, heat, other 

pollutants generated)

 Consider what types of 

vegetation and habitat along 

roadways will be compatible with 

management goals

 Use site prep and construction 

methods that protect and 

conserve existing native 

vegetation and natural resources

 Protect or stockpile and re-use 

healthy existing/native soils on 

site

 Protect heritage and other 

significant trees during and 

after construction (e.g. provide 

fencing, do not dig in or store 

material on top of root zones)

 Consider irrigation needs for 

establishing roadway vegetation

 Consider how invasive species 

will be managed during native 

vegetation establishment periods

DE-1 Preserve and Restore Native Vegetation and Other 

Natural Resources

Alex Schwartz/USFWS Brian Bainnson

Metrics

 Amount of post-construction 

restoration planned

 Vegetation surveys

 Reduced invasive species control 

needs

Resources

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Comprehensive guidebook on 

roadside revegetation.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Road alignment at 

Nestucca Bay NWR preserves 

upland vegetation and forest.

Restored vegetation along 

road corridor can help support 

management goals.

Design and Engineering | DE-1

Intent

Roadway projects present opportunities to protect and restore native 

vegetation. Roadways commonly represent a barrier to wildlife and 

fragment habitat. However, roadway projects can represent an opportunity 

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

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

stands of existing vegetation. Look for restoration opportunities and 

consider what types of vegetation along roadway corridors are compatible 

with management goals.

This roadway project at Steigerwald 

NWR required integration of native 

vegetation restoration (right). 

The planting plan was 

prepared by a registered landscape 

architect. The plants were installed 

by a licensed landscape contractor. 

Work included a temporary 

irrigation system and a 1-year 

maintenance and warranty period.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Ryan Hagerty/USFWS

DE-2 Consider and Plan for Invasive Species Management

Principles

 Inventory invasive species in the 

region that are already present 

and what steps have been taken 

to combat their spread

 Ensure that planting 

plans feature plant species 

and densities, as well as 

establishment techniques to limit 

future invasive establishment

 Consider latest tools and 

techniques available to combat 

spread of invasive species

 Examine relevant state and 

regional lists of invasive species 

threats

 Search for and consider lessons 

from other relevant projects, 

based on similar ecosystems and/

or similar project types

 Develop pre-project baselines 

to measure success of future 

management goals

 Address and plan for invasive 

species management during 

construction and general use 

 Create an invasive species 

management plan following local 

Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), addressing both 

roadside and adjoining habitats

 Minimize disturbance and project 

footprint, including mobilization 

and staging areas

Metrics

 Invasive species survey data

 Staff time dedicated to invasive 

species management (and how 

that changes over time)

Resources

Invasive species along roadways 

from the perspective of road and 

landscape ecology (see Chapter 4, pp. 

75-111).

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Establishment and maintenance of 

native plants along roadways.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Available 

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

environment/rdsduse/index.htm.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

Guidance on roadside weed 

management.

Ferguson, Leslie, C. L. Duncan and 

K. Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management.

Comprehensive list of roadside 

vegetation management resources.

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. See: http://environment.

transportation.org/environmental_

issues/invasive_species/

docs_reports.aspx.

List of many resources on 

controlling invasive species, from 

construction best practices to 

ongoing maintenance.

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

Controlling invasive species after 

their spread can be labor-intensive; 

spraying melaluka in FL (right).

Invasive species often spread 

outward from roadways.

Selected Steps for Invasive 

Species Management

 Post-construction 

maintenance plan

 Minimize disturbance

 Retain shade to the extent 

possible

 Know the quality of topsoil 

and mulch; avoid importing 

contaminated topsoils

 Know the quality of seed 

sources

 Clean equipment that has had 

contact with weed sources

 Over-sow disturbed areas 

with native seeds

 Avoid nitrogen fertilizers in 

the first year

List adapted from FHWA 

Roadside Revegetation Manual. 

See section 5.8 in manual.

Design and Engineering | DE-2

Intent

Invasive species are a major issue for habitat restoration and wildlife 

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

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

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

networks.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Consider roadway alignments 

that will minimize and balance 

cut and fill volumes

 Consider alternative structures 

to reduce fill volumes (e.g. bridge 

vs. culvert, etc.)

 Use roadways to highlight 

Refuge habitats as they follow 

existing terrain

 Look for continued opportunities 

to minimize and improve 

“aesthetic wounds”

Metrics

 Earthwork volumes per mile 

(compare to similar projects)

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Visual resources assessment

Resources

See cut and fill guideline on page 83.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Case study on context sensitive 

solutions (CSS) for scenic highway.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

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

Fort Photo/Flickr.com

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

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

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

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

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

index.htm.

Common standard on roadway 

design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book). Washington, D.C.

Guidelines for design of very low 

volume roadways.

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

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

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

Gravel roads maintenance and 

design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Roadway terraced along hillside 

at Hart Mountain NWR 

responds to opportunities and 

constraints of the topography

Fitting in with existing topography 

is key to minimizing impacts.

Design and Engineering | DE-3

Intent

Roadways can be designed to fit with natural topography and seamlessly 

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

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

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

to the natural topography can minimize interruptions to the natural 

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

vegetation and habitat. 

Elevated structures are often preferable for wildlife and habitat 

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

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

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

and trailheads. Earthwork considerations discussed in this guideline 

are appropriate for both new construction projects and alterations or 

improvements to existing roadways.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

and Alertness

Principles

 Road alignments may include 

continuous curves, spiral curves, 

curving alignment, etc. in order 

to support safety and alertness

 Consider how curvilinear road 

geometries achieve multiple 

objectives and can specifically 

support habitat and wildlife 

management goals

 Consider the effect of road 

surface on travel speeds

 Determine and design around a 

roadway ‘design speed’ so that 

people will want to drive slower

 Consider safety and engineering 

standards that are applicable to 

the roadway’s context

Metrics

 Road speed and volume study

 Accident reports

 Visual resources assessment

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Protection of vegetation and 

habitat

 FHWA Road Safety Audit

Alex Schwartz/USFWS USFWS

Resources

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems.

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

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

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. Access at: http://

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

index.htm.

Standards for roadway design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book).

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Curving roadway at

Nestucca Bay NWR highlights 

scenery and discourages 

high speeds (top); emergency 

personnel respond to an accident 

at Ridgefield NWR (bottom).

Curving roads with varying 

views can promote alertness 

and lower speeds.

Design and Engineering | DE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

alternative modes of transportation, including walking and bicycling. Lower 

actual speeds are achieved through deliberate roadway geometry and 

design, not simply signage.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

silt fencing help reduce construction 

impacts to adjacent habitat.

Principles

 Consider appropriate season for 

construction

 Minimize construction impacts to 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms

 Implement construction best 

practices, such as dust and 

erosion control

 Look for staging opportunities 

that use existing developed sites 

and minimize impact to adjacent 

habitat areas

 Consider impacts of construction 

needs, such as water, on the 

surrounding environment

 Consider how construction 

elements, such as water wells, 

could be used for staff and visitor 

services in the future

Metrics

 Changes in population counts or 

behavior (e.g. breeding) of local 

organisms

 Visible signs of disturbance 

beyond limits of work

 Compliance with erosion control 

plan elements

DE-5 Consider Construction Impacts and Best Practices

Resources

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Guidelines with resources 

on environmentally-friendly 

construction practices.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Design and Engineering | DE-5

Intent

Roadway construction can have major impacts to terrestrial and aquatic 

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

project management and construction management should be applied 

to ensure that impacts from construction activities are minimized and 

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

possible, especially with regard to construction activities such as staging 

materials and equipment.

FHWA

Construction on an entry road, 

parking lot, and trailhead 

project at Steigerwald NWR, in 

partnership with FHWA’s Federal 

Lands Highways program. 

Project required extensive 

multidisciplinary planning, design, 

and construction expertise to ensure 

implementation of best construction 

practices and minimization of 

habitat and scenic area disturbance.

BMPs: Best Management Practices

Best management practices are 

methods that have been determined 

to be the most effective and 

practical means of preventing or 

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

focus on prescriptive measures, 

typically in the construction and 

maintenance phases of a project. 

Design Guidelines are more general 

and require interpretation and 

adaptation.

BMPs available for roadway 

construction projects include:

 Erosion control

 Equipment and operation

 Noise and emissions

 Spill and Pollution Prevention

 Safety

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Identify range of materials that 

would be suitable or possible to 

use in a given project

 Consider various qualities of 

material options, including 

environmental performance, 

longevity, maintenance needs and 

aesthetic fit

 Study past performance and 

success of materials in other sites 

(case studies)

 Consider using materials that are 

certified for sustainability

 Consider paying more for a more 

durable material that may save 

money (through performance 

and maintenance) in the long run

 Source materials locally where 

possible

Metrics

 Embodied energy calculations

 Runoff discharge rates

DE-6 Consider Range and Sources of Materials for 

Sustainable Construction

Resources

See materials listed in Greenroads 

Guidelines.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

Check on embodied energy of 

proposed materials at University 

of Bath’s Inventory of Carbon & 

Energy (ICE) Wiki.

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

ICE/Home+Page.

The Sustainable Sites Initiative 

(SSI) provides resources and 

guidelines for materials and site 

development.

See: http://www.sustainablesites.

org/.

For sites that include buildings, 

calculate the project’s carbon 

footprint at BuildCarbonNeutral.

See: http://buildcarbonneutral.org.

Information and data on 

sustainable materials.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Materials may vary for travel 

lanes, parking stalls and 

pedestrian pathways.

Design and Engineering | DE-6

Intent

There are numerous options available for materials that have sustainable 

characteristics. Consider selecting materials with lower embodied energy 

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

high level of environmental performance. Using sustainable materials can 

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

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

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

fill material.

Steve Clay/USFWS Brain Bainnson

Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprints

Embodied energy is generally 

defined as the energy (commercial 

and industrial) that was used to 

make a product. It generally 

includes the energy used to 

deliver the product to its point of 

use or consumption, and may also 

include any energy needed for the 

deconstruction and disposal of the 

product. It is commonly measured 

in megajoules of energy per 

kilogram of product (MJ/kg). 

A carbon footprint is a similar 

metric, which measures the 

total amount of greenhouse gas 

emissions caused by a product. It 

is often expressed in terms of tons 

of CO2

 produced per kilogram of 

product (tCO2/kg).

A parking lot at Tualatin River

NWR used warm mix asphalt for

main travel ways, pervious 

pavers in parking stalls and 

features a bioswale with amended 

soils and native plants to cleanse 

stormwater in order to protect

 habitat (top); local and sustainable

 materials were used to construct an 

Auto Tour pullout / wildlife viewing

area at Modoc NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Examine current maintenance 

budgets, responsibilities and 

staff availability in concert with 

partners

 Estimate increase or reduction 

of maintenance needs for new 

facilities

 Consider current skills of 

maintenance staff and what types 

of training may be needed

 Consider whether contractors 

would be required to complete 

maintenance activities

 Be aware of concerns about 

adopting new practices, and 

be prepared to understand 

and address the concerns of 

operations and maintenance staff

 Provide achievable and 

responsive BMPs

 Discuss early in project who 

is responsible for repairs and 

maintenance to wildlife-specific 

facilities such as fencing

 Consider maintenance 

partnerships with State and 

County Transportation Dept’s 

to leverage their transportation 

resources and expertise

 Consider the impacts of 

chemicals or other products that 

are used in roadway maintenance

Metrics

 Historic vs. current maintenance 

costs

 Road closure data

 BMPs correctly applied in field

DE-7 Consider Maintenance

Resources

Handbook with design guidance 

on construction and maintenance 

techniques for low traffic volume 

roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Gravel roads maintenance & design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

BMPs for rural road maintenance.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadside vegetation management.

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

Maintenance guidelines for 

sensitive areas.

Crane, Bill. 2006. Road Maintenance 

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

Maintenance guidelines.

Ruiz, Leo. 2005. Guidelines for Road 

Maintenance Levels.

Consider trade-offs 

between longevity and 

maintenance needs.

Design and Engineering | DE-7

Intent

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

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

During the design phase, consider whether anticipated maintenance of 

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

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

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

wildlife underpasses or signals) may have new maintenance needs requiring 

staff training. Consider also that regular maintenance practices can extend 

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

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

USFWS

Fire being used for 

maintenance of roadside 

vegetation

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Organism 

Passage

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Terrestrial and Aquatic Passage

The conservation of fish, wildlife, 

plants and their habitats is the 

primary FWS mission. Roadways 

have major impacts on terrestrial 

and aquatic organisms. Roadways 

create barriers to wildlife movement 

and fragment habitat. Ensuring that 

organisms are able to safely move 

across (either over or under) roadways 

to meet basic life requisites is 

imperative to meeting the Service’s 

mission.

This section is intended to help 

direct you to guidance and resources 

for improving terrestrial and aquatic 

organism passage. The guidelines in 

this section reflect the growing body 

of science that documents the need 

for wildlife-sensitive planning, design, 

engineering, and construction of 

roadways. Recognizing the highly 

site- and species-specific nature of 

aquatic and terrestrial passage issues, 

you are particularly encouraged to 

seek out resources on regionallyappropriate techniques to facilitate 

passage of terrestrial and aquatic 

organisms. In areas where ESA 

listed species or critical habitat may 

benefit from a passage improvement, 

additional conservation measures 

may be warranted during both the 

design and construction phases.

Addressing organism passage issues 

on FWS managed lands is an 

emerging priority for the Service 

which these guidelines are intended 

to support. At present, addressing 

organism passage issues on FWS 

lands is most realistic in conjunction 

with high priority infrastructure 

projects such as bridge replacements. 

A future possibility is that projects 

intended to specifically address 

organism passage will be eligible for 

Refuge Roads funding.

Organism Passage

Overview

Organism Passage | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Develop organizational 

partnerships

 Solicit expert review and input; 

wildlife crossing structures 

require expert design and review

 Monitor to locate roadkill 

hotspots but consider how roads 

change animal movements 

(avoidance)

 Identify target species based on 

management objectives

 Consider how crossing needs 

align with other transportation 

priorities and budgets

 Consider species’ home range 

size and seasonal movements 

to determine extent of passage 

needed

 Consider how current or future 

roadway design speed and traffic 

volumes may impact wildlife

Metrics

 Safety (animal/vehicle collision 

reductions)

 Species population health

 Dispersal capability

 Daily/seasonal movement 

necessary to meet life requisites

Resources

Latest information on road 

ecology as it relates to mitigating 

interactions between roads and 

wildlife.

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

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

Passages.

OP-1 Develop Your Corridor Plan for Crossing

Robert Henke et al.

Coordinating aquatic and 

terrestrial passage opportunities.

Jacobson et al. 2007. Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous Discipline. 

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing facilities.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Best practices for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. Access at http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

hconnect/wvc/index.htm.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

Effects of roadways on wildlife (see 

entire Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and C. Frissell. 

2000. Review of Ecological Effects 

of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Background research on roadway 

impacts to wildlife.

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

Examine the roadway corridor for 

locations where organisms would 

prefer to cross in the absence of 

a roadway. Study topography, 

vegetation patterns and hydrology 

along the corridor.

Organism Passage | OP-1

Intent

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

terrestrial connectivity along a roadway. Corridor level plans are necessary 

to document habitat fragmentation, lack of stream continuity, population 

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

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

organisms, plans should identify funding opportunities and partnerships 

in support of recommended mitigation measures. Successful plans identify 

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

crossing projects and include conceptual design documentation for crossing 

structures and supporting mitigation measures.

A corridor management and 

wildlife crossing plan is a critical 

tool to plan and fund projects; map 

showing monitoring locations for 

crossing plan study (below).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for road

 Consider seasonality of wildlife 

movement and stream flows

 Develop list of target species for 

aquatic organism passage and 

focus planning and design efforts 

on supporting overall ecosystem 

health

 Consider range of stream 

crossing solutions and techniques

 Culverts or bridges that 

mimic the slope, structure and 

dimensions of the natural stream 

bed can allow aquatic species to 

freely move under roadways

 Plan for appropriate postconstruction riparian and 

streambed restoration work

 Consider maintenance needs for 

various stream crossing designs

 Plan for appropriate in-water 

work windows

 Consider how to best complete 

road maintenance activities at or 

near stream crossings in order to 

avoid impacts to water quality

Metrics

 Surveys to show healthy passage 

of aquatic organisms

 Water quality measurements 

(upstream vs. downstream)

 Re-colonization of upstream 

habitat by aquatic organisms (in 

cases of improving/upgrading 

existing crossings)

OP-2 Provide and Enhance Aquatic Organism Crossings

John Sauer/USFWS Florian Schulz

Resources

Analysis & costs of culvert design 

and aquatic organism passage.

MN Dept. of Transportation. 2009. 

Cost Analysis of Alternative Culvert 

Installation Practices in Minnesota.

Design guidelines and best practices 

for aquatic organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Riparian restoration guidance.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

Design guidelines for stream 

crossings and proper road drainage.

William Weaver and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See aquatic organism passage in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

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

Locate aquatic crossings to 

minimize interruption to normal 

stream flow and channel migration.

Organism Passage | OP-2

Intent

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

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

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

and fish and wildlife passage have historically been impeded by engineering 

solutions intended to minimize disruptions to roadway infrastructure. 

Recognizing the importance of aquatic resources on FWS managed lands, 

an ecosystem-based approach to aquatic organism passage focuses on 

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

system intersects a roadway.

Site visit 

to a new aquatic crossing structure 

during a Refuge Roads coordination 

meeting at Kenai NWR (top); 

viability for many aquatic 

species, such as salmon, depend on 

their ability to move through river 

and stream ecosystems (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Identify design species and their 

crossing structure needs; design 

crossings that work for as many 

species as possible

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for roadway

 Consider visual quality and 

aesthetic impact of structures

 Improve nearby habitat for 

wildlife, especially areas leading 

to or connecting with crossings

 Maximize opportunity for 

restoration project links to 

crossing/connectivity sites

 Consider “right crossing, right 

place” when locating crossings

 Review the corridor management 

or crossing plan

 Bridge replacements are the 

best opportunity in a 50-70 year 

time frame to create movement 

opportunities and should be 

taken advantage of even if no 

other projects are in the area

Metrics

 Evidence of unmet need to cross

 Improved wildlife counts in 

adjacent areas after crossing 

implementation

 Improved wildlife dispersal rates

 Reduction in WVC

OP-3 Provide and Enhance Terrestrial Wildlife Crossings

Florian Schulz Brian Bainnson

Resources

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing US Hwy 93 Evaro to Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings. 

Best practices for WVC reduction.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report to 

Congress. 

See FWS Refuge Roads Coordinator 

list of crossing issues by state 

(unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See crossing structure design in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

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

Bridge replacements are excellent 

opportunities to enhance 

terrestrial crossing opportunities 

(top); a wildlife overcrossing 

in Banff NP, Canada has 

successfully improved both safety 

and wildlife movement (bottom).

Terrestrial wildlife crossings 

provide safer crossings 

for wildlife and connect 

fragmented habitat patches.

Organism Passage | OP-3

Intent

Roadways are a significant barrier and danger for terrestrial organisms. 

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

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

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

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

habitat fragmentation caused by roadways is avoidance behaviors that can 

have significant effects on populations.

The most effective mitigation measure to reduce WVC and to enhance 

terrestrial organism passage across roadways is to design and construct 

suitable crossing structures, in combination with barrier and diversion 

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

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

seek to meet multiple ecosystem connectivity objectives simultaneously.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Study WVC or other interactions 

along the corridor

 Recognize that fencing is a 

last resort option, and that the 

outcomes can be deadly for 

wildlife inadvertently trapped on 

a roadway

 Design fencing treatments based 

on species and environmental 

conditions

 Include escape structures in 

the design; jumpouts are more 

effective than the commonly used 

one-way gates

 To avoid “end run” WVC, end 

fencing beyond prime habitat 

areas or at locations with good 

visibility

 Boulder piles can act as a 

maintenance-free fence for 

ungulates

 Consider how best to 

accommodate multiple species

 Consider the aesthetic impacts of 

wildlife fencing

 Consider how to handle fencing 

at access roads

Metrics

 WVC counts

 Reduction in wildlife mortality 

due to WVC

OP-4 Evaluate Need for Wildlife Fencing and Other Guiding 

Features

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Website with additional guidelines 

and case studies of construction and 

maintenance practices to benefit 

wildlife along roadways.

FHWA - Keeping It Simple: Easy 

Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads. 

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

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Fencing can help guide wildlife to 

safer crossing areas.

Organism Passage | OP-4

Intent

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

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

structures, including overpasses or underpasses. Effective wildlife barrier 

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

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

be designed in conjunction with fencing. Project teams should consider 

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

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

should be designed in consultation with an expert.

Barrier and diversion fencing requires maintenance. Successful projects 

account for maintenance concerns and budgets during the design phase. 

Fencing discussions might include a consideration of how to handle fence 

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

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

USFWS lisahends/Flickr.com

Continuous page wire fencing is 

commonly used to keep wildlife off 

roads and to direct them to crossing 

structures (top); jumpouts are 

essential features to allow trapped 

animals to leave the road whenever 

continuous fencing is used (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Select the appropriate type of 

signage for the species, roadway 

LOS and site conditions

 Provide public information on the 

crossing design and intent

 Consider active warning systems 

for “end runs” of fencing, 

crossing hot spots and as 

temporary mitigation measures 

in the absence of crossing 

structures

 Consider the related benefits 

of communicating crossing and 

habitat areas, such as public 

education and communicating 

stewardship

Metrics

 Wildlife-vehicle collision (WVC)

statistics (note that these are a 

better measure of safety than 

ecological conditions; even then, 

they are suspect unless expertly 

interpreted)

OP-5 Consider Warning and Safety Systems for Drivers

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Research on effectiveness of methods 

for collision reduction.

Huijser et al, and Salsman and 

Wilson. 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, Design 

And Implementation, SPR-3(076). 

Warning signs can help 

remind drivers to look out 

for wildlife on the road.

Organism Passage | OP-5

Intent

An important component of facilitating terrestrial organism passage is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

volume roads.

Florian Schulz

In areas where wildlife is 

known to cross roadways, active 

warning systems can be effective 

to alert drivers to the presence of 

wildlife on or near a roadway.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Stormwater

Management

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
Stormwater Management

Overview

Stormwater Management | Overview

Typical NDS Sizing

An NDS feature such as a bioretention area typically 

requires an area of only 10% of the impervious area 

it is designed to treat.

Cleaning Water, Improving Habitat

It is important to consider what 

happens to stormwater runoff along 

the entire roadway. Runoff from 

roadways on FWS managed lands 

may deliver chemical pollutants and 

sediment to surface and ground 

water. Roadways have a profound 

effect on the hydrology of a given 

site and watershed. Impervious 

surfaces increase runoff rates, 

volumes, temperature and duration. 

Roadway surfaces can concentrate 

flows, creating unnatural flow 

regimes that impact adjacent lands 

and lead to cumulative impacts 

downstream at the watershed scale, 

such as erosion and flooding.

This section discusses sustainable 

stormwater management techniques 

and points you to educational 

resources and guidelines on 

their design, construction and 

maintenance. Such techniques 

can help to clean stormwater 

runoff from roadways, filtering out 

particulates and other pollutants. 

They can also slow flows and detain 

water during peak storm events, 

restoring more natural flows to 

adjacent water bodies. A common 

term used to describe this approach 

to stormwater management is low 

impact development (LID). LID 

emphasizes conservation and the 

use of existing natural site features, 

integrated with distributed, smallscale stormwater controls to more 

closely mimic natural hydrologic 

patterns.

LID techniques include various 

features known collectively as 

natural drainage systems (NDS). 

These rely mainly on plantings, 

amended soils and other natural 

materials to treat, detain and 

retain stormwater runoff; these are 

often referred to as bioretention. 

Bioretention features include 

bioswales and rain gardens. Areas 

dedicated to NDS serve to buffer 

high value habitat from ecological 

disturbances caused by roadway 

infrastructure. Natural drainage 

LID Philosophy

LID asks us to nurture stormwater rather than 

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

Typical facilities disperse 

runoff without 

treatment 

(top), while an 

LID approach 

detains and 

cleans water on 

site (bottom)

features may also provide screening 

or visual buffering—functions that 

are often desirable when separating 

uses on a site or landscape.

NDS should be designed and 

implemented with care, so as 

to be compatible with habitat 

management goals. Concerns 

about their use include drawing 

wildlife closer to roadways through 

habitat creation (potentially causing 

increased negative animal-vehicle 

interactions), and the possibility of 

concentrating roadway pollutants 

into specific areas at levels that 

may be harmful to wildlife. These 

are important concerns to address, 

and care should be taken that each 

facility is designed to meet sitespecific concerns.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Adhere to a low impact 

development (LID) strategy in 

planning and designing repairs 

and improvements

 Consider natural drainage 

system (NDS) treatment 

facilities, including filter strips 

and bioswales

 Stormwater treatment facilities 

and approach need to be sitespecific

 Consider appropriate NDS 

features for the type of 

roadway—parking, auto tour 

route, entry/access road, 

highway, etc.

 Look at hydrology planning in 

the area and be aware of roadway 

impacts on it

Metrics

 Water quality testing

 Temperature monitoring

Resources

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

SM-1 Buffer Habitat from Polluted Runoff

Brian Bainsson

LID guidelines for Pacific NW.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Access at: http://

www.psparchives.com/publications/

our_work/stormwater/lid/lid_tech_

manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf.

Buffer design guidelines for that 

include stormwater treatment.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Access 

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

bufferguidelines/.

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

White paper on integrated LID and 

ecological analysis.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach.

Parking lot runoff at McNary NWR 

drains to a central bioswale that 

treats polluted runoff and buffers 

habitat from roadway impacts.

NDS features receive, clean and 

detain or retain runoff from 

roadways and other impervious 

surfaces; they can buffer habitat 

areas from negative ecological 

impacts.

Stormwater Management | SM-1

Intent

Runoff from roadways can carry unwanted pollutants into adjacent streams 

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

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

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

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

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

other nearby sources.

Water Quality 101

 Conventional facilities collect 

and drain polluted runoff using a 

variety of methods, such as sheet 

draining, “grassy swales,” curbs 

and drainage inlets. These can 

quickly convey pollutants directly 

to sensitive habitats before the 

pollutants can be filtered out 

(left).

 Improved facilities are designed 

to intercept and filter polluted 

runoff before discharge to 

sensitive habitats (right).

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Minimize quantity of stormwater 

runoff

 Minimize use of impervious 

materials

 Technologies to address water 

quantity issues include wet 

ponds, porous pavements, 

bioswales and rain gardens

 Improvements (stormwater 

facilities) must be sized 

appropriately to handle flow

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates and volumes

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

Resources

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM-2 Protect Habitat from Erosive Flows and Flooding

Jeff Holm/USFWS

Low impact development (LID) 

guidelines for Pacific Northwest.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, WA. 

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development.

Info on vegetative filter strips (page 

44) and other practices.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

BMPs for ESA compliance.

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA Sec 

4(d) Habitat Protection.

A gravel parking lot with central 

vegetative swale at Ash Meadows 

NWR minimizes impervious 

materials and allows for large storm 

events to be infiltrated on site, away 

from more sensitive habitats.

NDS features can detain 

runoff, slowing its flow to 

adjacent water bodies.

Stormwater Management | SM-2

Intent

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

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

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

rates create erosion and flooding issues and prevent groundwater recharge. 

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

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

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

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

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

concerns.

Water Quantity 101

 Runoff from impervious areas 

often concentrates flows, which 

impacts adjacent lands and also 

leads to cumulative downstream 

and watershed-scale impacts

 Where space is limited or linear 

alignment is tight, choose 

materials such as pervious paving 

(left) to reduce runoff rates

 Use NDS features to detain 

runoff before discharge (right)

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Stormwater Management | SM-3

Principles

 Employ stormwater facility 

monitoring protocols (per ASCE 

or other standards)

 Maintain facilities in a 

manner that optimizes facility 

performance

 Collect relevant baseline data 

before project construction

 Check for and use appropriate 

control measures on any invasive 

species

 Check for levels of contaminants 

coming from roadway, and track 

their fate in areas adjacent to 

roadway

 Monitor level of compatibility 

with local wildlife and 

surrounding habitats

 Document maintenance needs 

and costs

 Document effectiveness of soil 

mixes and plants used

 Share or publish monitoring 

results to help improve design 

and results in other projects

 Use monitoring results in 

adaptive management

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates, volumes, 

temperature and contaminants

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

 Analysis documenting water 

quality improvements due to 

NDS features

Resources

Technical guidelines for monitoring 

of stormwater in various conditions.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

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

scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/

monitor.cfm.

NDS maintenance guidelines that 

include guidance on monitoring.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Study from UC Davis & USFS 

finding that bioswale significantly 

reduced runoff and removed 

pollutants; includes monitoring 

protocols used.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

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

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

Standard operating procedures for 

stormwater monitoring.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2010. Stormwater monitoring 

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

wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/

municipal/strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Guidance on stormwater 

monitoring for construction sites.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for construction 

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

wa.gov/biblio/0610020.html.

Monitoring for larger debris.

ASCE. 2010. Guideline for 

Monitoring Stormwater Gross 

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

org/Product.aspx?id=2147485997.

Intent

Monitoring and maintaining stormwater facilities after project construction 

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

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

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

following standard monitoring and maintenance protocols are a critical 

component for stormwater management on FWS managed lands.

USFWS

Similar to 

managed wetlands, stormwater 

facilities should be periodically 

monitored for performance and 

to inform adaptive management 

and maintenance regimes.

Monitoring projects will help 

advance the development of a 

focused approach to stormwater 

management on FWS managed 

lands that is responsive to the 

Service’s mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Intent

Low impact development (LID) facilities for stormwater management serve 

the functional purposes of cleaning and slowing or retaining stormwater 

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

raise public awareness and understanding of the relationship of roadways to 

aquatic resources, wildlife and habitat conservation. Stormwater facilities 

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

development on aquatic resources. Facilities can communicate how they 

protect aquatic resources, and can influence behavior and management 

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

SM-4 Promote Stewardship of Aquatic Resources

Resources

Social benefits of road and highway 

systems.

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s Highway 

Programs.

Promotional information for 

visitors to FWS sites.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Green Values calculator can help 

to quantify benefits from LID (aka 

green infrastructure) facilities.

Center for Neighborhood 

Technology. 2010. Green Values 

Stormwater Management Calculator. 

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

Additional resources on green 

infrastructure (another term 

that includes natural stormwater 

management facilities).

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

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

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

Report examining social, economic, 

and environmental benefits of green 

infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

Options for Controlling CSO Events 

in Philadelphia’s Watersheds.

Stormwater treatment facilities 

integrated into roadways provide 

places where FWS stewardship 

of aquatic resources can be 

demonstrated.

Stormwater Management | SM-4

Principles

 Prioritize aesthetic and 

educational components of highly 

visible stormwater management 

facilities

 Use stormwater facilities to 

communicate stewardship 

commitment of FWS

 Design stormwater facilities 

with native plants in 

arrangements that respond to 

multiple objectives, including 

management, educational/ 

interpretive, aesthetic and 

maintenance goals

 Make stormwater part of the 

site’s interpretive story and 

reveal the process of stormwater 

quantity and quality controls to 

the extent possible

 Consider educational and 

volunteer opportunities 

presented by stormwater 

management facilities

 Consider potential benefits or 

drawbacks of additional wetland 

habitat areas created by natural 

drainage facilities

Metrics

 “Friends” groups involvement & 

awareness

 Production/use of interpretive 

materials or content

 Use of stormwater facilities as 

positive examples or success 

stories (e.g. in public media, 

professional circles, within FWS)

USFWS Justin Martin

Stormwater facilities can be an 

important part of visitor experience, 

providing interpretive opportunities 

(top) and allowing visitors hands-on 

experience planting or maintaining 

native vegetation (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Visitor 

Experience

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Engaging the Public

Conservation of fish, wildlife, plants 

and their habitats is at the core of 

the Service’s mission. Providing 

public access compatible with 

conservation goals is paramount to 

achieving this mandate. Roadways 

are the primary infrastructure 

elements that facilitate public access 

to FWS managed lands. Conversely, 

landscapes without roads or limited 

or restricted public access on 

roads can support protection of 

sensitive habitats when necessary. 

This section is intended to help you 

consider how best to provide access 

to FWS managed lands. Welldesigned roadways on FWS lands 

can help demonstrate to visitors how 

the Service’s mission is carried out 

at the landscape scale.

Scenic roadways offer visitors a 

glimpse into the habitat areas that 

the Service manages, helping to 

inspire an ethic of stewardship and 

conservation among the public. 

Roadways should be designed to 

afford such experiences and to 

convey a sense of place that is unique 

to each site and destination. They 

should take into account both the 

natural and cultural histories of 

the land they traverse, revealing 

but not destroying special places 

and artifacts along the way. This 

section of the guidelines will point 

you to resources to help with design 

solutions focused on the visitor’s 

experience. Design of roadway 

elements such as safety and guiding 

features, interpretive signs and 

visitor facilities should be relevant 

and specific to the region, if not to 

the individual site or refuge.

National Wildlife Refuges, Fish 

Hatcheries and other FWS managed 

lands are national treasures. 

Facilities there should help visitors 

connect with the natural heritage 

that the Service works to conserve.

Visitor Experience

Overview

Visitor Experience | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Consider designs that respond 

to the character of the landscape 

and management practices. For 

example, an entrance road may 

offer a change in design speed, 

scale and geometry in order to 

help visitors decompress from 

previous highway travel

 Provide appropriate orientation 

and directional signage in a style 

that fits with the local character 

and landscape

 Consider and plan the viewsheds 

and impacts of roadways on the 

visual and auditory landscape 

 Consider and plan coherent and 

consistent design elements with 

the facility (color, texture, form)

 Consider the entry experience 

(does it welcome and orient 

visitors?) and sequence of visitor 

experiences when arriving at 

FWS managed lands or high use 

areas such as visitor centers

 Consider opportunities for 

interpreting culture and the 

landscape along the corridor

 Provide safe places, such as 

overlooks and viewpoints, to 

enjoy scenery

Metrics

 Visual resource analysis/

management - USFS or BLM 

methodologies (see Resources 

below)

VE-1 Preserve and Highlight Scenic Value

Resources

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Study on context sensitive roadway 

design from New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Roadside treatment design 

guidelines.

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. 

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems (NCHRP Report 600B).

USFS visual assessment technique.

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: A 

Handbook for Scenery Management. 

AH-701.

BLM visual assessment technique.

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

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

Plan roadways to afford views 

to areas of high scenic value.

Visitor Experience | VE-1

Intent

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

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

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

on FWS managed lands should afford views and simultaneously prevent 

roadways from becoming dominant features of the visual landscape.

Brian Bainnson USFWS

Roadways provide or give access 

to scenic vistas (top) and visitor 

facilities such as a viewing blind at 

Finley NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Design alternative transportation 

facilities that are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation

 Provide parking for bicycles 

and other alternative types of 

transportation

 Consider adding charging 

stations for electric vehicles

 Coordinate with other agencies 

or organizations that could 

provide public transportation to 

FWS managed lands

 Promote and partner to develop 

bicycle routes to FWS managed 

lands 

 Consider bicycle routes through 

FWS managed lands where 

compatible with wildlife, safety, 

and user experience

 Consider signage or pavement 

markings to alert drivers to other 

types of road users

 Use outreach to encourage use of 

alternative transportation modes 

to and within the FWS managed 

lands

Metrics

 Counts of users arriving by 

public transportation, using 

bicycles, etc.

 Use rates of stationary facilities, 

such as special parking or bike 

racks

Resources

Potential funding source for transit 

and other alternative transportation 

options.

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks 

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

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

grants_financing_6106.html.

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

Case studies for alternative 

transportation projects in National 

Parks.

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

projects.html.

Design guidelines (see pp. 70-76).

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Potential funding for developing 

alternative transportation systems 

for visitors through the Transit in 

Parks Program (5230)

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

grants/grants_financing_6106.html.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

Case studies that include alternative 

transportation programs in parks, 

such as shuttle bus systems.

NPS Partnerships Case Studies 

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

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

Lessons from Europe on traffic 

calming, enhancing mobility 

options.

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

Case Study.

Tualatin River NWR. Two parking 

spaces designated for hybrid 

vehicles; bicycle racks provided at 

parking area; bus stop for a public 

transit line adjacent to the Refuge.

Roadway 

projects should facilitate multiple 

modes of transportation; a roadway 

at Ding Darling NWR (top) 

accommodates both autos and bikers 

for wildlife observation; parking lot 

at Great Swamp NWR visitor center 

(bottom) provides a safe, convenient 

place for bicycle parking.

Providing separate facilities can 

encourage users who don’t want to 

bike or walk along a roadway.

Visitor Experience | VE-2

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

to accommodate sustainable transportation options can help to achieve the 

FWS mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Define and consider visitor 

expectations for accessibility

 Balance safety and accessibility 

concerns

 Apply all relevant design criteria 

in order to meet or exceed the 

requirements of ABA

 Consider the relationship of 

accessible improvements to 

related infrastructure. Is there 

a completely accessible visitor 

experience?

Metrics

 Compliance with requirements, 

guidelines and standards

 Visitor use counts

 Outcomes of DCR facility audits

VE-3 Comply With Accessibility Standards and Guidelines

Resources

See ABA accessibility standards.

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

Draft Final Guidelines for 

accessibility in Outdoor Developed 

Areas on Federal lands:

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

outdoor/.

Accessibility guidance for Federal 

outdoor areas (specific to USDA 

Forest Service lands/facilities).

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails. 

Visitor Experience | VE-3

Intent

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

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

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

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

exceed the mandates of the ABA.

What Federal Accessibility criteria should FWS projects follow? 

The Architectural Barriers Act 

(ABA) of 1968 

FWS is subject to the ABA. The 

ABA requires access to facilities 

designed, built, altered or leased 

with Federal funds. Passed by 

Congress in 1968, it marks one of 

the first efforts to ensure access to 

the built environment. The Access 

Board develops and maintains 

accessibility guidelines under this 

law. These guidelines serve as the 

basis for the standards used to 

enforce the law, the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standard 

(ABASS). 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the Architectural Barriers 

Act Accessibility Guidelines 

for Buildings and Facilities 

(ADAABAAG) as published in the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2004. 

FWS should follow the scoping 

and technical requirements under 

the ABA sections. This direction 

covers accessibility to sites, 

facilities, buildings and elements 

by individuals with disabilities. The 

requirements are to be applied 

during design, construction, 

additions to and alterations of 

facilities. 

Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines 

for Outdoor Developed Areas

Many FWS facilities can be 

characterized as Outdoor 

Developed Areas. The Access Board 

is proposing to issue accessibility 

guidelines for outdoor developed 

areas designed, constructed or 

altered by Federal agencies subject 

to the ABA of 1968. The guidelines 

cover trails, outdoor recreation 

access routes, beach access routes 

and picnic and camping facilities. 

Once these guidelines are finalized 

they will become the technical 

requirements for accessibility 

in outdoor developed areas. At 

this time, FWS may use these 

guidelines.

Brian Bainnson

Provide accessible 

parking spaces with appropriate 

access aisles and access to 

pathways (top); accessible parking

 at Great Swamp NWR (right).

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails, USDA Forest 

Service, April 2006. 

These guidelines only apply within 

National Forest System boundaries. 

However, they are a very useful 

tool for FWS projects recognizing 

that the Draft Final Accessibility 

Guidelines for Outdoor Developed 

Areas are still a work in progress. 

And In General...

 Use principles of universal 

design—programs and facilities 

should be usable by all people, 

to the greatest extent possible, 

without separate or segregated 

access for people with 

disabilities.

 Accessibility does not supersede 

requirements for safety.

 Consider the level of 

development at a site to help 

balance safety and accessibility.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Principles

 Consider whether current or 

anticipated visitor impacts are 

compatible with wildlife and their 

habitats

 Consider safety for visitors, staff 

and wildlife

 Provide orientation and 

interpretive information to 

support visitor experiences

 Consider the enabling legislation 

of the refuge - what is the 

purpose of the unit?

 Consider relationships with other 

recreational or educational sites 

within the region

 Consider demand, site carrying 

capacity and quality of visitor 

experience

 Determine what kind of access 

to recreation sites is available, 

appropriate and necessary

 Consider impacts to recreational 

activities from roads

 Promote appropriate facilities for 

safely viewing wildlife from roads 

where necessary

 Plan for appropriate signage, 

including entrance, orientation, 

directional and interpretive

 Consider access for and needs of 

school groups

Metrics

 Visitor counts

 Diversity and quality of activities 

available for visitors

 Ease of use (proximity, clarity, 

etc.) of recreational and 

educational elements

VE-4 Facilitate Compatible Wildlife Dependent Recreation 

and Education

Resources

California State Parks Children in 

Nature Campaign.

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

id=24914.

Information on local, regional and 

national programs to connect kids 

with nature.

Children and Nature Network. See: 

http://www.childrenandnature.org/

movement/info.

National Wildlife Federation’s kids 

outside program.

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

Washington State Parks “No Child 

Left Inside” campaign.

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

NoChildLeftInside/.

USDA Forest Service Discover the 

Forest campaign.

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

Roadways are one of the principal 

infrastructure elements that 

facilitate access to the Big 6 on 

FWS managed lands.

Visitor Experience | VE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservation mission of the Service.

USFWS

Auto tour route at Ridgefield 

NWR provides visitors access to 

Big 6 activities, such as wildlife 

observation and photography.

The Big Six

The 1997 Refuge System 

Improvement Act outlines “The 

Big Six” priority public uses for 

Refuge system improvements:

 Hunting

 Fishing

 Wildlife Photography

 Wildlife Observation

 Environmental Interpretation

 Environmental Education

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Appendices

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
David Pitkin/USFWS

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.
LE - Landscape Ecology

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

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

NC: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research 

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

unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. 

The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. University of 

Washington. Seattle, WA. 

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA.

Dramstad, Wenche, James Olson and 

Richard Forman. 1996. Landscape 

Ecology Principles in Landscape 

Architecture and Land-Use 

Planning. Harvard GSD and Island 

Press. Washington, DC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. Access at http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

hconnect/wvc/index.htm.

Forman, Richard. “Roadsides and 

Vegetation.” 2002. In Proceedings 

of the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation, 

Keystone, CO, September 24-28, 

2001. Raleigh, NC: Center 

for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University (March 2002): 85-91.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Green Highways Partnership. http://

www.greenhighwayspartnership.

org. 

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Appendix A: Bibliography

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Jones, Grant R. and Charles C. 

Scott. 2007. Road Alignment. In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards (pp.330-341). Hoboken, 

New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

Nevada Department of 

Transportation. 2002. Pattern and 

Palette of Place: A Landscape 

and Aesthetic Master Plan for the 

Nevada State Highway System.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design 

Guidelines for Context Sensitive 

Design and Context Sensitive 

Solutions.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Sperling, Daniel and Deborah 

Gordon. 2008. Two Billion Cars: 

Transforming a Culture. In: TR 

News, No. 259 (Nov-Dec).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 1997. 

Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 

2002. A Guide to Best Practices 

for Achieving Context Sensitive 

Solutions (NCHRP Report 480).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation 

(TRB Report 290).

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc. and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14(1), February 2000, pp. 

18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

USDA Forest Service, StreamSimulation Working Group. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach To Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Western Governors’ Wildlife 

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

Resources include the Wildlife 

Corridors Initiative Report (2008) 

and Wildlife Sensitivity Maps.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

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

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 60 p.

Ferguson, Leslie, Celestine 

L. Duncan and Kathleen 

Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management. 0371 2811. 

Missoula, MT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Missoula Technology and 

Development Center. 22 p.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

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

Vancouver, WA.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

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

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/

index.htm.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air 

Bubble Curtains. TR News, No. 262 

(May-June).

PC - Planning Context

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 

23. Prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available 

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

EMO/pubs/public_involvement/

pubinvolve.htm.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Lennertz, Bill and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

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

Context-Sensitive Highway Design. 

Scenic America. http://www.scenic.

org/.

NEPA information for EPA Region 

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

epa.gov/R10/ECOCOMM.NSF/

webpage/national+environmental+

policy+act.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public 

Roads (Mar./Apr. 1999).

Porter, Douglas and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning 

for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues 

and Examples. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 1997. 

Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation 

(TRB Report 290).

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc. and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

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

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

WSDOT. 2003. Building Projects 

that Build Communities: 

Recommended Best Practices.

DE - Design and Engineering

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

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

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

AASHTO. 2004. A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 5th Edition (aka ‘Green 

Book). Washington, D.C.

BuildCarbonNeutral. 2010. http://

buildcarbonneutral.org. 

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites. John Wiley & 

Sons. Hoboken, NJ. 

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. Access at: http://

environment.transportation.org/

environmental_issues/invasive_

species/docs_reports.aspx.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Maintenance Levels. 0577 1205P. 

San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 71 p.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI). 

http://www.sustainablesites.org/.

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems. NCHRP Report 

600B.

University of Bath. Inventory of 

Carbon & Energy (ICE) Wiki. 

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

Home+Page.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

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

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for 

construction sites. Access at: http://

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

html.

Washington Department of 

Ecology. 2010. Stormwater 

monitoring resources. Access at: 

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

wq/stormwater/municipal/

strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

OP - Organism Passage

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Habitat Branch. 2008. Guidelines 

for Bridge Construction or 

Maintenance to Accommodate Fish 

& Wildlife Movement and Passage.

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

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

2010. Safe Passages. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/

index.htm.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

FHWA. 2010. Keeping It Simple: 

Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along 

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

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute (Montana State Univ.). 

2007. Evaluation of Wildlife 

Crossing Structures and Fencing 

on US Highway 93 Evaro to 

Polson. Phase I: Preconstruction 

Data Collection and Finalization of 

Evaluation Plan.

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

and T. Sprunk. 2001. Habitat 

connectivity study of the I-25 

and US 85 corridors, Colorado. 

Pages 499-508. Proceedings of 

the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation. 

Keystone, Colorado, September 

24-28, 2001. Center for 

Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University, USA.

Huijser et al (Western 

Transportation Institute - Montana 

State University) and Salsman and 

Wilson (Sensor Technologies and 

Systems, Inc.). 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, 

Design And Implementation, 

SPR-3(076). Oregon Dept. of 

Transportation Research Unit. 

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

Jacobson, Sandra, Robert Gubernick 

and Michael Furniss. “Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous 

Discipline”. In Proceedings of the 

2007 International Conference on 

Ecology and Transportation, edited 

by C. Leroy Irwin, Debra Nelson, 

and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: 

Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

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

escholarship.org/uc/item/6w6573r8. 

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals. Wildlands CPR. 

Missoula, MT. http://www.

wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/

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

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation. 2009. Cost Analysis 

of Alternative Culvert Installation 

Practices in Minnesota.

Proceedings of the International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation. Access biennial 

conference proceedings (2003, 2005, 

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

icoet.net/. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14(1), February 2000, pp. 

18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

USDA Forest Service, StreamSimulation Working Group. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach To Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
USFWS. Unpublished. Wildlife 

Crossing and Aquatic Organism 

Passage Issues by State. Contact 

FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM - Stormwater Management

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s 

Highway Programs.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

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

NC: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research 

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

unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, 

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

publications/our_work/stormwater/

lid/lid_tech_manual05/LID_

manual2005.pdf.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach. Applied 

Ecological Services. Prior Lake, 

MN.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

Access online at: http://water.

epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/

stormwater/monitor.cfm.

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

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

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA 

Sec 4(d) Habitat Protection. 

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

rdonlyres/A0C3F307-1548-

4BED-8C7B-C4A79A788791/0/

BMP_Field_Guide.pdf.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

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

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

VE - Visitor Experience

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

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

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

California State Parks. Children 

in Nature Campaign. http://www.

parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24914.

Children & Nature Network. 

Regional Campaigns and 

Initiatives. http://www.

childrenandnature.org/movement/

info.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. NCHRP Report 612. 

www.TRB.org.

National Park Service. NPS 

Partnerships Case Studies 

(Transportation). http://www.

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

National Wildlife Federation. 2010. 

Be Out There Campaign. http://

www.nwf.org/beoutthere/.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design 

Guidelines for Context Sensitive 

Design and Context Sensitive 

Solutions.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems (NCHRP Report 

600B).

US Access Board. Guidelines and 

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

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

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: 

A Handbook for Scenery 

Management. AH-701.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Bibliography

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for 

Outdoor Recreation and Trails. 

Publication number 0623-2801-

MTDC.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 

Discover the Forest campaign. 

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

USDOT Federal Transit 

Administration. 2010. Transit in 

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

fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_

financing_6106.html.

Washington State Parks. 2008. 

No Child Left Inside campaign. 

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

NoChildLeftInside/.

Additional Resources

Anderson, Linda. 2005. Highway 

Crossing Structures for 

Metropolitan Portland’s Wildlife. 

Portland State University. Portland, 

OR.

Bates, Ken. 2003. Design of Road 

Culverts for Fish Passage. 

Washington Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife.

Cosgrove and Orrick. 2004. The 

Future that Never Was: Lessons 

from Visions of Transportation. 

FHWA. 2008. Consistency In 

Safety-Related Design Decisions 

on Federal Lands Highway Jobs. 

FHWA Pub. No. 

FHWA and USFWS. 2005. Guidance 

on the Federal Lands Highway 

Refuge Roads Program. 

Green Infrastructure Wiki. 

2010. Access at: http://www.

greeninfrastructurewiki.com/.

Iowa State University Dept. of Civil 

Engineering and Minnesota Dept. 

of Transportation. 2005. Economics 

of Upgrading an Aggregate Road. 

Marriott, Paul Daniel. 1998. Saving 

Historic Roads: Design and Policy 

Guidelines. Preservation Press and 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Maryland National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission and The 

Montgomery County Department 

of Parks and Planning. 1996. Rustic 

Roads Functional Master Plan. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Otto, Sandra. 2000. 

“Environmentally Sensitive Design 

of Transportation Facilities.” 

In Journal of Transportation 

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

363-366.

Regional Road Maintenance 

Technical Working Group 

(Washington) Regional Road 

Maintenance Endangered Species 

Act Program Guidelines. 

Robson, Sara, and James Kingery. 

2006. Idaho Native Plants for 

Roadside Restoration and 

Revegetation Programs. Idaho 

Transportation Department.

USFWS. 2008. Project List 

Meeting Report: Long-Range 

Transportation Plan for the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands 

in Region 1. Report prepared by 

PBS&J.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

Abbreviations

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ABAAS Architectural Barriers Act 

Accessibility Standards

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ASCE American Society of Civil 

Engineers

BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCP Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCR Division of Diversity and Civil 

Rights (FWS Region 1)

EE Environmental Education

ES Ecological Services

ESA Endangered Species Act

FHWA Federal Highway 

Administration

FWCA Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act

FWS U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(also Service, USFWS)

GIS Geographic Information System

LID low impact development

LOS level of service

LRTP Long Range Transportation 

Plan

MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NDS natural drainage system

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

Appendix B: Glossary

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also 

Refuge).

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge 

System

ODOT Oregon Department of 

Transportation

R1 Region 1 of the FWS (HI, ID, 

OR, WA, Pacific Islands)

ROW Right-of-way

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance 

Management System

USDA United States Department of 

Agriculture

USFS United States Forest Service

VMT Vehicle miles traveled

WDFW Washington State 

Department of Fish and Wildlife

WSDOT Washington State 

Department of Transportation

WSPRC Washington State Parks 

and Recreation Commission

WVC Wildlife-vehicle collisions

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Definitions

Adaptive Management. Refers to a 

process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework of 

scientifically driven experiments to 

test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results help managers 

determine whether current 

management should continue as is or 

whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Alternative. Alternatives are 

different means of accomplishing 

Refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the System mission 

(draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

The no action alternative is the 

manner in which the refuge is 

currently managed, while the action 

alternatives are all other 

alternatives.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection 

Act (Federal). This law makes it 

illegal for anyone to take (as defined 

therein) a bald or golden eagle, or 

their parts, nests, or eggs except as 

authorized under a permit. Since 

this law extends protection to eagle 

nests, it may come into play during 

the construction and maintenance of 

transportation infrastructure.

Biological Diversity (also 

Biodiversity). The variety of life and 

its processes, including the variety of 

living organisms, the genetic 

differences among them, and the 

communities and ecosystems in 

which they occur (USFWS Manual 

052 FW 1. 12B). The System’s focus 

is on indigenous species, biotic 

communities, and ecological 

processes.

Biological Integrity. Biotic 

composition, structure, and 

functioning at genetic, organism, and 

community levels comparable with 

historic conditions, including the 

natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and 

communities (NWRS Biological 

integrity policy).

Compatible Use. A wildlifedependent recreational use or any 

other use of a Refuge that, in the 

sound professional judgment of the 

Director, will not materially interfere 

with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the Mission of the System or the 

purposes of the refuge (Service 

Manual 603 FW 3.6). A compatibility 

determination supports the selection 

of compatible uses and identifies 

stipulations or limits necessary to 

ensure compatibility.

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

A document that describes the 

desired future conditions of the 

Refuge, and provides long-range 

guidance and management direction 

for the Refuge manager to 

accomplish the purposes of the 

refuge, contribute to the mission of 

the System, and to meet other 

relevant mandates (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Contaminants (also Environmental 

Contaminants). Chemicals present at 

levels greater than those naturally 

occurring in the environment 

resulting from anthropogenic or 

natural processes that potentially 

result in changes to biota at any 

ecological level (USGS, assessing EC 

threats to lands managed by 

USFWS). Pollutants that degrade 

other resources upon contact or 

mixing (Adapted from Webster’s II).

Cooperative Agreement. This is a 

simple habitat protection action, in 

which no property rights are 

acquired. An agreement is usually 

long term but can be modified by 

either party. They are most effective 

in establishing multiple use 

management of land. An example 

would be a wildlife agreement on a 

Corps reservoir.

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS). A 

theoretical and practical approach to 

transportation decision-making and 

design that takes into consideration 

the communities and lands through 

which streets, roads, and highways 

pass (“the context”). CSS seeks to 

balance the need to move vehicles 

and other transportation modes 

efficiently and safely with other 

desirable outcomes, including 

historic preservation, environmental 

goals such as wildlife and habitat 

conservation and the creation of vital 

public spaces.

Critical Habitat. Areas that are 

essential to the conservation of ESA 

listed species.

Cultural Resources. The physical 

remains, objects, historic records 

and traditional lifeways that connect 

us to our nation’s past (USFWS, 

Considering Cultural Resources).

Disturbance. Significant alteration of 

habitat structure or composition. 

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

Ecosystem. A dynamic and 

interrelating complex of plant and 

animal communities and their 

associated non-living environment.

Ecosystem Management. 

Management of natural resources 

using system-wide concepts to 

ensure that all plants and animals in 

ecosystems are maintained at viable 

levels in native habitats and that 

basic ecosystem processes are 

perpetuated indefinitely.

Environmental Assessment. A 

concise public document, prepared in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

that briefly discusses the purpose 

and need for an action, alternatives 

to such action, and provides 

sufficient evidence and analysis of 

impacts to determine whether an 

environmental impact statement 

must be prepared, or a finding of no 

significant impact can be issued (40 

CFR 1508.9).

Endangered Species Act (Federal). 

The purpose of the ESA is to protect 

and recover endangered and 

threatened species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend. 

Under the ESA, species may be 

listed as either endangered or 

threatened and critical habitat may 

be designated.

ESA Listed Species. A plant or 

animal species listed under the 

Endangered Species Act that is in 

danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range 

(endangered) or likely to become so 

within the foreseeable future 

(threatened).

Environmental Education Facility. A 

building or site with one or more 

classrooms or teaching areas and 

environmental education resources 

to accommodate groups of students.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act 

(Federal). This law provides the basic 

authority for the FWS to evaluate 

impacts to all fish and wildlife from 

proposed water resource development 

projects. This law may come into 

play for transportation projects that 

involve effects to a water body(ies).

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Gap Analysis. Analysis done to 

identify and map elements of 

biodiversity that are not adequately 

represented in the nation’s network 

of reserves. It provides an overview 

of the distribution and conservation 

status of several components of 

biodiversity, with an emphasis 

on vegetation and terrestrial 

vertebrates (Cassidy et al.1997).

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended and 

often broad statement of desired 

future conditions that conveys 

a purpose but does not define 

measurable units (Draft Service 

Manual 620 FW 1.5).

Green infrastructure. A concept and 

approach in which natural assets are 

managed and/or designed to provide 

multiple ecosystem and human 

services, including services such 

as stormwater management, flood 

prevention, carbon sequestration, 

and habitat. Green infrastructure 

includes natural drainage systems 

(NDS) and may be applied as a tool 

in achieving low impact development 

(LID).

Habitat. Suite of existing 

environmental conditions required 

by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an 

organism typically lives.

Habitat Connectivity (Also 

Landscape Connectivity). The 

arrangement of habitats that 

allows organisms and ecological 

processes to move across the 

landscape; patches of similar 

habitats are either close together or 

linked by corridors of appropriate 

vegetation/habitat. The opposite 

of fragmentation (Turnbull NWR 

Habitat Management Plan).

Habitat Management Plan. A plan 

that guides Refuge activities related 

to the maintenance, restoration, 

and enhancement of habitats for the 

benefit of wildlife, fish, and plant 

populations.

Habitat Restoration. Management 

emphasis designed to move 

ecosystems to desired conditions 

and processes and/or to healthy 

ecosystems.

Historic Conditions. Composition, 

structure and functioning of 

ecosystems resulting from natural 

processes that we believe, based on 

sound professional judgment, were 

present prior to substantial human 

related changes to the landscape 

(NWRS Biological integrity policy).

Hydrologic influence. Having an 

effect on water quality and quantity.

Hydrology. A science dealing with 

the properties, distribution and 

circulation of water on and below 

the earth’s surface and in the 

atmosphere (yourdictionary.com).

Indicator. Something that serves as 

a sign or symptom (Webster’s II).

Interpretation. A teaching technique 

that combines factual information 

with stimulating explanation 

(yourdictionary.com). Frequently 

used to help people understand 

natural and cultural resources.

Interpretive Trail. A trail with 

informative signs, numbered 

posts that refer to information in 

a brochure, or where guided talks 

are conducted for the purpose of 

providing factual information and 

stimulating explanations of what 

visitors see, hear, feel, or otherwise 

experience while on the trail.

Landform. A natural feature of a 

land surface (yourdictionary.com).

Landscape Linkages. Landscape 

features linking areas of similar 

habitat. Plants and smaller animals 

are able to use landscape linkages 

to move between larger landscape 

blocks over a period of generations.

Landscape Ecology. The science and 

study of the relationship between 

spatial pattern and ecological 

processes on a wide variety of 

landscape scales and organizational 

levels. 

Low Impact Development (LID). A 

stormwater management strategy 

that emphasizes conservation and 

use of existing natural site features 

integrated with distributed, smallscale stormwater controls to more 

closely mimic natural hydrologic 

patterns. (LID Guidance Manual for 

Puget Sound).

Maintenance. The upkeep of 

constructed facilities, structures and 

capitalized equipment necessary 

to realize the originally anticipated 

useful life of a fixed asset. 

Maintenance includes preventative 

maintenance; cyclic maintenance; 

repairs; replacement of parts, 

components, or items of equipment, 

periodic condition assessment; 

periodic inspections, adjustment, 

lubrication and cleaning (nonjanitorial) of equipment; painting, 

resurfacing, rehabilitation; special 

safety inspections; and other actions 

to assure continuing service and to 

prevent breakdown.

Mesh Size. The average area or 

diameter of the polygons enclosed 

by a road network, as in a fishnet; 

it is proportional to road density 

but focuses on the enclosed parcels 

rather than the roads (Forman 2003).

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

(Federal). This law makes it illegal 

for anyone to take any migratory 

bird, or the parts, nests, or eggs 

of migratory birds, except under 

the terms of a valid permit issued 

pursuant to federal regulations. 

This law can come into play during 

the maintenance and removal of 

transportation infrastructure as well 

as during the construction of new 

structures.

Mission Statement. Succinct 

statement of a unit’s purpose and 

reason for being.

Monitoring. The process of collecting 

information to track changes of 

selected parameters over time.

National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA). Requires all Federal 

agencies, including the Service, 

to examine the environmental 

impacts of their actions, incorporate 

environmental information, and 

use public participation in the 

planning and implementation 

of all actions. Federal agencies 

must integrate NEPA with other 

planning requirements, and prepare 

appropriate NEPA documents to 

facilitate better environmental 

decision making (from 40 CFR 1500).

National Register of Historic 

Places. The Nation’s master 

inventory of known historic 

properties administered by the 

National Park Service. Includes 

buildings, structures, sites, 

objects and districts that possess 

historic, architectural, engineering, 

archeological, or cultural significance 

at the national, state and local levels.

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge (also 

Refuge). A designated area of land, 

water, or an interest in land or water 

within the System.

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS; also System). Various 

categories of areas administered 

by the Secretary of the Interior for 

the conservation of fish and wildlife, 

including species threatened with 

extinction; all lands, waters and 

interests therein administered by 

the Secretary as wildlife refuges; 

areas for the protection and 

conservation of fish and wildlife 

that are threatened with extinction; 

wildlife ranges; games ranges; 

wildlife management areas; or 

waterfowl production areas.

Native. With respect to a particular 

ecosystem, a species that, other 

than as a result of an introduction, 

historically occurred or currently 

occurs in that ecosystem (NWRS 

Biological integrity policy).

Natural Drainage System (NDS). 

A set of stormwater management 

features using plants and specialized 

soils that slow and infiltrate 

stormwater and can help remove 

pollutants through filtration and 

bioremediation. These features—

such as open, vegetated swales, 

stormwater cascades and small rain 

gardens or wet ponds—mimic or 

restore natural functions impeded 

by development. In contrast to pipes 

and vaults, these systems increase in 

functional value over time.

Non-Consumptive Recreation. 

Recreational activities that do 

not involve harvest, removal or 

consumption of fish, wildlife or other 

natural resources.

Noxious Weed. A plant species 

designated by Federal or State law 

as generally possessing one or more 

of the following characteristics: 

aggressive or difficult to manage; 

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious 

insect or disease; or non-native, new, 

or not common to the United States, 

according to the Federal Noxious 

Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious 

weed is one that causes disease 

or has adverse effects on man or 

his environment and therefore is 

detrimental to the agriculture and 

commerce of the United States and 

to the public health.

Nutrient Loading. The presence 

of nutrients, such as nitrogen 

and phosphorus, in waterways 

insufficient amounts to cause effects 

such as algal blooms and oxygen 

depletion, with potentially lethal 

effects on fish and wildlife species.

Operations. Activities related to 

the normal performance of the 

functions for which a facility or item 

of equipment is intended to be used. 

Costs such as utilities (electricity, 

water, sewage) fuel, janitorial 

services, window cleaning, rodent 

and pest control, upkeep of grounds, 

vehicle rentals, waste management 

and personnel costs for operating 

staff are generally included within 

the scope of operations.

Outreach. The process of providing 

information to the public on a 

specific issue through the use of 

the media, printed materials and 

presentations.

Plant Community. An assemblage 

of plant species unique in its 

composition that occurs in particular 

locations, under particular 

influences, which reflect or integrate 

the environmental influences on 

the site, such as soils, temperature, 

elevation, solar radiation, slope, 

aspect and rainfall.

Preferred Alternative. This is the 

alternative determined (by the 

decision maker) to best achieve the 

Refuge purpose, vision and goals; 

that best contributes to the System 

mission and addresses the significant 

issues; and that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife 

management.

Priority Public Uses. Hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental 

education and interpretation were 

identified by the National Wildlife 

Refuge system Improvement Act of 

1997 as the six (“Big Six”) priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System.

Public. Individuals, organizations, 

and groups outside the planning 

team, including officials of Federal, 

State, and local government 

agencies, Indian tribes and foreign 

nations. It includes those who may or 

may not have indicated an interest in 

Service issues and those who may be 

affected by Service decisions.

Refuge Purpose(s). The purpose(s) 

specified in or derived from the 

law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land 

order, donation document, or 

administrative memorandum 

establishing, authorizing, or 

expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, 

or refuge subunit (Draft Service 

Manual 602 EW 1.5).

Restoration. The act of bringing 

back to a former or original condition 

(Webster’s II).

Riparian. An area or habitat that 

is transitional from terrestrial 

to aquatic ecosystems, including 

streams, lakes, wet areas, and 

adjacent plant communities and 

their associated soils which have free 

water at or near the surface; an area 

whose components are directly or 

indirectly attributed to the influence 

of water; and of or relating to a 

river. Specifically applied to ecology, 

“riparian” describes the land 

immediately adjoining and directly 

influenced by streams. For example, 

riparian vegetation includes any 

and all plant life growing on the 

land adjoining a stream and directly 

influenced by the stream.

Road Density. The average total road 

length per unit area of landscape (i.e. 

kilometers per square km, or miles 

per square mile) (Forman 2003).

Road-Effect Zone. The zone of 

influence of a roadway into the 

surrounding areas. Distance 

depends upon the type of effect and 

site conditions (Forman 2003; see 

graphic, p. 308).

Roadway. The suite of typical 

improvements associated with a 

vehicle-focused transportation 

project. This extends from the 

centerline of an existing or proposed 

road outward, to include associated 

infrastructure components such 

as paving, utilities, grading and 

planting. Roadway also refers here 

to other facilities and infrastructure 

commonly associated with vehicular 

transportation, such as parking, 

visitor contact facilities and pullouts. 

From an ecological perspective, 

the roadway conceptually 

includes impacts such as habitat 

fragmentation, habitat disturbance, 

pollution, and aquatic and terrestrial 

species conflicts. 

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

technique or combination of actions, 

tools, and techniques used to meet 

unit objectives (Service Manual 602 

FW 1.5).

Viewpoint. A designated point that 

provides an opportunity to see 

wildlife or habitats of interest. The 

point may or may not be “supported” 

with an interpretive sign. Usually 

the viewpoint is supported by a 

pullout or a parking area.

Visitor Center. A building with 

staff that provides visitors with 

interpretation, education and 

general information about the 

natural and cultural resources of the 

Refuge and the local area.

Visitor Contact Point or Center. A 

kiosk or other location where visitors 

may go to learn about Refuge 

resources, facilities, trails, etc.

Vision Statement. A concise 

statement of the desired future 

condition of the planning unit, based 

primarily upon the System mission, 

specific Refuge purposes and other 

relevant mandates (Service Manual 

602 FW 1.5).

Watershed. The region or area 

drained by a river system or other 

body of water (Webster’s II).

Wetlands. Transitional lands 

between terrestrial and aquatic 

systems where the water table is 

usually at or near the surface or the 

land is covered by shallow water 

at some time each year (Service 

Manual 660 FW 2). 

 Permanent wetland - a wetland 

basin or portion of a basin that is 

covered with water throughout 

the year in all years except 

extreme drought. Typically, the 

basin bottom is vegetated with 

submerged aquatic plant species, 

including milfoil, coontail and 

pondweeds.

 Semi-permanent wetland - a 

wetland basin or portion of 

a basin where surface water 

persists throughout the growing 

season of most years. Typical 

vegetation is composed of cattails 

and bulrushes.

 Seasonal wetland - a wetland 

basin or portion of a basin where 

surface water is present in the 

early part of the growing season 

but is absent by the end of the 

season in most years. Typically 

vegetated with sedges, rushes, 

spikerushes or burreed. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreation. 

Hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation. These 

are also referred to as the priority 

public uses of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System or “Big Six”.

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

August 2012