Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive Summary

Existing Conditions and Future Trends

I. Introduction

II. Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Recommendations

III. Summary of Current Stakeholder Outreach

IV. Funding and Financial Gap

V. Project Selection Process

VI. Plan Implementation and Future Use

Appendix
Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Executive Summary

Southeast Region

February 2015

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-i

Front page photo credits (clockwise from top left): Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Cristina Pastore, J.N. “Ding”

Darling NWR; Steve Suder, Alligator River NWR; Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Joe Saenz, Black Bayou Lake

NWR.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-1

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION TO THE FWS REGION 4 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

The Southeast Region (Region 4) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, the Service) has

initiated the development of its first Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). With the assistance of

the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA), the Service’s Southeast Region (FWS Region 4) is developing a twenty-year plan for the

preservation, enhancement, operations and maintenance of its transportation assets across all of its

national wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries in the southeastern states and U.S. outlying areas. The

FWS regional boundaries are shown in Figure 1. Region 4 states, territories, and station locations

are shown in Figure 2.

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

This plan accomplishes the following:

· Assesses the current and future conditions of the Service’s transportation assets.

· Determines transportation needs, as well as the identification of those potential projects and

policies to address those needs.

· Establishes priorities based on project performance, available funding, and coordination

opportunities with other federal, state, and local agencies.

Prior to the commencement of this regional plan, the development of a national level long-range

transportation plan for the Fish and Wildlife Service was initiated. The primary purpose of the national

plan was to define the overall transportation policy direction for the entire Service as well as for

individual regions. Similar to Region 4, many of the other regions across the country have been
ES-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

completing plans of their own. These plans will aid in the Service’s mission to “work with others to

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

the American people”1 by assisting each region with the development of a safe, efficient, and

sustainable transportation system on Service lands.

Figure 2: Region 4 States and Stations

This Long Range Transportation Plan will assist Region 4 in determining its many transportation

needs, prioritizing transportation projects to best utilize the funds currently available to the Service,

and aid in the development of partnerships with outside agencies for coordinated planning

opportunities. This plan also will help to more formally integrate transportation planning into the

refuges’ comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and the fish hatcheries’ comprehensive hatchery

management plans (CHMPs) to make better use of their existing planning processes.

MISSION AND GOALS

The Mission of the FWS Region 4 LRTP is to support the Service’s larger national mission by

connecting people to fish, wildlife, and their habitats through strategic implementation of

transportation programs.

The goals of this Region 4 transportation plan reflect the six basic categories defined in the FWS

National LRTP document. Each of the enhanced FWS Region 4 goals includes distinct objectives

that explain how the Service will accomplish each goal. The FWS Region 4 LRTP’s goals and

objectives are detailed below.

1

 http://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-3

Goal 1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity: Ensure that units open to public visitation have

adequate access, mobility, and connectivity for all potential users, including underserved,

underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations.

Goal 2 – Asset Management: Provide a financially sustainable transportation system to

satisfy current and future land management needs in the face of a changing climate.

Goal 3 – Coordinated Opportunities: Seek partnered transportation solutions that support the

Service’s mission, maximize the utility of Service

resources, and provide mutual benefits to the Service

and its external partners.

Goal 4 – Environment: Ensure that the transportation

program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife,

and plant resources and their habitats.

Goal 5 – Safety: Provide a transportation system that

ensures visitors traveling to and within Service lands

arrive at their destinations safely.

Goal 6 – Visitor Experience: Create and sustain

enjoyable and welcoming transportation experiences

for all visitors.

REGION 4 BACKGROUND

Region 4 is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s largest region in the country, in terms of the number

of transportation assets it contains. Region 4 contains 128 national wildlife refuges and 17 national

fish hatcheries, comprising approximately 3.59 million acres of land and water across ten states and

two territories: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of the

128 refuges, 113 are open to the public for visitation at specified time periods throughout the year; all

17 hatcheries allow public visitation as well. Sixteen of the refuges were specifically established for

the preservation and protection of endangered species.

Region 4 maintains an extensive system of transportation infrastructure, including roads, trails, parking

lots, bridges, culverts, and low-water crossings. The roads, trails, and parking lots are primarily gravel or

native/primitive surfaces, with some additional high-use facilities that have been constructed with either

asphalt or concrete materials.

Approximately 3,500 miles of Service roadways exist within Region 4, of which close to 1,500 miles

are open to the public. The remaining 2,000 miles are for administrative use only by Service staff.

Similarly, of the approximately 1,700 parking lots and 350 miles of trails maintained by Region 4,

about 1,400 parking lots and 220 miles of trails are open to the public. This compares to over 7,000

miles of roadways, 4,500 parking lots, and 1,400 miles of trails in the entire Service’s nationwide

transportation asset inventory. As one of the eight regions, Region 4 comprises a significant amount

of the overall transportation assets of the Service nationally.

This Long Range

Transportation Plan will assist

Region 4 in determining its

many transportation needs,

prioritizing transportation

projects to best utilize the

funds currently available to

the Service, and aid in the

development of partnerships

with outside agencies for

coordinated planning

opportunities.
ES-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS

Transportation assets receive funding based on condition, importance, and need. The intent of any

LRTP is to identify future needs and plan for them proactively. Thus, it is imperative to understand the

current and evolving state of transportation in Region 4 to look forward and plan for the future. The

data provided in the Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report helps to inform the identification of

improvement areas and needs to assist in the process of selecting projects.

GOAL 1 – ACCESS, MOBILITY, AND CONNECTIVITY

Access, mobility, and connectivity collectively ensure that both visitors and refuge staff can have

travel-mode choices to equitably, easily, and conveniently travel to, from, and within Service units.

Access addresses the ability of people of all ages, economic groups, and physical abilities, as well

as underrepresented populations, to visit Service units. Mobility considers the ease and convenience

for visitors to travel to, from, and within Service units using a preferred mode. Finally, connectivity

addresses the potential to link many modes, both inside and outside units, to maximize possibilities

for transportation connections.

The LRTP considered a wide range of spatial metrics for this goal, including access to stations by road,

bicycle and trail, transit, water, and air. Spatial analysis through Geographic Information Systems (GIS)

was used to complete some of this analysis, while qualitative information also was gathered from the

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation2 (RATE) survey. Some highlights from the analysis are

included below:

· Approximately 50% of stations are within one-half mile of a navigable waterway with 18 stations

within a half mile of both an inland and marine route.

· According to the RATE survey, almost a third of visitors reach stations using water-based

transportation.

· Scenic Byways traverse 15 Service units and pass within 10 miles of 60% of the units (79

refuges and nine hatcheries).

· Recreational trail information was available for Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina.

Of the 57 refuges and hatcheries within the four states, 20 intersect or are adjacent to facilities

that support walking, biking, or multi-use activities and an additional 22 are located within one

mile of such facilities.

GOAL 2 – ASSET MANAGEMENT

The Service’s transportation system is necessary for refuge and hatchery staff and visitors to safely

and easily access as well as enjoy the national network of conserved and maintained lands and

waters, but it must be maintained sustainably for future generations. The Service at a national level

has implemented an asset management plan that is consistent with the Asset Management Plan

20093 to manage its diverse set of transportation-related assets in order to provide the best level of

service with the available resources.

Assets maintained by the Service are inventoried in both the Service Asset Maintenance

Management System (SAMMS) and the Road Inventory Program (RIP) databases. RIP is collected

on a cyclical basis every five years by the FHWA’s Eastern and Central Federal Lands Highway

Divisions on behalf of the Service. RIP data served as the primary source for the analysis of this goal

2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)

3 Asset Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management, 2009)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-5

area. Figure 3 shows the variation of road conditions for each of the five pavement materials for

public use roads in Region 4. Some highlights include:

· According to RIP, Region 4 contains the largest number of inventoried public use roadway

miles, 1,463.9 miles, compared to the next highest inventoried road miles in Regions 6 and 2,

which have approximately 944 miles and 818 public use miles, respectively.

· Of the 1,463.9 total public road miles, 75.5% (1,105.4 miles) are in “good” or “excellent”

condition. Only 5.3% (77.9 miles) are in “poor” or “failed” condition.

· More than 75% of the public use road miles inventoried, or 1,107.4 miles, are gravel roads.

The remaining 25% consist of native and primitive surfaces (245.7 miles or 16.8%); asphalt

(110.8 miles or 7.6%); and concrete (0.06 miles or <0.1%).

· Nearly 88% of the public use trails (199.0 miles) are classified as being in “excellent”

condition. Only 1.3% (2.9 miles) is classified as being in “poor” or “very poor” condition.

· For units that have more than one acre of parking, only 14 have more than 10% of their

parking surfaces rated in “poor” or “failing” condition. An equal number of units have more

than 80% of their parking surfaces rated as being in “good” or “excellent” condition.

Figure 3: Public Cycle 4 RIP Section Conditions by Surface Type

While many of the transportation assets maintained by Region 4 are in “good” or “excellent” condition,

Region 4 is working to reduce their Deferred Maintenance (DM) backlog. Currently, road repairs and

maintenance are estimated the same despite differences in mission support, design, or usage,

resulting in inflated costs for roadway maintenance. The Service has created a new tiering structure

that will complement the existing asset codes and classifications while addressing other critical

aspects of design, usage and maintenance, and how it supports the overall mission and purpose of

the station. In future RIP inventories, administrative roads and low tier roadways may not be

inventoried and included in DM estimations.

GOAL 3 – COORDINATED OPPORTUNITIES

Transportation resources can be used to help support the mission of the Service. As a result,

coordinated opportunities with other entities can go beyond merely leveraging funding and

1107 miles

240

111

6 0.06

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Gravel Native Asphalt Primitive Concrete

Mile

s

Co

n

ditio

n (p

erce

nt)

Failed Poor Fair Good Excellent Total Miles
ES-6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

perhaps consider broader maintenance goals that would be mutually beneficial to both the

partner(s) and the Service. Identifying key partners in the region and at the unit level will be a

valuable exercise to consider during future planning and coordination. The Service’s mission to

work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the American people is perfectly aligned with considering partnerships and

coordination with other non-Service entities.

GIS was used once again to identify possible partners through analysis of political boundaries

that intersect or are near to Region 4 refuges and hatcheries. Some highlights include the

following:

· Florida and Louisiana host the greatest numbers of refuges in the Southeast, with 30 and

24 refuges and hatcheries within their borders, respectively.

· Seven refuges within Region 4 straddle state lines, including one that intersects the

Commonwealth of Virginia, outside of the northern boundary of Region 4 and extending

into the territory of FWS Region 5 (Northeast).

· Refuges and hatcheries are located within 183 counties, parishes, and municipios (Puerto

Rico) with 58 refuges crossing more than one county boundary and 23 crossing more than

two counties.

· A total of 40 refuges and fish hatcheries intersect the planning boundaries of 30 separate

metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

· Only 10 Region 4 refuges and two hatcheries are not located within 5 miles from another

federal land management agency area. Five of those are located on small isolated islands.

GOAL 4 – ENVIRONMENT

The National Wildlife Refuge System provides benefits to human communities as well as wildlife

populations. Protecting natural habitats, wetlands, coastal resources, grasslands, forests, and

wildernesses, refuges maintain and even improve air and water quality. They have the potential to

relieve flooding from the built (manmade) environment, improve soil quality, and help trap

greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. However, while the Refuge System can alleviate

stresses on surrounding areas, it is important to also consider the effects that the surrounding built

environment may have on the System.

For this goal area, analyses were performed to identify the proximity of environmentally sensitive

areas to refuges and hatcheries. Some interesting results are included below:

· One hundred (100) of the 145 Southeast Region Service Units (about 69% of all units) are

home to at least one species listed as endangered or threatened, of which 87 units serve to

protect species that are listed as endangered.

· Over a third of the Service’s Region 4 units (47) intersect areas or waterways identified as

critical habitats for 29 different species.

· In Alabama, Cahaba River NWR supports the largest number of species with designated

critical habitats (eight species).

· Region 4 has 19 refuges with designated wilderness areas located in six states.

· 110 of the Region’s 145 units (about 76%) intersect at least one classified wetland system.

In addition to LRTP efforts across the country, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) worked

closely with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service on a project known

as “Strategic Research Initiative: Integration of Federal Lands Management Agency Transportation

Data, Planning, and Practices with Climate Change Scenarios to Develop a Transportation

Management Tool (2014).” This project, conducted by ICF International, is a separate yet parallel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-7

effort to the LRTP planning process. Two components, Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation

Planning, are being considered as a part of the tool. The Vulnerability Assessment takes into account

a large amount of data to determine which park and refuge transportation assets are the most

vulnerable to climate change.

Photo Credits: Joe Saenz, Black Bayou Lake NWR; Cristina Pastore, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR

Once identified, the staff from the parks and refuges can work with the FHWA and ICF International

team to determine the best adaptation options for each. Results from the climate change analyses

and research provide an environmental context to the larger transportation assessment and

recommendations.

GOAL 5 – SAFETY

The Service supports reliable and safe access to and from its network of lands and waters.

Roadways, while an essential component of the national transportation system, can be hazardous

due to road pavement conditions, traffic volumes, high speeds, and the potential for both vehiclevehicle and vehicle-wildlife collisions.

Safety is a concern not only for refuge and hatchery staff and visitors but also for wildlife. Roadways

are a major component of the United States transportation system, and FWS areas located near high

speed, high volume roadways pose greater risks for vehicle-wildlife collisions.

An analysis of safety hot-spots was conducted to determine areas requiring additional focus. Four key

criteria were considered, including 1) high volume roadways within a mile of a unit, 2) high vehicle

collision rates or fatalities within one mile of a unit, 3) road conditions considered to be “poor” or “very

poor,” and 4) high Asset Priority Index (API) according to the Service.

· In FWS Region 4, 51 refuges and four fish hatcheries qualified for at least one of the criteria

above. Of those, 35 refuges and three hatcheries each have one criterion that falls within the

95th percentile for that specific criterion.

· Twenty-two total units qualified for at least two criteria, with three, Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR, Pinckney Island NWR and Waccamaw NWR, qualifying for three criteria including high

annual average daily traffic volumes (AADTs), high vehicle collision rates, and high API.

· Only one unit qualified for all four categories, and managed to do so in the 95th percentile of

reported data for three of the four (Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery in Tupelo, MS).
ES-8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

GOAL 6 – VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Visitation is one way the Service can support its mission to grant current and future generations the

opportunity to interact with wild lands, fish, wildlife, and plant species, where appropriate. People care

about what they can experience, and the knowledge that they gain from the experiences. Thus, in the

end, promoting the relevance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the lives of Americans is about

access. Wildlife refuges should be accessible to all, regardless of an individual’s location or physical

abilities.4

Information examined in regard to this goal area came from the Refuge Annual Performance Plans

(RAPP), analysis of the US Census, and the RATE survey results. Some interesting highlights from

the analysis include the following:

· According to the RATE report’s findings, 44 percent of the FWS Region 4 stations do not

believe that their refuge or fish hatchery has sufficient signage present on access roads and

trails.5

· For the system of refuges and fish hatcheries that are open to the public, the local population

within a 25-mile radius of the Region 4 system stations increased from 24.3 million people to

26.8 million people (an increase of about 2.5 million persons or about 10.4%) from 2000 to

2010 (excluding residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands).6

· Population is expected to grow between 2010 and 2030 from 26.0 million people (excluding

residents of both Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands7) to 30.5 million people (an increase

of about 4.5 million persons or 17.2%) within the same 25-mile radius of the R-4 stations.

· The percent of the total regional population classified as living in poverty who are estimated to

be residing within a 25-mile radius of all refuges and fish hatcheries in the Southeast Region

is 17.3%,8 which is higher than the overall national poverty rate of 15.9%9.

Photo Credit: Donald McIntosh, J.N. Ding Darling NWR

SUMMARY OF CURRENT STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

The LRTP has included multiple levels of stakeholder outreach, resulting in valuable insight into the

processes, operations, and transportation considerations of the Southeast Region of the Fish and

4 Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation, USFWS October 2011.

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)

6

 Using 2000 and 2010 county-level census data; excluding the U.S. Virgin Islands, where data is only available for 2000.

7

 State Population Predictions by county – various sources

8

 US 2010 Decennial Census and American Community Survey data, excluding U.S. Virgin Islands

9

 US Census 2011: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-9

Wildlife Service and its individual stations. The following groups of stakeholders have been involved

in the process:

· Project Management Team, PMT (FWS Region 4, FWS Headquarters, and Eastern Federal

Lands Highway Division of the Federal Highway Administration) – This team coordinated on a

regular basis with the Consultant Team to guide the completion of the LRTP document.

· Coordination Team (FWS national, regional, refuge, and hatchery leaders from across the

Southeast Region along with members of the PMT) – This team served as a sounding board

for the PMT, provided feedback on the overall planning process, plan Goals and Objectives,

productive ways to engage the individual stations for data collection and input, and opinions

on final deliverables and their value to the region and stations.

· Regional Leadership (Division Chief of Budget & Facility Management and Branch Chief of

Facility Management, as well as others) – These regional leaders participated in some

Coordination Team meetings and provided input into the process and supplementary tools

along the way.

· Station Leadership (Refuge and Hatchery Management)

o The station leaders participated in Area calls and webinars at three key points in the

process: 1) Kick-off, 2) Draft Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report, and 3) Draft

Recommendations Report. These webinars allowed for both the dissemination of

information to station managers about the planning process and the gathering of

valuable feedback from them on report deliverables.

o Refuge and hatchery leadership also was asked to participate in one substantial data

call consisting of the RATE survey and additional planning-related questions.

FUNDING AND FINANCIAL GAP

A NEW SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BILL

With the October 1, 2012 effective date of the newest federal surface transportation bill, Moving

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the structure of federal funding programs has

changed since its predecessor, SAFETEA-LU. This LRTP includes details on current key funding

sources through MAP-21 as well as other non-traditional funding mechanisms that have previously

awarded funds to the Service, or could be possible future funding sources. Under MAP-21, many

discretionary grant programs that were provided to the FWS have been eliminated or consolidated

into programs with broader applicability. New funding programs focus on performance of the

transportation system, setting key transportation goals, and focusing on high-use and recreational

areas in particular.

While many familiar SAFETEA-LU discretionary grant programs no longer exist in MAP-21, the

magnitude of future funding levels to support the FWS transportation program, and particularly

Region 4 funding levels, are not anticipated to experience significant change from that which has

been observed since 2006 when the initial SAFETEA-LU allocations were set. It is anticipated that

future surface transportation bills beyond MAP-21 will likely continue to provide Region 4 with an

annual amount comparable to the current $5.83 million annual allocation. The LRTP focuses on

current funding allocation, while additional consideration is given to new transportation funding

opportunities that could be explored through partnerships with outside agencies.

KEY FUNDING SOURCES

The LRTP has identified the most relevant existing and new funding programs for the FWS, including

the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), and
ES-10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP). Additional sources are detailed in the Funding and

Financial Gap section of this report.

· While Federal Agencies are not eligible to apply for or receive funds directly, FLAP authorizes

improvements on State or Local access facilities that connect to Federal Lands, benefitting the

FLMAs.

· FLTP authorizes funding for improvements on transportation related assets within the Federal

estate that are generally owned and maintained by the respective FLMA.

· TAP combines several previous funding programs, including the Transportation

Enhancements and Recreational Trails Programs which state and local agencies can use to

enhance FLMA transportation facilities and services.

MAP-21 also has set a clear intention for agencies to coordinate projects and funding to mutually

benefit a variety of users and agencies. For example, FLAP funds go directly to non-Federal entities

such as state or local government agencies, but are intended to specifically improve access to

Federal Lands. This makes it important for FLMAs to coordinate and collaborate directly with adjacent

state, county or local government agencies. The Service’s mission to work with others to conserve,

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

American people is perfectly aligned with considering partnerships and coordination with other

non-Service entities. The LRTP already emphasizes this coordination through Goal 3 – Coordinated

Opportunities. Identifying key partners in the region and at the unit level will be a valuable

exercise to consider during future planning and coordination of funding, particularly through MAP21 programs.

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES

While the majority of transportation funds for Region 4 are anticipated to come directly through either

the FLAP or FLTP programs, it is important to consider alternative means to fill funding gaps and

finance transportation projects. Whether through other programs in MAP-21 or from non-Federal

sources at the state or local levels, transportation funding can be leveraged from a variety of

programs throughout the country.

The Emergency Relief for Federal Roads Program (ERFO) and the Emergency Relief Program (ER)

are two programs that have provided relief for repairs and replacement needed due to serious

damage from presidentially declared natural disasters or catastrophic failure from an external cause.

While these programs have obvious limitation to applicability, Region 4 currently has $2.3 million in

active emergency relief projects. Additional funding sources that have not yet been utilized by FWS

Region 4 are described in detail in the Funding and Financial Gap chapter.

REGION 4 ASSET CONDITIONS AND FINANCIAL GAP

FWS Region 4 contains a very large share of both public-use and overall national FWS transportation

infrastructure assets, as inventoried in RIP and SAMMS. In general, the majority of Region 4 public

road and trail miles are in ‘good’ or better condition, while parking surface conditions include nearly

60% of total acreage in ‘good’ or better condition. While these inventories suggest that Region 4 is

managing its transportation assets very well, maintaining funding levels for routine maintenance to

keep these assets rated in ‘good’ or ‘better’ condition is essential to sustain and improve public

transportation facilities for the long haul.

Two plans focusing on transportation assets and funding have recently been completed at the

national level: The Fish and Wildlife Service National Reauthorization 2013 Prioritization Pilot and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-11

Work Optimization Analyses Report10 and the PLAN 2035 – the National Long Range Transportation

Plan.

11 The 2013 Prioritization Pilot concluded that $30 million are being spent annually throughout

the entire FWS. In order to complete an enhanced transportation program, approximately $60 million

would be needed, and to complete a fully implemented plan, $95 million would be needed. At the

highest level of implementation, that equates to an annual funding shortfall of approximately $65

million.

The report also determined that Region 4 paved roadway assets make up 24.4% of the national

assets (25% was used to approximate the regional share of other assets such as bridges, trails,

transit assets, etc.). Therefore, in order to implement an enhanced program or fully implemented

program at the regional level, approximately $14.8 million and $23.4 million would be required each

year, respectively. Assuming a 3% annual inflation rate, this equates to a total need of $321.6 million

and $509.4 million, respectively, through FY 2030. Considering the $5.83 million annual funding

allocation that is anticipated to continue for Region 4, there is estimated to be a total of approximately

$99.1 million available through FY 2030,

which results in a cumulative funding gap of

$222.5 million for an enhanced program or

funding gap of $17.6 million at year one,

and a funding gap of $31.7 million at year

16, with a cumulative funding gap of $410.3

million for the fully implemented funding

scenario.

The current level of transportation funding

available to Region 4 limits the Service’s

ability to maintain current assets and to

implement new innovative and meaningful

projects, now and in the future. New

sources of funding should be explored

wherever possible, including opportunities

to partner with neighboring jurisdictions on

mutually beneficial projects.

The Service’s Deferred Maintenance (DM)

backlog has been a high profile topic since

Congressional Hearings in 2011. The

magnitude of funds indicated in the national

backlog at that time were astronomical and

likely lacked informed differentiation

between asset design, use, and maintenance needs, which resulted in a highly inflated bottom line.

In parallel with the FWS Region 4 LRTP development process, the FWS Roads Tiers and Decision

Tree was employed to complement existing asset classifications and address additional critical

aspects of design, usage and maintenance to better inform maintenance and funding needs. These

tools are discussed in the Asset Management chapter of the Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Report and are anticipated to help mitigate some of the estimated funding gap by better interpreting

the usage and maintenance needs of transportation assets.

10 Fish and Wildlife Service National Reauthorization 2013 Prioritization Pilot and Work Optimization Analyses Report

(Stantec, 2013)

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service PLAN 2035 the National Long Range Transportation Plan (2014)

Figure 3: Region 4 Transportation Funding Gap

for a Fully Implemented Funding Plan
ES-12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

The culmination of the LRTP effort is the development of an enhanced project selection process. In

light of guidance set forth by MAP-21, performance-based planning will be at the core of all

transportation funding decision-making. It is imperative that the refuges and hatcheries in Region 4

develop creative and impactful transportation projects that can compete not only within the region but

also at the federal level within the FWS, with other FLMAs, and within regions and states across the

country.

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION

The Southeast Region of the Service annually updates and develops a 5-year project plan for

transportation improvements, which includes both asset management projects and more substantial

capital projects. Of the $5.8 million that the region annually receives through MAP-21, $250,000 is set

aside for regraveling projects and an additional $140,000 is set aside for urgent bridge repairs. The

remaining funding of approximately $5.4 million is used for larger capital projects.

Currently, stations notify the region of various project needs, and the region creates a list of potential

projects. This list is then submitted to area managers for their review and feedback. With the

assistance of area managers, the region creates a 5-year project plan for implementation. Much of

the project identification process will remain the same as it has been, but performance-based

requirements of MAP-21 will necessitate a more quantitative analysis of projects. A Project Evaluation

Tool has been developed as part of the FWS Region 4 LRTP process to assist in project prioritization.

PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND TOOL

The Project Evaluation Criteria and Tool provides station, region, and national leadership with a

quantitative process for evaluating transportation projects. The projects that provide higher

transportation value should be funded before those that provide lower value. The National LRTP for

the Fish and Wildlife Service outlines six primary metric categories for the evaluation and selection of

projects. Region 4 has maintained those six categories and has included subcategory metrics using

National Plan guidance, analysis conducted through the regional LRTP process, and RATE survey

responses from station leadership.

The six project evaluation categories are provided below:

1. Improves transportation safety

2. Improves “state of good repair” of transportation assets

3. Enhances transportation choices to, from, and within FWS stations

4. Enhances environmental conditions in the field and/or helps to meet programmatic goals

5. Meets a local priority: (a) documented in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), (b)

other transportation plan; (c) is within a Region’s high-use or urban station; or (d) provides

economic benefit to local partners

6. Supports transportation partnerships and leveraging of transportation funds/programs to

benefit FWS

An illustration of a portion of the project evaluation worksheet associated with the “Improves

Transportation Safety” category is presented below. This tool will be used to assist Regional

leadership with the identification of priority projects across the Region. Technical merit is part of the

prioritization process, as it is in all planning processes, but stakeholder involvement also will play an

important role. Qualitative considerations for project prioritization will include availability of funds,

project development delivery schedules, and time constraints for right-of-way and environmental
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-13

work. Area, regional, and national leadership will discuss high-scoring projects from a qualitative

perspective to determine which projects should be advanced for implementation.

PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE USE

LRTP USE BY THE REGION

The Long Range Transportation Plan is meant primarily to serve as a regional planning document.

The Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report provides a regional snapshot of transportation

assets and needs with additional detail listed by station in the Appendix document. The

Recommendations Report includes policy guidance and evaluation tools that the region can use to

prioritize projects in light of new federal funding guidance and the FWS National LRTP that seeks to

fund projects that will provide a strong return on investment. The Recommendations Report also

includes suggested data collection efforts that the region or individual stations should consider over

the next few years prior to the next update of the LRTP.

Stations for Further Transportation Study – Regional Evaluation Tool

The Project Evaluation Tool is an important resource for prioritizing transportation projects within the

region by determining which projects provide the greatest value. Another tool has been created as

part of the Region 4 LRTP effort that provides value at an earlier stage of the transportation planning

process. The Stations for Further Transportation Study tool is meant to be primarily an evaluation tool

for use by regional staff to determine which refuges and hatcheries may warrant further, more

detailed transportation study.

Project Evaluation Tool - Criteria Excerpt
ES-14 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

The tool uses only information that has been analyzed or gathered as a part of the Region 4 LRTP or

the voluntary RATE survey responses collected from station management. It scores each refuge on a

scale of 0 to 100 points. Metrics are broken down into the six main goal areas of the LRTP. Each goal

has multiple metrics for which the refuges can score points, and awarded points identify areas where

there is a need or challenge that could be rectified with transportation enhancements that would

require further analysis. Thus, stations with the highest scores can be considered for additional

detailed transportation study.

LRTP USE BY STATIONS

The LRTP document is valuable for regional-level planning; however, it can be challenging for

individual stations to extract relevant local-level information that is useful for their planning efforts.

Recognizing this difficulty, as well as a lack of time and resources to consider the full LRTP process

at the station and regional levels, some additional tools and resources were developed as a part of

the LRTP process to provide greater value at the station level.

Incorporating Transportation into CCPs

The primary resource that the LRTP will provide at the station level is through production of an

amendment to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for refuges to incorporate

transportation considerations. Regional funding for CCPs has been discontinued at this time;

however, refuges have the option to update their CCPs on their own. While CCPs may not be done

regularly, the PMT decided to amend the necessary documents to include transportation so that any

refuge deciding to update their plan will have the tools to adequately consider transportation. These

documents include Station Fact Sheets, the User Guide, an updated Work Plan, and an updated

Template. It is important to remember that the LRTP is a long range planning document with a 20-

year planning horizon. Future federal funding levels are not known at this time, and it is practical to

anticipate changes that may occur 5-10 years from now. A similar process can be undertaken to

update Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plans (CHMPs) as well.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN

Stakeholder input is critical to the success of any planning project, no matter the size. It is important

to recognize that different types of outreach are applicable to different types of planning efforts. The

following guidance is provided to assist the region and its stations with tailoring outreach to the scale

and intensity of the plan.

LRTPs for FLMAs

LRTPs are by nature multi-decade plans that consider large geographic areas. In the case of the

Region 4 FWS LRTP, the plan has developed 20-year capital investment and maintenance needs

estimates and recommendations for stations across ten states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands. It is thus prohibitively expensive and time consuming to conduct traditional outreach through

public meetings and open houses in multiple locations. Following the completion of this plan, the

Regional Transportation Program Manager with support from other regional, area, and station staff

should reach out to key state and regional transportation planning agencies and other FLMAs to

advertise the completion of the plan. The plan should be posted on the Region 4 website as well as

the websites of individual refuges and hatcheries where they exist. The notice of availability of the

FWS Region 4 LRTP will also be published in the Federal Register, which will provide an additional

opportunity for broad public access to the plan.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 ES-15

Transportation step-down plans and other small area studies

Small area plans allow for more localized outreach efforts than the higher-level LRTP due to the

shorter planning horizon and smaller study area. Some of these plans include subregional plans

between a smaller grouping of stations (such as a refuge complex) or in partnership with other

FLMAs as well as transportation step-down plans at individual refuges or hatcheries. In addition to

gathering input within the Service and EFLHD, it also is prudent to engage relevant local, regional,

and state agencies whose boundaries overlap with Service boundaries. Outreach to the general

public as well as to refuge and hatchery visitors and Friends Groups is not only feasible but strongly

encouraged at this scale as well.

Project studies

Project-level studies are the smallest and most focused of all the planning studies and therefore

encourage a more targeted outreach plan than some of the broader studies. In addition to the general

public meetings and surveys, stakeholders directly impacted by the project must also be involved. At

this scale, all projects using federal funding must comply with the NEPA process, which includes

public outreach during project scoping and feasibility, the draft environmental document, and the final

environmental document. In the case of a Categorical Exclusion, less public outreach may be

required.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PLAN ACTIVITIES

This is the first ever Long Range Transportation Plan for the Southeast Region of the Service, and

many opportunities for additional data collection, process and policy refinement, and outreach and

partnership have been identified for future planning activities. Additionally, transportation conditions

and needs change over time, so aspects that were not considered as a part of this plan may need to

be studied in the future.

One overarching data collection item to which FWS Region 4 should commit will be the continued

search for updates in available geospatial information system (GIS) databases. Cataloging resources

in GIS is an ongoing process throughout the U.S., including updates to keep up with changes in the

landscape of the built environment in proximity to existing and any future Region 4 stations.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Executive Summary

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1 800/344 WILD

http://www.fws.gov

February 2015
Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Southeast Region

May 2013

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 i

Front page photo credits (clockwise from top left): Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Cristina Pastore, J.N. “Ding”

Darling NWR; Steve Suder, Alligator River NWR; Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Joe Saenz, Black Bayou Lake

NWR.
ii U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 1-1

Purpose and Need ................................................................................................................. 1-2

Sequestration ................................................................................................................ 1-3

Mission, Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................... 1-3

Region 4 Background ............................................................................................................. 1-6

National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries ................................................ 1-6

Region 4 Transportation System ................................................................................... 1-6

Primary Audience ................................................................................................................... 1-7

Project Leaders ............................................................................................................. 1-7

Regional Level .............................................................................................................. 1-7

National Level ............................................................................................................... 1-7

Potential Partners .......................................................................................................... 1-8

Public Involvement ................................................................................................................. 1-8

Plan Overview ........................................................................................................................ 1-8

2. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS ................................................................ 2-1

Access, Mobility, and Connectivity.......................................................................................... 2-1

Air ................................................................................................................................. 2-3

Water ............................................................................................................................ 2-3

Surface Transportation .................................................................................................. 2-6

Asset Management .............................................................................................................. 2-23

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ................................................................................... 2-24

Roads ......................................................................................................................... 2-27

Trails ........................................................................................................................... 2-29

Parking ........................................................................................................................ 2-31

Coordinated Opportunities .................................................................................................... 2-32

Political Boundaries ..................................................................................................... 2-33

National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Nonattainment Areas ................................. 2-34

Other Protected Areas................................................................................................. 2-34

Transportation Systems .............................................................................................. 2-39

Environment ......................................................................................................................... 2-39

Endangered and At-Risk Species ................................................................................ 2-40

Critical Habitats ........................................................................................................... 2-42

Special Management Areas ........................................................................................ 2-44

National Wetlands Inventory........................................................................................ 2-45

Coastal Barrier Resources System.............................................................................. 2-48

FEMA National Flood Hazard Layer ............................................................................ 2-49

National Ambient Air Quality Standards – Nonattainment Areas ................................. 2-51

Climate Change .......................................................................................................... 2-54

Safety ................................................................................................................................... 2-56

Roadway Network Conditions ..................................................................................... 2-57

Collisions..................................................................................................................... 2-61

Traffic Volumes ........................................................................................................... 2-64

Safety Hot Spots ......................................................................................................... 2-65

Visitor Experience ................................................................................................................ 2-70

Transportation Systems .............................................................................................. 2-70

Population and Demographic Trends .......................................................................... 2-71
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 iii

LIST OF FIGURES

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

Figure 1-2: Region 4 States and Stations ......................................................................................... 1-2

Figure 2-1: Refuges Accessible by Water Only ................................................................................ 2-5

Figure 2-2: Existing Major Transportation Facilities in Region 4 ....................................................... 2-7

Figure 2-3: Florida Bus and Fixed-Guideway Transit...................................................................... 2-11

Figure 2-4: Recreational Trails in Florida ....................................................................................... 2-15

Figure 2-5: Bicycle Routes in Georgia ............................................................................................ 2-16

Figure 2-6: Recreational Trails in Kentucky .................................................................................... 2-17

Figure 2-7: Bicycle Routes in North Carolina ................................................................................. 2-18

Figure 2-8: Road Tiers - FWS Decision Tree................................................................................. 2-26

Figure 2-9: Public Cycle 4 RIP Section Conditions by Surface Type .............................................. 2-28

Figure 2-10: Service Units that Straddle State Boundaries ............................................................ 2-35

Figure 2-11: MPOs with One or Multiple Service Units .................................................................. 2-36

Figure 2-12: Other Protected Areas near Region 4 Service Units.................................................. 2-38

Figure 2-13: Refuges Specifically Established for Endangered Species ........................................ 2-43

Figure 2-14: Critical Habitats Intersected by Major Interstates ....................................................... 2-44

Figure 2-15: Sample Service Units with High Wetland Diversity ..................................................... 2-47

Figure 2-16: Sample Locations where Service Assets Intersect FEMA Floodways......................... 2-52

Figure 2-17: Units that Intersect Air Quality Nonattainment Areas .................................................. 2-53

Figure 2-18: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning ......................... 2-55

Figure 2-19: Sample Service Units with Best and Worst Road Conditions ..................................... 2-58

Figure 2-20: Safety Hot Spot: Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR ..................................................... 2-66

Figure 2-21: Safety Hot Spot: Pinckney Island NWR ...................................................................... 2-67

Figure 2-22: Safety Hot Spot: Waccamaw NWR ............................................................................ 2-68

Figure 2-23: Safety Hot Spot: Private John Allen NFH ................................................................... 2-69

Figure 2-24: Population Density and Visitation ............................................................................... 2-73

Figure 2-25: Projected County Population Change 2010-2030, Percent Change ........................... 2-75

Figure 2-26: Projected County Population Change 2010-2030, Total Change................................ 2-76

Figure 2-27: Population Demographics: Population in Poverty ....................................................... 2-80

Figure 2-28: Population Demographics: Non-White Population within 25 Miles of Service Units .... 2-81

Figure 2-29: Population Demographics: Percent Hispanic/ Latino within 25 Miles of Service Units 2-82
iv U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1: Study-Area Radius by Mode ........................................................................................... 2-2

Table 2-2: Refuges Located on Islands Only Accessible by Water .................................................. 2-3

Table 2-3: Service Units with Proximity to both Inland and Marine Navigable Waterways ................ 2-6

Table 2-4: Top 10 Service Units by Miles of Surrounding and Intersecting Roadway Network ......... 2-8

Table 2-5: Scenic Byways that Intersect Region 4 Units .................................................................. 2-9

Table 2-6: Refuges that Intersect, or located in proximity to Passenger and Freight Rail ............... 2-10

Table 2-7: Transit and Trails Connections: Region 4 Transit Findings .......................................... 2-13

Table 2-8: Units within One Mile of Recreational Trails & Bicycle Routes in FL, GA, KY, and NC . 2-19

Table 2-9: Transit and Trails Connections: Region 4 Trails Findings............................................. 2-20

Table 2-10: Cycle 4 RIP Public Use Sections Conditions by Region 4 State ................................. 2-27

Table 2-11: Service Trail Conditions by Trail Surface Type ........................................................... 2-29

Table 2-12: Public Use Service Trails by State ............................................................................. 2-30

Table 2-13: Public Use Service Trail Types by State .................................................................... 2-30

Table 2-14: Parking Surface Conditions by Region 4 State ........................................................... 2-31

Table 2-15: Service Units with Best Parking Surface Conditions................................................... 2-32

Table 2-16: Service Units with Worst Parking Surface Conditions ................................................. 2-32

Table 2-17: Land Management Agencies/Organizations within 5 miles of Region 4 Units............. 2-37

Table 2-18: Transportation Systems and Agencies to Consider for Coordinated Opportunities .... 2-39

Table 2-19: Region 4 Refuges Specifically Established for Endangered Species ......................... 2-41

Table 2-20: Region 4 Service Units with Wilderness Area Designations ........................................ 2-45

Table 2-21: Sample of Units with High Wetland Diversity............................................................... 2-46

Table 2-22: Region 4 Units with Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance ............................. 2-47

Table 2-23: Region 4 Overlap with the Coastal Barrier Resource System ..................................... 2-49

Table 2-24: Service Units, and Route Types that Intersect FEMA Designated Floodways ............. 2-50

Table 2-25: Refuges in Nonattainment Areas ................................................................................ 2-51

Table 2-26: Service Units with Best Overall Service Road Conditions ........................................... 2-57

Table 2-27: Service Units with Worst Overall Service Road Condition ........................................... 2-58

Table 2-28: Units with Overall Best HPMS-Collected IRI Ratings .................................................. 2-59

Table 2-29: Units with Overall Worst HPMS-Collected IRI Ratings ................................................ 2-60

Table 2-30: Service Units with the Highest Number of Directly Intersecting Road Miles ................ 2-60

Table 2-31: Service Units with the Highest Number of Road Miles within One Mile ....................... 2-61

Table 2-32: Refuges with the Highest Number of Reported Collisions within a Three-Year Period 2-62

Table 2-33: Highest Percent Population Growth 2000-2010 within 25 Miles .................................. 2-72

Table 2-34: Highest Percent Population Decline 2000-2010 within 25 Miles .................................. 2-72

Table 2-35: Highest Projected Population Growth from 2010-2030 within 25 Miles........................ 2-74

Table 2-36: Highest Projected Population Decline from 2010-2030 within 25 Miles ....................... 2-74

Table 2-37: Lowest Percent in Poverty within 25 Miles .................................................................. 2-77

Table 2-38: Highest Percent in Poverty within 25 Miles ................................................................. 2-77

Table 2-39: Lowest Percent Non-White Population within 25 Miles ................................................ 2-78

Table 2-40: Highest Percent Non-White Population within 25 Miles ............................................... 2-78

Table 2-41: Lowest Percent Hispanic/Latino Population within 25 Miles ........................................ 2-79

Table 2-42: Highest Percent Hispanic/Latino Population within 25 Miles ....................................... 2-79

Table 2-43: Lowest Percent No Vehicle Households within 25 Miles ............................................. 2-83

Table 2-44: Highest Percent No Vehicles Households within 25 Miles ........................................... 2-83
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 v

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADT Average Daily Traffic

API Asset Priority Index

APTA American Public Transportation Association

ATS Alternative Transportation System

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System

CCA Comprehensive Conditions Assessment

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highway Division

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHMP Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plan

CLIR Climate Leadership in Refuges

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

CRV Cost of Replacement Value

CVI Coastal Vulnerability Index

DM Deferred Maintenance

DOD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

ERFO Emergency Relief for Federally Owned (Roads)

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FCI Facility Condition Index

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program (MAP-21)

FLH Federal Lands Highway Division

FLMA Federal Land Management Agency

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program (MAP-21)

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

HPMS Highway Pavement Management System

HPP High Priority Projects

INCA Inventory and Condition Assessment

IPaC Information, Planning, and Consultation

IRI International Roughness Index

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LCTA Lowcountry Regional Transportation Authority

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NAA Nonattainment Area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBIS National Bridge Inventory System
vi U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

NFH National Fish Hatchery

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA)

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NHPN National Highway Planning Network

NHS National Highway System

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NSBP National Scenic Byways Program

NTAD National Transportation Atlas Database

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWN National Waterway Network

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

OPA Otherwise Protected Area (of the CBRS)

PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the United States

PCR Pavement Condition Rating

PMS Pavement Management System

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plans

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

RIP Road Inventory Program

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration (U.S. DOT)

RRP Refuge Roads Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

RSL Remaining Service Life

RTCA Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

RTP Regional Trails Program

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

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Service Fish and Wildlife Service

SMS Safety Management System

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TIGER Topically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOLTRAN Volusia County Public Transit System

WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division

WVC Wildlife Vehicle Collision
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 1-1

1. Introduction

The Southeast Region (Region 4) of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, the Service) has

initiated its first Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). With the assistance of the Eastern Federal

Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Service’s

Southeast Region will develop a twenty-year plan for its transportation assets across all of its national

wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries. This plan will accomplish the following:

· Assess the current and future conditions of the transportation assets.

· Determine transportation needs, as well as projects and policies to address those needs.

· Establish priorities based on project performance, available funding, and coordination

opportunities with other agencies.

Prior to the commencement of this plan, a national long-range transportation plan for the Fish and

Wildlife Service was initiated, which set the overall direction for the entire Service as well as for

individual regions. Similar to Region 4, many of the other regions across the country have been

completing plans of their own. These plans will aid in the Service’s mission to “work with others to

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

the American people”1 by assisting each region with the development of a safe, efficient, and

sustainable transportation system on Service lands. Figure 1-1 shows all eight FWS regions.

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

For administrative purposes, Region 4 is divided into areas to assist with funding decisions and

to help manage the large number of refuges and fish hatcheries. Between 2012 and 2014, the

FWS Region 4 Area boundaries have been through a series of revisions. While this LRTP will

not consider the Area boundaries as a foundational portion of the study, future LRTP activities

may be enhanced by considering FWS Region 4 Areas once they have been adopted and will

1

 http://www.fws.gov/help/about_us.html
1-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

remain unchanged for the foreseeable future. The boundaries of Region 4 and the locations of the

refuges and hatcheries within the region are shown in Figure 1-2.

Figure 1-2: Region 4 States and Stations

The EFLHD continues to play an important role in the development of this Service plan by

providing guidance and direction for the members of FWS Region 4 and the Consultant Team.

The EFLHD has also provided assistance with data collection and technical efforts, funding

changes for new transportation legislation, and the identification of partnering agencies for

coordinated planning and implementation.

PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this LRTP is to achieve the following goals:

· Establish a defensible structure for sound transportation planning and decision-making.

· Establish the mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in Region 4.

· Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to improve the

Service’s transportation infrastructure.

· Bring the Service into compliance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation

Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Specifically, Title 23, Section 204 of the Federal

Lands Highway Program requires all federal land management agencies to conduct long-range
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 1-3

transportation planning in a manner consistent with the currently adopted metropolitan and

statewide planning processes required under Sections 134 and 135 of Title 23. These

requirements were reemphasized in SAFETA-LU’s successor surface transportation system

reauthorization bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21).

· Integrate transportation planning and funding for wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries into

existing and future Service management plans and strategies.

· Promote Alternative Transportation Systems (ATS) and their associated benefits.

· Develop best management practices (BMPs) for transportation improvements on Service

lands.

· Serve as another example project for regional-level transportation planning in the Service.

This Long Range Transportation Plan will assist Region 4 in determining its many transportation

needs, prioritizing transportation projects to best utilize the funds currently available to the Service,

and aid in the development of partnerships with outside agencies for coordinated planning

opportunities. This plan will also help to more formally integrate transportation planning into the

refuges’ comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and the fish hatcheries’ comprehensive hatchery

management plans (CHMPs) to make better use of their existing planning processes.

SEQUESTRATION

Beginning on March 1, 2013, the Department of the Interior (DOI), along with other departments and

branches across the federal government, are being adversely impacted by sequestration changes. It

was not known during the original publication of this report how long the sequestration would

continue; however, its impacts were felt throughout the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Employee

furloughs occurred and new positions were frozen; nonessential travel and contracts were reduced or

eliminated; and participation in conferences was minimized. These changes had temporary negative

impacts to the refuges and fish hatcheries due to reduced staff and inability to accommodate visitors;

reduced maintenance (resulting in asset declines); and reductions to programs. While the purview of

the Long Range Transportation Plan is twenty years or more and should not be limited by the

sequestration changes, it is important to consider the short-term effects of the sequestration on the

Service’s ability to implement action plans for the next five years or more.

MISSION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The mission, goals, and objectives for the Region 4 LRTP were developed initially by the Fish and

Wildlife Service’s National LRTP. Through collaboration among national and FWS Region 4 staff, the

FHWA’s EFLHD staff, and representatives of the project Coordination Team, the objectives have

been refined and customized to fit the specific considerations of the refuges and fish hatcheries within

Region 4. The mission, goals, and objectives are critical in setting the direction of the plan and will

serve to guide the development of evaluation criteria that will be used in the prioritization of

transportation projects.

Mission

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

strategic implementation of transportation programs.
1-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Goals and Objectives

The goals of this Region 4 transportation plan represent six categories. Each goal includes

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

objectives are:

Goal 1: Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Ensure that units open to public visitation have adequate access, mobility and connectivity for all

potential users, including underserved, underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations.

Objective 1 Integrate the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s transportation facilities with local

community transportation systems, including roads, transit, and nonmotorized

systems, in a way that encourages increased local visitation, where applicable, and

has the potential to facilitate ancillary economic and community benefits to partner and

gateway communities.

Objective 2 Collaborate with regional partners on transportation projects that impact and/or benefit

the Service and regional partners alike.

Objective 3 Provide context-appropriate transportation facilities that address the specific needs of

local visitor groups and respect the natural setting of the refuge.

Objective 4 Provide a variety of transportation choices, including public transportation and

nonmotorized access (pedestrian, bicycle, etc.), where appropriate.

Objective 5 Reduce congestion to and within Service units.

Objective 6 Encourage visitors to use a wide range of transportation modes and provide clear

directional information to support visitor mobility.

Goal 2: Asset Management

Provide a financially sustainable transportation system to satisfy current and future land management

needs in the face of a changing climate.

Objective 1 Use asset management principles to preserve and maintain important transportation

infrastructure elements at an appropriate condition level.

Objective 2 Decommission low priority assets not needed to meet the Service’s mission.

Objective 3 Examine operational and maintenance sustainability when considering new assets.

Objective 4 Adapt to changing climate conditions.

Goal 3: Coordinated Opportunities

Seek partnered transportation solutions that support the Service’s mission, maximize the utility of

Service resources, and provide mutual benefits to the Service and its external partners.

Objective 1 Identify key potential internal and external partnerships at the national, regional, and

unit levels.

Objective 2 Devise and follow a systematic method to continually expand numbers of partners and

partnership opportunities.

Objective 3 Develop best partnership practices for each goal that illustrate best practices in

forming and nurturing coalitions to support the Service’s mission.

Objective 4 Maximize leveraging opportunities by identifying and pursuing partnership

opportunities where there may be shared planning, design, implementation, and/or

potential economic savings for projects of mutual interest and benefit.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 1-5

Goal 4: Environment

Ensure that the transportation program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats.

Objective 1 Identify and adopt design guidelines and design metrics for transportation

infrastructure projects that use planning, design, and construction methods and

outcomes that are responsive to the mission of the Service, departmental policy, and

federal law.

Objective 2 Identify transportation facilities and activities that can be altered, eliminated or

enhanced to reduce environmental degradation, habitat fragmentation, and vehicle

collisions with wildlife, fish, and their habitats.

Objective 3 Reduce habitat fragmentation on and adjacent to Service lands. Consider creating

environmental linkages by considering which rivers, streams, wetlands, forested areas,

etc. connect to the refuge and help make it an important resource.

Objective 4 Protect wildlife corridors and enhance terrestrial and aquatic organism passage on and

adjacent to Service lands to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant populations.

Objective 5 Coordinate programs within the Service, including Refuges, Ecological Services,

Fisheries, and Migratory Birds during the development of regional long-range and

project-level planning.

Objective 6 Consider the impacts of increased climate variability in the management of

transportation assets.

Objective 7 Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air pollutants by increasing

transportation alternatives.

Goal 5: Safety

Provide a transportation system that ensures visitors traveling to and within Service lands arrive at

their destinations safely.

Objective 1 Identify safety issues on the Service’s transportation system using quantitative data.

Objective 2 Identify and implement appropriate safety countermeasures and tools to reduce the

frequency and severity of crashes between different transportation modes, as well as

between vehicles and animals.

Objective 3 Use open communication among the “4Es”—engineering, education, enforcement, and

emergency medical services—to collaboratively address safety issues on Serviceowned roads.

Objective 4: Reduce transportation corridor (roads, trails, fencing) barriers and hazards by

planning, designing, and evaluating sites that facilitate the safe movement of wildlife

across roads to increase motorist safety.

Goal 6: Visitor Experience

Create and sustain enjoyable and welcoming transportation experiences for all visitors.

Objective 1 Improve traveler information for both internal (on Service lands) as well as external (off

Service lands) wayfinding and orientation for all modes of travel.

Objective 2 Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation experience.

Objective 3 Assess and improve the external accessibility of all Service lands in all future planning

endeavors.
1-6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Objective 4 Evaluate the feasibility of alternative transportation systems at all refuges at a regional

level and promote connections with other existing and planned public and private

transportation service providers.

Objective 5 Integrate materials and adaptations that will help refuges specifically cater to

populations that already visit often, or populations that the Service would like to target.

Seek to get more individuals interested in the benefits of engaging in outdoor activities

and in support of a national network of lands and waters for present and future

generations to enjoy.

Objective 6: Ensure that refuges are welcoming, safe, and accessible and that the transportation

program will provide visitors with clear information so they can easily determine where

they can go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in recreational

and educational activities.

Objective 7: Implement a comprehensive and uniform sign plan that promotes a consistent image

and branding for the agency.

REGION 4 BACKGROUND

Region 4 is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s largest region in the country, in terms of the number

of transportation assets it contains. Many diverse lands and transportation considerations are

present throughout the region. This diversity will be explored in greater detail in Chapter 2, Existing

Conditions and Trends.

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGES AND NATIONAL FISH HATCHERIES

Region 4 maintains 128 national wildlife refuges and 17 national fish hatcheries, comprising

approximately 3.59 million acres of land and water across ten states and two territories: Alabama,

Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and

Tennessee, as well as Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Of the 128 refuges, 113 are open to

the public for visitation at specified time periods throughout the year. Sixteen of the refuges were

specifically established for the preservation and protection of endangered species.

REGION 4 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

Region 4 maintains an extensive system of transportation infrastructure including roads, trails, parking

lots, bridges, culverts, and low-water crossings. The roads, trails, and parking lots are primarily gravel or

native/primitive surfaces, with some additional high-use asphalt or concrete facilities.

Approximately 3,500 miles of Service roadways exist within Region 4, of which close to 1,500 miles

are open to the public. The remaining 2,000 miles are for administrative use only by Service staff.

Similarly, of the 1,700 parking lots and 350 miles of trails maintained by Region 4, 1,400 parking lots

and 220 miles of trails are open to the public. This compares to over 7,000 miles of roadways, 4,500

parking lots, and 1,400 miles of trails nationwide. As one of the eight regions, Region 4 comprises a

significant amount of the overall transportation assets of the Service nationally.

With the passing of the newest federal transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st

Century (MAP-21), the structure of federal funding programs has changed since its predecessor,

SAFETEA-LU. Three new programs have been established that directly affect transportation in and

around Service lands:

· Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) – for assets within federal estates2

2

 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidefltp.cfm
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 1-7

· Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) – for facilities outside providing access to federal

lands3

· Transportation Alternatives Program – a consolidation and revision of multiple smaller

programs (often focused on alternative transportation projects) that can be allocated to state

and metro areas as well as federal agencies.

Many discretionary grant programs that were provided to the FWS (approximately $100 million over

14 years) have been eliminated or consolidated. The new programs focus on performance of the

transportation system, setting key transportation goals, and focusing on high-use and recreational

areas in particular. More details on each of these programs, as well as additional funding

opportunities, will be discussed in later chapters.

PRIMARY AUDIENCE

The Long Range Transportation Plan is meant to assist transportation decision-making at multiple

levels. First, this document will provide guidance to refuge and hatchery managers within Region 4,

as well as regional and national leaders within the Service. Second, the document will be helpful to

other regional and national agencies, including federal land management agencies and

representatives of the FHWA’s Federal Lands Highway Division. Additionally, this plan will aid in

planning efforts with many other governmental and nongovernmental agencies, including municipal,

county, and state agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and even refuge and

hatchery friends groups.

PROJECT LEADERS

Refuge and hatchery managers as well as project leaders at each of the stations will be able to use

the LRTP as a guide for prioritizing the most important projects on the lands they manage.

Additionally, the plan will provide insight into other planning studies that might need to be conducted

at each of the stations when enough detail cannot be studied at the regional level of this plan.

Refuge managers can also use the LRTP as a tool for partnering with local agencies that have a

mutual interest in the implementation of key projects.

REGIONAL LEVEL

The LRTP is a very important tool at a regional level. Given the limited transportation dollars

available to all public agencies across the country, especially to the Service, it is extremely important

to spend existing dollars on the highest priority projects. In addition, regional leaders can use this

plan to work with other agencies—FLMAs, states, MPOs, etc.—and explore new partnerships and

opportunities for joint project sponsorship. The direction of the LRTP is a good starting place for

incorporating transportation planning into the refuges’ comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) and

the fish hatcheries’ comprehensive hatchery management plans (CHMPs), thereby keeping

transportation as an important focus in existing planning exercises.

NATIONAL LEVEL

The Region 4 LRTP has been designed to reflect the overall goals and direction of the Service’s

National LRTP, as the other regional plans have done. This consistency across the entire Service will

allow for more directed and well-coordinated planning across the agency, and allow the Service to

partner more easily with other FLMAs, states, and MPOs between regions.

3

 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidefltp.cfm
1-8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

POTENTIAL PARTNERS

The LRTP will be a great resource for partner agencies to understand the overall mission, goals, and

objectives of the Service as they relate to transportation, in addition to the needs and priorities

established in the planning process. The priorities stated in the plan will be vetted throughout Region

4 and will be based heavily on technical evaluation and assessment of transportation needs. The

plan’s objective foundation will ensure to potential partners that the Service has a good understanding

of its needs and high priorities, making it a great agency with whom to team. As mentioned

previously, some of the potential partnering groups include other federal land management agencies,

state DOTs, MPOs, county and local governments, and friends groups.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The public involvement process for the Region 4 LRTP considers traditional outreach methods, but

also recognizes the unique needs and opportunities of a plan that covers ten states, Puerto Rico, and

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Typical public meetings are not an option for this study area, and unlike many

MPO transportation plans, the goal is not to specifically reach out to all people in a geographic area.

Internal stakeholder outreach efforts are primarily focused on FWS staff. The first level of outreach

includes a Coordination Team that consists of national, regional, refuge, and hatchery leaders from

across the Southeast Region, as well as representatives from the FHWA’s Eastern Federal Lands

Highway Division (EFLHD). This Coordination Team serves as a sounding board for all work

conducted during the plan. The team assists with the refinement of goals and objectives, provides

direction on some analysis work, and reviews all documents before they are distributed to the larger

FWS Region 4 community. Multiple rounds of webinars also will be conducted with regional and

station leaders at key points throughout the process (kick-off, at the conclusion of the Existing

Conditions and Trends development, and near the conclusion of the recommendations process).

External stakeholder outreach will be focused on partner agencies, friends groups, visitors, and

members of the general public. At important points throughout the process, advertisements will be

provided to other agencies such as state DOTs, MPOs, and other FLMAs; coordination will occur with

friends groups; and information will be posted on the Region 4 website and possibly made available

in hard copy at FWS stations across the region. The opportunity also exists to possibly participate in

other agency planning processes.

While the geographic area included in the plan is substantial, it is important to receive stakeholder

input into the process to ensure that the plan’s benefits are maximized.

PLAN OVERVIEW

The LRTP is divided into six chapters: Introduction, Existing Conditions and Future Trends, Summary

of Current Stakeholder Outreach, Funding and Financial Gap, Project Selection Process, and Plan

Implementation and Future Use. This section concludes the first two chapters; the remaining four

chapters are briefly described below.

Chapter 2, Existing Conditions and Future Trends: This chapter summarizes the current status of

Region 4’s transportation system and the overall access to, from, and on Service lands. The

information is organized under the six goals of the plan, as outlined in Chapter 1. Mapping and

analysis were conducted for Region 4, and the current conditions for each station are summarized in

tables and in the Appendix. In addition to considering current conditions, the chapter also includes an

assessment of needs based on future projections of population growth and visitation at each of the

stations.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 1-9

Chapter 3, Summary of Current Stakeholder Outreach: Chapter 3 provides an overview of the

stakeholders and outreach that occurred throughout the LRTP process. Region 4 LRTP included

multiple levels of stakeholder outreach, resulting in valuable insight into the processes, operations

and transportation considerations of the Southeast Region of the Fish and Wildlife Service and its

individual stations.

Chapter 4, Funding and Financial Gap: This chapter summarizes the available and anticipated

future funding sources and compares anticipated funding levels to anticipated needs for FWS

transportation projects and maintenance of transportation assets. Current funding allocations are a

key focus, and additional consideration is given to new transportation funding opportunities that could

be explored through partnerships with outside agencies.

Chapter 5, Project Selection: Chapter 5 focuses on the selection and implementation of projects

across Region 4. The project selection process relies heavily on the goals and objectives outlined in

Chapter 1. Criteria based on each of the goals will be used to rank the projects, so that the ones that

align most with the goals of the plan come to the top of the priority list. Chapter 5 includes an

overview of the Project Evaluation Criteria and Tool developed as part of this LRTP.

Chapter 6, Plan Implementation and Future Use: While the Region 4 LRTP is intended to serve as

a regional planning document, data collection efforts included in Chapters 1 and 2 and the Appendix

can serve as valuable information for both the region and individual stations or areas. Chapter 6

provides an overview of tools created throughout the LRTP process for LRTP use at the regional and

station levels. At the regional level, the Stations for Further Transportation Study: Regional

Evaluation Tool provides information to determine which units may warrant a further more detailed

transportation study. At the station level, Station Fact Sheets, the User Guide, the CCP Work Plan,

and the Climate Change Tool are identified as resources to assist transportation planning efforts at

the station level. Throughout the data collection process for the LRTP, some deficiencies in data

were noted. Chapter 6 also includes recommendations for new or revised data collection efforts that

should occur (either through the Service or other partnering agencies) to improve the Existing

Conditions and Trends analysis for future updates of the transportation plan. This chapter also

considers other factors, such as climate change and safety, which will need additional analysis and

updates as new data becomes available, in order to better serve the LRTP with the most current

information.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-1

2. Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Transportation assets receive funding based on condition, importance, and need. The intent of any

LRTP is to identify future needs and plan for them proactively. Thus, it is imperative to understand

the current and evolving state of transportation in Region 4 in order to look forward and plan for the

future. The data provided in this chapter will help inform the identification of improvement areas and

needs to assist in the process of selecting projects that will be detailed in Chapter 5, Project Selection

and Funding. Project selection will not be based on just the examination of existing data alone; it will

also consider likely future conditions and an objective data-driven process that is cognizant of

prevailing circumstances throughout the Region.

With the goals and objectives in mind, this chapter documents the existing conditions relating to the

six goals:

· Access, Mobility and Connectivity;

· Asset Management;

· Coordinated Opportunities;

· Environment;

· Safety; and

· Visitor Experience.

GOAL 1 – ACCESS, MOBILITY, AND CONNECTIVITY

The foundation of any sustainable multimodal transportation system is based on reliable, effective

and enhanced access, connectivity, and mobility. Private vehicles have been and will continue to be

an important part of the Service’s transportation system because many units are rural and remote.

However, alternative transportation systems can be used in both urban and rural areas. To ensure a

sustainable and multimodal system for years to come, the Service is committed to increasing the

efficacy and availability of other modes to travelers in order to support broader Service goals.

Goal: Ensure that units open to public visitation have adequate access, mobility and connectivity for

all potential users, including underserved, underrepresented, and disadvantaged populations.

Objective 1: Integrate the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service’s transportation facilities with local

community transportation systems, including roads, transit, and nonmotorized systems, in a way

that encourages increased local visitation, where applicable, and has the potential to facilitate

ancillary economic and community benefits to partner and gateway communities.

Objective 2: Collaborate with regional partners on transportation projects that impact and/or

benefit the Service and regional partners alike.

Objective 3: Provide context-appropriate transportation facilities that address the specific needs

of local visitor groups and respect the natural setting of the refuge.

Objective 4: Provide a variety of transportation choices including public transportation and

nonmotorized access (pedestrian, bicycle, etc.), where appropriate.

Objective 5: Reduce congestion to and within Service units.

Objective 6: Encourage visitors to use a wide range of transportation modes and provide clear

directional information to support visitor mobility.
2-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Access, mobility, and connectivity collectively ensure that both visitors and refuge staff can have

travel-mode choices to equitably, easily, and conveniently travel to, from, and within Service units.

Access addresses the ability of people of all ages, economic groups and physical abilities as well as

underrepresented populations to visit Service units. Mobility considers the ease and convenience for

visitors to travel to, from, and within Service units using a preferred mode. Finally, connectivity

addresses the potential to link many modes, both inside and outside units, to maximize possibilities

for transportation connections.

This goal applies to refuges open to the public; however, it is also beneficial for consideration by

those refuges that are not open to the public but are accessed by Service staff.

Additionally, while multimodal transportation connections are encouraged in our modern world,

transportation modes must make sense to the Service when considered relative to each of the

unique habitats, species of fish and wildlife, and plant resources for the conservation,

management, and, where appropriate, restoration of wildlife habitats for the benefit of present and

future generations of Americans.

There are refuges that connect to pedestrian and bicycle trails, some located on islands only

accessible by water, and even a few that intersect “blueways,”or water trails along river routes.

Blueways are the equivalent of a water-based “greenway,” or land-based recreation trail that is open

for multiple use recreation activities such as walking and biking. In February of 2012, Secretary of the

Interior Ken Salazar signed a Secretarial Order amending the National Trails System Act of 1968 to

include water trails as a class of national recreation trails, and directed that such trails collectively be

considered in a National Water Trails System. Under the order, the National Park Service is in the

process of inventorying blueways, and will coordinate the water trail nomination process. Where

these modes are appropriate for both habitats and inhabitants, they provide direct opportunities for

legitimate and appropriate uses of the Refuge System by visitors, including hunting, fishing, wildlife

observation, photography, and environmental education and interpretation.

Evaluating access and connectivity is unique for different modes. For example, walking or biking to

access a destination would not be considered reasonable beyond one or two miles and likely would

be more commonly used for very short distances. Vehicular travel is much more widespread and can

be considered for distances both short and very long. Access by water would require a direct

connection or a perceived direct connection via a very short pedestrian trail. Table 2-1 summarizes

the relative distance from the outer edge of each refuge or hatchery that was considered as a study

area for each mode. Longer-haul transportation systems generally were considered at a wider radius

than more traditionally short-haul transport; consideration for transit or pedestrian access was within a

one-mile radius with the understanding that the last-mile connectivity is incredibly important for

access by these modes.

Table 2-1: Study-Area Radius by Mode

Mode Distance Studied from Extent of

Service Unit

Air (airports) 25 miles

Roadways (personal automobile) 10 miles

Roadways (transit) 1 mile

Bicycle Routes, Recreation Trails 1 mile

Water (navigable waterways) 1⁄2 mile
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-3

AIR

While FWS visitor surveys indicate that the majority of visitors come from within approximately 25

miles of refuges and hatcheries, those that come from further away may fly or drive along major

national highways or scenic byways. Of the 128 refuges and 17 hatcheries that make up the Region

4 system, 37 refuges (29%) and one hatchery (6%) is located within 25 miles of a major airport.4

Seven of these refuges are located near more than one airport, with Pinellas NWR in Florida located

within 25 miles of three major airports; this information can be found in Appendix A2.1.

WATER

With refuges located on islands and peninsulas and within reach of streams and coastal areas, it is

no wonder that travel by water is a viable option for many, if not the sole option for access to several

Service units. Twenty refuges do not have direct access to inventoried roadways, either because

these refuges are solely located on an island with no bridge connecting to a nearby mainland, or

because they are located along coastal plains that currently are not connected to the broader

roadway network.5 Of these refuges, fifteen are located exclusively on islands or land separated by

an estuary. The remaining five are multi-site refuges with either refuge or administrative facilities

located on the main land along with additional islands off the coast. Ten of the island refuges are

closed to the public, leaving six that may be considered for visitor access by water. Table 2-2

provides some additional information about island refuges, while Figure 2-1 shows all refuges that are

only accessible by water.

With the emerging concept of blueways (water trails), routes along rivers and streams could be

an exciting opportunity to draw paddlers along water routes connecting to and from other natural

areas or areas accessible by other modes. Pedestrian trails could supplement the water route to

complete the last-mile connectivity for waterways that currently do not connect with Service

assets. These assets likely would be pedestrian trails that allow paddlers to access the refuge

and complete their trips on foot.

Table 2-2: Refuges Located on Islands Only Accessible by Water

Unit Name State Waterway Connectivity

Open to the Public

Blackbeard Island NWR Georgia Island directly off the coast

Breton NWR Louisiana

Buck Island NWR U.S. Virgin Islands

Cedar Keys NWR Florida Several islands with one area directly connected to the peninsula

Delta NWR Louisiana Island with separate administrative facility on peninsula

Egmont Key NWR Florida

Key West NWR Florida

Pinellas NWR Florida

St. Vincent NWR Florida Island with separate administrative facility on nearby mainland

Wassaw NWR Georgia Island directly off the coast

4

 Major airports are defined here as those that report 250,000 or more enplanements per year. Data retrieved from the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Airports shapefile from National Transportation Atlas Database.

5

 As inventoried by TIGER Lines 2010
2-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Unit Name State Waterway Connectivity

Closed to the Public

Desecheo NWR Puerto Rico

Green Cay NWR U.S. Virgin Islands

Island Bay NWR Florida Several islands with one area directly connected to the peninsula

Matlacha Pass NWR Florida Several islands with one area directly connected to the peninsula

Navassa Island NWR Navassa Island6

Passage Key NWR Florida

Pine Island NWR Florida

Shell Keys NWR Louisiana

Tybee NWR South Carolina Island directly off the coast, separated by an estuary

Wolf Island NWR Florida

The National Waterway Network (NWN) dataset provided by the National Transportation Atlas

Database 2012 through the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA), U.S. DOT, is

composed of the national system of navigable waterways, including both inland and marine routes

that represent actual shipping lanes and representative paths where no defined lanes exist. The

network covers the 48 contiguous states plus the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Alaska, Puerto Rico,

and water links between. This dataset calls out waterways that can support much larger vessels than

those that would carry visitors or staff members. However, the dataset also indicates the Service

units accessible by water routes that are navigable by larger vessels (e.g., ferry boats) that could

provide an alternative to land-based transportation modes for large groups of visitors. The NWN is by

no means a comprehensive list of waterways, both inland and marine, that are navigable for singleperson vessels such as kayaks and canoes.

Slightly more than 25% of Service units (37) directly intersect a National Waterway Network navigable

route. This number doubles to 74 accessible Service units when considering navigable routes within

a half mile of refuge and hatchery boundaries. Furthermore, some refuges are accessible by both

inland and marine routes—seven directly connect and 18 are located within a half mile of an inland or

marine NWN route, as shown in Table 2-3.7 Of the units identified, one hatchery directly connects

while three additional hatcheries are located within a half mile.

According to the RATE, more than half of the stations in Region 4 reported that their visitors

accessed the station using water-based transportation modes. In fact, nearly 90 percent of refuges in

Region 4 offer some sort of non-motorized boating, and many provide water-based access to the

refuge. The average percentage of visitors among all Region 4 stations who use water-based

transportation for station access is 32 percent. While the National Waterway Network certainly

provides a basis for water transport viability, it is important to note that water-based access may not

require waterways that have been noted as navigable.

6

 Unorganized, unincorporated and uninhabited territory located in the Caribbean near Haiti

7 Marine routes defined by the National Waterway Network (NWN) dataset provided by NTAD, are considered within harbors,

bays, intracoastal waterways, sealanes, and open water; Inland routes consist of rivers, creeks, lakes, estuaries, channels, canals,

and locks. Some Units that have water access may not appear in this table because they connect to waterways that are not

documented as navigable via the NWN dataset.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-5

Figure 2-1: Refuges Accessible by Water Only
2-6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Table 2-3: Service Units with Proximity to both Inland and Marine Navigable Waterways

Unit Name State Direct Connection Within 1⁄2 Mile

Marine Inland Marine Inland

Bayou Sauvage NWR LA X X X X

Bayou Teche NWR LA X X

Big Branch Marsh NWR LA X X X

Bon Secour NWR AL X X

Chassahowitzka NWR FL X X X X

Egmont Key NWR FL X X

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR SC X X X

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL X X

Lacassine NWR LA X X X X

Merritt Island NWR FL X X X X

Pea Island NWR NC X X

Pelican Island NWR FL X X X X

Pinckney Island NWR SC X X X

Pine Island NWR FL X X

Pocosin Lakes NWR NC X X X

Sabine NWR LA X X

St. Marks NWR FL X X X X

Tybee NWR SC X X X

Waccamaw NWR SC X X X X

Wassaw NWR GA X X X

Wolf Island NWR8 GA X X

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

Transportation across the United States is predominantly completed by movement across the land.

Our roadway network is extensive and a major component of the surface transportation system.

Private automobiles, transit systems, and freight companies rely on the roadway network to move

goods and people around the country. The nation’s railway network also is an important component

of the surface transportation system. Rail is predominantly used for freight. It carries 40% of

America’s freight ton-miles, more than any other transportation mode.9 However, Amtrak, the nation’s

railway network, provides rail transportation for approximately 900,000 passengers per week. Amtrak

hit a record 30.2 million passengers for the fiscal year 2011.10 Figure 2-2 shows the major

transportation facilities that exist today in Region 4.

Nonmotorized transportation is also an extremely important component of the surface transportation

system. In fact, pedestrian travel is a key element of the nation’s transportation system, because

every trip—regardless of mode—includes a pedestrian component. For the Service, pedestrian

infrastructure may be necessary to allow staff to access different parts of a particular Service unit or

for visitors to access facilities or portions of units where pedestrian access is appropriate. In some

cases, recreation trails, bicycle routes, and other paths can allow pedestrians or bicyclists to enjoy

Service lands and waters, or access the units from other locations via walking or cycling.

8

 Wolf Island NWR is closed to the public and thus not considered accessible by water even though located within

proximity of navigable waterways.

9

 https://www.aar.org/keyissues/Documents/Background-Papers/Overview-US-Freight-RRs.pdf

10 http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/677/158/2011-Amtrak-Annual-Report-Final.pdf
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-7

Figure 2-2: Existing Major Transportation Facilities in Region 4
2-8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Roads

As noted previously, vehicles will continue to play a major role for transportation access and

connectivity for the people who staff and visit Service lands. In general, Region 4 is very well

connected to the national roadway network. Only 15 refuges located on islands and one fish

hatchery are not connected to the roadway network identified by the Topically Integrated Geographic

Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) line shapefiles. TIGER shapefiles are used by the U.S. Census

Bureau for the United States, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Midway Islands. Ten Service units intersect

more than 100 miles inventoried in the TIGER database, as shown in Table 2-4. A full list of road

miles surrounding and intersecting Service units can be found in Appendix A2.1.

The National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) includes interstates, U.S. highways, state routes,

county routes, and some other major roadways. Table 2-4 shows the numbers and types of road

miles that intersect a 10-mile radius from the 10 most frequently intersected Service units in Region 4,

as well as the number of route miles that directly intersect these same Service units.

While the TIGER roads file identifies all classifications of roadways and includes inventoried routes

with direct access to 127 of the 145 Service units in Region 4, the direct access may be limited to

small local roadways that lack connectivity with the broader roadway network. Connectivity

throughout the United States relies heavily on the National Highway Planning Network, which is a

comprehensive network of the nation’s major highways including all of the National Highway System

(NHS) as well as other major routes such as rural arterials and urban principal arterials. This network

covers the United States as well as Puerto Rico and intersects 62 units directly.

Table 2-4: Top 10 Service Units by Miles of Surrounding and Intersecting Roadway Network

Service Unit State

Road Miles within 10-Mile Radius of Service Units Road Miles in Service Units

National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) Scenic

Byways NHPN Scenic

Byways Inter- TIGER

state

U.S.

Route

State

Route

County

Route Other

Alligator River NWR NC 103.4 26.2 114.0 33.9 195.0

Carolina Sandhills NWR SC 33.3 84.7 1.0 176.3

Lower Suwannee NWR FL 23.3 18.8 23.6 1.4 1.2 107.2

Merritt Island NWR FL 49.6 53.2 101.3 9.1 59.1 80.8 28.2 15.9 226.5

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA 110.8 96.7 10.3 8.1 0.1 120.8

Pocosin Lakes NWR NC 91.3 53.0 101.0 5.0 177.2

St. Marks NWR FL 94.8 44.8 14.2 92.5 0.9 10.3 106.0

Tensas River NWR LA 34.7 64.1 89.3 171.9 0.6 133.9

Vieques NWR PR 0.9 5.1 16.3 137.1

White River NWR AR 70.2 68.3 31.9 106.0 4.2 4.1 170.7

Region 4 Total (miles) 1,423 5,598 6,695 440 1,060 4,353 194 68 3,531

Count of: Refuges

 Hatcheries

47

4

104

15

114

17

27

2

71

4

79

9

59

3

15

0

122

17

Excluding the 13 island refuges that in no way connect to a mainland nor inventoried roadway routes,

all refuges and hatcheries have a U.S. or state route within 10 miles of their boundaries, providing

direct or relatively direct connectivity with nearby communities or the broader roadway network.

Nonetheless, fewer than half of the refuges and hatcheries are located within one mile of the

Interstate Highway System, which is indicative of the commonly rural and remote environment of
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-9

many Service units. Regardless, the roadway network is an effective and important aspect of travel

to and from the majority of Service units.

The National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP) recognizes, preserves and enhances routes

throughout the United States that have been selected based on one or more archeological, cultural,

historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities.11 Scenic Byways traverse 15 Service units, as

shown in Table 2-5, and pass within 10 miles of 60% of the Service units, or 79 refuges and nine

hatcheries. A full list of Scenic Byways near refuges can be found in Appendix A2.1.

Table 2-5: Scenic Byways that Intersect Region 4 Units

Unit Name State Scenic Byway

Archie Carr NWR FL Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

Bon Secour NWR AL Alabama's Coastal Connection

Cameron Prairie NWR LA Creole Nature Trail

Cedar Island NWR NC Outer Banks Scenic Byway

Chickasaw NWR TN Great River Road

Crocodile Lake NWR FL Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Great White Heron NWR FL Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Lower Hatchie NWR TN Great River Road

Merritt Island NWR FL Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

National Key Deer Refuge FL Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Pea Island NWR NC Outer Banks Scenic Byway

Pelican Island NWR FL Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

Sabine NWR LA Creole Nature Trail

St. Marks NWR FL Big Bend Scenic Byway

White River NWR AR Great River Road

Rail

While the U.S. rail system heavily caters to freight rather than passenger transport, rail systems are

extensive throughout the country and have the potential to offer additional mobility for people.

Passenger rail is becoming a frequent national topic with the consideration of high speed and

commuter rail as methods to improve transportation efficiency, energy savings, and the

environmental mitigation that could be provided by encouraging mass transport options rather than

single-occupant vehicle use. While high speed rail is not a mode that would directly impact the

Service, the indirect increase in passenger rail connectivity has the potential in the long term to

provide additional mobility and connectivity options for the Service.

Even abandoned railroad lines have the ability to positively impact the access to FWS stations. In recent

years, The Rails to Trails Conservancy has successfully promoted an initiative to convert abandoned or

unused rail corridors into recreational trails.12 With a large number of rail miles, particularly in the

southeast, this initiative could directly impact future pedestrian and bicycle access to refuges that intersect

or are situated near rail. This potential will be discussed further in the Trails section.

Rail connectivity was identified through the Rail Network database provided by the 2012 National

Transportation Atlas Database (U.S. Department of Transportation Research and Innovative

Technology Administration – RITA), which includes a comprehensive set of the nation’s railway

11 http://byways.org/

12 http://www.railstotrails.org/
2-10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

systems for all 50 states and the District of Columbia. From that set it was determined that the

national rail network has rights-of-way that pass through or are immediately adjacent to 27 refuges

and three hatcheries within Region 4. Three additional refuges are within one mile of a rail route.

Rail passes within 10 miles of as many as 113 Service units across all of Region 4.

National Rail Network

While rail transport seems an unlikely candidate to uphold the mission of the Fish and Wildlife

Service, the potential to identify and convert abandoned rail segments into recreational trails is a

consideration for future access and connectivity between Service units and the surrounding

communities. On the other hand (and as discussed in the Safety section), the presence of rail

corridors intersecting Service lands could pose a safety concern for visitors and wildlife.

The Rails to Trails Conservancy has a highly active field office in Florida. To date, it has opened 329

miles of trail along 35 abandoned rail routes in its southeast region, which shares nine of the 10

continental states that make up Region 4, excluding Arkansas.

Passenger Rail

In the long term, the Service could coordinate with Amtrak to provide a limited schedule or specialevent transport to Service units along passenger routes. Passenger rail operated by Amtrak directly

intersects nine of the 14 refuges identified as having immediate connectivity to the national rail

network. These are listed in Table 2-6.

Passenger rail lines fall within a 10-mile radius of 28 refuges and four hatcheries in Region 4. In

addition, 18 Amtrak stations have been identified within 10 miles of 17 refuges and two hatcheries.

The closest stations are within approximately a half mile of Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR in

Yemassee, South Carolina, and Lake Woodruff NWR in Deland, Florida. The Slidell, Louisiana

station is near three refuges—Bayou Sauvage NWR, Big Branch Marsh NWR, and Bogue Chitto

NWR—which may make it an excellent candidate for a shuttle bus that takes visitors to each of the

three refuges from the rail station.

Table 2-6: Refuges that Intersect, or located in proximity to Passenger and Freight Rail

Unit Name State Direct Intersect (rail miles) Within 10 miles (rail miles

Passenger All Rail Passenger All Rail

Bayou Sauvage NWR LA 5.8 10.5 30.7 129.2

Lake Woodruff NWR FL 2.9 2.9 31.1 41.3

Bayou Teche NWR LA 0.7 0.7 29.2 81.7

Carolina Sandhills NWR SC 0.4 0.4 33.7 54.8

Big Branch Marsh NWR LA 0.2 0.7 23.1 96.2

Savannah NWR GA/SC 0.2 1.2 64.3 258.5

Bald Knob NWR AR 0.2 0.2 25.9 55.9

Morgan Brake NWR MS 0.2 0.2 26.1 29.6

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR SC 0.2 2.1 49.1 116.7

Theodore Roosevelt NWR MS 70.1 233.0

Lake Wales Ridge NWR FL 0.8 49.7 83.8

Panther Swamp NWR MS 36.7 51.9

Chickasaw NWR TN 33.7 84.5

Hillside NWR MS 32.8 37.2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-11

Unit Name State Direct Intersect (rail miles) Within 10 miles (rail miles

Passenger All Rail Passenger All Rail

Bogue Chitto NWR LA/MS 31.7 125.5

Mountain Longleaf NWR AL 30.5 126.5

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA 1.1 29.5 146.2

Lower Hatchie NWR TN 27.8 69.8

Welaka NFH FL 23.7 25.7

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR FL 23.6 44.8

Mathews Brake NWR MS 23.3 47.5

Tallahatchie NWR MS 22.9 26.2

Meridian NFH MS 22.7 100.9

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR MS 0.8 22.1 185.6

Coldwater River NWR MS 22.0 26.3

Mckinney Lake NFH NC 21.6 79.8

Watercress Darter NWR AL 20.4 197.7

Cache River NWR AR 3.6 11.5 257.2

Sabine NWR LA 11.5 73.9

Bears Bluff NFH SC 11.4 33.0

Cahaba River NWR AL 0.9 8.3 70.3

Wassaw NWR GA 5.6 49.6

Transit

Transit connections include shuttles, buses, light rail, heavy rail, and trolleys serving multimodal

connections. Internal transit tends to be seasonal, and vehicle fleets could be shared between

nearby refuges of opposite peak seasons.13 Underserved populations can benefit from external

transit connections, allowing the Service to improve outreach for these demographics. Many refuges

are located within a county that provides some transit program; however, the potential for any transit

program to reach refuges will depend much on the proximity to refuge entrances, the extent of service

during the day and on specific days of the week, and the ability to commit to a partnership with the

Service. The American Public Transportation Association (APTA) provides links to thousands of

transit agencies in the United States; information is updated frequently and can be found on APTA’s

website.14 As part of the Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation15 (RATE) survey, refuge

managers can help determine if transit is a viable consideration for access to individual refuges.

Florida’s abundance of geospatial data includes the state’s fixed-guideway transit and bus routes.

While the fixed-guideway systems in Florida are in highly urban areas and away from refuges, several

bus routes run within one mile of refuges. Ten refuges have bus routes within one mile of their land

boundaries, with Florida Panther NWR actually intersecting Collier Area Transit’s Blue Route.16

Figure 2-3 shows Florida’s bus and fixed-route transit systems and the connectivity that currently

exists with ten refuges in the state.

Figure 2-3: Florida Bus and Fixed-Guideway Transit

13 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Trails_Layout_Final_123010.pdf

14 http://www.apta.com/resources/links/unitedstates/Pages/default.aspx

15 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)

16 Based on 2008 data pulled from the Florida Geographic Data Library < http://www.fgdl.org/ >
2-12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-13

In 2010, the Volpe Center evaluated 142 refuges in urban and suburban areas for connections to

transit service and trail connections. The Volpe Center is part of the U.S. Department of

Transportation’s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). A quantitative

assessment consisted of scoring transit systems and trails from one to five, based on the refuge’s

proximity to urban areas and the distance from a refuge’s postal address to trailheads or transit stops.

Transit systems were considered for daily frequencies and weekly schedules, as well as the ease of

connection via transit with other population centers in the region. Trails will be discussed in the next

section of this report. A total of 42 refuges were considered from Region 4. A sample of the Volpe

Center’s findings for transit located near 15 of the studied refuges in Region 4 is provided in

Table 2-7. The full list of evaluated refuges along with transit and trail findings can be found in

Appendix A2.1.

Of the evaluated refuges in Region 4, the Volpe Center found that St. Catherine Creek NWR in

Mississippi and J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR in Florida operate internal tram services due to high

visitation to enhance access for visitors within the refuges. While no information was readily available

on St. Catherine Creek NWR’s tram through the report, J. N. “Ding” Darling’s tram service was noted

to provide an interpretive program; a concessionaire provides a one and a half hour tour year-round

on the four-mile Wildlife Drive.

Lake Woodruff NWR in Florida was noted as having potential for transit due to the presence of a bus

route from VOLTRAN (Volusia County Public Transit System) that passes within one mile of the

refuge entrance and headquarters. The evaluation noted that this route currently caters to

commuters, but it could also be considered for a partnership for visitor access.

Pinckney Island NWR in South Carolina has several bus routes operated by the Lowcountry Regional

Transportation Authority (LCTA) that pass by the refuge entrance to connect Hilton Head Island with

the mainland. No bus stops were noted nearby, but this transit system could be a potential

partnership for future transit access to Pinckney Island NWR.

As urban areas expand, it will be important to consider new ways that communities can connect and

access Service lands. Planning for future access also will need to consider mobility concerns for

populations that would otherwise become underserved without proper infrastructure or

accommodations. This will ensure that all citizens of the American public can experience the legacy

of natural lands, fish and wildlife habitats, and species that the Service continues to preserve.

Table 2-7: Transit and Trails Connections: Region 4 Transit Findings17

Unit Name State Transit

Mode Distance (Miles) Transit Agency

Pelican Island NWR FL Bus 12 GoLineLRT

Archie Carr NWR FL Bus 4 Space Cost Area Transit

Lake Woodruff NWR FL Bus 0.8 VOTRAN

Mountain Longleaf NWR AL Bus 5

Areawide Community Transportation System

(Anniston, AL)

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR FL Bus and Rail 7 / 11.5 PalmTran and Tri-Rail

Bayou Sauvage NWR LA Bus 4.5 NORTA

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR MS Bus 1.5 (approx.) Coast Transit

Hobe Sound NWR FL Bus 8 PalmTran

17 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Trails_Layout_Final_123010.pdf
2-14 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Unit Name State Transit

Mode Distance (Miles) Transit Agency

Merritt Island NWR FL Bus 5.9 Space Cost Area Transit

Red River NWR LA Bus 4 SPORTRAN

Black Bayou Lake NWR LA Bus 7

D’arbonne NWR LA Bus Monroe Transit System

National Key Deer Refuge FL Intercity bus 0-2.5 Greyhound

Savannah-Pinckney NWR GA/SC Bus Unknown Lowcountry Regional Transit Authority

Wheeler WNR AL

On-demand

rural

transit

MCATS – Morgan County Area Transportation

System; TRAM –Transportation for Rural Areas

of Madison County

* Information presented in this table taken directly from Volpe Center Transit and Trails report

Recreation Trails and Paths

Trails within Service units can provide educational and scenic routes for visitors, while trails that

connect units to the broader transportation network are great options to improve last-mile connectivity

or simply to encourage pedestrian and bicycling use for the residents of nearby communities.

Seventy-seven refuges (about 60% of the 128 within Region 4) contain a total of approximately 350

miles of Service-owned and maintained walking, biking, and administrative trails that have been

inventoried for Region 4 in the SAMMS database.

Biking and walking within units need to be evaluated on a per-unit basis because these activities have

the potential to more easily disrupt the habitat of plant and animal species in areas immediately

adjacent to trails. Recreational bicycling can reach high speeds that may not be appropriate for the

species of wildlife that live in certain areas. While not every species or habitat is suited for visitation

by pedestrians and bicyclists, trails can be a wonderful way to access or experience the diverse lands

that the Service maintains.

Currently, recreational trails across the U.S. are not inventoried by a single entity. However, based

on data that was available in October 2012 from the states of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and North

Carolina, state and/or local bicycle routes were evaluated for proximity to Service Units. Florida and

Kentucky also had inventoried recreational trails, which included bicycle routes, multi-use paths, and

equestrian trails. Florida had even inventoried its blueways (water trails). While additional recreation

trails and bicycle routes likely exist in the remaining four states within Region 4 (and perhaps within

the four studied states), the existence and proximity of trails to Service lands in these four states can

inform further analysis for connectivity to pedestrian and biking trails for other locations based on

local knowledge of trails; or as additional recreational trails are inventoried, they can be mapped and

inform future LRTPs of the potential to connect to non-motorized transportation facilities. The Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, and North Carolina trails are shown in Figure 2-4 through Figure 2-7, with some

additional details on the refuges and hatcheries that are located within one mile of the trails or

connect to trails.

Of the 57 refuges and fish hatcheries located within the four states, 20 intersect or are adjacent to

facilities that support walking, biking, or multi-use activities and an additional 22 are located within

one mile of such facilities. Paddling, or blueway, facilities intersect 10 refuges and are located within

a mile of an additional 15 refuges. Cyclists often ride farther than pedestrians are willing to walk, thus

it is notable that 50 refuges and eight hatcheries are within 10 miles of biking or multi-use trails. Table

2-8 identifies the types of trails and number of Service Units in the four states that have provided

bicycle route and trail data at this time.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-15

Figure 2-4: Recreational Trails in Florida
2-16 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-5: Bicycle Routes in Georgia
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-17

Figure 2-6: Recreational Trails in Kentucky
2-18 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-7: Bicycle Routes in North Carolina
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-19

Table 2-8: Units within One Mile of Recreational Trails & Bicycle Routes in FL, GA, KY, and NC

Service Unit State

Type of Recreational Trail18

Walking Biking

Multi-Use

(walking and/

or biking)

Paddling Equestrian Motorized

Alligator River NWR NC X

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR FL X

Banks Lake NWR GA X

Cedar Island NWR NC X

Cedar Keys NWR FL X

Chassahowitzka NWR FL X

Egmont Key NWR FL X

Eufaula NWR AL/GA X

Florida Panther NWR FL X

Hobe Sound NWR FL X

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL X X

Lake Woodruff NWR FL X X X

Lower Suwannee NWR FL X

Mackay Island NWR NC/VA X

Matlacha Pass NWR FL X

Mattamuskeet NWR NC X

Mckinney Lake NFH NC X

Merritt Island NWR FL X X

National Key Deer Refuge FL X

Pea Island NWR NC X

Pelican Island NWR FL X X

Roanoke River NWR NC X

St. Marks NWR FL X X

St. Vincent NWR FL X

Swanquarter NWR NC X

Ten Thousand Islands NWR FL X

Welaka NFH FL X X

Total Number of Units with Trail Type: 6 10 5 10 1 1

18 As identified in inventoried trail routes provided by Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and NC Departments of Transportation.

It is anticipated that this list will grow and change as additional recreational facilities are created and more data becomes

available. This table was created based on data available October 2012 including: Florida Geodatabase Library

(http://www.fgdl.org) Recreational Trails data from October 16th, Georgia DOT Designated Bicycle Routes from the

Atlanta Regional Commission GIS Library, Kentucky Bicycle Routes and Recreational Trails

(http://transportation.ky.gov/Planning), North Carolina Bicycle Routes (https://connect.ncdot.gov/resources/gis).
2-20 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

The Volpe Center’s Transit and Trails19 project considered multi-use paths based on proximity of trails

to refuges’ postal addresses similarly quantifying the connectivity and potential for access to trails as

transit discussed in the previous section. Trails also were rated based on the quality of the trail,

which considered overall length, surface condition, and connectivity or proximity to urbanized areas

and/or regional destinations. Table 2-9 provides some details for six representative Region 4 refuges

that were found to be near existing trails in the Transit and Trails project.

Table 2-9: Transit and Trails Connections: Region 4 Trails Findings20

Refuge State

Trails

Names of Trail(s) Length (Miles) Distance from NWR (Miles)

Big Branch Marsh NWR LA Tammany Trace 27.5 Adjacent

Pelican Island NWR FL Jungle Trail 7.8 Through refuge

Archie Carr NWR FL Jungle Trail 7/8 0.5

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL Surfsound Ct/ Locke Ave/ unnamed All < 0.5 miles Adjacent

Mountain Longleaf NWR AL Chief Ladiga Trail 33 4.3

St. Marks NWR FL Tallahassee-St. Marks Historic Railroad Trail 20 2

* Information presented in this table taken directly from Volpe Center Transit and Trails report

Region 4 refuges assessed for this program that had direct trail connections were Big Branch Marsh

NWR in Louisiana and Pelican Island NWR and J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR in Florida. Each one of the

trails identified above is in good or better condition. Big Branch Marsh NWR connects to a 27.5-mile

bicycle trail called the Tammany Trace Bike Trail. Pelican Island has an unpaved road used by

bicyclists and walkers that runs through the refuge and is nearby the Indian River Lagoon National

Scenic Byway. J.N. “Ding” Darling’s trail system and Wildlife Drive is connected to an extensive

multi-use path system owned and maintained by the City of Sanibel. Almost the entire island of

Sanibel is covered with bicycle trails with more than 26 miles of paved trails.

Two additional evaluated refuges in Florida and one in Alabama were noted as refuges with high

potential for direct trail connections. Archie Carr NWR (Florida) is located near Pelican Island NWR

within a half mile from the Jungle Trail. A multi-use path inside Archie Carr NWR runs alongside the

same scenic byway that runs alongside Pelican Island, granting a tremendous opportunity to coordinate

last-mile connectivity between the two refuges. St. Marks NWR (Florida) has two potential prospects

for trail connections, the closest within two miles. The convergence of the St. Marks and Wakulla

Rivers keeps St. Marks NWR disconnected from the town of St. Marks and the 20-mile Tallahassee-St.

Marks Historic Railroad Trail. However, the St. Marks entry road was designated recently by the FHWA

as the Big Bend National Scenic Byway, which connects to the refuge’s historic lighthouse, a huge draw

for visitors. Mountain Longleaf NWR in Alabama is approximately 4.3 miles from the 33-mile Chief

Ladiga Trail. As a relatively new refuge with limited visitor facilities, it was recommended that Mountain

Longleaf NWR consider connecting to the trail to expand access as it continues to grow and develop.

19 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Trails_Layout_Final_123010.pdf

20 http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Trails_Layout_Final_123010.pdf
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-21

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation21

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, along with the U.S. DOT’s Volpe Center, conducted a regional

alternative transportation evaluation (RATE) in Region 4 that began in the early part of 2013. The

RATE team sent a questionnaire to Region 4 refuge leadership that included questions on ATS as

well as general transportation planning. Of the 133 stations, 116 responded to the questionnaire,

resulting in a response rate of 87 percent. Half of the stations that did not respond are closed to the

public.

The RATE serves as a pilot program to integrate alternative transportation systems (ATS) into the

LRTP through the effective consideration and integration of travel means other than the use of a

personal automobile. Increased ATS would be beneficial to Region 4 due to a number of

complementary goals. As noted in the RATE report, the use of ATS modes supports natural resource

protection with short-term benefits such as the reduced potential for animal-vehicle collisions, and

reductions in air, water, and soil pollutants from vehicle emissions. Land preservation could become

a benefit in the long term because ATS could positively impact units by negating the need for

roadway network and/or parking expansion.

The RATE report notes the following potential alternative transportation systems that could be

implemented through the Service or through Service partnerships with others:

· Water-based transportation

· Regional transit connections (bus, light rail, trolley, commuter rail, passenger rail)

· Shuttles and van transit connecting stations with other destinations

· Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (sidewalks, paths, bicycle lanes, regional trails)

· Motorized transportation systems operating internally within stations

· Publicly and privately operated systems22

Water-based Transportation

Findings through the RATE have shown that Region 4 has a high potential for water-based access.

Many Region 4 units are located near major bodies of water and wetlands, which could offer positive

ATS impacts from water-based transportation, and almost 90 percent of refuges offer some type of

non-motorized boating. Alternatively, there is risk associated with certain infrastructure stability due

to the potential for variable water levels and vulnerability to impacts of climate change.

Water-based access is already being used in Region 4. In fact, more than half of the stations

reported that visitors could and had accessed the station using water-based transportation. The

RATE also noted that 32 percent of the visitors, on average, accessed stations by a water-based

mode. Because fishing is the most popular activity throughout Region 4, it is feasible that the

percentage of visitors who access Service units via water-based modes could be augmented by

additional promotion for the use of boats, kayaks and canoes as means to both access and

participate in water-based activities such as fishing.

21 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)

22 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)
2-22 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Transit Connections

Other than water-based transport, the RATE reported that most refuges indicated limited ATS use. It

also reported that many refuges in Region 4 are not located near urban areas, making connections

with major transit providers a challenge. It noted that the majority of stations indicated that current

visitors were not familiar with transit and were not inclined to use bicycles, which may be an indication

that visitors in less urban areas may not be exposed to biking, walking, and transit which are all more

prevalent in urbanized areas. For the existing transit service that is located near Service units, lastmile connectivity is a challenge. Eleven percent of Region 4 units are located within three miles of a

transit station, but only three percent are located within a half mile of a transit station. The use of

transit for special events is indicated as the most appropriate way to incorporate transit into Region

4’s refuges and hatcheries. Thirteen percent of Region 4 refuges utilize transit for special events

already.

Nonmotorized Transportation

The RATE concluded that the majority of refuges allow bicycling on all or parts of the refuge (47

percent allow cycling in general; 29 percent allow cycling in specific areas). Currently, almost 13

percent of Region 4’s units are located within a half mile of a regional multi-use trail; nearly 20

percent are located within three miles of a trail. The RATE recommends that the Service consider

connectivity with nearby regional trails along with additional signage and interpretive panels in order

to extend the refuge experience to trail users and the surrounding community. Encouraging walking

or biking as an access mode can be beneficial for the reduction of impacts associated with motorized

modes, such as noise and air pollution.

Improved Visitor Programs

One of the RATE survey questions focused on transportation improvements that could improve visitor

programs. Over 100 of the refuges responded to this question with the highest responses (over 30%)

including improved signage for orientation to and within the station, water-access facilities, pedestrian

trails/paths within the station, and social media and/or web-based interpretation. Twenty percent of

the refuges answering the question haven’t considered transportation issues at all. The breadth of

responses to the RATE survey shows the diversity of refuges, opportunities, and challenges that exist

across Region 4. Regardless of the transportation considerations, most refuges could explore more

robust ways of incorporating ATS on and to their stations.

Partnerships

One way to expand ATS opportunities on a refuge includes partnering with other agencies and

organizations to find mutually beneficial projects. Of the nearly 100 refuges answering a question

about transportation partnerships, nearly all indicated previous work with local governments. Most

have also worked with state government agencies, nongovernmental agencies, and Friends groups.

Even still, only 13 percent of the refuges coordinate with local, regional, and state governments on a

long-term basis. Growing these relationships to include long-range planning can be very beneficial for

refuges, not only for ATS but across all transportation planning aspects.

Project Selection

Because ATS is an important part of the overall LRTP effort, the RATE team reviewed evaluation

criteria being implemented at the National level and highlighted key linkages between the criteria and

ATS projects. As refuge managers consider ATS projects within and connecting to their stations, it

will be valuable for them to consider the evaluation criteria and how their ATS projects can excel.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-23

GOAL 2 – ASSET MANAGEMENT

The Service’s transportation system is necessary for refuge staff and visitors to safely and easily

access as well as enjoy the national network of conserved and maintained lands and waters, but it

must be maintained sustainably for future generations. The Service at a national level has

implemented an asset management plan that is consistent with the Asset Management Plan 2009

(prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management [BLM]) to manage its

diverse set of transportation-related assets in order to provide the best level of service with the

available resources.

Goal: Provide a financially sustainable transportation system to satisfy current and future land

management needs in the face of a changing climate.

Objective 1: Use asset management principles to preserve and maintain important transportation

infrastructure elements at an appropriate condition level.

Objective 2: Decommission low priority assets not needed to meet the Service’s mission.

Objective 3: Examine operational and maintenance sustainability when considering new assets.

Objective 4: Adapt to changing climate conditions.

The Service, similar to many federal agencies, is challenged to fully maintain its available assets with

currently available resources. It will be important to maintain high priority infrastructure before

investing in new assets to expand capacity, as well as consider solutions that are sustainable in the

long run. Decommissioning low priority assets that are not necessary for the Service’s mission, as

well as careful examination when considering new assets for operational and maintenance

sustainability can help moderate the management of assets, high-dollar maintenance backlogs, and

the overall cost of replacement value (CRV).

Under the current federal transportation bill, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21),

the Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) funds projects that improve access within the federal

estate, including a $30 million commitment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The FLTP will require

the maintenance of a comprehensive national inventory of public federal lands transportation facilities

for identification, assessment of condition, and determination of transportation needs.

Assets maintained by the Service are inventoried in both the Service Asset Maintenance

Management System (SAMMS) and the Road Inventory Program (RIP) databases. RIP is collected

on a cyclical basis every five years by the FHWA’s Federal Lands Highway Division on behalf of the

Service. Data collected includes condition of pavements, geometrics, and feature locations on

existing roads and parkways. The data helps provide ongoing monitoring of the conditions of all

public use roads, trails, and parking lots to help Federal Lands Management Agencies (FLMA) and

the FHWA define and support decisions for improvement projects. SAMMS is updated more

frequently by the Service to assist budgetary decision-making by providing information on facility and

equipment deficiencies, as well as justifying budgetary requests for maintenance needs.

Areas for condition and/or safety improvements are determined through examination of a few

variables including the Asset Priority Index (API) and the Facility Condition Index (FCI) in SAMMS, as

well as the observed conditions through the cyclical RIP data. The API is determined by the Service

for roads and trails—those assets with an API greater than or equal to 80 are considered “mission

critical.” Mission critical assets should be kept in “good” or better condition, which is assessed either
2-24 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

through the FCI or through the most recent RIP cycle. The FCI gives an indication of the ratio of

deferred maintenance cost to the full replacement value, and is often used as an indicator of

infrastructure condition. RIP Cycle 4 was completed in 2011 for Region 4 and provides deficiencies,

condition ratings from “failed” to “excellent,” and an indication of remaining service life (RSL).

The SAMMS database indicates that Region 4 contains 2,430 transportation assets, including

vehicular bridges as well as paved and unpaved roads and trails. As solely a list of assets (not

considering miles of roads or trails), Region 4 holds the largest share of national assets in the

SAMMS database, with slightly more than 40% of the total of 5,968 transportation assets identified for

the Service’s eight regions.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

The Deferred Maintenance (DM) backlog for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) became a

high-profile topic of discussion during Congressional hearings in 2011. At that time, some

Congressional representatives indicated that the NWRS should not request funds to buy additional

land until the DM backlog was reduced. An NWRS Leadership Team established a work group that

further investigated the backlog situation and determine ways to reduce it. Throughout the process,

the team determined that eight of the Service’s refuge field stations make up approximately one-third

of the total DM backlog for the National Wildlife Refuge System. Five of the top eight refuges are

located in the Southeast Region: White River (Arkansas), St. Marks and Merritt Island (Florida),

Pocosin Lakes (North Carolina), and Carolina Sandhills (South Carolina). In order to address the

backlog, the national and regional offices, with assistance from field station personnel, are

undertaking an intense review of all assets, particularly roadways, levees, and non-mission critical

assets. The portion that pertains to roadways includes a reclassification of these assets into tiers that

determine the type of maintenance to be applied. The existing road classification standards include a

total of five classes (as determined by FHWA):

· Class I – Principal Refuge Road (Public Roads). Routes that constitute the main access

route, main auto tour route, or thoroughfare for refuge visitors.

· Class II – Connector Refuge Road (Public Roads). Routes that provide circulation within the

refuge. These routes can also provide access to areas of scenic, scientific, recreational or

cultural interest, such as overlooks, campgrounds, education centers, etc.

· Class III – Special Purpose Refuge Roads (Public Roads). Roads that provide circulation

within special use areas, such as campgrounds or public concessionaire facilities, or access

to remote areas of the refuge.

· Class IV – Administrative Access Roads (Administrative Roads). Routes intended for access

to administrative developments or structures, such as maintenance offices, employee

quarters, or utility areas.

· Class V – Restricted Roads (Administrative Roads). Routes normally closed to the public,

such as maintenance roads, Service roads, and patrol roads. These routes may be open to

the public for a short period of time for a special use, such as hunting access.

Currently, road repairs and maintenance are estimated the same despite differences in mission

support, design, or usage, resulting in inflated costs for roadway maintenance. The Service has

created a new tiering structure that will complement the existing asset codes and classifications while

addressing other critical aspects of design, usage and maintenance, and how it supports the overall

mission and purpose of the station. One of the following three tiers will be assigned to each roadway

(as described in the attachment Guidance for Reducing the NWRS Deferred Maintenance (DM)

Backlog dated November 13, 2012):
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-25

· Tier 1 Road - Paved with a continuous surface of asphalt or concrete material. Tier 1 roads

are primarily the main thoroughfare, main auto tour routes, loop drive, and spur roads for

visitors or critical administrative/management functions. They may be routes leading to

maintenance shops, quarters, public concessionaire facilities, education centers, scientific or

cultural interest, or visitor facilities. These roads must be accessible by standard two wheel

drive passenger or commercial vehicles including low clearance cars, vans, light trucks, and

heavy trucks. Other than the main access to the station headquarters or visitor center, Tier 1

roads should have average to above average traffic levels for a refuge setting. Tier 1 roads

may be maintained and repaired through the expenditure of Operations, Annual Maintenance,

Deferred Maintenance (DM), Construction (CI), FWS Transportation Program, Emergency

Relief for Federally-Owned Roads (ERFO) program funds or other fund sources.

· Tier 2 Roads - Improved roads constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces, continuously or

with mixed surface types, and provide primary access to or as a main thoroughfare, auto tour

route, loop drive, and spur road. They may be routes leading to station facilities, scientific or

cultural interest locations, and recreational areas. Tier 2 roads will normally have at least two

of the following attributes: road crowns or cross slope, road side ditches, berms, bridges,

geotextile fabric, engineered base materials, or culverts installed to enhance the performance

of the road. Regular maintenance allows passage by standard two wheel drive passenger

and commercial vehicles including low clearance cars. Tier 2 roads could have varying levels

of traffic depending on use. Tier 2 roads may be maintained or repaired through the

expenditure of Operations, Annual Maintenance, DM, CI, FWS Transportation Program, or

ERFO program funds or other fund sources.

· Tier 3 Roads - Natural or improved roads containing native soils, asphalt, concrete,

aggregate, sand, or any other surface or combination of surfaces. To qualify as a road, these

roads must have been physically constructed and are being maintained as described in

Section 4 of this guidance. Tier 3 roads typically receive below average traffic use in a refuge

setting. Even an administrative paved road that is passable at all times may be a Tier 3 road

if it is rarely used; for example, a paved road around abandoned structures that is only used

during the Annual Condition Assessment. Maintenance and repair of these roads is

performed only as necessary, not in accordance with a regular schedule or industry standard

practices. Tier 3 roads are normally repaired only by routine operations and Annual

Maintenance funds, and are not routinely eligible for DM, FWS Transportation Program, or

ERFO program. Tier 3 roads receive no regular or extended Deferred Maintenance or

Transportation funding. Tier 3 roads may be eligible for emergency and DM funding for

repairs on a case-by-case basis when failure to complete the required repairs would seriously

impair the ability of the field station to fulfill mission requirements. Any expenditure of DM

funds or contribution to DM backlog due to emergency repair needs approval by the Regional

Program Chief or Roads Coordinator on a case-by-case basis. Tier 3 roads condition could

vary from sometimes passable by a two wheel drive vehicle to only suitable for high-clearance

four wheel drive vehicles. Seasonal conditions or wet weather may render these roads

impassable. Comprehensive Condition assessments for Tier 3 roads will not be completed by

either FWS or FHWA except to review their classification. Only Annual Condition

Assessments by the field station will be completed to verify the inventory and to ensure the

road is still passable as necessary to meet mission needs.

The flowchart in Figure 2-8 shows the series of decisions that staff will take to determine the tiers of

all roadway assets. This work began in 2012 and will continue through much of 2013 as well.

Validation of the tiers will continue with assistance from FHWA through current and future inspection

cycles.
2-26 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-8: Road Tiers - FWS Decision Tree
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-27

ROADS

Region 4 holds a large share of national assets inventoried in RIP as well as SAMMS. According to

RIP, Region 4 contains the largest number of inventoried public use roadway miles, 1,463.9 miles,

compared to the next highest inventoried road miles in Regions 6 and 2, which have approximately

944 miles and 818 public use miles, respectively. The RIP database for Cycle 4 currently lacks

information for Regions 1, 7, and 8. These regions have not completed full inventories for this Cycle.

However, total road miles further show Region 4 with the largest share of miles, 34% or roughly 3,532

miles, of the combined 10,381 road miles within the five regions (2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) inventoried to date.

Tables showing all Region 4 road assets inventoried by RIP Cycle 4 can be found in Appendix A2.2.

Table 2-10 notes the condition of Region 4’s public use roads by State.

Within the region, Arkansas contains the largest number of road miles for the Region 4 Fish and

Wildlife Service, with 320.9 public use road miles, approximately 22% of the regional total. North

Carolina follows with 243.9 public use road miles, or 16.7% of the regional total. Nine states have

more than 80 miles of public use road. Puerto Rico, Kentucky, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are the

exception with 19.7, 4.9, and 2.2 miles, respectively.

Road condition extremes fall to the states with the smallest share of roadways. Kentucky, with 4.9

miles of public roads, has 89.2% in ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ condition. In contrast, the U.S. Virgin Islands,

with only 2.2 miles of public roads, have 96.8% failing roadway conditions.

More than 75% of public-use miles inventoried, or 1,107.4 miles, are gravel roads. The remaining

25% of the Region 4 Service roadways consist of native and primitive surfaces (245.7 miles), asphalt

(110.8), and concrete roads (0.06).

Overall, Region 4’s public roads are in relatively good shape. Of the 1,463.9 total public road miles,

75.5% (1,105.4 miles) are in “good” or “excellent” condition. Only 5.3% (77.9 miles) are in “poor” or

“failed” condition.

Table 2-10: Cycle 4 RIP Public Use Sections Conditions by Region 4 State

Region 4

States

Total

Public

Roadway

Miles

Percent of

Region 4

Total

Public Road Condition Rating

(Reported in Miles and Percent of Total)

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

Alabama 85.1 5.8%

2.1 66.6 15.5 0.2 0.6

2.5% 78.3% 18.2% 0.3% 0.8%

Arkansas 320.9 21.9%

77.5 178.2 43.2 8.3 13.7

24.2% 55.5% 13.4% 2.6% 4.3%

Florida 124.5 8.5%

14.9 70.9 31.4 1.8 5.5

12.0% 56.9% 25.2% 1.4% 4.4%

Georgia 80.5 5.5%

4.5 50.3 23.4 2.1 0.1

5.6% 62.5% 29.0% 2.7% 0.1%

Kentucky 4.9 0.3%

2.8 1.6 0.3 -- 0.2

56.1% 33.0% 6.0% -- 4.9%

Louisiana 167.0 11.4%

36.7 99.2 23.7 4.9 2.5

22.0% 59.4% 14.2% 2.9% 1.5%

Mississippi 141.0 9.6%

24.2 89.6 23.0 4.0 0.1

17.2% 63.6% 16.3% 2.9% 0.1%
2-28 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Region 4

States

Total

Public

Roadway

Miles

Percent of

Region 4

Total

Public Road Condition Rating

(Reported in Miles and Percent of Total)

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

North Carolina 243.9 16.7%

67.6 131.4 37.6 5.0 2.3

27.7% 53.9% 15.4% 2.1% 0.9%

Puerto Rico 19.7 1.3%

7.4 6.3 3.2 -- 2.8

37.5% 31.9% 16.4% -- 14.2%

South Carolina 175.8 12.0%

26.3 73.6 59.6 0.6 15.6

15.0% 41.9% 33.9% 0.4% 8.9%

Tennessee 98.5 6.7%

8.3 65.1 19.9 3.7 1.5

8.5% 66.1% 20.2% 3.8% 1.6%

U.S. Virgin

Islands 2.2 0.2%

-- 0.1 -- -- 2.1

-- 3.2% -- -- 96.8%

Region 4

Total 1,463.9 272.4 833.0 280.7 30.7 47.2

18.6% 56.9% 19.2% 2.1% 3.2%

Figure 2-9 shows the variations in road conditions for each of the five surface types of public use

roads in Region 4. More than 75% of the public use miles inventoried, or 1,107.4 miles, are gravel

roads. The remaining 25% consist of native and primitive surfaces (245.7 miles or 16.8%); asphalt

(110.8 miles or 7.6%); and concrete (0.06 miles or <0.1%).

Figure 2-9: Public Cycle 4 RIP Section Conditions by Surface Type

Road conditions at the unit level are discussed in more detail in the Safety section.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-29

TRAILS

In Region 4, a total of 77 Service units contain trails identified in the Cycle 4 RIP data. Of these, the

majority of trails are hiking trails. Two locations have bicycle trails. Many units have administrative

road trails and some “other” trails which include fire-break trails. Overall, 226.9 public use trail miles

are identified in Region 4’s Cycle 4 RIP data. The trail conditions by surface type are noted in Table

2-11. The administrative road trails have not been rated and account for 123.1 total miles.

Table 2-11: Service Trail Conditions by Trail Surface Type

Trail

Surfaces

Total

Public

Trail Miles

Percent of

Region 4

Total

Public Trail Surface Condition Rating

(Reported in Miles and Percent of Total)

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

Asphalt 4.6 11.4%

3.5 0.2 0.0 0.9 0.0

76.4% 5.0% 0.0% 18.6% 0.0%

Boardwalk 6.5 16.3%

6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

99.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

Concrete 1.9 4.7%

1.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0

93.5% 0.0% 6.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Gravel 31.2 78.0%

30.3 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

97.1% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Mowed 24.7 61.8%

20.8 2.3 0.0 1.1 0.5

84.3% 9.3% 0.0% 4.4% 2.1%

Native 154.8 387.0%

133.0 10.1 11.3 0.0 0.5

85.9% 6.5% 7.3% 0.0% 0.3%

Paver Block 0.5 1.1%

0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Puncheon 0.1 0.2%

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Woodchip 3.0 7.4%

3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Service trails consist of a variety of surface types. Native trails are by far the most prevalent, but a

sizeable number of trail miles consist of gravel and mowed surfaces. Less common, although

notable, are trails that traverse boardwalks or are made of puncheon paver-blocks, wood chips, or

more traditional paved surfaces such as concrete and asphalt.

Generally, the public use trails in Region 4 are in very good condition. Nearly 88% of the public use

trails (199 miles) are classified as being in “excellent” condition. Only 1.3% (2.9 miles) is classified as

being in “poor” or “very poor” condition. Considering surface type only, asphalt trails are the worst,

with 0.85 of 4.56 total miles (18.6%) rated in “poor” condition. All 0.85 miles of poor condition asphalt

trails are located in Bayou Sauvage NWR, where about half of the asphalt trails are in poor condition.

Bayou Sauvage NW is located in Louisiana.

Table 2-12 shows the public use trail miles by state and overall condition. Table 2-13 includes the

number of trail miles by state and activity, as detailed in the existing database. Florida has 57.2 miles

of trails followed by Louisiana, which has 45.1 miles. Puerto Rico is the only state that has trails

designated specifically for bicycle use. Kentucky and the U.S. Virgin Islands do not have any

identified trails in Service units.
2-30 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Table 2-12: Public Use Service Trails by State

Region 4 States Total Public

Trail Miles

Percent of

Region 4

Total

Public Trail Condition Rating

(Reported in Miles and Percent of Total) Admin Roads

(Not Rated)

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

Alabama 15.5 6.8%

14.6 0.4 0.5 -- 0.03 17.1

94.4% 2.3% 3.1% -- 0.2%

Arkansas 11.4 5.0%

9.9 1.0 0.4 -- -- --

87.2% 9.1% 3.7% -- --

Florida 57.2 25.2%

48.2 2.1 6.9 -- -- 48.9

84.2% 3.7% 12.1% -- --

Georgia 31.3 13.8%

27.0 2.0 0.6 1.1 0.6 12.2

86.1% 6.5% 2.1% 3.4% 1.9%

Kentucky -- 0.0%

 -- -- -- -- -- --

 -- -- -- -- --

Louisiana 45.1 19.9%

42.2 1.7 -- 0.9 0.4 6.2

93.5% 3.8% 0.0% 1.9% 0.9%

Mississippi 22.2 9.8%

22.2 -- -- -- -- 13.5

100.0% -- -- -- --

North Carolina 7.5 3.3%

4.9 0.9 1.7 -- -- 5.1

65.1% 12.1% 22.8% -- --

Puerto Rico 8.4 3.7%

5.7 1.6 1.2 -- -- 0.8

67.4% 18.4% 14.2% -- --

South Carolina 17.6 7.7%

15.7 1.8 -- -- -- 8.8

89.6% 10.4% -- -- --

Tennessee 10.5 4.6%

8.5 2.0 -- -- -- 10.0

80.9% 19.1% -- -- --

U.S. Virgin Islands -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --

Region 4 Total 226.9 199.0 13.5 11.4 1.9 1.0 122.6 87.7% 6.0% 5.0% 0.9% 0.4%

Table 2-13: Public Use Service Trail Types by State

State Biking Hiking Other Total

Alabama 15.5 15.5

Arkansas 11.4 11.4

Florida 57.2 57.2

Georgia 20.0 11.3 31.3

Louisiana 45.1 45.1

Mississippi 22.2 22.2

North Carolina 7.5 7.5

Puerto Rico 4.5 3.9 8.4

South Carolina 17.6 17.6

Tennessee 10.5 10.5

Grand Total 4.5 211.0 11.3 226.9

* ‘Other’ trails are generally fire-breaks or trails between fire breaks.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-31

PARKING

Region 4 has 117 Service units with parking facilities. These parking facilities account for a total of

approximately 288.6 acres. Parking facilities are composed of a variety of materials including

asphalt, concrete, gravel, and native and primitive surfaces. Arkansas has 80.2 acres of public

parking, by far the most for the Region. Table 2-14 summarizes the parking acreages and overall

condition by state, including a summary of all FWS Region 4 parking conditions.

Table 2-14: Parking Surface Conditions by Region 4 State

Region 4 States

Total Public

Parking

Acres

Percent of

Region 4

Total

Public Parking Surface Condition Rating

(Reported in Acres and Percent of Total)

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

Alabama 13.7 4.7% 0.0 7.3 5.5 0.9 --

0.1% 53.4% 40.2% 6.3% --

Arkansas 80.2 27.8% 0.5 29.8 40.7 9.0 0.3

0.6% 37.2% 50.7% 11.2% 0.3%

Florida 28.7 10.0% 3.6 19.8 4.9 0.5 --

12.4% 68.9% 17.1% 1.7% --

Georgia 13.9 4.8% 1.7 6.8 4.7 0.7 --

12.2% 48.8% 33.9% 5.1% --

Kentucky 3.1 1.1% 0.3 1.7 1.0 0.1 --

8.5% 55.2% 32.0% 4.4% --

Louisiana 50.6 17.5% 2.4 29.1 13.3 5.5 0.2

4.8% 57.6% 26.4% 10.8% 0.4%

Mississippi 27.1 9.4% 1.8 15.8 7.8 1.6 0.1

6.5% 58.2% 28.9% 5.9% 0.4%

North Carolina 15.7 5.4% 1.3 8.4 5.8 0.2 --

8.1% 53.6% 37.2% 1.1% --

Puerto Rico 3.8 1.3% 1.1 0.8 1.8 0.2 --

28.4% 20.1% 46.6% 4.9% --

South Carolina 19.3 6.7% 2.0 10.8 6.1 0.4 --

10.3% 56.2% 31.4% 2.2% --

Tennessee 31.7 11.0% 1.1 18.7 9.3 1.9 0.8

3.4% 58.9% 29.2% 6.1% 2.4%

U.S. Virgin Islands 0.6 0.2% -- 0.2 0.1 0.4 --

 -- 27.8% 13.7% 58.4% --

Virginia23 0.2 0.1% -- -- 0.2 -- --

 -- -- 100.0% -- --

Region 4 Total 288.6 15.6 149.2 101.2 21.2 1.3

5.4% 51.7% 35.1% 7.4% 0.5%

Parking condition inside Service units generally is fair. For units that have more than one acre of

parking, only 14 have more than 10% of their parking surfaces rated in “poor” or “failing” condition.

An equal number of units have more than 80% of their parking surfaces rated as being in “good” or

23 Parking in Virginia is part of the Mackay Island NWR, which crosses the border from North Carolina into Virginia.
2-32 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

“excellent” condition. Table 2-15 and Table 2-16, respectively, identify the five units with the best and

worst overall parking surface conditions. 24

Table 2-15: Service Units with Best Parking Surface Conditions

Station

(units considered had at least

one acre of parking)

State

Acres of Parking by Pavement Condition Total

Acres

Percent

Good /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Chassahowitzka NWR FL 1.3 1.3 100.0%

Hobe Sound NWR FL 1.6 1.6 100.0%

Pelican Island NWR FL 0.0 1.1 1.1 100.0%

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA 1.5 7.9 0.1 9.4 99.4%

Bayou Cocodrie NWR LA 0.5 3.4 0.1 4.0 97.4%

Table 2-16: Service Units with Worst Parking Surface Conditions

Station

(units considered had at least

one acre of parking)

State

Acres of Parking by Pavement Condition Total

Acres

Percent

Good /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Meridian NFH MS 1.0 1.0 100.0%

Mountain Longleaf NWR AL 0.2 0.4 0.6 1.2 51.4%

Atchafalaya NWR LA 0.6 0.6 1.0 2.3 45.2%

Cat Island NWR LA 0.8 0.7 0.6 2.1 27.8%

Grand Cote NWR LA 2.0 0.6 0.9 3.5 25.6%

GOAL 3 – COORDINATED OPPORTUNITIES

Transportation resources can be used to help support the mission of the Service. As a result,

coordinated opportunities with other entities can go beyond merely leveraging funding and

perhaps consider broader maintenance goals that would be mutually beneficial to both the

partner(s) and the Service. Identifying key partners in the region and at the unit level will be a

valuable exercise to consider during future planning and coordination. The Service’s mission to

work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the

continuing benefit of the American people is perfectly aligned with considering partnerships and

coordination with other non-Service entities.

As previously mentioned, the current surface transportation reauthorization act, MAP-21, requires the

maintenance of a comprehensive national inventory of public federal land transportation facilities

relative to the new Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), as well as an inventory adjacent

and connecting transportation assets not owned or maintained by federal land management agencies

relative to the new Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). Public highways, roads, bridges, trails, or

transit systems that are located on, adjacent to, and provides access to federal lands for which the

title or maintenance responsibility is vested in a state, county, town, township, tribe, municipal or local

government will be eligible for funds under the Federal Lands Access Program. This program will

pave the way for new partnerships that will be mutually beneficial for federal land management

agencies (FLMAs) as well as adjacent departments of transportation (DOTs).

24 For units that have at least one acre of parking
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-33

Goal: Seek partnered transportation solutions that support the Service’s mission, maximize the utility

of Service resources, and provide mutual benefits to the Service and its external partners.

Objective 1: Identify key potential internal and external partnerships at the national, regional, and

unit levels.

Objective 2: Devise and follow a systematic method to continually expand numbers of partners

and partnership opportunities.

Objective 3: Develop best partnership practices for each goal that illustrate best practices in

forming and nurturing coalitions to support the Service’s mission.

Objective 4: Maximize leveraging opportunities by identifying and pursuing partnership

opportunities where there may be shared planning, design, implementation, and/or potential

economic savings for projects of mutual interest and benefit.

For this section, identification of entities that share political boundaries with Service lands has helped

create a tangible list of potential new partnerships and collaborating agencies at both the Regional

and unit level. Funding opportunities can be leveraged with an increase in the number of

partnerships and number of partnered projects.

POLITICAL BOUNDARIES

Region 4 falls within the boundaries of 10 states within the contiguous United States, along with

Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition, Navassa Island, along with the U.S. Virgin

Islands, is an unorganized, unincorporated territory of the United States. Although Navassa Island is

very small and inhabited mainly by goats and some species of waterfowl, it is a NWR in its entirety

and is located in the Caribbean Sea less than 50 miles west of Haiti. Florida and Louisiana host the

greatest numbers of refuges in the Southeast, with 30 and 24 refuges and hatcheries within their

borders, respectively. For comparison, Mississippi contains the third largest number of Service units

with 17 units. Kentucky and the U.S. Virgin Islands have the fewest refuges and hatcheries with only

three each. Puerto Rico only has five.

Refuges do not necessarily conform to political boundaries. In fact, while four refuges share a border

with state lines, seven refuges within Region 4 straddle state lines, including one that intersects the

Commonwealth of Virginia, outside of the northern boundary of Region 4 and extending into the

territory of FWS Region 5 (Northeast). Figure 2-10 shows the seven refuges that straddle state lines.

Refuges and hatcheries are located within 183 counties, parishes, and municipios (Puerto Rico local

jurisdictions), along with Navassa Island and the three main land masses or geopolitical units that

make up the U.S. Virgin Islands. Overall, 58 refuges cross more than one county boundary, with 23

crossing more than two counties. The Theodore Roosevelt NWR has multiple disconnected (but

collectively managed) sites, and is scattered throughout eight separate counties. Alternatively, 46

counties in Region 4 share land with more than one refuge or fish hatchery, with as many as four

units being contained wholly or in part within a single county.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) are associated with urbanized areas that have a

population greater than 50,000. A total of 40 refuges and fish hatcheries intersect the planning

boundaries of 30 separate MPOs, as shown in Figure 2-11. In some cases, a single MPO contains

more than one Service Unit, as noted in the call-out boxes. As many as four refuges intersect the

boundaries of a single MPO in Fort Meyers, Florida. The Space Coast Transportation Planning

Organization in Viera, Florida, and the Regional Planning Commission of New Orleans, Louisiana,

share planning boundaries with three refuges each. The intersection of Service units with political

boundaries is summarized in Appendix A2.3.
2-34 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS – NONATTAINMENT AREAS

Six refuges directly intersect air quality nonattainment areas (NAAs) that have been identified for

nonattainment with three of the six common air pollutants: ozone, sulfur dioxide, and particulate

matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter. Refuges located within NAAs defined by the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) will be discussed further in the Environment section.

However, it is important to note that nonattainment areas have some potential for coordinated

educational and financial opportunities with the local MPO in order to address the concern of air

quality standards for both wildlife and human inhabitants for the areas.

OTHER PROTECTED AREAS

The Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US) is the official inventory of protected

open space in the United States. This inventory captures more than 750 million acres—including

FWS lands—in thousands of holdings held in trust by national, state, and some local

governments, as well as some nonprofit conservation organizations.25 More than 500 federal,

territorial, Native American, state, regional, local, private, and nongovernmental organization

(NGO) lands are located within five miles of Region 4 refuges and fish hatcheries. Any of the

entities potentially could serve as partners or share resources with the FWS. Table 2-17

summarizes the various kinds of land management agencies and organizations with protected

open space areas that lie within five miles of Region 4 units.

As shown in Figure 2-12, only 10 Region 4 refuges and two hatcheries are not located within 5

miles from another land management area. Not surprisingly, five of these isolated Service units

are located on small islands separated from mainland masses. The remaining five refuges and

the two hatcheries happen to be located farther away from other land management areas.

Perhaps these areas should be evaluated for habitat fragmentation and for local coordination to

ensure that habitat continuity is sufficient for sustained human and wildlife population growth and

change. Habitat fragmentation also could be addressed in locations with several closely

clustered land management areas, if the connection of multiple areas would not unnecessarily

inhibit existing transportation routes.

25 USGS GAP Analysis, PAD-US Factsheet, September 2012
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-35

Figure 2-10: Service Units that Straddle State Boundaries
2-36 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-11: MPOs with One or Multiple Service Units
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-37

Table 2-17: Land Management Agencies/Organizations within 5 miles of Region 4 Units26

Land Management Agency/Organization Number of FWS

Units within 5 miles

Audubon Society 1

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 1

City Land 1

County Land 3

Department of Defense (DOD) 34

Forest Service (USFS) 18

Local Land Trust 7

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 1

National Park Service (NPS) 19

Native American Land 2

Other Federal Land 5

Other State Land 13

Private Conservation Land 27

Private Unrestricted for Development/No Known Restriction 4

Regional Agency Land 1

State Coastal Reserve 12

State Cultural Affairs 16

State Department of Conservation 2

State Department of Land 10

State Department of Natural Resources 32

State Department of Transportation 7

State Fish and Wildlife 70

State Land Board 8

State Natural Heritage Program 7

State Park & Recreation 57

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 5

The Nature Conservancy (TNC) 11

Unknown 4

U.S. Territories - Unknown Owner 2

U.S. Virgin Islands Government 3

26 Produced from GIS analysis of the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US).
2-38 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-12: Other Protected Areas near Region 4 Service Units
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-39

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Existing transportation systems can provide a solid footing to coordinate opportunities for both visitors

and staff to reach Service Units. As mentioned previously in the Access, Mobility and Connectivity

section in this report, airports, navigable waterways, the existing national roadway network,

passenger rail, transit, and recreation trails all play some part in the Region’s connectivity to the

broader transportation system. Table 2-18 below notes potential partnering activities with

transportation systems or agencies.

Partnering with the agencies that manage each of the noted transportation systems could provide the

Service with an opportunity to promote visitation through new avenues, particularly for units that

already connect or are located nearby an existing mapped transportation system. Alternatively,

considering overall access and connectivity, the Service may come up with creative methods to link

multiple modes together in order to provide transportation options to visitors and staff, alike.

Table 2-18: Transportation Systems and Agencies to Consider for Coordinated Opportunities

Transportation System Potential Partnering Activities

Airports · Request Service units added to local visitation maps

· Ask car rental companies to carry FWS brochures/ information

Navigable Waterways/

Blueways

· Request ferry lines to note stops that access Service units or consider

limited or special-event service to Service units

· Request that blueway maps identify refuge areas accessible for paddlers

Roadway Network · Request that Service units are identified on local road maps

· Consider partnering with DOT districts to improve wayfinding or roadway

repair leading up to Service units

Passenger Rail · Consider the potential for limited or special event service to Service units

Transit · Request Service units added as landmarks for those accessible via

existing transit stops

· Consider partnering for limited or special-event service

Recreation Trails · Request the addition of Service units to trail maps where existing trails

directly connect

· Consider partnering to create trail connections between an existing trail

and Service lands

GOAL 4 – ENVIRONMENT

The National Wildlife Refuge System provides benefits to human communities as well as wildlife

populations. Protecting natural habitats, wetlands, coastal resources, grasslands, forests, and

wildernesses, refuges maintain and even improve air and water quality. They have the potential to

relieve flooding from the built (manmade) environment, improve soil quality, and help trap

greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming. However, while the Refuge System can

alleviate stresses on surrounding areas, it is important to also consider the effects that the

surrounding built environment may have on the System.

Transportation systems, while necessary for access to Service units, can be taxing on natural

resources. The landscape for conservation is changing. “Our population is larger and more diverse
2-40 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

... there is less undeveloped land, more invasive species and we are experiencing the impacts of a

changing climate.”27 Human demands on the environment, paired with environmental stressors, are

causing an urgent need for conservation choices. A balance is needed to ensure that the

transportation system does not overly affect the natural environment. The transportation system

should be managed to ensure that it provides adequate access for resource management activities

by refuge and hatchery staff, as well as access for the general public to pursue wildlife viewing,

education, hunting, fishing, and other compatible activities.

Roadway design can be mitigated to better integrate with the natural environment. The Roadway

Design guidelines created by Region 1 during its LRTP process are being considered for national

adoption. It is certainly an option for Region 4, when considering best management practices and

operation standards to better maintain and sustainably consider roadway expansions in the future.

Goal: Ensure that the transportation program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant

resources and their habitats.

Objective 1: Identify and adopt design guidelines and design metrics for transportation

infrastructure projects that use planning, design, and construction methods and outcomes that are

responsive to the mission of the Service, departmental policy, and federal law.

Objective 2: Identify transportation facilities and activities that can be altered, eliminated or

enhanced to reduce environmental degradation, habitat fragmentation, and vehicle collisions with

wildlife, fish, and their habitats.

Objective 3: Reduce habitat fragmentation on and adjacent to Service lands. Consider creating

environmental linkages by considering which rivers, streams, wetlands, forested areas, etc.

connect to the refuge and help make it an important resource.

Objective 4: Protect wildlife corridors and enhance terrestrial and aquatic organism passage on

and adjacent to Service lands to conserve fish, wildlife, and plant populations.

Objective 5: Coordinate within Service programs, including Refuges, Ecological Services,

Fisheries, and Migratory Birds during the development of regional long-range and projectlevel planning.

Objective 6: Consider the impacts of increased climate variability in the management of

transportation assets.

Objective 7: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and air pollutants by increasing

transportation alternatives.

This section includes a baseline of critical habitats and endangered species as well as an inventory of

wetlands within Region 4. Potential impacts from air pollutants and the impacts of storm surges and

rainfall also are considered.

ENDANGERED AND AT-RISK SPECIES

National wildlife refuges have provided homes to more than 280 of the nation’s endangered or

threatened species for several decades. Refuges have provided safe havens for 11 species to date

that have been removed from the endangered species list due to their recovery. An additional 17

species have improved from endangered to threatened.28 Of the 1,436 endangered or threatened

27 Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation, (USFWS, October 2011).

28 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/endangered.html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-41

species tallied most recently, more than 500 are considered stable and/or improving, which means

they may be removed soon from the National List.29 One hundred of the 145 Southeast Region

Service Units are home to at least one species listed as endangered or threatened, of which 87 units

serve to protect species that are listed as endangered. There are many units that protect multiple

species. Of note are Merritt Island NWR and Lake Wales Ridge NWR, which serve as refuges for 14

and 12 species respectively, including a variety of birds, mammals, plants, and reptiles. A full list of

threatened and endangered species in Region 4 units is noted in Appendix A2.4. Fifty-nine of the

nation’s refuges were created specifically to assist with the conservation of endangered or threatened

species. Of these 59, 16 refuges in Region 4 were established specifically for the conservation of

endangered species. The list in Table 2-19 notes each of the refuges specifically established for

endangered species, some of them named aptly to denote the endangered species that the refuge

protects. Figure 2-13 shows the locations of these 16 refuges.

Table 2-19: Region 4 Refuges Specifically Established for Endangered Species

State Unit Name Species of Concern Unit

Acreage

Alabama Sauta Cave NWR Indiana Bat, Gray Bat 264

Fern Cave NWR Indiana Bat, Gray Bat 199

Key Cave NWR Alabama Cavefish, Gray Bat 1,060

Watercress Darter NWR Watercress Darter 7

Arkansas Logan Cave NWR Cave Crayfish, Gray Bat, Indiana Bat, Ozark Cavefish 124

Florida Archie Carr NWR Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Green Sea Turtle 29

Crocodile Lake NWR American Crocodile 6,686

Crystal River NWR West Indian Manatee 80

Florida Panther NWR Florida Panther 23,379

Hobe Sound NWR Loggerhead Sea Turtle, Green Sea Turtle 980

Lake Wales Ridge NWR Florida Scrub Jay, Snakeroot, Scrub Blazing Star, Carter's

Mustard, Papery Whitlow-wort, Florida Bonamia, Scrub

Lupine, Highlands Scrub Hypericum, Garett's Mint, Scrub

Mint, Pygmy Gringe-tree, Wireweed, Florida Ziziphus, Scrub

Plum, Eastern Indigo Snake, Bluetail Mole Skink, Sand Skink

659

National Key Deer Refuge Key Deer 8,542

St. Johns NWR Dusky Seaside Sparrow 6,255

Mississippi Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR Mississippi Sandhill Crane 19,713

Virgin

Islands

Green Cay NWR St. Croix Ground Lizard 14

Sandy Point NWR Leatherback Sea Turtle 327

Additionally, Region 4 faces an extensive list of fish, wildlife, and plant species that already may be at

risk or nearly at risk. In October 2012, Region 4 created a conservation strategy to prevent the

extinction of a record number of species that need to be evaluated. No federal protection for at-risk

species exists, which means conservation often is limited to the voluntary actions of public and

private landowners to maintain best management practices. The region proposes to proactively

29 http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/boxScore.jsp
2-42 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

conserve more than 400 species over the next decade with the help of public and private partners in

hopes of preventing the need to list these species under the Endangered Species Act. The goal is

not to list the species as endangered, but rather to conserve them in voluntary and innovative ways

for future generations of Americans.

CRITICAL HABITATS

The Service has identified habitats throughout the nation that are critical to a variety of fish, wildlife,

and plant varieties. These areas not only are located inside Service-managed lands, but also in

areas managed or owned by other organizations or entities. Critical habitats have been mapped in

GIS as areas of land as well as lines along waterways. Over a third of the Service’s Region 4 units

(47) intersect areas or waterways identified as critical habitats for 29 different species. Four

additional refuges and one fish hatchery are located within a mile of areas identified as critical

habitats, including those that support at least one additional species. A full list of the refuges and the

single fish hatchery, along with the species associated with critical habitats, is provided in Appendix

A2.4. In some cases, critical habitats located near or upon Service units are intersected by major

roadways. These pose some concern for land-dwelling species that may come into conflict with

vehicles. For example, Interstate Highway 10 cuts through Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR, where

the sandhill crane and Gulf sturgeon reside; and Interstate Highway 20 runs adjacent to Tensas River

NWR, which is surrounded by critical habitat for the Louisiana black bear (Figure 2-13 and Figure

2-14).

In Alabama, Cahaba River NWR supports the largest number of species with designated critical

habitats. It supports eight species, including the Alabama moccasinshell (Medionidus acutissimus);

finelined pocketbook (Lampsilis altilis); orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis); ovate clubshell

(Pleurobema perovatum); southern acornshell (Epioblasma othcaloogensis); southern clubshell

(Pleurobema decisum); triangular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii); and upland combshell

(Epioblasma metastriata).

Species most commonly found in critical habitats that intersect Service lands are the West Indian

manatee (Trichechus manatus), found in 13 refuges; and the elkhorn and staghorn corals

(Acropora palmate and Acropora cervicornis) as well as the piping plover (Charadrius melodus),

each found in 12 refuges.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-43

Figure 2-13: Refuges Specifically Established for Endangered Species
2-44 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-14: Critical Habitats Intersected by Major Interstates

SPECIAL MANAGEMENT AREAS

The National Wildlife Refuge System contains more than 170 refuges with special management

areas, such as wilderness areas designated by Congress, and international biosphere reserves

designated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).30

Wilderness Areas

Within the 500 years since the first European explorers encountered the American continent, an

almost unbroken wilderness that was present then is now almost gone. The National Wilderness

Preservation System was established by the Wilderness Act of 1964 in order to conserve the

remnants of the American wilderness legacy.31 Wilderness is recognized as “an area where the earth

and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not

remain.”32 Today, the Wilderness System protects more than 107 million acres of designated

wilderness, of which about 20 million acres, or 75 wilderness areas, are found in 63 units of the

Refuge System in 26 states. Region 4 has 19 refuges with designated wilderness areas located in

six states. These are listed in Table 2-20.

30 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/wilderness.html

31 Welcome to the Wilderness: In the National Wildlife Refuge System,

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/pdfs/WildernessBro_sprds.pdf

32 The Wilderness Act, Public Law 88-577 (16 U.S. C. 1131-1136), http://wilderness.nps.gov/document/wildernessAct.pdf
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-45

Table 2-20: Region 4 Service Units with Wilderness Area Designations

Service Unit State Wilderness Area Designation

Year

Big Lake NWR AR Big Lake Wilderness Area 1977

Blackbeard Island NWR GA Blackbeard Island Wilderness Area 1975

Breton NWR LA Breton Wilderness Area 1975

Cape Romain NWR SC Cape Romain Wilderness Area 1975

Cedar Keys NWR FL Cedar Keys Wilderness Area 1972

Chassahowitzka NWR FL Chassahowitzka Wilderness Area 1977

Great White Heron NWR

Key West NWR FL Florida Keys Wilderness Area 1977

National Key Deer Refuge

Island Bay NWR FL Island Bay Wilderness Area 1970

J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL J.N. “Ding” Darling Wilderness Area 1977

Lacassine NWR LA Lacassine Wilderness Area 1976

Lake Woodruff NWR FL Lake Woodruff Wilderness Area 1977

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA Okefenokee Wilderness Area 1977

Passage Key NWR FL Passage Key Wilderness Area 1970

Pelican Island NWR FL Pelican Island Wilderness Area 1971

St. Marks NWR FL St. Marks Wilderness Area 1975

Swanquarter NWR NC Swanquarter Wilderness Area 1977

Wolf Island NWR GA Wolf Island Wilderness Area 1975

Biosphere Reserves

Under the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s (UNESCO’s) Man and

the Biosphere Program, five units of the National Wildlife Refuge System have been designated as

international biosphere reserves; of these, three units are located in Region 4:

· Blackbeard Island NWR (Georgia)

· Cape Romain NWR (South Carolina)

· Wolf Island NWR (Georgia)

These refuges have been internationally recognized as protected areas of representative and coastal

environments for their value in conservation and in providing the scientific knowledge, skills, and

human values that support sustainable development. As an international network of reserves, the

Biosphere Reserve Program facilitates the worldwide sharing of information relevant to the

conservation and management of natural and managed ecosystems.33

NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY

The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) was established by the Service in 1974 to conduct a

nationwide inventory of U.S. wetlands made available to the public through maps and geospatial

wetland data. The inventory is used to aid conservation efforts both by providing maps and digital

33 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/wilderness.html
2-46 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

databases for the public as well as to report on national wetland trends and consider projections for

the future. An estimated 46% of endangered or threatened species are associated with wetlands,

making the NWI data instrumental in helping determine the occurrence of species and design plans

for species recovery.34

A large percentage of the land area in the United States is considered to be in the form of wetlands.

While this may be surprising, wetlands are transitional areas between aquatic and terrestrial

ecosystems where land is covered by shallow water or the water table is near the land surface,

supporting the predominant growth of plants classified as hydrophytes, or plants adapted to grow in

water. Tidal zones, swamps, bogs, and marshes are considered a part of the wetland system. In

general, wetlands are considered areas where the saturation with water is a dominant characteristic

for the soil environment, as well as the types of plants and animals that reside within the soil and on

its surface. According to the U.S. Geological Service (USGS), “there is no single, correct,

indisputable, ecologically sound definition for wetlands, primarily because of the diversity of wetlands

and because the demarcation between dry and wet environments lies along a continuum.”35

Five main systems of wetlands exist: marine, estuarine, riverine, lacustrine, and palustrine. While

marine, estuarine and riverine wetlands are fairly self-explanatory, the Lacustrine System refers to

lakes, and the Palustrine System refers to marshes or swamps. With that context, there are

subsystems based on whether the habitats are tidal, subtidal or nontidal, have saltwater or

freshwater, and based on flow or seasonal water level, for example. Further still, classes,

subclasses, and dominance types describe the general habitat appearance in terms of dominant life

forms or land formation, climate, currents, and distribution of flora and fauna. Table 2-21 notes nine

refuges that intersect seven different types of wetland subsystems, including deepwater estuarine and

marine systems, estuarine and marine wetlands, freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater

forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater ponds, lakes and riverine wetlands. A full list of Service units that

intersect with the National Wetlands Inventory can be found in Appendix A2.4.

Table 2-21: Sample of Units with High Wetland Diversity

Unit Name State

Alligator River NWR North Carolina

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR South Carolina

Big Branch Marsh NWR Louisiana

Delta NWR Louisiana

Merritt Island NWR Florida

Pocosin Lakes NWR North Carolina

Savannah NWR Georgia

St. Marks NWR Florida

St. Vincent NWR Florida

The National Wetland Inventory presently includes information for all Region 4 states except

Mississippi and Arkansas. The inventory covers a great expanse of the Region; however, 110 of the

Region’s 145 units intersect at least one classified wetland system. Wetland diversity is abundant

among many units in the Region. Figure 2-15 shows the high wetland diversity that is apparent in

both St. Vincent NWR and Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR.

34 http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/NWI/Overview.html

35 http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/wetlands/classwet/index.htm
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-47

Figure 2-15: Sample Service Units with High Wetland Diversity

Wetlands of International Importance

The Convention on Wetlands of International Importance is an intergovernmental treaty signed in

Ramsar, Iran, in 1971 to provide the framework for international cooperation and action on the

conservation and use of internationally important wetlands and their resources.36 To date, the

convention has been signed by 160 countries with 1,994 designated wetland sites worldwide,

including 30 in the United States and 19 on national wildlife refuges. Region 4 has five refuges that

are designated as wetlands of international importance (Table 2-22).

Table 2-22: Region 4 Units with Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance37

Unit (State) Significance

Cache River

NWR (AR)

Cache River – Cypress Creek Wetlands are at the convergence of four prominent physiographic provinces,

where unusually varied species exist in close proximity. The area has major importance for waterfowl, particularly

diverse neotropical migrant birds.

Cache River

NWR (AR)

The Cache River-Lower White Rivers area has the largest continuous expanse of bottomland hardwoods in

the Lower Mississippi Valley important for wintering waterbirds, game and fur-bearing mammals. The area is

important for recreation, research, and education.

Catahoula

NWR (LA)

Catahoula Lake is a unique example of a lower Mississippi wetland community and is the most important inland

wetland for waterbirds and shorebirds in Louisiana.

Okefenokee

NWR (FL/GA)

Okefenokee NWR is a designated Wilderness Area and swamp forest and is the second largest wetland complex in

the US. It is an extensive drainage basin on the divide between Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico.

Pelican Island

NWR (FL)

Pelican Island NWR is a designated Wilderness Area and National Historic Landmark. The unique climate overlap

supports plants and animals from temperate and tropical zones. The mix of salt and fresh water allows for high biological

diversity and the lagoonal waters of the Indian River are important as a nursery for juvenile endangered marine turtles.

36 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/ramsar.html

37 http://www.fws.gov/refuges/whm/ramsar.html
2-48 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM

The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) in 1982 established the designation of protected coastal

barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts as part of a system of undeveloped coastal barriers, often

unique landforms, that provide protection for diverse aquatic habitats and serve as the first line of

defense against the impacts of severe coastal storms and erosion on the mainland. This Act was

established through the recognition that certain actions and programs of the federal government have

historically encouraged and subsidized development on coastal barriers, resulting in threats to human

life, health and property, as well as the loss of natural resources along with the expenditure of millions

of tax dollars each year. Conservation of hurricane-prone and biologically rich coastal barriers is

encouraged through lack of eligibility for federal flood insurance, for example. Development is

discouraged through the stipulation that private developers or nonfederal parties bear the full cost of

any portion of development. Through the identification and designation of the Coastal Barrier

Resource System (CBRS), the federal government has been able to restrict eligibility for federal

expenditures and financial assistance in these areas. The Act’s reauthorization in 1990 extended the

CBRS to include undeveloped coastal barriers along the Florida Keys, the Great Lakes, Puerto Rico,

and the U.S. Virgin Islands.38

CBRS units contain two classifications: system units and otherwise protected areas (OPAs).

Nationally, 585 system units and 272 OPAs encompass about 1.3 million and 1.8 million acres of land

and aquatic habitat, respectively. System units include private lands that were relatively undeveloped

at the time of their designation with the CBRS, and tend to follow geomorphic, development, or

cultural features. OPAs are generally held by a qualified organization primarily for the purpose of a

wildlife refuge or sanctuary, recreational or natural resource conservation, and generally follow

boundaries of conservation or recreation areas. While system units are prohibited from most new

federal expenditures and financial assistance, including federal flood insurance, the OPAs are only

prohibited from flood insurance.

The coastline along the Southeast region is home to 190 system and 135 OPA units, nearly one third

and one half of the national units, respectively. Region 4 has 32 coastal refuges, identified in Table

2-23 that intersect with CBRS units, with approximately 15,300 acres sharing land with system units

and nearly 218,000 acres sharing land with OPAs.

Ten refuges, shown in bold in Table 2-23, are composed of OPAs in nearly their entirety, while 22

refuges have more than half of their land areas dedicated to the CBRS’s system units. Finally, four

additional refuges are located within a mile of a CBRS unit, for a total of 36 refuges in close proximity

to the Coastal Barrier Resource System.

38 http://www.fws.gov/CBRA/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-49

Table 2-23: Region 4 Overlap with the Coastal Barrier Resource System

Unit Name State Total CBRS Acres Total Unit Acres Percent CBRS

Archie Carr NWR FL 83.9 256.5 32.7%

Blackbeard Island NWR GA 5,591.1 5,591.1 100.0%

Bon Secour NWR AL 6,160.0 7,053.7 87.3%

Breton NWR LA 7,541.8 7,541.8 100.0%

Buck Island NWR USVI 45.1 45.1 100.0%

Cabo Rojo NWR PR 792.1 1,861.3 42.6%

Cape Romain NWR SC 60,095.2 60,122.8 100.0%

Cedar Keys NWR FL 760.5 764.0 99.5%

Crocodile Lake NWR FL 6,788.8 6,794.6 99.9%

Culebra NWR PR 315.2 1,487.6 21.2%

Currituck NWR NC 8,653.4 8,733.8 99.1%

Egmont Key NWR FL 329.9 331.2 99.6%

Great White Heron NWR FL 4,106.4 5,940.1 69.1%

Green Cay NWR USVI 12.8 12.8 100.0%

Hobe Sound NWR FL 537.5 1,046.4 51.4%

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL 5,845.4 6,367.9 91.8%

Key West NWR FL 20,082.1 210,664.0 9.5%

Lower Suwannee NWR FL 1,373.7 51,742.9 2.7%

Matlacha Pass NWR FL 138.2 532.2 26.0%

Merritt Island NWR FL 60,163.2 129,369.0 46.5%

National Key Deer Refuge FL 4,468.4 6,262.1 71.4%

Passage Key NWR FL 63.1 63.1 100.0%

Pea Island NWR NC 4,647.2 4,649.0 100.0%

Pelican Island NWR FL 4,970.9 5,424.9 91.6%

Pine Island NWR FL 270.4 630.4 42.9%

Pinellas NWR FL 391.3 392.0 99.8%

Sabine NWR LA 4.2 141,520.0 0.0%

Sandy Point NWR USVI 457.4 518.0 88.3%

St. Marks NWR FL 1,214.2 71,949.5 1.7%

St. Vincent NWR FL 12,169.4 12,176.9 99.9%

Wassaw NWR GA 10,185.9 10,231.4 99.6%

FEMA NATIONAL FLOOD HAZARD LAYER

While it is possible for flooding to occur anywhere it rains, some areas are at higher risk than

others. Flood risk is based on a number of factors including land changes due to building and

development, topography, flood control measures, and, of course, rainfall, river flow and tidal

surges. Flood hazard maps have been created to show varying degrees of risk to help determine

the cost of flood insurance. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) is administered by the

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to both offer flood insurance to property owners

and renters while helping enforce sound floodplain management standards. FEMA conducts flood

insurance studies, which include statistical data on, for example, river flow and storm tides, rainfall,

and topographic surveys in order to create flood hazard maps. These maps are continuously
2-50 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

updated based on changing weather patterns, erosion, and infrastructure development, because all

of these factors can affect floodplain boundaries.

High-risk areas with a 1% annual chance of flooding, labeled as zones with the letters A (inland) or V

(coastal), include areas where there is at least a 1 in 4 chance of flooding during a 30-year period, the

standard length of a typical home mortgage. Home and business owners in these areas with

mortgages from federally regulated or insured lenders are required to buy flood insurance. While

moderate-to-low risk areas have a reduced risk of being flooded, flood insurance is recommended but

not federally required. Still, these areas submit over 20% of claims to the NFIP and receive one-third

of disaster assistance for flooding. Floodways are designated by FEMA as areas that should remain

free of development to moderate increases in flood heights due to encroachment of the floodplain.

In Region 4, 69 refuges and six fish hatcheries fall within high-risk area zones A and V.

Additionally, nine refuges and two hatcheries intersect floodways. These 11 units are listed in

Table 2-24 with their relative risk for flooding. While flooding may be a necessary element of the

ecosystems supported in refuges, it is important to consider the risk of loss of Service assets that

fall within high-risk flooding areas. The Service should have particular concern for designated

floodways, which have been determined as critical locations to avoid or mitigate development in

order to ensure the water table, permeable surfaces, and topology are not compromised to

increase the potential for flood damage in the vicinity.

Table 2-24: Service Units, and Route Types that Intersect FEMA Designated Floodways39

Unit Name State Number of Service Assets Intersecting Floodways

Gravel Native Primitive Total

Bald Knob NWR AR

Bond Swamp NWR GA

Clarks River NWR KY

Grand Bay NWR AL/MS 1 1 2

Lower Suwannee NWR FL 3 2 2 7

Meridian NFH MS

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR MS

Private John Allen NFH MS 1 1

Roanoke River NWR NC 4 1 5

Watercress Darter NWR AL

Wheeler NWR AL 13 4 17

The nine refuges and two hatcheries listed in Table 2-24 intersect FEMA-designated floodways, five

of which include inventoried Cycle 4 RIP sections that intersect the designated floodway areas.

While the assets shown in Figure 2-16 are currently gravel, native, and primitive, it is important to

consider that a future conversion to an impermeable surface (i.e., concrete or asphalt) should be

considered only second to realigning outside of the designated floodway area. Any change in a

designated floodway area could raise the water table and create higher risk for damage from flooding,

besides being built in a location prone to water and storm damage. A full list of the routes

intersecting floodways is provided in Appendix A2.4.

39 Service Assets considered were those in the Cycle 4 RIP database.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-51

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS – NONATTAINMENT AREAS

The Clean Air Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six common air pollutants that are sources of concern for health and

environmental effects. In Region 4, six refuges directly intersect areas identified for nonattainment of

three of the common pollutants: ozone, sulfur dioxide and particulate matter.

Ozone is a gas that occurs in both the upper atmosphere and at ground level. Ozone is created by

the chemical reaction between emissions from a variety of sources, including vehicle exhaust and

volatile organic compounds that are emitted by both human-made and naturally occurring chemical

compounds, often released by plants. In the upper atmosphere, ozone protects the Earth from

harmful ultraviolet rays from the sun, but at ground level ozone is harmful to breathe and can damage

crops, trees and other vegetation.40 Ozone is clearly a concern for plant populations, wildlife, and

people, which presents an opportunity to assist local planning organizations with considerations to

reduce ozone creation.

Sulfur dioxide is a highly reactive gas that largely comes from the combustion of fossil fuels at power

plants and other industrial facilities. Even short-term exposure with sulfur dioxide is linked with

adverse effects on the respiratory system. Those with impaired respiratory function have increased

visits to hospital emergency rooms, even with very limited exposure to sulfur dioxide; it can cause

constriction of the bronchial tubes as well as an increase in asthma symptoms.41

Particulate matter, typically called PM2.5 or PM10 (the diameter of particles in micrometers), is a

complex mix of tiny particles and liquid droplets made up of acidic nitrates and sulfates, organic

chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. Particulate matter comes from a variety of sources, but

it generally includes particles directly emitted into the air from a source such as construction sites,

dust from unpaved roads, fields, smokestacks, or fires; indirect sources of particulate matter come

from complicated reactions in the atmosphere. The size of the emitted particles is directly linked to

the potential to cause health problems when inhaled, because they are tiny enough to enter the lungs

and bloodstream; and some contain compounds that could be toxic to the body.42

Table 2-25 lists the six Region 4 refuges in which pollutant(s) are a concern, and their most current

attainment status. Five of the six refuges are located in nonattainment areas for ozone. Bond Swamp

NWR and Watercress Darter NWR are located within areas that have nonattainment status for both

ozone and particulate matter, PM2.5. Figure 2-17 shows the locations of refuges that intersect air

quality nonattainment areas in Region 4.

Table 2-25: Refuges in Nonattainment Areas

Refuge State MPO/ Nonattainment Area Name Pollutant(s)

Atchafalaya NWR LA Baton Rouge, LA Ozone

Bond Swamp NWR GA Macon, GA Ozone / Particulate Matter – PM2.5

Key Cave NWR AL Lauderdale County, AL Sulfur Compounds - SOx

Mackay Island NWR NC/VA Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA Ozone

Wapanocca NWR AR Memphis, TN-AR Ozone

Watercress Darter NWR AL Birmingham, AL Ozone / Particulate Matter – PM2.5

40 http://epa.gov/airquality/ozonepollution/pdfs/ozonegb.pdf

41 http://epa.gov/airquality/sulfurdioxide/

42 http://epa.gov/airquality/particlepollution/
2-52 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-16: Sample Locations where Service Assets Intersect FEMA Floodways
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-53

Figure 2-17: Units that Intersect Air Quality Nonattainment Areas
2-54 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Habitat and wildlife can benefit from the replacement of traditional fueled vehicles because alternative

fuels reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Refuges and groups that own and operate

transit services within refuges are seeking a switch from traditional fueled vehicles to alternative

fueled vehicles, in response to the 2008 FWS Policy and Management Guidance (Chapter 320).

Alternative fuel vehicles are becoming increasingly more common, necessitating an expansion in the

number of alternative fueling stations across the country.

An inventory of alternative fueling stations from 2011, provided by the National Transportation Atlas

Database (NTAD 2012), assisted with the identification of 41 refuges open to the public that are located

within 10 miles of alternative fueling stations. Mobility becomes a concern for alternative fuel vehicles,

because alternative fuel is not accessible everywhere and it is necessary for the ability of the vehicles to

continue running. The U.S. Department of Energy maintains a website called the Alternative Fuels

Data Center,43 which provides a plethora of information on the types of alternative fuels and vehicles;

fuel conservation efforts; laws and incentives for using alternative fueled vehicles; and a database of

alternative fueling stations. The website also includes a mapping program, which can help recommend

routes that will pass near alternative fuel stations so that owners can ensure access to the appropriate

fuel.44 Alternative fuel vehicles also can be considered as replacement vehicles for the Service’s

maintenance fleets in areas where alternative fuels are available. Many alternative fuels have a dual

benefit of lifetime cost savings compared to vehicles that run on petroleum products, and many show

improvements in reducing environmental impacts because they burn cleaner.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is working closely with both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service and the National Park Service on a project known as “Strategic Research Initiative:

Integration of Federal Lands Management Agency Transportation Data, Planning, and Practices with

Climate Change Scenarios to Develop a Transportation Management Tool.” This project, being

conducted by ICF International, is a separate yet parallel effort to the LRTP planning process.

Results from the climate change analyses and research will provide an environmental context to the

larger transportation assessment and recommendations.

Two components, Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning, are being considered as a part

of the tool. The Vulnerability Assessment takes into account a large amount of data to determine

which park and refuge transportation assets are the most vulnerable to climate change. Once

identified, the staff from the parks and refuges can work with the FHWA and ICF International team to

determine the best adaptation options for each. Workshops were conducted at a total of four stations

in the Southeast Region—two national parks and two national wildlife refuges—to refine the tool and

discuss possible adaptation strategies. The Vulnerability Assessment is a function of three aspects:

exposure (how much the asset is exposed to certain climactic hazards); sensitivity (which assets

experience the greatest damage when exposed equally); and adaptive capacity (how well the assets

adjust, repair, and respond to damage). Figure 2-18 shows the overall process for the plan and the

tool.

43 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/

44 http://www.afdc.energy.gov/locator/stations/#route/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-55

Figure 2-18: Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning

The three components are explained in more detail below, per the technical memorandum from April

2013, J.N. “Ding” Darling National Wildlife Refuge Climate Change and Transportation Tool Pilot

Workshop, prepared by ICF International. These components are the basis for determining the

overall vulnerability to climate change of all transportation assets for the National Park Service and

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

· Exposure

o Inland Flooding

§ 100-year flood zone – Assets in the 100year flood zone are more likely to be exposed to

inland flooding events

§ 500-year flood zone – Assets in the 500-year flood zone are more likely to be exposed to

inland flooding events

o Coastal Flooding

§ Elevation – Assets at lower elevation are more likely to be flooded by incoming coastal

waters

§ Coastal Vulnerability Index – Coastal Vulnerability Index calculates the relative risks to a

coastal area due to future sea level rise, and includes factors such as tidal range, wave

height, coastal slope, shoreline change, geomorphology, and historical rate of sea level

rise.

o Wildfire

§ Fire Regime Group Frequency – Assets located in a Fire Regime Group with a more

frequent return interval are more exposed to wildfire.

§ Fire Regime Group Severity – Assets located in a Fire Regime Group with more sever

fires are more exposed to damage from wildfire.
2-56 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

· Sensitivity

o Facility Condition Index (FCI) – FCI measures the amount of deferred maintenance relative to

the current replacement value (CRV) of an asset; a proxy for condition.

o Asset Material (pavement) – Unpaved roads, trails, and parking lots are more likely to

experience damage during flooding events. SAMMS “construction material” field used.

o Asset Material (wood) – Wooden assets are more likely to experience damage during wildfire

events. SAMMS “construction material” field used.

o Remaining Service Life (RSL) –RSL measures the years of service life remaining for an asset,

based on a condition assessment.

o Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) – PCR is an assessment of pavement condition based on

a formula that rolls up the rutting, roughness and cracking indices.

o Scour Criticality – Scour criticality measures the scour condition of bridges, noting bridges that

are “scour critical.”

o Movable Components on Bridge – Based on “structure type” field from NBI; movable

components on bridges (e.g., drawbridges with electrical components) are more easily

damaged from storm surge or water exposure.

· Adaptive Capacity

o Current Replacement Value (CRV) – Assets with a higher replacement cost are likely more

expensive to maintain, repair, and replace in the event of damage.

o Asset Priority Index (API) – Assets with a higher API score are highly critical to the function of

the refuge and may be irreplaceable, indicating a very low adaptive capacity.

o Historic Status – Assets that are designated historic may be irreplaceable to the Refuge.

o Detour Length – Bridges with a higher detour length cause a bigger service disruption when

damaged.

o Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – Bridges with higher daily traffic counts cause a bigger service

disruption when damaged.

Following the completion of the Vulnerability Assessment, ICF International along with the FHWA,

NPS, and FWS will be developing adaptation strategies for the stations and assets of highest priority.

This will include considering proactive and reactive adaptation strategies, evaluating costs, feasibility,

and consistency with other station goals, and looking for opportunities for adaptation within existing

planning structures.

ICF International completed the four workshops in February 2013 and finished the workshop

technical reports and the 75% Tool in April 2013. In the Fall of 2013, ICF International will complete

the 100% Tool, which includes the final toolbox consisting of a web portal, vulnerability assessment

tool, and adaptation planning tool that can be used at stations across the nation.

More information regarding the climate change tool and its results will be provided in the final report

of the Region 4 LRTP, including recommendations for how climate change adaptation can be

incorporated in the regional and station-level planning efforts.

GOAL 5 – SAFETY

The Service supports reliable and safe access to and from its network of lands and waters.

Roadways, while an essential component of the national transportation system, can be hazardous

due to road pavement conditions, traffic volumes, high speeds, and the potential for collisions.

Safety is a concern not only for refuge staff and visitors but also for wildlife. Roadways are a major

component of the United States transportation system, and FWS areas located near high speed, high

volume roadways pose greater risks for collisions.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-57

Many factors contribute to collisions. High crash areas can be identified for further evaluation by

considering recent historical crash data. Roadway surface condition can be a contributing factor to

collisions and other safety-related concerns. Proper identification of areas that either have high

volume, high speeds, high collision rates, or simply poor pavement quality can ensure that

maintenance concerns are brought up, and through a coordinated effort, addressed to improve

overall roadway quality.

Goal: Provide a transportation system that ensures visitors traveling to and within Service lands

arrive at their destinations safely.

Objective 1: Identify safety issues on the Service’s transportation system using quantitative data.

Objective 2: Identify and implement appropriate safety countermeasures and tools to reduce the

frequency and severity of crashes between different transportation modes, as well as between

vehicles and animals.

Objective 3: Use open communication among the “4Es”—engineering, education, enforcement,

and emergency medical services—to collaboratively address safety issues on Service-owned

roads.

Objective 4: Reduce transportation corridor (roads, trails, fencing) barriers and hazards by

planning, designing, and evaluating sites that facilitate the safe movement of wildlife across roads

to increase motorist safety.

ROADWAY NETWORK CONDITIONS

Service Asset Conditions

While all roads are inventoried, public use roads get more use than administrative roads, and will be

considered below as an important subset of Region 4’s transportation assets. Overall, the Service’s

public roads in Region 4 are in fairly good condition. Of the 79 units with more than five miles of

road, as inventoried by Cycle 4 RIP, twenty have over 80% of their road miles rated as being in

“good” or better condition; only seven refuges have over 10% of their road miles rated as being in

“poor” or “failed” condition. The following two tables rate the public use road conditions for stations

with at least five miles of public road, with the best (Table 2-26) and worst (Table 2-27) overall

roadway surface condition. A comprehensive list of both public and administrative roads by Service

unit and condition data can be found in Appendix A2.2. Figure 2-19 shows a sample of the units

identified in Table 2-26 and Table 2-27.

Table 2-26: Service Units with Best Overall Service Road Conditions

Station

(units considered had at least

five miles of roads)

State

Miles of Road by Pavement Condition Total

Miles

Percent

Good /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Big Lake NWR AR 9.5 3.0 12.6 100.0%

Tallahatchie NWR MS 5.0 5.7 10.7 100.0%

Pelican Island NWR FL 7.6 7.6 100.0%

Pond Creek NWR AR 22.3 25.8 0.2 48.3 99.6%

Morgan Brake NWR MS 0.1 22.1 0.4 22.6 98.1%
2-58 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Table 2-27: Service Units with Worst Overall Service Road Condition

Station

(units considered had at least

five miles of roads)

State

Miles of Road by Pavement Condition Total

Miles

Percent

Good /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Clarks River NWR KY 2.0 1.6 1.8 5.4 32.5%

Florida Panther NWR FL 1.5 16.1 17.0 1.0 10.9 46.5 25.5%

Bald Knob NWR AR 12.6 30.5 11.2 12.0 66.4 18.1%

Atchafalaya NWR LA 3.2 9.9 1.9 2.4 17.3 13.8%

Vieques NWR PR 8.2 20.1 21.0 0.8 6.5 56.7 12.9%

A comprehensive list of both public and administrative roads by Service unit and condition data can

be found in Appendix A2.2.

Figure 2-19: Sample Service Units with Best and Worst Road Conditions

Highway Pavement Management System Conditions

The Highway Pavement Management System (HPMS) is the official government source of data

on the extent, condition, performance, use, and operating characteristics of the nation’s

highways.45 All public roads eligible for federal aid highway funds have three data points that

45 HPMS Field Manual http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/hpms/fieldmanual/
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-59

must be reported: length, lane miles, and total vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The National

Highway System (NHS) additionally has VMT and the International Roughness Index collected for

its full extent. Some additional data is reported on a sampling basis, including Average Annual

Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes.

The International Roughness Index (IRI) is a standardized pavement measurement that was

developed by the World Bank in the 1980s and used to define the roughness of a roadway.

Pavement roughness can indicate ride comfort because it measures the response to vibrations

due to irregularities in the pavement surface. Thus, a sampled understanding of the overall

pavement ride quality can be understood through the analysis of HPMS segments that intersect

or fall within one mile of refuges and fish hatcheries.

Slightly more than 310 HPMS roadway miles intersect Service lands directly, while 2,626 miles

are located within one mile of the network of refuges and hatcheries. Fewer than 50% of the total

HPMS road miles were evaluated for pavement condition utilizing IRI measurements.

Intersecting HPMS segments have 70.2% of their mileage rated in “fair” or better condition, while

49% of the mileage is rated in “good” or “very good” condition. Only 9.0% of the evaluated roads

were considered to be in “very poor” condition. These numbers are similar for roadways located

within a mile of a Service unit’s boundary, where 66.7% of roadway miles were recorded as being

in “fair” or better condition, 49.4% in “good” or “very good” conditions, and a slight increase to

11.8% of road miles rated in “very poor” condition.

Table 2-28 and Table 2-29 outline the refuge and fish hatchery areas with the best and worst overall

HPMS segment conditions, for those refuges that have at a minimum five miles of IRI segments

within one mile of the refuge boundary.

Table 2-28: Units with Overall Best HPMS-Collected IRI Ratings

Station

(units considered had at least

five miles of HPMS segments)

State

HPMS Miles Miles of Road by Pavement Condition Percent

Good /

Total IRI Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Catahoula NWR LA 30.3 14.6 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0%

Cameron Prairie NWR LA 6.1 5.2 0.0 5.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0%

Lake Woodruff NWR FL 19.4 5.7 3.0 2.6 0.0 0.1 0.0 98.3%

Archie Carr NWR FL 18.6 18.3 9.4 8.0 0.8 0.2 0.0 94.8%

Ten Thousand Islands NWR FL 12.7 5.7 1.0 4.4 0.1 0.2 0.0 94.7%

The areas of most concern would be those road segments with overall poor roadway conditions.

These segments could offer great opportunities for partnerships with local agencies, and both the

Service and other agencies would mutually benefit from the improvement of roadway surfaces. Nine

refuges have 100% of their public roads rated as either “poor” or “very poor” for those HPMS

segments calculated for IRI. With the exception of the two noted below, refuges with 100% of their

mileage with “poor” condition generally have fewer than three miles of IRI-computed segments from

the HPMS database.
2-60 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Table 2-29: Units with Overall Worst HPMS-Collected IRI Ratings

Station

(units considered had at least

five miles of HPMS segments)

State

HPMS Miles Miles of Road by Pavement Condition Percent

Good /

Total IRI Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Excellent

Bayou Teche NWR LA 27.1 9.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.1 0.0 100.0%

Black Bayou Lake NWR LA 8.6 6.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.3 3.4 100.0%

Natchitoches NFH LA 7.5 5.2 0.0 0.4 0.0 1.3 3.4 92.3%

Overflow NWR AR 13.2 8.7 0.0 0.4 0.6 4.0 3.7 88.6%

Bogue Chitto NWR LA/MS 20.3 11.3 0.0 1.7 0.2 9.4 0.0 83.3%

Road Miles

TIGER/Line Shapefiles were the most comprehensive set of roadway data available that would be

consistent across the entire Region. While some states were able to provide inventoried roadway

network data, collection efforts and collected records varied widely and, in some cases, were not

available. TIGER/Line Shapefiles informed a total number of road miles for all functional

classifications to give a better understanding of the overall roadway network surrounding each refuge

and hatchery. TIGER routes include all major interstates and highways, as well as much smaller

local roads.

Overall, roads identified in TIGER run through or immediately adjacent to 110 refuges and all 17 fish

hatcheries. As noted previously, while 18 refuges do not directly intersect the TIGER lines network,

two are located within a half mile and are connected by refuge roads to the TIGER network. Sixteen

refuges do not directly connect to the roadway network. Those refuges with the highest number of

directly intersecting road miles are shown in Table 2-30.

Table 2-30: Service Units with the Highest Number of Directly Intersecting Road Miles

Unit Name State TIGER Miles

Merritt Island NWR FL 226.5

Alligator River NWR NC 195.0

Pocosin Lakes NWR NC 177.2

Carolina Sandhills NWR SC 176.3

White River NWR AR 170.7

Vieques NWR PR 137.1

Tensas River NWR LA 133.9

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA 120.8

Lower Suwannee NWR FL 107.2

St. Marks NWR FL 106.0

Some refuge areas contain an immense amount of road miles. As shown on Table 2-31, ten refuges

have more than 100 miles of inventoried routes within their boundaries, with a maximum of 226.5

miles in Merritt Island NWR and 195 miles in Alligator River NWR. An additional 21 refuges contain

between 50 and 100 miles of the roadway network intersecting their boundaries. With so many roads

passing through these areas, the wildlife habitat likely has some discontinuity and there is greater

potential for safety concerns throughout.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-61

A total of 138 Service units, including all 17 fish hatcheries, contain or could access TIGER roads

within one mile from their outer boundaries. This leaves seven island refuges located more than one

mile from the nearest land mass that has roadways, while the remaining island refuges are close

enough to a main land mass to be within a mile of some TIGER roadways.

Table 2-31: Service Units with the Highest Number of Road Miles within One Mile

Unit Name State TIGER Miles

Okefenokee NWR FL/GA 940.9

Cache River NWR AR 688.5

Wheeler NWR AL 667.3

Pocosin Lakes NWR NC 486.9

Merritt Island NWR FL 459.4

White River NWR AR 456.7

Tensas River NWR LA 425.6

Theodore Roosevelt NWR MS 372.1

St. Marks NWR FL 368.8

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR MS 359.7

COLLISIONS

The inventory of TIGER road miles also helps inform collision rates per mile in the refuge and fish

hatchery system. While there are certainly specific intersections and route segments that have safety

hot spots, a better general understanding of safety hot spots for the Service can be derived by

considering the total number of collisions that occur within and just outside of the refuges and

hatcheries, based on the total number of roadway miles where collisions occur.46

Collision data was collected by state for the most recent three-year period of collision data that was

available with geospatial information.47 Additionally, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS)

contains data derived from a census of all fatal traffic crashes within the 50 states, the District of

Columbia, and Puerto Rico. To be entered in the FARS database, crashes must result in the death of

a person within 30 days of a crash that involves a motor vehicle traveling on a traffic way customarily

open to the public. A summary of all collision information from both the FARS database as well as

state-reported data is provided in Appendix A2.5. Please note that some statewide collection effort

years are the same as years analyzed from the FARS database. Discrepancies in the number of fatal

events or fatalities could be caused by faulty GPS coordinates.

It is difficult to maintain consistency with the types of information that each state provides. Collision

data items typically are collected and reported by police officers who arrive at the scene. Every state

has different data collection forms with distinct characteristics. Each state also has different

regulations on the data they are allowed to share. Some agencies have better technology for

collecting GPS coordinates, and some have better adherence to collecting geographic information.

With the size of Region 4 and the challenges associated with reported collision data, it was not

46 Typical analysis of collision rates consider road miles, AADT, and collisions that occur along roadways; however,

AADTs were not available for all roadway segments, nor were collisions completely precise or accurate, which caused

concern for the validity of a typical analysis consider the potential discrepancies across states.

47 Years collected were not uniform across states; not all data points were analyzed due to faulty GPS coordinate

information.
2-62 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

feasible to ensure that every collision was mapped in the correct location and included in the correct

study boundary. However, the following general findings reflect collisions in the Southeast region,

processed and analyzed with the information and tools available at this time.

State-reported Collision Data

State-reported vehicle collisions were considered in 96 refuges and all fish hatcheries based on data

collected from nine states. 48 Depending on reporting procedures, some state data included details

on the number of injuries and fatalities. Some data included incidents that may have occurred on

private roadways instead of only public, while others included information on whether the incident

was the result of a vehicle-animal strike. These additional details can be found in the overall collision

table in Appendix A2.5.

Inside Service lands, 55 refuges and three fish hatcheries had at least one collision reported, with a

regional total of 984 collisions. Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR and Wheeler NWR experienced the

highest number of collisions, with 176 and 159 collisions reported, respectively, from 2009-11.

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR did not experience any fatalities, in spite of the high crash rate

observed inside the refuge’s boundaries. However, this unit reported 65 collisions that resulted in a

total of 93 injuries. One fatality was reported at Wheeler NWR, but very few injuries (33 events

resulted in 38 total injuries).

Within one mile of the Service unit boundaries, collisions were reported near 84 refuges and 11

hatcheries. The regional total within one mile of refuges and hatcheries was nearly 14,000 collisions

over the three-year reporting period. Wheeler NWR and Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR again

experienced the highest number of collisions within one mile (2,244 and 1,693 events, resulting in 15

and 12 fatalities, respectively). Table 2-32 presents those refuges with the highest reported number

of vehicular crashes over the three-year time period.

Table 2-32: Refuges with the Highest Number of Reported Collisions within a Three-Year Period

Unit Name State49 Years

Events

within 1

mile

Total Crash Events Total Resultant:

Injury Fatality Injury Fatality

Wheeler NWR AL 2009-11 2,244 406 13 531 15

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR MS 2009-11 1,693 493 7 744 12

Clarks River NWR KY 2009-11 1,485 259 9 372 9

Private John Allen NFH MS 2009-11 1,093 234 4 316 5

Waccamaw NWR SC 2008-10 851 259 7 393 7

It is important to note that a large number of collisions does not necessarily mean a particular refuge

is less safe than one with fewer collisions. Refuges and fish hatcheries vary greatly in size and have

varying connectivity with the surrounding roadway network. As will be discussed further in the Hot

Spot section of this chapter, a collision rate based on overall road miles was utilized to maintain a

consistent baseline. The typical collision rate calculation requires AADT values, which were not

available for all roadways.

FARS Reported Collisions

48 No state-collected collision data was available for a total of 31 refuges and one hatchery located in Louisiana, Puerto

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

49 DOT-reported crashes by State and years noted in the table were used for the analysis necessary to create this table.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-63

According to FARS data collected from 2008-2010, 21 events resulted in 27 fatalities inside of

15 refuges and one fish hatchery. No more than two events happened at any one of these

areas. However, the largest single fatal event occurred at Ten Thousand Islands NWR,

resulting in four fatalities.

Within a one-mile radius, 255 fatal events occurred resulting in 284 fatalities within and near 68

refuges and eight hatcheries. Wheeler NWR experienced 18 fatal events with as many fatalities, the

largest number for a single refuge location. This location was followed by Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR, which had 14 reported events resulting in 16 fatalities. Private John Allen NFH experienced a

large number of fatal events for its small size (four events resulted in five fatalities). Fatality data for

all of the Service’s Region 4 units and surrounding one-mile radii can be found in Appendix A2.5.

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions

According to the 2008 Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study, estimates for animal-vehicle

collisions in the United States indicate that between one and two million collisions between cars and

large animals occur each year, and that the occurrences are increasing. Animal-vehicle collisions are

both a human safety threat as well as a major threat to the survival of a significant number of federally

listed threatened or endangered animal species across the nation (21 species in 2008).50 Unless

there is significant damage to a person or personal property, it is very likely that a majority of animalvehicle collisions are not reported, and the loss of wildlife goes undocumented. While some police

units document and share information about animal-vehicle collisions, many do not.

FARS data has several fields that could indicate the presence of an animal as a relating factor to an

event that led to a human fatality. From the FARS data analyzed for this report, only one of the 255

fatal events (human fatality) in the three-year period within one mile of Region 4 units took place due

to the presence of an animal. For this single instance of animal-vehicle interaction, documentation

noted that the avoidance of a live animal in the road was a factor that contributed to this single fatal

crash. This particular event occurred in 2009 within one mile of Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR.

No instances of direct animal-vehicle collisions or indications of loss of animal life were documented

in FARS during this time period.

It is likely that many more animal-vehicle collisions occurred during this time period that either did

not lead to a loss of human life, or simply went undocumented due to the lack of adequate data

collection and reporting.

The 2008 Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study provided a list of actions for consideration when

implementing a statewide wildlife vehicle collision (WVC) reduction program, along with a list of tasks

that could be considered when incorporating WVC into corridor planning and design.

The statewide list of actions includes several items that the Service should consider adopting at a

Regional level:

· Establish a multiagency coalition to oversee the program. The makeup and structure of the

oversight committee should be tailored to include the appropriate agencies and to most

effectively integrate into the organizational structure of these agencies.

· Determine the baseline magnitude of the problem for the [Region] (i.e., annual WVCs,

threatened and endangered species, etc.).

· Implement a regionwide data collection and monitoring plan.

· Identify regional priority locations.

50 FHWA Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress, October 2008
2-64 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

· Establish annual goals, potential funding sources, and a program guidance strategy.

· Identify specific improvements/ mitigations.

· Educate [station] staff and incorporate considerations of WVCs into the [refuge road] design

process.

· Establish an evaluation and monitoring program for specific mitigation implementations.

Incorporating WVC reduction in asset management and the infrastructure design and planning

process can also aid the Service with its Environment objective to ensure transportation facilities and

activities can be altered, eliminated or enhanced to reduce environmental degradation, habitat

fragmentation, and vehicle collisions with wildlife, fish, and their habitats. The study noted the

following tasks to help aid the transportation planning and design processes:

· Identify the magnitude of the WVC problem and determine the target species for WVC

reduction.

· For existing roadways, identify locations of wildlife crossings and WVC hotspots.

· For designing new or realigned roadways, incorporate WVC considerations into the alignment

selection.

· Throughout the road design process, consider designs that may minimize the potential for

WVCs.

· For WVC problem locations that cannot be avoided through alternative alignment or road

design techniques, consider mitigations for the entire corridor, or at problem locations.

· For the corridor project, consider alternative funding sources to increase the level at which

WVCs can be mitigated.

· If WVC mitigation strategies are included in the corridor, develop an evaluation plan to track

the success of the mitigation.51

The study provides specific mitigation strategies, including design guidelines, for the mitigation of

animal-vehicle collisions. Some items include fencing design and implementation; animal detection

systems (for larger animals); vegetation management strategies; and safe crossing opportunities

such as wildlife underpasses and overpasses, as well as shared-use (bicycle, pedestrian, vehicle,

livestock) wildlife underpasses and overpasses.

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

High values of Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volume can indicate a greater risk for safety

concerns due to the high volume of vehicles on a particular segment or route. AADT data was

collected for all contiguous states in the Southeast Region. The HPMS dataset included a sampling

of 2011 AADTs for some of the segments specifically collected for that dataset. However, more

comprehensive data was collected state-by-state from the respective state departments of

transportation (DOTs) for the most recent year available.

In Region 4, routes intersecting and passing within at least one mile of 34 Service units had statereported point AADTs or HPMS-reported segment volumes greater than 20,000 vehicles per day.52

The maximum AADT recorded within one mile of any Service unit was near Bayou Sauvage NWR in

Louisiana, where 92,400 average vehicles per day were reported on Interstate 10 through the HPMS

database for the year 2011. Caloosahatchee NWR in Florida and Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR in

Mississippi are situated near the next-highest volume roadways, with as many as 68,000 (Interstate 75)

and 63,921 (Interstate 10) average vehicles per day, reported by their respective DOTs, also in 2011.

51 FHWA Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Study: Report to Congress, October 2008

52 AADT was not considered for Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-65

SAFETY HOT SPOTS

The Service supports safe and reliable access to its lands, regardless of roadway ownership.

Indicators of safety, as noted in the sections above, can help identify areas of potential safety

concerns on both Service and non-Service routes, and potentially initiate partnerships with nonService agencies to improve safety issues of mutual interest.

“Hot Spots” are generally identified as those locations along public highway routes that satisfy at least

one of the following in the list of safety concerns:

· Criteria: High AADTs, greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, within one mile of a unit

· Criteria: High vehicle collision rates, or fatalities, within one mile of a unit

o State-reported collision data

§ Threshold: 75th percentile of state-reported crashes to TIGER miles is 1.2

crashes per mile

o Or: FARS-reported incidents that caused fatalities

§ Threshold: 75th percentile of FARS-reported crashes that involved a fatality to

TIGER miles is 0.0455 collisions per mile

· Criteria: Road conditions considered “poor” or “very poor”

o Service assets – RIP road segments with ‘poor’ or worse condition ratings

§ Threshold: 75th percentile of poor condition RIP segments is 24.7% of publicuse miles

o Or: Non-Service assets – HPMS segments IRI ratings of ‘poor’ or worse

§ Threshold: 75th percentile of poor condition IRI segments is 55.3% of IRI miles

· Criteria: High Asset Priority Index (API) – Service assets

§ Threshold: 75th percentile refuge with high-priority assets contains more than

75.7% roadway assets that are high priority within a single Service unit

In Region 4, 51 refuges and four fish hatcheries qualified for at least one of the criteria above. Of

those, 35 refuges and three hatcheries each have one criterion that falls within the 95th percentile for

that specific criterion. Twenty-two total units qualified for at least two criteria, with three, Mississippi

Sandhill Crane NWR, Pinckney Island NWR and Waccamaw NWR, qualified for three criteria

including high AADTs, high vehicle collision rates, and high API. Crash and pavement conditions for

the three units named above are shown on the next three pages, starting with Figure 2-20.

Only one unit qualified for all four categories, and managed to do so in the 95th percentile of reported

data for three of the four. Private John Allen National Fish Hatchery, while only 30.6 acres in size,

had 1,093 collisions over 48.5 TIGER road miles within a mile of its boundaries, as reported by the

state of Mississippi from 2009-11. Four FARS events were reported (all outside of but within one mile

of the fish hatchery’s boundaries), and each of the two assets in SAMMS were noted as high priority.

AADTs, while greater than 20,000 vehicles per day, were not as high as those reported in the

surrounding areas of other refuges and hatcheries. Pavement conditions and collisions for the onemile study area around Private John Allen NFH are shown in Figure 2-23.

A full list of all refuges and fish hatcheries and with respect to the criteria that helped with the

designation of safety hot spots, with all relevant safety-related data, can be found in Appendix A2.5.
2-66 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-20: Safety Hot Spot: Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-67

Figure 2-21: Safety Hot Spot: Pinckney Island NWR
2-68 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-22: Safety Hot Spot: Waccamaw NWR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-69

Figure 2-23: Safety Hot Spot: Private John Allen NFH
2-70 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

GOAL 6 – VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Visitation is one way the Service can support its mission to grant current and future generations the

opportunity to interact with wild lands, fish, wildlife, and plant species, where appropriate. People

care about what they can experience, and the knowledge that they gain from the experiences. Thus,

in the end, promoting the relevance of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the lives of Americans is

about access. Wildlife refuges should be accessible to all, regardless of an individual’s location or

physical abilities.53

Goal: Create and sustain enjoyable and welcoming transportation experiences for all visitors.

Objective 1: Improve traveler information for both internal (on Service lands) as well as external

(off Service lands) wayfinding and orientation for all modes of travel.

Objective 2: Integrate interpretation, education, and stewardship into the transportation

experience.

Objective 3: Assess and improve the external accessibility of all Service lands in all future

planning endeavors.

Objective 4: Evaluate the feasibility of alternative transportation systems at all refuges at a

regional level and promote connections with other existing and planned public and private

transportation service providers.

Objective 5: Integrate materials and adaptations that will help refuges specifically cater to

populations that already visit often, or populations that the Service would like to target. Seek to

get more individuals interested in the benefits of engaging in outdoor activities and in support of a

national network of lands and waters for present and future generations to enjoy.

Objective 6: Ensure that refuges are welcoming, safe, and accessible and that the transportation

program will provide visitors with clear information so they can easily determine where they can

go, what they can do, and how to safely and ethically engage in recreational and educational

activities.

Objective 7: Implement a comprehensive and uniform sign plan that promotes a consistent image

and branding for the agency.

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

For many of the refuges and fish hatcheries, developing and maintaining a transportation network

that welcomes and orients visitors is an important aspect of public education. Access to each of

the stations varies from roadways (and personal vehicles), transit systems and shuttles, trails for

use by cyclists and pedestrians, and waterway trails. The purpose of this section is to

understand some of the current visitors and the potential population that may spurn future growth.

In particular, the FWS has been trying to increase visitation from minority, low-income, student,

and mobility-impaired populations.54

53 Conserving the Future: Wildlife Refuges and the Next Generation, USFWS October 2011.

54 From Volpe Transit and Trails report: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/Transit_Trails_Layout_Final_123010.pdf
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-71

Wayfinding and Signage

According to the RATE report’s preliminary findings, 44 percent of the FWS stations do not believe

that their refuge or fish hatchery has sufficient signage present on access roads and trails.55 While

signage inside the refuges and fish hatcheries are generally the responsibility of the Service, signs

located on public use roadways and trails require a certain amount of coordination with local,

regional, and state DOTs.

In conjunction with the Highway Safety Act, the Highway Safety Program Standard 1356 requires

states and federal agencies with jurisdiction over public roadways to reduce the likelihood and

severity of traffic accidents by complying with modern traffic engineering measures and uniform

standards for traffic control. The Highway Safety Program Standard requires both states and federal

agencies to have a program for applying standards, and for maintenance and upgrades, when

needed, for traffic control devices. In response to this Standard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

maintains a Sign Policy and program that includes a sign manual and catalogue, guidelines for

effective sign program management, and a system for regular inventory, inspection, and maintenance

of signs. This policy document serves not only to direct the Service to conform to uniform traffic

design standards, but also provides a guideline for providing signage and wayfinding to direct visitors

to destinations on Service lands. While traffic control devices must conform to federal standards,

guide signs and interpretive signs can be influenced by the Service.

Guide and information signs can be placed on or off Service lands and can be utilized to direct

visitors to destinations on Service lands, or indicate destination distance, direction, or route of travel.

Interpretive signs provide educational information, and may include trail markers and exhibit or

orientation panels.

Guide signs, information signs, and interpretive signs should conform to Service guidelines, but

are open to interpretation. Region 4, for example, has a sizeable Spanish-speaking population,

particularly in Florida, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. While some areas have already

taken the initiative to add Spanish language information to their signs, it may behoove the Region

to consider adding information and wayfinding material in languages appropriate to the

surrounding communities, in order to provide a welcoming environment for visitors who do not

speak English as a first language.

The Service headquarters office is currently leading the effort to prepare an update for the Sign

Policy. It is the policy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide a uniform system of signs and

markers, and the Service provides the policy document as guidance for managing field station sign

programs and signs throughout the Service. However, unique local characteristics, including

differences in language, and differing levels of coordination with adjacent transportation authorities,

for example, have caused units to have different types of signs, sign/wayfinding frequency on

adjacent routes, state of repair, and materials and reflectivity.

POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS

While a closer analysis of individual refuges and fish hatcheries is necessary to determine the

changing needs of local populations, in general, local populations within 25 miles of Service units are

growing. Growing populations can lead to an increase in traffic and visitation and will create

additional demands on the existing transportation system. Identifying areas where the population has

55 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 4 (Volpe Center, 2013)

56 Administered by the Federal Highway Administration
2-72 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

changed greatly or is projected to change more than the average area will be helpful in considering

the long-range planning necessary to sustainably grow and change to meet future needs. Figure

2-24 shows population density from the 2010 Census, mapped with each open-to-the-public refuge

and fish hatchery’s visitation numbers from 2012. While some densely populated areas in Florida

have equally large numbers of visitors, some refuges, such as Okefenokee NWR between Florida

and Georgia, have high visitation despite being located farther from urban centers than other refuges.

Overall Population Change57

For the system of refuges and fish hatcheries that are open to the public, Table 2-33 illustrates that

the local population within a 25-mile radius of the Region 4 system increased from 24.3 to 26.8 million

people (10.4%) from 2000 to 2010, excluding residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands where population

counts were not immediately available for comparison.58 Population within a 25-mile radius is

expected to grow from 26.0 to 30.5 million people (17.2%) from 2010 to 2030 in areas that have

available population projections (excluding the residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico).59

Table 2-33: Highest Percent Population Growth 2000-2010 within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2000

Population

2010

Population

Percent

Increase

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL 406,391 561,256 38%

Chassahowitzka NWR FL 399,707 520,445 30%

Florida Panther NWR FL 295,883 382,823 29%

Chattahoochee Forest NFH GA 137,358 177,172 29%

Welaka NFH FL 294,311 375,066 27%

Ten Thousand Islands NWR FL 176,175 224,067 27%

Lake Wales Ridge NWR FL 753,789 956,725 27%

Crystal River NWR FL 277,371 351,449 27%

Table 2-34: Highest Percent Population Decline 2000-2010 within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2000

Population

2010

Population

Percent

Decrease

Yazoo NWR MS 93,349 76,447 -18%

Delta NWR LA 21,007 17,245 -18%

Dahomey NWR MS 105,907 88,802 -16%

Bayou Sauvage NWR LA 908,432 774,764 -15%

Breton NWR LA 150,793 130,965 -13%

Mathews Brake NWR MS 81,642 71,262 -13%

57 Population change and projections are based on county-level population data.

58 Using 2000 and 2010 county-level census data; excluding the U.S. Virgin Islands, for which data has only been collected

in 2000.

59 State Population Predictions by county – various sources
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-73

Figure 2-24: Population Density and Visitation
2-74 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Changes in population can be good indicators of changes in visitation. Of the highest growth areas

within 25 miles of a refuge, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR has the greatest visitation (approximately

660,000 in 2012). Chassahowitzka NWR had about 28,000 visitors, while Florida Panther NWR

hosted slightly more than 3,000 visitors in that same year. The refuges with decreasing population

within the surrounding 25 miles had small to medium visitation in 2012: Yazoo NWR (39,000); Delta

NWR (9,000); Dahomey NWR (10,000); Bayou Cocodrie NWR (50,000); Breton NWR (3,000); and

Mathews Brake NWR (10,000). Full documentation of visitation according to the Refuge Annual

Performance Plan (RAPP) report is provided in Appendix A2.6.

Table 2-35: Highest Projected Population Growth from 2010-2030 within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2010

Population 2030 Projection PercentIncrease

J. N. “Ding” Darling NWR FL 561,256 830,014 48%

Banks Lake NWR GA 156,244 221,110 42%

Florida Panther NWR FL 382,823 529,404 38%

Chassahowitzka NWR FL 520,445 718,886 38%

Lake Wales Ridge NWR FL 956,725 1,319,963 38%

Table 2-36: Highest Projected Population Decline from 2010-2030 within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2000

Population 2030 Projection PercentDecrease

Yazoo NWR MS 76,447 60,591 -21%

Bayou Cocodrie NWR LA 75,731 62,091 -18%

Tensas River NWR LA 117,344 96,656 -18%

St. Catherine Creek NWR MS 84,099 72,165 -14%

Dahomey NWR MS 88,802 76,548 -14%

As shown in Table 2-33, several areas surrounding some refuges and fish hatcheries have

experienced substantial population growth between 2000 and 2010. Some areas should continue to

experience growth based on projections through 2030, as shown in Table 2-35. Three of the areas

that grew the most between 2000 and 2010, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR, Chassahowitzka NWR, and

Florida Panther NWR, also are projected to experience considerable growth through 2030. These

areas should garner special attention when considering outreach and improvements to wayfinding,

connectivity, and access to maintain a transportation network that welcomes and orients visitors,

provided the increased visitation supports the mission of each individual unit.

Inversely, some units that have experienced a local population decline or will in the near future (Table

2-34 and Table 2-36), including Yazoo, Bayou Cocodrie, and Dahomey NWRs, should be carefully

considered for measures to ensure that the American public is still aware of and can enjoy visiting a

refuge in these locations. Figure 2-25 and Figure 2-26 show the percentages of projected population

change, as well as total projected population change, for the studied counties within that portion of

the United States that defines FWS Region 4.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-75

Figure 2-25: Projected County Population Change 2010-2030, Percent Change
2-76 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-26: Projected County Population Change 2010-2030, Total Change
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-77

Poverty and Minority Populations60

Disparity exists across Region 4 when considering the percentage of local residents who live in

poverty surrounding each refuge and fish hatchery. The extremes are shown in Table 2-37 and

Table 2-38. The five stations whose nearby populations illustrate the highest percentage living in

poverty (both overall and in the continental United States) should be paid particular attention with

regard to poverty and visitation, because a correlation is likely between poverty levels and those able

to easily access refuges. The total percent of population in poverty residing within a 25-mile radius of

all refuges and fish hatcheries in the Southeast Region is 17.3%,61 which is higher than the overall

national poverty rate of 15.9%62. In addition, it is significant to note that the top five impoverished

surrounding areas for refuges and hatcheries have at least double the average rate of poverty for the

overall population surrounding the Region, as shown in Figure 2-27.

Table 2-37: Lowest Percent in Poverty within 25 Miles63

Service Unit State 2010

Population

Percent in

Poverty

Currituck NWR NC 475,889 7.0%

Mackay Island NWR NC/VA 658,265 7.8%

Ten Thousand Islands NWR FL 295,605 10.3%

Merritt Island NWR FL 818,490 10.5%

National Key Deer Refuge FL 49,550 10.7%

Table 2-38: Highest Percent in Poverty within 25 Miles

Service Unit

Overall Region 4 State 2010Population

Percent in

Poverty

Overall Region 4

Laguna Cartagena NWR PR 532,387 53.5%

Cabo Rojo NWR PR 407,412 52.9%

Vieques NWR PR 327,625 46.2%

Culebra NWR PR 92,732 44.4%

Buck Island NWR USVI 509 40.7%

Contiguous United States

Morgan Brake NWR MS 78,677 40.0%

Mathews Brake NWR MS 76,340 38.3%

Hillside NWR MS 72,846 38.1%

Yazoo NWR MS 77,269 34.6%

Dahomey NWR MS 104,427 34.3%

According to the National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey Results: 2010/2011,

64 96% of visitors to

refuges and fish hatcheries around the country are white. However, as illustrated in Figure 2-28, the

overall percent of non-white populations within a 25-mile radius for all refuges and hatcheries in the

60 Demographic data taken from tract-level American Community Survey data as well as the Census.

61 US 2010 Decennial Census and American Community Survey data, excluding U.S. Virgin Islands

62 US Census 2011: http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acsbr11-01.pdf

63 Demographic data taken from tract-level American Community Survey data as well as the Census.

64 U.S. Geological Survey Data Series: National Wildlife Refuge Survey Results: 2010/2011.
2-78 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

region is 30.08%. Table 2-39 and Table 2-40 show the local populations surrounding refuges and

fish hatcheries that have the lowest and highest non-white populations.

The top five surrounding populations that are predominantly white happen to all be fish hatcheries,

with as little as 3.26% non-white population in the surrounding area of the Norfork National Fish

Hatchery. The highest non-white population surrounds Holt Collier NWR, with nearly three quarters

of its population non-white. Four out of the five highest non-white populations also have a poverty

level over 34%. Recognizing that poverty, race, and ethnicity likely impact knowledge of and

visitation to the refuges, the stations whose adjacent communities exhibit high poverty rates and a

large percentage of non-white populations should be considered for further study to assist with the

education and outreach to large nearby population groups that may not otherwise choose to visit U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service units.

Table 2-39: Lowest Percent Non-White Population within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2010

Population

Percent NonWhite

Norfork NFH AR 71,656 3.3%

Mammoth Spring NFH AR 46,743 3.6%

Wolf Creek NFH KY 85,033 4.1%

Dale Hollow NFH TN 96,121 4.6%

Chattahoochee Forest NFH GA 173,200 4.9%

Table 2-40: Highest Percent Non-White Population within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2010

Population

Percent NonWhite

Holt Collier NWR MS 87,017 74.1%

Morgan Brake NWR MS 82,422 73.2%

Mathews Brake NWR MS 76,685 73.0%

Hillside NWR MS 77,450 72.2%

Dahomey NWR MS 106,604 71.1%

Refuges and fish hatcheries with a large percent of Hispanic/Latino populations within 25 miles of the

units (as illustrated in Figure 2-29) should consider tailoring the refuge to include improvements that

would be inclusive to this community. Options could include signage in both English and Spanish

and advertising in Hispanic/Latino cultural publications.

As is fairly obvious in Figure 2-29, the largest percentage of Hispanic/Latino populations is located in

and around refuges in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. The five FWS stations with the lowest

percent of Hispanic/Latino population are noted in Table 2-41. When only the continental United

States is considered, the largest percentage of Hispanic/Latino population is centered on five refuges

in Florida, shown in Table 2-42.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-79

Table 2-41: Lowest Percent Hispanic/Latino Population within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2010

Population

Percent

Hispanic/ Latino

Choctaw NWR AL 39,312 0.74%

Noxubee NWR MS 149,215 1.17%

Cat Island NWR LA 165,458 1.42%

Mammoth Spring NFH AR 46,743 1.43%

Tensas River NWR LA 121,304 1.51%

Table 2-42: Highest Percent Hispanic/Latino Population within 25 Miles

Service Unit

Overall Region 4 State 2010Population

Percent

Hispanic/ Latino

Overall Region 4

Laguna Cartagena NWR PR 531,014 99.2%

Cabo Rojo NWR PR 408,960 99.2%

Vieques NWR PR 331,834 98.8%

Desecheo NWR PR 150,908 98.7%

Culebra NWR PR 92,827 97.8%

Contiguous United States

Crocodile Lake NWR FL 608,780 59.1%

Lake Wales Ridge NWR FL 1,025,412 29.5%

Florida Panther NWR FL 386,651 25.8%

Key West WNR FL 37,920 22.3%

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR FL 2,878,708 21.7%
2-80 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-27: Population Demographics: Population in Poverty
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-81

Figure 2-28: Population Demographics: Non-White Population within 25 Miles of Service Units
2-82 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 2-29: Population Demographics: Percent Hispanic/ Latino within 25 Miles of Service Units
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 2-83

Households without Access to Vehicles

In addition to demographics relating to income, race, and ethnicity, it is also important to consider

accessibility to automobiles as an important element for refuge and fish hatchery visitation. Some

stations are located in more urban areas, as discussed before, and access to a personal vehicle may

not be a critical component for access. Others may be located on islands or in areas most accessible

by water, where cars are not needed. Some land-accessible refuges may be too far away from the

established routes of community transit or transit systems, however, and access may be significantly

more difficult for those without a car. Some of these refuges may be good candidates for expanded

alternative transportation systems.

Table 2-43 and Table 2-44, respectively, show the refuges with the lowest and highest percentage of

the population without access to a personal vehicle. The five refuges with the highest percentages

are located in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. Four of the five highest continental refuges are

concentrated in Mississippi, with the other one in Alabama. It is important to note the overlap in those

refuges with the highest percentage of nearby residents living in poverty and the percent of nearly

residents with no access to vehicles. If an increased level of visitation to these refuges is desired,

targeted outreach and addressing of transportation needs to those living around the stations may be

particularly necessary.

Table 2-43: Lowest Percent No Vehicle Households within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2011 Households Percent No-Vehicle

Pea Island NWR NC 13,007 2.7%

Bon Secour NWR AL 110,732 3.7%

Currituck NWR NC 179,830 3.8%

Alligator River NWR NC 26,048 3.9%

Sauta Cave NWR AL 88,472 4.0%

Table 2-44: Highest Percent No Vehicles Households within 25 Miles

Service Unit State 2011 Households Percent No-Vehicle

Overall Region 4

Buck Island NWR USVI 147 33.9%

Culebra NWR PR 31,307 21.1%

Cabo Rojo NWR PR 134,093 19.9%

Laguna Cartagena NWR PR 171,859 19.7%

Vieques NWR PR 105,494 18.3%

Contiguous United States

Morgan Brake NWR MS 27,235 13.6%

Dahomey NWR MS 37,479 13.5%

Hillside NWR MS 25,297 13.3%

Yazoo NWR MS 28,341 13.2%

Eufaula NWR AL/GA 39,059 13.1%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1 800/344 WILD

http://www.fws.gov

May 2013
Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Recommendations Report

Southeast Region

February 2015

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
ii U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Front page photo Credits (clockwise from top left): Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Cristina Pastore, J.N. “Ding”

Darling NWR; Steve Suder, Alligator River NWR; Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Joe Saenz, Black Bayou Lake

NWR.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 iii

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

3. SUMMARY OF CURRENT STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH .................................................... 3-1

Project Management Team ..................................................................................................... 3-1

Coordination Team ................................................................................................................. 3-1

Regional Leadership Coordination .......................................................................................... 3-1

Area Calls and Station Feedback ............................................................................................ 3-2

Kick-off .......................................................................................................................... 3-2

Existing Conditions and Future Trends .......................................................................... 3-2

Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 3-2

Regional Survey Data Efforts .................................................................................................. 3-2

4. FUNDING AND FINANCIAL GAP .......................................................................................... 4-1

State of Existing Region 4 Transportation Assets ................................................................... 4-2

Region 4 Asset Conditions ............................................................................................ 4-2

Deferred Maintenance Backlog ...................................................................................... 4-3

Current Key Funding Sources ................................................................................................. 4-5

Federal Lands Transportation Program ......................................................................... 4-5

The Federal Lands Access Program.............................................................................. 4-6

Transportation Alternatives Program ............................................................................. 4-7

Other Funding Sources ........................................................................................................... 4-8

Emergency Relief Funding Sources............................................................................... 4-8

Previous Funding Sources ............................................................................................. 4-9

Possible Future Funding Sources ................................................................................ 4-11

Financial Gap: Needs Versus Revenues............................................................................... 4-14

National FWS Needs Vs. Funding Analysis ................................................................. 4-14

5. PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS ....................................................................................... 5-1

Project Identification and Selection ......................................................................................... 5-1

Project Evaluation Criteria and Tool ........................................................................................ 5-1

6. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND FUTURE USE ..................................................................... 6-1

LRTP Use by the Region ........................................................................................................ 6-1

Stations for Further Transportation Study: Regional Evaluation Tool ............................. 6-1

LRTP Use by Stations............................................................................................................. 6-3

Incorporating Transportation Into CCPs ......................................................................... 6-3

Use of the Climate Change Tool .................................................................................... 6-4

Stakeholder Outreach and Communication Plan..................................................................... 6-4

LRTPs for FLMAs .......................................................................................................... 6-4

Transportation step-down plans and other small area studies ....................................... 6-5

Project studies ............................................................................................................... 6-5

Recommendations for Future Plan Activities ........................................................................... 6-5
iv U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 4-1: FWS National Road Performance Analysis and Funding Scenarios ............................ 4-15

Figure 4-2: FWS National Transportation Needs and Funding Scenarios ...................................... 4-16

Figure 4-3: Region 4 Transportation Funding Gap ......................................................................... 4-17

Figure 5-1: Project Evaluation Tool - Criteria Excerpt ...................................................................... 5-2

Figure 6-1: Stations for Further Transportation Study – Sample Report ........................................... 6-1

Figure 6-2: Stations for Further Study – User Interface .................................................................... 6-2

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4-1: Previous and Anticipated Funding Levels for Region 4 Transportation Projects .............. 4-1

Table 4-2: Public Use Service Trails Regional Totals....................................................................... 4-2

Table 4-3: Cycle 4 RIP Public Use Sections Conditions by Region 4 Area ...................................... 4-2

Table 4-4: Parking Surface Conditions by Area ............................................................................... 4-3

Table 4-5: FLTP Allocations for FY 2013-2014 ................................................................................ 4-5

Table 4-6: FLAP Allocations for FY 2013-2014 ................................................................................ 4-6

Table 4-7: TAP Allocations for FY 2013-2014 .................................................................................. 4-7

Table 4-8: RTP Set-Aside from TAP ................................................................................................ 4-8

Table 4-9: Estimated Annual Region 4 Funding Need by National LRTP Program Area ................ 4-16

Table 4-10: Anticipated FY 2014 - FY 2030 Region 4 Transportation Needs Versus Funding ....... 4-17

Table 6-1: LRTP Action Plan ........................................................................................................... 6-6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 v

Abbreviations and Acronyms

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ADT Average Daily Traffic

API Asset Priority Index

APTA American Public Transportation Association

ATS Alternative Transportation System

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP Best Management Practices

CBRA Coastal Barrier Resources Act

CBRS Coastal Barrier Resource System

CCA Comprehensive Conditions Assessment

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan

CFLHD Central Federal Lands Highway Division

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHMP Comprehensive Hatchery Management Plan

CLIR Climate Leadership in Refuges

CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program

CRV Cost of Replacement Value

CVI Coastal Vulnerability Index

DM Deferred Maintenance

DOD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior

DOT Department of Transportation

EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

ERFO Emergency Relief for Federally Owned (Roads)

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FCI Facility Condition Index

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program (MAP-21)

FLH Office of Federal Lands Highway, FHWA

FLMA Federal Land Management Agency

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program (MAP-21)

FTA Federal Transit Administration

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

HPMS Highway Pavement Management System

HPP High Priority Projects

INCA Inventory and Condition Assessment

IPaC Information, Planning, and Consultation

IRI International Roughness Index

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

LCTA Low Country Regional Transportation Authority

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

NAA Nonattainment Area

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NBIS National Bridge Inventory System
vi U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

NFH National Fish Hatchery

NFIP National Flood Insurance Program (FEMA)

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NHPN National Highway Planning Network

NHS National Highway System

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPS National Park Service

NSBP National Scenic Byways Program

NTAD National Transportation Atlas Database

NWI National Wetlands Inventory

NWN National Waterway Network

NWR National Wildlife Refuge

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System

OPA Otherwise Protected Area (of the CBRS)

PAD-US Protected Areas Database of the United States

PCR Pavement Condition Rating

PMS Pavement Management System

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Plans

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

RIP Road Inventory Program

RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration (U.S. DOT)

RRP Refuge Roads Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

RSL Remaining Service Life

RTCA Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance

RTP Regional Trails Program

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

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

SMS Safety Management System

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TIGER Topically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing

TIP Transportation Improvement Program

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

U.S. United States

USC United States Code

USFS United States Forest Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

VOLTRAN Volusia County Public Transit System

WFLHD Western Federal Lands Highway Division

WVC Wildlife Vehicle Collision
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 3-1

3. Summary of Current Stakeholder Outreach

The Region 4 LRTP has included multiple levels of stakeholder outreach, resulting in valuable insight

into the processes, operations, and transportation considerations of the Southeast Region of the Fish

and Wildlife Service and its individual stations.

PROJECT MANAGEMENT TEAM

The Project Management Team (PMT) consisted of representatives from FWS Region 4, FWS

Headquarters, and Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD) of the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA). This team coordinated on a regular basis with the Consultant Team to guide

the completion of the LRTP document. This included monthly conference calls, periodic in-person

meetings, and regular email coordination.

COORDINATION TEAM

The Coordination Team was comprised of national, regional, refuge, and hatchery leaders from

across the Southeast Region along with the members of the Project Management Team. Serving as

a sounding board for the PMT, they provided feedback on the overall planning process, plan Goals

and Objectives, productive ways to engage the individual stations for data collection and input, and

opinions on final deliverables and their value to the region and stations.

The Coordination Team participated in a conference call, followed by an initial 2-day in-person kickoff meeting in September and October of 2012, respectively. During that meeting, the team discussed

the direction of federal transportation funding, challenges with the Road Inventory Program and

adequately calculating the deferred maintenance backlog of regional roadway assets, and the

concurrent National Planning effort. They also reviewed the National Plan Goals and vetted the

Objectives specific to Region 4, outlined the overall planning process, and discussed input methods

for effective stakeholder outreach.

The Coordination Team was engaged again following the completion of a draft Existing Conditions

and Future Trends Report. In March/April 2013, the team reviewed the report and provided detailed

comments to the PMT for incorporation prior to the release of the document to the station leadership.

Their perspective, either as regional or station leadership, was tremendously valuable in creating a

meaningful, representative document.

Finally, the Coordination Team was again engaged for the review of and comment on the draft

Recommendations Report and supplementary deliverables, including the Comprehensive

Conservation Plan (CCP) transportation incorporation documents, the Stations for Further

Transportation Study Tool, and the Project Evaluation Tool. Their valuable input throughout the

process helped to shape the overall plan and its final deliverables.

REGIONAL LEADERSHIP COORDINATION

Key members of regional leadership were engaged at different points along the planning process.

The Division Chief of Budget & Facility Management and the Branch Chief of Facility Management

participated in some Coordination Team meetings and provided input into the process and

supplementary tools along the way. A formal presentation was made to regional leadership on

October 27, 2014 to provide an overview of the results of the planning process, supplementary tools,

and strategic next steps for the region following the completion of the LRTP.
3-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

AREA CALLS AND STATION FEEDBACK

Three rounds of webinar presentations were conducted for refuge and hatchery leadership in each of

the following project deliverable action Areas: 1) Kick-off, 2) Draft Existing Conditions and Future

Trends Report, and 3) Draft Recommendations Report. These webinars allowed for both the

dissemination of information to station managers about the planning process and the gathering of

valuable feedback from them on report deliverables.

KICK-OFF

The project Kick-off webinar was meant to provide an introduction to the LRTP process to the station

management. A number of key topics were discussed including the purpose of the plan and how it

relates to the National LRTP, the Goals and Objectives of the plan, timelines and opportunities for

input along the way, and the upcoming RATE survey and the importance of its completion by the

refuges and hatcheries.

EXISTING CONDITIONS AND FUTURE TRENDS

This webinar provided an overview of the results of the Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report

as well as the results of the Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) survey and more

information on key federal funding programs such as the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). The

station managers had the opportunity to provide feedback to the PMT during the webinar as well as

over the course of the following weeks. The comments provided by the station managers were

incorporated into the final version of the Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The final webinar for Recommendations focused on the report itself and even more importantly on the

supplementary tools that were created for use by the region and by the stations. These tools include:

the CCP revisions to more explicitly include transportation considerations, the Stations for Further

Transportation Study Tool, and the Project Evaluation Tool. These webinars provided an opportunity

for the project team to explain the tools to station leadership so each refuge and hatchery can

understand how to improve transportation planning and project selection at each of their stations.

REGIONAL SURVEY DATA EFFORTS

One substantial data call was made during this multi-year planning process. The RATE surveys were

conducted in all Service regions across the United States, and the timing of Region 4’s RATE survey

happened to coincide with the LRTP process. The RATE survey focused primarily on Alternative

Transportation Systems (ATS) such as bicycle and pedestrian trails, water/ferries, transit and other

non-single occupant vehicle trips, etc. Because of the opportune timing of the Region 4 RATE, some

additional questions were added to the end of the survey that dealt more directly with broad

transportation planning considerations such as general transportation challenges, special events

traffic, parking capacity, safety concerns, and issues with dust. This information was a valuable

addition to the LRTP efforts and provided a qualitative aspect to a relatively quantitative process.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-1

4. Funding and Financial Gap

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) replaced the previous surface transportation

bill, SAFETEA-LU, to authorize two years of transportation funding, starting October 1, 2012 and

ending September 30, 2014. MAP-21 included approximately $54 billion in infrastructure spending

per year for FY 2013 and FY 2014. The two most relevant programs for the FWS include the Federal

Lands Transportation Program (FLTP), which replaces the Refuge Roads Program, and the Federal

Lands Access Program (FLAP). The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) is another major

new program that the Service should consider as a potential funding source under MAP-21.

MAP-21 eliminates funding and grant monies from several key discretionary grant programs,

including the National Scenic Byways Program and the Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program,

as well as other special funds that were provided to the FWS over the past 14-year period which

totaled approximately $100 million. However, focusing on the three new programs noted above, the

Service may have opportunities for funding eligibility that were previously unattainable based on limits

and requirements under SAFETEA-LU that differ from those in MAP-21. While these three new

programs require FWS to compete with additional agencies and organizations, the Service is poised

to use the data-driven approaches required by MAP-21 and could potentially be a more viable

competitor for different sources of transportation funding.

Activities to support reauthorization of the original MAP-21 bill scheduled to expire in September 2014

are ongoing. A series of Continuing Resolutions (CRs) have been approved to extend and continue

the basic MAP-21 surface transportation legislation programs at their originally authorized funding

levels. Although reauthorization activities continue to be under discussion as of the date of this report,

it will be important to keep track of the reauthorization status moving forward, in order to be better

prepared to compete for any additional funds which may become available.

The magnitude of future funding levels to support the FWS transportation program may change due

to the reauthorization of MAP-21; however, Region 4 funding levels have not changed dramatically

since 2006 when the initial SAFETEA-LU allocations were set. It is anticipated that future surface

transportation bills will likely continue to provide Region 4 with an amount comparable to the current

$5.8 million annual allocation. Funding for Region 4 from FY 2010 though anticipated funding levels

in FY 2017 is shown below in Table 4-1. Note that variances in funding levels, such as the jump to

$7.8 million in 2014, come from additional funds awarded for discretionary projects including urgent

bridge repair projects.

Table 4-1: Previous and Anticipated Funding Levels for Region 4 Transportation Projects

Fiscal Year Funding

2010 $ 6,760,470

2011 $ 6,041,790

2012 $ 4,948,120

2013 $ 5,037,681

2014 $ 7,807,684

2015 $ 5,784,693

2016 $ 5,786,593

2017 $ 5,794,000
4-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

STATE OF EXISTING REGION 4 TRANSPORTATION ASSETS

REGION 4 ASSET CONDITIONS

As noted in the Existing Conditions chapter of the LRTP, Region 4 contains a very large share of both

public-use and overall national FWS transportation assets as inventoried in the RIP and SAMMS

databases. Of the Region’s 227 miles of public use trails noted in Table 4-2, 93.7% (212.50 miles)

are rated as being in ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ condition and only 1.3% (2.94 miles) are classified as being

in ‘poor’ or ‘very poor’ condition.

Table 4-2: Public Use Service Trails Regional Totals1

Surface Condition

Rating Length (mi) Percentage

Public Trails

Cumulative

Percentage

Excellent 199.00 87.7% 87.7%

Good 13.50 6.0% 93.7%

Fair 11.38 5.0% 98.7%

Poor 1.93 0.9% 99.6%

Very Poor 1.01 0.4% 100.0%

Total: 226.9

As shown on Table 4-3, the 1,464 public-use road miles in Region 4 are in similar condition to the

public-use trails with 75.5% (1,105.4 miles) being rated in ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ condition, and with a

backlog of only 5.3% (77.9 miles) rated in ‘poor’ or ‘failing’ conditions. ‘Fair’ condition roadways

currently account for about 19% of the total public use road miles. This condition could leave the

Region with slightly under a quarter of public road facilities in ‘poor’ or worse condition if maintenance

schedules are unable to address the continued deterioration of these assets in the coming years.

Table 4-3: Cycle 4 RIP Public Use Sections Conditions by Region 4 Area2

Condition Rating Length

(mi)

Percentage of

Public Roads

Cumulative

Percentage

Excellent 272.4 18.6% 18.6%

Good 833.0 56.9% 75.5%

Fair 280.7 19.2% 94.7%

Poor 30.7 2.1% 96.8%

Failed 47.2 3.2% 100.0%

Total: 1,463.9

As shown on Table 4-4, vehicle Parking areas in the Region are faring worse than trails or roads.

Only slightly more than half (57.1% or about154.8 acres) are identified as being in ‘good’ or ‘excellent’

condition. While parking surfaces rated as being in either ‘poor’ or ‘failed’ condition currently account

for just 7.9% (22.5 acres) of the Region’s total surface parking areas, 35.1% (101.2 acres) of these

facilities are in ‘fair’ condition and will likely need improvements in the next five to ten years.

1 Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Range Transportation Plan: Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report

2 Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Range Transportation Plan: Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-3

Table 4-4: Parking Surface Conditions by Area3

Condition Rating Area

(Acres)

Percentage of

Public Parking

Cumulative

Percentage

Excellent 15.6 5.4% 5.4%

Good 149.2 51.7% 57.1%

Fair 101.2 35.1% 92.2%

Poor 21.2 7.4% 99.5%

Failed 1.3 0.5% 100.0%

Total: 288.6

While current inventories show that Region 4 is managing its public road and trail facilities well,

maintaining funding levels for routine maintenance to keep these assets in ‘good’ or better condition

ratings is essential to sustaining and improving public transportation facilities for the long term.

DEFERRED MAINTENANCE BACKLOG

Region 4 is underway with a new initiative to better handle the identified Deferred Maintenance (DM)

backlog for the Region. The DM backlog became a high-profile topic during Congressional hearings

in 2011 due to the magnitude of funds indicated in the national DM backlog. At that time, road repair

and maintenance costs for assets were estimated without much differentiation between asset design,

use, and maintenance needs, which resulted in an inflated bottom line.

The FWS Road Tiers and Decision Tree for determining tiers are discussed in the Asset Management

chapter of the Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report. The system of tiers will complement

existing asset classifications and address additional critical aspects of design, usage and

maintenance such as helping to identify how each asset supports the overall mission and purpose of

each station and how each asset should be maintained. Existing classifications (Class I – Class V)

identify the types of routes and intended uses. The new tiers also will identify the standard of

operations required for that roadway type, as well as the funding programs for which the roadway is

eligible. Assignment of tiers to each roadway began in 2012 and will be completed in 2014 with

assistance from the FHWA during current and future inspection cycles (as described in the

attachment Guidance for Reducing the NWRS Deferred Maintenance (DM) Backlog dated November

13, 2012), portions of which are reproduced below.

· Tier 1 Roads - Paved with a continuous surface of asphalt or concrete material. Tier 1 roads

are primarily the main thoroughfare, main auto tour routes, loop drive, and spur roads for

visitors or critical administrative/management functions. They may be routes leading to

maintenance shops, quarters, public concessionaire facilities, education centers, scientific or

cultural interest, or visitor facilities. These roads must be accessible by standard two wheel

drive passenger or commercial vehicles including low clearance cars, vans, light trucks, and

heavy trucks. Other than the main access to the station headquarters or visitor center, Tier 1

roads should have average to above average traffic levels for a refuge setting. Tier 1 roads

may be maintained and repaired through the expenditure of Operations, Annual Maintenance,

Deferred Maintenance (DM), Construction (CI), FWS Transportation Program, Emergency

Relief for Federally-Owned Roads (ERFO) program funds or other fund sources.

3 Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Long Range Transportation Plan: Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report
4-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

· Tier 2 Roads - Improved roads constructed with natural or aggregate surfaces, continuously or

with mixed surface types, and provide primary access to or as a main thoroughfare, auto tour

route, loop drive, and spur road. They may be routes leading to station facilities, scientific or

cultural interest locations, and recreational areas. Tier 2 roads will normally have at least two

of the following attributes: road crowns or cross slope, road side ditches, berms, bridges,

geotextile fabric, engineered base materials, or culverts installed to enhance the performance

of the road. Regular maintenance allows passage by standard two wheel drive passenger

and commercial vehicles including low clearance cars. Tier 2 roads could have varying levels

of traffic depending on use. Tier 2 roads may be maintained or repaired through the

expenditure of Operations, Annual Maintenance, DM, CI, FWS Transportation Program, or

ERFO program funds or other fund sources.

· Tier 3 Roads - Natural or improved roads containing native soils, asphalt, concrete,

aggregate, sand, or any other surface or combination of surfaces. To qualify as a road, these

roads must have been physically constructed and are being maintained as described in

Section 4 of this guidance. Tier 3 roads typically receive below average traffic use in a refuge

setting. Even an administrative paved road that is passable at all times may be a Tier 3 road

if it is rarely used; for example, a paved road around abandoned structures that is only used

during the Annual Condition Assessment. Maintenance and repair of these roads is

performed only as necessary, not in accordance with a regular schedule or industry standard

practices. Tier 3 roads are normally repaired only by routine operations and Annual

Maintenance funds, and are not routinely eligible for DM, FWS Transportation Program, or

ERFO program. Tier 3 roads receive no regular or extended Deferred Maintenance or

Transportation funding. Tier 3 roads may be eligible for emergency and DM funding for

repairs on a case-by-case basis when failure to complete the required repairs would seriously

impair the ability of the field station to fulfill mission requirements. Any expenditure of DM

funds or contribution to DM backlog due to emergency repair needs approval by the Regional

Program Chief or Roads Coordinator on a case-by-case basis. Tier 3 roads condition could

vary from sometimes passable by a two wheel drive vehicle to only suitable for high-clearance

four wheel drive vehicles. Seasonal conditions or wet weather may render these roads

impassable. Comprehensive Condition assessments for Tier 3 roads will not be completed by

either FWS or FHWA except to review their classification. Only Annual Condition

Assessments by the field station will be completed to verify the inventory and to ensure the

road is still passable as necessary to meet mission needs.

Photo Credit: Joe Saenz, Hollands Bluff Road (Tier 2 road), D’Arbonne NWR.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-5

CURRENT KEY FUNDING SOURCES

Three new major programs under MAP-21 are specifically relevant for the FWS. The Federal Lands

Transportation Program authorizes funding for improvements on assets within the Federal estate.

While Federal Agencies are not eligible to receive funds directly, the Federal Lands Access Program

authorizes improvements on State or Local access facilities that connect to Federal Lands, benefitting

the FLMAs. Finally, the Transportation Alternatives Program combines several previous funding

programs, including the Transportation Enhancements and Recreational Trails Programs.

FEDERAL LANDS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM

The Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) provides funds for Federal Lands

transportation facilities, which include those that are public access and are located on, adjacent to, or

providing access to Federal Lands and are owned and maintained by the Federal Government. The

FLTP program expands upon the predecessor Refuge Roads Program, which could only be utilized

for roads documented as part of the Refuge Roads System. However, facilities eligible for FLTP

program funding must be included on the Federal Lands transportation facility inventory, which is

described in Section 203(c) of MAP-21. FLTP funds can be used to pay the costs of any of the

following activities:

· Program administration

· Transportation planning

· Operation and maintenance of

transit facilities

· Research

· Preventative maintenance

· Engineering

· Rehabilitation

· Restoration

· Construction

· Reconstruction

Funds are limited to the above activities on defined Federal Lands Transportation Facilities, including:

· Adjacent vehicular parking areas;

· Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;

· Provision for pedestrians and bicycles;

· Environmental mitigation in or adjacent to Federal Land open to the public to (1) improve

public safety and reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat

connectivity; and to (2) mitigate the damage to wildlife, aquatic organism passage, habitat,

and ecosystem connectivity, including the costs of constructing, maintaining, replacing, or

removing culverts and bridges, as appropriate;

· Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas;

· Congestion mitigation; and

· Other appropriate public road facilities as determined by the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation.4

Table 4-5: FLTP Allocations for FY 2013-2014

Authorized FLTP Funds FY 2013 FY 2014

Total Authorization $ 300 million $ 300 million

Authorization for FWS $ 30 million $ 30 million

Allocation for FWS Region 4* $ 5.83 million $ 5.83 million

* After set-asides. FLTP funds are legislatively allocated to the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service,

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

4

 MAP-21 Factsheet - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/fltp.cfm
4-6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

As shown in Table 4-5, Region 4 has the largest allocation of FLTP funds in the FWS. Allocations of

FLTP funds to the FWS (after set-asides) totaled $24.6 million nationally in FY 2013 and FY 2014. Of

these totals, Region 4 received $5.83 million in each fiscal year, or nearly a quarter of the total funds

that were distributed to the nine FWS regions. The large suballocation to Region 4 is a reflection of

the magnitude of public access transportation facilities maintained by the Region as compared to

National FWS total transportation infrastructure assets.

THE FEDERAL LANDS ACCESS PROGRAM

The Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) provides funds for projects on facilities designated as

Federal Lands access facilities that are located on, are adjacent to, or which provide access to

Federal Lands. While the FLTP provides funds for projects that are located inside the FLMAs and

which are owned and maintained by a federal land management agency, FLAP provides funds for

transportation facilities and services that are predominantly external to the FLMA boundaries and for

which title or maintenance responsibility is vested in a state, county, or local government or entity.

The annual national FLAP allocation defined in MAP-21 (prior to any set-asides) is $250 million.

These funds are distributed to all of the states and territorial areas which contain any Federal Land

management areas. These include, but are not limited to, those units administered by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Bureau of Land

Management, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The formula for FLAP allocations provides

80% of the total annual authorized $250 million to those states that each contain a minimum of 1.5%

of the total public lands in the United States. The twelve states that meet this criteria and fall into the

80% category are:

· Alaska · Colorado · Nevada · Utah

· Arizona · Idaho · New Mexico · Washington

· California · Montana · Oregon · Wyoming

The remaining $50 million (20%) is allocated to the other 38 states plus Washington D.C. and Puerto

Rico. Following the 80/20 funding split of the total national allocation, the state specific

suballocations are developed via the use of a formula that includes four basic factors:

· 30% based on the state’s share of total recreational visitation in all states.

· 5% based on the state's share of total Federal Land area in all states.

· 55% based on the state's share of total Federal public road miles in all states.

· 10% based on the state's share of total number of Federal public bridges in all states.5

The annual authorization for all of the FWS Region 4 States is approximately $20 million, as noted

below in Table 4-6. Note that Puerto Rico is included in the FLAP state level suballocation while the

U.S. Virgin Islands is excluded from this formula.

Table 4-6: FLAP Allocations for FY 2013-2014

Authorized FLAP Funds FY 2013 FY 2014

Total Authorization $ 250 million $ 250 million

Authorization for Region 4 States* $ 20.42 million $ 20.58 million

* Although Puerto Rico is included in FLAP formulae, the U.S. Virgin Islands (as a United States Territory) does

not currently receive an allocation of funds. Eligible recipients of FLAP funding include state or local

government entities, but FLMAs are not eligible recipients.

5

FLAP Map-21 factsheet - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/flap.cfm
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-7

Eligible activities for FLAP funding for Federal Lands access transportation facilities and services

located on, adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal Lands, including activities such as:

· Transportation planning

· Research

· Engineering

· Preventative maintenance

· Rehabilitation

· Restoration

· Construction

· Reconstruction

· Operation and maintenance

of transit facilities

Additional facilities eligible for FLAP funding include:

· Adjacent vehicular parking areas;

· Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;

· Provisions for pedestrians and bicycles;

· Environmental mitigation in or adjacent to Federal Lands to improve public safety and reduce

vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat connectivity;

· Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest areas, including sanitary and water facilities;

and

· Other appropriate public road facilities, as determined by the Secretary of the Department of

Transportation.6

Because available FLAP funds go directly to non-FLMA agencies, it is important (and the intention of

MAP-21) that FLMAs coordinate and collaborate opportunities with adjacent state, county, or local

government agencies to better leverage funds for mutually beneficial projects. FLAP funding

incorporates activities associated with the former National Scenic Byways Program, which is

described in further detail in the Previous Funding Sources section below.

TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES PROGRAM

The Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) replaces previous programs such as

Transportation Enhancements and Recreational Trails programs, as well as several other

discretionary programs, by wrapping them into a single funding source. The national total is divided

among states based on each state’s proportional share of FY 2009 Transportation Enhancements

funding. Fifty percent of the state’s TAP apportionment is available for use anywhere in the state

(likely the proportion of funds available to the Service), while the other fifty percent is suballocated to

areas based on their relative share of the total state population in the same manner as the

suballocation of Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds. As shown in Table 4-7, the Region 4

states collectively received TAP allocations of about $201 million in FY2013 and about $204 million in

FY2014. In general, the state DOT administers TAP funds. It is important to note that the 50% of the

total state TAP allocation available for use anywhere in the state can be transferred by the state to

fund projects through the four major federal aid highway funding programs and/or the Metropolitan

Planning program.

Table 4-7: TAP Allocations for FY 2013-2014

Authorized TAP Funds FY 2013 FY 2014

Total Authorization $ 809 million $ 820 million

Authorization for Region 4 States $ 201 million $ 204 million

6

FLAP Map-21 factsheet - https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/factsheets/flap.cfm
4-8 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) remains largely unchanged as a set-aside within the TAP

program. The set-aside from TAP for RTP is equal to the FY 2009 RTP apportionment unless the

Governor of an individual state elects to opt out in advance, which leaves the equivalent value of FY

2009 RTP apportionment in the larger pool of TAP funds. States that elect to opt out may not use

any TAP funds for RTP administrative costs for that fiscal year. For FY 2013, two states opted out:

Florida from FWS Region 4 and Kansas from FWS Region 6. Florida also opted out of FY 2014 and

was the only state to do so. The RTP provisions and requirements remain otherwise unchanged.

Table 4-8: RTP Set-Aside from TAP

RTP Set-Aside from TAP FY 2013 FY 2014

Total Eligible RTP Set-Aside (Equal to FY 2009 RTP) $ 84.2 million $ 84.2 million

Total Actual RTP Set-Aside (After State(s) Elect to Opt-Out) $ 80.1 million $ 81.6 million

RTP Set-Aside for Region 4 States* $ 13.7 million $ 13.7 million

As shown on Table 4-8, the total national allocation of RTP funds was about $84.2 million in both

FY2013 and fY2014. The amount of RTP funds set aside for use in the Region 4 states was about

$13.7 million in each of these two fiscal years.

OTHER FUNDING SOURCES

There are a number of funding mechanisms that are allocated on a case-by-case basis that have

been productive for Service transportation project funding in the past. Some programs still exist

today, while others have been rolled into FLAP, FLTP or other funding programs under MAP-21.

Region 4 has successfully leveraged non-traditional funding sources for Service transportation

projects in recent years. Some programs are highly specialized and awarded sparingly, while others

are in place to assist with unforeseen circumstances.

EMERGENCY RELIEF FUNDING SOURCES

The Federal Government has three emergency relief programs which provide repair and

reconstruction relief for facilities that have been seriously damaged as a result of presidentially

declared natural disasters or catastrophic failure from an external cause. Most pertinent to the US

FWS, the Emergency Relief for Federal Roads Program (ERFO) provides financial assistance for

the repair of tribal transportation facilities, federal lands transportation facilities, and other federally

owned roads that are open to the general public for use with a standard passenger vehicle. Some

ERFO eligible roads are also Federal-aid highways and are eligible for the Emergency Relief

Program (ER), which provides funds for emergency and permanent repairs for roads and bridges on

Federal-aid highways including public roads classified as arterials, urban collectors, and rural major

collectors (local roads and rural minor collectors are not eligible for ER funds). For facilities that are

both ERFO and ER eligible, the state transportation department and/or local highway agency are the

eligible applicants and may elect to receive reimbursement for eligible repairs under either program.

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Federal Emergency

Management Agency is an alternative funding source for local government entities to repair damage

that is not eligible under ERFO or ER programs.

While the funding authorization for ER has been set to $100 million for each FY 2013 and FY 2014,

the original authorization for ER under SAFETEA-LU included provisions to provide sums, as

necessary, to supplement funding above the authorized limit (appropriate legislation is required to

make the additional funds available for use). MAP-21 has changed the ER funding mechanism to
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-9

remove the previous $100 million cap on obligations for a single event. FWS Region 4 currently has

$2.3 million in active emergency relief projects. Some recent projects funded through ERFO are

described below.

Reelfoot NWR (Tennessee)– Restoration of Grassy Island Auto Tour Road

Extreme weather and significant storm flooding

events that occurred in the last two weeks of

January 2013 damaged roads at Reelfoot NWR.

Region 4 requested ERFO Funding for erosion

repair and head cutting of the upstream end of a

road culvert, which had caused a hole in the

culvert. Repairs included the replacement of a 30

inch diameter culvert that was 30 feet long. The

refuge was awarded $13,752 to perform the

repairs.

Lake Isom NWR (Tennessee) – Restoration of Boundary Line Road (Route 010)

Lake Isom NWR experienced erosion of gravel at

seven different locations along Route 010 due to

extreme weather and significant storm flooding

resulting from 6.5 inches of rain from January 9-14,

2013. Region 4 requested ERFO Funding to repair the

road damages and the refuge was awarded $8,688 to

perform the necessary repairs to Route 010.

PREVIOUS FUNDING SOURCES

The previously authorized Refuge Roads Program (RRP) has been absorbed into the MAP-21

created FLTP. The RRP was utilized for expenditures on existing roads specifically documented as

part of the Refuge Roads System. RRP funding could be used for the design, construction,

reconstruction, maintenance or improvement of refuge roads and bridges that provide access to or

are within a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Funding could not be applied to the design

or construction of new roads. A representative RRP funded project in Region 4 is described below.

Carolina Sandhills NWR (South Carolina) – Road Rehabilitation and Erosion Control7

The Carolina Sandhills NWR is located in a region of

rolling sandy hills and longleaf pine forests as well

as a geology that is susceptible to erosion. As a

result, the Refuge has experienced maintenance

challenges on its roadways. As part of the Refuge

Roads Program, EFLHD worked to correct ongoing

maintenance problems by rehabilitating several

roadways in the Refuge. Rehabilitation activities

included grading, widening roadway lanes, placing

additional aggregate surface material, stabilizing

slopes through a new and innovative seeding and

erosion control method, installing new and

replacing/extending existing pipe culverts, and cutting ditches for better drainage.

7 Refuge Roads Sample Projects, July 2012. <http://flh.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/rr/documents/rr.pdf>
4-10 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

The National Scenic Byways Program (NSBP) was established under the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) of 1991. The program is a discretionary grant program whose goal

was the recognition, preservation, and enhancement of roads throughout the United States that had

one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and/or scenic qualities. Although

MAP-21 has not eliminated the program, it no longer receives direct funding or grant program funds

in this new bill. In Region 4, the Sabine NWR received NSBP Funds. Many other refuges in the

Southeast intersect or are near scenic byways. Identifying proximity to nationally significant

roadways could potentially assist the Service with leveraging transportation dollars for projects in and

around Service lands. Some NSBP projects that benefitted specific FWS Region 4 are noted below.

Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Corridor Master Plan – Ten Thousand Islands NWR (Florida)8

The National Scenic Byways Program funded

the development of a detailed master plan for

the Tamiami Trail Scenic Byway, which provides

primary road access to the Ten Thousands

Islands NWR as well as several other FLMAs.

In 2000, the Florida DOT sponsored the NSBP

project, which was allocated a total of $240,000

to identify key locations along the 50 mile

Tamiami Trail roadway for improved safety and

access to the FLMAs along its corridor. The

plan provided site plans and engineering

drawings in order to construct necessary visitor centers, pull-offs, parking areas, kiosks,

boardwalks, canoe access points, trailheads and picnic areas along the roadway to benefit

access to the FLMAs along this corridor, including the Ten Thousand Islands NWR.

Florida Key Deer Habitat Preservation – National Key Deer NWR (Florida)9

In 2008 the Monroe County Planning Department was

awarded $1,400,000 to preserve 20 specific parcels in Big

Pine Key along the Florida Keys Scenic Highway to

provide additional critical habitat for the Florida Key Deer

species, which are only found on these islands. The

project intent is to preserve the delicate ecosystem on Big

Pine Key, where the National Key Deer NWR is also

located, while preserving a beautiful viewshed and

controlling and directing growth in the popular vacation

destination.

The Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program was established to address the challenge of

vehicular congestion in and around national parks and other federal lands. The program was

originally authorized under SAFETEA-LU and provided grants for alternative transportation in federal

lands management areas from 2006 to 2013 when it was repealed under MAP-21. The FLTP and

FLAP programs carry the same basic eligibility requirements and potential for funds to complete

similar projects through MAP-21 that were associated with the Sarbanes Transit in the Parks

Program. J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR was a recipient of Transit in Parks program funding in both 2006

8 Tamiami Trail Scenic Highway Corridor Master Plan (SB-2000-FL-02) <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/scenic_byways/>

9

Florida Keys Scenic Highway FL: Key Deer Habitat Preservation (SB-2008-FL-10)

<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/scenic_byways/>
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-11

and 2009 with funds awarded to Lee County and to the local transit agency, LeeTran, to assist with

the provision of improved transit access to Sanibel Island and the J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR.

Additionally, the Merritt Island NWR benefitted from the Transit in Parks Program in 2012. The use of

the Sarbanes funding at both J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR and Merritt Island NWR is detailed below.

Merritt Island NWR – Titusville, Merritt Island, and Surrounding Communities Transit Service

In FY 2012 Merritt Island, Florida received funds to

develop a mass transit plan to provide transit

service between the City of Titusville, surrounding

communities, and the Merritt Island NWR. Merritt

Island is also home to the John F. Kennedy Space

Center and to the Canaveral National Seashore.

Transit will improve access to the NWR and space

center and has the potential to mitigate some traffic

concerns by helping visitor share trips rather than

take individual personal vehicles to the island.

Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT), the local Brevard

County transit agency, provides fixed route bus

service between the mainland and Merritt Island,

including Route 3, which runs on Merritt Island and

Route 4, which connects Merritt Island and Port

Canaveral to the mainland and adjacent

communities.

J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR – “Ding” Darling Alternative Transportation Study

J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR working with Lee County’s

DOT (LeeTran) and as a collaborative effort with

the City of Sanibel, has been working to address

traffic congestion issues on and leading to Sanibel

Island. The selected transportation alternatives

included a Refuge-only approach that incorporated

the expansion of tram service and non-motorized,

multi-use paths inside or accessing the Refuge.

Transportation alternatives that were also

considered included an Islands-only alternative that

would implement tram service to connect the

gateway community to the Refuge’s existing tram

service and a combination Refuge and Island

approach that would implement both the Refuge-only and Island-only approaches. Those two

latter alternatives were removed from further consideration as a result of overwhelming public

opposition. The study also addresses concerns from high visitation numbers on the refuge and

the impacts that high visitation may have on wildlife and wildlife habitat.

POSSIBLE FUTURE FUNDING SOURCES

While the majority of future transportation funds for Region 4 are anticipated to come directly through

either the FLAP or FLTP programs, it is important to consider alternative means to fill funding gaps

and finance transportation projects. Whether through other programs in MAP-21 or from non-Federal
4-12 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

sources at the state or local levels, transportation funding can be leveraged from a variety of

programs throughout the country.

Federal Land transportation projects are eligible for a number of programs, beyond FLAP and FLTP,

whether by partnering with other agencies or competing directly for funds. The following are a number

of programs available through MAP-21 and other non-federal sources that could benefit the FWS.

The Technology and Innovation Deployment Program aims to accelerate the implementation and

delivery of new technologies and innovations from highway research and development. Nationally

$62.5 million has been authorized for this program for each FY 2013 and FY 2014 and is available

until expended. The FWS should pay particular attention to the new business practices in highway

construction processes that are taking place in various parts of the country. “Green Streets” and

sustainable highway design and rating programs are found all over the United States. Examples

include the New York State DOT GreenLITES (Green Leadership in Transportation Environmental

Sustainability) transportation environmental sustainability-rating program and the Oregon Greenroads

sustainable planning toolkit. These programs present roadway designers with a set of sustainability

best practices to enhance, promote, and prioritize projects that consider better practices in roadway

construction and maintenance, not unlike the LEED program for building design. The Georgia DOT

has funded research to begin a Georgia rating system and will likely start a pilot program and solicit

pilot projects in the near future.

The Service could greatly benefit from the context-sensitive and environmentally minded innovations

that have come out of these types of programs. Projects that serve the Service’s mission will likely be

competitive in this regard when compared to other transportation projects evaluated using these

tools. Moreover, the Service could benefit from pilot projects on innovative best roadway construction

or maintenance practices that particularly target environmental concerns. Keeping abreast of

innovations and advances in sustainable roadway design could provide the Service with opportunities

to fund projects with state-of-the-art environmental and sustainable construction and design

elements.

The Construction of Ferry Boats and Ferry Terminal Facilities program has the potential to

benefit the Service in areas where alternative transportation by water is a viable consideration, and a

public entity is the majority or sole owner of the Ferry system. The Ferry program has been

authorized for $67 million for FY 2013 and FY 2014 and the funds have been allocated based on a

ratio that includes the number of passengers, number of vehicles, and total route miles served by

ferry systems throughout the states, territories, and Puerto Rico. Unlike the former Ferry Boat

Discretionary program, there are no set-asides for specific states, and funding under the program is

no longer discretionary, although eligibilities for funds remain the same. Construction of ferry boats

and ferry terminal facilities will likely benefit existing routes serving the general population need. It is

unlikely that construction of a new ferry terminal will serve a refuge directly. However, the Service

should consider locations where transportation by ferry to a refuge has the potential to be mutually

beneficial to both the Service and ferry provider.

Travel by ferry could be considered an extension of nature observation for visitors to an island refuge.

Terminal facilities may not need to be located directly on or adjacent to the refuge if, for example,

there were trail facilities or a shuttle to continue transportation to refuges via alternative modes.

Distribution of Ferry program funds depends on a ratio of 20% based on number of ferry passengers,

45% based on total vehicles carried, and 35% based on total route miles. Refuges with high

visitation could coordinate with the ferry service provider to promote additional ridership or even a

new route to assist with eligibility for additional funds.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-13

The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a SAFETEA-LU created program that has

been continued under MAP-21 to achieve a significant reduction in traffic fatalities and serious

injuries on public roads. It is important for the Service to recognize locations in and around refuges

and hatcheries that could benefit from this program. There may not always be a case where safety

concerns in and around refuges will qualify or be competitive for HSIP funds, but the estimated total

national apportionments are sizeable at $2.39 billion for FY 2013 and $2.41 billion for FY 2014. HSIP

provides funds for strategies, activities, or projects on public roads that are consistent with the datadriven State Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and corrects or improves a hazardous condition.

Projects that receive funds will need to be part of an updated SHSP, which will require the Service to

coordinate with local and state agencies, if a safety improvement project is to be implemented with

funds through this program.

The Railway-Highway Crossings program is nationally funded at approximately $220 million

annually for FY 2013 and FY 2014 as a set-aside from the HSIP totals. FWS Region 4 has a number

of railway-highway at-grade crossings either inside or adjacent to refuges and Service-owned

transportation facilities. Each state is required to conduct a survey of highway-railroad crossings that

may require separation, relocation, or the installation of enhanced protective devices at public grade

crossings. It may behoove the Service to consider if any crossings in or adjacent to Service lands

and facilities could benefit from safety improvements to reduce any fatalities, injuries or crashes at

these locations.

Photo Credit: Joe Saenz, Railroad Crossing at Black Bayou Lake NWR

The Statewide and Nonmetropolitan Transportation Planning (SNTP) program is funded by a 2%

set-aside from each state’s apportionment for the four core highway surface transportation funding

programs (i.e. – National Highway Performance Program, Surface Transportation Program, Highway

Safety Improvement Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program). Similar

to many MAP-21 programs, the SNTP requires performance-based planning as part of the statewide

planning process. For the Service to benefit from SNTP funds, it will have to present projects to the

state that are competitive based on state or local performance targets. The Service could benefit

from incorporating transportation projects into the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

(STIP), when possible. As the Service continues to integrate performance measurements, it should

consider how Service performance goals and available data could integrate with Statewide

performance-based planning and give Service projects a competitive edge for SNTP funding. Where

possible, the Service should work to incorporate transportation projects in the STIP.
4-14 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

In specific circumstances, Region 4 should consider how funds could be leveraged for Service benefit

from the Territorial and Puerto Rico Highway Program for transportation enhancements leading to

refuges in Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin Islands. The Territorial Highway Program includes $40

million for both FY 2013 and FY 2014 to assist the governments of the U.S. territories with

construction and improvement of the system of arterial and collector highways and necessary interisland connections. Because the U.S. Virgin Islands are not included in current funding calculations

through FLAP, it is important to consider other funding mechanisms for Service transportation

projects inside or adjacent to the refuges in this territory.

The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA) is not a funding program, but

rather a community assistance branch of the National Park Service. It offers staff assistance for local

project planning for all levels of public agencies. The RCTA Program provides assistance with

planning, project development, and project construction that relate to resource conservation activities

and outdoor recreation. While there have been no projects with RTCA assistance in Region 4, the

RCTA Program is associated with a Region 3 project to preserve over 5,000 acres of land to be

protected by the Service and could be a resource to Region 4 in the future.

FINANCIAL GAP: NEEDS VERSUS REVENUES

Financial needs for Region 4 transportation assets have traditionally been evaluated based on the

level of asset deficiencies (roadways, parking facilities, trails, etc.) or associated with asset repair and

reconstruction. The focus on asset deficiencies as encompassing transportation needs could be

expanded to a broader discussion that includes new capital opportunities such as new auto-tour

routes, new trails or roadways connecting refuges and hatcheries to the local public, or public transit

shuttles that can improve multimodal access. The additional consideration for new assets could grow

financial need considerations considerably from traditional asset-deficiency based financial

calculations.

The consideration of new asset planning in the financial needs discussion for transportation is one

supporting reason for encouraging more transportation planning at the station level, including more

targeted transportation step-down plans at stations warranting further study. Some things are known

at this time about need and funding at the regional level:

· The current estimated backlog for FWS Region 4 to bring public use transportation assets

(specifically roads and parking lots) to the desired “good” condition rating is $121 million. This

includes routes in the 000, 100, 200, and 900 categories as estimated in the FWS Cycle 4 RIP

database, which is separate from the newly established Tiering System for FWS Region 4.

This does not account for any further deterioration of these assets after the present time.

· Funding for projects in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands can be a challenge since these

outlying U.S. territories are not included in the formulae for many of the major MAP-21 funding

allocations.

· Fish hatcheries in Region 4 have historically funded transportation projects with some

combination of Deferred Maintenance (DM), Construction funds, and Visitor Enhancement

funds, rather than working with transportation dollars.

NATIONAL FWS NEEDS VS. FUNDING ANALYSIS

On the National level, the U.S. FWS has partnered with the FHWA for the past 15 years to manage

the FWS Transportation Program. The Fish and Wildlife Service National Reauthorization 2013

Prioritization Pilot and Work Optimization Analyses Report (2013 Prioritization Pilot) provides an

understanding of the state-of-repair and financial needs necessary to bring all assessed paved assets
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-15

to a desired Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) of 80. Data collected as a part of the FHWA Road

Inventory Program (RIP) provided the baseline for paved asset conditions for the 2013 Prioritization

Pilot. An enhanced optimization analysis considered the current conditions for paved assets for the

FWS as a whole, and separately for each individual Region. This report and its findings contributes

to the National FWS LRTP, which includes not only the state-of-repair and financial needs necessary

to bring paved assets to a desired condition, but also bridges, trails, transit, deferred maintenance,

and the costs associated with transportation planning activities.

Under MAP-21, the FLTP funding allocation for the Service is $30 million annually in dedicated

funding. According to current RIP data, that budgetary allocation is only enough to maintain

pavement conditions at existing levels. There are not any remaining funds for other improvements to

trails, bridges, or environmental enhancements or to implement new large projects. The analysis and

funding scenarios considered for the 2013 Prioritization Pilot have been incorporated in the National

FWS LRTP. The scenarios shown below in Figure 4-1 illustrate that a $27 million annual budget

would barely keep paved assets at current PCR condition. The Fully Implemented Program to bring

all paved assets to a PCR of 80 by 2017 would require a funding level of about $57 million annually.

This translates into an annual national level funding “gap” between identified needs and likely

available funding of approximately $30 million.

Similar to the 2013 Prioritization Pilot prepared for paved assets, the FWS National LRTP undertook

a detailed analysis of the remaining items – bridges, trails, transit, deferred maintenance, and

transportation planning activities – to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the overall financial need

for FWS transportation assets. A

desired future condition

considered the funds needed to

bring the overall condition for

each type of asset/area to a

desired condition level as well as

funding allocations for

environmental enhancements and

the delivery of large projects.

This initial version of the Region 4

LRTP does not include a similarly

detailed analysis of the financial

need for transportation assets, but

rather it builds upon the

information prepared at the

National level. Based on the

needs identified in the National

analysis for paved assets,

bridges, trails, large new projects,

environmental enhancements,

transit, and deferred maintenance,

the FWS National Transportation

Program would require about $95

million annually for a Fully Implemented program. This level of funding would not just maintain FWS

paved assets at current levels but allow aggressive improvement of assets, address additional

projects for transit and trail needs, and successfully deliver 2 or 3 large new transportation projects

per year nationally.

Figure 4-1: FWS National Road Performance Analysis and

Funding Scenarios

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service National Reauthorization 2013

Prioritization Pilot and Work Optimization Analyses Report
4-16 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Figure 4-2: FWS National Transportation Needs and Funding Scenarios10

The 2013 Prioritization Pilot determined that 24.4% of the overall National financial need would be

comprised of paved assets in Region 4. While there are a total of eight regions nationally across the

Service, Region 4 by far has the largest share of public use road miles accounting for nearly 30% of

the Service’s total road miles (1,454 of 4,948 as inventoried for the 2013 Prioritization Pilot). Thus,

the extensive system of paved assets in Region 4 plus the difference between existing paved

conditions and the costs to bring paved assets to the desired PCR 80 means that Region 4 requires

nearly a quarter of the total estimated financial need. Although it is not known if the bridge, trails and

transit assets in Region 4 equate to the same share of the identified National financial need for

roadways, this LRTP assumes the 25% estimate of the National LRTP financial need areas to provide

an approximate overall financial need for Region 4 transportation assets. The estimated funding

required for Region 4 to prepare a program comparable to the one described in the National LRTP

would include the dollar amounts by program area shown below in Table 4-9.

Table 4-9: Estimated Annual Region 4 Funding Need by National LRTP Program Area

Program Area Current

Funding Enhanced Program Fully Implemented(Address all Needs)

Pavement

(24.4% from 2013 Prioritization Pilot)

$5.83 Million

$9.03M $13.91M

Bridges

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $1.00M $1.50M

Large Projects

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $1.25M $3.75M

Environmental Enhancements

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $1.00M $1.50M

Trails + Transit

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $1.00M $1.25M

Transportation Planning

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $0.75M $0.75M

FHWA Admin.

(25% estimate from National LRTP) $0.75M $0.75M

Total $5.83 M Approx. $14.8M Approx. $23.4 M

10 Fish and Wildlife Service National Reauthorization 2013 Prioritization Pilot and Work Optimization Analyses Report

(Stantec, 2013)
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 4-17

Considering the percentage distribution provided by the Optimization Analysis Report and the $95

million annual need nationally as identified in the National LRTP, approximately $23.4 million annually

would be needed to fund Region 4 in a Fully Implemented funding program. Similar to the paved

asset analysis completed for the 2013

Prioritization Pilot, an Enhanced Program

with approximately $14.8 million annually

would still improve paved assets and would

be a progressive climb towards the desired

PCR rating of 80. Although the anticipated

overall PCR for FWS paved assets

nationally is anticipated to reach just over a

PCR of 70 by 2017, the Enhanced Program

likely would reach or come close to a PCR

rating of 80 for paved assets by 2030.

Figure 4-3 depicts the anticipated funding

shortfall for the Fully Implemented funding

program which would have an initial $17.6

million funding shortfall in Year 1, which will

continue to grow to an anticipated $31.7

million funding gap in 2030 due to an

assumed inflation rate of 3% per year and if

a consistent $5.83 million available funding

is spent in Region 4 annually.

As shown in Table 4-10, the total anticipated

need (through 2030) of the Enhanced Plan

is $321.6 million while the need associated with completing the Fully Implemented Plan is $509.4

million. These cumulative values assume the 2014 baseline needs of $14.8 million and $23.4 million

for the Enhanced and Fully Implemented Plans, respectively, grown at an inflation rate of 3.0% per

year to account for inflation through 2030. With a constant funding level of $5.83 million per year

assumed, a total of just under $100 million will be available to Region 4 through 2030. This results in

a funding shortfall of between $222.5 million and $410.3 million depending on the level of plan

implementation that is assumed.

Table 4-10: Anticipated FY 2014 - FY 2030 Region 4 Transportation Needs Versus Funding

Existing Funding for

Region 4 (annually)

Anticipated Need through

2030

Anticipated Funding

Available through 2030* Funding Gap through 2030

$ 5.83 M

Enhanced: $321.6 M

$ 99.1 M

Enhanced: $222.5 M

Fully Implemented: $509.4 M Fully Implemented: $410.3 M

The current level of transportation funding available to Region 4 limits the Service’s ability to maintain

current assets and to implement new innovative and meaningful projects now and in the future. New

sources of funding should be explored wherever possible, including opportunities to partner with

neighboring jurisdictions on mutually beneficial projects.

Figure 4-3: Region 4 Transportation Funding Gap

for a Fully Implemented Funding Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 5-1

5. Project Selection Process

The culmination of the LRTP effort is the development of a project selection process. In light of

guidance set forth by MAP-21, performance-based planning will be at the core of funding decisionmaking. It is imperative that the refuges and hatcheries in Region 4 develop creative and impactful

transportation projects that can compete not only within the region but also at the federal level within

the FWS, with other FLMAs, and within regions and states across the country.

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION

The Southeast Region of the Service develops a 5-year project plan for transportation improvements

which includes both asset management projects and more substantial capital projects. Asset

management projects focus on the state of good repair of existing infrastructure, including such

things as regraveling or resurfacing of roads, trails, and parking lots as well as bridge upgrades. Of

the $5.8 million that the region receives through MAP-21, $250,000 is set aside for regraveling

projects and an additional $140,000 is set aside for urgent bridge repairs. The remaining funding is

used for larger capital projects.

Currently, stations notify the region of various project needs, and the region creates a list of potential

projects. This list is then submitted to area managers for their review and feedback. With the

assistance of area managers, the region creates a 5-year project plan for implementation. The plan is

not updated annually; however, area supervisors are able to review the list of projects annually to

ensure that no emergency changes need to be made or that a project has been completed with

another funding source. Projects are then administered by the Service or by EFLHD through an

interagency agreement and coordinated with the states through the State Transportation

Improvement Program.

Much of the project identification process will remain the same as it has historically been; however,

performance-based consideration of projects required by MAP-21 means that the selection of

projects will become more quantitative. The FWS National LRTP has created the framework for a

Project Evaluation Tool that should be used to select the most competitive transportation projects

within each region. Additionally, the National FWS has adopted Roadway Design Guidelines that

should be referenced during the creation of roadway projects. Both the Project Evaluation Tool and

Road Design Guidelines documents can be found in the Appendix. The following section provides

more information on the criteria and tool and how it will be integrated into the traditional project

selection process.

PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA AND TOOL

The Project Evaluation Criteria and Tool provides station, region, and national leadership with a more

quantitative process for evaluating transportation projects. MAP-21 places a greater emphasis on

performance-based selection of projects than SAFETEA-LU and other prior federal transportation

bills. The projects that provide higher transportation value should be funded before those that provide

lower value. The National LRTP for the Fish and Wildlife Service outlines six primary metric

categories for the evaluation and selection of projects. Region 4 has maintained those six categories

and has included subcategory metrics using National Plan guidance, analysis conducted through the

regional LRTP process, and RATE survey responses from station leadership. The six primary

categories and focal points of the subcategories are provided below:

1. Improves transportation safety – focuses on crash history, improvements that will reduce

crashes, and/or other safety enhancements and countermeasures
5-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

2. Improves “state of good repair” of transportation assets – considers the type and priority

level of the asset, the Facility Condition Index (FCI) rating, and/or whether the project includes

a cost savings plan for reducing operations and maintenance costs

3. Enhances transportation choices to, from, and within FWS stations – provides points to

projects that improve roadway connectivity, provide alternative transportation options,

enhance way-finding, and/or are located in areas with substantial underserved or

underrepresented populations

4. Enhances environmental conditions in the field and/or helps to meet programmatic

goals – considers projects that protect, avoid, or address environmentally sensitive areas,

include educational components, and/or improve Alternative Transportation System or

Intelligent Transportation System options

5. Meets a local priority: (a) documented in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP),

(b) other transportation plan; (c) is within a Region’s high-use or urban station; or (d)

provides economic benefit to local partners – includes points for projects that are included

in FWS or other partner agency plans, are in areas with high visitation rates or in urban areas,

improve congestion hot-spots, and/or provide a positive impact to the local economy

6. Supports transportation partnerships and leveraging of transportation funds/programs

to benefit FWS – provides points for projects that have partner agency buy-in or financial

support and/or that are deferred maintenance projects for Visitor Facility Enhancement

This tool will be used to assist Regional leadership with the identification of priority projects across the

Region. Technical merit is part of the prioritization process, as it is in all planning processes, but

stakeholder involvement also will play an important role. Qualitative considerations for project

prioritization will include availability of funds, project development delivery schedules, and time

constraints for right-of-way and environmental work. Area, regional, and national leadership will

discuss high-scoring projects from a qualitative perspective to determine which projects should be

advanced for implementation. Figure 5-1 shows the scoring criteria for Category 1: Improves

transportation safety. The entire list of criteria and associated points are included in Appendix A3.1.

Figure 5-1: Project Evaluation Tool - Criteria Excerpt
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 6-1

6. Plan Implementation and Future Use

LRTP USE BY THE REGION

This initial Region 4 Long Range Transportation Plan is meant primarily to serve as a regional

planning document. The Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report provides a regional snapshot

of transportation assets and needs with additional detail listed by station in Appendix A2.2. This

Recommendations Report includes policy guidance and evaluation tools that the region can use to

prioritize projects in light of new federal funding guidance and the FWS National LRTP Plan that

seeks to fund projects that will provide a strong return on investment. Recommendations include

suggested data collection efforts that the region or individual stations should consider over the next

few years and before the next update of the Region 4 LRTP.

STATIONS FOR FURTHER TRANSPORTATION STUDY: REGIONAL EVALUATION TOOL

The Project Evaluation Tool is an important resource for prioritizing transportation projects within the

region by determining which projects provide the greatest value. Another tool has been created as

part of the Region 4 LRTP effort that provides value at an earlier stage of the transportation planning

process. A handful of refuges have conducted step-down transportation plans in addition to their

traditional CCP efforts; however, most of the refuges and hatcheries in the Southeast Region have

not studied transportation within and around their stations. This is acceptable for many stations due to

smaller land areas and lower visitation levels. At the same time, some other stations may benefit from

additional study. The Stations for Further Transportation Study tool is meant primarily as an

evaluation tool that can be used by regional staff to determine which refuges and hatcheries may

warrant a further more detailed transportation study.

Figure 6-1: Stations for Further Transportation Study – Sample Report
6-2 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

The tool uses only information that has been analyzed or gathered as a part of the Region 4 LRTP or

the voluntary RATE survey responses collected from station management. The decision to use only

this data was made for multiple reasons:

· Increases the value of the data collected and analysis pertaining to the LRTP

· Eliminates the need for an additional data call to the stations

· Reduces the effort of regional leadership to determine next steps

The tool scores each refuge on a scale of up to 100 points. Metrics are broken down into the six main

goal areas of the LRTP: 1) Access, Mobility, and Connectivity; 2) Asset Management; 3) Coordinated

Opportunities; 4) Environmental; 5) Safety; and 6) Visitation. Each goal has multiple metrics for which

the refuges can score points, as shown in Figure 6-1 (full evaluation criteria and tool can be found in

Appendix A6). Awarded points identify

areas where there is a need or

challenge that could be rectified with

transportation enhancements that

would require further analysis. Thus,

stations with the highest scores can be

considered for additional transportation

study. Additionally, the breakdown of

evaluation in this tool could provide a

more targeted focus toward specific

goal areas. For instance, stations with

particularly challenging asset

management issues could be

considered for a detailed review of their

roadway, parking, and trail facilities.

Likewise, a station with a high safety

score (meaning the station has a

number of identified safety challenges)

may warrant the application of one or

more Road Safety Audits (RSAs).

The user interface for the tool, as

shown in Figure 6-2, allows regional

staff to select and view stations from

one state, from one multistate,

subregional area, all stations

throughout the region, or simply an

individual refuge or hatchery.

Additionally, the tool will allow the user

to select a minimum evaluation score.

The output possibilities include either a

series of reports (one for each station

selected as shown in Figure 6-1) or a table that provides the scores for each metric by refuge, which

can be sorted and analyzed separately. The station reports and summary tables can be provided to

station, area, or regional leadership as needed. The complete list of evaluation criteria for this tool is

included in Appendix A3.1.

Looking forward to the update of the LRTP in four to five years, new sources of data may be available

that can be used to improve this tool. For example, the FLMA Collaborative Visitor Transportation

Survey is being developed and tested by the Alaska Multi-Agency FLMA LRTP team. This is an effort

Figure 6-2: Stations for Further Study – User Interface
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 6-3

to develop a toolkit of transportation survey questions and collection methods that can be used by the

FLMAs over many years. The consistent questions, pre-approved by the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB), will streamline the process of administering future surveys and provide a baseline of

results across which all FLMAs can be compared. Surveys such as these can be used in the next

LRTP and potentially in LRTP tools such as the Stations for Further Study Tool.

LRTP USE BY STATIONS

The LRTP document is valuable for regional-level planning; however, it can be challenging for

stations to extract relevant local-level information that is useful for their planning efforts. Recognizing

this difficulty, as well as a lack of time and resources to consider the full LRTP process at the station

and regional levels, some additional tools and resources were developed as a part of the initial

Region 4 LRTP process to provide greater value at the station level.

INCORPORATING TRANSPORTATION INTO CCPS

The primary resource that the LRTP will provide at the station level is an amendment to the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan process for refuges to incorporate transportation considerations.

While regional funding for CCPs has been discontinued at this time; refuges have the option to

update their CCPs on their own. While CCP updates may not be done regularly, the PMT decided to

amend the necessary documents to more explicitly include transportation considerations so that any

refuge deciding to update their plan will have the tools to adequately consider transportation.

Additionally, it is important to remember that the LRTP is a long range planning document. Future

federal funding levels are not known at this time, and it is practical to anticipate changes that may

occur 5-10 years from now. A similar process can be undertaken to update Comprehensive Hatchery

Management Plans (CHMPs) as well. A User Guide that details how to incorporate transportation into

CCPs can be found in Appendix A6.

Station Fact Sheets

One valuable product of the LRTP is a series of fact sheets for each of the stations (both refuges and

hatcheries). Analysis contained in the Appendix (from the Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Report catalogs metrics at a station level. Reviewing the appendices can be a time-consuming and

tedious task for station managers, so the information was gathered into a database and formatted

into a concise fact sheet report for each station. These station-level data are valuable pieces of

information for managers considering transportation as a part of the CCP/CHMP process and/or

developing transportation projects submitted to the region for funding consideration.

User Guide

The User Guide provides refuge leadership with an overview of how to incorporate transportation

considerations into their CCP using information gathered and analyzed in the LRTP document. It

encourages the refuges to first work with the Regional Transportation Program Manager to discuss

the process and to acquire their refuge-specific fact sheet. It then breaks guidance down into the

major chapters of the CCP and asks sample questions that each refuge can consider relative to

transportation in the development of its CCP.

Work Plan

The Work Plan is an existing CCP development resource that provides step-by-step details and time

frames for components of the CCP process. The Work Plan has been modified to include steps

associated with transportation.
6-4 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Template

The Template also is an existing CCP development resource that provides the baseline text from

which a refuge can begin its CCP document. The Template has been modified to include important

text related to transportation, a list of relevant acronyms and definitions, and transportation legal

mandates of interest.

USE OF THE CLIMATE CHANGE TOOL

As discussed in the Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report, a parallel effort to the LRTP has

been conducted to develop a Climate Change Tool for use by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and

the National Park Service. Two components, the Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Planning,

are being considered as a part of the tool. The Vulnerability Assessment takes into account a large

amount of currently available national database information to determine which park and refuge

transportation assets are the most vulnerable to climate change. Then, the staff from the parks and

refuges were able to work with the FHWA and ICF International team (consultant team leading the

tool development) to determine the best adaptation options for each asset and unit. Workshops were

conducted at a total of four stations in the Southeast Region—two national parks and two national

wildlife refuges—to refine the tool and discuss possible adaptation strategies.

Moving forward, the Climate Change Tool can be another valuable resource both at the

refuge/hatchery level as well as at the regional level to determine which assets may be most

vulnerable to climate change (and mitigation strategies) and potentially which assets are able to be

decommissioned. Station leaders should work with the FWS regional and national staff and FHWA

staff to refine the tool for their specific location. In particular, the list of specific assets and their

characteristics will require refinement at the station staff level. Using the Climate Change tool in

conjunction with the LRTP tools will assist the stations in developing high priority transportation

projects that will compete well at a regional and potentially national level.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN

Stakeholder input is critical to the success of any planning project, no matter the size. It is important

to recognize that different types of outreach are applicable to different types of planning efforts. The

following guidance is provided to assist the region and its stations with tailoring outreach to the scale

and intensity of the plan.

LRTPS FOR FLMAS

LRTPs are by nature multi-decade plans that consider large geographic areas. In the case of the

Region 4 FWS LRTP, the plan covers ten states, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and it is

thus prohibitively expensive and time consuming to conduct traditional outreach through public

meetings and open houses in multiple locations. As noted in the Stakeholder Outreach summary, the

predominant focus of outreach efforts for this plan was internal to the Service and EFLHD. Service

staff from individual refuges and hatcheries all the way to the regional leadership team had the

opportunity to provide input into the plan. In-person meetings were used to engage the Project

Management Team, Coordination Team, and regional leadership. Conference calls, webinars,

electronic surveys, and emails were the primary media for communication with the station and area

managers.

Following the completion of this plan, the Regional Transportation Program Manager, with support

from other regional, area, and station staff should reach out to key state and regional transportation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 6-5

planning agencies and other FLMAs to advertise the completion of the plan. The roll-out of the first

ever Service LRTP in the Southeast Region is an important opportunity to build and grow

relationships between the FWS and its planning partners. The plan should be posted on the Region 4

website as well as the websites of individual refuges and hatcheries where they exist. The LRTP will

also be published in the Federal Register, which will provide some broad public access to the plan.

TRANSPORTATION STEP-DOWN PLANS AND OTHER SMALL AREA STUDIES

Small area plans allow for more localized outreach efforts than the higher-level LRTP due to the

shorter planning horizon and smaller study area. Some of these plans include subregional plans

between stations or in partnership with other FLMAs as well as transportation step-down plans at

individual refuges or hatcheries. In addition to gathering input within the Service and EFLHD, it is also

prudent to engage relevant local, regional, and state agencies whose boundaries overlap with

Service boundaries.

Stations conducting these smaller planning studies can look to participate in other sponsored

planning efforts such as the development of State Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP) by

State DOTs, the updates of Metropolitan Planning Organization LRTPs, county and city

transportation plans, and corridor studies. This can occur through continued development of

relationships with Service planning partners. Outreach to the general public as well as to refuge and

hatchery visitors and Friends Groups is not only feasible but strongly encouraged at this scale as

well. Visitor surveys and information kiosks, telephone and web surveys, focus groups, and public

meetings are all practical and valuable media at this scale.

PROJECT STUDIES

Project-level studies are the smallest and most focused of all the planning studies and therefore

encourage a more targeted outreach plan than some of the broader studies. In addition to the general

public meetings and surveys, stakeholders directly impacted by the project must also be involved. At

this scale, all projects using federal funding must comply with the NEPA process, which includes

requirements for explicit public outreach during project scoping and feasibility, the draft environmental

document, and the final environmental document. In the case of a project deemed eligible for receipt

of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) determination, less public outreach may be required.

Not all stakeholders will be interested in or concerned with all levels of planning. In many cases,

individuals may not take interest in a long range plan because it is too large of a geographic scale

and too far into the future before it will be completed to warrant the expenditure of their personal time

and energy. However, a new trail connection that is planned near their neighborhood, for example,

has a much more immediate relevance and typically generates a greater level of public interaction. It

is important that planners recognize the scale and timeframe of their planning efforts and use the

appropriate public outreach styles and media to gain the maximum benefit.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PLAN ACTIVITIES

This is the first ever Long Range Transportation Plan for the Southeast Region of the Service, and

many opportunities for additional data collection, process and policy refinement, and outreach and

partnership have been identified for future planning activities. Additionally, transportation conditions

and needs change over time, so aspects that were not considered as a part of this plan may need to

be studied in the future.

One overarching data collection item will be the continued search for updates in available geospatial

information (GIS). Cataloging resources in GIS is an ongoing process throughout the U.S., including
6-6 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

updates to keep up with changes in the landscape of the built environment. The following items

outline recommendations for efforts that can be initiated before the next long range planning effort is

conducted in five years (approximately 2018 or 2019).

Table 6-1: LRTP Action Plan

# Action Item Description

1

Complete update of

the LRTP within 5

years

In accordance with MAP-21 requirements for LRTP processes, an update of this plan will need to be

conducted within 5 years. In addition to regulatory requirements, it is also important to revisit regional

transportation conditions and needs on a regular interval to ensure the plan is always relevant.

2

Include transportation

in CCP Updates (for

stations)

Incorporate transportation into refuge CCPs if they are updated. Use the revised CCP documents

(work plan, template, and user guide) along with the new station fact sheets for guidance on how to

incorporate transportation elements. Use the process to develop innovative transportation projects.

3

Conduct step-down

plans or further

transportation study

(for stations)

Work with the Regional Transportation Program Manager to understand how a refuge scores in the

Stations For Further Study Tool and consider conducting a targeted study or a larger transportation

step-down plan.

4

Develop creative /

innovative

transportation projects

for inclusion in the

five-year plan (for

stations)

Work with the Regional Transportation Program Manager to acquire station fact sheets and Stations

For Further Study evaluation results. Think proactively about innovative transportation projects

including exploring opportunities for shared funding with neighboring communities. Test the projects

using the project evaluation criteria to see how they score (and potentially compete with other projects

across the region).

5

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Access, Mobility, and

Connectivity

Use the latest version of FWS station boundary data in GIS in order to accurately capture the

proximity and intersection of important adjacent facilities and infrastructure.

Search for new and updated infrastructure data in GIS (both Service-owned as well as public and nonservice). Some types of infrastructure have been cataloged more thoroughly in GIS than others, but

current gaps in data may be complete in the future. Be sure to consider the most up-to-date

infrastructure datasets including roads, bridges, airports, trails, navigable waterways and ferry routes,

etc.

Consider implementation of data collection efforts for information such as traffic counts (vehicular,

pedestrian, bicycle, etc.).

6

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Asset Management

Complete the reconciliation of asset IDs within SAMMS so that a one-to-one match can be made

between SAMMS and the Road Inventory Program (RIP) database.

Better coordinate data collection methodology between FWS and FLH for the RIP.

Determine a standard costing methodology to be used for determining the cost to bring an asset to

good condition.

Consider the collection of additional condition detail regarding parking and trail facilities to ensure

more accurate repair costing.

Consider an update to RIP and SAMMS GIS inventories to reconcile extents and geometry and to

provide a more accurate spatial representation of assets; consider assets that can be

decommissioned and update both databases accordingly.

7

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Coordinated

Opportunities

Similar to data collection efforts for Access, Mobility and Connectivity, maintaining updated GIS

information can help identify modifications in city and MPO boundaries, for example, or can assist with

the identification of new potential partner organizations located nearby.

Use the latest versions of any political, private conservation area or organizational boundary in order

to determine if there have been any changes to the proximity of station with organizations or entities

with which the Service could mutually benefit from a coordinated opportunity.

8

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Environment

Use the most recent versions of any habitat or species-related GIS data. Identification of habitat

diversity, location of critical habitats and critical species populations is an ongoing research process.

It is important to keep abreast of shifting landscapes to be aware of changing environmental needs, or

even the potential for funding assistance to mitigate and manage future needs.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 6-7

# Action Item Description

9

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Safety

Safety information is challenging to collect over a variety of state, regional, and local agencies.

Analysis of metrics relating to safety is not consistent throughout agencies, and can provide a

challenge when comparing similar types of information that have been collected in very different ways.

Crash data is a perfect example of this challenge. Information available in crash data, and even

general reliability of reporting, varies widely by city, county, and state. It is likely that information

gathered for crashes that involved an injury or fatality will be much more robust than a propertydamage-only crash since it is likely that the involved parties will consider some form of legal action

post-event. Even still, crash records remain largely incomplete and may not provide accurate wayfinding text or GPS location. As best as possible, the Service should consider building relationships

with entities that collect safety-related information. For example, if information on animal-vehicle

crashes is truly important, and the local authorities are aware of a need to document that type of crash

better, then, the Service may get better, more accurate, and more relevant updates from their local

agencies.

Consider coordinating with local police to obtain better collision records, particularly for animal-vehicle

collisions. Discussing the desire for targeted changes to record-keeping with local authorities may

provide an opportunity for further analysis and study of safety-concerns in and around habitats and

FWS stations.

Work with internal station staff to build a data collection/reporting program for documentation of

crashes, particularly with wildlife.

10

Improve data

collection efforts /

analysis relating to

Visitor Experience

Census data will continue to be readily available and can provide a snapshot of demographics and

changes in populations surrounding Service lands.

Consider an update to visitor survey questionnaires or visitor survey dissemination. It will be

important for the Service to consider how visitor surveys and visitation documentation may aid the

identification of needed improvements, particularly considering transportation-related desires. This

includes the new Collaborative Visitor Transportation Survey (CVTS).

Consider a system to account for the number of visitors and how they access the station. Accurately

documenting how visitors arrive at the station and if visitors would be interested or willing to travel

differently if infrastructure or services were available may help a station prioritize transportation

projects or goals that also serve the agency’s Mission.

11

Improve the

stakeholder outreach

and communication

plan

Engage key state and regional partners as feasible in the next round of the LRTP update to ensure

that the processes and procedures assumed by the Service align well with partner agencies.

Determine a stakeholder outreach plan for step-down plans and other special studies to provide

guidance to stations wishing to conduct more transportation study.

Consider the development of newsletters, a website, and email comments sent to a database of

station visitors and Friends Groups during the next LRTP update for a broader public engagement that

does not require in-person meetings.

12

Explore new possible

funding sources for

transportation

Given limited funding availability, the region should explore opportunities to find new funding both

regionally and locally with partner stations. Some of this occurs currently, so continued growth in

funding will benefit the Service.

13 Use the Climate

Change Tool

Work with the Regional Transportation Program Manager to use the Climate Change Tool to

understand vulnerability of transportation assets and opportunities for adaptation and mitigation.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Recommendations Report

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

1 800/344 WILD

http://www.fws.gov

February 2015
Region 4 – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Long Range Transportation Plan

Appendix

Southeast Region

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 i

Front page photo credits (clockwise from top left): Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Cristina Pastore, J.N. “Ding”

Darling NWR; Steve Suder, Alligator River NWR; Paul Tritaik, J.N. “Ding” Darling NWR; Joe Saenz, Black Bayou Lake

NWR.
CONTENTS

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices ........................................................................................... 3

A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends .................................................................................................. 3

Summary of Data Collection and Analysis .................................................................................................. 3

A2.1 – Access, Mobility and Connectivity ................................................................................................... 8

A2.2 – Asset Management ....................................................................................................................... 27

A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities ............................................................................................................. 37

A2.4 – Environmental ............................................................................................................................... 43

A2.5 – Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 58

A2.6 – Visitation ....................................................................................................................................... 64

Recommendations Report Appendices ............................................................................................................ 67

LRTP Tools for use by Stations and the Region ........................................................................................... 67

A5 – Project Selection Process .................................................................................................................... 68

A6 – Plan Implementation ............................................................................................................................ 76

U.S. FWS Service Roadway Design Guidelines ........................................................................................... 82

TABLES

Table 1: Data Sources ....................................................................................................................................... 3

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units ............................................ 8

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units ............................................................. 15

Table 4: Scenic Byways within 10 Miles of Region 4 Units .............................................................................. 22

Table 5: Volpe Transit and Trails Study: Region 4 Results .............................................................................. 25

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections ......................................................................................................... 27

Table 7: RIP Cycle 4 Parking ........................................................................................................................... 31

Table 8: RIP Cycle 4 Trail Condition ................................................................................................................ 34

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO ......................................................................... 37

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species .................................................................................................... 43

Table 11: Critical Habitats ................................................................................................................................ 51

Table 12: National Wetlands Inventory ............................................................................................................ 53

Table 13: Coastal Barrier Resource System .................................................................................................... 56

Table 14: Service Assets that Intersect FEMA Floodways ............................................................................... 57

Table 15: Hot-Spot Criteria and Data-Key........................................................................................................ 58

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 59

Table 17: RAPP Visitation Data – 2012 ........................................................................................................... 64

FIGURES

Figure 1: Project Evaluation Tool ..................................................................................................................... 68

Figure 2: Stations for Further Transportation Study Evaluation Tool ................................................................ 76

Figure 3: User Guide – How to Incorporate Transportation into Your CCPs ..................................................... 78

Figure 4: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Roadway Design Guidelines ................................................................. 82
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-3 A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices

A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

SUMMARY OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Due to the amount and varying nature of the data needed for this project, it was imperative that data collection

and analysis be streamlined and documented. This was accomplished with a series of folders and files

indicating data sources and manipulations (including GIS functions such as clips, re-projections, joins, etc.).

Data was collected from many sources including:

· State and National Departments of Transportation

· National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

· USGS Geospatial Data Gateway

· U.S. Census Bureau and TIGER

· Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

· National Transportation Atlas Database (NTAD)

Data was received either in GIS shapefile format or in excel or text files that were converted to GIS shapefiles.

A more detailed list of data collected for this study and their sources can be found in Table 1.

GIS analysis was completed in USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic projection. This projection was most

accurate for area and location analysis for Region 4. Most GIS shapefiles had to be converted to the Albers

Equal Area Conic projection using the ArcCatalog Projections and Transformations tool, as many of them were

in a state plane or another projection.

Table 1: Data Sources

Data Source

Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Airports NTAD

Navigable Waterways NTAD

Roads - National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) NTAD

Topically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) Roads US Census Bureau

Scenic Byways Byways.Org

Railroads NTAD

Fixed Guideway Transit (2004) Florida DOT

Rubber Tire Transit Florida DOT

Volpe Transit and Trails Study FWS/ Volpe

Trails (FWS Refuges) FWS

Bicycle Facilities

Florida (Recreation Trails)

Georgia (Bike Paths)

Kentucky (Bike Routes)

North Carolina (State Bike Routes)

State DOTs/ Planning
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-4 A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Data Source

Trails, Multi-Use Paths, Recreation Trails

Florida (Recreation Trails)

Kentucky (Local Recreation Trails)

State DOTs/ Planning

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) FWS/ Volpe

Asset Management

Parking (FWS Refuges) FWS

Roads (FWS Refuges) FWS

Trails (FWS Refuges) FWS

Coordinated Opportunities

State NTAD

County US Census Bureau

MPO NTAD

Protected Areas Database of the United States USGS PADUS

Environmental

Endangered and At-Risk Species FWS

Critical Habitat (FWS Refuges) FWS

Wilderness Areas FWS

Biosphere Reserves UNESCO

Wetlands FWS

Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance FWS

Coastal Barrier Resources System FWS

FEMA Flood Maps FEMA

Non-Attainment Areas NTAD

Alternative Fueling Stations NTAD

Climate Change & Transportation (ICF) FWS/ ICF

Safety

Highway Pavement Management System (HPMS) 2011 FHWA - HPMS

Crashes

Alabama 2009-2011

Arkansas 2008-2010

Florida 2008-2010

Georgia 2009-2011

Kentucky 2010-2012

Mississippi 2009-2011

North Carolina 2009-2011

South Carolina 2008-2010

Tennessee 2009-2011

State/County DOTs

(Louisiana, Puerto Rico and

US Virgin Islands - Not

available)

FARS 2008-2010 NHTSA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-5 A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

Data Source

AADT

Alabama 2011

Arkansas 2010

Florida 2011

Georgia 2011

Kentucky 2011

Louisiana 2011

Mississippi 2011

North Carolina 2010

South Carolina 2011

Tennessee 2011

State DOTs

(Puerto Rico and US Virgin

Islands not available)

Asset Priority Index (API) FWS

Safety Management Information System (FWS) FWS

Visitation

RATE Signage Survey FWS

2000 Census Data (Tracts) US Census Bureau

2010 Census Data (Tracts) US Census Bureau

2010 Census Data (Counties) US Census Bureau

2030 Population Projections State Planning Organizations

ACCESS, MOBILITY, AND CONNECTIVITY (A2.1 – ACCESS, MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY)

This goal focuses on how people and goods travel to, from, and within the Fish and Wildlife Service refuges

and hatcheries.

A 10 mile boundary was used to analyze the lengths of road (interstate, highway, scenic byway, and other

roads) and number of alternative fueling stations near the refuges and hatcheries. This 10 mile boundary can

help determine how accessible a park is. For example, if there are no interstates within 10 miles, it would be

assumed that visitors would have to make plans to visit the park, and may not impulsively visit the park upon

seeing signage during their travel.

A one-half mile boundary was used to determine the proximity of navigable waterways to the refuges,

assuming that those traveling by water would have to walk or use a transit system from where they left a

canoe/kayak/ferry or other mode of water transportation to the park.

The number of airports near the refuges and hatcheries was also considered. First, the airports were narrowed

down to public use airports and those with 250,000 or more enplanements per year, and then clipped to the 25

mile boundary of refuges and hatcheries.

ASSET MANAGEMENT (A2.2 – ASSET MANAGEMENT)

The Fish and Wildlife Service’s assets include the roads, trails, bridges, and parking lots within the refuges and

hatcheries. Data provided by the FWS website indicates the surface type, remaining service life, and condition

descriptions of their assets. This information can guide the funds available to repair and maintain these roads

and identify refuges and hatcheries that need the most assistance. It also allows the refuges and hatcheries to

determine if there are any assets that are no longer in use, which they could allow to deteriorate and remove

from their data collection lists.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-6 A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

COORDINATED OPPORTUNITIES (A2.3 – COORDINATED OPPORTUNITIES)

Many refuges intersect different entities that provide an opportunity for coordination such as the shared costs

of roads, transit systems, bike and pedestrian paths, etc.

One group of entities considered are administrative boundaries, including Metropolitan Planning Organizations

(MPOs), counties, cities, and states. It can be determined if partnerships could be formed between the refuges

and hatcheries and these administrative bodies, or if some currently exist.

Non-Attainment Areas were also considered. These are areas where the air quality for one or more of certain

pollutants is below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards set by the EPA. Because these areas have

limits on the pollutants discharged into the air, there may be funding available to implement environmentally

friendly infrastructure, such as bike lanes or transit systems. The Non-Attainment Areas and the administrative

boundaries were intersected with the refuges and hatchery boundaries.

The intersection between the 5 mile buffer around refuge and hatchery boundaries and the Protected Areas

Database of the US was also analyzed. This database contains the boundaries of many different federallyowned lands from the Department of Defense to the Bureau of Land Management and other various groups.

Some of these groups already participate in coordination with the FWS.

ENVIRONMENTAL (A2.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL)

Environmental aspects considered in this analysis include the intersection of FWS boundaries with Critical

Habitats and FEMA floodplain areas. Critical Habitats are areas designated as specific areas essential to the

conservation of a threatened or endangered species. These areas may have restrictions on what types of

structures may be built. Existing structures may also pose a threat to the species.

The FEMA floodplain areas considered were those with moderate or high risk of flooding. This provides helpful

information for existing or future roads or other assets that may be in danger of flooding.

SAFETY (A2.5 – SAFETY)

Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) and crash data were used to determine the safety of the roads near the

refuges and hatcheries.

Each state and county collects AADT and crash data differently. Several types of data were received including

excel documents, shapefiles, and text files for a varying range of years. The data had to be converted to a

shapefile format.

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) measurements helped develop a better understanding of the volume of

traffic on roadways that run in and around FWS Units. Local, regional, and state-level departments of

transportation (DOT) collect this information to assist with traffic planning at strategic points along roadways.

Typically local roadways are not targeted for AADT measurements, which meant the majority of AADT volumes

collected for this study were on major thoroughfares. A summary of the sources and data collection years for

AADT used for this project is noted in Table 1.

Due to the expansive geographic area of Region 4 that spans a multitude of political boundaries, it was certain

that data collected on the local level would be both collected and reported differently based on differences

between data collection among agencies. Crash data is collected by individual jurisdictions with little to no

conformity of collection techniques or data processing. Even though GPS technology is becoming a staple for

collision data collection, it is not widespread and often unavailable or underutilized at actual crash site

locations. It became obvious that some of the crash data collected was spatially inaccurate based on the GPS

coordinates provided. To help reduce the inaccuracies, the data points were clipped to the county they were

recorded for. This reduced the inaccuracy of some of the crash locations that fell at the wrong coordinates.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-7 A2 – Existing Conditions and Future Trends

This data was then clipped to the 1 mile boundary around the refuges and hatcheries to determine safety “hot

spots.” A summary of the crash data collected and sources for the crash data is noted in Table 1.

VISITATION (A2.6 – VISITATION)

Visitation analysis was completed using the 2010 census data, clipped to the 25 mile buffer around the refuge

and hatchery boundaries. The following population characteristics were considered:

· Percent nonwhite and percent poverty – this data helps determine the amount of the population that

may use public transportation

· Percent school age children (ages 5 – 18 years) – indicates potential visitors to the parks, this could

include school trips

· Percent seniors (age 65+ years) – many refuges and hatchery volunteers are seniors, this data also

indicates if special considerations should be made for handicapped people
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-8 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

A2.1 – ACCESS, MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Alligator River NWR X X 103.4 26.2 114.0

Archie Carr NWR X X X 28.5 38.4 61.9 24.5 13.0 70.4 43.6

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR X 22.7 70.0 146.7 18.6 29.0 23.6 44.8 2

Atchafalaya NWR 24.3 29.8 11.2 43.7 57.7

Bald Knob NWR 55.7 50.3 0.9 25.9 55.9

Banks Lake NWR X 68.2 38.0 38.4

Bayou Cocodrie NWR 40.2 54.9 15.4 155.3 60.5

Bayou Sauvage NWR X X 34.7 61.8 40.6 54.8 34.3 30.7 129.2 1

Bayou Teche NWR X X 30.1 48.5 104.9 29.2 81.7

Bears Bluff NFH X 10.5 22.9 20.0 11.4 33.0 1

Big Branch Marsh NWR X X 59.3 87.7 23.2 27.5 49.8 23.1 96.2 1

Big Lake NWR 13.4 17.4 60.2 3.9 5.6 38.9

Black Bayou Lake NWR 18.6 52.6 22.9 11.1 56.3 118.5

Blackbeard Island NWR 10.3 4.7

Bo Ginn NFH And Aquarium 21.7 40.1 39.5 33.7

Bogue Chitto NWR X 46.4 39.3 119.7 12.2 56.5 31.7 125.5

Bon Secour NWR X X 9.9 41.1 1.7 0.6 79.6 2.1

Bond Swamp NWR X 50.6 100.6 36.6 23.0 143.1

Breton NWR X
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-9 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Buck Island NWR 1

Cabo Rojo NWR X 99.0 3.3

Cache River NWR X 37.3 236.2 196.6 23.6 51.9 11.5 257.2

Cahaba River NWR 23.3 62.9 8.3 70.3

Caloosahatchee NWR X X X X 21.1 16.1 46.6 42.3 26.2 1

Cameron Prairie NWR X 34.1 2.0 48.4 8.2

Cape Romain NWR X 41.0 11.7 0.7 2.0 1

Carolina Sandhills NWR 33.3 84.7 33.7 54.8

Cat Island NWR X 20.6 58.9 179.4 74.8 1

Catahoula NWR X 31.6 82.2 100.0 34.5

Cedar Island NWR X X 16.3 21.0 3.4 41.3

Cedar Keys NWR X 13.8

Chassahowitzka NWR X X X 43.4 15.7 22.8 9.5 9.4

Chattahoochee Forest NFH 2.1 31.1

Chickasaw NWR X 19.6 53.0 40.2 1.2 82.4 33.7 84.5

Choctaw NWR X 23.8 28.1 21.8

Clarks River NWR X 27.4 132.9 47.6 6.1 43.4 134.1

Coldwater River NWR 56.1 22.0 26.3

Crocodile Lake NWR X X X X 27.2 27.0 3.0 13.2

Cross Creeks NWR X 29.7 60.6 6.8 26.5

Crystal River NWR X X X X 32.7 11.2 16.7 4.1 17.7

Culebra NWR 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-10 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Currituck NWR X 17.4 9.5

D 'Arbonne NWR 22.4 48.4 61.2 11.1 56.1 96.7

Dahomey NWR 17.0 45.0 4.5 50.3 44.6

Dale Hollow NFH 62.4

Delta NWR X 12.7 29.0

Desecheo NWR

Edenton NFH X X 33.3 25.5 33.4 25.3

Egmont Key NWR X X X X 12.5 0.6 8.2 2

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR X X 22.8 86.1 44.6 17.5 49.1 116.7 1

Erwin NFH 21.9 12.4 25.0 63.7

Eufaula NWR X X 54.1 49.6 8.5 70.4

Felsenthal NWR X 63.9 93.5 45.2 50.9 136.4

Fern Cave NWR 31.6 11.8 25.8

Florida Panther NWR X X 29.7 27.7 8.7 19.6

Grand Bay NWR 26.0 28.8 37.1 20.1 14.1 75.4 1

Grand Cote NWR 12.9 93.7 58.8 67.8

Great White Heron NWR X X X X 47.2 3.0 47.1 1

Green Cay NWR

Greers Ferry NFH 52.9

Handy Brake NWR 40.7 20.9 0.1 42.9 62.8

Harris Neck NWR 15.1 14.2 3.8 1.1

Hatchie NWR 26.9 39.1 46.9 23.4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-11 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Hillside NWR 33.7 35.3 0.5 32.8 37.2

Hobe Sound NWR X X X X 24.1 30.2 44.8 18.2 18.1 1.2 34.2 1

Holla Bend NWR X 15.7 18.1 84.5 22.2 47.8

Holt Collier NWR 25.1 28.2 5.3 23.6

Island Bay NWR X 3.6 28.9 19.2 17.8

J.N. Ding Darling NWR X X X X X 3.0 11.8 10.4 1

Key Cave NWR 37.0 45.8 1.8 6.6 6.6 88.9

Key West NWR X X X X 10.3 3.0 10.2 1

Lacassine NWR X X 60.6 56.5 26.0

Laguna Cartagena NWR 18.0 166.9 3.5

Lake Isom NWR 57.5 13.1 27.2

Lake Ophelia NWR X 22.5 53.3 86.4 82.5 85.0

Lake Wales Ridge NWR X 7.9 89.4 24.1 9.4 20.6 9.3 49.7 83.8 1

Lake Woodruff NWR X X X X X 12.4 40.1 77.3 14.0 6.4 125.3 31.1 41.3 2

Logan Cave NWR 24.8 64.4 6.8 0.8 21.1 1

Lower Hatchie NWR X 49.7 38.3 87.9 27.8 69.8

Lower Suwannee NWR X X 23.3 18.8 23.6 1.4 20.7

Mackay Island NWR X 10.2 16.5 11.6

Mammoth Spring NFH 23.8 19.7 29.0

Mandalay NWR X 24.7 90.5 2.2 27.1 19.5

Mathews Brake NWR X 40.2 20.1 1.7 23.3 47.5

Matlacha Pass NWR X X X X 11.4 5.6 30.4 26.3 12.9 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-12 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Mattamuskeet NWR X 50.2 18.8 70.8

Mckinney Lake NFH X 58.5 11.3 10.7 5.6 21.6 79.8

Meridian NFH 32.5 49.8 33.6 9.9 22.7 100.9

Merritt Island NWR X X X X X 49.6 53.2 101.3 9.1 59.1 80.8 128.9 1

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR X 59.4 77.6 184.3 18.0 22.1 185.6 2

Morgan Brake NWR 26.4 39.2 0.5 26.1 29.6

Mountain Longleaf NWR 22.2 50.5 65.9 0.9 6.6 36.6 30.5 126.5

Natchitoches NFH 19.2 23.5 57.0 48.1 43.8

National Key Deer Refuge X X X X 40.9 40.9 1

Navassa Island NWR X

Norfork NFH 22.6 29.6 23.5

Noxubee NWR 41.2 92.1 26.9 61.9

Okefenokee NWR 110.8 96.7 10.3 8.1 29.5 146.2

Orangeburg NFH 16.9 77.0 15.1 48.6

Overflow NWR 69.4 27.1 41.7

Panther Swamp NWR X 64.9 51.0 2.8 36.7 51.9

Passage Key NWR X X 11.2 10.3 0.8 2

Pea Island NWR X X X 32.8 32.8

Pee Dee NWR 44.7 6.0 37.7 70.0

Pelican Island NWR X X X X X 20.5 26.7 33.8 32.6 17.3 36.6 32.9

Piedmont NWR 31.6 78.3 124.7 2.7 26.8 97.2

Pinckney Island NWR X 29.4 36.8 13.1 49.6 3.7 1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-13 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Pine Island NWR X X X 2.6 5.6 22.9 15.4 1.6 8.6 1

Pinellas NWR X X X X 27.5 19.5 9.9 1.6 9.3 3.6 32.6 3

Pocosin Lakes NWR X X 91.3 53.0 101.0 22.3

Pond Creek NWR 47.0 74.8 134.1

Private John Allen NFH 45.5 57.2 1.0 31.5 20.2 58.7

Red River NWR X 129.0 139.5 258.4 42.5 114.0 351.5 1

Reelfoot NWR X 81.5 3.4 28.8 36.2

Roanoke River NWR X X 125.9 33.4 80.7 92.2

Sabine NWR X X 8.7 8.0 138.2 29.3 4.8 118.1 11.5 73.9

Sandy Point NWR X

Santee NWR 25.8 42.2 32.6 0.7 38.7

Sauta Cave NWR 22.4 57.9 16.3 32.0

Savannah NWR X 52.4 83.6 78.1 58.0 42.9 64.3 258.5 1

Shell Keys NWR

St. Catherine Creek NWR X 49.5 35.7 16.4 195.6 52.7

St. Johns NWR X X 31.0 29.6 111.2 12.7 23.2 47.6 50.5 2

St. Marks NWR X X X X X 94.8 44.8 14.2 92.5 14.5 1

St. Vincent NWR X X X 29.9 2.3 4.4 53.0

Swanquarter NWR X X 35.4 7.1 44.3

Tallahatchie NWR 11.7 68.3 22.9 26.2

Ten Thousand Islands NWR X X X 29.8 12.4 23.9

Tennessee NWR X 29.2 129.5 61.2 0.4 1.5 96.4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-14 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 2: Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance from Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways

within 1⁄2 mile

FL, GA, KY, NC Trails

within 1 mile

Roads

within 10 miles

Rail

within 10

miles Airports

within 25

miles

National Highway Planning Network Scenic Byways

Inland

Marine

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Interstate

U.S. R

oute

State R

oute

C

ounty

R

oute

Other

Passenger

Overall

Tensas River NWR 34.7 64.1 89.3 171.9 87.7

Theodore Roosevelt NWR X 225.9 203.8 21.3 163.6 70.1 233.0

Tybee NWR X 0.6 23.6 8.8 32.8 23.7 1

Upper Ouachita NWR X 48.0 71.5 0.1 58.7 103.7

Vieques NWR 0.9 5.1 16.3 1

Waccamaw NWR X X 131.5 50.3 1.2 25.2 1

Wapanocca NWR 25.4 32.8 15.2 1.0 31.1 54.5 1

Warm Springs NFH X 26.1 87.0 7.6 32.5 84.9

Wassaw NWR X 6.0 21.4 20.5 38.7 5.6 49.6 1

Watercress Darter NWR 42.1 18.6 14.8 31.0 20.4 197.7 1

Welaka NFH X X X X X 24.1 34.6 6.5 29.2 23.7 25.7

Wheeler NWR X 51.6 117.7 79.1 15.7 167.6 1

White River NWR X 70.2 68.3 31.9 106.0 119.3

Wolf Creek NFH X 27.9 13.4 14.1

Wolf Island NWR X X 13.1 18.3 18.4 4.3 13.7

Yazoo NWR 20.8 61.9 69.0 24.6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-15 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Alligator River NWR X X X 33.9 195.0

Archie Carr NWR 0.8 0.1 2.4

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR X X 54.4

Atchafalaya NWR X 16.9

Bald Knob NWR 38.6 0.2 0.2

Banks Lake NWR X X 0.4

Bayou Cocodrie NWR X 7.3

Bayou Sauvage NWR X X X 4.2 21.8 5.8 10.5

Bayou Teche NWR X 11.9 0.7 0.7

Bears Bluff NFH 0.8

Big Branch Marsh NWR X X 6.0 0.2 0.7

Big Lake NWR X 0.2 12.0

Black Bayou Lake NWR X 1.5 0.4

Blackbeard Island NWR 16.8

Bo Ginn NFH And Aquarium 0.3

Bogue Chitto NWR X 15.2

Bon Secour NWR X 0.9 2.6 8.0

Bond Swamp NWR X X 3.8 0.2 3.2

Breton NWR X

Buck Island NWR

Cabo Rojo NWR X X X 9.5

Cache River NWR X 6.3 91.0 3.6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-16 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Cahaba River NWR X 13.5 0.9

Caloosahatchee NWR 0.1

Cameron Prairie NWR 3.8 3.6 13.1

Cape Romain NWR X X 15.0

Carolina Sandhills NWR X 1.0 176.3 0.4 0.4

Cat Island NWR X 11.7

Catahoula NWR X 0.2 34.8

Cedar Island NWR X X 6.7 6.6 8.4

Cedar Keys NWR X X

Chassahowitzka NWR X X X 1.7

Chattahoochee Forest NFH 0.6

Chickasaw NWR X X 0.4 25.0

Choctaw NWR X X 10.1

Clarks River NWR 0.3 10.4 4.1

Coldwater River NWR 5.3

Crocodile Lake NWR 9.8 0.3 15.7

Cross Creeks NWR X 1.0 34.5

Crystal River NWR X 0.5

Culebra NWR 2.8

Currituck NWR 3.4

D 'Arbonne NWR 29.3

Dahomey NWR X 11.2

Dale Hollow NFH 0.3
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-17 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Delta NWR 0.1

Desecheo NWR

Edenton NFH X *

Egmont Key NWR X X

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR X X 1.0 20.8 0.2 2.1

Erwin NFH 0.6 0.1

Eufaula NWR X X X 1.9 23.5

Felsenthal NWR X X 7.5 51.4

Fern Cave NWR 0.7

Florida Panther NWR X X 6.0 62.8 6.6

Grand Bay NWR X 1.2 5.9 1.3

Grand Cote NWR X 2.7

Great White Heron NWR 0.1 0.1 9.1

Green Cay NWR

Greers Ferry NFH 0.3

Handy Brake NWR 0.7

Harris Neck NWR X 12.7

Hatchie NWR X 1.2 20.9

Hillside NWR X 1.6 27.8

Hobe Sound NWR X X 0.3 0.7 0.4

Holla Bend NWR X 23.8

Holt Collier NWR 5.7

Island Bay NWR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-18 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

J.N. Ding Darling NWR X X 6.2

Key Cave NWR

Key West NWR X

Lacassine NWR X X 20.5

Laguna Cartagena NWR 3.5

Lake Isom NWR X 4.8

Lake Ophelia NWR X 26.0

Lake Wales Ridge NWR 2.3 0.8

Lake Woodruff NWR X X X X X X 5.0 2.9 2.9

Logan Cave NWR 0.6

Lower Hatchie NWR X X 1.1 15.0

Lower Suwannee NWR X X X 1.2 107.2

Mackay Island NWR X X 13.4

Mammoth Spring NFH 0.1 0.1

Mandalay NWR X X 0.1

Mathews Brake NWR 2.9

Matlacha Pass NWR X

Mattamuskeet NWR X 5.5 27.4

Mckinney Lake NFH X 0.9

Meridian NFH

Merritt Island NWR X X X X X X 28.2 15.9 226.5 25.0

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR X X 0.9 28.9 0.8

Morgan Brake NWR 0.4 15.4 0.2 0.2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-19 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Mountain Longleaf NWR X 72.9

Natchitoches NFH 0.1 1.2

National Key Deer Refuge X X X 1.4 1.0 22.1

Navassa Island NWR X

Norfork NFH X 0.4

Noxubee NWR X 2.6 90.6

Okefenokee NWR X 0.1 120.8 1.1

Orangeburg NFH 0.3 0.8

Overflow NWR 4.6

Panther Swamp NWR X X 1.2 46.7

Passage Key NWR

Pea Island NWR X X 11.9 11.9 20.0

Pee Dee NWR X 1.1 22.7

Pelican Island NWR X X X X X X 0.2 0.6 2.2

Piedmont NWR X 1.8 65.2

Pinckney Island NWR X 0.1 11.0

Pine Island NWR

Pinellas NWR

Pocosin Lakes NWR X X X 5.0 177.2

Pond Creek NWR X 0.3 48.0 0.6

Private John Allen NFH X 0.2

Red River NWR 2.7 21.1 1.0

Reelfoot NWR X 0.8 7.7
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-20 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Roanoke River NWR X X X 1.6 11.9

Sabine NWR X 9.3 9.3 12.9

Sandy Point NWR 2.5

Santee NWR X 31.3

Sauta Cave NWR 0.4

Savannah NWR X 6.1 27.2 0.2 1.2

Shell Keys NWR

St. Catherine Creek NWR X X 45.9

St. Johns NWR 0.6 1.0

St. Marks NWR X X X X 0.9 10.3 106.0

St. Vincent NWR X X 44.9

Swanquarter NWR X X 2.4

Tallahatchie NWR 0.7 5.4

Ten Thousand Islands NWR X 1.8 5.5

Tennessee NWR X 2.5 64.2

Tensas River NWR X 0.6 133.9

Theodore Roosevelt NWR X 0.1 21.2

Tybee NWR

Upper Ouachita NWR X 91.2 2.0

Vieques NWR X 137.1

Waccamaw NWR X X 0.6 9.2

Wapanocca NWR 8.7 0.5

Warm Springs NFH X 0.3 0.9 0.1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-21 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 3: Transportation Systems Directly Intersecting Region 4 Units

Unit Name

Navigable

Waterways Trails Roads Rail

Inland

Marine

FWS FL, GA, KY, NC

N

H

P

N

Scenic

Byways

TIGER

Passenger

Overall

Bike

Hike

Other

Bike

Hike

Paddle

Other

Wassaw NWR X 9.5

Watercress Darter NWR *

Welaka NFH X X 2.7

Wheeler NWR X 4.7 96.4 2.5

White River NWR X X 4.2 4.1 170.7 3.3

Wolf Creek NFH 0.2

Wolf Island NWR

Yazoo NWR X 0.2 42.4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-22 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 4: Scenic Byways within 10 Miles of Region 4 Units

Table 4: Scenic Byways within 10 Miles of Region 4 Units

Unit Name Scenic Byway Name

Alligator River NWR Alligator River Route

Outer Banks Scenic Byway

Pamlico Scenic Byway

Roanoke Voyages Corridor

Archie Carr NWR Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

Atchafalaya NWR Bayou Teche Scenic Byway

Louisiana Scenic Bayou Byway

Promised Land Scenic Byway

Zydeco Cajun Prairie Scenic Byway

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Great River Road

Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

River Road Scenic Byway

Lower Mississippi Historic Scenic Byway

Bayou Sauvage NWR Great River Road San Bernardo Scenic Byway

Bayou Teche NWR Bayou Teche Scenic Byway

Bears Bluff NFH Bohicket Road Scenic Highway Edisto Island National Scenic Byway

Big Branch Marsh NWR Louisiana Scenic Bayou Byway NASA Scenic Byway to Space

Big Lake NWR Great River Road

Black Bayou Lake NWR Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Blackbeard Island NWR Altamaha Historic Scenic Byway

Bo Ginn NFH And Aquarium Millen-Jenkins County Scenic Byway

Bogue Chitto NWR Louisiana Scenic Bayou Byway NASA Scenic Byway to Space

Bon Secour NWR Alabama's Coastal Connection

Cache River NWR Great River Road

Cameron Prairie NWR Creole Nature Trail Jean Lafitte Scenic Byway

Cape Romain NWR Long Point Road Scenic Highway

Cat Island NWR Great River Road

Louisiana Scenic Bayou Byway

River Road Scenic Byway

Tunica Trace Scenic Byway

Catahoula NWR Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

Cedar Island NWR Outer Banks Scenic Byway

Chassahowitzka NWR Suncoast Scenic Parkway

Chickasaw NWR Great River Road

Clarks River NWR Ohio River Scenic Byway

US 68 Scenic Byway

Woodlands Trace

Crocodile Lake NWR Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Cross Creeks NWR Woodlands Trace

Crystal River NWR Suncoast Scenic Parkway

D 'Arbonne NWR Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Dahomey NWR Great River Road Mississippi Delta Great River Road

Delta NWR Great River Road River Road Scenic Byway

Edenton NFH Edenton-Windsor Loop

Egmont Key NWR Bradenton Beach Scenic Highway Palma Sola Scenic Highway

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin NWR Edisto Island National Scenic Byway Old Sheldon Church Road Scenic Highway

Eufaula NWR Barbour County Governor's Trail

Felsenthal NWR Great River Road Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Grand Bay NWR Alabama's Coastal Connection

Grand Cote NWR Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

Great White Heron NWR Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Handy Brake NWR Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Hobe Sound NWR Indian River Lagoon - Treasure Coast Scenic Highway

Holla Bend NWR Arkansas Scenic 7 Byway
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-23 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 4: Scenic Byways within 10 Miles of Region 4 Units

Unit Name Scenic Byway Name

Island Bay NWR Lemon Bay/Myakka Trail

Key Cave NWR Natchez Trace Parkway

Key West NWR Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Lacassine NWR Creole Nature Trail Jean Lafitte Scenic Byway

Lake Isom NWR Great River Road

Lake Ophelia NWR Great River Road

Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

River Road Scenic Byway

Zydeco Cajun Prairie Scenic Byway

Lake Wales Ridge NWR The Ridge Scenic Highway

Lake Woodruff NWR Florida Black Bear Scenic Byway

Heritage Crossroads: Miles of History

Heritage Highway

River of Lakes Heritage Corridor Scenic Highway

Logan Cave NWR Cherokee Hills Byway

Lower Hatchie NWR Great River Road

Mandalay NWR Wetlands Cultural Trail

Mattamuskeet NWR Alligator River Route Pamlico Scenic Byway

Mckinney Lake NFH Indian Heritage Trail

Merritt Island NWR Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

Mountain Longleaf NWR Appalachian Highlands Scenic Byway Talladega Scenic Drive

Natchitoches NFH Colonial Trails Scenic Byway Toledo Bend Forest Scenic Byway

National Key Deer Refuge Florida Keys Scenic Highway

Passage Key NWR Bradenton Beach Scenic Highway Palma Sola Scenic Highway

Pea Island NWR Outer Banks Scenic Byway

Pee Dee NWR Grassy Island Crossing

Indian Heritage Trail

Pee Dee Valley Drive

Pelican Island NWR Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

Piedmont NWR Monticello Crossroads Scenic Byway Ocmulgee-Piedmont Scenic Byway

Pinckney Island NWR Andrew Pickens Scenic Parkway

Hilton Head Scenic Highway

James Edwin McTeer Bridge & The Causeways

Scenic Highway

S-13 Scenic Highway

S-163 Scenic Highway

SC-170 Scenic Highway

SC-46 Scenic Highway

US-278 Scenic Highway

Pine Island NWR Lemon Bay/Myakka Trail

Pinellas NWR Tamiami Trail - Windows to the Gulf Coast Waters Scenic Highway

Pocosin Lakes NWR Alligator River Route

Edenton-Windsor Loop

Pamlico Scenic Byway

Private John Allen NFH Natchez Trace Parkway

Red River NWR Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

Longleaf Trail Scenic Byway

Northwest Louisiana Scenic Byway

Toledo Bend Forest Scenic Byway

Reelfoot NWR Great River Road

Roanoke River NWR Edenton-Windsor Loop Tar Heel Trace

Sabine NWR Creole Nature Trail

Savannah NWR Historic Effingham-Ebenezer Scenic Byway

Hilton Head Scenic Highway

SC-46 Scenic Highway

US-278 Scenic Highway

St. Catherine Creek NWR Natchez Trace Parkway

Great River Road

Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

River Road Scenic Byway

Lower Mississippi Historic Scenic Byway

St. Johns NWR Indian River Lagoon National Scenic Byway

St. Marks NWR Big Bend Scenic Byway

St. Vincent NWR Big Bend Scenic Byway

Swanquarter NWR Alligator River Route Pamlico Scenic Byway
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-24 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 4: Scenic Byways within 10 Miles of Region 4 Units

Unit Name Scenic Byway Name

Tennessee NWR Woodlands Trace

Tensas River NWR Great River Road

Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Colonial Trails Scenic Byway

River Road Scenic Byway

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Great River Road

Lower Mississippi Historic Scenic Byway

Mississippi Delta Great River Road

Upper Ouachita NWR Bienville Trace Scenic Byway

Wapanocca NWR Great River Road

Warm Springs NFH Meriwether-Pike Scenic Byway

Welaka NFH Florida Black Bear Scenic Byway

White River NWR Great River Road Mississippi Delta Great River Road

Wolf Creek NFH Cumberland Cultural Heritage Highway

Wolf Island NWR Altamaha Historic Scenic Byway

Yazoo NWR Great River Road Mississippi Delta Great River Road
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-25 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 5: Volpe Transit and Trails Study: Region 4 Results1

Table 5: Volpe Transit and Trails Study: Region	4	Results

REFUGE

Transit Trails Rank Potential

Mode Distance

(Miles) Transit Agency Names ofTrail(s)

Length

(Miles)

Distance

from NWR

Urban

Area

Transit

Distance

Transit

Quality

Trail

Distance

Trail

Quality Total

Future

Transit

Potential

Future

Trail

Potential

Big Branch Marsh NWR None Tammany

Trace 27.5 Adjacent 5 1 1 5 4 16

Pelican Island NWR Bus 12 GoLineIRT Jungle Trail 7.8 Through

refuge 5 1 2 5 3 16

Archie Carr NWR Bus 4 Space Cost Area Transit Jungle Trail 7/8 0.5-mi 5 1 2 4 3 15

J.N. ‘Ding’ Darling NWR None

Surfsound Ct/

Locke Ave/

unnamed

All < 0.5

miles Adjacent 5 1 1 5 3 15

Lake Woodruff NWR Bus 0.8 ? VOTRAN 5 4 2 1 1 13

Mountain Longleaf NWR Bus 5

Areawide Community

Transportation System

(Anniston, AL)

Chief Ladiga

Trail 33 4.3-mi 5 1 1 2 4 13

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR

Bus &

Rail 7 / 11.5 PalmTran and Tri-Rail 5 1 3 1 1 11

Bayou Sauvage NWR Bus 4.5 NORTA 5 1 3 1 1 11

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR Bus 1.5(approx.) Coast Transit 5 2 2 1 1 11

Hobe Sound NWR Bus 8 PalmTran 5 1 2 1 1 10

Merritt Island NWR Bus 5.9 Space Cost Area Transit 5 1 2 1 1 10

Red River NWR Bus 4 SPORTRAN 5 2 1 1 1 10 High

St. Marks NWR None

Tallahassee-St.

Marks Historic

Railroad Trail

20 2-mi 1 1 1 2 5 10

Black Bayou Lake NWR Bus 7 5 1 1 1 1 9

Caloosahatchee NWR 5 1 1 1 1 9

D’Arbonne NWR Bus? Monroe Transit

System 5 1 1 1 1 9

Laguna Cartagena NWR None 5 1 1 1 1 9

Lake Wales Ridge NWR 5 1 1 1 1 9

1

 Taken from Transit and Trails Connections: Assessment of Visitor Access to National Wildlife Refuges conducted by Volpe in December, 2010.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-26 A2.1 – Access, Mobility, and Connectivity

Table 5: Volpe Transit and Trails Study: Region	4	Results

REFUGE

Transit Trails Rank Potential

Mode Distance

(Miles) Transit Agency Names ofTrail(s)

Length

(Miles)

Distance

from NWR

Urban

Area

Transit

Distance

Transit

Quality

Trail

Distance

Trail

Quality Total

Future

Transit

Potential

Future

Trail

Potential

Mandalay NWR None 5 1 1 1 1 9

National Key Deer Refuge Intercity

bus 0-2.5 Greyhound 3 3 1 1 1 9

Pinellas NWR None 5 1 1 1 1 9

Savannah-Pinckney NWR Bus Unknown Lowcountry Regional

Transit Authority 5 1 1 1 1 9

St. Johns NWR 5 1 1 1 1 9

Waccamaw NWR None 5 1 1 1 1 9

Wassaw NWR 5 1 1 1 1 9

Watercress Darter NWR 5 1 1 1 1 9

Wheeler NWR

Ondemand

rural

transit

MCATS -

Morgan

County Area

Transportation

System; TRAM -

Transportation

for Rural Areas

of Madison

County

5 1 1 1 1 9

Alligator River NWR None 3 1 1 1 1 7

Bayou Teche NWR 3 1 1 1 1 7

Great White Heron NWR 3 1 1 1 1 7

Key West NWR 3 1 1 1 1 7

Felsenthal NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Grand Bay NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Handy Brake NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Mattamuskeet NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Overflow NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Pea Island NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Pocosin Lakes NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

St. Catherine Creek NWR Internal

tram 1 1 1 1 1 5

Swanquarter NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5

Upper Ouachita NWR 1 1 1 1 1 5
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-27 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

A2.2 – ASSET MANAGEMENT

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections

Unit Name

Road Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent

/ Good

Percent

Poor /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Failed Not

Rated

ALLIGATOR RIVER NWR 38.8 41.2 31.0 6.2 9.0 126.2 63.4% 12.0%

ARCHIE CARR NWR 0.1 100.0% 0.0%

ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXAHATCHEE NWR 0.6 11.4 1.1 0.1 13.2 91.0% 0.5%

ATCHAFALAYA NWR 3.2 9.9 1.9 2.4 17.3 75.4% 13.8%

BALD KNOB NWR 12.6 30.5 11.2 12.0 66.4 65.0% 18.1%

BANKS LAKE NWR 0.3 100.0% 0.0%

BAYOU COCODRIE NWR 0.1 15.4 3.1 18.6 83.2% 0.0%

BAYOU SAUVAGE NWR 4.6 0.3 0.4 5.3 92.5% 7.5%

BAYOU TECHE NWR 5.0 10.0 2.5 17.5 85.7% 0.0%

BEARS BLUFF NFH 1.5 100.0% 0.0%

BIG BRANCH MARSH NWR 0.8 3.5 1.1 5.5 79.1% 0.0%

BIG LAKE NWR 9.5 3.0 12.6 100.0% 0.0%

BLACK BAYOU LAKE NWR 1.5 2.0 0.2 0.2 3.9 88.4% 5.9%

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR 1.0 11.2 3.0 15.3 80.1% 0.0%

BO GINN NFH AND AQUARIUM 0.1 3.3 0.8 0.3 4.5 75.4% 6.4%

BOGUE CHITTO NWR 0.5 0.9 1.5 100.0% 0.0%

BON SECOUR NWR 0.0 1.4 3.0 4.4 31.6% 0.0%

BOND SWAMP NWR 11.0 5.0 0.1 68.2% 0.7%

BRETON NWR

BUCK ISLAND NWR

CABO ROJO NWR 0.3 11.8 1.4 13.5 89.8% 0.0%

CACHE RIVER NWR 16.5 39.6 27.0 3.7 2.3 89.2 63.0% 6.7%

CAHABA RIVER NWR 3.0 5.9 4.0 0.2 13.2 67.9% 1.8%

CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR

CAMERON PRAIRIE NWR 1.1 28.0 16.8 45.9 63.4% 0.0%

CAPE ROMAIN NWR 12.6 4.5 73.5% 0.0%

CAROLINA SANDHILLS NWR 9.7 69.4 57.5 15.6 152.2 52.0% 10.3%

CAT ISLAND NWR 5.1 8.1 38.5% 0.0%

CATAHOULA NWR 10.6 21.4 11.9 43.9 72.9% 0.0%

CEDAR ISLAND NWR 2.0 2.3 46.8% 0.0%

CEDAR KEYS NWR

CHASSAHOWITZKA NWR 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.4 91.5% 0.0%

CHATTAHOOCHEE FOREST NFH 0.3 0.9 24.1% 0.0%

CHICKASAW NWR 7.1 7.9 0.2 46.7% 1.5%

CHOCTAW NWR 1.3 6.6 4.8 0.6 13.4 59.3% 4.8%

CLARKS RIVER NWR 2.0 1.6 1.8 37.4% 32.5%

COLDWATER RIVER NWR 10.6 1.9 85.0% 0.0%

CROCODILE LAKE NWR 0.0% 0.0%

CROSS CREEKS NWR 4.1 22.3 2.5 0.4 0.8 30.1 87.7% 4.0%

CRYSTAL RIVER NWR 1.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-28 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections

Unit Name

Road Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent

/ Good

Percent

Poor /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Failed Not

Rated

CULEBRA NWR 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0% 0.0%

CURRITUCK NWR 0.6 0.0% 0.0%

D 'ARBONNE NWR 3.9 15.8 1.4 21.1 93.2% 0.0%

DAHOMEY NWR 10.7 0.7 93.6% 0.0%

DALE HOLLOW NFH 0.2 0.0 1.6 1.8 12.3% 0.0%

DELTA NWR 0.2 100.0% 0.0%

DESECHEO NWR

EDENTON NFH 2.0 1.4 3.4 100.0% 0.0%

EGMONT KEY NWR 0.1 1.7 1.8 4.2% 0.0%

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ACE BASIN NWR 22.1 27.8 44.2% 0.0%

ERWIN NFH 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.6 4.3% 33.2%

EUFAULA NWR 0.7 27.7 1.2 29.6 96.0% 0.0%

FELSENTHAL NWR 0.7 20.3 3.7 1.0 25.8 81.6% 3.9%

FERN CAVE NWR

FLORIDA PANTHER NWR 1.5 16.1 17.0 1.0 10.9 46.5 37.9% 25.5%

GRAND BAY NWR 1.1 1.1 0.7 38.5% 23.0%

GRAND COTE NWR 4.4 22.2 12.6 39.2 67.8% 0.0%

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR

GREEN CAY NWR

GREERS FERRY NFH 0.2 0.7 0.5 16.2% 36.6%

HANDY BRAKE NWR 0.1 0.0% 0.0%

HARRIS NECK NWR 2.2 8.4 5.5 1.2 17.2 61.5% 6.7%

HATCHIE NWR 0.7 22.5 6.7 1.5 31.5 73.9% 4.9%

HILLSIDE NWR 2.9 0.6 82.6% 0.0%

HOBE SOUND NWR

HOLLA BEND NWR 9.0 6.7 2.4 18.0 86.9% 0.0%

HOLT COLLIER NWR

ISLAND BAY NWR

J.N. Ding Darling NWR 0.0 3.1 4.5 0.2 7.9 39.6% 2.8%

KEY CAVE NWR 3.8 1.0 4.8 80.0% 0.0%

KEY WEST NWR

LACASSINE NWR 7.6 26.8 10.6 1.1 46.1 74.6% 2.4%

LAGUNA CARTAGENA NWR 4.8 1.0 5.8 83.2% 0.0%

LAKE ISOM NWR 6.9 0.8 7.7 90.1% 0.0%

LAKE OPHELIA NWR 7.0 33.4 8.2 2.5 51.1 78.9% 4.9%

LAKE WALES RIDGE NWR 14.1 5.6 19.7 71.6% 0.0%

LAKE WOODRUFF NWR 11.7 8.2 0.1 20.1 58.6% 0.6%

LOGAN CAVE NWR

LOWER HATCHIE NWR 3.7 8.1 4.9 0.2 17.0 69.6% 1.4%

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR 5.8 54.0 24.1 1.5 5.1 90.5 66.0% 7.4%

MACKAY ISLAND NWR 1.3 7.4 5.9 14.5 59.7% 0.0%

MAMMOTH SPRING NFH 0.1 1.0 0.8 1.9 58.6% 0.0%

MANDALAY NWR 0.6 0.6 100.0% 0.0%

MATHEWS BRAKE NWR 2.0 2.0 100.0% 0.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-29 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections

Unit Name

Road Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent

/ Good

Percent

Poor /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Failed Not

Rated

MATLACHA PASS NWR

MATTAMUSKEET NWR 4.0 10.9 1.9 0.3 17.1 87.1% 1.5%

MCKINNEY LAKE NFH 0.6 2.7 3.3 100.0% 0.0%

MERIDIAN NFH 0.1 1.5 1.1 0.1 2.8 59.0% 2.6%

MERRITT ISLAND NWR 8.8 153.6 65.0 11.6 1.1 240.1 67.7% 5.3%

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NWR 5.2 18.9 11.2 1.3 36.6 65.8% 3.4%

MORGAN BRAKE NWR 0.1 22.1 0.4 22.6 98.1% 0.0%

MOUNTAIN LONGLEAF NWR 1.9 13.3 10.8 25.9 58.4% 0.0%

NATCHITOCHES NFH 1.5 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.9 84.1% 7.9%

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE 0.2 1.1 2.3 3.5 36.1% 0.0%

NAVASSA ISLAND NWR

NORFORK NFH 0.1 1.0 0.9 2.0 4.1% 46.1%

NOXUBEE NWR 17.4 49.5 16.7 83.6 80.0% 0.0%

OKEFENOKEE NWR 1.8 111.2 58.2 4.0 0.2 175.4 64.4% 2.4%

ORANGEBURG NFH 0.8 1.1 0.3 0.1 2.3 80.5% 5.1%

OVERFLOW NWR 3.2 8.7 3.6 0.3 15.9 75.4% 2.2%

PANTHER SWAMP NWR 2.5 23.1 20.6 1.0 47.1 54.2% 2.0%

PASSAGE KEY NWR

PEA ISLAND NWR 3.5 1.3 4.8 73.4% 0.0%

PEE DEE NWR 10.3 13.2 2.6 26.1 90.0% 0.0%

PELICAN ISLAND NWR 7.6 7.6 100.0% 0.0%

PIEDMONT NWR 3.4 125.7 27.9 0.3 157.4 82.1% 0.2%

PINCKNEY ISLAND NWR 3.6 0.5 0.2 0.5 4.8 85.9% 10.6%

PINE ISLAND NWR

PINELLAS NWR

POCOSIN LAKES NWR 13.5 105.2 44.0 2.9 165.6 71.7% 1.8%

POND CREEK NWR 22.3 25.8 0.2 48.3 99.6% 0.0%

PRIVATE JOHN ALLEN NFH 1.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0%

RED RIVER NWR 1.4 21.0 10.0 0.2 32.7 68.6% 0.6%

REELFOOT NWR 3.8 7.5 2.9 1.0 15.2 74.4% 6.5%

ROANOKE RIVER NWR 0.5 10.7 3.7 0.4 15.3 73.2% 2.4%

SABINE NWR 2.2 1.1 0.0 3.3 99.1% 0.9%

SANDY POINT NWR 0.1 2.1 2.2 3.2% 96.8%

SANTEE NWR 18.5 51.5 8.0 78.0 89.8% 0.0%

SAUTA CAVE NWR 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.0% 45.5%

SAVANNAH NWR 1.2 19.0 6.1 26.4 76.8% 0.0%

SHELL KEYS NWR

ST. CATHERINE CREEK NWR 0.6 28.2 19.3 0.2 0.1 48.4 59.4% 0.8%

ST. JOHNS NWR 3.5 2.7 6.2 57.1% 0.0%

ST. MARKS NWR 9.3 116.2 23.8 0.0 149.2 84.1% 0.0%

ST. VINCENT NWR 4.1 23.6 5.6 0.5 33.7 82.1% 1.4%

SWANQUARTER NWR 1.9 2.2 4.2 46.7% 0.0%

TALLAHATCHIE NWR 5.0 5.7 10.7 100.0% 0.0%

TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR 0.1 0.1 0.0% 0.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-30 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 6: RIP Cycle 4 Roadway Sections

Unit Name

Road Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent

/ Good

Percent

Poor /

Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Failed Not

Rated

TENNESSEE NWR 5.3 37.2 22.0 2.8 67.3 63.2% 4.2%

TENSAS RIVER NWR 4.5 48.9 28.6 4.0 0.7 86.7 61.5% 5.4%

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NWR

TYBEE NWR

UPPER OUACHITA NWR 4.5 37.3 17.9 6.1 0.4 66.1 63.2% 9.8%

VIEQUES NWR 8.2 20.1 21.0 0.8 6.5 56.7 50.1% 12.9%

WACCAMAW NWR 0.4 2.8 3.3 6.4 49.0% 0.0%

WAPANOCCA NWR 17.2 3.3 0.7 0.6 21.8 79.0% 6.0%

WARM SPRINGS NFH 0.3 3.0 0.4 3.7 89.1% 0.0%

WASSAW NWR 4.3 2.1 6.4 67.1% 0.0%

WATERCRESS DARTER NWR

WELAKA NFH 6.3 0.1 6.4 97.8% 0.0%

WHEELER NWR 3.5 76.1 13.7 0.2 93.6 85.1% 0.3%

WHITE RIVER NWR 12.1 93.0 30.7 6.2 0.3 142.3 73.8% 4.6%

WOLF CREEK NFH 1.2 1.2 0.0% 0.0%

WOLF ISLAND NWR

YAZOO NWR 5.1 31.3 11.5 3.4 51.2 71.1% 6.6%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-31 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 7: RIP Cycle 4 Parking

Table 7: RIP Cycle 4 Parking

Unit Name

Parking Surface Condition (Acres) Total

Acres

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor /

Failed Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

ALLIGATOR RIVER NWR 0.27 3.32 1.18 4.77 75.3% 0.0%

ARCHIE CARR NWR 0.07 0.03 0.10 69.4% 30.6%

ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXAHATCHEE NWR 0.71 3.96 2.61 7.27 64.1% 0.0%

ATCHAFALAYA NWR 0.65 0.61 1.04 2.30 28.1% 45.2%

BALD KNOB NWR 2.82 0.22 0.27 3.31 85.1% 8.2%

BANKS LAKE NWR 0.07 0.40 0.48 15.2% 0.0%

BAYOU COCODRIE NWR 0.50 3.45 0.10 4.05 97.4% 0.0%

BAYOU SAUVAGE NWR 0.25 1.13 0.77 2.14 64.0% 0.0%

BAYOU TECHE NWR 0.21 0.54 0.75 28.2% 0.0%

BEARS BLUFF NFH 0.18 0.14 0.32 56.7% 0.0%

BIG BRANCH MARSH NWR 1.00 3.51 0.44 0.31 5.27 85.8% 6.0%

BIG LAKE NWR 2.38 0.88 0.13 3.40 70.1% 3.9%

BLACK BAYOU LAKE NWR 0.26 2.93 0.31 0.31 3.81 83.8% 8.2%

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR

BO GINN NFH AND AQUARIUM 0.65 0.65 0.0% 0.0%

BOGUE CHITTO NWR 0.57 0.61 1.18 48.3% 0.0%

BON SECOUR NWR 0.25 2.00 0.16 2.41 10.2% 6.7%

BOND SWAMP NWR 0.84 0.64 0.28 1.77 47.7% 15.9%

BRETON NWR

BUCK ISLAND NWR

CABO ROJO NWR 0.33 0.90 0.83 0.15 2.22 55.6% 6.9%

CACHE RIVER NWR 4.38 2.09 0.66 7.14 61.4% 9.3%

CAHABA RIVER NWR 0.25 0.32 0.03 0.60 40.9% 5.5%

CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR

CAMERON PRAIRIE NWR 3.76 1.56 0.69 0.17 6.18 86.1% 2.7%

CAPE ROMAIN NWR 2.79 0.79 3.58 78.0% 0.0%

CAROLINA SANDHILLS NWR 0.09 4.97 0.99 0.09 6.14 82.5% 1.4%

CAT ISLAND NWR 0.75 0.74 0.58 2.07 36.2% 27.8%

CATAHOULA NWR 0.13 2.33 0.49 0.14 3.10 79.6% 4.6%

CEDAR ISLAND NWR 0.37 0.51 0.88 42.5% 0.0%

CEDAR KEYS NWR

CHASSAHOWITZKA NWR 1.33 1.33 100.0% 0.0%

CHATTAHOOCHEE FOREST NFH 0.69 0.69 100.0% 0.0%

CHICKASAW NWR 1.34 1.83 0.48 3.65 36.7% 13.2%

CHOCTAW NWR 0.74 2.08 0.15 2.97 95.0% 0.0%

CLARKS RIVER NWR 0.05 2.74 1.01 0.14 3.92 70.9% 3.5%

COLDWATER RIVER NWR 0.17 0.17 0.0% 0.0%

CROCODILE LAKE NWR 0.11 0.19 0.30 37.6% 0.0%

CROSS CREEKS NWR 0.64 2.10 1.34 0.30 4.38 62.6% 6.7%

CRYSTAL RIVER NWR 0.01 0.33 0.08 0.41 81.4% 0.0%

CULEBRA NWR 0.11 0.08 0.19 58.6% 0.0%

CURRITUCK NWR

D 'ARBONNE NWR 2.68 1.32 3.99 67.0% 0.0%

DAHOMEY NWR 0.07 1.89 0.35 2.30 84.9% 0.0%

DALE HOLLOW NFH 0.09 0.81 0.89 9.9% 0.0%

DELTA NWR 0.04 0.45 0.05 0.54 90.9% 0.0%

DESECHEO NWR

EDENTON NFH 0.32 0.63 0.08 1.02 31.1% 7.4%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-32 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 7: RIP Cycle 4 Parking

Unit Name

Parking Surface Condition (Acres) Total

Acres

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor /

Failed Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

EGMONT KEY NWR

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ACE BASIN NWR 2.30 1.16 3.46 66.5% 0.0%

ERWIN NFH 0.59 0.19 0.77 76.0% 0.0%

EUFAULA NWR 0.01 1.30 0.76 0.08 2.15 60.9% 3.6%

FELSENTHAL NWR 12.47 3.41 0.32 16.20 77.0% 2.0%

FERN CAVE NWR

FLORIDA PANTHER NWR 1.09 0.77 2.44 4.31 43.3% 0.0%

GRAND BAY NWR 0.38 0.35 0.73 0.0% 47.9%

GRAND COTE NWR 2.02 0.60 0.90 3.52 57.4% 25.6%

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR

GREEN CAY NWR

GREERS FERRY NFH 0.17 0.99 1.16 14.9% 0.0%

HANDY BRAKE NWR 0.11 0.11 0.0% 100.0%

HARRIS NECK NWR 0.14 2.57 2.15 0.15 5.02 54.1% 3.0%

HATCHIE NWR 0.66 4.29 0.66 0.04 5.66 87.5% 0.8%

HILLSIDE NWR 1.71 0.39 0.10 2.21 77.7% 4.5%

HOBE SOUND NWR 1.57 1.57 100.0% 0.0%

HOLLA BEND NWR 0.15 1.42 0.69 2.26 69.6% 0.0%

HOLT COLLIER NWR

ISLAND BAY NWR

JN Ding Darling NWR 3.05 1.40 0.15 4.60 66.3% 3.2%

KEY CAVE NWR 0.08 0.15 0.23 35.0% 0.0%

KEY WEST NWR

LACASSINE NWR 0.54 1.93 1.93 0.33 4.73 52.3% 6.9%

LAGUNA CARTAGENA NWR 0.11 0.47 0.58 18.9% 0.0%

LAKE ISOM NWR 0.32 0.06 0.38 84.1% 0.0%

LAKE OPHELIA NWR 2.72 1.04 0.82 0.14 4.73 57.5% 20.5%

LAKE WALES RIDGE NWR

LAKE WOODRUFF NWR 0.02 1.35 0.27 1.64 83.7% 0.0%

LOGAN CAVE NWR

LOWER HATCHIE NWR 2.84 0.28 0.12 0.02 3.26 87.1% 4.2%

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR 2.22 1.68 1.35 0.18 5.42 71.8% 3.3%

MACKAY ISLAND NWR 1.55 0.36 1.91 80.9% 0.0%

MAMMOTH SPRING NFH 0.37 0.31 0.68 54.8% 0.0%

MANDALAY NWR 0.17 0.27 0.45 38.9% 0.0%

MATHEWS BRAKE NWR 0.09 0.39 0.48 18.4% 0.0%

MATLACHA PASS NWR

MATTAMUSKEET NWR 0.70 2.11 0.52 3.32 84.5% 0.0%

MCKINNEY LAKE NFH 0.79 0.79 0.0% 0.0%

MERIDIAN NFH 1.01 1.01 0.0% 100.0%

MERRITT ISLAND NWR 1.06 7.71 0.57 0.15 9.49 92.4% 1.6%

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NWR 0.15 1.16 1.98 3.29 39.8% 0.0%

MORGAN BRAKE NWR 1.62 0.57 0.19 2.38 67.9% 8.2%

MOUNTAIN LONGLEAF NWR 0.16 0.40 0.59 1.15 13.5% 51.4%

NATCHITOCHES NFH 1.32 1.32 0.0% 0.0%

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE 0.12 1.23 0.47 1.82 74.4% 0.0%

NAVASSA ISLAND NWR

NORFORK NFH 1.12 0.06 1.18 0.0% 5.0%

NOXUBEE NWR 0.33 6.26 1.11 0.10 7.80 84.4% 1.3%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-33 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 7: RIP Cycle 4 Parking

Unit Name

Parking Surface Condition (Acres) Total

Acres

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor /

Failed Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed

OKEFENOKEE NWR 1.45 7.86 0.06 9.37 99.4% 0.0%

ORANGEBURG NFH 0.32 1.64 0.28 0.57 2.82 69.8% 20.4%

OVERFLOW NWR 1.99 0.89 0.10 2.99 66.6% 3.5%

PANTHER SWAMP NWR 1.98 2.77 1.78 6.53 72.7% 0.0%

PASSAGE KEY NWR

PEA ISLAND NWR 1.71 1.16 0.58 3.45 49.6% 16.8%

PEE DEE NWR 0.08 1.81 1.48 0.05 3.41 55.4% 1.3%

PELICAN ISLAND NWR 0.02 1.06 1.08 100.0% 0.0%

PIEDMONT NWR 0.12 2.56 1.93 0.32 4.93 54.4% 6.5%

PINCKNEY ISLAND NWR 0.30 0.04 0.33 89.1% 0.0%

PINE ISLAND NWR

PINELLAS NWR

POCOSIN LAKES NWR 0.22 2.17 2.03 4.42 54.2% 0.0%

POND CREEK NWR 2.61 2.30 0.32 5.22 49.9% 6.0%

PRIVATE JOHN ALLEN NFH 0.10 0.54 0.16 0.79 80.3% 0.0%

RED RIVER NWR 0.17 0.96 1.13 14.9% 0.0%

REELFOOT NWR 0.27 2.43 0.24 0.48 3.41 78.9% 14.1%

ROANOKE RIVER NWR 0.21 1.04 1.25 16.9% 0.0%

SABINE NWR 1.15 4.74 0.35 6.24 94.4% 0.0%

SANDY POINT NWR 0.17 0.08 0.36 0.62 27.8% 58.4%

SANTEE NWR 1.39 3.25 0.70 5.35 87.0% 0.0%

SAUTA CAVE NWR

SAVANNAH NWR 0.59 1.72 2.69 5.00 46.2% 0.0%

SHELL KEYS NWR

ST. CATHERINE CREEK NWR 2.16 1.99 0.11 0.11 4.38 49.3% 5.2%

ST. JOHNS NWR

ST. MARKS NWR 0.67 6.00 0.55 7.23 92.3% 0.0%

ST. VINCENT NWR 1.11 0.33 1.44 77.4% 0.0%

SWANQUARTER NWR 0.39 0.39 100.0% 0.0%

TALLAHATCHIE NWR 0.30 2.30 0.49 3.09 84.0% 0.0%

TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR 0.46 0.46 100.0% 0.0%

TENNESSEE NWR 9.05 5.73 1.46 0.26 16.51 54.8% 10.4%

TENSAS RIVER NWR 1.74 5.45 0.43 0.07 7.69 22.7% 6.4%

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NWR

TYBEE NWR

UPPER OUACHITA NWR 1.96 2.95 0.81 5.72 34.2% 14.2%

VIEQUES NWR 0.91 1.24 3.07 0.26 5.48 39.3% 4.8%

WACCAMAW NWR 0.09 0.23 0.17 0.49 65.7% 0.0%

WAPANOCCA NWR 2.15 0.25 0.02 2.41 89.1% 0.7%

WARM SPRINGS NFH 0.84 0.22 1.05 79.5% 0.0%

WASSAW NWR

WATERCRESS DARTER NWR

WELAKA NFH 0.16 1.22 0.14 1.53 10.8% 9.3%

WHEELER NWR 5.63 3.36 0.75 9.74 57.8% 7.7%

WHITE RIVER NWR 0.47 13.87 30.25 7.11 0.26 51.95 27.6% 14.2%

WOLF CREEK NFH 0.02 0.68 0.90 1.61 43.9% 0.0%

WOLF ISLAND NWR

YAZOO NWR 0.30 1.57 0.83 0.15 2.85 65.7% 5.2%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-34 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 8: RIP Cycle 4 Trail Condition

Table 8: RIP Cycle 4 Trail Condition

Unit Name

Trail Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor / Very

Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Not Rated

ALLIGATOR RIVER NWR 1.2 1.2 100.0% 0.0%

ARCHIE CARR NWR

ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXAHATCHEE NWR 0.3 1.4 1.7 100.0% 0.0%

ATCHAFALAYA NWR 0.6 0.6 100.0% 0.0%

BALD KNOB NWR

BANKS LAKE NWR 0.3 0.3 100.0% 0.0%

BAYOU COCODRIE NWR 25.8 25.8 100.0% 0.0%

BAYOU SAUVAGE NWR 3.2 0.2 0.9 4.3 74.6% 20.0%

BAYOU TECHE NWR 3.8 3.8 0.0% 0.0%

BEARS BLUFF NFH

BIG BRANCH MARSH NWR 0.2 2.4 2.7 100.0% 0.0%

BIG LAKE NWR 0.8 0.4 1.2 69.7% 0.0%

BLACK BAYOU LAKE NWR 0.8 0.8 100.0% 0.0%

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR

BO GINN NFH AND AQUARIUM

BOGUE CHITTO NWR 0.7 0.7 100.0% 0.0%

BON SECOUR NWR 1.4 0.4 0.0 1.3 3.1 78.6% 1.7%

BOND SWAMP NWR 3.6 0.2 3.8 100.0% 0.0%

BRETON NWR

BUCK ISLAND NWR

CABO ROJO NWR 5.7 1.2 1.6 8.4 81.6% 0.0%

CACHE RIVER NWR

CAHABA RIVER NWR 5.0 1.6 6.7 100.0% 0.0%

CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR

CAMERON PRAIRIE NWR

CAPE ROMAIN NWR 0.3 1.1 1.4 21.1% 0.0%

CAROLINA SANDHILLS NWR 0.0 0.0 100.0% 0.0%

CAT ISLAND NWR 3.0 3.0 100.0% 0.0%

CATAHOULA NWR 1.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0%

CEDAR ISLAND NWR

CEDAR KEYS NWR 0.4 0.4 100.0% 0.0%

CHASSAHOWITZKA NWR

CHATTAHOOCHEE FOREST NFH

CHICKASAW NWR 8.1 8.1 0.0% 0.0%

CHOCTAW NWR 0.2 0.2 100.0% 0.0%

CLARKS RIVER NWR

COLDWATER RIVER NWR

CROCODILE LAKE NWR

CROSS CREEKS NWR 0.9 0.9 0.0% 0.0%

CRYSTAL RIVER NWR

CULEBRA NWR

CURRITUCK NWR

D 'ARBONNE NWR

DAHOMEY NWR 0.9 0.9 100.0% 0.0%

DALE HOLLOW NFH

DELTA NWR

DESECHEO NWR

EDENTON NFH
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-35 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 8: RIP Cycle 4 Trail Condition

Unit Name

Trail Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor / Very

Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Not Rated

EGMONT KEY NWR 1.0 0.1 1.1 100.0% 0.0%

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ACE BASIN NWR 2.1 3.2 5.3 100.0% 0.0%

ERWIN NFH

EUFAULA NWR 0.5 6.8 7.3 100.0% 0.0%

FELSENTHAL NWR 3.4 0.4 3.8 100.0% 0.0%

FERN CAVE NWR

FLORIDA PANTHER NWR 0.3 1.2 1.5 100.0% 0.0%

GRAND BAY NWR 1.7 1.7 100.0% 0.0%

GRAND COTE NWR 0.5 0.5 100.0% 0.0%

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR

GREEN CAY NWR

GREERS FERRY NFH

HANDY BRAKE NWR

HARRIS NECK NWR 4.8 4.8 0.0% 0.0%

HATCHIE NWR 0.4 0.4 0.0% 0.0%

HILLSIDE NWR 3.5 1.7 5.2 100.0% 0.0%

HOBE SOUND NWR 0.6 0.6 100.0% 0.0%

HOLLA BEND NWR 0.9 0.9 100.0% 0.0%

HOLT COLLIER NWR

ISLAND BAY NWR

J.N. Ding Darling NWR 4.6 4.6 100.0% 0.0%

KEY CAVE NWR

KEY WEST NWR

LACASSINE NWR

LAGUNA CARTAGENA NWR

LAKE ISOM NWR 3.4 3.4 100.0% 0.0%

LAKE OPHELIA NWR 1.1 1.4 0.4 2.9 38.4% 13.4%

LAKE WALES RIDGE NWR

LAKE WOODRUFF NWR 1.1 8.2 9.2 100.0% 0.0%

LOGAN CAVE NWR

LOWER HATCHIE NWR 0.2 1.0 1.2 100.0% 0.0%

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR 1.8 1.8 100.0% 0.0%

MACKAY ISLAND NWR 0.4 0.4 100.0% 0.0%

MAMMOTH SPRING NFH

MANDALAY NWR 0.4 0.4 100.0% 0.0%

MATHEWS BRAKE NWR

MATLACHA PASS NWR

MATTAMUSKEET NWR

MCKINNEY LAKE NFH

MERIDIAN NFH

MERRITT ISLAND NWR 7.7 7.7 100.0% 0.0%

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NWR 1.4 1.4 100.0% 0.0%

MORGAN BRAKE NWR

MOUNTAIN LONGLEAF NWR 4.4 14.2 18.6 100.0% 0.0%

NATCHITOCHES NFH

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE 2.4 1.7 4.1 100.0% 0.0%

NAVASSA ISLAND NWR

NORFORK NFH 0.2 0.2 100.0% 0.0%

NOXUBEE NWR 7.2 7.2 100.0% 0.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-36 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 8: RIP Cycle 4 Trail Condition

Unit Name

Trail Condition (Miles) Total

Miles

Percent

Excellent /

Good

Percent

Poor / Very

Poor Excellent Good Fair Poor Failed Not Rated

OKEFENOKEE NWR 7.1 1.2 1.1 0.1 9.4 75.2% 12.2%

ORANGEBURG NFH

OVERFLOW NWR

PANTHER SWAMP NWR 4.0 11.6 15.6 100.0% 0.0%

PASSAGE KEY NWR

PEA ISLAND NWR 0.7 1.7 2.5 100.0% 0.0%

PEE DEE NWR 1.5 0.3 1.8 85.1% 0.0%

PELICAN ISLAND NWR 5.6 5.6 100.0% 0.0%

PIEDMONT NWR 3.7 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 6.0 76.3% 9.1%

PINCKNEY ISLAND NWR 5.1 5.6 10.8 100.0% 0.0%

PINE ISLAND NWR

PINELLAS NWR

POCOSIN LAKES NWR 0.5 3.4 3.9 100.0% 0.0%

POND CREEK NWR 3.1 0.7 3.8 82.1% 0.0%

PRIVATE JOHN ALLEN NFH 0.2 0.0 0.2 100.0% 0.0%

RED RIVER NWR

REELFOOT NWR 2.4 2.4 100.0% 0.0%

ROANOKE RIVER NWR 0.6 1.7 0.6 3.0 78.4% 0.0%

SABINE NWR 1.0 0.1 1.1 90.4% 0.0%

SANDY POINT NWR

SANTEE NWR 3.2 0.7 4.0 81.4% 0.0%

SAUTA CAVE NWR

SAVANNAH NWR

SHELL KEYS NWR

ST. CATHERINE CREEK NWR 2.9 2.9 100.0% 0.0%

ST. JOHNS NWR

ST. MARKS NWR 19.1 5.6 2.1 37.6 64.4 92.1% 0.0%

ST. VINCENT NWR 1.8 0.0 1.9 100.0% 0.0%

SWANQUARTER NWR

TALLAHATCHIE NWR

TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR 1.2 1.2 100.0% 0.0%

TENNESSEE NWR 2.6 1.1 0.4 4.1 70.5% 0.0%

TENSAS RIVER NWR 3.9 3.9 100.0% 0.0%

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NWR

TYBEE NWR

UPPER OUACHITA NWR

VIEQUES NWR 0.8 0.8 0.0% 0.0%

WACCAMAW NWR

WAPANOCCA NWR

WARM SPRINGS NFH 1.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0%

WASSAW NWR 11.3 11.3 100.0% 0.0%

WATERCRESS DARTER NWR

WELAKA NFH 0.4 0.4 100.0% 0.0%

WHEELER NWR 3.6 3.6 100.0% 0.0%

WHITE RIVER NWR 1.4 1.4 100.0% 0.0%

WOLF CREEK NFH

WOLF ISLAND NWR

YAZOO NWR 0.3 0.2 0.5 100.0% 0.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-37 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

A2.3 – COORDINATED OPPORTUNITIES

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Alligator River NWR North Carolina Dare County Indian River County MPO, Space Coast

Hyde County Transportation Planning Organization

Archie Carr NWR Florida Brevard County

Indian River County

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR

Florida Broward County Palm Beach MPO

Palm Beach County

Atchafalaya NWR Louisiana Iberville Parish

Pointe Coupee Parish

St. Martin Parish

Bald Knob NWR Arkansas White County

Banks Lake NWR Georgia Lanier County

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Louisiana Concordia Parish

Bayou Sauvage NWR Louisiana Orleans Parish Regional Planning Commission

Bayou Teche NWR Louisiana St. Mary Parish

Bears Bluff NFH South

Carolina

Charleston County Charleston Area Transportation Study

Big Branch Marsh NWR Louisiana St. Tammany Parish Regional Planning Commission

Big Lake NWR Arkansas Mississippi County

Black Bayou Lake NWR Louisiana Ouachita Parish Ouachata Council of Governments

Blackbeard Island NWR Georgia McIntosh County

Bo Ginn NFH And Aquarium Georgia Jenkins County

Bogue Chitto NWR Louisiana St. Tammany Parish Regional Planning Commission

Washington Parish

Mississippi Pearl River County

Bon Secour NWR Alabama Baldwin County

Mobile County

Bond Swamp NWR Georgia Bibb County Macon Area Transportation Study

Twiggs County

Breton NWR Louisiana Plaquemines Parish

St. Bernard Parish

Buck Island NWR United States

Virgin Islands

Cabo Rojo NWR Puerto Rico Cabo Rojo Municipio UZA's MPO

Cache River NWR Arkansas Arkansas County

Jackson County

Jefferson County

Monroe County

Prairie County

Woodruff County

Cahaba River NWR Alabama Bibb County

Caloosahatchee NWR Florida Lee County Lee County MPO

Cameron Prairie NWR Louisiana Cameron Parish

Cape Romain NWR South

Carolina

Charleston County

Carolina Sandhills NWR South

Carolina

Chesterfield County

Kershaw County

Cat Island NWR Louisiana West Feliciana Parish
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-38 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Catahoula NWR Louisiana Catahoula Parish

La Salle Parish

Cedar Island NWR North Carolina Carteret County

Cedar Keys NWR Florida Levy County

Chassahowitzka NWR Florida Citrus County Hernando County MPO

Hernando County

Chattahoochee Forest NFH Georgia Fannin County

Chickasaw NWR Tennessee Dyer County

Lauderdale County

Choctaw NWR Alabama Choctaw County

Clarks River NWR Kentucky Graves County

McCracken County

Marshall County

Coldwater River NWR Mississippi Quitman County

Tallahatchie County

Crocodile Lake NWR Florida Monroe County

Cross Creeks NWR Tennessee Stewart County

Crystal River NWR Florida Citrus County

Culebra NWR Puerto Rico Culebra Municipio

Currituck NWR North Carolina Currituck County

D 'Arbonne NWR Louisiana Ouachita Parish Ouachata Council of Governments

Union Parish

Dahomey NWR Mississippi Bolivar County

Dale Hollow NFH Tennessee Clay County

Delta NWR Louisiana Plaquemines Parish

Desecheo NWR Puerto Rico Mayagüez Municipio

Edenton NFH North Carolina Chowan County

Egmont Key NWR Florida Hillsborough County

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin

NWR

South

Carolina

Beaufort County

Charleston County

Colleton County

Hampton County

Erwin NFH Tennessee Unicoi County

Eufaula NWR Alabama Barbour County

Russell County

Georgia Quitman County

Stewart County

Felsenthal NWR Arkansas Ashley County

Bradley County

Desha County

Union County

Fern Cave NWR Alabama Jackson County

Florida Panther NWR Florida Collier County Collier County MPO

Grand Bay NWR Alabama Mobile County Gulf Regional Planning Commission, Mobile

Mississippi Jackson County Area Transportation Study

Grand Cote NWR Louisiana Avoyelles Parish

Great White Heron NWR Florida Monroe County

Green Cay NWR United States

Virgin Islands

Greers Ferry NFH Arkansas Cleburne County
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-39 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Handy Brake NWR Louisiana Morehouse Parish

Harris Neck NWR Georgia McIntosh County

Hatchie NWR Tennessee Haywood County

Hillside NWR Mississippi Holmes County

Yazoo County

Hobe Sound NWR Florida Martin County Martin County MPO

Holla Bend NWR Arkansas Pope County

Yell County

Holt Collier NWR Mississippi Washington County

Island Bay NWR Florida Charlotte County Charlotte County - Punta Gorda MPO

J.N. Ding Darling NWR Florida Lee County Lee County MPO

Key Cave NWR Alabama Lauderdale County

Key West NWR Florida Monroe County

Lacassine NWR Louisiana Cameron Parish

Jefferson Davis Parish

Laguna Cartagena NWR Puerto Rico Cabo Rojo Municipio UZA's MPO

Lajas Municipio

Lake Isom NWR Tennessee Lake County

Obion County

Lake Ophelia NWR Louisiana Avoyelles Parish Alexandria MPO

Evangeline Parish

Rapides Parish

St. Landry Parish

Lake Wales Ridge NWR Florida Highlands County Polk County Transportation Planning

Polk County Organization

Lake Woodruff NWR Florida Lake County Lake-Sumter MPO

Volusia County Volusia County MPO

Logan Cave NWR Arkansas Benton County Northwest Arkansas Regional Transportation

Study

Lower Hatchie NWR Tennessee Lauderdale County

Tipton County

Lower Suwannee NWR Florida Dixie County

Levy County

Mackay Island NWR North Carolina Currituck County Hampton Roads Transportation Planning

Virginia Virginia Beach city Organization

Mammoth Spring NFH Arkansas Fulton County

Mandalay NWR Louisiana Terrebonne Parish Houma-Thibodaux MPO

Mathews Brake NWR Mississippi Holmes County

Leflore County

Matlacha Pass NWR Florida Lee County Lee County MPO

Mattamuskeet NWR North Carolina Hyde County

Mckinney Lake NFH North Carolina Richmond County

Meridian NFH Mississippi Lauderdale County

Merritt Island NWR Florida Brevard County Space Coast Transportation Planning

Volusia County Organization, Volusia County MPO

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR

Mississippi George County Gulf Regional Planning Commission

Jackson County

Jefferson Davis County

Lamar County

Marion County
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-40 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Pearl River County

Morgan Brake NWR Mississippi Holmes County

Mountain Longleaf NWR Alabama Calhoun County Calhoun Area Transportation Study

Natchitoches NFH Louisiana Natchitoches Parish

National Key Deer Refuge Florida Monroe County

Navassa Island NWR *Navassa

Norfork NFH Arkansas Baxter County

Noxubee NWR Mississippi Noxubee County

Oktibbeha County

Winston County

Okefenokee NWR Florida Baker County

Columbia County

Georgia Charlton County

Clinch County

Ware County

South

Carolina

Orangeburg County

Arkansas Ashley County

Orangeburg NFH

Overflow NWR Arkansas Ashley County

Panther Swamp NWR Mississippi Humphreys County

Yazoo County

Passage Key NWR Florida Manatee County

Pea Island NWR North Carolina Dare County

Pee Dee NWR North Carolina Anson County

Richmond County

Pelican Island NWR Florida Indian River County Indian River County MPO

Piedmont NWR Georgia Jasper County

Jones County

Pinckney Island NWR South

Carolina

Beaufort County

Pine Island NWR Florida Lee County Lee County MPO

Pinellas NWR Florida Pinellas County

Pocosin Lakes NWR North Carolina Hyde County

Tyrrell County

Washington County

Pond Creek NWR Arkansas Little River County

Sevier County

Private John Allen NFH Mississippi Lee County

Red River NWR Louisiana Bossier Parish Northwest Louisiana COG

Caddo Parish

De Soto Parish

Natchitoches Parish

Red River Parish

Reelfoot NWR Kentucky Fulton County

Tennessee Lake County

Obion County

Roanoke River NWR North Carolina Bertie County

Sabine NWR Louisiana Cameron Parish

Sandy Point NWR United States
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-41 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Virgin Islands

Santee NWR South

Carolina

Clarendon County

Orangeburg County

Sauta Cave NWR Alabama Jackson County

Savannah NWR Georgia Chatham County Coastal Region MPO

Effingham County

South

Carolina

Jasper County

Shell Keys NWR Louisiana Iberia Parish

St. Catherine Creek NWR Mississippi Adams County

Wilkinson County

St. Johns NWR Florida Brevard County Space Coast Transportation Planning

Organization

St. Marks NWR Florida Jefferson County

Taylor County

Wakulla County

St. Vincent NWR Florida Franklin County

Gulf County

Swanquarter NWR North Carolina Hyde County

Tallahatchie NWR Mississippi Grenada County

Tallahatchie County

Ten Thousand Islands NWR Florida Collier County Collier County MPO

Tennessee NWR Tennessee Benton County

Decatur County

Henry County

Humphreys County

Tensas River NWR Louisiana Franklin Parish

Madison Parish

Richland Parish

Tensas Parish

Theodore Roosevelt NWR Mississippi Holmes County

Humphreys County

Issaquena County

Leflore County

Sharkey County

Warren County

Washington County

Yazoo County

Tybee NWR South

Carolina

Jasper County

Upper Ouachita NWR Louisiana Morehouse Parish

Union Parish

Vieques NWR Puerto Rico Vieques Municipio

Waccamaw NWR South

Carolina

Georgetown County Grand-Strand Area Transportation Study

Horry County

Wapanocca NWR Arkansas Crittenden County

Warm Springs NFH Georgia Meriwether County

Wassaw NWR Georgia Chatham County Coastal Region MPO

Watercress Darter NWR Alabama Jefferson County Birmingham MPO

Welaka NFH Florida Putnam County
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-42 A2.3 – Coordinated Opportunities

Table 9: Refuges and Hatcheries by State, County, and MPO

Unit Name State

Name(s) County Name(s) MPO Name(s)

Wheeler NWR Alabama Limestone County Decatur MPO, Huntsville Area Transportation

Madison County Study

Morgan County

White River NWR Arkansas Arkansas County

Desha County

Monroe County

Phillips County

Wolf Creek NFH Kentucky Russell County

Wolf Island NWR Georgia McIntosh County

Yazoo NWR Mississippi Washington County
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-43 A2.4 - Environmental

A2.4 – ENVIRONMENTAL

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Alligator River NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Red Wolf (Mammal) Endangered

Archie Carr NWR Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR

Everglade Snail Kite (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Audubon's Crested Caracara (Bird) Threatened

Florida Panther (Mammal) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Atchafalaya NWR Pallid Sturgeon (Fish) Endangered

Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Bald Knob NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Banks Lake NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Bayou Sauvage NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Bayou Teche NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Big Branch Marsh NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Endangered

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Blackbeard Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Bogue Chitto NWR Gulf Sturgeon (Fish) Threatened

Gopher Tortoise (Reptile) Threatened

Ringed Sawback Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Bon Secour NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Alabama Beach Mouse (Mammal) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Bond Swamp NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Breton NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-44 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Cabo Rojo NWR Yellow-shouldered Blackbird (Bird) Endangered

Aristida chaseae, no common name (Plant) Endangered

Eugenia woodburyana, no common name (Plant) Endangered

Stahlia monosperma, Cobana negra (Plant) Threatened

Cahaba River National Wildlife

Refuge

Triangular kidneyshell (Clam) Endangered

upland combshell (Clam) Endangered

Finelined pocketbook (Clam) Threatened

Cahaba shiner (Fish) Endangered

Goldline darter (Fish) Threatened

Cylindrical lioplax (Snail) Endangered

Round rocksnail (Snail) Threatened

Caloosahatchee NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Cape Romain NWR Bachman's Warbler (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Red Wolf (Mammal) Endangered

Amaranthus pumilus, Seabeach Amaranth (Plant) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Carolina Sandhills NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Eastern Puma (probably extinct) (Mammal) Endangered

Cat Island NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Cedar Island NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Endangered

Cedar Keys NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Chassahowitzka NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Chickasaw NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Choctaw NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Coldwater River NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Crocodile Lake NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Schaus Swallowtail Butterfly (Insect) Endangered

Key Largo Cotton Mouse (Mammal) Endangered

Key Largo Woodrat (Mammal) Endangered
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-45 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

American Crocodile (Reptile) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Cross Creeks NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Eastern Puma (probably extinct) (Mammal) Endangered

Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Indiana Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Crystal River NWR West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Culebra NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Roseate Tern (Bird) Threatened

Peperomia wheeleri, Wheeler's Peperomia (Plant) Endangered

Culebra Island Giant Anole (Reptile) Endangered

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Currituck NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Amaranthus pumilus, Seabeach Amaranth (Plant) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

D'Arbonne NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Delta NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Endangered

Pallid Sturgeon (Fish) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Desecheo NWR Harrisia portorricensis, Higo Chumbo (Plant) Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Egmont Key NWR Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin

NWR

Bachman's Warbler (Bird) Endangered

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Shortnose Sturgeon (Fish) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Oxypolis canbyi, Canby's Dropwort (Plant) Endangered

Eufaula NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Felsenthal NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Fern Cave NWR Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Indiana Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Asplenium scolopendrium var. americana, American Hart's-tongue Fern (Plant) Threatened

Florida Panther NWR Everglade Snail Kite (Bird) Endangered
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-46 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Panther (Mammal) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Grand Cote NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Great White Heron NWR Rice (=Silver Rice) Rat (Mammal) Endangered

Green Cay NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

St. Croix Ground Lizard (Reptile) Endangered

Harris Neck NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Hillside NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Hobe Sound NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Scrub Jay (Bird) Threatened

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Asimina tetramera, Four-petal Pawpaw (Plant) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Island Bay NWR West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

J. N. "Ding" Darling NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

American Crocodile (Reptile) Endangered

Key Cave NWR Alabama Cavefish (Fish) Endangered

Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Roseate Tern (Bird) Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Laguna Cartagena NWR Yellow-shouldered Blackbird (Bird) Endangered

Lake Isom NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Lake Ophelia NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Lake Wales Ridge NWR Florida Scrub Jay (Bird) Threatened

Chionanthus pygmaeus, Pygmy Fringe-tree (Plant) Endangered

Dicerandra christmanii, Garett's Mint (Plant) Endangered

Liatris ohlingerae, Scrub Blazingstar (Plant) Endangered

Polygonella basiramia (= P. ciliata var. b.), Wireweed (Plant) Endangered

Prunus geniculata, Scrub Plum (Plant) Endangered

Bonamia grandiflora, Florida Bonamia (Plant) Threatened

Clitoria fragrans, Pigeon Wings (Plant) Threatened
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-47 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Eriogonum longifolium var. gnaphalifolium, Scrub Buckwheat (Plant) Threatened

Paronychia chartacea (= Nyachia pulvinata), Papery Whitlow-wort (Plant) Threatened

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Sand Skink (Reptile) Threatened

Lake Woodruff NWR Everglade Snail Kite (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Scrub Jay (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Logan Cave NWR Cambarus aculabrum (crayfish with no common name) (Crustacean) Endangered

Ozark Cavefish (Fish) Threatened

Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Indiana Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Lower Hatchie NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Lower Suwannee NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Scrub Jay (Bird) Threatened

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Blue-tailed Mole Skink (Reptile) Threatened

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Mathews Brake NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Matlacha Pass NWR West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Mattamuskeet NWR Aeschynomene virginica, Sensitive Joint-vetch (Plant) Threatened

Merritt Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Scrub Jay (Bird) Threatened

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Roseate Tern (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Southeastern Beach Mouse (Mammal) Threatened

Cereus eriophorus var. fragrans, Fragrant Prickly-apple (Plant) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-48 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR

Mississippi Sandhill Crane (Bird) Endangered

Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Gopher Tortoise (Reptile) Threatened

National Key Deer Refuge Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Key Deer (Mammal) Endangered

Lower Keys Rabbit (Mammal) Endangered

Rice (=Silver Rice) Rat (Mammal) Endangered

Cereus robinii, Key Tree-cactus (Plant) Endangered

Chamaesyce garberi, Garber's Spurge (Plant) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Stock Island Tree Snail (Snail) Threatened

Noxubee NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Schwalbea americana American chaffseed (Plant) Endangered

Okefenokee NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Florida Panther (Mammal) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Overflow NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Panther Swamp NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Passage Key NWR Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Pea Island NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Pee Dee NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Pelican Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Atlantic Salt Marsh Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Piedmont NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Pinckney Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Pine Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Pinellas NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-49 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Pocosin Lakes NWR Red Wolf (Mammal) Endangered

Reelfoot NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Sandy Point NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Santee NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Sauta Cave NWR Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Indiana Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Savannah NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Shortnose Sturgeon (Fish) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Shell Keys NWR Brown Pelican (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Endangered

St. Catherine Creek NWR Least Tern Interior (Bird) Endangered

Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

St. Johns NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

St. Marks NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

St. Vincent NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Eastern Indigo Snake (Reptile) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Ten Thousand Islands NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

American Crocodile (Reptile) Endangered

Green Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-50 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 10: Endangered and At-Risk Species

Unit Name Species Federal Status

Tennessee NWR Orange-footed Pearly Mussel (Clam) Endangered

Pink Mucket Pearly Mussel (Clam) Endangered

Ring Pink Mussel (Clam) Endangered

Rough Pigtoe (Clam) Endangered

Pygmy Madtom (Fish) Endangered

Eastern Puma (probably extinct) (Mammal) Endangered

Tensas River NWR Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened

Tybee NWR Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Upper Ouachita NWR Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Bird) Endangered

Vieques NWR West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Calyptranthes thomasiana, Thomas Lidflower (Plant) Endangered

Eugenia woodburyana, no common name (Plant) Endangered

Goetzea elegans, Beautiful Goetzea (Plant) Endangered

Stahlia monosperma, Cobana negra (Plant) Threatened

Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Leatherback Sea Turtle (Reptile) Endangered

Waccamaw NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Wassaw NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Watercress Darter NWR Watercress Darter (Fish) Endangered

Wheeler NWR Gray Bat (Mammal) Endangered

Wolf Island NWR Wood Stork (Bird) Endangered

Piping Plover (Bird) Threatened

West Indian (=Florida) Manatee (Mammal) Endangered

Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Reptile) Threatened

Yazoo NWR Least Tern (Interior) (Bird) Endangered

Louisiana Black Bear (Mammal) Threatened
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-51 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 11: Critical Habitats

Table 11: Critical Habitats

Unit Name

Intersects

River Critical

Habitat

Acres of

Critical

Habitat

Total Refuge /

Hatchery

Acres

Percent

Critical

Habitat

Species

ARCHIE CARR NWR 23.0 257 9% North Atlantic Right Whale

West Indian Manatee

ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXAHATCHEE

NWR 140,241.8 143,602 98% Everglade snail kite

ATCHAFALAYA NWR 15,770 15,770 100% Louisiana black bear

BAYOU COCODRIE NWR 13,643.3 15,179 90% Louisiana black bear

BAYOU SAUVAGE NWR 238.9 25,535 1% Gulf sturgeon

BAYOU TECHE NWR 7,365.9 9,007 82% Louisiana black bear

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR 185.2 5,591 3% Piping Plover

BOGUE CHITTO NWR X Gulf sturgeon

BON SECOUR NWR 1,220.6 7,054 17% Alabama beach mouse

Piping Plover

BRETON NWR 6,561.6 7,542 87% Piping Plover

BUCK ISLAND NWR 3.2 45 7% Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

CABO ROJO NWR 1,861 1,861 100% Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

CAHABA RIVER NWR X

Alabama moccasinshell

Finelined pocketbook

Orangenacre mucket

Ovate clubshell

Southern acornshell

Southern clubshell

Triangular Kidneyshell

Upland combshell

CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR 18 18 100% West Indian manatee

CAPE ROMAIN NWR 706.1 60,123 1% Piping Plover

CEDAR KEYS NWR 6.4 764 1% Gulf sturgeon

CROCODILE LAKE NWR 6,795 6,795 100%

American crocodile

Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

West Indian manatee

CRYSTAL RIVER NWR 42.1 86 49% West Indian manatee

CULEBRA NWR 1,488 1,488 100%

Culebra Island giant anole

Elkhorn coral

Green sea turtle

Staghorn coral

DESECHEO NWR 324 324 100%

Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

Yellow-shouldered blackbird

EGMONT KEY NWR 306.7 331 93% Piping Plover

GRAND BAY NWR 290.4 10,338 3% Gulf sturgeon

Piping Plover

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR 2,299.9 5,940 39%

Elkhorn coral

Rice rat

Staghorn coral
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-52 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 11: Critical Habitats

Unit Name

Intersects

River Critical

Habitat

Acres of

Critical

Habitat

Total Refuge /

Hatchery

Acres

Percent

Critical

Habitat

Species

GREEN CAY NWR 12.8 13 100%

Elkhorn coral

St. Croix ground lizard

Staghorn coral

HOBE SOUND NWR 41.6 1046 4% Johnson's seagrass

West Indian manatee

ISLAND BAY NWR 24.7 28 88% West Indian manatee

J.N. Ding Darling NWR 6,368 6,368 100% West Indian manatee

KEY CAVE NWR 0.1 1053 0% Alabama cavefish

KEY WEST NWR 46,011.6 210,664 22%

Elkhorn coral

Piping Plover

Staghorn coral

LAGUNA CARTAGENA NWR 1,033 1,033 100% Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

LAKE OPHELIA NWR 17,403.4 18,439 94% Louisiana black bear

LAKE WOODRUFF NWR 315.5 21,584 1% West Indian manatee

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR X 766.2 51,743 1% Gulf sturgeon

MATLACHA PASS NWR 414.8 532 78% Piping Plover

West Indian manatee

MERRITT ISLAND NWR 32,100.3 129,369 25% North Atlantic Right Whale

West Indian manatee

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NWR 18,066.0 21,041 86% Mississippi sandhill crane

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE 1,794.4 6,262 29% Piping Plover

Rice rat

PELICAN ISLAND NWR 4,541.7 5,425 84% West Indian manatee

PINE ISLAND NWR 630 630 100% West Indian manatee

SANDY POINT NWR 518 518 100%

Elkhorn coral

Leatherback sea turtle

Staghorn coral

ST. MARKS NWR 2,053.0 71,950 3% Frosted Flatwoods salamander

Reticulated flatwoods salamander

ST. VINCENT NWR 12,033.9 12,177 99% Gulf sturgeon

Piping Plover

TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR 16,022.7 34,718 46% West Indian manatee

TENSAS RIVER NWR 77,124.9 78,108 99% Louisiana black bear

VIEQUES NWR 17,500 17,500 100%

Elkhorn coral

Staghorn coral

Yellow-shouldered blackbird

WASSAW NWR 241.7 10,231 2% Piping Plover

WOLF ISLAND NWR 595.0 4,995 12% Piping Plover
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-53 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 12: National Wetlands Inventory

Table 12: National Wetlands Inventory

Unit Name

Estuarine and

Marine

Deepwater

Estuarine

and Marine

Wetland

Freshwater

Emergent

Wetland

Freshwater

Forested /

Shrub

Wetland

Freshwater

Pond Lake Other

ALLIGATOR RIVER NWR X X X X X X X

ARCHIE CARR NWR X X

ARTHUR R. MARSHALL LOXAHATCHEE

NWR X X X

ATCHAFALAYA NWR X X X X

BANKS LAKE NWR X X X X

BAYOU SAUVAGE NWR X X X X X X

BAYOU TECHE NWR X X X X

BEARS BLUFF NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY X X

BIG BRANCH MARSH NWR X X X X X X

BLACK BAYOU LAKE NWR X X X X

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR X X X X X

BO GINN NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY AND

AQUARIUM X X X

BOGUE CHITTO NWR X X X X

BON SECOUR NWR X X X X X

BOND SWAMP NWR X X X

BRETON NWR X X

BUCK ISLAND NWR X X

CABO ROJO NWR X X X

CAHABA RIVER NWR X X

CALOOSAHATCHEE NWR X X

CAMERON PRAIRIE NWR X X X X

CAPE ROMAIN NWR X X X X X X

CAROLINA SANDHILLS NWR X X X X

CEDAR ISLAND NWR X X X X X

CEDAR KEYS NWR X X

CHASSAHOWITZKA NWR X X X X X

CHICKASAW NWR X X X X

CHOCTAW NWR X X X X

CLARKS RIVER NWR X X X

CROCODILE LAKE NWR X X X

CROSS CREEKS NWR X X X X

CRYSTAL RIVER NWR X X X X X

CULEBRA NWR X X X

CURRITUCK NWR X X X X X

D 'ARBONNE NWR X X X X

DALE HOLLOW NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY X

DELTA NWR X X X X X X

EDENTON NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY X X X

EGMONT KEY NWR X X

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS ACE BASIN NWR X X X X X X X

ERWIN NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY X
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-54 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 12: National Wetlands Inventory

Unit Name

Estuarine and

Marine

Deepwater

Estuarine

and Marine

Wetland

Freshwater

Emergent

Wetland

Freshwater

Forested /

Shrub

Wetland

Freshwater

Pond Lake Other

EUFAULA NWR X X X X

FELSENTHAL NWR X X X X

FERN CAVE NWR

FLORIDA PANTHER NWR X X X

GRAND BAY NWR X X X X X

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR X X

GREEN CAY NWR X

HARRIS NECK NWR X X X X X X

HATCHIE NWR X X X X

HOBE SOUND NWR X X X

ISLAND BAY NWR X X

J.N. Ding Darling NWR X X X X X

KEY CAVE NWR X X X

KEY WEST NWR X X

LACASSINE NWR X X X X X

LAGUNA CARTAGENA NWR X X X

LAKE ISOM NWR X X X

LAKE WALES RIDGE NWR X X X X

LAKE WOODRUFF NWR X X X X

LOWER HATCHIE NWR X X X X

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR X X X X X

MACKAY ISLAND NWR X X X X X

MANDALAY NWR X X X X

MATLACHA PASS NWR X X X

MATTAMUSKEET NWR X X X X

MCKINNEY LAKE NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY X X X X

MERRITT ISLAND NWR X X X X X X

MISSISSIPPI SANDHILL CRANE NWR X X

MOUNTAIN LONGLEAF NWR X X X

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE X X

OKEFENOKEE NWR X X X X

ORANGEBURG NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY X X

PASSAGE KEY NWR X X

PEA ISLAND NWR X X X X X X

PEE DEE NWR X X X X

PELICAN ISLAND NWR X X X X

PIEDMONT NWR X X X X

PINCKNEY ISLAND NWR X X X X X

PINE ISLAND NWR X X

PINELLAS NWR X X

POCOSIN LAKES NWR X X X X X X

RED RIVER NWR X X X

REELFOOT NWR X X X X

ROANOKE RIVER NWR X X X

SABINE NWR X X X X X X

SANDY POINT NWR X X X
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-55 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 12: National Wetlands Inventory

Unit Name

Estuarine and

Marine

Deepwater

Estuarine

and Marine

Wetland

Freshwater

Emergent

Wetland

Freshwater

Forested /

Shrub

Wetland

Freshwater

Pond Lake Other

SANTEE NWR X X X X

SAVANNAH NWR X X X X X X

SHELL KEYS NWR X X

ST. CATHERINE CREEK NWR X

ST. JOHNS NWR X X X X

ST. MARKS NWR X X X X X X

ST. VINCENT NWR X X X X X X

SWANQUARTER NWR X X X X X

TEN THOUSAND ISLANDS NWR X X X

TENNESSEE NWR X X X X X

THEODORE ROOSEVELT NWR X

TYBEE NWR X X X X

UPPER OUACHITA NWR X X X X

VIEQUES NWR X X X X X

WACCAMAW NWR X X X

WAPANOCCA NWR X X X X

WARM SPRINGS NATIONAL FISH

HATCHERY X X X

WASSAW NWR X X X X X

WATERCRESS DARTER NWR X

WELAKA NATIONAL FISH HATCHERY X X X

WHEELER NWR X X X X

WOLF ISLAND NWR X X X

YAZOO NWR
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-56 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 13: Coastal Barrier Resource System

Table 13: Coastal Barrier Resource System

Unit Name

CBRS System Total Service

Unit Acres

CBRS Percent of

CBRS Unit Otherwise Service Unit Area

Protected Area

Total CBRS

Acres

ARCHIE CARR NWR 83.9 83.9 256.5 32.7%

BLACKBEARD ISLAND NWR 5,591.1 5,591.1 5,591.1 100.0%

BON SECOUR NWR 1,836.6 4,323.4 6,160.0 7,053.7 87.3%

BRETON NWR 7,541.8 7,541.8 7,541.8 100.0%

BUCK ISLAND NWR 45.1 45.1 45.1 100.0%

CABO ROJO NWR 785.0 7.2 792.1 1,861.3 42.6%

CAPE ROMAIN NWR 60,095.2 60,095.2 60,122.8 100.0%

CEDAR KEYS NWR 262.4 498.1 760.5 764.0 99.5%

CROCODILE LAKE NWR 2,578.7 4,210.1 6,788.8 6,794.6 99.9%

CULEBRA NWR 315.2 315.2 1,487.6 21.2%

CURRITUCK NWR 6,646.6 2,006.8 8,653.4 8,733.8 99.1%

EGMONT KEY NWR 0.3 329.6 329.9 331.2 99.6%

GREAT WHITE HERON NWR 111.4 3,995.0 4,106.4 5,940.1 69.1%

GREEN CAY NWR 12.8 12.8 12.8 100.0%

HOBE SOUND NWR 37.7 499.7 537.5 1,046.4 51.4%

J.N. Ding Darling NWR 70.8 5,774.6 5,845.4 6,367.9 91.8%

KEY WEST NWR 20,082.1 20,082.1 210,664.0 9.5%

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR 796.9 576.8 1,373.7 51,742.9 2.7%

MATLACHA PASS NWR 138.2 138.2 532.2 26.0%

MERRITT ISLAND NWR 60,163.2 60,163.2 129,369.0 46.5%

NATIONAL KEY DEER REFUGE 264.9 4,203.5 4,468.4 6,262.1 71.4%

PASSAGE KEY NWR 63.1 63.1 63.1 100.0%

PEA ISLAND NWR 4,647.2 4,647.2 4,649.0 100.0%

PELICAN ISLAND NWR 413.0 4,557.9 4,970.9 5,424.9 91.6%

PINE ISLAND NWR 8.0 262.4 270.4 630.4 42.9%

PINELLAS NWR 2.9 388.4 391.3 392.0 99.8%

SABINE NWR 4.2 4.2 141,520.0 0.0%

SANDY POINT NWR 30.9 426.4 457.4 518.0 88.3%

ST. MARKS NWR 1,214.2 1,214.2 71,949.5 1.7%

ST. VINCENT NWR 0.0 12,169.3 12,169.4 12,176.9 99.9%

WASSAW NWR 5.9 10,180.0 10,185.9 10,231.4 99.6%

WOLF ISLAND NWR 4,994.8 4,994.8 4,994.8 100.0%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-57 A2.4 - Environmental

Table 14: Service Assets that Intersect FEMA Floodways

Table 14: Service Assets that Intersect FEMA Floodways

Unit Name RIP Asset Name Surface Type

GRAND BAY NWR Pollock Ferry Road Gravel

Pollock Ferry Road Native

LOWER SUWANNEE NWR Beaver Pond Loop Road Gravel

Dixie Compond Road Gravel

Gate 14 Road Native

Gate 15 Road Primitive

Gate 16 Road North Primitive

Weeks Landing Road Gravel

Weeks Landing Spur Native

PRIVATE JOHN ALLEN NFH Hatchery Perimeter Road Gravel

ROANOKE RIVER NWR Askew East Road Gravel

Askew East Spur Road Gravel

Askew West Road Gravel

Conine Road Gravel

North Conine Road Native

WHEELER NWR Banding Site Road Gravel

Blackwell Run Road Gravel

Briscoe Island Road Native

Cut-Off Road Native

Dinsmore Slough Road Gravel

Eagle Nest Island Road Gravel

Garth Slough Islands Road Gravel

Garth Slough Islands Road Native

Garth Slough Road Gravel

Garth Slough Road Native

Gray's Field Road Gravel

I-65 Dike Access Road Gravel

Mussle Camp Road Gravel

Rear Shop Access Road Gravel

Rockhouse Road Gravel

Truck Trail Gravel

White Springs Dike Road Gravel
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-58 A2.5 - Safety

A2.5 – SAFETY

Table 15: Hot-Spot Criteria and Data-Key

Table 15: Hot-Spot Criteria and Data-Key

Hot-Spot General

Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

O

pe

n/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

A

cres

Max

AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Minimum 0.6 3.9 20,000 0 0.0 1 0.0011 0.0 0.0 0.4% 0.2 1.5 2.2% 1 14 7.1%

Maximum 940.9 403,232.0 92,400 2244 22.6 18 0.1805 15.6 147.0 100% 83.1 121.1 100% 104 104 100%

Average 122.5 24,774.3 35,806 143 1.4 3 0.0319 1.9 25.3 24.9% 6.1 16.6 36.7% 10 18 55.4%

95th percentile 380.1 126,329.4 65,349 515 4.5 8 0.0781 6.5 83.3 100% 19.9 44.7 82.1% 33 33 100%

75th percentile 162.1 21,583.6 46,443 118 1.2 4 0.0455 2.4 40.2 24.7% 6.6 19.3 55.3% 14 19 75.7%

25th percentile 34.4 677.7 23,458 13 0.1 1 0.0131 0.2 1.7 4.5% 1.2 6.3 16.7% 2 6 33.3%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-59 A2.5 - Safety

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Hot-Spot General Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

Open/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

Acres

Max AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Alligator River NWR Yes 334.3 148197.0 93 0.3 2 0.0060 6.1 114.0 5.4% 19.8 51.1 38.6% 28 68 41.2%

Archie Carr NWR Yes 80.4 256.5 74 0.9

Arthur R. Marshall

Loxahatchee NWR Yes 198.1 143602.0 25,000 99 0.5 4 0.0202 0.1 1.9 3.3% 0.6 8.6 7.4% 5 7 71.4%

Atchafalaya NWR Yes 46.4 15770.4 2.4 8.3 28.8% 8 13 61.5%

Bald Knob NWR Yes 125.1 15368.1 33 0.3 12.0 58.2 20.5% 7.3 10.4 70.4% 16 40 40.0%

Banks Lake NWR Yes 66.1 2980.6 2 0.0303

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Yes 83.2 15179.1 2 0.0240 15 20 75.0%

Bayou Sauvage NWR Yes 156.9 25535.4 92,400 6 0.0382 4.2 23.0 18.0% 3 6 50.0%

Bayou Teche NWR Yes 191.5 9007.1 3 0.0157

Bears Bluff NFH Yes 7.9 30.3 1 1 100%

Big Branch Marsh NWR Yes 290.1 18023.2 20,710 6 0.0207 7.3 15.4 47.3% 4 8 50.0%

Big Lake NWR Yes 74.5 10910.7 30 0.4 2 0.0268 2.4 3.6 67.3% 4 6 66.7%

Black Bayou Lake NWR Yes 57.8 4448.6 28,108 0.2 3.9 5.9% 6.7 6.7 100%

Blackbeard Island NWR Yes 40.2 5591.1 2 2 100%

Bo Ginn NFH And Aquarium Yes 15.6 129.9 0 0.0

Bogue Chitto NWR Yes 216.7 35952.0 28,000 31 0.1 3 0.0138

Bon Secour NWR Yes 102.6 7053.7 97 0.9 3 0.0292 2.5 21.0 11.7% 10 16 62.5%

Bond Swamp NWR Yes 58.7 6681.2 22,150 97 1.7 2 0.0341 0.1 0.9 12.4%

Breton NWR Yes 7541.8

Buck Island NWR Yes 45.1

Cabo Rojo NWR Yes 80.4 1861.3 3 7 42.9%

Cache River NWR Yes 688.5 69259.9 31,000 256 0.4 9 0.0131 5.4 73.0 7.4% 83.1 121.1 68.6% 33 84 39.3%

Cahaba River NWR Yes 34.2 3543.1 8 0.2 1 0.0292 9 35 25.7%

Caloosahatchee NWR No 30.1 18.2 68,000 134 4.4 2 0.0664 0.7 4.1 17.1%

Cameron Prairie NWR Yes 27.1 9613.4 1 6 16.7%

Cape Romain NWR Yes 115.3 60122.8 5 0.0

Carolina Sandhills NWR Yes 348.5 45449.8 68 0.2 3 0.0086 15.6 147.0 10.6% 29 66 43.9%

Cat Island NWR Yes 39.6 10497.6 5 7 71.4%

Catahoula NWR Yes 155.8 24688.7 26 37 70.3%

Cedar Island NWR Yes 38.7 14282.4 29 0.8 12.2 15.4 79.0% 1 4 25.0%

Cedar Keys NWR Yes 13.3 764.0 3 0.2 0.3 2.8 10.7%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-60 A2.5 - Safety

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Hot-Spot General Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

Open/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

Acres

Max AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Chassahowitzka NWR Yes 72.1 36412.7 116 1.6 1 0.0139 1 3 33.3%

Chattahoochee Forest NFH Yes 3.7 44.5

Chickasaw NWR Yes 115.5 26184.8 1 0.0 2 0.0173 6.9 12.4 55.9%

Choctaw NWR Yes 34.8 3974.9 2 0.1 1 0.0287 0.6 2.8 23.2% 3 3 100%

Clarks River NWR Yes 178.2 8742.8 31,800 1485 8.3 8 0.0449 0.2 0.3 87.2% 24.9 57.6 43.2% 3 4 75.0%

Coldwater River NWR Yes 49.1 2518.2 1 0.0

Crocodile Lake NWR Yes 63.4 6794.6 23,410 91 1.4 3 0.0473 0.2 3.3 6.5%

Cross Creeks NWR Yes 169.7 8769.3 25 0.1 1.3 22.4 5.7%

Crystal River NWR Yes 97.3 86.2 28,500 246 2.5 2 0.0206

Culebra NWR Yes 53.5 1487.6 2 4 50.0%

Currituck NWR Yes 76.7 8733.8 1 0.0130 1.0 1.5 66.4% 1 1 100%

D 'Arbonne NWR Yes 125.4 17638.8 1 0.0080 1 11 9.1%

Dahomey NWR Yes 75.6 9794.2 5 0.1 1 8 12.5%

Dale Hollow NFH Yes 19.4 38.6 2 0.1 1 0.0517

Delta NWR Yes 14.9 48872.4 1 0.0670 1 1 100%

Desecheo NWR No 324.1

Edenton NFH Yes 19.3 60.9 19 1.0 3.0 7.0 42.5% 2 3 66.7%

Egmont Key NWR Yes 331.2

Ernest F. Hollings Ace Basin

NWR Yes 172.5 12070.8 37,900 61 0.4 1 0.0058 9 47 19.1%

Erwin NFH Yes 41.6 31.4 20,040 1 0.0240 0.2 0.2 100% 1.2 5.8 20.4% 2 2 100%

Eufaula NWR Yes 216.1 11005.5 53 0.2 0.5 7.9 6.3% 18 21 85.7%

Felsenthal NWR Yes 170.0 67571.8 13 0.1 1 0.0059 1.0 24.7 4.1% 6.0 15.7 38.3% 28 30 93.3%

Fern Cave NWR Yes 14.3 203.4 12 0.8

Florida Panther NWR Yes 108.5 26939.9 64 0.6 2 0.0184 0.7 19.8 3.5% 10 24 41.7%

Grand Bay NWR Yes 190.4 10338.2 43,270 124 0.7 4 0.0210 0.7 1.0 67.9% 0.9 15.4 5.9% 1 7 14.3%

Grand Cote NWR Yes 60.5 5983.4 3 0.0496 1 3 33.3%

Great White Heron NWR Yes 115.4 5940.1 26,000 112 1.0 7 0.0607 8.0 15.8 50.7%

Green Cay NWR No 14.7 12.8

Greers Ferry NFH Yes 24.5 32.0 40 1.6 0.2 0.2 100% 0.7 4.6 16.0% 1 2 50.0%

Handy Brake NWR Yes 12.9 492.3

Harris Neck NWR Yes 32.3 2825.1 1.2 6.1 18.9% 4 8 50.0%

Hatchie NWR Yes 80.1 11425.5 35,601 20 0.2 3 0.0375 1.5 20.5 7.5% 2.7 9.8 28.0% 42 42 100%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-61 A2.5 - Safety

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Hot-Spot General Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

Open/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

Acres

Max AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Hillside NWR Yes 87.2 15611.2 4 0.0 1 0.0115 1 14 7.1%

Hobe Sound NWR Yes 119.8 1046.4 22,500 173 1.4 8 0.0668 4.8 14.3 33.2%

Holla Bend NWR Yes 63.0 6070.9 7 0.1 4.6 11.0 41.6% 4 9 44.4%

Holt Collier NWR No 47.6 1477.1

Island Bay NWR No 28.2

J.N. Ding Darling NWR Yes 91.2 6367.9 77 0.8 0.2 4.7 4.6% 3.3 6.0 55.1% 7 10 70.0%

Key Cave NWR Yes 6.2 1053.1 1 2 50.0%

Key West NWR Yes 16.7 210664.0 350 20.9

Lacassine NWR Yes 61.6 33672.3 1.1 10.3 10.9% 14 18 77.8%

Laguna Cartagena NWR Yes 42.8 1033.3 1 5 20.0%

Lake Isom NWR Yes 28.0 1813.3 5 0.2 5 6 83.3%

Lake Ophelia NWR Yes 81.2 18438.9 2 0.0246 2.5 15.4 16.4% 2.6 5.9 44.7% 6 29 20.7%

Lake Wales Ridge NWR Yes 89.5 1639.5 52 0.6 2 0.0223 1 1 100%

Lake Woodruff NWR Yes 93.0 21583.6 152 1.6 8 0.0860 6 9 66.7%

Logan Cave NWR No 15.9 126.3

Lower Hatchie NWR Yes 127.2 14100.0 1 0.0 6.5 17.5 37.3% 4 13 30.8%

Lower Suwannee NWR Yes 310.4 51742.9 20 0.1 6.2 42.0 14.7% 15 111 13.5%

Mackay Island NWR Yes 51.9 8351.8 14 0.3 2.6 9.1 28.4% 7 15 46.7%

Mammoth Spring NFH Yes 32.5 34.5 13 0.4 1 0.0308 0.7 2.5 30.3% 2 5 40.0%

Mandalay NWR Yes 14.8 4611.5 1 0.0674

Mathews Brake NWR Yes 36.5 2390.9 1 0.0274 1 2 50.0%

Matlacha Pass NWR No 62.4 532.2 20,500 58 0.9 3 0.0481 0.3 3.4 10.2%

Mattamuskeet NWR Yes 136.3 49630.0 177 1.3 1 0.0073 0.3 8.4 3.1% 3.9 23.3 17.0% 16 17 94.1%

Mckinney Lake NFH Yes 7.6 432.5 13 1.7

Meridian NFH Yes 14.0 105.9 17 1.2

Merritt Island NWR Yes 459.4 129369.0 35,000 240 0.5 7 0.0152 0.8 62.3 1.3% 1.3 14.8 9.0% 33 132 25.0%

Mississippi Sandhill Crane

NWR Yes 359.7 21041.0 63,921 1693 4.7 14 0.0389 9.1 44.4 20.5% 20 25 80.0%

Morgan Brake NWR Yes 62.7 7486.8 15 0.2 1 7 14.3%

Mountain Longleaf NWR Yes 183.8 9014.2 115 0.6 1 0.0054 26 96 27.1%

Natchitoches NFH Yes 40.6 99.6 23,600 1 0.0246 0.2 0.3 50.0% 4.8 5.2 92.3% 2 3 66.7%

National Key Deer Refuge Yes 167.5 6262.1 153 0.9 6 0.0358 5.5 15.9 34.5% 1 4 25.0%

Navassa Island NWR No 364147.0
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-62 A2.5 - Safety

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Hot-Spot General Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

Open/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

Acres

Max AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Norfork NFH Yes 16.5 45.2 17 1.0 0.1 0.2 29.1% 3.0 3.7 81.8% 1 1 100%

Noxubee NWR Yes 221.8 48104.9 41 0.2 1 0.0045 17 47 36.2%

Okefenokee NWR Yes 940.9 403232.0 1 0.0 1 0.0011 1.0 15.6 6.3% 104 113 92.0%

Orangeburg NFH Yes 36.8 49.9 140 3.8 2 0.0543 0.1 0.5 23.4% 1.4 2.2 63.1% 1 2 50.0%

Overflow NWR Yes 81.7 13584.7 5 0.1 1 0.0122 7.7 8.7 88.6% 5 8 62.5%

Panther Swamp NWR Yes 189.5 41435.6 22 0.1 36 36 100%

Passage Key NWR No 0.6 63.1

Pea Island NWR Yes 27.1 4649.0 64 2.4 5.3 14.3 37.2%

Pee Dee NWR Yes 71.2 8626.1 47 0.7 1.2 9.1 12.8% 12 22 54.5%

Pelican Island NWR Yes 102.0 5424.9 23,000 185 1.8 5 0.0490 0.8 15.8 4.8% 1 1 100%

Piedmont NWR Yes 184.9 34949.3 16 0.1 4 38 10.5%

Pinckney Island NWR Yes 73.8 4038.3 55,400 321 4.4 5 0.0678 0.5 0.7 75.2% 5 5 100%

Pine Island NWR No 5.6 630.4 20,500 6 1.1

Pinellas NWR Yes 43.7 392.0 52,000 403 9.2 4 0.0915 2.9 10.7 27.1%

Pocosin Lakes NWR Yes 486.9 114171.0 128 0.3 1 0.0021 0.5 81.6 0.7% 4.9 28.2 17.4% 41 105 39.0%

Pond Creek NWR Yes 125.7 27501.5 21 0.2 1 0.0080 2.9 11.2 26.1% 22 54 40.7%

Private John Allen NFH Yes 48.5 30.6 26,263 1093 22.6 4 0.0825 6.4 9.5 67.8% 2 2 100%

Red River NWR Yes 227.5 12887.2 24,434 8 0.0352 10.1 15.7 64.5%

Reelfoot NWR Yes 163.9 10428.7 4 0.0 1 0.0061 1.0 11.1 8.9% 13.5 27.4 49.4% 10 14 71.4%

Roanoke River NWR Yes 100.2 21308.6 149 1.5 6 0.0599 0.4 6.0 6.0% 5.2 19.1 27.2% 7 13 53.8%

Sabine NWR Yes 42.7 141520.0 0.0 0.0 100% 2 10 20.0%

Sandy Point NWR Yes 36.2 518.0 2.1 2.2 96.8% 2 2 100%

Santee NWR Yes 118.7 12730.1 30,900 62 0.5 3 0.0253 17 24 70.8%

Sauta Cave NWR Yes 16.6 265.5 20 1.2 3 0.1805 1 1 100%

Savannah NWR Yes 296.4 28613.0 47,500 235 0.8 10 0.0337 4 10 40.0%

Shell Keys NWR No 3.9

St. Catherine Creek NWR Yes 141.3 25429.5 8 0.1 1 0.0071 0.1 18.3 0.7% 12 23 52.2%

St. Johns NWR No 84.3 6431.3 53,500 358 4.2 4 0.0475 0.5 22.3 2.2% 3 6 50.0%

St. Marks NWR Yes 368.8 71949.5 144 0.4 5 0.0136 1.1 30.0 3.7% 27 141 19.1%

St. Vincent NWR Yes 70.3 12176.9 6 33 18.2%

Swanquarter NWR Yes 24.2 16641.6 15 0.6 3.5 11.5 30.1% 3 3 100%

Tallahatchie NWR Yes 57.1 2875.9 14 0.2 1 7 14.3%

Ten Thousand Islands NWR Yes 29.1 34717.6 18 0.6 1 0.0344 2 3 66.7%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-63 A2.5 - Safety

Table 16: Hot-Spot Analysis

Hot-Spot General Analysis

General Unit Details Criteria 1 Criteria 2 Criteria 3 Criteria 4

Open/ Closed

TIGER

Miles

(within 1 mile)

Acres

Max AADT

(AADT>

20,000)

State-Reported

Events

FARS-Reported

Events Cycle 4 RIP, Sections HPMS IRI, Road miles Asset Priority Index

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Number

Per

TIGER

miles

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

Poor/

Failing

Miles

Total

Miles

Poor/

Failing

Percent

High

Priority

Assets

Total

Assets

Percent

High

Priority

Tennessee NWR Yes 342.6 48179.9 35,510 21 0.1 3 0.0088 2.5 46.1 5.4% 2.5 14.6 17.3% 22 59 37.3%

Tensas River NWR Yes 425.6 78107.8 20,000 1.0 39.6 2.5% 19 46 41.3%

Theodore Roosevelt NWR No 372.1 6807.5 29 0.1 4 0.0107

Tybee NWR No 2.5 677.7 3 1.2

Upper Ouachita NWR Yes 197.6 46476.9 4 44 9.1%

Vieques NWR Yes 232.4 17499.9 2.8 18.4 15.2% 21 27 77.8%

Waccamaw NWR Yes 358.3 26942.6 48,600 851 2.4 7 0.0195 3 3 100%

Wapanocca NWR Yes 53.1 5624.2 5 0.1 0.2 12.8 1.5% 4.4 6.4 68.6% 8 12 66.7%

Warm Springs NFH Yes 26.1 89.3 8 0.3 2 0.0766 2 4 50.0%

Wassaw NWR Yes 30.5 10231.4 5 0.2 2 3 66.7%

Watercress Darter NWR Yes 79.7 24.1 37 0.5

Welaka NFH Yes 53.8 407.9 1 0.0186 3 5 60.0%

Wheeler NWR Yes 667.3 33876.5 52,390 2244 3.4 18 0.0270 0.2 54.4 0.4% 8.7 39.2 22.2% 32 60 53.3%

White River NWR Yes 456.7 155777.0 27 0.1 1 0.0022 3.2 79.9 4.0% 23.3 35.4 65.7% 13 130 10.0%

Wolf Creek NFH Yes 13.5 18.4 15 1.1 1.4 2.9 47.9% 1 3 33.3%

Wolf Island NWR No 0.7 4994.8

Yazoo NWR Yes 111.9 13048.3 12 0.1 2 0.0179 3.4 19.6 17.1% 5 16 31.3%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-64 A2.6 - Visitation

A2.6 – VISITATION

Table 17: RAPP Visitation Data – 2012

Table 17: RAPP Visitation Data – 2012

Unit Name State Visitation

2010 2011 2012

Alligator River NWR North Carolina 50,000 55,000 52,500

Archie Carr NWR Florida - 120,000 120,000

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR Florida 303,575 335,825 308,694

Atchafalaya NWR Louisiana 32,632 34,035 45,296

Bald Knob NWR Arkansas 70,000 72,000 72,000

Banks Lake NWR Georgia 34,872 55,805 17,692

Bayou Cocodrie NWR Louisiana 2,217 4,489 4,500

Bayou Sauvage NWR Louisiana 18,286 25,910 49,544

Bayou Teche NWR Louisiana 6,000 6,000 6,000

Big Branch Marsh NWR Louisiana 166,190 313,236 214,233

Big Lake NWR Arkansas 45,000 45,000 45,000

Black Bayou Lake NWR Louisiana 37,000 37,000 37,000

Blackbeard Island NWR South Carolina 6,088 7,627 7,644

Bogue Chitto NWR Louisiana 42,000 68,165 65,890

Bon Secour NWR Alabama 35,000 40,000 65,000

Bond Swamp NWR Georgia 6,000 10,000 10,000

Breton NWR Louisiana 200 1,750 2,888

Cabo Rojo NWR Puerto Rico 110,000 100,000 150,000

Cache River NWR Arkansas 160,000 162,000 170,000

Cahaba River NWR Alabama 31,000 30,000 30,000

Cameron Prairie NWR Louisiana 57,064 55,343 55,124

Cape Romain NWR South Carolina 153,856 222,912 289,328

Carolina Sandhills NWR South Carolina 75,000 71,500 50,000

Cat Island NWR Mississippi 25,000 6,305 24,000

Catahoula NWR Louisiana 20,000 28,000 30,000

Cedar Island NWR North Carolina 18,680 19,500 18,550

Cedar Keys NWR Florida 34,500 34,200 32,500

Chassahowitzka NWR Florida 28,000 28,000 28,000

Chickasaw NWR Tennessee 76,500 76,500 78,500

Choctaw NWR Alabama 30,000 30,725 32,694

Clarks River NWR Kentucky 40,000 40,000 40,000

Coldwater River NWR Mississippi 2,890 2,800 3,150

Crocodile Lake NWR Florida 770 800 820

Cross Creeks NWR Tennessee 132,478 129,000 135,000

Crystal River NWR Florida 107,000 105,000 167,000

Culebra NWR Puerto Rico 40,000 50,100 55,100

Currituck NWR North Carolina 92,000 87,000 104,010

Dahomey NWR Mississippi 8,620 9,450 9,545

D'Arbonne NWR Louisiana 22,680 22,680 22,680

Delta NWR Louisiana 6,093 12,000 9,065

Egmont Key NWR Florida 183,344 208,845 197,410

Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin NWR South Carolina 18,500 25,000 25,000

Eufaula NWR Alabama 474,537 381,015 276,407

Felsenthal NWR Arkansas 390,000 390,000 380,000

Fern Cave NWR Alabama 20 20 20

Florida Panther NWR Florida 2,677 2,954 3,325

Grand Bay NWR Mississippi 3,000 2,798 6,200
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-65 A2.6 - Visitation

Table 17: RAPP Visitation Data – 2012

Unit Name State Visitation

2010 2011 2012

Grand Cote NWR Louisiana 15,000 15,000 16,000

Great White Heron NWR Florida 148,552 149,855 140,000

Handy Brake NWR Louisiana 4,250 4,250 4,250

Harris Neck NWR South Carolina 87,646 87,412 85,822

Hatchie NWR Tennessee 61,000 61,000 65,000

Hillside NWR Mississippi 28,780 28,780 28,780

Hobe Sound NWR Florida 85,000 113,000 130,000

Holla Bend NWR Arkansas 23,890 27,974 16,613

Holt Collier NWR Mississippi 525 525 525

J.N. Ding Darling NWR Florida 623,149 674,312 657,702

Key Cave NWR Alabama 5,000 5,000 5,000

Key West NWR Florida 465,475 350,238 335,000

Lacassine NWR Louisiana 68,245 54,572 37,702

Laguna Cartagena NWR Puerto Rico 1,360 1,000 2,459

Lake Isom NWR Tennessee 16,000 16,000 16,200

Lake Ophelia NWR Louisiana 20,000 20,000 21,500

Lake Woodruff NWR Florida 60,000 60,000 60,000

Lower Hatchie NWR Tennessee 70,000 70,250 71,000

Lower Suwannee NWR Florida 155,000 145,800 138,500

Mackay Island NWR North Carolina 33,450 32,500 35,072

Mandalay NWR Louisiana 19,000 18,000 18,000

Mathews Brake NWR Mississippi 11,451 10,000 10,000

Mattamuskeet NWR North Carolina 83,044 81,400 82,500

Merritt Island NWR Florida 749,770 716,737 1,173,319

Mississippi Sandhill Crane NWR Mississippi 6,000 7,680 8,034

Morgan Brake NWR Mississippi 6,000 6,000 6,000

Mountain Longleaf NWR Alabama 8,000 8,000 8,000

National Key Deer Refuge Florida 190,045 194,559 180,000

Okefenokee NWR Georgia 225,099 177,418 188,468

Overflow NWR Arkansas 7,000 10,000 10,000

Panther Swamp NWR Mississippi 18,000 18,000 18,000

Pea Island NWR North Carolina 1,600,000 1,600,000 1,520,100

Pee Dee NWR North Carolina 35,000 30,000 30,000

Pelican Island NWR Florida 89,919 90,000 95,000

Piedmont NWR Georgia 40,000 40,000 44,159

Pinckney Island NWR South Carolina 140,374 199,598 149,832

Pinellas NWR Florida 35,000 35,000 35,000

Pocosin Lakes NWR North Carolina 55,000 55,000 48,808

Pond Creek NWR Arkansas 45,000 45,000 45,000

Red River NWR Louisiana 1,400 1,400 12,000

Reelfoot NWR Tennessee 275,000 275,000 275,000

Roanoke River NWR North Carolina 4,790 5,080 5,085

Sabine NWR Louisiana 213,893 214,466 193,293

Sam D. Hamilton Noxubee NWR Mississippi 158,000 154,000 149,800

Sandy Point NWR Virgin Islands 7,000 6,500 7,000

Santee NWR South Carolina 181,987 181,115 193,989

Sauta Cave NWR Alabama 1,500 1,500 1,500

Savannah NWR South Carolina 121,754 98,170 149,832

St. Catherine Creek NWR Mississippi 28,500 23,000 24,000
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Existing Conditions and Future Trends Appendices A-66 A2.6 - Visitation

Table 17: RAPP Visitation Data – 2012

Unit Name State Visitation

2010 2011 2012

St. Johns NWR Florida 200 200 200

St. Marks NWR Florida 249,000 257,000 257,000

St. Vincent NWR Florida 2,345 1,959 2,312

Swanquarter NWR North Carolina 12,800 12,000 3,000

Tallahatchie NWR Mississippi 12,600 12,950 13,100

Ten Thousand Islands NWR Florida 179,785 180,500 189,000

Tennessee NWR Tennessee 380,000 378,000 381,500

Tensas River NWR Louisiana 95,000 96,000 100,000

Upper Ouachita NWR Louisiana 26,000 26,000 26,000

Vieques NWR Puerto Rico 210,000 215,000 215,000

Waccamaw NWR South Carolina 5,398 6,114 11,030

Wapanocca NWR Arkansas 40,000 61,050 55,000

Wassaw NWR South Carolina 25,467 36,003 34,006

Watercress Darter NWR Alabama 75 100 100

Wheeler NWR Alabama 646,800 640,332 645,000

White River NWR Arkansas 350,000 305,000 310,000

Yazoo NWR Mississippi 39,000 39,000 39,000
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Recommendations Report Appendices A-67 LRTP Tools for use by Stations and the Region

Recommendations Report Appendices

LRTP Tools for use by Stations and the Region

Long Range Transportation Plan – Tools for use by Stations and the Region

The Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) document is focused predominantly at the regional level. In order to increase

the usefulness of the LRTP, it is important for stations to gain value from the work that has been done. The following

three deliverables are meant to provide guidance to station leadership, serve as decision-making tools for regional

leadership, and create minimal additional work for all parties while leveraging previous work to create benefit to the

stations and the southeast region as a whole. All tools will be used in conjunction with input from station, Area, and

Regional leadership to allow for quantitative and qualitative consideration. Planning for transportation means that

stations can create strategic transportation projects, allowing them to be better-positioned for FWS and other Federal

funding. The LRTP and associated documents will be used for the next 4-5 years until an update of the plan is completed.

Incorporating Transportation into the CCP process

While recognizing that limited funding for CCPs will result in fewer plans being completed each year, the LRTP team

made the following modifications to CCP documents to ensure that when plans are completed, transportation can be

included as appropriate. The following three documents have been either created or modified to include transportation:

· LRTP Report User Guide for Stations – helps station leadership to use information gathered as a part of the LRTP

effort for their station as well as Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) survey results to

consider transportation needs at the refuge/hatchery. Better understanding of transportation needs can result

in the creation of better projects.

· CCP Workplan with Transportation – workplan to guide leadership through the CCP development process now

includes aspects of transportation.

· CCP Template with Transportation – the template serves as a starting place for CCP creation, and now includes

transportation components.

Many refuges and fish hatcheries do not have a recognized process during which to consider transportation needs and

develop formal recommendations outside of the traditional call for projects. Thinking about transportation during the

CCP process will help stations to create more meaningful transportation projects in advance of the call for projects.

Transportation Evaluation Tool: Stations for Further Transportation Study

The Transportation Evaluation Tool uses data from the LRTP and results of the RATE survey to evaluate stations relative

to key transportation metrics. These metrics correspond to the six main goals outlined in the regional LRTP, which are

also consistent with the National plan and all other regional plans across the nation. The data used to evaluate stations

is stored in a database, and each station is scored based on the results for their refuge/hatchery.

This evaluation tool will be used to help leadership identify which stations may benefit from further transportation

study. This is merely a tool to assist in prioritization and not the only way a station may warrant further study.

Transportation Project Evaluation Tool

The Transportation Project Evaluation Tool will be used to score transportation projects recommended by each of the

stations. The data used to evaluate the projects are based partially on results from the LRTP analysis and RATE surveys

as well as project-specific characteristics. Regional leadership will use these metrics to initially determine high priority

projects across the region. Once again, this is a tool used to assist leadership in prioritization. As in all planning

processes, technical merit is part of the prioritization, but stakeholder involvement also plays an important role. Projects

that perform well in this evaluation may be better positioned to compete for Federal funds outside of the Fish and

Wildlife Service as well.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Recommendations Report Appendices A-68 A5 – Project Selection Process

A5 – Project Selection Process

Figure 1: Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

SUMMARY PROJECT EVALUATION SCORESHEET

REFUGE:

PROJECT:

DESCRIPTION:

Goal Area Topic Goal Area Points

1. Improves transportation safety of humans and wildlife 0

2. Improves “state of good repair” of transportation assets 0

3. Enhances transportation choices to, from, and within FWS stations 0

4. Enhances environmental conditions in the field and/or helps to meet

programmatic goals 0

5. Meets a local priority: (a) documented in a CCP, (b) other transportation

plan; (c) is within a Region’s high-use or urban station; or (d) provides

economic benefit to local partners. 0

6. Supports transportation partnerships and leveraging of transportation

funds/programs to benefit FWS 0

TOTAL PROJECT POINTS 0

The Transportation Project Evaluation Tool will be used to score transportation projects recommended by

each of the stations. The data used to evaluate the projects are based partially on results from the LRTP

analysis and RATE surveys as well as project-specific characteristics. Regional leadership will use these

metrics to initially determine high priority projects across the region. This is a tool used to assist

leadership in prioritization. As in all planning processes, technical merit is part of the prioritization, but

stakeholder involvement also plays an important role. Projects that perform well in this evaluation may

be better positioned to compete for Federal funds outside of the Fish and Wildlife Service as well.

Recommendations Report Appendices 1 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

1. Improves transportation safety of humans and wildlife

Points

Existing Conditions / Crash History (choose all that apply, maximum of 10 points)

/3 points

/5 points

/4 points

Project Safety Improvement (choose if applicable, maximum of 10 points)

/10 points

Goal #1 Total Points 0 /20 points

= Project score determined using data from the Long Range Transportation Plan

Project improves safety of location (examples - adding turn lanes, flattening horizontal curves, sight

distance improvements or enhancements/countermeasures such as road safety audits, safety edge,

signs and markings, traffic calming and movement restrictions, wildlife crossing, barriers, vegetation

control, surface improvement, visiting hours, tools such as Highway Safety Manual, Interactive

Highway Safety Design Mode, etc.))

National Plan Recommended

Points = 20

(max 10 points)

(max 10 points)

Goal

Station identified as a safety hot spot (crash) in the Region 4 LRTP (Table 14 of the Appendix)

Documented or anecdotal crash history where the project is planned

High numbers of human or wildlife injuries (may include station staff anecdotal information)

High number of human or wildlife fatalities (may include station staff anecdotal information)

Recommendations Report Appendices 2 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

2. Improves “state of good repair” of transportation assets

Points

Asset Type of project facility (choose only one, maximum of 6 points)

Roadway

Tier 1 Roadway /6 points

Tier 2 Roadway /4 points

Tier 3 Roadway - special case /1 points

Bridge /5 points

Trail /2 points

Parking facility /2 points

Other transportation asset /2 points

Asset Priority Index of project (choose only one, maximum of 5 points)

100 /5 points

80-99 /3 points

Less than 80 /0 points

FCI Rating of project (choose only one, maximum of 6 points)

1 - 0.80 /6 points

0.79 - 0.60 /4 points

0.59 - 0.40 /2 points

< 0.40 /0 points

Cost Savings Plan (choose if applicable, maximum of 3 points)

/3 points

Goal #2 Total Points 0 /20 points

National Plan Recommended

Points = 20

Project incorporates a cost-savings plan for operations and maintenance to reduce long-term costs

(max 6 points)

(max 5 points)

(max 6 points)

(max 3 points)

Goal

Recommendations Report Appendices 3 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

3. Enhances transportation choices to, from, and within FWS stations

Points

Project improves roadway connectivity (choose all that apply, maximum of 5 points)

/4 points

Within the internal station network /3 points

Alternative Transportation Project (choose all that apply, maximum of 4 points)

/3 points

/2 points

/2 points

/2 points

/2 points

/2 points

/1 points

/1 points

/1 points

Goal #3 Total Points 0 /15 points

= Project score determined using data from the Long Range Transportation Plan

> 50% of population within 25-mile buffers is in poverty, is non-white, is Latino, or has no access to a

vehicle

ITS project that better manages access to and on site including parking management systems

25-50% of population within 25-mile buffers is in poverty, is non-white, is Latino, or has no access to a

vehicle

< 25% of population within 25-mile buffers is in poverty, is non-white, is Latino, or has no access to a

vehicle

Improves bike / pedestrian / trail access to, from, or within a station

Improves water access to, from, or within a station

Improves transit access to, from, or within a station

Encourages carpooling or vanpooling

Project improves way-finding and management of personal vehicles on-site and/or off-site (choose all that

apply, maximum of 4 points)

Includes a way-finding action plan

Goal

Station meets the following criteria relating to underserved or underrepresented populations (choose all

that apply, maximum of 2 points)

To a local transportation system (external to the station)

National Plan Recommended

Points = 15

(max 2 points)

(max 4 points)

(max 4 points)

(max 5 points)

Recommendations Report Appendices 4 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

4. Enhances environmental conditions in the field and/or helps to meet programmatic goals

Points

/4 points

/3 points

/3 points

Educational Enhancement (choose if applicable, maximum of 3 points)

/3 points

ATS or ITS Enhancement (choose if applicable, maximum of 3 points)

/3 points

Climate Change Component (choose if applicable, maximum of 3 points)

/3 points

Goal #4 Total Points 0 /15 points

= Project score determined using data from the Long Range Transportation Plan

(max 3 points)

Project has been identified in the Climate Change Tool or includes a specific climate change mitigation

component.

National Plan Recommended

Points = 15

Project features enhancements that allow visitors to incorporate environmental interpretation,

education, and stewardship into their travel experience (example - educational kiosks along the travel

route)

ATS (Alternative Transportation System) or ITS (Intelligent Transportation System) project that will

reduce greenhouse gas emissions in and around the station (examples - bike/pedestrian trail, shuttle

bus to get patrons to the station, dynamic message signs telling drivers when parking areas are full)

(max 6 points)

(max 3 points)

(max 3 points)

Goal

Station serves as a habitat for endangered or threatened species

Station includes a nationally designated wetland

Station is part of the Coastal Barrier Resource System

Transportation project specifically addresses, protects, or avoids environmentally sensitive areas (choose

all that apply, maximum of 6 points)

Recommendations Report Appendices 5 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Points

Project is documented in FWS or partner plan (choose all that apply, maximum of 7 points)

Included in CCP, station step-down plan, or Climate Change Tool /4 points

Included in state or regional transportation plan /4 points

Included in city, county, or other local plan /3 points

Station has high visitation or is in an urban area (choose all that apply, maximum of 5 points)

/4 points

/3 points

Recent count on the project's facility with AADT > 20,000 /3 points

/3 points

Project impacts the local economy (choose only one, maximum of 5 points)

Positive impact /5 points

Negative Impact /0 points

Goal #5 Total Points 0 /20 points

= Project score determined using data from the Long Range Transportation Plan

(max 5 points)

Station identified as a congestion hot spot in the Region 4 LRTP (Table 14 of the Appendix)

Goal

Refuge visitation (according to current year RAPP) > 100,000 persons

Located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization or a Census defined Urban Area

Congestion hot-spot (choose all that apply, maximum of 3 points)

5. Meets a local priority: (a) documented in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan, (b) other

transportation plan/analysis by FWS or partners; (c) is within a Region’s high-use or urban station;

or (d) provides economic benefit to local partners.

National Plan Recommended

Points = 20

(max 7 points)

(max 5 points)

(max 3 points)

Recommendations Report Appendices 6 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Points

/2 points

/1 points

/1 points

/1 points

Partner agency financial support for project (choose only one, maximum of 6 points)

/6 points

/3 points

/1 points

/0 points

Deferred Maintenance of Visitor Facility Enhancement (choose if applicable, maximum of 1 point)

/1 points

Goal #6 Total Points 0 /10 points

6. Supports transportation partnerships and leveraging of transportation funds/programs to

benefit FWS

National Plan Recommended

Points = 10

Goal

Established partnership with another agency, including a previous project or Memorandum of

Established Friends Group

Project is being completed in conjunction with Deferred Maintenance or Visitor Facility Enhancement

projects

(max 3 points)

(max 6 points)

(max 1 point)

Partner agency buy-in on project. Partner agency may be a local, county, regional, or state government,

FLMA, Friends Group, etc. (choose all that apply, maximum of 3 points)

No financial or in-kind support from partner agency

Less than 10% of the total project funded by partner agency or in-kind support of design, etc.

10-50% of the total project funded by partner agency

Greater than 50% of the total project funded by partner agency

Partnership opportunity with nearby FLMA (project may be included in their plan)

Not in a current plan but has a letter of support from a partner agency

Recommendations Report Appendices 7 Project Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Recommendations Report Appendices A-76 A6 – Plan Implementation

A6 – Plan Implementation

Figure 2: Stations for Further Transportation Study Evaluation Tool
U.S. Fish Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Notes

Is the station open to the public? Yes No

Yes No

Goal 1: Access, Mobility, and Connectivity Maximum Points = 20

A. Transportation Systems within a Specified Distance (choose up to 1, maximum of 6 points)

If station meets 3 of the 3 criteria: /6 points

If station meets 2 of the 3 criteria: /4 points

Criterion 1: At least one navigable waterway within 1/2 mile

Criterion 2: At least one trail within 1 mile

Criterion 3: At least 100 miles of roadway (NHPN or Scenic Byway) within 10 miles

B. Transit Systems within a Specified Distance (choose up to 1, maximum of 4 points)

At least one local transit service stop within 1/2 mile of the station /4 points

At least one local transit service stop between 1/2 and 1 mile of the station /3 points

/2 points

If no transit service stop exists within 3 miles, can you name a local provider? /1 points

C. Known Transportation Challenges External to the Station (choose up to 1, maximum of 10 points)

If station meets 3 of the 3 criteria: /10 points

If station meets 2 of the 3 criteria: /9 points

If station meets 1 of the 3 criteria: /7 points

Criterion 1: Insufficient road signage leading to the refuge including entrance signs Yes No

Criterion 2: Severe deterioration of roadways/waterways leading up to the station Yes No

Criterion 3: Congestion on roadways leading to the station is a major challenge Yes No

Goal 2: Asset Management Maximum Points = 15

A. Roadway Condition (per RIP Cycle 4) - choose up to 1, maximum of 6 points

If station has > 5 miles roadway total with >10% poor or failing /6 points

If station has > 5 miles roadway total with >5% poor or failing /4 points

If station has >50% of roadways poor or failing /3 points

B. Parking Condition (per RIP Cycle 4) - choose up to 1, maximum of 3 points

If station has > 1 acre parking total and >5% poor or failing /3 points

If station has >75% of parking poor or failing /2 points

C. Trails Condition (per RIP Cycle 4) - choose up to 1, maximum of 3 points

If station has > 1 mile of trails total and >5% poor or failing /3 points

If station has >75% of trails poor or failing /2 points

D. Overall Maintenance Activities within the Station - chose up to 1, maximum of 3 points

/3 points

Criterion 1: Recurring flooding / eroding surfaces Yes No

Criterion 2: High use or activity levels Yes No

Criterion 3: Other issues Yes No

Goal 3: Coordinated Opportunities Maximum Points = 15

If station meets 2 of the 2 criteria: /10 points

If station meets 1 of the 2 criteria: /7 points

Yes No

Criterion 2: Transportation providers or schools Yes No

Yes /5 points

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Question 27).

Goal 4: Environmental Maximum Points = 6

A. Critical Habitats/Habitat Fragmentation (maximum 6 points)

Does your station meet one of the following criteria? /5 points

Criterion 1: If station exceeds 20% critical habitat of one or more species Yes No

Yes No

Does the habitat pertain to threatened or endangered species? /1 points

Goal 5: Safety Maximum Points = 20

A. Hot-spot (choose up to 1, maximum of 10 points)

If station meets 3 or more criteria /10 points

If station meets 2 criteria /8 points

If station meets 1 criterion /6 points

Criterion 1: If station meets Criteria 1 (AADT) Yes No

Criterion 2: If station meets Criteria 2 (Crashes) Yes No

Criterion 3: If station meets Criteria 3 (RIP) Yes No

Criterion 4: If station meets Criteria 4 (Asset Priority) Yes No

B. Safety hot-spots according to RATE survey (choose up to 1, maximum of 10 points)

Does a station meet at least 6 of the following criteria: /10 points

Does a station meet at least 4 of the following criteria: /7 points

Does a station meet at least 2 of the following criteria: /5 points

Criterion 1: Animal-Vehicle collisions Yes No

Criterion 2: Speeding on roads inside or leading to the station Yes No

Criterion 3: Safety issues with turn or acceleration lanes on access roads Yes No

Criterion 4: Bicycle and pedestrian safety Yes No

Criterion 5: Ingress/egress Yes No

Criterion 6: Truck traffic Yes No

Criterion 7: Railroad crossings Yes No

Criterion 8: Site distance (hidden driveway or side roads) Yes No

Criterion 9: Vehicular crashes (run off road, etc.) Yes No

Goal 6: Visitation Maximum Points = 24

A. Annual Visitation (choose up to 1, maximum of 10 points)

If station has a minimum of 100,000 annual visitors /10 points

If station has a minimum of 40,000 annual visitors /8 points

If the station is actively trying to increase station visitation /4 points

B. Population Growth (choose up to 1, maximum of 5 points)

If surrounding area is projected to grow >20% from 2010 to 2030 /5 points

If surrounding area is projected to grow >10% from 2010 to 2030 /3 points

C. Visitor Orientation (choose up to 1, maximum of 4 points)

Visitor Orientation to and within the station poses a significant challenge /4 points

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Question 28).

D. Equitable Target Areas (choose up to 1, maximum of 5 points)

If station currently has significant low income population visiting the station /5 points

/3 points

Criterion 1: >20% of population within 25 miles is in poverty Yes No

Criterion 2: >10% of population within 25 miles has no access to a vehicle Yes No

Criterion 3: Significant low income population visiting the station Yes No

Criterion 4: Some low income population visiting the station Yes No

B (max 5 points)

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Table 19.

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Tables 16 and 18 and RATE survey

data (Question 14).

T

R

A

N

S

P

O

R

T

A

TIO

N

E

V

A

L

U

A

TIO

N

T

O

O

L: S

t

a

tio

n

s

f

o

r

f

u

r

t

h

e

r

t

r

a

n

s

p

o

r

t

a

tio

n

s

t

u

d

y

The Southeast Region of FWS has completed its first Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). Data from this analysis and from the RATE survey are being used to evaluate

stations and to determine which locations may warrant further transportation study. The criteria listed below pertain to the six transportation goals outlined in the LRTP,

and data to populate the criteria will be pulled from existing data sources by regional staff. This tool serves as a technical baseline and will be used in conjunction with

qualitative information and conversations with area, station, and regional leadership.

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Table 1.

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Questions 20-21).

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Questions 8, 9, 28).

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Tables 5, 6, and 7.

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Tables 5, 6, and 7.

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Tables 5, 6, and 7.

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Question 11).

If yes to both, continue scoring. If no to one or

more, station does not advance.

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Question 31).

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Table 10 and RATE survey data

(Questions 34 and 35).

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Table 14.

D (max 3 points)

These questions should be answered using R4

LRTP Appendix Table 15 and RATE survey data

(Question 39).

A (max 10 points)

B (max 10 points)

A (max 10 points)

These questions should be answered using RATE

survey data (Question 45).

B (max 4 points)

C (max 10 points)

A (max 6 points)

B (max 3 points)

C (max 3 points)

100 max points

Does the station have a minimum visitation of 5000 people per year?

If station currently has some low income population visiting the station with significant low income or no access to vehicle

population living within 25 miles

D (max 5 points)

Criterion 2: Are there critical habitats fragmented by transportation assets within or adjacent to your station?

Are there locations where at least two of the following recurring maintenance activities are required:

At least one local transit service stop between 1 and 3 miles along with a station-provided shuttle service

Criterion 1: Local, state, or federal governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), or other Federal Land

Management Agencies

Goal

A. Does your station have transportation related partnerships or relationships with any of the following? (choose up to 1,

maximum of 10 points) A (max 10 points)

B (max 5 points)

A (max 6 points)

B. Does your station have special designations related to visitor activities or access? (i.e. Florida Birding Trail, Wetland Birding

Trail, etc.) - choose up to 1, maximum 5 points

C (max 4 points)

A (max 6 points)

Recommendations Report Appendices A-77 A6 - Plan Implementation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Recommendations Report Appendices A-78 A6 – Plan Implementation

Figure 3: User Guide – How to Incorporate Transportation into Your CCPs
How to Incorporate Transportation into Your CCPs

A guide to adding transportation needs and projects into your CCPs using the Region 4 Long Range

Transportation Plan (LRTP) document.

Prior to incorporating transportation components into your CCP, please contact the Regional

Transportation Program Manager to discuss this User Guide and to receive your refuge fact sheet. The

information provided by the PM will assist you with the completion of the CCP and the inclusion of

transportation components.

Chapter II: Refuge Overview

1. Add a sub-section called “Transportation Assets and Considerations” within the “Refuge

Administration and Management” section (be sure to include a map of current refuge trails,

roads, and other transportation facilities).

2. Include the six goal subheadings from the Region 4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Long Range

Transportation Plan Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report. Include refuge-specific

information relevant to each of the goals from the refuge fact sheet created from the master

tables included in the LRTP. Include relevant maps showing current transportation structure and

issue elements as well as summary information. Structure should be organized as follows:

Goal: Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Goal: Asset Management

Goal: Coordinated Opportunities

Goal: Environmental

Goal: Safety

Goal: Visitation

3. Review the LRTP document and Appendix to find other useful pieces of information relative to

the role your refuge plays from a regional perspective.

Note: do a “Find” search within the document for your refuge name. Refuges that fall within

the highest or lowest categories of each analysis may be called out within the main

document. It will be valuable to know how your refuge performs relative to other refuges in

the Southeast Region.

4. Because the LRTP is a regional document, it is possible that local transportation assets and more

detailed transportation information about your refuge was not documented. This is a fitting

location to add your local knowledge beyond what was listed in the report.

Chapter III: Plan Development

1. Add a sub-section called “Transportation Assets and Considerations” within the “Refuge

Administration” section. Using Existing Conditions content provided in Chapter II, Refuge

Overview, determine the areas of greatest need within your refuge. Some questions to consider

include:

§ Are many of the roadways within the refuge boundaries in poor or failing condition and

do they need to be rehabilitated or could they be considered for decommission?

§ Do you have high numbers of collisions in and around the refuge?

§ Are you lacking sufficient data to understand how wildlife is being impacted by collisions

with automobiles?

§ Are there opportunities for coordinated planning with a state, metropolitan planning

organization, or county government nearby? Is there another Federal Land Management

Agency property nearby with similar priorities and needs?

2. Document the areas of greatest need in this chapter of the report.
Chapter IV: Management Direction

1. Add a sub-section called “Transportation Assets and Considerations” within the “Refuge

Administration” section.

§ Include the Goals and Objectives that begin on Page 4 of the Region 4 U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Long Range Transportation Plan Existing Conditions and Future Trends Report in

the discussion section of each CCP objective and strategy. Focus only on the LRTP

goals/objectives that are applicable to, or necessary for the consideration of each refuge

and its unique conservation effort. The discussion section under each CCP objective may

include the LRTP goals and objectives that the CCP objective is addressing. Provide a

rationale for how the CCP objective is desirable to the refuge leadership and develop

possible strategies for how to address it. Most transportation objectives will fall under

the “Refuge Administration” section; however, some transportation objectives may fall

under other headings such as “Visitor Services” or “Resource Protection.” For

transportation objectives that overlap with other goals/objectives discussed in the CCP,

provide a reference to the other relevant goals/objectives of interest.

Chapter V: Plan Implementation

1. In some cases, projects that have already been developed under another goal area may meet

transportation goals and objectives. Where this is the case, include a link to the transportation

goal and objective being met by the project.

2. Determine new projects that focus on transportation and list them under the “Refuge

Administration” section. It would also be beneficial for the refuge to follow-up with regional

transportation staff to determine feasible project costs. Refer to the project evaluation criteria

included in the Final LRTP Recommendations document that will be used for project selection.

How well do your transportation projects score relative to the criteria and weighting that have

been set by the region?

3. Step-Down Management Plans — if the refuge staff feels that the refuge can benefit from a

transportation step-down management plan, they should document that need under the “Stepdown Management Plans” section. It would also be beneficial for the refuge to follow-up with

regional transportation staff to communicate that need directly and to confer with the regional

office to determine if and when a step-down plan is needed.
Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Definitions

AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic

ATS Alternative Transportation System

API Asset Priority Index

EFLHD Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division

DOT Department of Transportation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program (MAP-21)

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program (MAP-21)

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

RIP Road Inventory Program

PCR Pavement Condition Rating

RSA Road Safety Audit

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

SAMMS Service Asset Maintenance Management System

STIP Statewide Transportation Improvement Program

TIP Transportation Improvement Program
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP Region 4 February 2015

Recommendations Report Appendices A-82 U.S. FWS Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. FWS Service Roadway Design Guidelines

Figure 4: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Roadway Design Guidelines
Roadway Design Guidelines 

Project Acknowledgements

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Project Information 

To be Completed Prior to Project Scoping

Region:

Project Location:

Project Title: 

Project Funding Information: 

Project Delivered By: 

FWS Asset Number: FWS Route Number:

Step 1 - Designation of Responsibility

The Guidelines Checklist Leader (GCL) for this Project is:

GCL Contact Info: 

Agency: 

Address:

Phone: 

Email:

GCL Signature and Date:

Project Delivery Leader Signature and Date:

Regional Transportation Coordinator Signature and Date:
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [LE]

Landscape Ecology:

The study of the relationship between spatial patterns and ecological processes on a wide spectrum of 

scales. 

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

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
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [PC]

Planning Context:

Consideration of the project in the broader contexts of: engineering, policy, projected usage, practical 

alternatives and costs.

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

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
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [DE]

Design and Engineering:

Methods and materials that minimize the environmental impacts of the transportation facility and associated 

construction work. 

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

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 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 
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [OP]

Organism Passage:

Ensuring that fish and wildlife can move across (either over or under) transportation infrastructure to maintain 

continuity of habitat

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

OP - 1: Develop your corridor plan for crossing

OP - 2: Provide and enhance aquatic organism crossings

OP - 3: Provide and enhance terrestrial organism crossings

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

OP - 5: Consider warning and other safety systems for drivers
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [SM]

Stormwater Management:

Manage and abate the volume, velocity and water quality of runoff from impervious surfaces during and after 

weather events.

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

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
Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines [VE]

Visitor Experience:

Roadways and other facilities should enhance the visitation experience and highlight the natural resources 

surrounding them. 

To be Completed Prior to Design Work Beginning 

I acknowledge that a project checklist has been completed and distributed to all members of the project team and 

will include the following specific considerations per selected guideline:

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 

I acknowledge that all pages of the Selection of Applicable Guidelines are complete.

GCL Signature and Date:

Project Delivery Leader Signature and Date:

Regional Transportation Coordinator Signature and Date:
To be Completed During Project Design

It is the responsibility of the Guidelines Checklist Leader to work with project team members to ensure that 

information from each applicable guideline is being adequately considered. The GCL will review submittals at each 

deliverable milestone to ensure specific design responses are reflective of the guidelines.

Completion of this effort is documented during step 4. 

Step 3 - Incorporate Concepts from Applicable 

Guides Into Project Design 
To be Completed Prior to Obligation of Construction Funds

Briefly describe how the use of the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines influenced this project:

I acknowledge that the project team considered and discussed applicable concepts presented in the FWS Roadway 

Design Guidelines during the course of designing this project which is now ready for construction. I acknowledge 

that the checklist is fully complete and therein will deliver a transportation improvement consistent with the mission 

of USFWS. 

GCL Signature and Date:

Project Delivery Leader Signature and Date:

Regional Transportation Coordinator Signature and Date:

Step 4 - Final Acknowledgement of Use
Roadway Design Guidelines 

Instructions

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Introduction and Background on the

FWS Roadway Design Guidelines

Purpose and Authority 

The purpose of this document is to provide project teams involved with transportation projects on FWS managed lands 

with instructions on how to document the use of the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines (Guidelines) on a project. FWS policy 

requires that the Guidelines are used on all FWS transportation projects.

FWS policy requires that the Roadway Design Guidelines are used on all FWS transportation projects. Depending on the 

project delivery method selected by the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator, individual FWS Project Management 

Plans or FHWA Project Agreements, Project Charters, and Project Management Plans will include a statement requiring 

the use of the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines referencing the specific procedures for use as outlined in these instructions.

Steps and Introduction to the Guidelines 

The FWS Roadway Design Guides highlight 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. The 

FWS Roadway Design Guides 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. 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. As such, projects funded through the 

FWS Transportation Program will go through a sign-off process at several stages of project development to ensure guideline 

accountability. 

Please refer to the Guidelines document for more detailed information or contact your FWS Transportation Program 

Regional Coordinator.

STEP 4 – Final Acknowledgement of Use

WHEN: 100% of Plans, Specifications and Estimates ACTIONS: Describe how the design guidelines 

influenced the project

STEP 3 – Incorporate Concepts from Applicable Guides

WHEN: Project Design ACTIONS: Team incorporates design elements into 

project

STEP 2 – Selection of Applicable Guidelines

WHEN: Project Scoping / Project Kickoff ACTIONS: GCL Leads team to complete checklist

STEP 1 – Project Planning & Designation of Responsibility

WHEN: Before Project Initiation ACTIONS: Convene team, document Guidelines and 

select Guidelines Checklist Leader (GCL)
Procedure for Using the Guidelines

Step 1 - Project Planning & Designation of Responsibility

Project Planning

The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator will ensure that a statement requiring the use of the FWS Guides is included 

in applicable project planning documentation, such as FWS Project Management Plans or FHWA Project Charters, 

Project Agreements, and Project Management Plans. The following example statement has been provided for use in those 

documents:

“FWS policy requires that the Roadway Design Guidelines are used on all FWS transportation projects. A copy of 

the USFWS Roadway Design Guidelines along with instructions for their use is available from the USFWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinator.”

Designation of Responsibility

The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator will designate a Guidelines Checklist Leader (GCL) for the project. This 

action should occur after a project is identified for preliminary engineering or schematic design and prior to project scoping 

or any related project specific investigations or studies beginning. The GCL may be any of the following project team 

members below. GCL responsibilities may not be designated to contractors or sub-contractors working for FHWA or FWS.

List of Potential Candidates for Project GCL Assignment:

 FWS Transportation Coordinator

 FHWA Program Manager

 FHWA Project Manager

 FHWA Project Designer

 FWS Engineering Project Manager

 FWS Project Leader / Deputy Project Leader

 FWS Refuge Manager

 FWS Station Biologist

 FWS Station Visitor Services Manager

 FWS Project Landscape Architect or Professional Engineer
Procedure for Using the Guidelines

Step 2 - Selection of Applicable Guidelines

The GCL should review the FWS guidelines in order to understand how they will relate to the project ahead. The GCL will 

present the guidelines and their purpose to the project team during a project’s scoping phase. During project scoping, the 

GCL will complete a project checklist with the team. Specific Instructions for the GCL for Completing the Checklist:

 Become familiar with each guideline in advance of project meetings.

 Review the checklist as a group (i.e. Regional Transportation Coordinator, FWS station staff, FHWA staff, etc.).

 Decide which guides are applicable to the project.

 For guidelines that are applicable, discuss why they are applicable. Brainstorm specific response to applicable guidelines 

that will occur during the planning and design phase to ensure that the subject guideline was adequately considered.

 Briefly document each applicable guideline to be referenced and a proposed response on the Selection of Applicable 

Guidelines section of the Project Acknowledgements document.

*If the project requires a scoping field visit by project team members, it is recommended that the GCL completes the above 

activities at this time. If a field visit is not required, the GCL should convene a meeting or conference call to specifically 

discuss the Guidelines with the project team.

Step 3 - Incorporate Concepts From Applicable Guidelines Into the Project Design

Once applicable guidelines and related project specific responses have been documented; it is the responsibility of the GCL to 

work with project team members to ensure that information from each applicable guideline is being adequately considered. 

The GCL will review submittals at each deliverable milestone to ensure specific design responses are reflective of the 

guidelines. 

Step 4 - Final Acknowledgement of Use 

At the conclusion of the design phase 100% PS&E should reflect the spirit of the Guidelines and include specific design 

responses to applicable guidelines. If this has occurred at final design review, the GCL should complete the statement of use 

section and route to the FWS Regional Transportation coordinator for a signature.
Roles and Responsibilities on the

Project Team

Regional FWS Transportation Coordinator

Once a project has been identified and is ready for project scoping, the Regional FWS Transportation Coordinator 

will identify and assign a member of the project team to serve as the Guidelines Checklist Leader. The Transportation 

Coordinator has authority and oversight of all the procedures for use as discussed in these instructions.

Guidelines Checklist Leader (GCL)

The Guidelines Checklist Leader is the responsible team member for monitoring and completing the Checklist. The GCL is 

responsible for ensuring that all project team members are aware of expectations and specific design goals, strategies and 

outcomes that result from the consideration of applicable Guidelines identified and documented during project scoping. The 

GCL is also the responsible team member for routing the completed acknowledgements back to the Regional Transportation 

Coordinator.

FWS Project Leader or Designee

Ensures that the GCL and Project team have adequately considered applicable design guidelines based on their knowledge 

of the project and field station needs. FWS National Transportation Coordinator Ensures that Regional Transportation 

Coordinators have completed all sections of the Project Acknowledgements document prior to the obligation of FWS 

Transportation funds for project construction.

FHWA Program and Project Manager

On projects where delivery will occur via FHWA, the FHWA program manager and FHWA project manager will insure that 

the GCL and project team have adequately considered applicable design guidelines based on their knowledge of the project 

and field station needs.

Project Delivery Leader

Staff / Project Manager responsible for managing the scope, schedule and budget of the project. Ensures that the project is 

fully completed and compliant with all applicable FWS standards.
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

August 2012

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

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