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

Moving People, Conserving Wildlife

PLAN 2035

The National Long Range Transportation Plan

July, 2016
National Long Range Transportation Plan

2

National Long Range Transportation Plan

As the first National Long Range Transportation Plan for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(the Service), PLAN 2035 provides direction and structure for the Service’s Federal Lands 

Transportation Program.

PLAN 2035 was prepared as a collaborative effort among the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA); the Service’s Regional Transportation Coordinators; and HQ staff 

from the National Wildlife Refuge System and the Fish and Aquatic Resources Division. 

This collaboration ensures that the plan truly addresses the diverse needs of all U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service stations across the country.

Through implementation, the Service will continue to build on successes in providing visitors 

a safe and enjoyable transportation network to access their National Wildlife Refuges and 

National Fish Hatcheries.

Dan Ashe Date

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Long Range Transportation Plan

3

National Long Range Transportation Plan

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Contact

Steve Suder

Transportation Program Manager - Federal Lands

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Headquarters

5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church Virginia, 22041

Steve_Suder@fws.gov 

703.358.1752

Federal Highway Administration Contact

Aung Gye

Lead Planner

Federal Lands Highway Division

1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, Washington DC, 20003

Aung.Gye@dot.gov

202.366.2167

Consultant Team

The John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Atkins Global

Special Thanks

The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Lands Highway Divisions

The Public Lands Scholars Program - Montana State University Cover: Muscatatuck NWR 

Indiana
National Long Range Transportation Plan

4

From the Transportation 

Program Manager... 

After nearly four years of collaboration and planning, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is pleased to present 

our Agency’s Long Range Transportation Plan. The first national level, long range transportation planning 

document for a federal land management agency, the publication of this plan marks a significant achievement 

for transportation planning in the public lands arena. 

On the most basic level, transportation is about movement of people or things across time and space. In 

the domain of transportation within Fish and Wildlife Service, we are tasked with managing a system that 

provides mobility and access to sensitive habitats and natural resources in rural landscapes, urban areas, 

wetlands, coastal plains, mountain highlands and everything in between.

With more than 150 million acres, 565 national wildlife refuges, 70 national fish hatcheries, and 38 wetland 

management districts, the task is daunting in scope alone. PLAN 2035 is our Agency’s answer to solving 

resource management challenges through transportation solutions. Safety toolkits, roadway design standards, 

multi-modal access opportunities and a myriad of other policies and practices not only let us connect to and 

move freely about our lands, but also help us improve these legacy resources for generations of visitors to 

come. 

We need a robust network of not just roads and parking lots, but foot and bicycle paths, transit systems, 

bridges and water trails that lay lightly on the landscape, yet are resilient to the consequences of natural 

disasters. While our refuges and fish hatcheries were created to protect and conserve biodiversity, we should 

also recognize the role they play in the mitigation of climate change and its impacts. Our lands should be 

accessible to all populations including underrepresented and transit dependent communities. Our urban units 

should function as training grounds for the next generation of land managers while our rural and remote units 

should drive regional tourism and bolster economic development. 

The guidance and policies contained in this plan will set the stage for achieving this lofty vision while 

establishing the transportation program as a progressive, innovative and integral part of the Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

In closing, the transportation program is appreciative of the partnership and support the Federal Highway 

Administration has and will continue to provide in the Federal Lands Transportation Programs. We will 

continue to demonstrate our strength as a core partner as well as the value of investing in America’s Wildest 

Lands and Great Outdoors.
National Long Range Transportation Plan5

Executive Summary 06

Introduction to PLAN 2035 10  Program history and transformation  Background and context

 Policy structure 

Vision and Goals 14  The FWS transportation vision  The six strategic goals

Strategy to Address Needs 18  Programmatic needs  The national investment strategy  Strategic goals and case studies  Performance management and plan

Funding 36  History of program funding  National level analysis  Federal funding opportunities

Key Actions and Targets 46  Project selection process and scorecard  Short and long term actions

 Objectives and performance targets

Final Thought 64

Appendices
6

National Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Executive Summary

Siletz Bay NWR 

Oregon
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Why

Transportation?

The primary function of any transportation system is 

the simple movement of people, goods or equipment 

across time and space. However, in the realm of 

federal land management, the transportation system 

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

Service) must be so much more. Transportation 

touches every aspect of the Service from the public 

that relies on safe access networks to the land 

managers that need to be able to move freely about 

the landscape, transportation is indispensable. 

The purpose of this document is to illuminate the best 

known practices to manage a transportation system 

for a resource conservation agency. 

In the face of changing climates, shrinking budgets 

and increased visitation, defining priorities for a 

national transportation program is a challenge.

This Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP or 

PLAN 2035) will help guide programmatic decisions 

while ensuring the transportation program supports 

the Service mission: 

Why

Transportation?

To help balance this dual-purpose (resource 

conservation and public benefit) mission, this plan 

proposes a vision and six strategic goals that the 

transportation program will uphold through the 

actions and policies in this plan. The centerpiece of 

the plan is a performance based project selection 

process that will directly link the goals of the 

program with the way transportation projects are 

planned, designed and delivered. 

While it is difficult to put a price on the ecological 

services the FWS provides (like habitat conservation, 

outdoor education, critical species protection and 

improvements in environmental quality), the financial 

dividends that the Refuge and Hatchery systems pay 

to local economies are well documented in national 

reports like Banking on Nature (October, 2013).

These outcomes, both monetary and nonmonetary, 

are predicated on safe, sustainable and resilient 

mobility and access networks that are the direct 

purview of the transportation program. 

Why

Transportation?

Thanks to nearly two decades of dedicated funding, 

the transportation program has been able to 

determine inventories, collect condition data, address 

the most pressing safety issues and fix the highest 

priority assets. Looking forward, the program must 

take a more strategic approach to demonstrate 

program stewardship while maintaining the Service’s 

commitment to leadership in the federal lands 

transportation arena. This document is a first step 

in meeting that commitment while helping to build 

a world class and context-sensitive transportation 

network that services our lands. 

PLAN 2035 is written for Service project leaders at 

individual units, Regional Service leadership, national 

level decision-makers, non-Service partners, and 

stakeholders.

It should be noted that PLAN 2035 focuses on 

public use transportation facilities that connect to 

or are within Service lands. There are other Service 

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

transportation facilities as well as efforts within the 

federal-aid transportation system that are not eligible 

for Federal Lands Transportation Program (FLTP) 

funding. Being beyond the scope of this effort, those 

systems and programs generally are not covered in 

this plan.

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

plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American 

people.

- FWS Mission
8

National Long Range Transportation Plan

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transportation 

Vision

‘To work collaboratively for future 

planning and stewardship of a 

context sensitive, multi-modal 

transportation system that helps 

conserve natural resources, provides 

a superior level of safety, delivers 

cost effective and environmentally 

sustainable transportation 

options, generates local economic 

opportunities and enhances the 

visitation experience for all visitors 

including underrepresented and 

mobility limited-populations.’

Program 

Principles

Consistent with Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) and national transportation policy (Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation and Moving Ahead 

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

the transportation program has adapted these three 

principles that guide this plan:

[T] - Transportation - The most basic function of 

any transportation network, the safe and efficient 

movement of people and equipment is essential to 

the program. The Refuge System is also mandated 

to operate and maintain a safe and functioning 

transportation network to service wildlife dependent 

recreational uses as provisioned in the National 

Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act of 1997. 

[RM] - Resource Management - Transportation 

infrastructure, if not designed in the proper way, 

can fragment habitat, disrupt wildlife and even 

cause irreparable damage to an ecosystem. Parking 

lots, roads and trails must be thoughtfully planned, 

designed and constructed to preserve, conserve and 

enhance Service lands. 

[EG] - Economic Generation - Parks, refuges 

and other public lands are economic drivers for local 

communities. Not only do they provide increased 

quality of life for nearby residents, but they draw 

visitors and tourists domestically and internationally 

that support local/regional economies and add to 

the tax base. Safe and efficient access to and within 

Refuges and Hatcheries, bolsters visitation and 

supports economic generation for the United States.

Investment 

Strategy

The national investment strategy is a high level 

framework for complying with the policy directives 

in Executive Order 13327 (Federal Real Property 

Asset Management), guidance from the Office 

of Management and Budget, asset management 

principles at the Department of Interior, policy 

priorities of the Fish and Wildlife Service and current 

transportation legislation (FAST Act). 

Transportation improvement plans and regional 

LRTPs should be consistent with this national 

investment strategy framework:

 Develop connections to people and urban refuges.

 Maintain state of good repair on high priority 

 (mission dependent) transportation assets.

 Decommission or phase out low-priority (non- 

 mission dependent) transportation assets.

 Improve safety. 

 Support high-use recreation areas.

 Support financial sustainability.

 Seek partnerships for project implementation. 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9

National Long Range Transportation Plan

The Six 

Strategic Goals

The six strategic goals are the framework for the 

policy guidance in this plan. Individually, they 

represent the ideal state of one aspect of the 

transportation program. Collectively they represent 

the 20 year transportation vision. 

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

specific objectives and performance measures to help 

the transportation program track and demonstrate 

progress over time. The six strategic goals are:

Coordinated Opportunities

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity 

Visitor Experience 

Selection 

Process

The project selection process, built around the six 

strategic goals, is the outline for a data driven and 

performance based planning process to develop 

capital improvement plans at the regional level. 

The framework is intended to be flexible and can be 

tailored to individual regions based on differing needs 

and priorities.

Each strategic goal is associated with an evaluation 

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

scoring process is meant to help determine a project’s 

consistency with the strategic goals in this plan and a 

project’s priority relative to other proposals through 

a consistent, quantitative ranking formula. 

Project Selection Framework Steps: 

1. Region Solicits Projects From Units

2. Region Prepares Applications for Scoring

3. Scoring and Project Scorecard

4. Ranking and Prioritization

5. Determine Projects for Regional Program

6. Eligibility Check and Program

7. Adapt for Next Cycle

Funding

Funding for the FWS public-use transportation 

network can either come from Federal Lands 

Transportation Program (FLTP) base allocations 

(authorized in national transportation policy, 

currently FAST Act), the Service’s base 

appropriation, or supplemental sources like grants 

and non-governmental partnerships. 

FLTP base funds are sub-allocated to the individual

regions based on a formula that was established in the 

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

change to the current formula. 

The project selection process is intended to be 

used (or adapted) for projects programmed with 

FLTP base funds. To give the program consistency, 

demonstrate performance management, and advance 

strategic goals, PLAN 2035 proposes the selection 

process for scoring, prioritizing, and programming 

FLTP base allocations. 

Because the needs of the program far outweigh the 

funds available through FLTP base allocations, the 

program must actively seek supplemental funds. 

Programs like the Federal Lands Access Program 

(FLAP) are key in leveraging the limited dollars 

available to address transportation needs in Service 

lands. 

Low priority and administrative transportation 

assets are not eligible for FLTP funding. Instead, 

these assets should be maintained with deferred 

maintenance (DM) funds and/or general station funds 

on a case by case basis. 
10

National Long Range Transportation Plan

565

WILDLIFE

REFUGES

70

FISH 

HATCHERIES

38 WETLAND

MANAGEMENT

DISTRICTS

Introduction

150M

ACRES

IN ALL 50 STATES

OVER
INTRODUCTION 11

National Long Range Transportation Plan

The FWS transportation program has evolved 

significantly since its inception with the Refuge Roads 

Program in 1998. The program has built databases, 

catalogued and inventoried assets, repaired the most 

critical facilities and generally maintained a quality 

transportation network for land managers and the 

visiting public. 

Transportation policy in the United States changed 

substantively in 2012 with the signing into law of 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century, or 

MAP-21. Seeking economies of scale and institutional 

efficiencies, most federal lands transportation programs 

were consolidated under the Federal Highway 

Administration’s new Federal Lands Transportation 

Program, or FLTP. This program emphasizes multi-modal 

mobility options, off-site access networks, streamlined 

data collection/storage processes and an overall 

cooperative management approach to transportation 

in the federal lands domain. It also stresses the 

importance of access improvements at high-use 

recreation areas and federal economic generators like 

Refuges and Hatcheries. 

MAP-21 also established performance requirements 

for all transportation related activities, including 

transportation in federal lands. These requirements 

have long been in place for state, regional and local 

transportation agencies, however this approach is new 

to federal land management agencies. Development of 

LRTPs, goals, objectives, and performance targets are 

now required elements of all transportation programs 

under this legislation. 

Demonstrating that program allocations are a sound 

investment of public funding will become key in 

securing transportation dollars in the future. There is 

a long road ahead, but PLAN 2035 is an important first 

step in defining the Service’s transportation vision and 

telling the story of our success. 

The FWS transportation program must transform 

itself from an organization with a variety of disparate 

transportation assets spread across the country to a 

better connected, data informed, and priority driven 

transportation system that serves the public and 

supports the Service conservation mission. 

This transformation will demonstrate program 

stewardship while at the same time helping the 

program build a better connected, dynamic and 

resilient transportation network. 

The first of its kind, this plan and the policies 

contained herein represent a big step forward for the 

Service and transportation practice in federal lands.

Special Note:

During the final public review of PLAN 2035, 

President Obama signed the Fixing America’s 

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act on December 4, 

2015. While detailed guidance is forthcoming from 

FHWA, substantial change to the approach in PLAN 

2035 is not expected. Funding amounts and other 

salient details have been updated in this final plan. 

FAST Act authorized the same $30 M annual funding 

to the FWS transportation program that MAP-21 did. 

Because the LRTP was written under MAP-21, many 

sections will continue to refer to policy under MAP-21.

5,400 Mi

Public use Roads

16

Transit Systems

301

 National Bridge Inventory

2,100 Mi

Trails and Boardwalks

FLTP Network 

A systematically applied, ongoing process that provides key information to help decision 

makers understand the outcomes of investment decisions, improves communication 

between decision makers and the public and ensures that performance targets are 

developed based on objective information and data.

- Transportation Performance Management - MAP-21 

The 

Road 

Ahead...
12

National Long Range Transportation Plan

INTRODUCTION

Context

Program Partners

In 2013, the FWS transportation program marked a 

15-year milestone in its partnership with the Federal 

Highway Administration. 

Part of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

(USDOT), the FHWA provides stewardship and 

oversight of the FLTP, and is an indispensable 

partner of the FWS transportation program. 

Through the regionally based Federal Lands 

Highway offices, FHWA provides planning, 

programmatic guidance, data gathering, engineering, 

asset management, design and project delivery 

services that support the program. Together, the 

Service and FHWA have worked successfully 

to support, maintain and improve the FWS 

transportation network, deliver mission critical 

projects and develop improved access to Refuges and 

Hatcheries. 

The partnership between the FWS and the FHWA will 

continue through the recent five year transportation 

authorization of the FAST Act.

The Service would also like to recognize the role of the 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

(Volpe). Also part of USDOT, Volpe provides technical 

support, administrative assistance, research, analysis 

and planning to the FWS transportation program.

Context

Planning Efforts

The publication of this document comes amidst an 

agency wide effort to develop high level planning 

documents and policy to guide the resource 

conservation mission of the Service into the future. 

In 2011, the Service unveiled a bold, new vision 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System entitled 

‘Conserving the Future’. The transportation program 

is in a unique position to play an important role in 

implementing the vision because many of the key 

elements of the vision fall within the purview of the 

program. 

In late 2013, the FWS published an update to its 

regular ‘Banking on Nature’ report which catalogues 

the economic benefits of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. In these reports, access networks are 

consistently cited as indispensable prerequisites to 

unlocking the economic dividends that these lands 

provide. 

PLAN 2035 is a companion document to a number 

of already published transportation plans including 

the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines (2012), and the 

Transportation Needs and Planning For the Future 

(2013) white paper that details the overall needs of 

the program. Those needs will be updated during the 

first few years of PLAN 2035.

Concurrently with the publication of PLAN 2035, 

each Service region is in various stages of drafting its 

own LRTP.

 

Context

How to Read this Plan

PLAN 2035 is written for Service project leaders at 

individual units, regional transportation and facilities 

staff, national-level transportation planners, and even 

non-Service partners.

This is not a top-down policy document. This plan 

is intended to provide high level guidance and 

programmatic consistency for decision making 

processes at the regional levels. The broad scope of 

this plan should give the transportation program a 

common framework to work from and will also help 

inform the ongoing development of regional LRTPs, 

which will be more prescriptive in nature. 

The following support documents, included in the 

Appendix, are intended to be used in conjunction with 

PLAN 2035:

 Appendix 1: FWS Roadway Design Guidelines and 

Project Checklist - The Design Guidelines highlight 

best practices in planning, design and construction 

of transportation facilities in ecologically sensitive 

areas. The Project Checklist provides a way to 

track integration of the Guidelines in transportation 

projects. 

 Appendix 2: Safety Analysis Toolkit - A suite of 

tools that support the Agency’s Safety Management 

System (SMS), the toolkit takes collision and facility 

data and makes recommendations for further study 

to determine if countermeasures are needed.
INTRODUCTION 13

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Policy Framework of Transportation Program

Transportation

FWS Mission:

‘Working with others to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American people.’

Vision - Conserving the Future: 

Completed in 2011, Conserving the Future is a 

comprehensive path forward for the current and 

future stewardship of the Refuge system. The Vision 

produced 24 ‘Recommendations’ with discreet goals 

and performance targets. 

The FWS transportation program can directly help 

advance the following Recommendations: 

2 - Climate Change 11 - Community Partnerships

13 - Urban Initiative 17 - Hunting and Fishing 

18 - Outdoor Recreation 

[T] [EG]

National Transportation Policy - MAP-21:

Signed into law in 2012, MAP-21 is the source of 

funding for the FWS transportation program. Part of 

the multi-partner Federal Lands Transportation 

Program (FLTP) the FWS transportation program 

delivers projects that uphold these core principles: 

[RM] 

Resource 

Management

Economic

Generation

Transportation Program 20 Year Vision: 

Dovetailing with the FWS mission, the 20 year transportation vision is a single 

statement that describes where the program aims be in 2035. 

The Six Strategic Goals and Objectives: 

The six strategic goals are broad statements about the desired state of six 

elements of the transportation program and network. The objectives under each 

are measureable milestones that relate to the goals. 

Project Selection Process:

The project selection process, based around the six strategic goals and driven by 

data, is designed to prioritize FLTP transportation projects. Projects that most 

clearly accomplish goals and objectives will rise to the top of regional scoring 

processes and will be selected for programming. See section on Implementation. 

Data Collection:

These key data collection efforts help the program make project decisions and 

measure progress toward completing the objectives and performance targets in 

this plan. 

 

• RIP - Road Inventory Program (Condition Assessments)

• RATE - Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluations

• USGS Visitor Survey - Visitation Patterns and Satisfaction Levels

• RAPP - Refuge Annual Performance Planning (Visitation and Usage Data)

Funding:

Tailor funding streams (FLTP and competitive sources) to best leverage available 

transportation dollars and advance goals and objectives.

Measure, Evaluate, Adjust:

On a 5 year cycle, measure performance, evaluate outcomes and and adjust policy 

by updating this national long range transportation plan. 

National Transportation Policy - FAST Act

Signed into law in 2015, FAST Act is the source of 

funding for the FWS transportation program. Part 

of the multi-partner Federal Lands Transportation 

Program (FLTP), the FWS transportation program 

delivers projects that uphold these core principles:

•Visitor Surveys - Visitation Patterns and Access Levels
14

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Humboldt Bay NWR

California

Vision and Goals

20 Year Transportation Program Vision:

‘To work collaboratively for future planning and 

stewardship of a context sensitive, multi-modal 

transportation system that helps conserve natural 

resources, provides a superior level of safety, delivers cost 

effective and environmentally sustainable transportation 

options, generates local economic opportunities and 

enhances the visitation experience for all visitors including 

underrepresented and mobility limited populations.’
VISION and GOALS 15

National Long Range Transportation Plan

A Clear Path 

Forward

As the premier wildlife management agency in the 

world, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is expected 

to steward the assets and natural resources entrusted 

to it so that present and future generations of visitors 

can benefit and appreciate the biodiversity of the 

United States. 

In planning the future of the transportation program, 

the vision is a single statement that describes the 

desired state of the program in 20 years... It is a 

conceptual ideal that projects, policies and actions 

should support to keep the promise that was made to 

the American people when the first National Wildlife 

Refuge was established at Pelican Island in 1903. 

Based on the 20 year vision, this plan presents six 

strategic goals that describe in broad terms the 

desired condition of various unique elements of the 

transportation program. The objectives that follow 

are actionable management techniques and policies 

that can be implemented to advance the strategic 

goals. 
16

National Long Range Transportation Plan

VISION and GOALS

The Six 

Strategic Goals

Coordinated Opportunities Goal: 

The program will seek joint transportation 

opportunities that support the Service mission, 

maximize the utility of Service resources, and provide 

mutual benefits to the Service and external partners.

 Objective 1: Identify and increase key internal and 

external partnerships at the national, regional, and 

unit levels.

 Objective 2: Maximize leveraged opportunities 

by identifying and pursuing funding for projects of 

mutual interest and benefit.

 Objective 3: Develop best practices for external 

engagement that illustrate success in forming and 

nurturing coalitions and partnerships that support 

the Service’s mission.

 Objective 4: Coordinate within Service programs, 

including Refuges, Ecological Services, Fish and 

Aquatic Conservation, Hatcheries, and Migratory 

Birds, during the development of regional long-range 

and project level plans.

Supports Principles: [T] [RM] [EG]

Asset Management Goal: 

The program will operate and maintain a functional, 

financially sustainable and resilient transportation 

network to satisfy current and future land 

management needs in the face of a changing climate.

 Objective 1: Use asset management principles to 

maintain important infrastructure at an appropriate 

condition level.

 Objective 2: Prioritize work programs through the 

project selection process detailed in this plan or an 

adaptation, thereof.

 Objective 3: Evaluate life cycle costs when 

considering new assets to determine long term 

financial sustainability.

 Objective 4: Consider the impacts of increased 

climate variability in the planning and management 

of transportation assets.

Safety Goal: 

The program’s network will provide a superior level 

of safety for all users and all modes of transportation 

to and within FWS lands. 

 Objective 1: Identify safety issue ‘hot-spots’ within 

the Service’s transportation system with the Safety 

Analysis Toolkit.

 Objective 2: Implement appropriate safety 

countermeasures to resolve safety issues and reduce 

the frequency and severity of crashes (also with the 

Safety Analysis Toolkit).

 Objective 3: Address wildlife-vehicle 

collisions with design solutions (Environmental 

Enhancements). 

 Objective 4: Use cooperation and communication 

among the ‘4Es’ of safety including: engineering, 

education, enforcement and emergency medical 

services.

Supports Principles: [T] [RM] Supports Principle: [T]
VISION and GOALS 17

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Environmental Goal: 

Transportation infrastructure will be landscape 

appropriate and play a key role in the improvement 

of environmental conditions in and around Service 

lands. 

 Objective 1: Follow the Roadway Design 

Guidelines for best practices in design, planning, 

management, maintenance and construction of 

transportation assets. 

 Objective 2: Reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions and air pollutants by increasing 

transportation options and alternative fuels.

 Objective 3: Protect wildlife corridors, reduce 

habitat fragmentation, and enhance terrestrial and 

aquatic organism passage on and adjacent to Service 

lands to conserve fish, wildlife and plant populations.

Access, Mobility and Connectivity Goal:

The program will ensure that units open to the 

public have adequate transportation options for all 

users including underserved, underrepresented, and 

mobility limited populations.

 Objective 1: Offer a wide range of transportation 

modes and linkages for on and off site access.

 Objective 2: Provide clear wayfinding information 

both on and off Service lands.

 Objective 3: Through the Urban Refuges 

initiative, integrate Service transportation facilities 

with local community transportation systems 

in a way that encourages local visitation and 

provides economic benefits to partner and gateway 

communities.

 Objective 4: Through coordinated planning, 

provide context-appropriate transportation facilities 

that address the specific needs of local visitor groups 

and respect the natural setting of the refuge or 

hatchery.

 Objective 5: Address congestion issues to and 

within Service units.

Visitor Experience Goal: 

The program will enhance the visitation experience 

through improvement and investment in the 

transportation network. 

 Objective 1: Improve traveler information through 

use of intelligent transportation systems (ITS). 

 Objective 2: Integrate interpretation, education, 

and resource stewardship principles into the 

transportation experience.

 Objective 3: Evaluate the feasibility of alternative 

transportation systems at all stations and implement 

where appropriate. 

 Objective 4: Encourage connections with existing 

and planned public and private transportation 

services.

 Objective 5: Design infrastructure in such a 

way that highlights the landscape, and not the 

transportation facility. 

Supports Principles: [T] [RM] Supports Principles: [T] [RM] [EG] Supports Principles: [T] [RM] [EG]
Choctaw NWR

Alabama

18

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Strategy to Address Needs
STRATEGY 19

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Tie Projects to 

Policy

The Service’s transportation system is more than its 

physical assets. It is a network of events, expectations 

and relationships all happening in the domain of 

sensitive landscapes and diverse wildlife. 

The strategy to accomplish the transportation vision 

involves advancing the strategic goals through policy, 

projects and other actions. 

A performance based planning approach requires 

an explicit link between program goals and projects. 

This section makes this connection through analysis 

of our needs as a program followed by exploration 

of a series of case study projects that exemplify 

program principles and strategic goals. 
20

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Paved or Engineered Surfaces: Roads and 

Parking Areas (Asphalt and Gravel) 

While offering multi-modal and alternative 

transportation options is key for the program, roads 

and parking lots remain the most important facilities 

in the transportation network. The program manages 

over 5,400 miles of public use roads and over 5,000 

parking areas across the nation. Based on data 

collected by FHWA through the Road Inventory 

Program or RIP, current funding levels are only 

sufficient to maintain existing pavement condition 

ratings (38% fair/poor/failed) for all public use roads 

and parking areas, see page 40. 

Bridges

There are over 301 NBI bridges (public bridges over 

20 feet long) that are managed by the transportation 

program. These facilities are an integral part of the 

public road system because they provide access to 

refuge facilities, natural resources and auto tour 

routes. Since 1994 the Service has ensured that 

all bridges are routinely inspected to comply with 

National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). While 

the program has been able to improve average bridge 

conditions over the lifetime of the transportation 

program, many larger needs remain unmet and 

bridge closures due to failures or safety issues can 

impact visitors and resource managers alike. 

Trails and Boardwalks

Trails and boardwalks provide access to 

geographically constrained areas while providing 

visitors with unique ways to experience Refuges and 

Hatcheries. In addition, these facilities are relatively 

inexpensive to build and maintain. For these reasons, 

trails are a key component of the FWS transportation 

portfolio and should always be considered as an 

option for augmenting access and mobility in and 

around Service lands. While current funding levels 

are sufficient to maintain present trail conditions, 

significant boardwalk repairs can impact regional 

improvement budgets. 

Total Program Needs

Bridge Rating

System Avg.

Pavement Cond. Rating

Roads and Parking System Avg. 

Deferred Maintenance

Roads, Bridges and Trails

95%

Good or Excellent

80

PCR Rating

Transit Modest Expansion of 

Portfolio at Key Locations

< $250M

< 2% of Total Replacement Value

65%

Good or Excellent

62

PCR Rating

Large Projects (>$3M)

Delivery Schedule

2-3

Every Year

1

Every 2 Years

Maintenance of 

Current Portfolio

$433M

3.4% of Total Replacement Value

Current

Condition

Desired 

Condition

Need

Environmental

Enhancements (>$1M) Minimal 2-3

Every Year

Trails

All Surface Types

84%

Good or Excellent

95%

Good or Excellent

(Priority Assets and Projects)

In a broad sense, the gap between current conditions and desired conditions represent the needs of the 

transportation program. While the program has worked diligently to improve overall conditions since the 

inception of the Refuge Roads Program in 1998, there is still much room for improvement. 

Sources: FHWA RIP, FWS Resource Paper, Facilities Branch Quarterly Report Q3 2014 and Year End Report 2013

Program Needs
STRATEGY 21

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Deferred Maintenance Backlog and Tiering 

Efforts 

Deferred maintenance (DM) affects the entire 

transportation network. In 2010, transportation 

assets accounted for roughly 60% of DM Servicewide 

(Life-Cycle Investment Needs for Constructed 

Facility Assets and Mobile Equipment in the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 2010). 

Through data cleanup and effective asset 

management, the transportation program has 

been able to reduce this number to less than 4% of 

replacement value (well within the asset management 

industry standard tolerance of <10%). The same 

report also documents that, on average, Serviceowned roads, bridges, and trails exceed normal 

useful life despite the fact that the average age of 

transportation infrastructure in the FWS system is 

increasing over time. 

The program is currently undergoing a network-wide 

‘tiering’ effort to determine relative priority of the 

Service’s roads and parking lots with the aim of right 

sizing the DM backlog by eliminating work orders 

for assets of less than $5,000 and by removing nonmission dependent assets from the backlog. This has 

been a successful process resulting in reduction of 

nearly $700M in DM numbers since 2010. 

Tier 1 facilities generally include main ingress/egress 

routes, auto-tour routes and visitor center parking 

lots. Tier 2 facilities generally include secondary 

connector roads, primary administrative facilities and 

parking pull-outs. Tier 3 facilities are generally nonmission critical and low-volume with non-engineered/

native surfaces. While tier 3 facilities will still be 

eligible for FLTP funding in limited instances, they 

will not be inventoried by FHWA in the upcoming 

RIP cycle 5. 

Summaries of tiering efforts should be included in 

regional LRTPs.

Large Projects 

Individual project needs can frequently exceed 

financial resources available within regional funding 

allocations. For the transportation program, 

projects over $3M are considered ‘large’, yet many 

transportation needs far exceed this amount (see 

Transportation Needs and Planning for the Future, 

2013) 

In order to overcome these kinds of shortfalls the 

program has had to rely on outside funding (grants 

and earmarks) or banking of FLTP funds over 

several years. Funding from outside sources can 

be erratic and storing funds over several years 

limits the movement of capital and delays needed 

improvements in the transportation system that fit 

within the program’s limited budget. The program 

needs to be able to deliver 2-3 large projects per year 

from base FLTP funds. 

Environmental Enhancements

Transportation facilities like roads, bridges and 

parking areas can cause negative impacts to 

surrounding ecosystems and sensitive habitats. 

Habitat fragmentation, water quality issues, 

stormwater runoff and construction activities can all 

be detrimental to the very resources the Service is 

entrusted to protect. Environmental enhancements 

are design solutions intended to soften these impacts 

and indeed improve adjacent natural resources while 

providing important access and mobility. Aquatic 

and terrestrial passages, bioswales, and pervious 

pavements are just some of the enhancement 

possibilities outlined in the Roadway Design 

Guidelines. These enhancements can increase project 

costs because they can add complexity and time to 

otherwise standard transportation projects. Ideally 

the program would deliver 2-3 enhancement projects 

per year, unfortunately the program can only afford 

to integrate enhancements on a very limited basis. 

Transit and Electric Vehicles

Transit systems and trail networks are very 

important components of the transportation 

program’s multi-modal portfolio.

On-site transit systems, while few in number, provide 

important access opportunities for mobility limited 

populations while also allowing refuge managers 

to control visitation and recreational patterns on 

sensitive landscapes. FLTP funds may be used 

to acquire rolling stock and to pay for operations 

and maintenance costs however, under the current 

funding outlook, expansion of the transit portfolio is 

not a high priority. 

Despite limited budgets, the transportation program 

is piloting a number of electric vehicle (EV) related 

initiatives including the procurement of EV or hybrid 

fleet vehicles and the installation of electric vehicle 

charging infrastructure (or EVSE) for Service 

employees and the visiting public to use. EVs can 

provide noise and emission free transportation, which 

is ideal for sensitive landscapes like Refuges. The 

Service recently inaugurated its first solar powered, 

public use EV charger at Ottawa NWR in Oak 

Harbor, Ohio. These initiatives are being led under 

a nascent partnership between the Service and the 

U.S. Department of Energy’s Clean Cities Program. 

See: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/cleancities/index.

html 

Tesla charging at Ottawa NWR, 2015
22

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Program Needs

Planning

Transportation planning is essential to making 

data informed decisions about how, where and why 

to take action. The following planning activities 

help managers make informed decisions: program 

cohesion (outcomes clearly tied to mission), 

performance management (measurable performance 

targets), project selection (outlined in this LRTP), 

high-level guidance, data collection/analysis 

and demonstration of compliance with federal 

requirements. 

Staffing

The transportation program currently supports 

two staff at the headquarters office and ten regional 

coordinator staff throughout the eight regions. 

Through a staffing assessment conducted by the 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems 

Center on behalf of the program, transportation and 

facilities staff expressed need for additional capacity 

to leverage funds, manage databases, and provide 

technical planning assistance to units. 

Staff relies on internal and external partners for 

help with project review and management, technical 

assistance to units, leveraging new funding sources, 

and general program oversight. These partnerships, 

however, cannot meet all of the transportation 

program’s capacity needs. The staffing assessment 

concluded that adding staff capacity in the following 

functions and roles at the national level could help 

address program needs.

Program Needs

 Transportation Scholar (Varies)

One creative solution to address the program’s 

staffing shortfall is to continue to bring on public 

lands transportation scholars. This program connects 

emerging transportation professionals with different 

federal public land units across the country. In the 

past, the FWS has placed a number of scholars to 

work at various levels of the organization to assist 

with project planning, grant writing and policy 

initiatives. 

 Facilities Liaison (Regional)

This position would work with the Facilities Branch 

and focus exclusively on transportation asset 

management. The liaison would have access to the 

Financial and Business Management System (FBMS) 

and other database management systems and 

coordinate training or provide technical assistance 

to transportation staff for database requests. The 

position would also oversee budgeting for FHWA 

transportation funds, including FLTP funds, 

Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads 

(ERFO), and deferred maintenance.

 Grant-Writing (Headquarters and Regional)

With possible future funding limitations, regional 

staff are increasingly pressured to identify and 

leverage new funding sources to meet their 

transportation needs. A half-time position at the 

national level would identify supplemental and 

discretionary funding sources, match sources with 

appropriate unit needs, and assist with grant writing 

to best leverage limited FLTP funds. 

 Planner (Headquarters)

The staffing report also noted the need for short and 

long-range planning activities at the headquarters 

level. An HQ level transportation planner would be 

responsible for overseeing national and regional 

planning efforts such as: including transportation in 

the Service’s landscape planning efforts, ensuring 

that Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs)

address relevant transportation issues and providing 

technical assistance to units for transportation 

planning. The position would also make connections 

with State DOTs, State and regional governments, 

and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to 

help stations better participate in State and regional 

transportation planning and to ensure that Service’s 

plans connect to wider transportation networks and 

organizations.

 Fulfilling Staffing Needs

After reviewing these findings, HQ is attempting to 

fill two new positions with multi-regional and national 

level responsibilities in 2016. 

 
STRATEGY 23

National Long Range Transportation Plan

The National 

Investment 

Strategy

The national investment strategy is high level 

guidance for complying with the policy directives of 

the Service and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA). The following focus areas provide direction 

for decision making at all levels of the transportation 

program. Transportation improvement plans and 

regional LRTPs should, in general, be consistent with 

these focus areas: 

Develop Connections to People and Urban 

Refuges

The Refuge System vision, Conserving the Future, 

calls for an increased Service presence in urban areas 

(Recommendation 13). The transportation program 

is an excellent means to achieve the Recommendation 

because it can help provide and build the access 

opportunities needed to reach out to new and diverse 

audiences. 

The Urban Refuge Initiative has identified 101 

Refuges in the system as ‘urban’ classifying them 

in different tier categories based on visitation. In 

addition, the Initiative has defined seven ‘Standards 

of Excellence’ to guide the program, including 

Standard 6: Provide Equitable Access. 

At the time of publication of this plan, work is 

underway to identify a list of priority urban 

transportation projects. 

Maintain State of Good Repair on Priority 

Assets

Preventative maintenance on roads, bridges and 

parking areas can cost 20-30 times less than more 

significant rehabilitation or complete reconstruction. 

For this reason, program funds should be directed 

towards preservation of high priority (mission 

critical) assets in good or better condition. The use of 

Roadway Inventory Program (RIP) data is key for 

prioritization of regional capital improvement plans. 

Decommission or Phase out Low Priority Assets

Assets in poor or failed conditions should be slated 

for reconstruction or decommissioning based on 

Asset Priority Index (API) scores and tier-levels. 

This reduces the deferred maintenance backlog, 

simplifies RIP data collection and helps the program 

‘right size’ the transportation network. API scores 

can be found in the FWS asset management database 

(SAMMS). The tiering effort also helps define nonpriority assets. Until the program has addressed 

all of its most pressing needs, adding new assets to 

the transportation network is not a priority except 

in the cases of new access to a location, trails and 

multi-modal connections which can augment access 

opportunities to Refuges and Hatcheries.

Improve Safety

With a low-volume and low-speed roadway network, 

the standard of safety is much higher for the FWS 

transportation system when compared to a state 

DOT, for example. The transportation program 

is working towards zero fatalities and minimal 

wildlife/vehicle collisions (WVC’s) through various 

design solutions, data collection efforts and safety 

countermeasures identified in this plan. See 

Appendices: Safety Analysis Toolkit and Roadway 

Design Guidelines 

Support High-Use Recreation Areas

Current transportation legislation calls for the 

identification and strategic support of high-use 

recreation sites and/or economic generators. 

According to the working definition developed by the 

Service’s transportation program, high use recreation 

sites and economic generators are those Refuges and 

Hatcheries that are open to the public and whose 

annual visitation numbers exceed the average annual 

visitation rates for that region. 

Support Financial Sustainability 

Financial sustainability, from an asset management 

perspective, means more than merely preserving 

pavement conditions at appropriate levels. The 

transportation program must take into account lifecycle costs of transportation improvements while at 

the same time investing in projects that are resilient 

to the impacts of climate change. The FWS land base 

includes coastal lowlands, barrier islands, wetlands, fireadapted grasslands and other landscapes that are, by 

their very nature, vulnerable to hazards. Inland flooding, 

coastal flooding, fire and other stressors threaten the 

natural resources the FWS is entrusted to protect. 

Transportation systems are key in responding to and 

adapting from emergencies and natural disasters and 

therefore should be managed in a way that ensure their 

long term sustainability and resilience.

Seek Partnerships for Project Implementation

The needs of the FWS transportation network far 

outweigh the current funding for the program. 

Whenever possible, base allocations should be 

leveraged with outside resources to maximize the 

utility of FLTP base dollars. 
24

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Coordinated Opportunities 

Strategic Goal: 

The program will seek joint transportation opportunities that support the Service mission, 

maximize the utility of Service resources and provide mutual benefits to the Service and 

external partners.

Coordinated Opportunities Snapshot

Coordinated opportunities may be considered an 

implementation principle or critical success factor 

that supports the other strategic goals, as well as a 

goal unto itself. The transportation program relies 

upon, and benefits from, connections with other 

transportation systems and organizations who share 

facilities, interests, boundaries, or goals. Equally 

important are connections to other branches and 

departments within the FWS. 

Coordinated opportunities with other agencies and 

organizations allow for transportation solutions that 

support the Service’s mission, maximize the utility 

of Service resources, and provide mutual benefits 

to the Service and external partners. The condition 

of the Service’s transportation system in regard to 

coordinated opportunities is therefore determined 

by the agency’s ability to, and record of, partnering 

with others to implement mutually beneficial 

transportation projects.

The FWS partners with fifteen different types of 

organizations at the national level and an additional 

10 categories of partners at the local and State levels. 

Examples of successful partnerships are detailed in 

this section and throughout this plan. 

The following four steps outline an approach for 

pursuing coordinated opportunities:

 Identification of Transportation Needs

With guidance from the regional offices, field stations 

should identify their transportation needs and see 

where their projects may fit in the larger (regional) 

capital improvement program. Step one of the project 

selection process is a ‘solicitation’ phase where 

stations submit their proposals for review by the 

region. It is important to note that needs, especially 

safety needs, can exist on connecting transportation 

facilities outside FWS boundaries. Needs should be 

consistent with local and/or regional transportation 

plans (STIPs, TIPs, LRTPs, etc.). 

 Isolate Opportunities 

Since base FLTP funding cannot address all 

transportation needs, leveraging of supplemental 

funding (or technical capacity) is key to the program. 

Transportation program managers should help 

disseminate information about state, local and federal 

programs that can provide funding or technical 

expertise (like design/engineering).

The following four steps outline an approach for 

pursuing coordinated opportunities:

 Engagement 

Once opportunities are identified, transportation or 

field staff should reach out to partner organizations 

to determine areas of mutual interest. Partners can 

include: universities or other educational facilities, 

‘friends of ’ groups, volunteer organizations, research 

organizations, other FLMAs, state DOTs, MPOs/

RPOs, homeowners groups, transit authorities, 

local government authorities and environmental 

or conservation organizations. Field staff should 

prioritize organizations whose purview is in close 

physical proximity to FWS lands as they are most 

likely to have overlapping interests with the Service. 

 Partnership Activities

The final step is to commence partnership activities. 

These can be informal (once yearly trail maintenance 

by the friends group) or more formal activities 

(like construction project management by the state 

DOT). The more formal activities generally warrant 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) or other 

legal instrument that clearly outlines the cooperative 

arrangement between the Service and the partner 

organization. Partnership activities can also be 

specific to an individual project.

Source: FWS Friends Fact Sheet

approx 230 Groups

approx 50k Members

Friends 

Organizations (2014)

g

MPOs

&
STRATEGY 25

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study: 

Visitors Center and Parking Lot 

Tualatin River NWR, Sherwood, OR

The relationship the FWS has with its various friends 

groups is one that pays significant dividends. Dating back 

to the cooperating associations formed in the 1930s, these 

partnerships have provided much needed assistance in the 

forms of: volunteer hours, specialized knowledge/information, 

links to local communities, assistance to leverage funds and 

advocacy at local and national levels for policy and funding. 

While building new transportation assets is not a priority 

for the program, sometimes large scale improvements can 

include transportation facilities like this example at Tualatin 

River NWR. The local friends group worked with elected 

representatives to secure discretionary funds to build a new 

visitor’s center and parking lot. Meeting key elements of the 

FWS Roadway Design Guidelines, the parking lot features: 

pervious surfaces, amended soils, native vegetation and a 

bioswale that controls stormwater and filters runoff.

Coordinated Opportunities (Primary Goal)

 Objectives 2, 3

Asset Management

 Objectives 1, 3

Environmental

 Objective 1

Access, Mobility and Connectivity 

 Objectives 1, 3, 4, 5

Visitor Experience 

 Objectives 2, 5

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
26

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Sources: FHWA Roads Inventory Program 2013, FWS Bridge Inventory Program 2013

Asset Management Snapshot 

Asset management is the process of strategically 

maintaining, upgrading, and operating physical 

assets. The practice includes preservation, 

upgrading, and timely replacement of assets through 

cost-effective management, programming, and 

resource allocation decisions. 

To quantitatively determine the condition of Service 

transportation assets, data are analyzed from the 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System 

(SAMMS), FLH’s Road Inventory Program (RIP), 

and FHWA’s National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The 

Service also uses an Asset Priority Index (API) to 

determine the relative importance of an asset based 

on mission dependency and substitutability. Finally, 

the transportation program is currently undergoing 

a nationwide ‘tiering’ process to right-size the DM 

backlog. 

To achieve a financially sustainable portfolio, 

vulnerability to natural disasters and changing 

climate patterns should always be taken into account 

when considering the maintenance or replacement 

of an asset. A resilient transportation system will be 

minimally impacted by weather events and natural 

disasters. 

Another key element in advancing the asset 

management strategic goal will be the 

implementation of standardized project selection 

processes at the regional level. The selection process 

framework outlined in this plan will provide guidance 

for regions to be able to quantitatively rank and 

prioritize projects for their work programs. This will 

give consistency to the transportation program and 

will ensure that regional allocations are advancing 

strategic goals and balancing program principles. 

These ongoing processes and data-collection/analysis 

efforts follow established guidance found in this 

plan or elsewhere in Service policy. This ensures 

programmatic consistency and gives the Service and 

transportation program an excellent snapshot of 

overall conditions across the entire transportation 

network. All this information is essential to 

the program’s data-driven decision making 

processes, which inform how, when, and where the 

transportation program should act to improve, 

replace or decommission its various assets. 

These processes are also helpful in fulfilling the 

Service’s commitment to measure and monitor 

performance of the transportation network over 

time and to deploy funds strategically to maintain a 

resilient, efficient and cost-effective system. 

Asset Management 

Strategic Goal: 

The program will operate and maintain a functional, financially sustainable and resilient 

transportation network to satisfy current and future land management needs in the face of 

a changing climate.

ROADS

In GOOD or better condition

5,400 Miles of Public 

use Roads

300 Public Use Bridges

84%

2002

25%

2012

62%

2002

45%

2012

65%

BRIDGES

In GOOD or better condition

TRAILS

In GOOD or better condition

2,100 Miles of Surface 

Trails

2012
STRATEGY 27

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study: 

Pavement Preservation

Crab Orchard NWR, Marion, IL

Asset Management (Primary Goal) 

 Objectives 1, 3

Safety

 Objectives 1, 2, 3 

Environmental

 Objective 1

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

 Objectives 3, 4, 5

Starting in 2010 the FWS Midwest region began a paved 

road and parking area surface preservation program at 

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in southern 

Illinois. Converted from private property in the 1950’s, this 

refuge has the highest paved road total in the NWR system. 

Maintenance and upkeep of the paved surfaces was taking 

up an inordinate amount of program funding, so the region 

decided that repaving the roads at Crab Orchard was a 

priority for long-term cost reduction. 

To date the transportation program has rehabilitated 

nearly 17 lane miles of roads and over 22,000 square 

yards of parking area. The region intends to accomplish 

another 15 lane miles and 16,000 square yards of parking 

improvements, documented as a priority in the five year 

capital improvement program. Once completed, the majority 

of the paved public use routes inside the refuge will have 

a good or better condition rating with better roadside 

drainage and reduced long term maintenance costs.

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
28

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Safety 

Strategic Goal: 

The program’s network will provide a superior level of safety for all users and all modes of 

transportation to and within FWS lands. 

Safety Snapshot 

FWS is committed to providing the utmost in 

safe and reliable access to and within refuges and 

hatcheries. Unlike many state level departments 

of transportation (DOTs), the Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s mobility network is designed to provide 

service at much slower speeds and much lower 

volumes. As such, the Service has established a target 

of zero fatalities and zero wildlife/vehicle collisions 

(WVC). To accomplish this target, the Service has set 

into motion efforts to improve existing data collection 

efforts (specifically in the RIP/RATE surveys) to 

assist with analysis and recommendations. 

The Fatality Analysis Reporting System (or FARS, 

a nationwide census program run by the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA) and 

the Safety Management System (or SMS, a program 

run by the Federal Highway Administration) are 

programs that track the number, location, frequency 

and severity of crashes and incidents on refuges and 

hatcheries. 

FARS is a nationwide dataset that provides NHTSA, 

Congress, and the American public with annual 

motor vehicle fatalities data. Reported data includes 

information such as the nature of accidents, accident 

location, and number of fatalities. 

SMS uses FARS data to populate crash information 

and produce safety solutions and interventions for 

Service-owned and non-Service-owned roads in 

Service lands. This protocol combines engineering 

(safety improvements), education (public availability 

of information), enforcement (by FWS Law 

Enforcement staff), and emergency medical services 

(with local first responders) to comprehensively 

address the safety strategic goal.

The 2014 update to the SMS protocol minimizes the 

reliance on data collection efforts required of unitlevel staff, and instead uses existing sources of crash 

and other safety data to identify issues and develop 

potential projects and programs for implementation. 

The program has also developed a safety analysis 

toolkit, included in this publication, that will help 

refuge and hatchery staff identify safety issues and 

implement appropriate countermeasures. 

Data sources include: national and state crash 

reporting systems, qualitative information, Service 

regional studies, and unit-level inventories. Once 

data are assembled, they are analyzed to determine 

locations where safety issues appear to exist, and 

what kinds of interventions may be appropriate to 

improve safety at those locations. More information 

about the Service’s SMS update can be found 

in the Service’s Transportation Program Safety 

Management Report.

Zero Human Fatalities

0

Reduction of 26%

56

76

2008

2004

FWS 20 Year Target

Total Human Fatalities on 

FWS Roads System 

Total Accidents on 

FWS Lands

2

Past 5 Years

Minimal Wildlife/Vehicle Collisions

Sources: FARS, NHSTA
STRATEGY 29

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study: 

Access Improvement 

San Luis NWR, Los Banos, CA

Safety (Primary Goal) 

 Objectives 1, 2, 4

Coordinated Opportunities

 Objective 1

Asset Management

 Objective 1 

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

 Objectives 3, 4

Transportation facilities that visitors and staff use to access 

Refuges and Hatcheries (off-site facilities) are as important 

to the program as the facilities that are on Service lands. 

These can include rural roads, trails and state or local 

highways that connect to the FWS network. Frequently 

there can be safety related concerns at the interface 

between FWS lands and off-site facilities. Given the high 

standard of safety goals for the program (zero fatalities in 20 

years) addressing any and all safety hazards, especially at 

this jurisdictional interface, is of utmost importance.

The principal ingress of San Luis NWR is located 

directly off a state owned highway. Because of the lack of 

acceleration/deceleration lanes and turn pockets, visitors 

and staff would have to make dangerous maneuvers at high 

speeds to access the refuge. After 10 years of collaboration 

with CalTrans, the program was able to build access 

improvements from both northbound and southbound 

approaches, increasing safety for the over 100,000 yearly 

visitors and administrative personnel.

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
30

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Environmental Snapshot 

Conservation and protection of wildlife and habitat 

are at the core of the Service’s mission. Rather 

than disrupting an ecosystem, transportation 

infrastructure should facilitate the improvement 

of the landscape and the conservation of natural 

resources. 

General understanding about the impacts of 

transportation systems on habitat are widely known 

within the Service, and are addressed in planning 

by comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs) 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives (LCCs) 

and environmental impact statements (EIS). The 

Service and transportation program also follow the 

principles of Compensatory Mitigation (Avoidance, 

Minimization, Rehabilitation and Restoration) to 

achieve no net loss of environmental and cultural 

resources. 

Additionally, the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines 

and Project Checklist (included in this publication) 

will give best practice guidance and methodology 

for planning, designing, maintaining and building 

transportation infrastructure in a way that stitches 

together sensitive habitats, manages stormwater 

runoff, restores native vegetation and helps manage 

invasive species. 

The transportation program also plays a key role in 

the Service’s goals of reducing GHG emissions, as 

a large part of the carbon footprint of the Service 

comes from the use of the transportation facilities. 

The Climate Leadership In Refuges (CLIR) tool 

is a web-based application currently in testing that 

will provide unit-level analysis of all on and off-site 

carbon and GHG impacts of a refuge. The application 

also tailors specific recommendations for mitigation 

of these impacts over time. These recommendations 

can include: upgrading of service equipment, changes 

in visitor and/or staff behaviors, development 

of multi-modal or transit connections and other 

facilities-related (buildings, etc.) activities. 

The Service is also working to better understand 

how climate change will impact transportation 

facilities and what might be done to create a resilient 

transportation network that is environmentally and 

financially sustainable in the long term. 

- 2 % yr Petroleum use reductions 

 (2005 base)

+ 10 % yr Use of alternative fuels

 75 % New fleet vehicle acquisitions that 

 use alternative fuels

 Percentage of entire FWS fleet 

 that is alternative fuel capable

FWS Fleet Carbon Mitigations 

Actual Performance

Roadway Effects 

on Landscapes

Habitat Fragmentation

Roadkill

Materials and Chemicals

Aquatic Passage Issues

Non-Native Plants

Traffic Disturbance

Construction Disturbance

Roads can impact landscapes from: 

0 to over 1Km away

Roadway Design 

Guideline Elements

LE - Landscape Ecology

PC - Planning Context

DE - Design and Engineering

OP - Organism Passage

SM - Stormwater Management

VE - Visitor Experience

12 %

!

Environmental 

Strategic Goal: 

Transportation infrastructure will be landscape appropriate and play a key role in the 

improvement of environmental conditions in and around Service lands. 

Sources: 5 Year Vehicle Management Plan FWS 2009, Visitor’s Survey 2012 (USGS)
STRATEGY 31

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study:

Aquatic Organism Passage

Kenai NWR, Soldotna, AK

Environmental (Primary Goal)

 Objectives 1, 3

Asset Management

 Objectives 1, 2

Coordinated Opportunities

 Objectives 1, 2, 4

Visitor Experience

 Objectives 2, 5

Ecological stream and river functions, such as the movement 

of woody debris, sediment transport and aquatic organism 

passage, can be impeded by roadway infrastructure. Box 

culverts, bridges, dams, dikes and roads all disrupt the free 

flow of natural processes of aquatic resources on refuges. 

Recognizing the importance of habitat connectivity, the 

program is keenly focused on environmental enhancements 

(that can be found in the Roadway Design Guidelines) to 

transportation facilities that improve aquatic and terrestrial 

organism passage. 

An excellent example of how environmental enhancements 

can repair fragmented habitat can be found at Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge near Soldotna, Alaska. Together 

with its partners from the Kenai Watershed Forum, the 

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Kenai Peninsula 

Economic Development District, Chevron and Peak Oilfield 

Service Company, the transportation program retrofitted 

a number of existing box culverts with bottomless culverts 

and thus improved flow, circulation and access for more than 

10 miles of aquatic habitat.

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
32

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Access, Mobility and Connectivity 

Strategic Goal: 

The program will ensure that units open to the public have adequate transportation 

options for all users including underserved, underrepresented, and mobility limited 

populations.

Access, Mobility and Connectivity Snapshot 

This plan expands upon the internal asset inventory 

(on-site) definition to include non-FWS owned (or 

off-site) facilities that connect and provide access to 

Service owned lands and transportation systems. 

Programs like the Federal Lands Access Program 

(FLAP) exist solely to support projects that 

improve access to federal lands such as refuges and 

hatcheries. Judging the condition of, and finding 

opportunities to improve, access to and within 

Service lands can be achieved through examination of 

visitation data, measuring the accessibility of urban 

refuges and hatcheries, alternative transportation 

evaluations, and visitor surveys. The Service 

surveyed visitors throughout the country and found 

that 58 percent of station visits originate more 

than 50 miles from the refuge (National Visitor 

Use Survey, 2012). This indicates that improving 

access and mobility, especially for off-site access 

improvements, supports the economic generation 

program principle. 

Surveys also indicate the possibility of latent demand 

for off-site alternative transportation options. While 

35 percent of refuges have multimodal access, only 14 

percent of visitors actually used some form of ATS.

This, despite the fact that 23 percent of respondents 

of the same survey indicated that off-site alternative 

transportation options could enhance the visitation 

experience. 

The ongoing RIP/RATE surveys and Multimodal 

Catalog (FLH and Volpe Center) will give the 

program an excellent picture of the different 

transportation options and preferences of the visiting 

public. These efforts will help the program develop 

better access for underserved, underrepresented and 

mobility limited populations. 

On-site transportation patterns are also measured 

through various ongoing data collection methods 

including the Refuge Annual Performance Planning 

survey (or RAPP). The latest numbers indicate 

that 35 percent of all visitors use auto tour routes, 

33 percent use hiking trails, 5 percent use bicycle 

facilities and 7 percent use water facilities (like water 

trails and boat docks/launches). When asked about 

preferences in using various modes of transportation 

to tour a refuge, watercraft, pedestrian trails and 

open-air trams were popular options, each receiving 

over 50 percent likeliness of usage. 

RAPP numbers show that over 47 million people 

visited refuges in 2013. This marks an increase 

of 20 percent from just 5 years prior. U.S. Census 

projections suggest that the upward trend in 

visitation to Refuges will continue underlining the 

need for the transportation program to plan for and 

improve access, mobility, and connectivity throughout 

the network. 

Lacking Diversity

Race

Distance

Traveled

FWS Units Drive 

Tourism

Non-Local

>50Mi

96%

White

4% 

Other

Visitation

By Mode

2

42% 58%

Local

<50Mi

86%

Private Auto.

14% 

Alt. Trans.

Lacking Transportation 

Options

Source: Visitors Survey 2012 (USGS)
STRATEGY 33

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study: 

Bicycle Boardwalk 

Chincoteague NWR, Chincoteague, VA

Access, Mobility and Connectivity (Primary Goal)

 Objectives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Asset Management Goal

 Objectives 3, 4

Safety Goal

 Objective 2

Environmental Goal

 Objectives 1, 2

Visitor Experience

 Objectives 2, 5

Because of the importance of water resources to migratory 

birds and fish, Refuges often are located in places with 

abundant hydrological resources like coastlines and lakes. 

Frequently, the Refuges in these areas are essential 

elements to a region’s tourism infrastructure. Visitors and 

residents alike benefit from the recreational opportunities 

and quality of life dividends that Refuges can provide. 

Quality access, mobility and connectivity options are 

essential to managing natural resources as well as providing 

the public with opportunities to recreate and learn about 

habitat and ecology. 

This bicycle boulevard inaugurated in 2012 at Chincoteague 

NWR parallels the main access road that connects the 

popular coastline with the nearby village, providing visitors 

with a safe, non-motorized and enjoyable way to travel 

between the two. The facility also reduces traffic congestion, 

helps refuge staff manage visitation and helps meet GHG 

emissions reduction goals. 

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
34

National Long Range Transportation Plan

STRATEGY

Visitor Experience Strategic Goal:

The program will enhance the visitation experience through improvement and investment 

in the transportation network.

Visitor Experience Snapshot

It is important to keep in mind that transportation 

doesn’t merely provide access opportunities. It is the 

means, not the end, and transportation infrastructure 

should highlight the landscapes and resources the 

Service is endowed with protecting. The visitor 

experience goal, therefore, builds upon the desire 

to provide adequate access and focuses on how the 

quality of the visitation experience can be improved 

through investments in the transportation network. 

The most recent visitor use survey (2011) compared 

importance and satisfaction ratings across a 

number of station services, including 12 discreet 

transportation elements (below). 

75 percent of respondents ranked the transportation 

elements as ‘highly important’ as well as indicating a 

high degree of satisfaction with the element. 

Strategies for addressing visitor experience through 

the Service’s transportation system are also tied to 

the visitation levels. Visitation levels are relevant 

to transportation improvement strategies because, 

generally, units with higher visitation will benefit 

more from transportation related improvements.

Gateway communities are also potential locations for 

visitor enhancements, particularly as they relate to 

wayfinding, which informs visitors about neighboring 

refuges and hatcheries. These enhancements can 

improve ease of travel to and within units, thus 

improving visitor experience.

This philosophy of focusing investments on areas of 

greatest use and importance also applies to activities 

enjoyed most frequently by Refuge and Hatchery 

visitors. The 2004 and 2011 visitor surveys and 2010 

RAPP data suggest that transportation investments 

that accommodate wildlife observation (like auto tour 

routes) are the most effective in enhancing visitor 

experience. 

Furthermore, survey results identify private vehicles, 

walking/hiking, and private vehicles with trailers as 

the top three modes of visitor travel within refuge 

units. Transportation assets supporting these modes 

will therefore have a greater ability to improve 

visitor experience through regular maintenance and 

investment.

Source: National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Survey 2010/2011: National-level Results

Focus Investment Where it 

has the Most Impact 

‘Big Six’ Activities

Wildlife Observation

Fishing

Photography 

Hunting 

Environmental Interpretation 

Environmental Education

61% Hiking, walking and auto-tour routes...

16%

13%

5%

4%

1%

75%

Satisfaction with 12

Transportation Elements

Highly Important and Very Satisfied

‘Keep Up the Good Work’

 Conditions of roads

 Number of parking places

 Directional signs on highways

 Condition of parking areas

 Number of pullovers

 Directional signs on station

 Safety of driving conditions

 Directional signs on trails

 Condition of trails/boardwalks

 Safety of station entrances

 Disabled access

 Condition of bridges
STRATEGY 35

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Case Study: 

Auto Tour Route Paving

J.N. Ding Darling NWR, Sanibel, FL

Visitor Experience (Primary Goal)

 Objectives 2, 4, 5

Asset Management

 Objectives 1, 3, 4

Environmental

 Objectives 1, 2, 3

Access, Mobility and Connectivity 

 Objectives 2, 3, 4, 5

The J.N. ‘Ding’ Darling National Wildlife Refuge is located 

along Florida’s southwest coast on Sanibel Island, covering 

over 6,400 acres and supporting hundreds of species of wildlife 

and plants. The refuge receives hundreds of thousands of 

visitors annually, many of whom walk, bicycle or drive along 

the auto tour route. It is one of the top birding areas in the 

nation as it plays host to many migratory birds.

In 2013, the FHWA assisted the FWS in the repaving of 

Wildlife Drive, the main auto tour route on the Refuge. 

Because of concerns related to the deteriorated condition of 

the semi-pervious pavement, the construction and engineering 

team used a limestone aggregate asphalt to provide a heat 

reflective, smooth surface accessible to bicycles, wheelchairs, 

and strollers. Pervious shell parking shoulders were added 

to slow stormwater movement and filter contaminants from 

the water bodies on-site. Two new water control structures 

were installed to improve water circulation and traffic calming 

humps were added or relocated to improve safety The newly 

paved route provides improved access to the numerous 

trails and viewing platforms on the refuge while facilitating 

multimodal circulation along with wildlife observation and 

fishing. 

Coordinated Opportunities 

Asset Management

Safety

Environmental

Access, Mobility and Connectivity

Visitor Experience
Don Edwards San Francisco 

Bay NWR

California

36

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Funding
FUNDING 37

National Long Range Transportation Plan National Long Range Transportation Plan

Bridge the Gap

The transportation assets spread across National 

Wildlife Refuges, National Fish Hatcheries and other 

Service lands require constant investment to manage 

and operate. As outlined in the vision, the program is 

striving to build a transportation network that is safe, 

multi-modal, resilient to changing climatic conditions, 

and integrated with surrounding communities and 

regions. However, the needs of the current or any 

future system far exceed the available FLTP base 

program funds. 

For this reason it is imperative for the program to 

bridge the gap and pursue creative and alternative 

funding sources. Any funding strategy should 

include grants and other opportunities at local, state 

or national levels, congressional earmarks, friends 

group activities and any other available sources. 

This section begins with a brief history of 

transportation program funding, analyzes some 

national level funding-related data, details a number 

of federal funding programs that can be used to 

leverage FLTP program dollars and finally lists 

a number of federal funding sources that can be 

leveraged to address critical needs and funding gaps. 
38

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FUNDING

Source: Transportation Needs and Planning for the Future 2013

History of 

Program Funding

While the Service did build and maintain 

transportation assets prior to 1998, the creation 

and authorization of the Refuge Roads Program 

(RRP) through the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century (TEA-21) effectively established 

the modern-day Service transportation program. 

Through the Federal Lands Highway Program 

(FLHP) the RRP authorized and funded a yearly 

base program of $20M from 1998 through August 

2005 for maintenance and improvements of public 

roads within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, 

Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA-LU) 

continued the FLHP and Refuge Roads Program 

with base funding for the FWS transportation 

program at $29M per year through 2012. In addition, 

SAFETEA-LU created an eligibility for National 

Fish Hatcheries to compete for discretionary funds 

like congressional earmarks and grant programs like 

the Scenic Byway Program and the Paul S. Sarbanes 

Transit in the Parks Program (TRIP). Over the years, 

the FWS transportation program has leveraged an 

average of $7M/Yr. from these supplemental funding 

sources. 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century 

(MAP-21) took effect October 1, 2012 and was 

extended through the end of 2015. A transformative 

transportation authorization, MAP-21 streamlined and 

consolidated many existing transportation programs 

and funding sources. 

Under MAP-21, the Federal Lands Highway 

Program was replaced by the Federal Lands 

Transportation Program (FLTP). Overseen by the 

Federal Highway Administration, the FLTP is a 

multi-agency program that includes many other 

federal lands partners like the National Park Service, 

the Bureau of Land Management and other federal 

land management agencies. In addition to being 

multi-agency, the FLTP program is also multi-modal 

allowing eligibility for alternative and off-site access 

networks such as trails, bicycle infrastructure, access 

improvements and transit linkages. 

Under MAP-21, FLTP base funds for the Service were 

set at $30M/Yr. and could be used for refuges and 

hatcheries as long as those units are open to the 

public and are included in the Service’s transportation 

facility inventory. MAP-21 also discontinued some 

discretionary grant programs (Sarbanes and Scenic 

Byways) while at the same time creating a number 

of new programs (like the Federal Lands Access 

Program, or FLAP) that allow agencies to compete for 

supplemental funding. 

These fundamental changes to transportation 

funding mechanisms indicate a larger shift toward 

an outcome-driven and performance based funding 

environment, for which the FWS transportation 

program must be ready. 

The most recent transportation legislation, Fixing 

America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), 

was signed by President Obama in December, 

2015. The FAST Act authorizes $30 M/Yr to the 

FWS transportation program through FY 2020. 

More detailed direction from the FAST Act will be 

forthcoming, but it is not expected to change the key 

components of PLAN 2035. 

Beginning with this plan and the policies contained 

herein, the program is ready to demonstrate 

quantifiable system improvements to deliver a better 

connected, dynamic and priority based network of 

transportation facilities that provide sustainable, safe 

and resilient access opportunities to and within FWS 

lands. 

“Our ability to provide support for access to federal lands is contingent 

on our ability to invest in our nation’s infrastructure.”

- US Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx 

Upon presenting Bernalillo County, NM and Valle de Oro NWR With an $8M FLAP Award

October, 2014
FUNDING 39

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FWS Transportation Funding Timeline 
40

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FUNDING

National Level 

Analysis

Needs vs. Funding 

Soon after MAP-21 was enacted in 2012, FLTP 

partners were asked by FHWA to prepare an 

analysis of total system needs based on the size and 

nature of their transportation networks. The outcome 

of this extensive effort is summarized here. To 

address all the needs in the public use transportation 

system, the program would require $95M/yr. or 

roughly three times the current funding level. 

Thus, the gap between current funding levels and the 

total needs of the program equal approximately $65M 

at year 1 (2014, plus 3 percent inflation per year). 

This exercise illustrates the importance of strategic 

program planning as well as the need to leverage 

supplemental funding to be able to achieve goals and 

targets. 

Sources: Transportation Needs and Planning for the Future 2013, FWS Facilities Branch Annual Report 2013, FHWA Pavement Management Analysis 2013

20 yr Deferred 

Maintenance

~ 2-3% per yr Reduction

~ 40-60% Reduction in 20 yrs

~ 5% per yr Reduction

~ 95% Reduction in 20 yrs

Program 

Area

Bridges 

Pavement 

Roads and Parking Lots

Large Projects

Trails + Transit

Environmental

Enhancements

Current 

Funding

$30M

Enhanced

Program

$60M

Fully Implemented

Address all Needs

$95M

Transportation 

Planning

FHWA Admin.

$17.5M

$2M

$2.5M

$2M

$2M

$1M

$3M

$37M

$4M

$5M

$4M

$4M

$3M

$3M

$57M

$6M

$15M

$6M

$5M

$3M

$3M

$30M

2014 2035

$95M

Total Needs

$30M Current Funding 

GAP ~~ $65M @ Yr 1

All Program Areas

Funding vs. Needs

2013

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2014 2015 2016 2017

Pavement Condition Rating (PCR)

Nationwide Pavement 

Roads and Parking Lots

Fully Implemented Program

Enhanced Program

Current Funding

No Funding

Performance Relating to 2013 Scenarios
FUNDING 41

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Allocations vs. Visitation and High-Use 

Recreation

To determine the extent to which the program is 

fulfilling the economic generation principle, The 

Service conducted a national level analysis to 

determine the extent to which funding allocations 

were being programmed at high-use recreation sites. 

These sites are economic generators because they 

drive tourism and bolster local economic activity. 

The top graph shows the percentage of each region’s 

allocation that is programmed at stations with higher 

than average visitation for that region (6 year totals, 

Alaska Region 7 omitted). Regional variability is 

captured in the distribution of the results (Great 

Lakes Region 3 at over 60 percent, Southeast Region 

4 at just over 20 percent).

This analysis gives each region a baseline to inform 

future programmatic decisions regarding high-use 

recreation sites and economic generation. A strong 

work program will balance the economic generation 

principle with the other two, equally important 

principles of transportation improvement and 

resource protection. 

The bottom graph shows entire FLTP program 

spending (all regions totaled, Alaska R7 omitted) at 

highly visited units over the same six year period. 

The sawtooth pattern demonstrates the variability of 

conditions in the field and the response the program 

makes to manage this reality. 

As a small program, the organization must broadly 

distribute funds year to year to strike a balance 

between urgent needs brought about by climatic 

events or safety concerns, priority needs on bridges 

and auto tour routes and smaller scale, but mission 

critical, improvements at less frequently visited 

refuges and hatcheries. This analysis is helpful in 

establishing a baseline for the program nationally 

(approx. 40 percent average, all regions, all program 

funds, over 6 years) and will help guide programmatic 

recommendations in the future. 

In addition, the red trendline demonstrates the 

program’s success at directing funding towards highuse recreation sites over time. 

% FLTP Program Funds

Programmed at High-Use Recreation Sites 

2011 2015

40

50

2012 2013 2014 2015

60

30

R1

43%

30

40

R2

32%

R3

65%

R4

22%

R5

53%

R6

41%

R8

44%

20

10

50

60

% of Regional Allocations Programmed at 

High-Use Recreation Sites (2011 - 2015)

Sources: Refuge Annual Performance Planning, FWSTP Budget and A Preliminary Analysis of Transportation Program Funds and Highly Visited Field Stations 2014

50M

2013

Actual

Net Visitation

75M

2035

Projected Given 

Historic +2% / Yr 

Increase
42

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FUNDING

National Level 

Analysis

Facilities and Asset Management

SAMMS is the asset management database that the 

Fish and Wildlife Service uses to provide information 

on facility and equipment deficiencies, justify budget 

requests for maintenance needs, track 5-year 

budget plans, and provide bases for management 

decision making. Transportation assets are included 

in SAMMS to aid in completing inspection and 

maintenance activities and to quantify the complete 

picture of facilities and equipment owned by the 

Service.

SAMMS uses an Asset Priority Index (API) to 

rank how important assets are to the Service. The 

Service’s use of API is consistent with the U.S. 

Department of the Interior (DOI) definition of API as 

‘an asset evaluation process that quantifies the value 

of an asset in relation to the mission of the Bureau or 

Office.’ 

The API scale is from 1 to 100 (with 100 being the 

highest score) and is calculated from two variables: 

mission dependency and substitutability. The Service 

uses this metric to ensure that maintenance activities 

focus on the highest-priority assets. Similarly, API 

is used to identify the lowest-priority assets for less 

frequent maintenance, or possible decommissioning.

API can be revisited periodically, and should be as 

part of any CCP or transportation plan development. 

The Service is contemplating an API revision in 2016-

2017.

SAMMS also contains a Facility Condition Index 

(FCI) which is a ratio of the deferred maintenance 

(DM) costs to replacement value (CRV) The closer 

to 0 that an asset’s FCI score is, the better condition 

the asset is in. API and FCI numbers can be used to 

optimize transportation allocations at the regional 

level. Work programs and project selection processes 

can be tailored around where assets fall within 

the ‘condition and priority’ matrix, supporting the 

performance management components of MAP-21 

and now the FAST Act.

Approximately 57 percent of all FWS transportation 

assets have an FCI of < 0.10, indicating that no 

improvements are needed (as of 2011). An FCI 

greater than 1 indicates that it would cost more 

to bring the asset to full repair through deferred 

maintenance than it would be to completely replace 

the asset. In these situations, replacement is 

therefore the best course of action, if the asset is 

mission critical. 

Asset Priority Index (API)

0 Facility Condition Index (FCI) 1

100

60

High Priority - Good State of Repair

Recommended Action:

- Focus on Preventative Maintenance 

High Priority - Bad State of Repair

Recommended Action:

- Invest in Deferred Maintenance

Low Priority - Good State of Repair

Recommended Action:

- Reduce Frequency of Maintenance

Activities

- Consider for Tier 3 Classification or 

Decommission 

Low Priority - Bad State of Repair

Recommended Action:

- Consider for Tier 3 Classification or 

Decommission 

LESS COST TO COMPLETELY REPLACE THAN TO 

BRING INTO GOOD STATE OF REPAIR 

Condition and Priority Matrix

Q1 Q2

0.5

Q3 Q4

Sources: SAMMS 2011, NBI
FUNDING 43

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Paved Roads 2,354 Lane Mi 91%

Dirt Roads 7,721 Lane Mi 75%

Gravel Roads 8,449 Lane Mi 83%

Paved Trails 86 Mi 96%

Unpaved Trails 1,885 Mi 86%

Boardwalks 47 Mi 76%

Culvert Road Bridges 175 95%

Road Bridges 485 89%

Stationary Docks 207 84%

Floating Docks 60 99%

Airstrips 28 95%

Parking Areas 5,100 65%

OTHER

ROADS

TRAILS

BRIDGES

Trail Bridges 139 90%

Asset Type Units % Of Units in Q1

According to SAMMS, There are thirteen different 

types of ‘core transportation asset types’ that support 

travel as their primary function. 

An analysis of FCI/API scores on all thirteen 

different asset types revealed that, in all cases, the 

vast majority of units of measure in that asset class 

fell in the ‘High Priority - Good State of Repair’ 

quadrant (Q1). 

This illustrates two important facts: 

 The transportation network is the right size for 

the usage and need of the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and visiting public. 

 The program is very effective in maintaining a 

state of good repair on the most important, mission 

critical transportation facilities. As larger repairs 

are delayed, however, overall condition will slowly 

decrease.

A Note on Data: 

Since the inception of the multi-partner FLTP, data 

collection protocols (for assets and real property, 

deferred maintenance, condition assessments, 

usage statistics, etc.) have changed substantially. 

Methods and procedures have been streamlined 

to not only facilitate the collection of data from the 

FWS perspective, but many procedures have been 

standardized to assure quality control between and 

among FLTP partner agencies. This helps FHWA 

in planning, designing and delivering transportation 

projects across the country. 

This shift from old to new takes time as many data 

collection efforts require multiple years to gather an 

entire national set. In addition, as old data is replaced 

with new data, discrepancies can emerge due to 

differing methodologies. 

As a program, we recognize that for the data to be 

meaningful it must be accurate, precise, up to date 

and collected in a consistent manner. The FWS 

transportation program is working diligently in this 

transition period and as the FLTP matures, the 

overall quality of data collection and analysis will only 

improve. 

* Public and admin. assets

*

†

† FWS reports approx. 13,000 linear miles of roadway (5,400 mi. of public, 7,800 mi. of admin.) 
44

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FUNDING

Federal Funding 

Opportunities

Having priority projects scoped and scored with some 

degree of design and/or engineering will demonstrate 

the program’s commitment to the project and 

increases chances for securing additional funding. 

Some of the funding sources listed are administered 

by USDOT or the Federal Highway Administration. 

Other programs channel monies to state agencies 

for them to administer through their respective 

departments of transportation or local government 

representatives (also known as Federal Aid). 

Programs vary by state and may be housed in more 

than one agency, including those with a primary 

focus on transportation, recreation, environment 

and natural resources, and planning. MPOs and local 

governments may be another source for funding 

multi-modal projects, often using funds allocated 

from the state or USDOT. 

Regional transportation coordinators can help 

individual refuges identify appropriate state and 

regional funding sources and programs according to 

applicable investment strategies. 

The following programs are good potential sources of 

Federal funding, but additional funding programs also 

exist under the FAST Act. 

The Federal Lands Access Program or FLAP

The following activities are eligible for consideration 

under the FLAP, and are similar to those activities 

allowed under the FLTP:

 Preventive maintenance, rehabilitation, 

 restoration, construction and reconstruction of 

 transportation facilities

 Adjacent vehicular parking areas

 Acquisition of necessary scenic easements and 

 scenic or historic sites

 Provisions for pedestrian and bicycles

 Environmental mitigation in or adjacent to 

 federal land to improve public safety and reduce 

 vehicle-wildlife mortality while maintaining 

 habitat connectivity

 Construction and reconstruction of roadside rest 

 areas, including sanitary and water facilities

 Operation and maintenance of transit facilities

 Research and planning

Proposed projects must be located on a public 

highway, road, bridge, trail or transit system that 

is located on, adjacent to, or provides access for a 

federal land. Additionally, title or maintenance of 

the facility must be vested in a state, county, town, 

township, tribal, municipal, or local government.

The FLAP is funded at $250 million annually and its 

monies are allocated on a state by state basis using 

the following formula: 

 80 percent of funds to States with at least 1.5 

 percent of the total acreage of United States’ 

 public land

 20 percent of funds to States with less than 1.5 

 percent of the total acreage of United States’ 

 public land

Within these states, the FLAP further calls for 

funding allocation based on federal public road 

miles (55 percent), recreation visitation (30 percent), 

federal public bridges (10 percent), and federal 

land area (5 percent) The program also lends 

preference to projects that are within, adjacent to, 

or provide access to high-use federal recreation 

sites or economic generators, as identified by the 

appropriate FLMA. Programming decisions are 

made by a committee (Project Decision Committee 

or PDC) comprised of FHWA, state DOT and local 

government representatives. Despite the fact that 

FLAP applications require an FLMA partner’s 

consent, representatives of FLMAs are not yet 

formally represented in the PDCs. 

Partnerships and coordination with state and local 

governments will be critical to leverage FLAP funds 

for transportation projects within and surrounding 

Service lands. 

FWS has been successful in leveraging funding from 

this new program, securing projects in every region 

in its first year of implementation.
FUNDING 45

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Surface Transportation Block Grant Program or 

STBGP

Also administered through the FHWA, the STBGP 

is the successor to many previous programs and 

includes the Transportation Alternatives Program 

(TAP). The TAP is intended to promote a balanced 

and multimodal approach to American transport 

infrastructure. 

Eligible projects could include:

 Pedestrian and bicycle facilities 

(planning, design and construction) 

 Safe routes for non-drivers

 Abandoned railway corridors to trails 

 Scenic turnouts and overlooks

 Outdoor advertising management

 Preservation and rehab of historic 

transportation facilities 

 Vegetation management 

 Archaeological activities 

 Storm water mitigation 

 Wildlife management 

State DOT’s and regional MPO’s are given a great 

deal of flexibility and authority to manage the grant 

applications and project selection processes. 

See https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/

stbgfs.pdf for more information on the STBG program. 

Coordinated Technology Implementation or 

CTIP

The Coordinated Federal Lands Highway 

Technology Implementation Program is a 

cooperative technology deployment and sharing 

program between the FHWA Federal Lands 

Highway office and the various federal land 

management agencies. 

It provides a forum for identifying, studying, 

documenting, and transferring new technology to the 

transportation community. Its purpose is to deploy 

innovative, unique, or under-used transportation 

technologies that enhance highway safety, access 

and/or management. 

Allocations for the CTIP come from FLTP and 

Tribal Transportation Programs (TTP) and equal 

about $2M/Yr. 

Eligibility includes:

 Testing, deployment, and impact evaluation of 

market-ready technologies and innovations.

For more information on CTIP, contact the Service’s 

Transportation Program in Headquarters. 

Accelerated Innovation Deployment or AID

Under the AID demonstration program, funds are 

available to implement an innovation in any aspect 

of highway transportation including planning, 

financing, operation, structures, materials, 

pavements, environment, and construction on any 

project eligible for assistance under title 23, United 

States Code. The full cost of the innovation in a 

project may be awarded up to the maximum amount 

of $1M.

Awards are limited to up to two projects per State 

DOT applicant, with up to one project award to a 

State DOT and up to one project award to a subrecipient applying through the State DOT, and 

limited to one project award per applicant for 

Federal Land Management Agencies and tribal 

governments, subject to the number of eligible 

applications and the availability of funds. These 

funding goals are reviewed annually and may be 

adjusted to reflect current priorities and needs. 

Projects eligible for funding include proven 

innovative practices or technologies, including 

infrastructure and non-infrastructure strategies 

or activities (like dust suppression or roadside 

invasive species management) which the applicant 

or sub-recipient intends to implement and adopt as a 

significant improvement from the applicant’s or the 

sub-recipient’s conventional practice.

See https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-03452 for more 

information about application and eligibility.
46

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Kanuti NWR

Alaska

Implementation
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 47

National Long Range Transportation Plan National Long Range Transportation Plan

Key

Actions and 

Targets

This section is about putting PLAN 2035 into 

practice. First, this section proposes a performance 

based project selection framework. The metrics of the 

framework are directly tied to the strategic goals of 

this plan. This process will help regions identify their 

most pressing needs, balance program principles, 

advance strategic goals and ultimately help achieve 

the 20 year transportation vision. Second, this 

section proposes a non-exhaustive starter list of 

recommended actions derived from the strategic 

goals in this plan. Under each strategic goal are 

actionable items that regional staff and program 

managers can implement at various levels of the 

organization to advance the ideas and policies in this 

plan. Third, the section sets performance objectives 

and targets under each strategic goal that will help 

the program track progress over time. 

Finally, the section offers guidance for the 

development of the forthcoming regional LRTPs as 

well as updates to completed ones. 
48

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Selection 

Process

The Service and its partners have developed a 

national project selection framework that will help 

Service staff determine improvement programs that 

align with the policies in this plan. This strategy 

envisions a usage of best available data to arrive at 

recommendations and decisions for regional work 

programs. This framework is intended to establish 

uniformity in project selection across the Service 

thereby contributing to stability of the program. 

The project selection process is flexible and allows 

for regions to adapt the framework to fit their 

needs. Some examples of how regions can adapt the 

selection process to fit their needs include, but are not 

limited to: 

 The composition and roles of regional project 

 scoring teams

 Methods for submitting project information

 Sub-criteria within the national criteria 

 Process for assigning scores to projects 

 Weight given to goal categories 

 Use of scores in determining final project selection 

 Determination of regional priorities 

 Schedule for updating the regional project 

 selection processes

Project Selection Cycle Steps:

1 - Solicitation of Projects 

Regional transportation coordinators create a pool 

of candidate projects for consideration, by soliciting 

input from units and regional leadership. Potential 

projects must include key data points (such as RIP, 

SAMMS, RATEs, CCP, road safety audits, SMS, 

etc.) to verify and explain the need for a project. 

The project description form, will be used in the 

solicitation phase. 

2 - Preparation for Scoring

Regional transportation coordinators ensure that all 

proposed projects have sufficient information and 

best available data to take part in a regional scoring 

process.

3 - Scoring and Project Scorecard

Regional staff evaluate and score each project 

using the criteria elements in the project scorecard 

(P. 50-51) as a guide. This framework gives the 

transportation program a common baseline to work 

from to link projects with the strategic goals and 

principles in this plan. The project scorecard is 

intended to give guidance the regions, and may be 

adapted, amended or modified to suit policy, needs 

and priorities. The best projects will incorporate 

most, if not all, of the goal areas in the scorecard.

Note on STAT Tool: The forthcoming Station 

Transportation Analysis Tool or STAT is intended to 

streamline the scoring process by displaying multiple 

transportation datasets as they relate to the goal 

areas in the scorecard and this plan. This provides 

regional transportation staff a way to both validate 

improvement plans and a means to facilitate future 

project programming. 

4 - Ranking and Prioritization

Regional staff rank projects according to a scale and 

process documented in their regional LRTPs. 

High scoring projects are then prioritized based on 

factors to be determined by the region. Such factors 

can include projects that incorporate a number of 

LRTP goals, projects that are consistent with the 

FWS Roadway Design Guidelines, projects that are 

indicated in a Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(CCP) or Landscape Conservation Cooperative 

(LCC), assets with a high API score, projects 

that improve a primary access route, indicated as 

a priority in a regional LRTP or other planning 

document and/or projects consistent with the national 

investment strategy.

5 - Determine Regional Work Program

While the ranked project list will guide project 

decisions, regional leadership will have the 

final decision on project selection to meet fiscal 

constraints. Scores are intended to advise the 

decision makers, but they have flexibility to prioritize 

projects due to timing, size of projects, funding 

availability, or shifting regional priorities.

6 - Eligibility Check

Coordinators send list to national transportation 

program coordinator to confirm project eligibility. 

After the review, projects are added to the amended 

5-year program of projects.

7 - Adapt as Needed

Regional staff will evaluate the regional project 

selection process and revise it as necessary for 

following selection cycles.
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 49

National Long Range Transportation Plan

1. Region Solicits Projects 

From Units

Regional Coordinator provides 

guidance to units for completing 

 project description form.

2. Region Prepares 

Applications for Scoring

Regional Coordinator ensures 

forms contain required information 

and are in proper format. 

4. Projects Prioritized

Regional Coordinator tallies results and 

determines relative priority of projects. 

Corresponding FLH field visits to 

verify data. 

5. Determine Projects for 

Regional Program

Regional leadership evaluates ranked 

and tiered projects and determine 

where they fit in the current FLTP work 

program.

6. Elegibility Check and 

Program

Coordinators send list to National 

Program Manager to confirm 

project eligibility. After review, 

projects are added to the amended FLTP 

5 year program of projects

7. Adapt for Next Cycle

Regional Coordinator and scoring team 

evaluates results and makes changes 

for next cycle 

Key Data Inputs:

• Roads and Trails Inventory Programs (RIP) 

• FWS Asset Management Database (SAMMS) 

• National Bridge Inventory (NBI)

• Refuge Annual Performance Planning (RAPP)

• Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluations

• Safety and Crash Data 

Ongoing: Coordination with FHWA

Throughout the project selection process, 

transportation coordinators and maintenance staff 

should maintain open dialogue and collaboration with 

the appropriate Federal Lands Highway office. 

FLH can: corroborate/validate 5 year improvement 

plans, identify efficiencies and economies of scale 

and can assist with the scoping and budgeting of 

projects in the initial phases of programming and 

development. 

FWS Project Selection Cycle Data, Assistance and Guidance

Project Scorecard:

3. Region Scores Projects

A team evaluates and scores projects 

based on the information in the project 

description form. Use criteria elements 

in the project scorecard as a guide. 

Regional leadership evaluates ranked and 

tiered projects and determines where they 

fit in the current FLTP work program and 

available funding. 
50

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Data Inputs Criteria Elements Points

• Project description

• RIP questionnaire

• Road safety audit

• Crash data

• Improves transportation-related safety forvisitors, staff, and/or wildlife

• Enhancements and countermeasures included in project description: Road safety

audits, signs and markings, traffic calming measures and movement restrictions,

wildlife crossings, barriers, vegetation control, surface improvements, visiting hours 

• Project site has documented crash history or is identified as a safety issue ‘hot spot’

Safety

• FARS

20 points

• Project description

• SAMMS data

• RIP data

• Project will bring an asset with a current condition rating of Fair, Poor, or Failed

to a condition of Good or Excellent, or improves an identified deficiency

• Project extends the remaining service life of an existing asset

• Project improves an identified deficiency 

Asset Management

20 points

• Letters of support

from partner

organizations 

• Consider the use of funding or partner expertise for planning, design, construction,

and/or operations from a partner organization

• Partners can also help manage or operate the completed transportation facility.

• Scoring may be on percentage of partner funding: 10% or less of total project cost, 

10-50% of total project cost, or greater than 50% of total project cost

• Project includes financial support or in-kind support from a partner agency 

• Project incorporates cost-savings plan for operations and maintenance to reduce

long term costs

• Project has a letter of support from a partner agency

$

Coordinated Opportunities

• List of partner 10 points organizations on

regional or 

national level

• Project takes into account vulnerability to changing weather patterns and natural 

disasters 

• Project references: Highway Safety Manual, Interactive Highway Safety Design Model,

NATCO Bikeway Design Guide, FWS Roadway Design Guidelines, etc.

• Project incorporates one or more of the “4Es” of safety (engineering, education, 

enforcement and emergency medical services) 

• NBI and other

bridge data

• NBI and other

bridge data

• FCI/API matrix

• State and/or regional 

transportation plans 

(STIPs, TIPs, etc.)

Project Scorecard
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 51

National Long Range Transportation Plan

• Project improves access for underserved or underrepresented visitors

• Project includes access to recreational elements like trailheads, viewing blinds, 

and/or auto tour routes

• Project features enhancements that incorporate environmental education,

interpretation and stewardship into the travel experience

• CCP or

transportation plan

• LRTP or RATE

report

• RAPP visitation

• Visitor Service

Plans and

Assessments

• Project is listed or referenced in a transportation plan/analysis by FWS or partners

• Includes internal and external wayfinding forvisitor orientation, including multimodal

orientation (if applicable)

15 points

Visitor Experience

• List of urban

refuges

• Addresses a congestion “hot spot”

• Maps of local

transportation

systems

• Project description

• RATE maps and

project list

• RIP road

classification

• Project expands modal options or reduces dependency on private automobiles 

• Project description includes a measure of the (quantity and/or

transportation infrastructure 

quality) of existing 

• Project expands on and/or off-site connectivity with increased connections to

existing transportation systems, roads, trails and transit (if applicable) 

• Project expands access to visitor groups that are underrepresented or limited by 

mobility 

• List of urban

refuges • Addresses a congestion “hot spot”

Access Mobility and Connectivity

15 points

• RIP/RATE survey

• CCP notation of

sensitive resources

• Project description

• Roadway design

guidelines

• Project includes context sensitive enhancements for wildlife connectivity and

reduction of habitat fragmentation

Project is designed to avoid negative impacts to fish, wildlife, habitat, cultural and

aquatiuc resources through the Roadway Design Guidelines or Adaptive Mitigation 

principles 

• Project will reduce or offset greenhouse gas emissions

Environmental

20 points

Data Inputs Criteria Elements Points

• CLIR Tool

• Project includes elements that are addressed or identified in other organizations 

(state DOTs, MPOs, cities/municipalities) long or short term planning documents 

•

•

• US Census Data
52

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Short and Long Term Actions

Short Term - Next Four Years

Coordinated Opportunities: Deliverables

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Identify and engage partners, leverage funds and collaborate with local

and regional actors such as: NGOs, non-profits, MPOs, local/state

government agencies, state DOTs, local landowners, Indian tribes,

transit authorities and private transportation providers when interests

align with Service and station level needs.

Update of regional transportation partners

list due to FWS HQ every 2 years, develop

and share accomplishments between

regions and NGOs to spur continued

collaboration and support.

Local contacts for MPOs, state

DOTs and state/municipal

governments, National Friends

Group Coordinator at FWS HQ

office

Literature review of all relevant transportation planning documents

(STIPs, LRTPs, etc.) from State DOTs, MPO/RPOs for all metropolitan

statistical areas in US.

National database of transportation planning

documents

State DOTs, RPOs and MPOs

Develop a streamlined method to engage gateway communities, federal

land management agencies, tribes, military, state DOTs, and planning

organizations to address issues of mutual interest. Focus on priority

field stations.

Develop best practice handbook for

engaging local governmental and nongovernmental actors

Regional transportation program

coordinators

Resources and Contacts
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 53

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Short Term - Next Four Years

Asset Management: Deliverables

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Resources and Contacts

Improve data interoperability between RIP and SAMMS, including use

of Services Application for Material Assessments (SAMI)

Fulfill all transportation condition

assessments using refined process and

placement into SAMMS using SAMI

Facilities Branch at FWS HQ or

Federal Lands Highway Roadway

Inventory Program (RIP)

Develop a formal step in planning processes to estimate and consider life

cycle costs and emissions when project planning and pursue mitigation

The Roadway Design Guidelines,

Complete and merge road and parking tiering effort, nationwide

Begin a 'pavement preservation' approach to asset management to

extend the life of roads

Best practice guides for pavement

preservation

The Volpe Center, FHWA

Identify transportation assets at risk due to the impacts of climate

change and pursue appropriate adaptation strategies

Improve the collection, accessibility, and interpretation of asset

management, resource, safety, planning, and other data. For example:

the on-going Station Transportation Analysis Tool (STAT) project,

planning questionnaire assisted RIP process and safety assessments

Central database for storage of

transportation program data. ServCAT is

potential repository

Nationwide vulnerability study 

(Expansion of pilot study conducted

in Region 4)

Transportation and Natural 

Resorce Program Center at 

FWS HQ and FHWA

Transportation at FWS HQ, 

FHWA and Consultants

FHWA Climate Change Tools,

strategies

Standardized project description form

with climate change elements 

incorporated Climate Leadership in Refuges tool

(CLIR)

Develop strategy to inventory and manage non-public use 

transportation network, ERFO program, and maintenance program 

Updates/addenda to PLAN 2035 Transportation at FWS HQ

and Volpe Center

Data cleanup in SAMMS

Continue to implement non-safety (pavement, congestion and bridge)

management systems 

Full execution of management systems The Volpe Center, FHWA
54

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Short and Long Term Actions

Short Term - Next Four Years

Safety: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

Implement recommendations resulting from the Service’s

Transportation Program Safety Management System report

Establish connection between FWS data

and Safety Management System (SMS) to

use data to assess needs

Regional transportation program

coordinators and FHWA

Develop Servicewide standard to track and report wildlife/vehicle

collisions (WVC)

Integrated into RIP/RATE surveys

to the field

Transportation at FWS HQ 

and Volpe Center

Implement the safety analysis toolkit. Initiate safety studies and actions

in areas believed to have safety problems as identified in unit-level plans,

regional LRTPs, and the National LRTP

Determine safety priority improvement

areas across the network. Begin to address

through studies and needs assessments.

Report every 2 years on safety related

transportation improvements

Regional transportation program 

coordinators

Complete transportation safety assessments for all stations with 

identified needs

Nationwide list of priority safety issues Safety assessments and Safety 

identified needs Analysis Toolkit 

Implement recommendations resulting from the Service’s 

Transportation Program Safety Management System report

Develop Servicewide standard to track and report wildlife/vehicle 

collisions (WVC)

Implement the safety analysis toolkit. Initiate safety studies and actions 

in areas believed to have safety problems as identified in unit-level 

plans, regional LRTPs, and the National LRTP

Complete transportation safety assessments for all stations with 

identified needs. Focus on priority field stations

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Consider peer-review of the Service’s safety approach to improve 

efficiency and outcomes.

Establish connection between FWS data 

and Safety Management System (SMS) to 

use data to assess needs

Develop wildlife collision data collection/

tracking system. Integrate into RIP/RATE 

surveys to the field

Determine safety priority improvement 

areas across the network. Begin to address 

through studies and needs assessments. 

Report every 2 years on safety related 

transportation improvements

Nationwide list of priority safety issues

Peer review of documentation of actionable 

improvements

Regional transportation program 

coordinators and FHWA

Transportation at FWS HQ and 

Volpe Center; partners

Regional transportation program 

coordinators

Safety assessments and Safety 

Analysis Toolkit

FHWA and partners
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 55

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Short Term - Next Four Years

Environmental: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

Develop a format/process for regions to track wildlife-vehicle collisions

and hot-spots, and report annually

Scope of work to assist regional

coordinators to begin to focus on priority

field stations

The Western Transportation

Institute at Montana State

University

Implement and monitor the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines for use

across the Service

Accountability tracked through the Design

Guidelines Project Acknowledgements

Worksheet by both FWS and FHWA

The FWS Roadway Design

Guidelines

Expand the Service’s Climate Leadership in Refuges (CLIR) tool so all

stations can use it to track emissions. Encourage/require annual

emissions reporting for transportation sources

Full roll-out of CLIR tool to stations with

Visitor Surveys and assistance on

transportation related items

Transportation at FWS HQ 

Refuge System and

Business Management/Ops. 

Follow the principles of Adaptive Mitigation to achieve no net loss when

designing, building or restoring transportation facilities including:

Avoidance, Minimization, Rehabilitation and Restoration

Develop standard methodology to quantify

the environmental impacts of construction

activities

501 FW 2 - Mitigation Policy

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Further study of terrestrial and aquatic organism passage issues 

as they relate to transportation (e.g. wildlife/vehicle collisions in and 

around Service lands) 

National list of high priority corridors.

Best practice guidance for connecting 

fragmented habitat, roadside maintenance

and revegetation practices (e.g. planting 

of milkweed along roadsides in monarch 

butterfly I-35 flyway corridor)

FHWA Office of Natural

Environment and the Roadway

Design Guidelines

State and local transportation

organizations 

Where feasible, reroute high-speed roadways around refuge lands or

work with partners to mitigate negative impacts
56

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Short Term - Next Four Years

Access, Mobility and Connectivity: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Collect and analyze information to characterize access, congestion levels,

high use, economic generators and alternative transportation systems

(ATS) at Service units. Consider census population projections as a

proxy for future visitation

Work with urban initiatives and other

access programs to highlight areas of need

and projections for future connectivity

Transportation at FWS HQ 

and The Volpe Center

Determine where multi-modal transportation opportunities are most

feasible with priority for Urban Refuges 

Compile a National Alternative

Transportation Evaluation (NATE) using

completed regional surveys. Make

suggestions to prioritize needed

improvements at key field stations, 

The Volpe Center and the RATE

surveys, Urban Implementation

Team

Incorporate transportation access, mobility, congestion, and connectivity

in CCPs, LRTPs, visitor use plans, and unit-level transportation plans,

paying particular consideration to underserved, underrepresented, and

disadvantaged populations

Official FWS plans, presentations and

policy materials

The Volpe Center

Continue to work collaboratively with the NWRS Vision Implementation

team and its Urban Refuge initiative

Urban Implementation Team at

FWS HQ

Develop online presence for the transportation program. Content 

should include: data, planning tools, douments, links, projects, etc. 

FWS Transportation Program Webpage Transportation at FWS HQ 

and The Volpe Center

conduct needs assessments at Urban 

Refuges

To be determined by Transportation and 

Urban Implementation teams 

Short and Long Term Actions

Connection to Urban Web Hub

.
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 57

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Short Term - Next Four Years

Visitor Experience: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

Long Term - Four Years Plus

Ensure all relevant wayfinding information is on refuge and hatchery

websites and printed materials

Carry out regular inspections and conduct

as-needed maintenance on all internal and

external refuge and hatchery signage

Branch of Communications at

FWS HQ

Develop strong working relationships between the Service and local

public agencies to encourage connections to transportation providers and

inclusion of unit information into ITS databases, displays and signs

Local agencies, non-profits,

governmental entities and

DOTs/MPOs

Catalog opportunities to develop interpretive/educational elements into

transportation facilities

Work with external mapping providers (such as Google Maps and

Garmin) to verify locations of main entrance routes, roads, trails and

points of interest

Cartography office at FWS HQ

and external data services

Adopt and follow Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for

Streets and Highways (MUTCD) compliant standards for static signage

design and procurement

Facilities and Transportation

at FWS HQ

Enlist refuge and hatchery friends groups to assist in wayfinding efforts

using innovative information distribution platforms

Mobile apps, QR codes, text alerts, etc.

Mobile apps, QR codes, text alerts, etc.

National Friends Group

Coordinator at FWS HQ office

Continue to participate in visitor satisfaction and transportation related

questionnaires to the public 

Strategic data collection at priority 

stations 

FWS Human Dimensions office

FWS standard transportation

signage design manual
58

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Short and Long Term Actions

Short Term - Next Four Years

Funding: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

Long Term - Four Years Plus

$

Determine how to use RIP, SAMMS, and RAPP data consistently for

funding decisions. This includes finding ways to consistently report and

apply asset priority index, facility condition index scores and visitation

counts.

Transportation at FWS HQ

Improve tracking of transportation program expenditures (by funding

source, region, year, and unit).

Yearly national roll-up of budgetary

expenditures

Regional transportation program

coordinators, the Volpe Center

Refine the future annual transportation needs within the Service and

work with FHWA and other partners to express these needs at

strategic times (like during transportation bill reauthorization).

Focus funding on Tier 1 and 2 roads, as

classified by the Service Facilities Branch

(Tier 3 roadways will still be eligible for

FLTP funding, but at low priority)

Regional transportation program

coordinators, Facilities Branch at

FWS HQ

Develop a Service-wide strategy for accessing funds from new

discretionary funding sources (FLAP and Transportation Alternatives

Program).

Regional transportation program

coordinators and Federal Lands

Highway offices

Adopt a national project prioritization process with standardized criteria

to develop programmatic consistency.

Project selection process Regional and national

transportation program

coordinators

Consider dedicated staff for this effort
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 59

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Short Term - Next Four Years

Headquarters Office: Deliverables Resources and Contacts

HQ

Develop centralized repository for transportation related data,

initiatives, policy structure and general programmatic information.

Transportation program web portal on

FWS.GOV

The Volpe Center

Seek ways to communicate the accomplishments of the transportation

program as a means to maintain current funding levels or demonstrate

needs.

High quality 'glossy' products that

communicate progress and achievements to

appropriate audiences

National Wildlife Refuge

Association and Transportation 

at FWS HQ

Develop list of ‘national priorities’ across ten different elements of the

transportation program including: auto tour routes, primary access

routes (both FWS and non-FWS owned), parking areas, bridges, safety

projects, wildlife/vehicle interaction hot spots, alternative transportation,

trails and large (>$3M) projects.

Develop a method to track and analyze progress over time of

performance targets.

Yearly or biennial report card for national

performance based on strategic goal area

Based on RATE surveys, synthesize a National Alternative

Transportation Evaluation (or NATE) to guide long-range alternative

transportation programming decisions.

Develop method to track SAMMS work orders and spending amounts

that are charged to FLTP funded projects on FWS transportation

assets.

Facilities Branch at FWS HQ

Identify and fill short and long-term staffing needs to add operational

capacity to the program.

New staff positions and/or organizational

structure

Volpe Center staffing analysis

Continued participation in annual data call All Transportation group staff
60

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Performance Targets

Coordinated Opportunities:

Current

Performance

20 Year Target

Performance

▪ Increase the total number of official Fish and Wildlife partners and friends groups year to year

230 Unique

organizations

Plus 10% nationally

▪ Increase the percentage ratio of supplemental funding to base funding for projects and

planning

23% or about $7M/yr.

(10 yr. avg) 40%

▪ Increase the number of transportation projects that leverage multiple funding sources

Baseline established

at year 1 5 per year nationally

Asset Management:

▪ Increase percentage of road miles in good or excellent condition 62% RIP Cycle 4 80% or higher

▪ Maintain percentage of trail miles in good or excellent condition 84% RIP Cycle 3

Greater than or equal

to current

performance

▪ Increase percentage of bridges in good or excellent condition 65% 95% or higher

▪ Increase percentage of programmed FLTP projects that have been scored and prioritized via

a standardized selection process

None (0%) 50% in 2 years, 100%

in 5 years

Safety:

▪ Complete safety assessments for highly visited refuges

Baseline established

at year 1 5 per year nationally

▪ Reduce number of transportation related fatalities that occur on refuges and hatcheries 2 Fatalities in past 5 Years Zero fatalities

▪ Reduce number of wildlife/vehicle collisions Baseline established

at year 1 Zero collisions

▪ In

Gu

▪ In

▪ C

▪ R

In 

A

▪ In

pe

thi

▪ In

se

▪ In

V

▪ In

▪ M
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 61

National Long Range Transportation Plan

l

Environmental:

Current

Performance

20 Year Target

Performance

▪ Increase percentage of transportation projects that track the elements of the Roadway Design 

Guidelines through the Project Acknowledgements checklist

Baseline established

at year 1

60% at year 1, 100%

by year 5

▪ Increase the number of projects that enhance aquatic or terrestrial organism passage

Baseline established

at year 1 5 per year nationally

▪ Complete assessments on existing wildlife crossings and aquatic passages

Baseline established

at year 1 2-3 per year nationally

▪ Reduce or offset the carbon footprint of the transportation network (The Climate Leadership

In Refuges, or CLIR tool, will provide guidance with this)

Baseline established

at year 1

20% below 2010

baseline

Access, Mobility and Connectivity:

▪ Increase the total number of multi-modal connections to refuges and hatcheries (The

pending Multimodal Catalog, being drafted by FLH, will provide guidance with

this)

Baseline established

at year 1 3 projects per year

▪ Increase the number of multimodal transportation options on refuges and hatcheries (Also,

see Multimodal Catalog)

Baseline established

at year 1 5 projects per year

▪ Increase number of projects that improve access at main ingress/egress points

Baseline established

at year 1 2-3 projects per year

Visitor Experience:

▪ Integrate wayfinding and ITS into transportation projects

Baseline established

at year 1 2-3 projects per year

▪ Maintain or improve transportation satisfaction ratings (Based on National Visitor Survey) 75% ‘Highly Satisfied’ with

 ‘Very Important’ elements

Greater than or equal

to current

performance
62

National Long Range Transportation Plan

IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION

Performance 

Management 

and Planning

MAP-21 set up certain requirements for project 

selection and parameters for performance 

management for FHWA and Federal Land 

Management Agencies. When using programmatic 

funding with the Federal Lands Transportation 

Program, transportation improvements are to be 

considered to the extent that they support:

 Transportation goals, including a state of good 

repair of transportation facilities, reduction in bridge 

deficiencies, and improvement of safety.

 High-use federal recreational sites or federal 

economic generators.

 Resource and asset management goals of 

the Secretary of the respective Federal Land 

Management Agency.

It is expected that the same requirements will continue 

under the current transportation legislation, the 

FAST Act.

Meeting Performance Management

The policy structure of this plan is consistent with 

the MAP-21 performance management parameters, 

namely through the program principles and goals. 

This plan also adds specific items related to visitor 

experience and coordinated opportunities, all of 

which carry through to actions. In addition, the 

proposed performance measures in the previous 

section consider draft FHWA performance measures 

generated in 2013, and add to that list to include 

items important to the Service and the transportation 

program. 

Actions:

 Starting in FY 2017, develop more robust program 

applications for the FWS transportation program 

that propose work plans at various potential funding 

levels. Applications (funding scenarios and associated 

work plans) will be consistent with the guidance in 

this LRTP. 

 The transportation program will prepare baseline 

numbers for the performance measures outlined in 

this plan and track/evaluate progress over time.

 Elevate the percentage of program funding 

obligated for transportation improvements at highuse recreational sites. From the historical data 

and projection over the next few years, FWS has 

obligated about 40% of its funds at higher use stations 

(based on overall visitation numbers). As a goal, FWS 

will work toward targeting expenditure at a majority 

of field stations (>50%) that meet the FWS definition 

of high-use. 

Future Planning

The national LRTP will be updated every 4 to 5 

years. Because the policy structure of the next 

transportation authorization is unknown, this 

document will be refined in accordance as needed 

once the new authorization or reauthorization 

is signed into law. In future plan revisions, the 

transportation program may consider additional 

factors for setting priorities at a national level, 

including guidance on leveraging supplemental 

(discretionary or competitive) funds. 

Actions:

 Develop Service wide strategies for accessing 

funds from supplemental funding sources (Federal 

Lands Access Program, Transportation Alternatives 

Program, etc.)

 Refine or update the project selection process 

outlined in this plan to track with performance 

management and other legislative requirements in 

any future transportation authorization. 

 Quantify the future annual needs for motorized, 

non-motorized and alternative transportation 

maintenance and operations both on and off Service 

lands.

 Seek ways to communicate the accomplishments 

of the Service transportation program as a means 

to maintain current funding levels or seek future 

increases.

 Improve tracking of transportation program 

expenditures through FBMS and Federal Lands 

Highway financial systems by funding source, region, 

year, and unit).
IMPLEMENTATION and ACTION 63

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Regional LRTP 

Development

This plan is intended to provide direction for the 

development of forthcoming regional LRTPs to 

further strengthen program stewardship and link 

Service goals with planning process. This guidance 

provided for regional LRTPs is intended to provide a 

common starting point (or update point) for each and 

will ensure that minimum requirements for regional 

plans are met.

Regional LRTPs should lay out a clear set of 

goals, objectives, data collection processes, and 

recommendations for a project selection process. 

This guidance allows for wide-ranging flexibility 

to accommodate unique regional goals, conditions, 

values, data, performance, action items, and 

recommendations while remaining consistent with 

the national plan. 

Regional LRTP Compatibility

As regions develop or update their LRTPs, they 

should integrate and/or expand upon the below 

elements in the following ways: 

 Regional goals should follow or elaborate 

upon the six strategic goals expressed in the 

national plan

 Existing conditions (baselines) should be 

determined to help set regional targets

 Needs and investment strategies must be 

defined 

 Priority projects should be defined based on 

needs, investment strategies and selection 

processes

 Transportation planning needs for CCPs, 

step-down plans and safety studies, must be 

assessed and clearly documented

 National strategies proposed for addressing 

annual and deferred maintenance should be 

considered

 Regional plans should stipulate adherence to 

the Roadway Design Guidelines 

 The project selection criteria and basic 

process outlined in the national plan will be 

adopted and refined

 The performance measures outlined in this 

plan will be calculated on regional levels 

using best available data

Additional Elements 

The majority of the detailed content in regional 

LRTPs should be unique to that specific region. 

There are many opportunities to adapt guidelines 

provided by the national plan to fit a regional context. 

During the development or update of regional 

LRTPs, regions should expect to collect or refine 

data that are not available or not feasibly collected at 

the national level. The following additional elements 

should be developed by regions so that they may be 

incorporated into future planning efforts:

 Additional goals (with measurable objectives) 

if desired

 Strategies to achieve objectives

 Modifications to Roadway Design Guidelines 

based on regional conditions

 A method for, and commitment to, report and 

track wildlife-vehicle collisions

 Regional Climate Change Action Priorities

 Database of partners at the regional level

 Identification of gateway communities, state 

DOTs, and planning organizations for issues 

related to access, mobility, and connectivity

 Refinement of strategies for partnerships 

and priorities for Access Program (FLAP) 

implementation and new knowledge about 

partnerships

 Unit-level safety concerns

 Sub-criteria and details for project selection

 Additional performance measures
64

National Long Range Transportation Plan

FINAL THOUGHT

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Nisqually NWR

Washington

Final Thought
FINAL THOUGHT 65

National Long Range Transportation Plan

Work Today to 

Conserve for 

Tomorrow

Natural resource management requires dedicated 

work from a varied group of professionals, 

technicians and managers. Ultimately, the FWS 

transportation network exists to enable these 

individuals to conserve habitat and wildlife while at 

the same time facilitating the enjoyment and use of 

these resources by the visiting public. In other words, 

there would be no need for a transportation program 

if there were no natural resources to manage. 

At its core, this is a resource management plan, 

not a transportation plan. Its policies are derived 

from well established principles and guidelines in 

the transportation field, yet that guidance had to be 

adapted in a way that ultimately supports a resource 

conservation mission. 

With the adoption of this plan, the Service is 

taking an important step in fulfilling its promise to 

guarantee the long term sustainability of biodiversity 

in the United States. 
 List of Acronyms

AID Accelerated Innovation Deployment Grant Program

API Asset Priority Index Mission Dependency Calculation

ATS Alternative Transportation System Non-Private Vehicle Transportation

CCP Comprehensive Conservation Plan Refuge Management Document

CIP Capital Improvement Program 5 Year Improvement Plans at Region

DOE Department of Energy Federal Department

DOI Department of Interior Federal Department

DOT Department of Transportation Federal Department

ERFO Emergency Relief Federally Owned Disaster Relief Program

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System Data Gathering

FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act Transportation Act

FBMS Financial and Business Management System Asset Management System

FCI Functional Class Index State of Repair Calculation

FHWA Federal Highway Administration USDOT Agency

FLAP Federal Lands Access Program Funding Mechanism

FLHP Federal Lands Highway Program Program (Past)

FLTP Federal Lands Transportation Program Current Program

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federal Agency

FWSTP U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Transportation Program Program

LRTP Long Range Transportation Plan Planning Document

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

NBI National Bridge Inventory Data Gathering

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge System Agency Program

RAPP Refuge Annual Performance Planning Data Gathering

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Data Gathering

RIP Roads Inventory Program Data Gathering

RRP Refuge Roads Program Program (Past)

SAMMS Servicewide Asset Maintenance Management System Asset Management System

SMS Safety Management System Data Gathering

TAP Transportation Alternatives Program Grant Program

USDOT US Department of Transportation Federal Department

66

National Long Range Transportation Plan
67

National Long Range Transportation Plan
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

Summer 2016
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
FWS 

Transportation Program

Safety Analysis Toolkit

Prepared for:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Federal Highway Administration
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FWS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLKIT

Safety Analysis Toolkit

i

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................1

1.2 Relationship to Safety Management System ...........................................................................1

1.3 How to Use this Toolkit .............................................................................................................2

2. SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS .............................................................................................................3

2.1 Safety Analysis Process .............................................................................................................4

2.2 Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities.............................................................................5

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY ISSUES.................................................................................................7

3.1 Identification of Safety Issues...................................................................................................7

3.2 Common Safety Issues and Concerns......................................................................................9

4. SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLS...............................................................................................................11

4.1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – General.......................................................................................12

4.2 Road Safety Audit – Intersection Study.................................................................................15

4.3 Road Safety Audit – Corridor Study .....................................................................................16

4.4 Unit Level Safety Analysis ......................................................................................................18

4.5 Issue Specific Safety Analysis .................................................................................................23

4.6 Customized Analysis................................................................................................................25

5. IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................................................................26
 

ACRONYMS

FWS TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLKIT

Safety Analysis Toolkit

ii

DOT Department of Transportation

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FLH Federal Lands Highway

FWS Fish and Wildlife Service

FWS-IMARS FWS Incident Management and Analysis Reporting System

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

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

RATE Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation

RIP Roadway Inventory Program

RSA Road Safety Audit

SMIS Safety Management Information System

SMS Safety Management System
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) work closely 

together to continually improve safety on the 

transportation system that serves the National Wildlife 

Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. The FWS and FHWA 

have developed a Safety Management System (SMS) 

that can be used to identify, prioritize, mitigate, and 

track the performance of transportation safety 

investments for the FWS transportation system. To 

complement the SMS and provide tools for analyzing 

safety issues within the FWS transportation system, the 

Safety Analysis Toolkit was developed. The Toolkit 

includes discussions on the roles and responsibilities of 

partner agencies, the safety analysis tools that can be 

used to study safety issues, and the steps for 

implementing countermeasures that have been 

identified.

1.1 Purpose 

The Safety Analysis Toolkit will support the FWS 

efforts to identify, analyze, and mitigate safety issues 

on the FWS transportation system. The Toolkit 

presents a safety analysis process that emphasizes the 

strong coordination that should occur between FWS 

Field Station Managers and Staff, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA Safety 

Discipline Team. Each of these partners plays an important role in identifying, analyzing, and developing 

countermeasures to address safety issues in National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. 

The information in the Safety Analysis Toolkit is also intended to assist the FWS with developing a 

consistent procedure for determining the appropriate safety analysis type and to encourage a consistent 

level of safety analysis across the FWS. The Toolkit provides a description of a number of types of safety 

analysis tools that should be carefully considered when analyzing a safety issue. It provides guidance on 

what type of analysis to use and discusses the basic steps involved with each. Every field station and 

every safety issue will be different and at times none of the specific study types discussed will be a perfect 

fit for the analysis of a safety issue. The Toolkit encourages using a combination of studies as needed to 

address safety issues when appropriate. 

The safety analysis process presented in this Toolkit is a key step in meeting the FWS goal of eliminating 

crashes on the FWS transportation system. The safety analysis process emphasizes identification of safety 

issues before crashes occur and promotes coordination between FWS and FHWA to work closely together 

to analyze safety issues and identify countermeasures if required.

1.2 Relationship to Safety Management System

The SMS establishes an annual process to collect and store safety data in order to identify transportation 

safety issues at FWS field stations. While some of the data collected in the SMS will include crash reports 

or other objective information from traffic and safety studies, much of the data collected in the SMS is 

subjective data compiled from surveys and other input from field stations. Regardless of the source of a 

safety issue identified in the SMS, the safety analysis process discussed in the Safety Analysis Toolkit 

can be used to move the safety issues identified in the SMS forward by providing a process to determine 

if a safety study is needed an if so, what type of safety study is appropriate. 

Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge Source: USFWS
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

2

When a safety issue originates from a field station, the SMS database should be reviewed to determine if 

additional information is available in the database that is related to the safety issue. For example, the 

SMS database may have a record of a crash from the FWS Incident Management and Analysis Reporting 

System (FWS-IMARS) at the same location, or concerns about the location may have been noted on past 

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) surveys. This type of information would be 

valuable when determining if a study is needed to address the safety issue. 

The SMS database will also be available to the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and the FWS 

Field Station Manager. As additional safety data is added the SMS database each year, it should be 

periodically reviewed to determine if there are safety issues noted in the databases that should be 

considered for a safety study.

1.3 How to Use this Toolkit

As stated earlier, the Safety Analysis Toolkit is intended to assist the FWS with developing a consistent 

procedure for determining the appropriate safety analysis type and to encourage a consistent level of safety 

analysis across the FWS. The Safety Analysis Toolkit should primarily be used as a guideline in selecting 

the type of safety analysis tool to be used for safety issues that appear to need further analysis. Use of the 

process and guidance provided in the Safety Analysis Toolkit should allow for more consistency in how 

safety issues are identified for analysis as well as more consistency in which type of analysis is used.

It is important to note that the Safety Analysis Toolkit provides guidance but does not provide 

requirements on which safety issues to study or which type of study to select. The final decisions should 

be based on the expertise, experience, and local knowledge of FWS, FHWA, and other partner agency 

staff members. When safety issues are identified at the field station level, it is strongly encouraged that 

as a first step the FWS Field Station Managers and Staff contact the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, and that the FHWA Safety Discipline Team also be brought in to partner with FWS.

The Safety Analysis Toolkit should be considered in conjunction with the Four E’s of Safety: engineering, 

education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. While many of the safety analysis studies may 

be inclined to consider engineering solutions for safety issues, it is important to also consider how 

education, enforcement, and emergency medical services may be used to address safety issues as well. 

These can often provide very cost effective solutions and may address a safety issue as well or better than 

an engineering solution. Very often the best solution may lie in some combination of two or more of the 

Four E’s of Safety and all four should be considered as part of every safety analysis.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

3

2. SAFETY ANALYSIS PROCESS

The FWS and FHWA Federal Lands Highway (FLH) have defined a general process that should be 

considered when safety issues are identified on FWS transportation facilities. The process relies on a 

strong partnership between FWS Field Station Manager, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, and 

the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team. An overview of the process is presented in the figure below, 

and the process as well as the roles and responsibilities of the partner agencies are discussed in more detail 

in Section 2 of this report.

Safety Analysis Process

Note: The safety analysis process presented above emphasizes the need to involve FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators as soon as a 

safety issue is identified. Decisions on the need for a safety study as well as the type of study performed should be made by FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Lead in close coordination with the FWS. Although the process above provides general guidance for selecting the appropriate 

study type, each safety issue is unique and will need to be carefully reviewed to determine the most appropriate course of action to address 

the issue.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

4

2.1 Safety Analysis Process

The FWS and FHWA FLH have defined a general process that should be considered for safety issues that 

arise on the FWS transportation system. The process relies heavily on a high level of cooperation between 

the FWS Field Stations, FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH Safety Team. 

Each of these will both lead and support the various steps that should occur from the initial identification 

of safety issues through project implementation if applicable. The key steps in the process are discussed 

in more detail below.

Identification of Safety Issues – Safety issues may be identified at the field station, regional, or national 

level within the FWS. While some issues, such as a missing stop sign, will be most appropriately 

addressed by field station staff, other may require more in-depth analysis to determine the cause of the 

issue and develop countermeasures that adequately address the issue. As a first step, whenever safety 

issues arise that cannot be readily addressed by field station staff, it is recommended that the FWS 

Regional Transportation Coordinator be contacted.

Contact the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator – The FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators will act as the primary contact point for addressing safety issues that cannot be readily 

addressed at the field station level. The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators will be able to share 

experiences of other FWS field stations that may have had similar safety issues, they will be aware of 

existing policies and programs available to address safety issues, and they will act as the primary point of 

contact between FWS and the FWHW FLH Safety Discipline Team.

Determine if a Safety Study is Needed – The determination of the need for a safety study should be 

made with close coordination between the FWS Field Station Staff, FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead, with the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead taking the lead role in making this determination. Depending on the issue, a field review may 

be needed to make this determination and to gather additional information in order to determine the 

appropriate study type.

Determine Appropriate Study Type – Based on information available, the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Lead, in coordination with the FWS, will determine the type of safety analysis study that 

should be completed in order to address the safety issue. There should be flexibility in this process as 

each safety issue is unique. In many cases a customized analysis approach may be selected to adequately 

address an issue. For example, a unit level safety analysis may be selected for a Refuge to address multiple 

safety issues, but it may also be determined that a road safety audit (RSA) should be performed at several 

intersections within a Refuge to address specific concerns at intersections that have had a history of 

crashes.

Complete Study and Develop Recommended Countermeasures – The study and development of 

recommended countermeasures will be led by the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead. Key steps 

include:

 Formation of the Safety Team

 Data Collection and Assembly

 Develop Recommended Countermeasures

The safety team could include members of the FWS Field Station Staff, FWS law enforcement, local law 

enforcement, state departments of transportation (DOTs), and local DOTs or public works in addition to 

the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead and the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators.

Data collection and assembly will generally be the responsibility of FWS Field Station Staff who will 

have the most history on the safety issues at a field station. The FWS National SMS Specialist should 
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

5

also be consulted to identify any safety issues, crash reports, or other safety data that may be available in 

the FWS SMS.

Recommendations will be made by the safety team with the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Leader 

taking the lead role in making recommendations to FWS.

Project Implementation – Implementation of recommendations from safety studies will ultimately 

depend on priority of the need, availability of funding, and jurisdictions involved. The implementation 

will be led by the FWS Field Station Manager but tracked by the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators. Project implementation information should also be provided to the FWS National SMS 

Specialists so that the improvements can be monitored and tracked for performance measurement.

Performance Monitoring – As part of the FWS SMS, the FWS National SMS Specialist will monitor 

any locations with safety improvements to determine if a measurable difference in safety can be identified.

2.2 Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities

The FWS and its partner agencies each play a critical 

role in providing a safe transportation system within 

the FWS field stations. Close cooperation and 

partnerships between these agencies will allow FWS 

to continue to provide the safest transportation system 

possible. The key partners involved in the safety 

analysis process include:

 FWS Regional Transportation Coordinator

 FWS Field Station Manager

 FWS National SMS Specialist

 FWS Law Enforcement

 FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead

 State Departments of Transportation

 Local Law Enforcement

 Local DOTs or Public Works Departments

In the diagram to the right, the basic steps of the safety 

analysis process are identified along with the lead 

agency or agencies that are responsible for each step. 

The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead has 

been identified with many of the lead roles, but it is 

expected that they will coordinate very closely with 

the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and 

the FWS Field Station Manager throughout the safety 

analysis process. 

On the table on the following page, the specific roles 

of the most common partner agencies have been 

documented. While the FWS and FHWA are 

generally involved in safety work at FWS field 

stations, it will also be important to engage state and 

local partners. For example, RSAs are defined as 

formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or 

future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. RSAs include state DOTs and

Safety Analysis Process Lead Roles
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

6

local law enforcement officers in the process to provide an independent evaluation of safety issues from 

other agencies and disciplines. These partners can offer new perspectives and ideas on addressing safety 

issues.

Partner Agency Roles and Responsibilities

Partner Agencies Roles and Responsibilities

FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinator

Co-Lead – Identification of Safety Issues 

Determine Appropriate Study Type

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Project Implementation

FWS Field Station Manager

Co-Lead – Identification of Safety Issue

Lead – Determine Appropriate Study Type

Co-Lead – Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Lead – Project Implementation

FWS National SMS Specialist

Co-Lead – Data Collection and Assembly

Lead – Performance Monitoring and Tracking 

(Included as part of overall role to maintain SMS)

FWS 

Local Law Enforcement

Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team 

Lead

Lead - Determine if Safety Study is Needed 

Lead – Determine Appropriate Study Type

Lead – Formation of Safety Team

Lead – Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Project Implementation

State DOTs

Local DOTs

Public Works Departments

Data Collection and Assembly

Develop Recommended Countermeasures

Permitting and Approval

Project Implementation
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

7

3. IDENTIFICATION OF SAFETY ISSUES

The identification of safety issues can occur on a national, regional, or local level. On a national level 

road safety issues will be identified and compiled in the SMS. Regionally the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators will review the SMS database as well as share experience gathered from 

other safety studies to identify potential safety issues at field stations. Locally, safety issues are more 

likely to be identified through less formal means, relying on experience within the field station as well as 

reports and information from staff, law enforcement, and visitors to the field station. Safety issues should 

include not only safety issues on the FWS transportation system, but also safety issues on roads that 

provide access to National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries. In this section some of the sources of 

information that can be reviewed to identify safety issues are discussed and a broad overview of common 

safety issues is provided.

3.1 Identification of Safety Issues

One of the goals of FWS is to eliminate crashes on the FWS transportation system. In 

order to achieve this goal the FWS must be proactive in identifying potential safety 

issues and taking the appropriate steps to mitigate those issues as needed. Ideally safety 

issues are identified and mitigated before a crash ever occurs. 

At the national level, the FWS is developing a SMS. The goal of the SMS is to ensure 

that safety is considered on the FWS transportation system and to improve safety on that 

system through the project selection and development process. The SMS will consider 

safety on the entire transportation system, not just roadways. It will include transit, 

bicycle facilities, water-based transportation facilities, aviation facilities, and trails in 

addition to roadways. 

The SMS will utilize existing sources of crash and safety data to build a SMS database. 

These sources include the FWS-IMARS, surveys completed through the Long Range 

Transportation Plan process and other planning efforts, surveys completed at part of the 

FWS Roadway Inventory Program (RIP), and information from the National Highway 

Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). In some 

cases statewide crash databases may also be reviewed to determine the crash history at particular locations.

Safety issues identified in 

the SMS can occur on both 

a project level and a 

program level. Project 

level safety issues will be 

resolved on a case by case 

basis following a study and 

development of finalized 

countermeasures. Program 

level safety issues may be 

addressed across the FWS

when a repeated issue is 

noted. By taking notes and 

documenting complaints 

locally, and then passing 

those notes along to 

Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, program 

A crash is not 

required in order 

to report a 

transportation 

safety issue. The 

goal should be to 

identify and 

address safety 

issues before any 

type of crash 

occurs on the 

transportation 

system.

SMS Data Collection Sources
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

8

level safety concerns may be discovered earlier and resolved in a more timely matter.

The SMS will be reviewed on an annual basis to identify safety issues. The SMS will be available to the 

FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators to determine if there are safety issues that should be 

considered for additional study.

At the local level, identifying road safety issues will be an ongoing task that will require gathering of 

information from many sources. In the diagram below, the sources of data that may assist the FWS Field

Station Staff with identifying safety concern are identified. These include local sources of data, such as 

field observations or coordination with local law enforcement, as well as sources of data available to local 

staff through the SMS, such as crash data from the FWS Law Enforcement FWS-IMARS. While there 

are many safety issues that can be addressed at the local level, such as a missing stop sign or damaged 

guard rail, whenever a safety issue exists without a clear solution the FWS Field Station Staff are 

encouraged to contact the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators to determine if the issue should be 

considered for a safety study.

Data Inputs for Identifying Safety Issues

Finally, at all levels it is important to note that safety issues should not just be considered on FWS 

transportation facilities. Safety issues on transportation facilities that provide access to National Wildlife 

Refuges and Fish Hatcheries should also be identified and reviewed with the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators to determine if safety studies should be conducted. The Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) transportation legislation included dedicated funding for the 

Federal Lands Access Program. This program provides funds for projects on Federal Lands access 

transportation facilities that are located on or adjacent to, or that provide access to Federal Lands but are 

not owned by the FLMA. 
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

9

3.2 Common Safety Issues and Concerns

Safety issues can vary and each situation should be uniquely evaluated. However, within the FWS there 

are some commonly reported safety issues. Below is a summary of some of those issues. Although this 

is not an exhaustive list, it does provide some insight into the types of issues that may be expected to arise 

on the FWS transportation system.

Aviation

Safety issues for aviation at FWS field stations will largely consist of safety on runway and airfields. 

Issues may involve interaction with wildlife or appropriate levels of clearing for adjacent vegetation.

Bicycles

Bicycle safety includes well marked trails and paths as well as signed crossing points. Primary points of 

concern are locations where bicycles interact with motorized vehicles; this includes intersections, 

insufficient sight distance around curves for vehicles to see bicycles, and narrow roads with insufficient 

width for vehicles to pass.

Bridges

While integrity of bridge structures is often the most serious safety concern, other safety issues with 

bridges may include insufficient width for two-way traffic, lack or guardrail, low clearance, waterways 

overflowing onto the bridge deck, and unsafe conditions due to winter weather.

Parking Lots

Parking lots can present unique 

safety concerns. Lack of 

striping, poor signage, ingress 

and egress issues, poor internal 

circulation patterns, and 

vehicle-pedestrian conflicts 

can all be potential causes for 

accidents and/or crashes even 

at low vehicular travel speeds. 

Pedestrians

Similar to bicycles, safety 

issues can arise in any location 

where pedestrians frequently 

interact with motorized 

vehicles. Lack of adequate 

signing and pavement 

markings at crossings can be a 

safety issue, as well as roads 

without adjacent sidewalks or 

trails that require pedestrians to walk in the roadway.

Roadway Design

There are a significant number of roadway elements that may present safety issues. These include poor 

drainage, lack of guardrail or safety barriers, poor pavement quality, or inadequate pavement markings.

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Source: Steve Hillebrand, FWS 
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

10

Roadway Intersections: Field Station Egress and Ingress

Ingress and egress to field stations can pose safety issues, particularly when vehicles that accelerate or 

decelerate slowly (such as large RVs and vehicle towing boats) are presented with potential conflicts with 

fast moving vehicles on state or county roads that provide access to the field station. Common safety 

issues include lack of acceleration or deceleration lanes, inadequate signage or pavement markings, 

nearby at-grade railroad crossings, or the need for a traffic signal.

Roadway Intersections: Internal Field Station Intersections

Internal field station intersections may have many of the same safety issues as intersections at the field 

station entrances. Other common safety issues may include inadequate horizontal or vertical sight 

distance, lack of clear right-of-way, narrow roadways, or poor pavement conditions.

Roadway Pull-out

Informal parking along roadways can 

create safety issues. These may occur 

along auto tour routes or locations where 

there are scenic view pull-outs that are 

not adequately signed. High speeds can 

cause safety issues at these locations as 

well as limited sight distance.

Security Issues

Security related safety issues may 

involve unauthorized users or vehicle 

types on roadways, and the enforcement 

of roadway regulations.

Water Based Transportation

Water based transportation safety issues 

may include such issues as boat ramp 

safety or boat to boat crashes on 

waterways. 

Weather

Weather related safety issues that may need to be addressed include roadway flooding, ponding of water 

on roadways, icy conditions, temporary closures due to snow, or fog. 

Wildlife-Vehicle Collisions

Reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions not only improves safety but also serves an important part of the 

FWS mission of conservation of wildlife. Roadway fencing, grade separated wildlife crossings, and 

improved signage are all considerations if wildlife-vehicle collisions present a safety issue at a field 

station.

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Source: Kimley-Horn
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

11

4. SAFETY ANALYSIS TOOLS

In Section 2 of this document a safety analysis process was presented that provides recommended steps 

for moving from the identification of a safety issue to analysis of the issue to project implementation. In 

Section 4, the determination of the appropriate safety analysis study is discussed. Discussion is included 

on four unique types of safety analysis tools: Intersection RSAs, Corridor RSAs, Unit Level Safety 

Analysis, and Issue Specific Safety Analysis. The need for a customized analysis to address unique safety 

issues is also discussed. 

Safety Analysis Process

(Safety Analysis Study Type Determination)

The determination of the appropriate study type will generally be led by the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Lead in close coordination with the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and FWS 

Field Station Manager. The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Lead will also take the lead on completing 

the safety analysis, however assistance may be sought from local and regional transportation experts as 

well as consultants to assist with performing the safety analysis. 

In the remainder of Section 4, each of the safety analysis study types are described in more detail. The 

general timeframe to complete each study, the team used for each study, the commitment required from 

the FWS field stations, and reasons for selecting each type of study are discussed.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

12

4.1 Road Safety Audit (RSA) – General

RSAs are a common and valuable tool used to analyze safety on roadway intersections and corridors. The 

FHWA defines an RSA as a “formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or future road or 

intersection by an independent, multi-disciplinary team.” The FHWA has developed a Road Safety Audit 

Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments. The Safety Analysis Toolkit 

provides information regarding what an RSA is, when an RSA should be considered and how an RSA 

should be conducted. A brief summary of information found in that document is provided here. 

RSAs may be used on any type of facility and during all stages of the project development process; 

additionally, RSAs consider potential safety issues for all road users under all conditions. Attention

should be given to travel conditions such as darkness, severe weather, peak travel times, special events, 

or other factors that may not normally exist at the site. 

RSAs Are: RSAs Are Not:

Focused on road safety

A formal examination

Proactive in nature

Conducted by a multidisciplinary team

Conducted by a team that is independent of the 

operations, design, or management of the facility

Conducted by a qualified team

Broad enough to consider the safety of road users of 

the facility

Qualitative in nature

A means to evaluate the design of a facility

A check of compliance with standards

A redesign of a project

A means of rating one design option over another

A means of ranking or justifying one project over 

another

A safety review

A crash investigation (although the crash history of an 

existing facility is reviewed)

Source: FHWA Road Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land Management Agencies and Tribal Governments

Many factors may lead to the decision to request the preparation of an RSA. Common factors may include 

a high crash frequency, high profile crash types, or significant changes in traffic characteristics or patterns

(current or expected). Other factors may include unique design proposals for the area or a major change 

in adjacent or surrounding land uses.

RSA project scopes should generally remain small, including no more than one to two miles of corridor 

or no more than four to five intersections, if possible. Limiting the scope allows RSAs to be completed

expeditiously. Typical RSA field work can be completed in one or two days, with one week being a 

standard maximum. If an RSA includes a corridor longer than two miles or a large number of intersections 

to be assessed the timeframe for completion of the project, particularly the amount of time required for 

field work, may increase dramatically.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

13

Completing an RSA is an 8 step process which is 

outlined in the FHWA Road Safety Audit Guidelines. 

Responsibility of each step is assigned to either the 

project owner or the RSA Team lead as illustrated in 

the figure at left. The project owner would most likely 

be the FWS, represented by the FWS Field Station 

Manager as well as the FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordination. If a safety issue was identified on a road 

that provided access to a field station but was not 

owned by the FWS, the project owner would be the 

owning and operating agency such as a State DOT or 

a County Public Works Department. The RSA Team 

will most likely be led by the FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team. 

A summary of the 8 steps are provided below.

Step 1 – Identify Project or Existing Road for RSA: 

As noted in Section 2.1, the need for a RSA will be

determined through close coordination between the 

FWS Field Station Staff, FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH 

Safety Discipline Team Lead. The FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Lead will take the lead role in making 

this determination.

Step 2 – Select Independent and Multidisciplinary 

RSA Team: The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team 

Lead will select the RSA Team. RSA Team members 

should be independent of the road operations and the 

design of facility to eliminate potential bias. RSA 

members can include individuals with expertise in 

road safety, traffic operations, road design, road 

maintenance, transportation planning, law 

enforcement, public outreach, community organizations, and user groups such as cyclists, hikers, boaters, 

or all-terrain vehicle users. A recommended best practice is to use the smallest team possible that still 

brings the necessary knowledge and experience for the location and safety issues being reviewed. In 

general, teams should consist of a maximum of five people, although more people may be involved in the 

Kick-Off meeting discussed in Step 3 when information is initially being gathered for the RSA.

Step 3 – Conduct Kick-Off Meeting to Exchange Information: The Kick-Off meeting will provide an 

opportunity for the Project Owner and RSA Team to understand the purpose, schedule, and roles and 

responsibilities of all participants. The meeting also allows the RSA Team members to ask specific 

questions of the Project Owner regarding the safety issues.

Step 4 – Perform Field Reviews under Various Conditions: The field review should be performed 

during various conditions, such as day and night as well as peak and non-peak visitor times. Certain 

conditions such as special events and severe weather may not exist or may not allow the RSA Safety Team 

to safely perform the safety review but those types of conditions should be considered to the best of the 

RSA Team’s ability. 

Step 5 – Conduct RSA Analysis and Prepare Report Findings: The RSA report should include a 

summary of the safety issues and suggestions for countermeasures. Prior to preparing the report the RSA 

Team may meet with the Project Owner to discuss the preliminary findings.

Road Safety Audit Process
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

14

Step 6 – Present RSA Findings to Project Owner: This step provides an opportunity for the RSA Team 

and Project Owner to discuss the RSA findings. The Project Owner may make recommendations for 

additional or alternative countermeasures. 

Step 7 – Prepare Formal Response: The Project Owner should review the RSA findings and prepare a 

formal response that outlines what action they plan to take with respect to each safety issue identified in 

the RSA findings.

Step 8 – Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate: The Project Owner will be 

responsible for taking the necessary steps to implement the agreed-upon safety improvements. An after 

action review may also be scheduled to allow the RSA Team to evaluate the effectiveness of the safety 

improvements and evaluate if other measures are needed.

The field review described in Step 4 above will typically only take a few days to complete, but the entire 

process may take several months to several years to complete depending on the size and scope of the 

recommended safety improvements. In general, an estimate of approximately one to three months to 

complete Steps 1 through 7 would be reasonable, with Step 8 varying widely depending on the 

recommended safety improvements. 

Additional details about the steps can be found in the Roadway Safety Audit Toolkit for Federal Land 

Management Agencies and Tribal Governments.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

15

4.2 Road Safety Audit – Intersection Study

An intersection RSA is one 

in which one or more 

intersections are audited, but 

the corridor between them is 

not audited. An intersection 

RSA will use the eight-step 

process described in Section 

4.1 regardless of size, scale, 

or number of intersections 

audited. 

The timeframe for the field 

review will most likely be 

limited to a single day for a 

single intersection and up to 

a week for multiple intersections. The total time of the RSA, from the initial formation of the safety team 

until the findings are presented to the project owner, is expected to take approximately one to three 

months. 

The RSA team will be made up of independent multidisciplinary experts representing road safety, traffic 

operations, road design, road maintenance, transportation planning, law enforcement, public outreach, 

community organizations, and user groups. The number of representatives on the RSA team will vary 

depending on the size and complexity of the RSA. For a single intersection RSA with low volumes, it is 

likely that a smaller RSA team would be used compared to an RSA that included a series of high volume 

intersections.

FWS field stations where RSA’s are 

performed may be asked to have 

facilities and law enforcement staff 

participates on the RSA team. In 

some cases, representatives of 

visitor services or special use 

groups such as cyclists may also be 

asked to participate. The local 

knowledge the field station staff can 

bring to the RSA team is extremely 

valuable in helping the RSA team 

understand the safety issues and 

developing feasible 

countermeasures. 

Intersection RSAs should be 

considered at any location where 

crashes or safety concerns are 

limited to one or more intersection 

specific issues. Following the 

implementation of any of the 

recommended countermeasures, an 

after action review should be 

considered to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the 

recommendations.

Road Safety Audit – Intersection Studies

A formal safety performance evaluation of an intersection by an 

independent multidisciplinary team.

Timeframe One to three months

Team Independent multidisciplinary RSA team 

including safety, traffic, maintenance, and law 

enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with field review of all intersections

Reason for Use Crashes or safety issues identified at one or 

more intersections

Savannah and Pinckney Island National Wildlife Refuges

Road Safety Audit

The Savannah and Pinckney Island NWR RSA examined safety issues at 

the entrances to both refuges as well as at two other locations at the 

Savannah NWR.

The RSA included a review of 

existing geometric conditions, 

traffic data, and crash data. 

Based on this review six safety 

issues were identified, including 

roadway geometry, signing and 

pavement markings, traffic 

congestion, roadside design, 

night time and poor visibility, 

and bicyclists. 

Roadway geometry was determined to be the most critical issue and 

recommendations for countermeasures included installation of new 

turn lanes, lengthening of existing turn and acceleration lanes, addition 

of a shoulder bypass lane, and the installation of signage to improve 

locations where horizontal and vertical curvature limits sight distance.

Recommendations also included non-engineering solutions, including 

increased education and enforcement. 

Source: FWS
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

16

4.3 Road Safety Audit – Corridor Study

A corridor RSA focuses on 

a segment of a corridor, a 

full corridor, or multiple 

corridors. It may include 

one or more intersection as 

part of the study. A corridor 

RSA will also use the eightstep process described in 

Section 4.1 regardless of 

length or number of 

corridors being audited. 

The timeframe for the field 

review will vary quite a bit 

depending on the length and 

number of corridors. The 

field review may take as 

little as one day for shorter 

corridors and up to a week 

or more for longer corridors. The total time of the RSA, from the initial formation of the safety team until 

the findings are presented to the project owner, is expected to take approximately two to four months. 

The RSA team will be 

made up of independent 

multidisciplinary experts 

representing road safety, 

traffic operations, road 

design, road maintenance, 

transportation planning, 

law enforcement, public 

outreach, community 

organizations, and user 

groups. The number of 

representatives on the RSA 

team will vary depending 

on the size and complexity 

of the RSA. For a single 

low volume two-lane 

corridor it is likely that a 

smaller RSA team would 

be used compared to an 

RSA that included a series 

of longer high volume 

corridors with turn lanes, 

pull-outs, or other unique 

features. 

FWS field stations where 

RSA’s are performed may 

be asked to have facilities 

Road Safety Audit – Corridor Studies

A formal safety performance evaluation of a corridor by an independent 

multidisciplinary team.

Timeframe Two to four months

Team Independent multidisciplinary RSA team 

including safety, traffic, maintenance, law 

enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with field review of all intersections

Reason for Use Crashes or safety concerns identified along a 

corridor. Corridor studies may also be 

appropriate even if a safety issue is only 

identified at a single location, because that 

issue may exist elsewhere on a corridor even 

though it is not identified.

Patuxent Research Refuge Road Safety Audit

The Patuxent Research Refuge RSA included two 

corridors that intersect at the Patuxent Research 

Refuge in Prince Georges County, Maryland. Both 

corridors are over two miles in length. These 

corridors had 126 reported crashes between 2002 

and 2006, including four fatal crashes. 

A crash analysis was completed and field visits were 

conducted during both daytime and nighttime. 

Several safety issues and corresponding suggestions 

were identified as part of the study. The safety 

issues were categorized into seven categories: 

signing and pavement marking, nighttime visibility, 

roadside design, drainage, access to and from side 

streets, effects of roadway curvature on motorists, 

and genera intersection safety concerns.

These categories and their associated safety issues were prioritized based on 

how critical they were to the safety of the corridors. Signing and pavement 

markings were determined to be the most critical within the study area. The 

suggested improvements for signing and pavement markings included the 

addition of stop bars, the duplication of stop signs, the replacement or 

relocation of damaged or poorly located signs, and the trimming of vegetation 

around signage.

Source: FWS
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

17

and law enforcement staff participates on the RSA team. In some cases, representatives of visitor services 

or special use groups such as cyclists may also be asked to participate. The local knowledge the field 

station staff can bring to the RSA team is extremely valuable in helping the RSA team understand the 

safety issues and developing feasible countermeasures. 

It can be expected that a corridor RSA will likely lead to a larger number of recommendations than might 

result from an intersection RSA. In some cases the recommendations for countermeasures will need to 

be prioritized as shorter-term recommendations that may be able to be implemented in the short-term to 

address any immediate safety issues, and long-term recommendations that may require additional project 

planning, design, or programming of funding. 

Corridor RSAs should be considered at any location where crashes or safety concerns have been identified 

along a corridor. A corridor study may also be appropriate even if a safety issues is only identified at a 

single location. If similar conditions exist at other locations along a corridor they should be reviewed as 

part of the RSA to determine if the safety issue is broader than a single location. For example, if several 

crashes have occurred at one curve on a road, that curve may be the only safety issue identified. But if 

similar curves exist on the corridor, even if there have not been any crashes, those curves should be 

included as part of the RSA so that countermeasures, such as improved curve warning signs, can be 

consistently implemented along the entire corridor. 

Following the implementation of any of the recommended countermeasures, an after action review should 

be considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations. 
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

18

4.4 Unit Level Safety Analysis 

A unit level safety analysis is 

intended to study safety 

issues throughout a field 

station. A unit level safety 

analysis should be considered 

when a field station has had a 

significant number or broad 

spectrum of safety issues 

identified throughout (rather 

than a limited number of

safety issues identified at

intersections or on corridors.) 

This type of safety analysis 

may also be recommended 

even if no major safety issues have been identified; regularly assessing safety on a unit wide level may 

help to prevent future incidents by identifying and mitigating potential safety issues.

Unit Level Safety Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of safety issues throughout a unit or field station.

Timeframe Three months to one year

Team Multidisciplinary team including traffic, safety, 

and law enforcement expertise 

Field Station Commitment Facilities and law enforcement staff to assist 

with identification and field review of hot 

spots throughout a field station.

Reason for Use Crashes or safety concerns identified 

throughout a field station. 
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

19

Unlike RSAs, there is not a formal process 

established for developing unit level safety analysis. 

However, many of the steps that are recommended for 

a unit level safety analysis are very similar to an RSA. 

Below are some of the steps that should be considered 

when developing a unit level safety analysis. Similar 

to the process for RSAs, the Project Owner represents 

the FWS field station.

Step 1 – Identify Project: As noted in Section 2.1, 

the need for any type of safety analysis should be 

determined in close coordination between the FWS 

Field Station Staff, FWS Regional Transportation 

Coordinators, and the FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead. The FHWA FLH Safety Discipline 

Team Lead will take the lead role in making this 

determination.

Step 2 – Select a Multidisciplinary Safety Analysis 

Team: Unit level safety analysis can cover a wide 

range of safety issues. It is important to select a team 

that represents not only traffic, safety, and law 

enforcement but also other safety issues that may 

have been identified on a Region. Examples include 

expertise in wildlife management if there are a large 

number of wildlife-vehicle collisions, expertise in 

boating safety if there are safety issues at boat ramps 

or on waterways that serve as a means of 

transportation, or expertise in aviation for refuges 

whose primary means of access are through planes.

Unit Level Safety Analysis Process
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

20

Step 3 – Conduct Kick-Off Meeting: The 

Kick-Off meeting will provide an opportunity 

for the Project Owner and Safety Analysis 

Team to understand the purpose, schedule, and 

roles and responsibilities of all participants. 

The meeting also allows the Safety Analysis 

Team to better understand safety issues that 

may exist throughout the Refuge through 

discussions with field station staff and law 

enforcement. 

Step 4 – Conduct Preliminary Analysis: 

Preliminary analysis should be conducted to 

identify hot spots where crashes have occurred 

or where there appears to be a high potential for 

crashes. Analysis could include a review of all 

available data in the SMS database, a review of 

crashes available through FWS law 

enforcement, a review of the statewide crash 

database, discussions of existing hot spots with 

field station staff and law enforcement, and a 

field review existing routes. The Kick-Off 

meeting will provide an opportunity for the 

Project Owner and RSA Team to understand 

the purpose, schedule, and roles and 

responsibilities of all participants. The meeting 

also allows the RSA Team members to ask 

specific questions of the Project Owner 

regarding the safety issues. Step 4 may occur 

in conjunction with Step 3.

Step 5 – Perform Field Review at Hot Spots: 

The Safety Analysis Team should perform a 

field review of the identified hot spots within a 

field station to determine causes of safety issues 

and potential countermeasures. The field 

review may include a combination of site 

specific reviews as well as corridor reviews. 

Step 6 – Conduct Safety Analysis and 

Prepare Report: The Safety Analysis Team 

will prepare a safety analysis report which will 

include recommendations for safety 

improvements. A unit level safety analysis may 

include a large number of recommendations, 

some of which may require planning and 

programming of funds. The report should 

specify recommendations for short-term 

improvements to address immediate safety 

issues as well as recommendations for long-term improvements that may require additional project 

planning, design, or programming of funding. Prior to preparing the report the Safety Analysis Team may 

meet with the Project Owner to discuss the preliminary findings.

William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge Road 

Safety Audit

Safety concerns, including poor sight distance, high 

traffic speed, high volumes of traffic stopping 

abruptly, and drainage issues led to a unit level RSA 

on William L. Finley National Wildlife Refuge. The 

RSA focused primarily on the two highest volume 

roads within the refuge as well as adjacent county 

roads that provide access to the refuge. 

Seven locations were identified as hot spots and 

were assessed in more detail. These hot spots 

included two intersections, a roadway with wildlife 

viewing activities, a roadway that floods, two parking 

lots, and a pedestrian crossing. Each of these 

locations was reviewed in greater detail and specific 

recommendations were made.

Recommended improvements at each location were 

identified as priorities using two strategies: safety 

and cost benefits. This double prioritization of the 

recommendations highlighted the improvements 

that could have the largest impact on safety for the 

smallest cost.

Recommended improvements included strategies 

such as the relocation of the access point of a refuge 

road to improve sight-distance, installation of speed 

limit signs and increased enforcement by the county

to reduce speeding, drainage improvements to 

reduce flooding, and the addition of a pull-out for 

wildlife viewing. 

Source: Atkins
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

21

Step 7 – Present Safety Analysis Finings to Project Owner: The Safety Analysis Team will present 

the findings to the Project Owner and the recommendations should be discussed. The Project Owner may 

make recommendations for additional or alternative countermeasures. 

Step 8 – Prepare Formal Response: The Project Owner should review the unit level safety analysis

findings and prepare a formal response that outlines what action they plan to take with respect to each 

safety issue identified in the unit level safety analysis.

Step 9 – Incorporate Findings into the Project when Appropriate: The Project Owner will be 

responsible for taking the necessary steps to implement the agreed-upon safety measures. An after action 

review may also be scheduled to allow the Safety Analysis Team an opportunity to evaluate the 

effectiveness of the suggestion countermeasures and evaluate if other measures are needed.

The timeframe for the field review will vary quite a bit depending on the size of the field station and the 

number of safety issues and hot spots that are identified. The preliminary analysis discussed in Step 4 

can also require a large investment of time depending on the availability of crash data and the amount of 

time dedicated to identifying hot spots within the unit. The total time of the unit level safety analysis, 

from the initial formation of the safety team until the findings are presented to the project owner, is 

expected to take approximately three months to one year. 

The Safety Analysis Team assembled for the unit level safety analysis should be a multidisciplinary team 

that represents not only traffic, safety, and law enforcement, but also other expertise that can address 

unique safety issues that may have been identified at a field station. Examples include expertise in wildlife 

management if there are a large number of wildlife-vehicle collisions, expertise in boating safety if there 

are safety issues at boat ramps or on waterways that serve as a means of transportation, or expertise in 

aviation for refuges whose primary means of access are through aviation. The number of representatives 

on the Safety Analysis team will vary depending on the size of the field station and complexity of the 

safety issues. 

Hagerman National Fish Hatchery Road Safety Audit

This unit level RSA was conducted on roads that 

provide access to the Hagerman National Fish 

Hatchery as well as three permitted facilities 

whose access is provided through the fish hatchery 

property. An increase in traffic had been observed 

in recent years on the FWS roads which prompted 

the RSA. The RSA focused on general issues 

associated with road safety to, from, and within 

the hatchery. FWS roads were analyzed as well as 

access and parking for fishing at an adjacent lake. 

Three main safety issues were identified as a result of this RSA: road improvements, signing 

improvements, and administration improvements. Road improvements included widening, 

conversion of some streets to one-way operation, and culvert improvements. Improved signing was 

recommended to reduce confusion for the vehicles accessing the permitted facilities located on the 

hatchery property, such as the University of Idaho Hagerman Fish Culture Experiment Station. A speed 

study and a traffic study were also recommended in order to identify and document traffic patterns, 

speed, and roadway usage. Finally, administration improvements were recommended to improve 

partnering and mediation between the permitted facilities on the hatchery property. 

Source: FWS
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

22

Safety improvement recommendations from the unit level safety analysis will vary from quick and simple 

improvements, such as adding a sign, to more involved recommendations that require advanced 

programming of funds and a design process, such as paving a section of roadway. The safety analysis 

report should specify recommendations for short-term improvements to address immediate safety issues 

as well as recommendations for long-term improvements that may require additional project planning, 

design, or programming of funding. An opinion of probable cost for each improvement should be 

developed. Improvements should be identified for each hot spot, but also categorized to develop a total 

recommended cost for improvement in key categories such as signing, striping, paving, and guardrail 

improvements. Those categories can also be classified into short, medium and long term improvements.

A unit level safety analysis can be very helpful even if specific issues have not been identified at a field 

station. A thorough safety analysis of a field station may identify high potential locations where crashes 

are most likely to occur in the future. The field station and FWS Regional Office can work together to 

begin developing a program to access funds and address locations considered to have the highest 

probability of a crash. 

After the implementation of any of the recommended countermeasures, an after action review should be 

considered to evaluate the effectiveness of the recommendations.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

23

4.5 Issue Specific Safety Analysis

An issue specific safety 

analysis is the study of a 

safety issue that has been 

identified at the field station, 

regional, or national level. 

Examples of issues which 

might require a safety 

analysis include speeding, 

bicycle or pedestrian safety, 

wildlife-vehicle collisions, 

and severe weather issues. 

An issue specific safety 

analysis can be challenging 

to define as the study could 

vary widely depending on 

the issue and if it is being 

studied at the field station, regional, or national level. 

Regardless of the safety issue, performance of an issue specific safety analysis should include the four 

E’s of safety: engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical services. Many of the issues 

that may be investigated may best be solved through a combination of two or more of the four E’s.

The timeframe to complete 

an issue specific safety 

investigation will vary 

based on the issue being 

studied as well as the size 

and scale of the study. 

Issues limited to a single 

refuge will likely take much 

less time to analyze than an 

issue that has been 

identified on a regional or 

national level. Often the 

countermeasures to address 

an issue specific safety 

analysis may be complex 

and require the 

participation of partners to 

develop non-engineering 

solutions. 

A multidisciplinary team 

should be assembled to 

perform the issue specific 

safety analysis. The team 

will vary quite a bit 

depending on the issue or 

issues being studied. The 

safety analysis team should 

not be limited to a particular 

Issue Specific Safety Analysis

A comprehensive analysis of a single safety issue in on field station, across an 

entire region, or service-wide.

Timeframe Three months to one year

Team Multidisciplinary team including expertise in 

the issues being studied

Field Station Commitment Minimal commitment, particularly if study is 

regional or national. Law enforcement staff or 

facilities staff may be asked for assistance.

Reason for Use One or more safety issue appearing at multiple 

locations across a field station, Region, or on 

the National Level. 

Wildlife Mitigation and Human Safety for the Sterling Highway MP 58-79 

Project

The Sterling Highway is a rural two-lane highway that bisects the Kenai 

National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. The segment from MP 58-79 had 

historically experienced a high rate of wildlife-vehicle collisions. In anticipation 

of a planned reconstruction project on this segment, a study was performed 

in order to identify ways to reduce wildlife mortality, restore wildlife 

connectivity, and improve human safety through the reconstruction.

Several years prior to reconstruction over 60 moose and caribou were 

outfitted with GPS collars and their migration patterns were tracked. A hotline 

was also set up for the motoring public to report wildlife sightings along the 

Sterling Highway. A six mile segment was identified that contained almost half 

of the wildlife-vehicle collisions and a majority of the GPS crossings and hotline 

sightings.

Recommendations along this six 

mile section included fencing 

along with a wildlife overpass 

near MP 73, a wildlife underpass 

near MP 71, and a wildlife 

“crosswalk” near the ends of the 

fenced section. Additional 

crossings for large mammals 

were also recommended at other 

strategic locations along the 

corridor. Source: FHWA
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

24

number of people and if needed, additional expertise should be brought in as needed to be sure all potential 

solutions are considered. 

Issue specific studies will generally require more time from field station staff if the study is limited to a 

single refuge or fish hatchery. If an issue is being studied at the regional or national level there would be 

less impact expected on field station staff, however some field station staff may be asked to serve as part 

of the issue specific safety analysis team.

Expected results for this type of study will reflect the specific issue being studied. Recommendations 

may include broad changes implemented at the regional or national level, or smaller changes focused on 

local needs if the study is limited to one field station. An issue specific safety analysis is also likely to 

have recommendations which may go beyond traditional engineering solutions. These recommendations 

will rely on other partners to implement, such as a stricter enforcement of speed limits on a refuge or a 

public outreach and education campaign. Regardless of the recommendation, if possible FWS and FHWA 

should attempt to monitor the impact of changes that are made on safety at each affected field station.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

25

4.6 Customized Analysis

Each field station is unique and not all safety issues will be able to be adequately studied using one of the 

safety analysis tools presented in Sections 4.1 through 4.5. The combination of safety issues that may 

exist at a field station or within a region may necessitate the use of a customized analysis to appropriately 

address the safety issues that have been identified.

Determining an appropriate customized analysis will be dependent on the expertise and experience within

the FWS and FHWA. An early partnership between the FWS Field Station Manager, FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinator, and FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead will allow the FWS and 

FHWA to closely review the safety issue and determine the best course of action to study the issue or 

issues that have been identified. 

Customized analysis may include a mix of traditional traffic engineering tools, such as a traffic signal 

warrant analysis or sight distance analysis, as well as unique approaches that may be warranted. The same 

general approach should be followed for customized analysis as for the other safety analysis tools 

discussed in Section 4.1 through 4.5. This approach includes:

 Develop a partnership between the FWS Field Station Manager, FWS Regional Transportation

Coordinator, and FHWA FLH Safety Discipline Team Lead to assess the safety issue and determine 

if a safety study is needed.

 Assemble a team of experts to assist with the study.

 Work closely with the field station to analyze the safety issues and develop recommended 

countermeasures.

 Present findings and provide an opportunity for the safety analysis team and the project owner to 

discuss the findings.

 Monitor the impacts of the implemented recommendations on safety.
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

26

5. IMPLEMENTATION 

Identification and implementation of safety improvements should involve a team approach with expertise 

from the FWS and FHWA FLH. The FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and FHWA FLH Safety 

Discipline Team Leads will serve as key partners to identify the appropriate type of safety analysis tool 

to use to address safety issues, conduct the safety analysis, and implement recommendations to mitigate 

safety issues.

Initiation

As shown in the Safety Analysis Process diagram presented in Section 2, the first step for any field station

to initiate a safety analysis effort after identifying a safety issue should be to contact the FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinator responsible for the Region where the field station is located.

The FWS Regional 

Transportation Coordinator 

will bring in expertise from 

the FHWA FLH and work 

with the field station manager 

to identify other expertise, 

such as law enforcement or 

State DOT officials, if needed

for an RSA or other type of 

safety analysis.

Timeframe

Each safety issue is different 

which makes it challenging to 

identify a timeframe for 

completing a safety analysis, 

but in general the types of 

safety analysis tools identified 

in the Safety Analysis Toolkit 

should be complemented 

anywhere from as short as one 

month for a single intersection 

RSA, to as long as one year for 

unit level and issue specific 

safety analysis. The 

timeframe for the actual 

implementation of the safety 

countermeasures that are

recommended through the 

various safety analysis efforts 

will also vary widely. 

Recommendations may 

include short-term 

improvements that can be 

quickly implemented to 

address immediate safety 

needs at minimal cost, such as 

relocating signs or adding striping to roadways, as well as longer-term recommendations such as the 

addition of turn lanes that may require programming of funds before they can be implemented.

Success Story: US Highway 93 Wildlife Mitigation in Montana

The US Highway 93 Wildlife Mitigation project in Montana is one of the 

most extensive wildlife-sensitive highway safety design efforts in the 

United States. Wildlife mitigation issues have been documented and 

studied along Montana Highway US 93 since the early 1980’s. Since that 

time, numerous studies have been completed by a variety of agencies, and 

a comprehensive set of countermeasures has been implemented. These 

countermeasures are aimed at improving safety for the traveling public as 

well as wildlife by reducing wildlife-vehicle collisions and allowing wildlife 

to move safely across the highway and the surrounding landscape. 

Specific countermeasures include the reconstruction of over 76 miles of 

road and the installation of 81 fish and wildlife crossing structures, 

including one overpass. Over 16 miles of linear wildlife exclusion fencing 

has also been installed and there are numerous installations of wing 

fencing throughout the corridor. Jump-outs have been installed to allow 

wildlife to safely exit the roadway if they do become trapped between the 

fences and wildlife “crosswalks” have been implemented to notify 

motorists when wildlife has crossed onto the roadway.

This project was completed using 

numerous safety studies, which 

were used to identify to the 

appropriate locations for each 

specific type of crossing and for the 

installation of fencing. The project 

is currently being studied for its 

effectiveness and results will not be 

available until 2015, however, the 

project is regarded as a success for 

its grand scale, collaborative 

efforts, and its use of creative 

solutions.

Source: FHWA
 

Safety Analysis Toolkit

27

Outputs

The results of an RSA or other safety analysis will most commonly be a series of recommendations for 

implementation at the field station to address the identified safety issues. These recommendations may 

range from simple projects that can be implemented using maintenance staff, to larger capital projects that 

may require more extensive design and construction efforts, to additional studies that might be needed 

before a safety concern can be fully addressed. FWS field stations will be asked to review the 

recommendations that result from a safety analysis study and prepare a formal response regarding how 

they plan to address the recommendations. 

Implementation

The safety analysis tools identified in this toolkit will provide the FWS with a series of recommendations 

to address safety issues. The involvement of the FWS Regional Transportation Coordinators and the 

FHWA FLH early in the process will assist the field stations with prioritizing and programming the 

recommended safety projects that result from the safety analysis effort. While funds for larger capital 

improvements may not be immediately available, incorporating these projects into the project 

programming process as early as possible is important so that they may be implemented as soon as 

possible. Following implementation, the FWS should monitor the performance of the improvements to 

determine if the countermeasures have had the desired impact on safety.