2012

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands 

Long Range Transportation Plan

Region 3

June 2012

Cover Photographs by Brandon Jutz, FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................IV

LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................................................... V

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................................. 1

ES.1 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE LANDS .... 1

ES.2 LEADING THIS EFFORT ....................................................................................................... 1

ES.3 GOALS FOR THIS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.................................................... 2

ES.4 IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO THE SERVICE ........................................ 2

ES.5 VALUE OF THIS PLAN FOR THE SERVICE............................................................................. 2

ES.6 REGION 3 AT A GLANCE...................................................................................................... 3

ES.7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................................................................... 3

ES.8 KEY FINDINGS OF THIS PLAN ............................................................................................. 4

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ 5

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED......................................................................................................... 6

1.2 MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES FOR THIS LRTP........................................................ 7

1.3 REGION 3 BACKGROUND.................................................................................................. 9

1.3.1 National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries........................................... 9

1.3.2 Region 3 Transportation System............................................................................... 11

1.4 PRIMARY AUDIENCE ...................................................................................................... 12

1.4.1 Project Leaders......................................................................................................... 12

1.4.2 Regional Management .............................................................................................. 12

1.4.3 National Management............................................................................................... 12

1.4.4 Potential Partners..................................................................................................... 12

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT................................................................................................... 13

1.6 CONTENT AND OVERVIEW ............................................................................................. 14

CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND BASELINE CONDITIONS...................................................... 15

2.1 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION................................................................................ 17

2.1.1 Resource Protection Data..................................................................................... 18

2.1.2 Identifying Resource Protection Improvement Areas........................................... 19

2.1.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis..................................................................... 21

2.2 SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS CONDITIONS ................................................... 22

2.2.1 Safety and Transportation Assets Condition Data.................................................... 23

2.2.2 Identifying Conditions and Safety Improvement Areas ............................................ 30

2.2.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis..................................................................... 46

2.3 WELCOME AND ORIENTATION ....................................................................................... 47

2.3.1 Welcome and Orientation Data ................................................................................ 49

2.3.2 Identifying Visitor Enhancement Improvement Areas.............................................. 63

2.3.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis..................................................................... 64
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page iii

2.4 PLANNING...................................................................................................................... 64

2.4.1 Planning Data........................................................................................................... 65

2.4.2 Identifying Planning Areas....................................................................................... 73

2.4.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis..................................................................... 73

2.5 PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................................... 74

2.5.1 Partnerships Data..................................................................................................... 75

2.5.2 Identifying Partnership Opportunities...................................................................... 75

2.5.3 Recommendation for Future Analysis....................................................................... 80

2.6 SUSTAINABILITY ............................................................................................................ 80

2.6.1 Data........................................................................................................................... 84

2.6.2 Identifying Sustainability Improvement Areas.......................................................... 94

2.6.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis..................................................................... 94

2.7 PERFORMANCE MEASURES ............................................................................................ 95

CHAPTER 3: FUNDING AND PROJECT SELECTION ..................................................... 96

3.1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUNDING ............................................................................. 96

3.1.1 Refuge Roads Program................................................................................................ 99

3.1.2 Fish Hatchery Deferred Maintenance .................................................................... 100

3.2 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR REFUGE TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS ............... 101

3.2.1 Transportation Enhancements................................................................................ 102

3.2.2 Recreational Trails Program.................................................................................. 105

3.2.3 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program........................................... 105

3.2.4 Scenic Byways......................................................................................................... 106

3.2.5 Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program .................................................. 108

3.2.6 High Priority Projects Program............................................................................. 109

3.2.7 Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads....................................................... 110

3.2.8 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program........................................................... 111

3.3 PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS ..................................................................................... 113

3.3.1 Evaluation Criteria ................................................................................................. 113

3.3.1. 1 Process ............................................................................................................... 114

CHAPTER 4: OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN ......................................... 116

4.1 OUTREACH LEVELS............................................................................................................ 117

4.2 OUTREACH DELIVERY TOOLS ............................................................................................ 117

4.3 CAPTURING COMMENTS..................................................................................................... 118

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PLAN ACTIVITIES ................. 119
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 3 Boundaries.................................................. 5

Figure 2. Wildlife Refuge and Fish Hatcheries within Region 3.................................................. 10

Figure 3. How to use Chapter Two............................................................................................... 16

Figure 4. Sign meaning that the land behind it has been dedicated to preserving native wildlife as 

it can be retained along modern civilization................................................................... 18

Figure 5. IPaC system................................................................................................................... 20

Figure 6. Boardwalk at Genoa National Fish Hatchery................................................................ 23

Figure 7. Safety Hot Spot Criteria ................................................................................................ 31

Figure 8. Non-Service Road Hotspots within one mile of Service Units in Region 3 ................. 40

Figure 9. Minnesota Valley NWR – Hotspots.............................................................................. 41

Figure 10. Hotspots in some units in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa........................................ 42

Figure 11. Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge - Hotspots......................................... 43

Figure 12. Crab Orchard NWR - Hotspots................................................................................... 45

Figure 13. Visitor Information kiosk at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge................................ 48

Figure 14. Overlook at Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge.................. 49

Figure 15. Visitor Center at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.................................................. 50

Figure 16. FWS Service units visitation ....................................................................................... 62

Figure 17. Service Plans ............................................................................................................... 66

Figure 18. Genoa National Fish Hatchery. ................................................................................... 76

Figure 19. Bicycle rack at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. ................................................... 82

Figure 20. Desoto NWR Project ................................................................................................. 102

Figure 21. Big Stone NWR Project – The before picture ........................................................... 103

Figure 22. Big Stone NWR Project – The after picture.............................................................. 103

Figure 23. Big Stone NWR – Access to viewing of water fowl................................................. 104

Figure 24. Big Stone NWR – Observation deck......................................................................... 104

Figure 25. Browns Marsh Project ............................................................................................... 106

Figure 26. Shady Maple Project.................................................................................................. 107

Figure 27. Genoa NFH Project ................................................................................................... 108

Figure 28. Detroit River Project.................................................................................................. 109

Figure 29. Squaw Creek NWR Project – The before.................................................................. 110

Figure 30. Squaw Creek NWR Project – The after .................................................................... 111

Figure 31. Neal Smith NWR project........................................................................................... 112
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 . Service Road Conditions ............................................................................................... 25

Table 2 . Hatcheries Service Roads ............................................................................................. 26

Table 3 . Service Parking Lot Conditions..................................................................................... 27

Table 4 . Trail Conditions by Type............................................................................................... 29

Table 5 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Iowa and Michigan)............ 32

Table 6 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Illinois and Indiana)............ 33

Table 7 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Minnesota).......................... 34

Table 8 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri) ............................ 35

Table 9 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation) ...... 36

Table 10 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation) .... 37

Table 11 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation) .... 38

Table 12 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Wisconsin)........................ 39

Table 13 . 2010 Visitation by Unit................................................................................................ 52

Table 14 . Special Events throughout the year in Refuges and Fisheries..................................... 54

Table 15 . Transportation Hubs and Gateway Communities....................................................... 58

Table 16 . Planning Need and Plan Types.................................................................................... 68

Table 17 Transportation Related Planning Efforts ....................................................................... 69

Table 18 . Service Routes and Scenic Byways............................................................................. 77

Table 19 . Regionally Significant Trails....................................................................................... 79

Table 20 . Units located near Major Rivers and Lakes................................................................. 86

Table 21 . Air Quality Non-Attainment........................................................................................ 91

Table 22 . Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts ............................................................. 92

Table 23 . Previous and Anticipated Annual Funding Levels 

for Refuge Road Program 2007-2015 ............................................................................ 97

Table 24 . Estimated Funding Required to Improve Region 3 roads............................................ 98

Table 25 . Project Evaluation Criteria Score Sheet..................................................................... 115

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Plan Contributors

Appendix B – National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries in Region 3

Appendix C – Data Sources

Appendix D – USFWS R-3 Roadway Design Guidelines (January 2011)

Appendix E – Glossary of Terms

Appendix F – Communication Plan

Appendix G – Comprehensive Conservation Plan Transportation Planning Guidance

Appendix H – Contact Information for Non-Service Planning Organizations

Appendix I – Refuges and Fish Hatcheries Fact Sheets

Appendix J – Alternative Transportation Priorities and Strategies
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Transportation provides critical links and resources in connecting people with nature on all 

Service lands, specifically, at national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. To this end, 

the Service seeks to optimize transportation funding decisions and leverage its transportation 

dollars wisely. For consistency with other long range transportation planning processes, the 

regional long range transportation plan (LRTP) for Region 3 defines the Service’s transportation 

infrastructure related needs for the next 20 years.

ES.1 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE 

SERVICE LANDS

This regional scale LRTP was initiated within the Service to achieve the following:

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

• Establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in Region 3

• Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to

improve the Service’s transportation infrastructure

• Bring the Service into compliance with Federal legislation requiring all Federal Land

Management Agencies to conduct long range transportation planning in a manner 

generally consistent with those being applied to the existing statewide and metropolitan 

scale transportation planning processes

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

existing and future Service management plans and strategies

• Develop best management practices for transportation improvements on Service lands

ES.2 LEADING THIS EFFORT

Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in conjunction with Eastern Federal Lands 

Highway Division (EFLHD) of FHWA is developing this Long Range Transportation Plan. The 

Refuge and fisheries programs, planning and visitor services programs within the Region have 

been directly involved in this process because transportation related infrastructure and facilities 

primarily serves these four programs.

A framework has been established for the Service’s transportation planning process and 

identifying potential partner agencies at the federal and state agency levels may provide 

leveraging opportunities to advance future transportation projects.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 2

ES.3 GOALS FOR THIS LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

As defined by the Region 3 core planning team, the goals of this LRTP are to:

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

plant resources and their habitats within Region 3.

• Provide a safe and reliable transportation network to ensure access and mobility to and 

within Service lands.

• Develop and maintain a transportation network that enhances the welcoming and 

orienting the educational and interpretive experience of visitors.

• Integrate appropriate transportation planning strategies into Service plans and processes.

• Develop partnerships to leverage resources and develop integrated transportation

solutions to identified issues and concerns.

• Adopt and promote sustainable transportation practices.

ES.4 IMPORTANCE OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING TO THE SERVICE

Although often overlooked, transportation supports a number of important Department of 

Interior initiatives by connecting people with nature, improving the condition of parking areas, 

public and service roads and trails assets, all while resulting in meeting the primary mission of 

the Fish and Wildlife Service. Understanding the connection between transportation and 

conservation, the Service has established a transportation mission and goals statements to serve 

as benchmarks for evaluating improvements to the transportation system within Region 3 as part 

of this LRTP. Together with an understanding of existing transportation infrastructure 

deficiencies in the region and how they might be addressed, this plan enables the region to make 

better decisions regarding its most critical transportation needs. At a time when resource and 

infrastructure funding is scarce, this LRTP gives Service leaders with a strategy in working with 

gateway communities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations, state departments of 

transportation, other federal land management agencies, and other stakeholder agencies outside 

Service boundaries, many of whom could potentially contribute funding or in kind services to 

advance priority projects that would be mutually beneficial.

ES.5 VALUE OF THIS PLAN FOR THE SERVICE

The LRTP brings multiple benefits to the Service.

• Provides a platform for individual units to communicate transportation system needs and 

opportunities to regional and national decision-makers through the Refuge Fact Sheets.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 3

• Enables Service leaders to make better informed decisions based on long term 

transportation and mission goals and objectives.

• Provides the Service with a better picture of future transportation needs and information

for discussion regarding transportation reauthorization.

• Provides a long-term view of transportation in relation to core operations and Service

priorities.

• Enables leaders to direct funding to the beneficial and high priority transportation

projects.

• Enables leaders to identify the potential of obtaining alternative funding from Federal 

sources that are administered by other Federal Land Management Agencies, state

departments of transportation (DOTs) or metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

• Enables leaders to synchronize transportation planning with other refuge and hatchery 

focuses planning efforts such as refuge comprehensive conservation plans (CCPs), 

comprehensive hatchery management plans (CHMPs) and other regional planning efforts 

outside Service boundaries.

• Provides current data on multimodal transportation issues and needs across the region.

• Provides an opportunity for Region 3 and individual refuges and hatcheries to partner and

discuss areas of mutual interest with the public and regional entities such as minimizing

carbon footprint, alternative transportation systems, and transportation systems linkages.

• Provides baseline information for how to potentially address sustainability and livability.

ES.6 REGION 3 AT A GLANCE

Within Region 3 there are:

• 1.3 million acres managed or co-managed by the Service across eight Midwestern states.

• 1,223 road miles

• 1,536 designated parking lots totaling 286 acres

• 160 trail miles

• 54 National Wildlife Refuges

• 6 National Fish Hatcheries

• 12 Wetland Management Districts

ES.7 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

This plan provides a project selection framework that improves the defensibility of transportation 

funding decisions and gives transparency to the project selection process. The plan outlines how 

to quantify and communicate needs and opportunities in the areas that best align with Service 

goals and objectives, and projects will be more competitive in limited funding environments. The 

framework improves confidence in funding decisions by allowing decision makers to view 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 4

transportation system needs throughout the region, and compare how these needs rank against 

predefined evaluation criteria and benchmarks which represent the long term interests of the 

Service, as established in the officially adopted mission, goals and objectives. This decisionmaking framework allows projects to be compared and ranked according to their merits. A five 

year update cycle (similar to statewide and metropolitan transportation planning processes) is 

recommended in order to capture and address the latest transportation infrastructure conditions, 

planning strategies and practices.

ES.8 KEY FINDINGS OF THIS PLAN

Since the inception of the Refuge Roads Program in 1998, Region 3 has completed 

approximately 130 projects improving public roads, trails and parking lots in a number of the 

wildlife refuges within the Region. These improvements have enhanced the experience for the 

thousands of annual visitors to the Service's public lands.

The Region 3 Fisheries program has mission critical needs for transportation improvements that 

currently can only be met through deferred maintenance. Because deferred maintenance funds 

are usually prioritized for other operational improvements, transportation is typically addressed

last. There is a need to allocate transportation funding specifically for addressing identified needs 

at the national fish hatcheries in the Region. 

With any potential changes in the amount of funding or the eligibility of projects for the receipt 

of Federal funding not likely to be defined until the formal reauthorization of the SAFETEA-LU 

legislation at some future date (2012 or 2013), a funding and investment strategy is critical to the 

success of the Region 3 transportation program over the next 20 years. The Service must seek 

opportunities outside the traditional funding sources in order to keep up with the basic 

maintenance and improvement of its aging infrastructure. Forming partnerships with a wide 

range of federal, state, and local agencies will become ever more critical in this regard.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), with the assistance of the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), has 

developed this Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). This is the first LRTP prepared for 

Region 3 and one of the first of its kind in the Service. In part, it ensures that the Service mission 

is furthered by providing access and a sound transportation system on lands managed by the 

Service. The boundaries of Region 3 are shown in Figure 1.

This LRTP is intended to help the Service make investment decisions for planning, preservation, 

and construction on its roads, parking lots, and trails. Because funds are limited, it is essential to 

assess needs, set priorities, and efficiently manage and leverage funds from a variety of sources 

to meet future transportation needs.

Figure 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Region 3 Boundaries
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 6

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of this LRTP is to advance long range transportation planning in the Service to 

achieve the following:

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

• Establish a vision, mission, goals, and objectives for transportation planning in Region 3.

• Implement coordinated and cooperative transportation partnerships in an effort to 

improve the Service’s transportation infrastructure.

• Bring the Service into compliance with the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) Specifically, Title 23, 

Section 204 Federal Lands Highway Program requires all federal land management 

agencies to conduct long range transportation planning in a manner consistent with the 

currently adopted metropolitan and statewide planning processes required under Sections 

134 and 135 of Title 23.

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

existing and future Service management plans and strategies.

• Develop best management practices (BMP) for transportation improvements on Service 

lands

• Serve as another example project for regional-level transportation planning in the 

Service.

Transportation infrastructure provides critical links and resources in connecting people with 

nature on all Service lands, specifically at national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. 

To this end, the Service seeks to optimize transportation funding decisions and leverage its 

transportation dollars wisely. 

Long range transportation planning is necessary for the Service to define the vision and goals for 

the transportation system that will serve the public into the future. It also provides a mechanism 

to objectively set priorities for implementing projects while working toward achieving the 

Service’s vision for the transportation system. To accomplish these tasks, planners and decision 

makers must collaboratively and effectively consider a complex balance between transportation 

efficiency, human safety, and environmental stewardship.

The Service desires a planning process that is consistent, that involves partner agencies, that is 

compatible with state and local transportation planning processes, and that clearly defines and 

offers opportunities for public input. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 7

The key objective of such a planning process is to develop and maintain a coordinated, 

“seamless” transportation system for public use – ranging from auto tour routes to parking lots 

and trails. 

Coordinated planning will also help ensure that the most critical projects receive funding and are 

implemented in such a manner that the infrastructure remains in place to access the natural 

resources within Service lands.

Another critical aspect of this LRTP is facilitating partnerships with the Service and fostering 

opportunities to leverage funds to accomplish transportation improvements of common interest 

and mutual benefit. The intention is to increase the utility of transportation facilities by investing 

pooled resources into efforts that satisfy the goals of multiple agencies and organizations. 

At a time when resource and infrastructure funding is scarce, the LRTP serves as a tool in 

working with gateway communities, counties, metropolitan planning organizations (MPO), state 

departments of transportation (DOTs), other federal land management agencies, and stakeholder 

agencies outside Service boundaries, many of whom could potentially contribute funding or inkind services to advance priority projects.

1.2 MISSION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES FOR THIS LRTP

The vision, mission, goals, and objectives presented in this document are intended to guide the 

process for evaluating and selecting transportation improvement projects for the Service lands in 

Region 3. Through a collaborative effort, the refuge and fisheries departments developed these 

foundational statements specifically for this LRTP, using the strategic goals from their respective 

departments with the Service. These guiding principles have shaped the development, 

conclusions, and recommendations of this LRTP. 

LRTP Mission

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

through strategic implementation of transportation programs.

Goals and Objectives

The goals of this long-range transportation plan for Region 3 encompass six categories including 

resource protection, safety and condition, welcome and orientation, planning, partnerships, and 

sustainability. Each goal includes distinct objectives that serve to further the sentiment 

expressed by the goal. The goals and objectives are listed with a description of the purpose of 

each objective.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 8

Natural Resource Protection: Ensure that the transportation program helps to conserve 

and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their habitats.

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

maintenance that mitigate impacts of transportation.

Objective 2: Reduce transportation related conflicts with fish and wildlife corridors on or 

adjacent to Service lands.

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

Service lands.

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

lands.

Objective 2: Ensure that mission critical transportation assets are maintained at “good” 

condition.

Welcome and Orientation: Develop and maintain a transportation network that enhances 

the welcoming and orienting experience of visitors.

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

and to use their sites.

Objective 2: Engage the visitors with compelling information so he/she has a better 

understanding of the purpose of wildlife conservation and enjoyment of natural 

resources. 

Objective 3: Create a consistent and recognizable identity throughout all Service units by using 

standard materials for readily observed physical elements associated with the 

transportation system.

Planning: Integrate appropriate transportation planning into Service plans and 

processes.

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

national levels of planning.

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

and objective process.

Partnerships: Develop partnerships to leverage resources and develop integrated 

transportation solutions.

Objective 1: Maximize leveraging opportunities for both funding and resources.

Objective 2: Work with partners to address shared transportation issues that impact Service 

goals.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 9

Sustainability: Adopt and promote sustainable transportation practices.

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

transportation planning, design, project delivery, and maintenance.

Objective 2: Improve access to and within Service lands by transit or non-motorized 

transportation and information systems.

Objective 3: Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption.

1.3 REGION 3 BACKGROUND

Federal lands managed by the Service in Region 3 are widely diverse in geography and 

character. They receive different levels of funding and are varied in terms of existing 

transportation infrastructure.

1.3.1 National Wildlife Refuges and National Fish Hatcheries

Service lands in Region 3 encompass National Wildlife Refuges and Wetland Management 

Districts which include more than 1.3 million acres of fish and wildlife habitat in the eight-state 

(Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin) Midwest Region 

as shown in Figure 2. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 10

Figure 2. Wildlife Refuge and Fish Hatcheries within Region 3

Region-wide the Service manages: 54 National Wildlife Refuges that protect an amazing array of 

wetlands, prairies, rivers and forest habitat; and 12 Wetland Management Districts actively 

acquire, restore, and manage prairie wetland and grassland habitat critical to waterfowl. The 

Region 3 fisheries program provides a network of six fish hatcheries. All Service units in 

Region 3 are listed in Appendix B.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 11

1.3.2 Region 3 Transportation System

The Service-maintained transportation facilities in Region 3 consist of paved gravel and native 

surfaced roads, trails, and parking lots. While a large portion of roads are open for public use, 

due to the conservation-based orientation of the Service, many roads are for administrative use 

only. 

Within Region 3 there are approximately 1,223 miles of Service owned and maintained roads 

(120 miles are paved), 286 acres of parking lots, (22 percent of that area is paved) and 

approximately 160 miles of paved and unpaved trails (per the cycle 2 trails inventory) for 

bicycle and pedestrian use. 

Based on 2009 conditions assessments, about four percent of these roads and about six percent of 

parking lots were described as being in either “poor” or “failing” condition.

Transportation projects are funded primarily through the Refuge Roads Program (RRP), refuge

deferred maintenance funds, fisheries deferred maintenance funds, and visitor facility

enhancement funds. Each of these funding sources has specific project requirements. The RRP is

the most widely used for transportation projects and can be used for planning, programming,

construction, reconstruction, and improvement of public roads in the National Wildlife Refuge

System (refuge roads), including bridges and appurtenances, in connection with the

administration of the National Wildlife Refuge System. In addition, up to five percent can be

used for public use trails within refuges. Through the RRP, the Service is working to improve

public access to refuges and provide a better overall visitor experience. Additional information

about project funding and leveraging opportunities can be found in Chapter 3.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 12

1.4 PRIMARY AUDIENCE

This LRTP is written for several audiences including project leaders from wildlife refuges and 

fish hatcheries; regional internal and external leadership from the Service; national level decision 

makers; and potential local and regional partners from governmental agencies or nongovernmental organizations, particularly refuge and hatchery friends groups. Information 

provided in the LRTP is intended to support these groups in several ways.

1.4.1 Project Leaders

Project leaders will use the LRTP to determine which types of projects are being advanced and 

are of the highest priority. The LRTP serves as a springboard for individual refuges and 

hatcheries to partner with outside agencies and discuss project needs of mutual interest, such as 

safety concerns, alternative transportation systems, and addressing climate change, with public 

and regional entities.

1.4.2 Regional Management

At the regional level, this LRTP will provide the information necessary for leaders to make 

transportation decisions based on long term Service vision, mission, and goals. The plan also 

enables regional transportation coordinators to direct funding to the most beneficial and highest 

priority transportation projects. Furthermore, the LRTP enables regional leaders to find 

alternative funding from federal sources that are administered by the state DOTs or MPOs. At 

the regional level, the LRTP is used to synchronize transportation planning with refuge and 

hatchery efforts such as refuge comprehensive conservation plans (CCP), comprehensive 

hatchery management plans (CHMP), and other regional and statewide plans outside Service 

boundaries, such as MPO regional long-range transportation plans and statewide multimodal 

transportation plans.

1.4.3 National Management

On the national level, this LRTP will be used in the development of the Service’s National Long 

Range Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program, which is currently in draft 

form. Both regional-level and national-level planning efforts will provide a clear message to 

congressional leaders as to the mission critical transportation needs of the Service. It will also 

help illustrate the Service’s foresight, need, and commitment to certain mission critical goals –

especially when projects are being pursued jointly with other agencies or organizations, and 

additional federal dollars are requested.

1.4.4 Potential Partners

Potential partners may use this LRTP to identify Service projects of mutual interest. The Service 

recognizes the value of cooperative transportation partnerships, and seeks to leverage Service 

funds with other agencies, organizations, and Congress. The objective is to achieve the greatest 

benefit to the largest number goals and objectives held by multiple agencies and organizations. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 13

Potential partner agencies could include state DOTs, MPOs, county and local governments, as 

well as Friends groups.

1.5 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

The Service recognizes the public involvement requirements associated with long range 

transportation plans developed by State DOTs and MPOs. The regulations in 23 USC § 204 

requires Federal Land Management Agencies to develop transportation planning procedures that 

are consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning process under 23 USC §134 and 135. 

A structured public involvement plan was developed with a list of potential stakeholders and 

actions prescribed at key milestones in the plan’s development to inform the decision making 

processes. The approach for public involvement proposed the following:

• Solicit input from Service staff that will inform the transportation planning effort

• Inform and educate external stakeholders about decision-making in Region 3 relative to 

transportation planning

• Provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify their concerns, values, ideas, and 

interests of the Region 3 transportation system

• Provide Service staff and external stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment 

on the LRTP at key decision points

• Build support from internal and external stakeholders for the processes and projects 

adopted under the LRTP

• Strengthen existing partnerships while forging new ones

• Identify opportunities for coordination with priority MPOs and States for short and 

medium term project development

Given the geographic and demographic diversity of the Service lands within Region 3, it is not 

expected that all or even most of the potential stakeholders would be able to participate, or have 

interest in directly influencing the outcomes of this plan. Once this plan is finalized, a Federal 

Register notice will be filed to advertise the release of this document. The original public 

involvement plan and stakeholder list is provided in Appendix F, which serves as a guide for 

future public involvement activities when this plan is updated.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 14

1.6 CONTENT AND OVERVIEW

This LRTP is structured in five chapters, including this introduction, such that each chapter 

builds upon the information and conclusions derived in the previous chapter(s). The document 

examines baseline conditions, funding, project selection, and recommendations for future action.

Chapter 2, Baseline Conditions, presents baseline conditions as they relate to the six goals of this 

plan. This chapter uses existing asset management systems and road inventory data maintained 

by the Service and FLH to present a data-informed view of the transportation system. Data such 

as road, service life, visitation statistics and trends, population growth, and other spatially 

significant issues are used to establish a baseline from which LRTP decisions can be made.

Chapter 3, Funding and Project Selection, describes a variety of funding categories currently 

used for transportation projects in Region 3. Using the available funding, this chapter describes 

how projects are selected for implementation in the context of the LRTP goals and objectives. 

This chapter highlights funding available from traditional federal sources and identifies 

opportunities for partnering with outside agencies, such as state DOTs, and local governments to 

leverage funding.

Chapter 4, An outreach plan describes how outreach should be conducted during the LRTP 

process to solicit input from interested parties and inform stakeholders for whom the LRTP may 

be of interest. It describes various levels of involvement and methods of outreach. 

Chapter 5, Recommendations for Future Plan Activities, summarizes how this plan will be 

implemented by the Service and includes recommended actions for future development. 

Recommendations include improving data informed analysis through better data management 

from internal and external sources, specifically related to accident data and fish and wildlife 

resources; using the tools and process developed in this plan to issue a formal call for projects; 

and developing a long range list of project needs from the call for projects.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 15

CHAPTER 2: GOALS AND BASELINE CONDITIONS

Understanding the current state of the transportation system in Region 3 is a prerequisite for 

planning future transportation projects. The dynamics of condition, safety, and visitor use are 

therefore considered in transportation funding decisions. Furthermore, this Region 3 long range 

transportation plan (LRTP) considers changes that are likely to occur in the future, such as 

increased traffic and visitation due to population increases which will create additional demands 

on the existing transportation system. As is the nature of LRTPs, the intent is to identify future 

needs and plan for them proactively. The baseline data (i.e., existing conditions and trends) 

contained in this chapter are intended to inform the project selection process described in 

Chapter 3, Funding and Project Selection, whereby projects would be selected based on an 

objective data-driven process that considers likely future conditions, rather than just an 

examination of existing data alone. 

This chapter offers a summary of the current state of the Region 3 transportation infrastructure as 

it relates to the goals and objectives described in Chapter 1, Introduction. The six transportation 

related goal areas adopted by Region 3 are: natural resource protection, safety and condition, 

welcome and orientation, planning, partnerships, and sustainability. The following sections in 

this chapter define the intent of each goal and provide supportive data and an analysis summary 

supporting each goal.

The chapter provides a road-map for identifying improvement needs (i.e., potential projects) at 

the unit level using readily available data to analyze deficiencies or “hot spots” that may be 

occurring at individual units. By applying the approach demonstrated in the following sections 

for each goal area, Service leadership can identify potential project opportunities that are most 

likely to receive funds. This chapter outlines the data sources, data relationships, and extra steps 

that are necessary to identify needs and opportunities that correspond to the LRTP goals and 

objectives, as outlined in Chapter 1. 

This plan has also identified a number of transportation facility related challenges and 

opportunities for the units within Region 3. To more easily highlight this information, most of 

the units have their own Refuge or Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet, which describes the unit’s general 

background information, acreage, main activities, total square footage of parking lots, total miles 

of roads and trails, as well as peak visitation season and number of visitors, among other 

available information. The Refuge Fact Sheet provides information on the more significant 

transportation challenges and opportunities that each unit is facing as of 2011. The Refuge Fact 

Sheets are presented in Appendix I of this LRTP document and summaries of findings are 

presented in this chapter in its appropriate section.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 16

Figure 3. How to use Chapter Two

Sidebars

Case studies show “best 

practice” examples of how other 

FLMAS have addressed similar 

challenges.

2.# Goal Topic

Presents the long range 

transportation goals for the 

region, and how circumstances 

at the unit level can 

demonstrate needs and 

opportunities to further these 

goals. The chapter should be 

read as a unit level roadmap 

illustrating how to identify 

projects that stand the best

chance of receiving funds and 

how to use existing data to 

demonstrate the need for the 

project.

2.#.1 Data

These sections identify the 

datasets used to identify need 

and opportunity for a particular 

goal area.

2.#.2 Identifying 

Improvement Areas 

These sections explain how the 

data identified in 2.#.1 should 

be used to demonstrate need 

and opportunity.

2.#.3 Recommendations for 

Future Analysis

These sections identify 

information that would improve 

future efforts to identify need 

and opportunity.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 17

2.1 NATURAL RESOURCE PROTECTION

The Region 3 LRTP natural resource protection goal is to “ensure that the transportation 

program helps to conserve and enhance fish, wildlife, and plant resources and their

habitats.” The following objectives and strategies serve to further the sentiment expressed by 

the goal.

Objective 1

Identify, research, and adopt Best Management Practices (BMPs) for planning, design, 

construction, and maintenance that mitigate or avoid the impacts of transportation 

activities and facilities.

• Identify and adopt design guidelines and design metrics for transportation 

infrastructure projects.

Objective 2

Reduce transportation related conflicts within fish and wildlife corridors and habitat on or 

adjacent to Service lands. Strategies to achieve this objective are:

• Conduct needs assessments for wildlife crossings on and adjacent to Service 

lands.

• Consider aquatic organism passage during the planning and design phases of 

transportation project development on Service units.

Objective 3

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

alternatives
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 18

2.1.1 Resource Protection Data

Resource protection data are needed to evaluate both the BMP and wildlife conflict 

objectives. Information used to establish a baseline for the BMP-focused objective

includes existing Service BMP guidance and systems. The wildlife conflict objective is 

informed by data that helps identify places where animal and vehicle conflicts have 

occurred in the past and are likely to occur in the future.

Figure 4. Sign meaning that the land behind it has been dedicated to preserving native wildlife as 

it can be retained along modern civilization. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 19

Best Management Practices

The Service has a library of BMPs that promotes guidelines for planning, design, construction

and maintenance pertaining to transportation projects. Transportation related BMPs are included

in the Service’s Draft Midwest Region 3 Roadway Design Guidelines provided in Appendix D. 

A BMP library is also available as a searchable database on the Service’s website along with the 

Information, Planning, and Consultation system (IPaC), which allows users to preview how 

proposed activities may impact sensitive natural resources and which BMPs are appropriate to 

help mitigate negative impacts. The IPaC tool is available at http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/.

Resource Conflicts

Wildlife conflict data helps to identify places where animal and vehicle conflicts have occurred

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

Almost all units report having animal-vehicle collision within or near their unit, 16% of those 

units have some endangered species within.

Ideally, this data would consist of the identification of sensitive wildlife habitat locations,

wildlife corridors, and historic locations of vehicle-animal collisions. At this time, not all of this

information is available; however, data on wildlife conflicts that resulted in refuge visitor 

fatalities is available from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). While 

this data is informative and provides some indication of historic conflict locations, by itself, the 

data is insufficient as a basis for decision making. There are too many other factors that are yet to 

be quantified that must be considered in resource conflict decisions.

2.1.2 Identifying Resource Protection Improvement Areas

Resource protection improvement areas are identified in both the BMP objective and the wildlife 

conflict objective. The BMP objective can be addressed through the use of appropriate BMPs for 

a proposed action. Appropriate BMPs can be found in several ways, such as using the Service’s

Draft Midwest Region 3 Roadway Design Guidelines (available in Appendix D) and using IPaC.

IPaC allows users to preview how proposed activities may impact sensitive natural resources and 

which BMPs are appropriate to help mitigate negative impacts.

To identify areas of resource protection relevant to wildlife conflicts, one must consider multiple 

factors including wildlife corridors, wildlife habitat, and records of historic animal-vehicle 

collisions. At this time only a measure of historic fatal animal-vehicle collision is available. The 

data indicate that over a period of four years (2006-2009), a total of, 237 accidents involving at 

least one fatality occurred in the region, however, only 2 of them within one mile from a FWS 

unit. One of those fatal accidents occurred in US Hwy 67 in the state of Iowa in 2007 within one 

mile of the Upper Mississippi River NWF.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 20

The accident is a single indicator of wildlife conflict and suggests that further study is 

needed to determine if this or other refuges are a resource protection improvement area.

Additional documentation regarding the presence of wildlife corridors, wildlife habitat, 

and the location of other non-fatal to refuge visitor collisions with wildlife would determine 

the appropriate need for resource protection improvements at refuges and hatcheries.

Figure 5. IPaC system

Among many other functionalities, the IPaC 

system allows users to conduct a “BMP search,” 

where stressors, resources, project activities can 

be selected from a list. The system then 

generates a report of relevant BMPs.

Source: FWS, http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 21

2.1.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Additional information is necessary to better evaluate resource protection needs. The following

datasets are required to better understand where transportation related resource protection

improvements should occur:

• Use a systematic method to quantify the significance of the conflicts between fish and

wildlife with transportation facilities to better demonstrate a need for improvements.

• Better document wildlife habitat locations and fish passage corridors to help identify 

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

wildlife.

• Identify the locations of access conflicts between resources (fish and wildlife habitat) and 

transportation facilities to help decision makers develop appropriate solutions.

• Obtain fish passage data to help identify potential fish-transportation conflict areas and 

potentially impacted species.

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

understanding of historic vehicle-animal conflict hot-spots.

• Identify areas where pedestrians or bicycle trails may have an impact upon wildlife. This 

would help craft appropriate strategies on where to place bicycle racks or restrict 

bike/pedestrian access.

• Quantify the impacts and benefits of shuttle buses as a potential alternative to high 

volumes of personal vehicle traffic in key wildlife crossing areas.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 22

2.2 SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION ASSETS CONDITIONS

The Region 3 LRTP condition and safety goal is to “provide a safe and reliable transportation 

network for all modes of transportation to and within Service lands.” The following 

objectives and strategies serve to further the sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

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

Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Conduct road safety audits (RSAs) and/or safety need assessments.

• Increase the number of projects that address access/egress safety problems or 

conflicts between private motor vehicles, transit, and bicyclists and/or pedestrians.

• Identify and implement operational improvements through intelligent 

transportation systems (ITS) applications.

• Identify and implement appropriate safety countermeasures and tools to reduce 

frequency and severity of crashes.

• Use open communication among the “4Es” – engineering, education, 

enforcement, and emergency medical services – to collaboratively address safety 

issues on Service owned roads.

Objective 2

Ensure that mission critical transportation assets are maintained to good or better 

condition.

Strategies to achieve this objective include:

• Use comprehensive condition assessment (CCA) and Road Inventory Program 

(RIP) information to establish a baseline condition.

• Determine strategies needed to extend the service life of mission critical assets.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 23

Figure 6. Boardwalk at Genoa National Fish Hatchery.

2.2.1 Safety and Transportation Assets Condition Data

Data used to identify appropriate opportunities for improving transportation system conditions

include physical characteristics like surface condition and asset type as well as external factors

such as an asset’s importance and relationship to safety. Data used to make these determinations

are obtained from regularly updated data sources like the Service’s service asset maintenance

management system (SAMMS) and RIP. SAMMS provides information on facility and

equipment deficiencies, justifies budget requests for maintenance needs, and provides a sound

basis for management decision making. RIP data is collected by the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), Federal Lands Highway Division (FLH), on behalf of the Service, to

provide ongoing condition monitoring of all public use roads, trails, and parking lots. The

inventory is updated continuously and resulting datasets are compiled and released every five

years.

Supplemental information from outside sources is used to help identify problem areas and

opportunities for improvements. Sources of supplemental information include the United States

Census, FHWA, state departments of transportation (DOT) and perhaps Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations (MPOs). These data help inform decision makers about issues that extend beyond 

basic physical condition and typically relates to transportation system issues regarding access to 

and through units. Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 24

Overview of Condition Data

The majority of the Service’s transportation system consists of asphalt, gravel, and native roads. 

In Region 3, the Service owns and maintains approximately 1,223 miles of public use roads, 4 

miles of which are concrete, 116 miles are asphalt, 726 miles are gravel, 319 miles are native and 

58 miles are primitive (roadways not built to road design standards, for use by high clearance or 

4 wheel drive vehicles). These numbers exclude roads that are used only for Service 

administrative purposes as well as public use roads that are double-track and unpaved. 

Minnesota and Illinois have the most roads (by length) with 28.2 percent and 22.4 percent of the 

total Region 3 miles, respectively. Missouri is third highest (11.4 percent), followed by Michigan 

(10.6 percent), Indiana (8.8 percent), Wisconsin (7.6 percent), Iowa (6.1 percent) and Ohio (4.8

percent). At the unit level, Crab Orchard NWR has the most roads (by length) with 10.7 percent 

of total Region 3 miles, followed by Agassiz NWR with 8.4 percent, Seney NWR (7.7 percent) 

and Big Oaks NWR (6.6 percent). Table 1 summarizes this information.

Based on the most recent RIP inventory data for Region 3, as compiled in 2008, 73.35 percent of 

the region’s asphalt roads have at least seven years of service life remaining. Similarly, 

approximately 93.98 percent of gravel roads, 67.3 percent of native roads and 59.94 percent of 

primitive roads have at least five years of use remaining, as expressed by remaining service life 

and as summarized in Table 1. The need for road improvements are also determined by a road’s 

asset priority, facility condition index, and condition, as summarized in Appendix C (Tables 3 to 

50).

Currently the Refuge Roads Program does not provide funding for hatcheries’ transportation 

systems, however having an understanding of what assets exist within the system, provides a 

better opportunity to manage and prioritize them. Table 2 shows the current roads within the 

SAMMS system.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 25

Table 1 . Service Road Conditions

Road 

Surface

Remaining 

Service Life 

(years)

Miles Percent of 

total

Percent of 

Surface 

Type

Concrete

13 to 18 0.24 0.02% 5.73%

7 to 12 2.53 0.21% 60.38%

1 to 6 1.42 0.12% 33.89%

Subtotal = 4.19 0.34% -

Asphalt

19 to 20 17.47 1.43% 15.11%

13 to 18 3.84 0.31% 3.32%

7 to 12 63.49 5.19% 54.92%

1 to 6 30.81 2.52% 26.65%

Subtotal = 115.61 9.45% -

Gravel

8 to 10 324.66 26.55% 44.73%

5 to 7 357.42 29.22% 49.25%

3 to 4 42.98 3.51% 5.92%

1 to 2 0.51 0.04% 0.07%

0 0.22 0.02% 0.03%

Subtotal = 725.79 59.34% -

Native

8 to 10 10.44 0.85% 3.27%

5 to 7 204.15 16.69% 64.03%

3 to 4 96.26 7.87% 30.19%

1 to 2 5.04 0.41% 1.58%

0 2.95 0.24% 0.93%

Subtotal = 318.84 26.07% -

Primitive

8 to 10 2.50 0.20% 4.27%

5 to 7 32.63 2.67% 55.67%

3 to 4 23.28 1.90% 39.72%

1 to 2 0.08 0.01% 0.14%

0 0.12 0.01% 0.20%

Subtotal = 58.61 4.79% -

Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program; 

Cycle 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 26

Table 2 . Hatcheries Service Roads 

State FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

MI

Jordan 

River 

NFH

Hatchery 

entrance road 10010251 Route 010 (Old RPI 1) Asphalt N/A 1.12 100 0.73

River Road 

Access 10050262 Route 100 Asphalt N/A 0.09 65 0.14

WI

Genoa 

NFH

Road to fish 

holding house 10010989 RPI Route 40 Paved N/A 0.20 65 1.21

Iron River 

NFH

Schacte Creek 

Road section 

A: Hatchery 

water Intake 

Road

10011016 

(10061472, 

10061473, 

10061474, 

10061475)

- Gravel N/A 0.30 80 0.09

Middle Creek 

Road section 

A: Water 

Intake Road, 

split off to two 

other assets: 

10061469 and 

10061470

10011023 - Gravel N/A 0.60 80 0.06

Source: SAMMS System (Spring 2011)

Supporting the Service’s road network are 1,537 parking lots spanning a total of 286 acres. Table 

3 summarizes parking lot conditions for the region. RIP data indicate that 22 percent of parking 

lots are asphalt, 38 percent are gravel, 38 percent are native surface, one percent are primitive 

and less than one percent are concrete. A rating of good or better is attributed to 81 percent of 

asphalt parking lots, 67 percent of gravel, 63 percent of concrete, 25 percent of native surface 

and 70 percent of primitive surface parking lots. The need for parking lot improvements can be 

determined by asset condition, as summarized in Appendix C (Table 51 to 100).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 27

Table 3 . Service Parking Lot Conditions

Surface Condition Acres Percentage of 

Surface Type

Percentage 

of Total

Asphalt

Excellent 9.80 15.83% 3.43%

Good 40.59 65.54% 14.19%

Fair 8.97 14.48% 3.13%

Poor 2.57 4.15% 0.90%

Subtotal 61.94 - 21.65%

Concrete

Good 0.33 63.42% 0.12%

Poor 0.19 36.58% 0.07%

Subtotal 0.52 - 0.18%

Gravel

Excellent 8.87 8.08% 3.10%

Good 64.86 59.06% 22.67%

Fair 32.24 29.36% 11.27%

Poor 3.84 3.49% 1.34%

Subtotal 109.81 - 38.38%

Native

Excellent 0.60 0.54% 0.21%

Good 26.73 24.25% 9.34%

Fair 74.08 67.22% 25.89%

Poor 8.60 7.81% 3.01%

Failed 0.19 0.17% 0.07%

Subtotal 110.20 - 38.51%

Primitive

Good 0.99 26.89% 0.35%

Fair 1.58 43.01% 0.55%

Poor 1.11 30.10% 0.39%

Subtotal 3.67 - 1.28%

 Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 28

The Service also owns and maintains approximately 160 miles of trails. These trails are used by 

hikers, bicyclists and during winter months, cross country skiers. Every trail offers all of the 

potential uses. The majority of trails are located in Minnesota (44.7 percent), followed by 

Michigan (14.1 percent), Wisconsin (10.6 percent), Illinois (8.3 percent), Indiana (6.9 percent), 

Iowa (6.3 percent), Missouri (4.6 percent) and Ohio (4.5 percent). The reported conditions of 

these trails are generally in good condition or better, as summarized in Table 4. Approximately 

57 percent of trails have a rating of excellent and 6.5 percent of good. Only two percent of trails 

receive a rating of very poor; however, 27 percent of trails are unrated. Need for trail 

improvement is also determined by a trail’s asset priority, facility condition index, and condition, 

as summarized in Appendix C (Tables 101 to 109). 

Some trails contain specific areas that are deemed deficient due to drainage, erosion, structure, or 

location. Region 3 has 165 such locations, with the majority being drainage-related issues 

followed very closely by erosion-related issues. Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge in 

Michigan has the most drainage-related issues (44 percent). Muscatatuck NWR has 42 percent 

of the drainage-related issues and 23 percent of the erosion-related issues. These locations are 

summarized in Appendix C (Tables 110).

In general, 57 percent of trails are in excellent condition; 6.5 percent in good; 5 percent in fair, 

2.5 percent in poor, 2 percent in very poor and 27 percent are not rated, which are on 

administrative roads.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 29

Table 4 . Trail Conditions by Type

Surface type Condition Miles Percentage of 

Surface Type

Asphalt

Excellent 5.38 55%

Good 2.23 23%

Fair 1.8 19%

Poor 0.29 3%

Very Poor 0 0%

Subtotal 9.7 -

Boardwalk

Excellent 1.68 90%

Good 0.18 10%

Fair to Very Poor 0 0%

Subtotal 1.86 -

Concrete

Excellent 0.82 100%

Good to Very Poor 0 0%

Subtotal 0.82 -

Gravel

Excellent 15.59 98%

Good 0.37 2%

Fair to Very Poor 0 0%

Subtotal 15.96 -

Mowed

Excellent 34.24 87%

Good 3.19 8%

Fair 0.4 1%

Poor 0.22 1%

Very Poor 1.4 4%

Subtotal 39.45 -

Native

Excellent 32.11 68%

Good 4.44 9%

Fair 5.45 12%

Poor 3.5 7%

Very Poor 1.86 4%

Subtotal 47.36 -

Wood Chip

Excellent 1.89 100%

Good to Very Poor 0 0

Subtotal 1.89 -

 Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 30

Overview of Safety Data

The Service is interested in supporting safe and reliable access to and through its lands. As such, 

safety indicators including road pavement condition, annual average daily traffic (AADT), and 

crash history were collected when available and analyzed to help identify potential safety 

problem areas on non-Service owned roads near refuges and hatcheries.

A strategic approach of a Safety Management System (SMS) would greatly benefit Fish and 

Wildlife Service to monitor and identify where resources are needed when it comes to addressing 

safety. The FWS National Long Range Transportation Plan will address strategies to fully 

implement existing SMS.

Some information was obtained through the RATE questionnaire related to safety. All detailed 

information can be found in Appendix I (Refuge and Fish Hatchery Fact Sheets) and Appendix J 

(Alternative Transportation Priorities and Strategies).

2.2.2 Identifying Conditions and Safety Improvement Areas 

Baseline condition data helps identify areas that are in need of transportation improvements for 

safety, modal connections, and/or condition. Service-owned assets that could potentially benefit 

from condition improvements are identified by several variables including asset priority index 

(API), facility condition index (FCI), and observed condition. API describes the mission critical 

priority of an asset as determined by the Service for roads and trails. Ideally, assets with a value 

of 80 or greater are defined as being “mission critical” and should have a condition rating of 

“good” or better. FCI is the ratio of the deferred maintenance costs to the full capital replacement 

value of a specific asset and is used as an indicator of infrastructure condition

The need for safety improvements can be illustrated by road safety audits and/or crash data. 

Reducing conflicts between cars and bicyclists and/or pedestrians to and within Service lands 

transportation assets can be achieved by investing in either physical or operational improvements 

where crash history or road safety audits have demonstrated safety problems with the current 

transportation system. In some cases, these operational improvements may include ATS 

strategies to reduce the number of vehicles on the roadways.

In addition to improving Service transportation assets that are of high value and show 

deficiencies, the condition and safety goal may be advanced by projects undertaken jointly with

either public or private sector partners to address transportation safety needs of mutual interest. 

Utilizing public/private partners may also be a way to address safety concerns that are outside 

the refuge boundaries but affect the refuge (i.e. a turn lane on a state road to access a visitor 

center). To identify such opportunities, non-Service condition and safety information is also 

examined when there is a close proximity or overlap with Service assets. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 31

Opportunities may exist if both Service and non-Service entities have identified system condition 

deficiencies in shared locations.

Figure 7. Safety Hot Spot Criteria

The Service is also interested in supporting safe and reliable access to its lands, regardless of

facility ownership. As such, safety indicators including condition, AADT, and crash history were 

collected and analyzed to help identify potential safety problem areas on non-Service owned 

roads near refuges and hatcheries. Places where these factors are pronounced and within one 

mile of a Service unit were identified as areas of potential opportunity to partner with nonService agencies to resolve safety issues of mutual interest. These “hotspot” locations are 

identified (and highlighted in yellow and red) in Table 5 through Table 12 and illustrated in 

Figure 8 through Figure 12. 

Hotspots are identified as non-Service routes that satisfy at least one of the following criteria:

• An AADT of 20,000 or more

• An average of five or more reported crashes have occurred within the previous four-five years 

on a route within one-mile of a unit; and 

• State DOT Road condition ratings are considered to be either “poor” or “very poor.”

Baseline data analysis helps decision makers identify 

condition and safety hot spots. The following example 

shows that there is a possible deficiency in the 

transportation system condition and safety to Big Muddy 

NWR in Missouri. Deficiencies are shown in Table 4, 

illustrating that the non-Service routes accessing the 

refuge are generally in poor condition and some have 

comparatively high AADT (above 20,000 vehicles). 

 High 

API

High 

AADT

High 

Crash 

Rate Poor 

Road 

Condition

Hot 

Spot
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 32

Table 5 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Iowa and Michigan)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within 

one mile of unit

Average 

Condition 

for segment 

of route 

within one 

mile of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

IOWA

Boyer Chute 

NWR I-29/680 Good 21,000 10

DeSoto NWR US-30 Good 4,772 11

McGregor 

District

State Hwy 76 Good 3,000 15

US Hwy 18 Good 4,630 10

US Hwy 52 Fair 3,300 8

Neal Smith 

NWR State Hwy 163 Good 11,531 11

Port Louisa 

NWR

Co Rd E49 N/A N/A 7

US Hwy 63 Good 3,900 7

US Hwy 30 Excellent 4,900 15

State Hwy 21 Poor 2,600 7

State Hwy 212 Excellent 1,210 16

US Hwy 6 Poor 3,600 41

State Hwy 220 Fair 5,600 18

US Hwy 151 Good 5,800 11

Upper 

Mississippi 

River NWR -

Savanna 

District

State Hwy 62 Poor 2,510 3

US Hwy 67 north of 210th St Poor 3,718 23

US Hwy 67 south of Hwy 30 Poor 5,200 28

US Hwy 52 Fair 2,900 7

US Hwy 61/ 151 Good 16,300 26

US Hwy 30/67 Good 13,800 95

State Hwy 64 Poor 1,990 1

MICHIGAN

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife 

Refuge

State Hwy 85 N/A 31,050 <1

I-75 north of Rt 39 N/A 82,650 <1

I-75 south of I-275 N/A 64,400 -

Shiawassee 

NWR

State Hwy 46 N/A 24,160 <1

State Hwy 58 N/A 23,900 <1

I-75/US Hwy 23 N/A 54,350 <1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 33

Table 6 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Illinois and Indiana)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within 

one mile of unit

Average 

Condition 

for segment 

of route 

within one 

mile of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

ILLINOIS

Chautauqua 

NWR

State Rte 26 N/A 1,920 12

State Rte 29 N/A 3,100 17

Crab Orchard 

NWR

I-57 N/A 27,500 39

State Rte 13 N/A 28,800 224

State Rte 148 N/A 6,200 53

Cypress Creek 

NWR

State Hwy 3 N/A 2,200 7

State Rte 37 N/A 1,500 13

State Hwy 127 N/A 850 10

US Hwy 51 / State Rte 37 N/A 4,150 6

Emiquon NWR

State Rte 78 N/A 3,400 7

State Rte 97 N/A 3,050 16

US Hwy 24 N/A 4,150 12

US Hwy 136 N/A 6,000 30

Meredosia NWR State Hwy 104 N/A 3,400 5

Two Rivers 

NWR

State Rte 100 East of State 

Rte 3 N/A 3,550 6

State Rte 100 West of State 

Rte 3 N/A 1,410 19

Upper 

Mississippi 

River NWR -

Savanna District

South Ln N/A 8,900 13

State Rte 35 N/A 4,175 8

State Rte 84 South of US 

Hwy 67/30 N/A 4,225 29

State Rte 84 north of State 

Rte 64 N/A 5,000 45

State Rte 84 south of State 

Rte 64 N/A 3,970 48

State Rte 84 north of Army 

Depot Rd N/A 1,600 6

US Hwy 20 west of State Rte 

35 N/A 17,000 9

US Hwy 20 east of State Rte 

35 N/A 10,400 35

INDIANA

Big Oaks NWR US Hwy 250 Poor 798 <1

Muscatatuck 

NWR US Hwy 50 Poor 30,607 <1

Patoka River 

NWR State Rd 61 Poor 4,080 <1
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 34

Table 7 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Minnesota)

State Name

Segments of Primary &

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Avg Condition 

for segment of 

route within one 

mile of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

MINNESOTA

Glacial Ridge NWR US Hwy 75 Fair 1,850 5

US Hwy 2 Good 3,500 5

Minnesota Valley 

NWR

Co Rd 101 Good 17,500 79

Co Rd 69 Good 5,600 7

I-35W between 694 and TH 10 Good 111,000 212

I-35W between TH 13 and CSAH 1 Good 96,500 132

I-494 Fair 138,000 74

I-694 east of CSAH77 Good 104,000 144

TH 13 / Sibley Memorial Hwy Fair 24,400 13

State Hwy 101 Good 5,300 23

State Hwy 13 west of I-35W Good 48,000 47

State Hwy 13 west of I-35W Fair 24,000 90

Highway 13S between 101 and 

CSAH 16 Good 22,800 32

State Hwy 41 Fair 14,400 16

State Hwy 5 Fair 66,500 14

State Hwy 77 Fair 89,000 73

State Hwy 96 W / Co Rd G Poor 20,900 72

US Hwy 10 Fair 46,000 40

US Hwy 169 north of Co Rd 101 Good 63,000 66

US Hwy 169 south of Co Rd 101 Good 45,000 38

US Hwy 169 west of State Hwy 41 Good 30,000 27

US Hwy 212 east of State Hwy 101 Good 34,000 36

US Hwy 212 west of State Hwy 101 Good 16,800 35

Upper Mississippi -

La Crosse District

I-90 Good 19,000 30

State Hwy 16 Good 10,500 26

US Hwy 61 between TH 14 and 

CSAH 44 Good 18,000 50

US Hwy 61 at CSAH 6 Fair 13,800 30

US Hwy 61 east of CSAH 12 Good 8,220 9

Upper Mississippi -

Mc Gregor District State Hwy 26 Fair 1,800 15

Upper Mississippi -

Winona District

US Hwy 61 at CSSAH 15 Fair 14,000 50

US Hwy 61 east of Rd 25 Good 4,900 20

US hwy 61 east of State Hwy 60 Good 4,400 11

US Hwy 61 west of State Hwy 60 Good 4,850 8
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 35

Table 8 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Average 

Condition for 

segment of route 

within one mile 

of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

State Hwy 5 between Hwy 24 and 

Hwy 20 Poor 615 9

State Hwy 13 Fair 2,248 13

I-270 Poor 123,000 424

State Hwy 224 Poor 500 8

US Hwy 169 Fair 34,811 115

State Hwy 3 Fair 3,858 12

State Hwy 340 Fair 37,356 246

I-70 / Hwy 40 Fair 30,021 29

State Hwy 10 west of State Hwy D Poor 1,710 15

State Hwy 9 Good 19,224 112

State Hwy 19 Poor 3,542 46

State Hwy 291 south of State Hwy 

210 Very good 20,777 37

I-70 / US Hwy 40 west side of 

refuge by Kansas Poor 85,528 489

State Hwy 5 north of US Hwy 24 Poor 1,026 1

US Hwy 69 between Hwy 9 and 

Hwy 169 Fair 11,010 25

I-35 south of I-70 Very poor 151,609 179

State Hwy D Poor 253 2

State Hwy 94 east of Hwy 19 Very poor 284 10

State Hwy 10 east of State Hwy D Fair 2,021 6

State Hwy 213 Very poor 1,318 <1

State Hwy 87 between State Hwy 

240 and Hwy 5 Poor 595 12

State Hwy 7 south of Hwy 78 Very good 6,488 30

State Hwy 370 west of Hwy 94 Fair 56,024 20

State Hwy 78 east of I-435 Fair 20,561 69

US Hwy 50/US Hwy 63 Fair 15,776 184

State Hwy D Poor 784 <1

State Hwy 100 between Hwy C and 

Hwy 185 Very poor 6,704 18
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 36

Table 9 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Average 

Condition for 

segment of route 

within one mile 

of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

I-70 / US Hwy 40 by Boonville Good 33,839 239

US Hwy 71 Fair 73,392 147

State Hwy 1 Poor 24,335 157

I-435 north of Hwy 210 Fair 64,174 99

US Hwy 24 between State Hwy 41 

and 11 Poor 1,975 3

State Hwy 291 north of State Hwy 

210 Very good 19,954 22

State Hwy 179 south of I-70 Very poor 910 5

State Hwy 122 Very poor 223 N/A

State Hwy 210 between I-435 and 

Hwy 291 Poor 13,681 54

State Hwy 141 Very poor 20,690 50

I-670 Very poor 61,208 214

I-29 / US Hwy 71 north of State 

Hwy 210 Poor 65,994 248

US Hwy 24 west of State Hwy 224 Fair 3,748 6

US Hwy 56 N/A 12,986 43

US Hwy 24 east of State Hwy 129 Poor 3,100 7

I-35 east of Hwy 29 Good 68,634 64

US Hwy 40 east of State Hwy 5 Good 1,872 13

State Hwy 33 / US Hwy 69 Very poor 14,615 22

State Hwy 100 west of Hwy 89 Poor 550 2

State Hwy Bb Good 738 5

State Hwy 139 Poor 414 2

State Hwy 131 Very poor 4,341 6

US Hwy 65 north of Hwy 24 Fair 3,600 9

I-70 intersecting I-270 Fair 148,056 508

US Hwy 24 east of I-495 Fair 18,944 110

US Hwy 54 south of State Hwy 94 Fair 52,757 103

State Hwy 98 Poor 595 2

State Hwy 240 north of US Hwy 40 Good 1,999 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 37

Table 10 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Average 

Condition for 

segment of route 

within one mile 

of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route segment

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

State Hwy 180 Poor 28,354 113

Hwy F Very poor 1,740 <1

US Hwy 24 east of Hwy 65 Very poor 2,578 2

US Hwy 24 between State Hwy 13 

and 65 Very good 1,836 9

US Hwy 69 between Hwy 169 and 

Hwy 1 Fair 14,702 147

State Hwy 364 Fair 58,136 65

I-435 south of Hwy 210 Fair 82,545 499

State Hwy 240 Bus Poor 774 <1

State Hwy 210 between Hwy 9 and 

I-29 N/A 10,514 155

US Hwy 63 / State Hwy 94 Fair 18,512 32

State Hwy 100 east to Mo Kk to 

Hwy T Fair 14,328 105

I-29 / US Hwy 71 south of State 

Hwy 210 Poor 72,054 310

State Hwy 5 intersecting Hwy 40 Fair 5,366 64

State Hwy 210 between Hwy 291 

and Co Rd N Good 6,454 34

I-70 west of Hwy 169 Poor 68,318 25

US Hwy 24 west of State Hwy 7 Good 8,213 13

State Hwy W Very poor 212 1

State Hwy 89 Very poor 1,121 1

US Hwy 40 intersecting I-435 Good 12,184 54

State Hwy 100 between 

Sprecklemeyer Rd and Grant Ln Very poor 4,225 6

I-70 / I-35 Fair 79,980 187

Us Hwy 24 east of State Hwy 11 to 

129 Poor 1,494 19

State Hwy 210 east of Co Rd N Fair 7,280 10

State Hwy 94 between Hwy 54 and 

Hwy 19 Very poor 2,162 35

State Hwy 100 between Hwy 89 and 

Hwy 19 Very poor 2,500 27

US Hwy 24 between Hwy 9 and I435 N/A 16,945 327

US Hwy 54 north of State Hwy 94 Fair 24,840 16

State Hwy 87 south of Hwy 179 Very poor 1,092 3

State Hwy 94 south of State Hwy 

370 Fair 6,121 43
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 38

Table 11 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Missouri-Continuation)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Average 

Condition for 

segment of route 

within one mile 

of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route 

segment

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

State Hwy 41 north of I-70 Poor 712 13

State Hwy 179 west of Route T Fair 1,200 9

State Hwy 370 east of Hwy 94 Fair 50,884 66

State Hwy 47 Very poor 3,651 88

US Hwy 65 Good 3,410 12

State Hwy 179 east of Route T Poor 2,391 26

US Hwy 65 between State Hwy 10 

and 24 Good 2,672 9

State Hwy 94 east of Hwy 47 Very poor 1,622 61

State Hwy 129 Fair 936 5

US Hwy 24 intersecting Hwy 131 Very poor 3,984 10

I-64 / US Hwy 61 / US Hwy 40 Good 86,456 195

State Hwy 12 Poor 10,740 52

State Hwy 210 between I-29 and I435 Poor 27,943 244

State 78 west of State Hwy 7 Good 3,171 16

State Hwy 100 between State Hwy 

19 and Berger Rd Poor 4,022 15

State Hwy 87 south of Hwy 70 Very poor 1,970 3

State Hwy 94 north of State Hwy 

370 Poor 5,024 53

State Hwy 7 between US Hwy 24 

and Hwy 78 Very good 5,332 15

Clarence 

Cannon NWR State Hwy 79 Poor 1,600 1

Mingo NWR State Hwy 51 Fair 1,850 9

Pilot Knob 

NWR State Hwy 21 Poor 9,876 16

Squaw Creek 

NWR

I-29 Poor 13,556 10

State Hwy 111 Poor 746 <1

State Hwy 118 Poor 690 3
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 39

Table 12 . Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety Hotspots (Wisconsin)

State Name

Segments of Primary and 

Secondary Routes within one 

mile of unit

Average 

Condition for 

segment of route 

within one mile 

of unit

AADT

Annual 

Average 

number of 

crashes on 

Route 

segment

WISCONSIN

Horicon NWR State Hwy 49 Fair 4,100 5

LaCrosse 

District

I-90 N/A 24,900 49

State Hwy 16 Excellent 5,400 37

State Hwy 35 between Hwy 53 and 

I-90 Fair 16,000 107

State Hwy 35 north of Co Rd Xx Excellent 4,150 6

US Hwy 14/61 Good 24,600 151

US Hwy 53 Good 21,500 28

US Hwy 53/3rd St Fair 15,000 54

US Hwy 53 between Hwy 61 and 

I-90 Good 31,200 139

US Hwy 61 Excellent 20,000 9

Necedah 

NWR

State Hwy 80 Poor 1,100 9

State Hwy 21 Poor 6,600 8

Mc Greggor 

District

State Hwy 133 at State Rd 81 Good 2,100 8

State Hwy 133 south of Co Rd U Fair 940 10

State Hwy 35 north of Hwy 82 Poor/Fair 5,900 59

State Hwy 35 south of Hwy 82 Very good 3,000 25

US Hwy 18 Fair 9,500 8

Savanna 

District US Hwy 151 Fair 19,200 20

Winona 

District

State Hwy 35 east of Hwy 25 Good 4,500 60

State Hwy 43 Fair 10,600 7

Whittlesey 

Creek NWR

US Hwy 2 Poor 7,200 7

State Hwy 13 Poor 6,450 7

Note: Orange highlight means meets hotspot criteria of AADT 20,000 or higher, five or more crashes, or road 

conditions of poor or worse. Red highlight means locations where (Crashes/AADT)*1000>=5.00. See 

appendix C for more details. Routes: Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Michigan DOT; Minnesota DOT; Missouri 

DOT; Wisconsin DOT; NHPN (2008); Condition: Iowa DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007) ; Minnesota DOT (2009-

2010); Missouri DOT (2011); Wisconsin DOT (2007-2010); AADT: Iowa DOT (2009), Illinois DOT (2009), Indiana 

DOT (2007), Michigan DOT (2009); Minnesota DOT (2009); Missouri DOT (2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2010); 

NHPN (2008); Crashes: Iowa DOT (2006-2010); Illinois DOT (2006-2010); Indiana DOT (2006-2010), Michigan DOT 

(2006-2009); Minnesota DOT (2006-2010); Missouri DOT (2006-2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2009).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 40

Routes: Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Michigan DOT; Minnesota DOT; Missouri DOT; Wisconsin DOT; NHPN (2008); Condition: Iowa DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007) ; 

Minnesota DOT (2009-2010); Missouri DOT (2011); Wisconsin DOT (2007-2010); AADT: Iowa DOT (2009), Illinois DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007), Michigan DOT (2009); Minnesota 

DOT (2009); Missouri DOT (2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2010); NHPN (2008); Crashes: Iowa DOT (2006-2010); Illinois DOT (2006-2010); Indiana DOT (2006-2010), Michigan DOT 

(2006-2009); Minnesota DOT (2006-2010); Missouri DOT (2006-2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2009).

Figure 8. Non-Service Road Hotspots within one mile of Service Units in Region 3
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 41

Routes: Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Michigan DOT; Minnesota DOT; Missouri DOT; Wisconsin DOT; NHPN (2008); Condition: Iowa DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007) ; 

Minnesota DOT (2009-2010); Missouri DOT (2011); Wisconsin DOT (2007-2010); AADT: Iowa DOT (2009), Illinois DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007), Michigan DOT (2009); Minnesota 

DOT (2009); Missouri DOT (2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2010); NHPN (2008); Crashes: Iowa DOT (2006-2010); Illinois DOT (2006-2010); Indiana DOT (2006-2010), Michigan DOT 

(2006-2009); Minnesota DOT (2006-2010); Missouri DOT (2006-2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2009)

Figure 9. Minnesota Valley NWR – Hotspots
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 42

Routes: Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Michigan DOT; Minnesota DOT; Missouri DOT; Wisconsin DOT; NHPN (2008); Condition: Iowa DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007) ; 

Minnesota DOT (2009-2010); Missouri DOT (2011); Wisconsin DOT (2007-2010); AADT: Iowa DOT (2009), Illinois DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007), Michigan DOT (2009); Minnesota 

DOT (2009); Missouri DOT (2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2010); NHPN (2008); Crashes: Iowa DOT (2006-2010); Illinois DOT (2006-2010); Indiana DOT (2006-2010), Michigan DOT 

(2006-2009); Minnesota DOT (2006-2010); Missouri DOT (2006-2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2009)

Figure 10. Hotspots in some units in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 43

Routes: Iowa DOT, Illinois DOT, Indiana DOT, Michigan DOT; Minnesota DOT; Missouri DOT; Wisconsin DOT; NHPN (2008); Condition: Iowa DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007) ; 

Minnesota DOT (2009-2010); Missouri DOT (2011); Wisconsin DOT (2007-2010); AADT: Iowa DOT (2009), Illinois DOT (2009), Indiana DOT (2007), Michigan DOT (2009); Minnesota 

DOT (2009); Missouri DOT (2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2010); NHPN (2008); Crashes: Iowa DOT (2006-2010); Illinois DOT (2006-2010); Indiana DOT (2006-2010), Michigan DOT 

(2006-2009); Minnesota DOT (2006-2010); Missouri DOT (2006-2010); Wisconsin DOT (2005-2009)

Figure 11. Big Muddy National Fish and Wildlife Refuge - Hotspots
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 44

Figure 12 illustrates an example that there is a possible deficiency in the transportation system 

condition and safety within, and possibly to, Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge, in Illinois. 

Baseline data suggest that Crab Orchard is a reasonable candidate for road improvements. The first 

table below indicates that 43 percent of the refuge’s roads are rated fair or worse. Table 5 to Table 12

show the non-service routes accessing the refuge have high AADT (above 20,000) and crashes (more 

than 5 per year). 

Excerpt from Appendix C (Table 112)

Service 

Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Concrete

Good 0.10 0%

Fair 2.25 2%

Poor 1.42 1%

Asphalt

Excellent 2.24 2%

Good 1.60 1%

Fair 29.99 23%

Poor 11.68 9%

Gravel

Excellent 10.64 8%

Good 50.48 38%

Fair 4.91 4%

Poor 0.51 0%

Native

Good 9.68 7%

Fair 3.83 3%

Primitive

Good 0.94 1%

Fair 2.19 2%

Poor 0.08 0%

 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 45

Figure 12. Crab Orchard NWR - Hotspots
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 46

At the unit level, it was found that:

• Minnesota Valley NWR & WMD faces a major challenge when it comes to 

congestion on roads within and leading to the unit.

• There are three units that face major challenges when it comes to bus parking: 

Mc Gregor District/Driftless Area, Big Oaks NWR and Squaw Creek NWR.

• 28% of units perceive having a lack of safe pedestrian access.

• 25% of units perceive the road conditions surrounding the unit are not as safe as 

needed.

• Approximately 16 % of units expressed a need of turning lanes to provide a safer 

access to their visitor centers. From those units, 62% may benefit from a right turn 

lane and 38% from a left turn lane.

2.2.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several actions are necessary to better evaluate the need for conditions and safety improvements.

The following actions are recommended:

• Obtain AADT estimates for all Service roads on a regularly scheduled basis to help 

quantify use and add to the meaningfulness of need determinations.

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

improvements.

• Obtain complete current replacement value, asset priority index, facility condition index, 

and deferred maintenance for all refuge and hatchery roads, parking lots, and trails to 

eliminate data gaps and improve the reliability of need determinations.

• Develop a better cross-compatibility between SAMMS and RIP generated information 

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

usefulness of need and hotspot analyses.

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

eliminate data gaps in the determinations of improvement need and partnership 

opportunity.

• Analyze crash data on a crash/mile count basis.

• To better understand the benefits of ATS for high-visitation units, compare the safety 

conditions and maintenance costs between roadways with and without transit (shuttle 

buses).
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 47

2.3 WELCOME AND ORIENTATION

The LRTP welcome and orientation of visitors goal is, “Develop and maintain a 

transportation network that enhances the welcoming and orienting experience of visitors.” 

This goal will be met through the collaboration of transportation and visitor services 

professionals at the unit, regional and national level. The following objectives and strategies 

serve to provide a framework for the goal.

Objective 1

Provide public information to enable visitors to easily get to refuges and hatcheries and to 

use its sites. Strategies for this objective are:

• Identify appropriate locations in the transportation system to place entrance, 

directional, and boundary signs to improve visitor way-finding to and within 

refuges and hatcheries.

• Increase use of traveler information systems, such as 511 and variable 

message signs, to transmit safety, interpretive and special events management 

information.

Objective 2

Engage the visitor with compelling information to better understand the National Wildlife 

Refuge System and Fisheries Program purpose of wildlife conservation and to enjoy

natural resources. The strategies for this objective are:

• Develop signage with positively worded regulations and information to create 

a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 48

Figure 13. Visitor Information kiosk at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.

Objective 3 

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

• Provide interpretation – recorded or in person – on self-guided or guided tours 

or shuttle rides. 

Objective 4

Create a consistent and recognizable identity throughout all Service units through the use 

of standard materials for readily observed physical elements associated with the 

transportation system. Strategies for this objective are:

• Replace substandard entrance, regulatory, and interpretive signs to adhere to 

Service wide standards when located adjacent to a transportation improvement 

project.

• Develop and apply standards for landscape treatments to create a recognizable 

appearance to Service-owned parking lots, tour routes, pull-offs that serve as 

trailheads or boat launches.

Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 49

2.3.1 Welcome and Orientation Data

Welcoming and orientation to visitors’ data is analyzed with the assumption that opportunities 

for enhancing this goal are greatest in places that receive the highest number of visitors. 

Visitation and population data is used to identify appropriate opportunities. Population estimates 

and forecasts are derived from the U.S. Census while visitation data is reported by the Service.

Wildlife observation and bird watching specifically, are the primary visitor activities at most 

units. Historically, hunting and fishing were extremely popular in the region, and while they 

remain significant activities at many units, hunters have decreased in recent years. Visitors are 

seeking more active recreation on NWRs in the region. Reports of hiking and bicycling on 

refuges have increased in the past few years; many residents of adjacent communities visit 

refuges regularly for walking, jogging, cycling, and other exercise. The increased active 

recreation use may be due to urban development approaching refuge boundaries, which puts 

refuges in closer proximity to people’s homes or workplaces.

As illustrated on Table 13, visitation to refuges and hatcheries in Region 3 varies greatly, from 

less than 100 average annual visits at several units, to 1.5 million average annual visits at the 

McGregor District of Upper Mississippi National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. Table 5 also 

summarizes visitation trends to Region 3 Service lands based on a comparison of changes in 

observed visitation from 2005 to 2010. Units that experience higher levels of visitation are 

generally located near more populous urban locations, as shown in Table 15. Figure 16 shows 

visitation data by unit and U.S. Census county level population estimates for 2010.

Figure 14. Overlook at Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 50

Table 13 indicates 2010 annual visitation levels as well as relative change in visitation from 2005 

to 2010. Change in visitation is generally positive throughout the region. While data indicate that 

the number of visits to Service lands for the entire region had an average annual increase in 

visitation of six percent, from 2005 to 2010, some units had observed visitation increases over 

this time period of approximately 10, 15 and 20 percent, at the Seney NWR, Minnesota Valley 

WMD and Muscatatuck NWR, respectively, among others.

Region 3 has built six new visitor centers between 2006 and 2011, with three visitor centers 

under construction and one additional interpretive center planned and funded. The units with new 

visitor centers expect to receive significant increases in visitation, especially from school groups, 

which will have implications for unit management and staff capacity to run educational 

programs. Several of these units that may not have had high visitation in the past may need to 

consider high visitation, and associated transportation challenges, in the near future.

Population changes in the counties overlapping Service units have increased five percent, on 

average, from 2000 to 2010. A change in population is typically a good indicator of changes in 

refuge visitation. According to U.S. Census forecasts, population is expected to increase an 

average of four percent by 2030 in counties overlapping Service lands in Region 3. Table 121 in 

Appendix C summarizes the observed population increases from 2000 to 2010 in relevant 

counties as well as U.S. Census 2030 population forecasts, interpolated to the county level from 

state level Census projections. 

Figure 15. Visitor Center at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge. 

Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 51

Besides serving as a contextual tool, population projections serve as a cross check when 

considering the need to undertake visitor facility enhancement projects. 

Currently, 28 units were identified as needing additional capacity to accommodate existing and 

future visitors for re-occurring event throughout the year. Approximately 21 of those units are 

already using overflow lots on-site to handle parking during big events and seven of them handle 

heavy visitation through partnerships’ off-site parking use. Table 14 shows all identified event 

occurring on a regular basis throughout the year in the refuges and fisheries in Region 3.

Appendix J- Alternative Transportation and Strategies, provides more insight on the relationship 

between visitation and transit and multimodal considerations.

The assumptions discussed below for identifying visitor facility improvement areas assume that 

relative differences in visitation levels between Region 3 units remain the same for future years. 

Population forecasts are used to confirm that population change is similar for Region 3 units. 

That is, some declines are expected in places that could potentially receive transportation 

improvements. According to Appendix C, Table 121, four counties with Service units are 

anticipated to experience notable negative growth into the future based on recently observed 

trends, while seven counties are projected to show more than 15 percent positive growth.

For the purposes of this LRTP development process, “transportation hubs” are defined as 

populous areas serving as the nearest major metropolitan area to the wildlife refuges and 

hatcheries within Region 3. These hubs likely generate the majority of visitor traffic to a refuge 

or hatchery. Gateway communities are identified as the small towns or communities near a 

refuge or hatchery that channel most traffic into a refuge or hatchery. Locations within five miles 

of a gateway community may have high potential for non-motorized connections for many users 

groups. Locations within 10-15 miles may have potential for non-motorized connections for 

more serious cyclists. When visitation to a unit is high, these gateway communities experience 

higher traffic volumes and may reap the economic benefits of increased visitation. High 

visitation units (those experiencing more than 100,000 average annual visits) are highlighted in 

red in Table 13. These units are most likely to benefit the greatest number of visitors through 

improvements. Transportation hubs and gateway communities are summarized in Table 15. 

Distance and population variables are weighed against each other so that communities identified 

are not always the closest or the most populated, but are rather a combination of the two. 

Gateway communities of the greatest interest are those associated with units receiving high 

levels of visitation. Transportation hubs are more likely to include public transportation systems 

that offer transit service to or near units. Gateway communities often have residential 

neighborhoods, schools, and/or businesses in close proximity to units, allowing pedestrian or 

bicycle access to units as well. Both transportation hubs and gateway communities may include 

non-motorized trail networks that currently or could potentially accommodate non-motorized 

access to units.

1 Based on units that have data for all six years. Eighty-one percent of units have visitation for all years.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 52

Table 13 . 2010 Visitation by Unit

State Units 2010 Relative 

Change State Units 2010 Relative Change

IOWA

Boyer Chute 

NWR 15,000 -

MINNESOTA

Agassiz NWR 22,950 +

DeSoto NWR 175,445 - Big Stone NWR 20,000 +

Driftless Area 

NWR 3,700 NA Big Stone WMD 1,850 +

Iowa WMD 65,318

+

Crane Meadows 

NWR 9,669

+

McGregor 

District 1,500,000 +

Detroit Lakes 

WMD 30,000 NA

Neal Smith NWR 132,629 -

Fergus Falls 

WMD 123,000 +

Port Louisa 

NWR 25,000 -

Glacial Ridge 

NWR 1,842 +

Union Slough 

NWR 6,370 +

Hamden Slough 

NWR 6,000 NA

ILLINOIS

Chautauqua 

NWR 8,200 NA Litchfield WMD 58,000 NA

Crab Orchard 

NWR 716,916 +

Mille Lacs NWR 0 NA

Cypress Creek 

NWR 28,000 +

Minnesota 

Valley NWR 300,000 +

Emiquon NWR 5,780 NA

Minnesota 

Valley WMD 35,000 +

Meredosia NWR 7,200 + Morris WMD 73,602 -

Savanna District 367,073

-

Northern 

Tallgrass Prairie 

NWR

1,925

-

Two Rivers 

NWR 7,519 - Rice Lake NWR 23,100 -

Upper 

Mississippi River 

NWR

0

NA

Rydell NWR 6,940

+

Middle 

Mississippi River 

NWR

135,000

-

Sherburne NWR 75,633

+

Tamarac NWR 65,000

+

Windom WMD 28,097 +

Winona District 796,000 +

Source: FWS Staff, 2010
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 53

State Units 2010 Relative 

Change State Units 2010 Relative Change

MICHIGAN

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife 

Refuge

3,724

-

INDIANA

Big Oaks NWR 7,500

+

Harbor Island 

NWR 250

+

Muscatatuck NWR 173,000 +

Huron NWR 100

NA

Patoka River NWR 23,900

+

Kirtlands 

Warbler WMA 200

NA

WISCONSIN

Fox River NWR 650 -

Michigan 

WMD 456

+

Horicon NWR 428,000 +

Seney NWR 70,829

+

LaCrosse District 675,000

+

Shiawassee 

NWR 53,270 - Leopold WMD 36,000 +

OHIO

Cedar Point 

NWR 600 NA Necedah NWR 103,813 -

Ottawa NWR 182,538 + St. Croix WMD 11,000 NA

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

26,268

-

Trempealeau NWR 54,250

NA

Clarence 

Cannon NWR 22,000 NA

Whittlesey Creek 

NWR 127,011

+

Great River 

NWR 12,500 +

Mingo NWR 104,777 -

Pilot Knob 

NWR 165

+

Squaw Creek 

NWR 221,021 -

Swan Lake 

NWR 29,000 -

Source: FWS staff, 2010
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 54

Table 14 . Special Events throughout the year in Refuges and Fisheries

FWS UNIT SPECIAL EVENT DATE VISITATION 

(approximate)

Agassiz NWR

Public Duck Banding Mid-September 150

Occasional Open House Spring & Fall 50 to 75

Big Muddy NF & 

WF

Wings of Spring May Several thousand

Missouri River Cleanup Varies from unit to unit 1,000 for all cleanup events 

combined

Race For The River September Several thousand

Big Oaks NWR

Deer hunts October & November 400/day

Take a Kid Fishing July 200

Outdoor Women at Big Oaks NWR June 150

Big Stone 

NWR/WMD Youth Fishing Day 3rd Saturday in May 300

Clarence Cannon 

NWR

Youth Fishing Day N/A 50

Mobility / Visually Impaired Hunt N/A 10 hunters, 10 guides

Crab Orchard 

NWR

Southern Illinois Hunting and 

Fishing Days Mid-September 80000

International Migratory Bird Day Mid-May 500

Cypress Creek 

NWR

Cache River Nature Fest May 1000

Refuge Week October 200

Detroit Lakes 

WMD

Prairie Fun Day 2nd Saturday in August 100-150

Youth Waterfowl Hunt N/A 25

Fergus Falls WMD

Return to the Prairie August 300

Christmas on the Prairie December 275

Marsh Madness March 265

Genoa National 

Fish Hatchery

Open Houses, Fishing days February & May 300

Disabled Fishing Events December Varies

Horicon NWR

Horicon Marsh Bird Festival 2nd week of May 11000

Horicon Marsh 5k Run/walk October 655

National Wildlife Refuge 

Celebration October 10000

Illinois River 

NWFR

Lake Festival Varies 500

International Migratory Bird Day Varies 100

Iron River NFH Annual Open House September 300

Jordan River NFH

Annual Open House July & August 500

Fall Festival October 700
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 55

FWS UNIT SPECIAL EVENT DATE VISITATION 

(approximate)

Winter Bean Pot February 400

Litchfield WMD Habitat Day April on a Saturday 300

McGregor 

District/Driftless 

Area

River Fest, Spring & Summer 750

Mississippi River Adventure Days 

(Pools 9 and 10) Spring & Summer 280

Volunteer banquet Varies 150

Middle Mississippi 

River NWR Annual Partnership Events 200-1000

Mingo NWR Eagle Days February 1000 - 2000

Minnesota Valley 

NWR & WMD

Kids Birding Day, Early May 400

Fishing Day Early May 300

Public Lands Day September 300

Morris WMD

Prairie Pioneer Days 2nd Saturday in July 300

2nd Grade Field Day October 125

Muscatatuck NWR

Wings Over Muscatatuck Bird 

Festival Second Saturday in May 1,000 (weather related)

Wetland Day Mid-March 400-500

Log Cabin Day Saturday of National Wildlife 

Refuge Week 800

Neosho NFH

Kids fishing derby, 

Elderly/Physically disabled fishing 

outing, Open house

April & June ALL OVER 5,000

Friends Picnic October 200

Cunty Fair Participation July 5000

Pendills 

Creek/Sullivan 

Creek NFH's

Children's Fishing Event June 300 to 400

Open House Events Varies 120 -150

Port Louisa NWR

Running Wild August 100

Migratory Bird day May 30

Rice Lake NWR

Family Fun Day 2nd Friday in June 200

Disabled access deer hunt 2nd weekend in October 60

Rydell NWR

Wolves and their habitat N/A 150

Live Animals - Interesting Facts N/A 150

Star lab N/A 125

Savanna District

Mig Bird Day; Kids Fishing Day; 

GeoCaching; May; Sept; March 50; 25; 50

Bird tours Monthly 20
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 56

FWS UNIT SPECIAL EVENT DATE VISITATION 

(approximate)

Golf cart tours Bi-monthly 10

Seney NWR

Kids Fishing Day 2nd week of June 100

Scout Day September 100

Sherburne NWR

Wildlife Festival and September 500 to 1800

Winter Fest February 500 to 1800

Birding, butterfly and wildflower 

tours Varies 5 to 50

Shiawassee NWR

Open house September 600

Kids Free Fishing Day June 400

Wild Goose Chase 5K run September 150

Squaw Creek 

NWR

Eagle Days 1st weekend in December 7500

National Wildlife Refuge Week 2nd week in October 250 to 300

Squaw Creek 

NWR

Eagle days December 5000-6000

Family Day October 250

Migratory Bird Day May 120

St. Croix WMD

Boy Scout Invasive Species Event October 500

Nature walks Summer & Winter N/A

Plant a Prairie Plug May 60

Swan Lake NWR

First Fridays Spring & Summer 150-350

Green Wing Day August 150-300

Swing the Gates Open March 200

Tamarac NWR and 

WMD

Fall Festival October 300

Birding Festival May 250

School Groups Varies 100-200

Trempealeau NWR

River Education Days Mid-May 1000

International Migratory Bird Day Mid-May 500

Hunt for People with Disabilities October 50

Two Rivers NWR two rivers family fishing fair Early June 4500

McGregor District Mississippi River Adventures Day Spring 350

La Crosse District

Waterfowl Observation Day November 400

IMBD May 250

Living Lands and Waters June 50

Whittlesey Creek Birding & Nature Festival Mid-May 2500
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 57

FWS UNIT SPECIAL EVENT DATE VISITATION 

(approximate)

NWR Kid's Fishing Day June 600

Northwoods Adventure Series June, July and August 300

Windom WMD Wings on the Prairie May 400
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 58

Table 15 . Transportation Hubs and Gateway Communities

State Service 

Unit

2010 

Visitation

Transportation Hub Gateway Community

Location

Distance 

From Unit 

(miles)

Population Location

Distance 

From Unit 

(miles)

Population

IOWA

Boyer Chute 

NWR 15,000 Omaha, NE 21 837,925 Fort Calhoun, NE 4 856

DeSoto NWR 175,445 Omaha, NE 28 837,925 Missouri 

Valley, IA 8 2,992

Driftless Area 

NWR 3,700 La Crosse, WI 62 51,818 McGregor, IA 1 871

Iowa WMD 65,318 Mason City, 

IA 56 29,172 Bancroft, IA 6 808

McGregor 

District 1,500,000 La Crosse, 

WI 62 51,818 McGregor, IA 1 871

Neal Smith 

NWR 132,629 Des Moines, 

IA 20 506,902 Prairie City, 

IA 4 1,365

Port Louisa 

NWR 25,000 Muscatine, 

IA 18 22,697 Wapello, IA 6 2,124

Union Slough 

NWR 6,370 Mason City, IA 56 29,172 Bancroft, IA 6 808

ILLINOIS

Chautauqua 

NWR 8,200 Peoria, IL 54 112,936 Havana, IL 9 3,577

Crab Orchard 

NWR 716,916 Marion, IL 6 17,388 Marion, IL 6 17,388

Cypress 

Creek NWR 28,000 Marion, IL 35 17,388 Ullin, IL 9 779

Emiquon 

NWR 5,780 Peoria, IL 54 112,936 Havana, IL 9 3,577

Meredosia 

NWR 7,200 Jacksonville, 

IL 21 18,940 Meredosia, IL 1 1,041

Savanna 

District 367,073 Clinton, IA 16 26,447 Savanna, IL 6 3,542

Two Rivers 

NWR 7,519 St. Louis, 

MO 39 2,892,874 Brussels, IL 4 141

Middle 

Mississippi 

River NWR

135,000 Carbondale, 

IL 32 26,235 Chester, IL 7 8,400
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 59

State Service Unit 2010 

Visitation

Transportation Hub Gateway Community

Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Population Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Population

INDIANA

Big Oaks NWR 7,500 Louisville, 

KY 61 721,594 Madison, IN 9 12,004

Muscatatuck 

NWR 173,000 Louisville, KY 55 721,594 Seymour, IN 6 18,101

Patoka River 

NWR 23,900 Evansville, IN 34 121,582 Oakland City, IN 1 2,588

MICHIGAN

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife Refuge

3,724 Detroit, MI 43 910,920 Grosse Ile, MI 3 10,894

Harbor Island 

NWR 250 Sault Ste. Marie, MI n/a 16,542 Drummond, MI n/a 992

Huron NWR 100 Houghton, 

MI n/a 7,010 Skanee 

Township, MI 12 482

Jordan River 

NFH 21,053 Gaylord, MI 17 3,681 Alba, MI 4 350

Kirtlands 

Warbler WMA 200 Traverse City, MI n/a 14,532 Grayling, MI n/a 1,952

Michigan 

WMD 456 Lansing, MI 6 113,802 East Lansing, MI 3 46,420

Pendills Creek 

NFH 1,000 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 35 16,542 Bay Mills Township, MI 1 1,214

Sullivan Creek 

NFH - Sault Ste. Marie, MI 25 16,542 Superior Township, MI 1 1,329

Seney NWR 70,829 Manistique, 

MI 36 3,583 Seney, MI 6 108

Shiawassee 

NWR 53,270 Saginaw, MI 8 69,512 Saginaw, MI 8 69,512

Whitefish Point 

NWR

Sault Ste. 

Marie, MI 73 16,542

Paradise, MI/ 

Whitefish 

Townhsip, MI

11 588

OHIO

Cedar Point 

NWR 600 Toledo, OH 17 313,619 Oregon, OH 12 19,355

Ottawa NWR 182,538 Toledo, OH 22 313,619 Oregon, OH 17 19,355
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 60

State Service Unit 2010 

Visitation

Transportation Hub Gateway Community

Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Population Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Populatio

n

MINNESOTA

Agassiz NWR 22,950 Thief River 

Falls, MN 23 8,410 Holt, MN 11 89

Big Stone 

NWR 20,000 Ortonville, MN 7 2,158 Odessa, MN 1 113

Big Stone 

WMD 1,850 Ortonville, 

MN 7 2,158 Odessa, MN 1 113

Crane 

Meadows 

NWR

9,669 St. Cloud, 

MN 32 189,148 Little Falls, MN 9 7,719

Detroit Lakes 

WMD 30,000 Detroit Lakes, 

MN 3 8,268 Detroit Lakes, MN 3 8,268

Fergus Falls 

WMD 123,000 Fergus Falls, MN 4 13,471 Fergus Falls, MN 4 13,471

Glacial Ridge 

NWR 1,842 Crookston, MN 30 7,869 Erskine, MN 6 437

Hamden 

Slough NWR 6,000 Detroit Lakes, MN 8 8,268 Audubon, MN 2 445

Litchfield 

WMD 58,000 Litchfield, MN 4 6,562 Litchfield, MN 4 6,562

Minnesota 

Valley NWR 300,000 Bloomington, MN 6 3,500,000 Bloomington, MN 6 85,172

Minnesota 

Valley WMD 35,000 Bloomington, MN 6 3,500,000 Bloomington, MN 6 85,172

Morris WMD 73,602 Morris, MN 5 5,068 Morris, MN 5 5,068

Northern 

Tallgrass 

Prairie NWR

1,925 Ortonville, 

MN 7 2,158 Odessa, MN 1 113

Rice Lake 

NWR 23,100 Brainerd, MN 57 82,249 McGregor, MN 6 404

Rydell NWR 6,940 Crookston, 

MN 30 7,869 Erskine, MN 8 437

Sherburne 

NWR 75,633 St. Cloud, MN 31 189,148 Zimmerman, MN 10 2,851

Tamarac NWR 65,000 Detroit Lakes, 

MN 18 8,268 Detroit Lakes, MN 18 8,268

Windom 

WMD 28,097 Windom, MN 2 4,490 Windom, MN 2 4,490

Winona 

District 796,000 Winona, MN 0 27,069 Winona, MN 0 27,069
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 61

State Service Unit 2010 

Visitation

Transportation Hub Gateway Community

Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Population Location

Distance 

From 

Unit 

(miles)

Population

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

26,268 Columbia, 

MO 6 145,666 Columbia, MO 6 145,666

Clarence 

Cannon NWR 22,000 St. Louis, MO 66 2,892,874 Annada, MO 1 48

Great River 

NWR 12,500 St. Louis, MO 66 2,892,874 Annada, MO 1 48

Mingo NWR 104,777 Poplar Bluff, 

MO 27 17,096 Puxico, MO 2 1,145

Neosho NFH 45,000 Joplin, MO 22 49,775 Neosho, MO 0 10,505

Squaw Creek 

NWR 221,021 St. Joseph, 

MO 37 76,222 Mound City, MO 5 1,193

Swan Lake 

NWR 29,000 Kansas City, MO 115 475,830 Sumner, MO 3 142

WISCONSIN

Fox River 

NWR 650 Madison, WI 51 235,626 Portage, WI 12 9,728

Genoa NFH 21,600 LaCrosse, WI 21 51,818 Genoa, WI 4 263

Green Bay 

NWR

Green Bay, 

WI 90 102,313 Washington 

Island, WI 3 660

Horicon NWR 428,000 Oshkosh, WI 40 62,916 Mayville, WI 8 4,902

Iron River 

NFH 1,492 Duluth, MN 43 86,918 Iron River, WI 8 1,059

LaCrosse 

District 675,000 LaCrosse, WI 6 51,818 LaCrosse, WI 6 51,818

Leopold WMD 36,000 Madison, WI 36 235,626 Portage, WI 5 9,728

Necedah NWR 103,813 Tomah, WI 21 8,419 Necedah, WI 6 888

St. Croix 

WMD 11,000 St. Paul, MN 35 3,500,000 New Richmond, WI 5 6,310

Trempealeau 

NWR 54,250 Winona, MN 10 27,069 Trempealeau, WI 10 1,319

Whittlesey 

Creek NWR 127,011 Duluth, MN 68 86,918 Ashland, WI 3 8,620
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 62

Figure 16. FWS Service units visitation
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 63

2.3.2 Identifying Visitor Enhancement Improvement Areas

Generally, visitor enhancement 

related improvements such as 

signage, way-finding, 

interpretation and transit/Shuttle 

buses are most appropriate for 

units that have, and will continue 

to have, consistently high levels 

of visitation – where the greatest 

number of visitors possible can 

benefit from the improvements. 

Gateway communities are also 

potential locations for visitor 

enhancements, particularly as 

they relate to way-finding, and 

transit/shuttle buses thereby 

directing people to the refuge or 

hatchery. These enhancements 

can improve ease of travel to and 

through units, thus improving 

visitor experience. 

To ensure the greatest 

enhancement value for Region 3, 

potential improvements decisions 

should be focused on high 

visitation units, which are

identified as those units having 

over 100,000 average annual 

visits. Within this subset, larger 

gateway communities have the 

added benefit of potentially tying 

into existing non-Service traveler 

information systems (such as 511 services and variable message signs). Gateway communities 

that serve multiple Service lands may also offer added value and opportunities to address 

multiple needs though in one improvement. For refuges with lower visitation (less than 100,000) 

and in close proximity to gateway communities, low cost trail and signage improvements may be 

also a good opportunity to enhance the visitor experience. 

Baseline condition analysis helps identify areas, or 

hotspots, that could potentially benefit the most from 

visitor enhancement improvements. As discussed in 

the previous section, these improvement hot-spots are 

tied primarily to visitation, as well as proximity to 

populated areas. Hot-spots are places that have high 

values for all of these variables. In the baseline 

condition summary, these are assumed to be places 

with over 100,000 visits in Table 13 and the 

communities identified in Table 15. An example of a 

hot spot for visitor enhancement improvements is 

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. The 

refuge receives a high level of visitation (300,000 

average annual visits) and is located in an area 

expecting future population growth (22 percent by 

2030). The refuge is located within five of the seven 

counties part of the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area 

(with a population of 2,850,000 in 20101). These 

indicators suggests that visitor enhancement 

improvements would reach a large number of people, 

and that improvements at gateway communities may 

potentially tie into existing traveler information 

systems.

 

High 

Visitation

Proximity 

to 

Gateway

Hot 

Spot
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 64

2.3.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several datasets are necessary to better evaluate opportunities for visitor experience related 

transportation improvements, including:

• Identify where state way-finding and variable message sign are located to assist in 

identifying areas of possible partnership.

• Develop and implement a regional or national sign inventory that includes sign location, 

condition, and adherence to Service sign standards and the FHWA developed Manual on 

Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways (MUTCD) to help identify 

where additional or improved signage is needed.

• Identify units in which shuttle/transit systems access would enhance the visitor’s 

experience.

• Identify where signage on regional trails may allow more streamlined non-motorized 

access to units.

2.4 PLANNING

The LRTP planning goal is “integrate transportation planning into Service plans and 

processes.” The following objectives and strategies serve to further the sentiment expressed by

the goal.

Objective 1

Ensure consistency and coordination between the project, unit, regional, and national 

levels of planning. The strategy for this objective is:

• Develop and apply transportation planning templates for comprehensive 

conservation plans (CCP) and comprehensive hatchery management plan 

(CHMP) or unit development plans.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 65

Objective 2

Define need for infrastructure improvements and prioritize projects using a scientific and 

objective process. 

Strategies for this objective are:

• Use condition assessments and/or road safety audits to identify road system 

deficiencies.

• Use established goals and objectives in the project selection process.

• Use transportation asset management principles to preserve important 

infrastructure at an acceptable condition level.

Objective 3

Provide a financially sustainable transportation system to satisfy current and future 

management needs in the face of a changing climate.

• Use acceptable asset management principles to preserve important 

infrastructure at an appropriate condition level.

• Examine operational and maintenance financial sustainability when 

considering new assets.

2.4.1 Planning Data

The Service uses plans at all levels within the organization, from the project and unit levels to 

national level. Plans are used to express guiding principles and/or specific deficiencies or needs 

from the project to the policy level. A wide range of planning tools is therefore available for all 

Service levels. Figure 17 illustrates the types of plans that are used at different levels within the 

Service. For example, project level operations use road safety audits to document safety issues. 

The outcome of the studies is used to help resolve documented safety issues by identifying need, 

possible solutions, and serving as leverage for future project funding.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 66

Figure 17. Service Plans

Project Level

*Traffic Studies

*RSA’s

*NEPA Studies

Unit Level

*Comprehensive 

 Conservation Plan

*Comprehensive Hatchery 

 Management Plan

*Refuge Transportation 

 Studies

Regional Level

*Regional Asset 

 Management Plan

*Regional LRTP

*Regional Visitor 

 Services Plan

National Level 

*National Asset 

 Management Plan

*National LRTP

*National Fisheries 

 Strategic Plan

*National Refuge 

 Strategic Plan

*National Sign 

 Manual
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 67

Data used to establish a baseline for the planning goal includes the current state of the Service’s

resource management planning and the planning activities of potential partners. Service resource 

management plans include Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) and Comprehensive 

Hatchery Management Plans (CHMPs). CCPs are planning documents developed for individual 

refuges to provide a description of the desired future conditions and long-range guidance with 

regard to resource management at the refuge unit level. CCPs establish management direction to 

achieve defined refuge goals. See Appendix G for more information.

CHMPs are operational management plans specific to fish hatcheries. These plans outline 

policies and objectives relevant to the overall management of a specific fish hatchery. CHMPs 

are used as planning reference tools, to help integrate Service objectives and priorities with those 

of other agencies; fulfill obligations under the Endangered Species Act and other management 

programs; identify and define specific hatchery reforms to implement; and provide a foundation 

for future program and budget development.

Currently, 53 CCP documents within Region 3 have been completed, 16 are in progress, and one 

is scheduled to begin in the near future. One CHMP is in progress for a National Fish Hatchery. 

In addition, one multimodal transportation study for Crab Orchard NWR was completed in 1999. 

Several units are also located within non-Service transportation planning districts. Eighteen units 

are within the boundary of a state metropolitan planning organization (MPO). There are six units 

closed to the public. Table 17 summarizes the completeness of Service planning and identifies 

non-Service transportation planning occurring in the same area.

Additionally, project leaders have identified units that demonstrate the need for additional 

transportation planning studies based on their knowledge of issues facing individual refuges and 

hatcheries. Additional plans fall into three categories including large scale and comprehensive 

plans, issue driven plans, and small scale plans and studies. These categories are used to describe 

the different types of plans and studies, as shown in Table 16. The conclusions of project leaders 

regarding additional planning is summarized in Table 17 in the “planning need” columns.

The Service recently underwent an 18 month process to establish a vision that will guide the 

management of the Refuge System during the next decade and beyond. Conserving the Future

is built on the foundation and inspiration of Fulfilling the Promise. This new vision seeks to not 

only further the System’s mission, but also to raise the Service’s profile in the broader national 

conservation effort. As initiatives and objectives, that impact transportation, from this Visioning 

process are implemented it will influence approaches to partnering, public involvement and 

priority setting.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 68

Table 16 . Planning Need and Plan Types

Planning Need Corresponding Plan Types

Comprehensive / Large 

Scale

• CCP Step-down plan

• Complex Issue Analysis

• Regional Transportation Analysis (i.e. 

big picture look at connectivity, visitor 

use analysis

Issue Driven • Engineering /Traffic Safety Analysis

• Access Analysis

Small Scale • Road Safety Audit
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 69

Table 17 Transportation Related Planning Efforts

State Service Unit

Planning Studies Planning Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCP

CHMP

RSA

Traffic Studies

Transp. Studies

Comprehensive/Larg

e Scale

Issue Driven

Small Scale

MPO**

Regional Planning 

District

DOT regions

IOWA

Boyer Chute 

NWR

In 

Progress

Omaha - Council Bluffs 

Metropolitan Planning 

Agency

District 4

DeSoto NWR 2001

Omaha - Council Bluffs 

Metropolitan Planning 

Agency

District 4

Driftless Area 

NWR 2006 X X District 2

Iowa WMD In 

Progress Ames Area MPO District 2

McGregor 

District 2006 X X

East Central 

Intergovernmental 

Association

District 2

Neal Smith 

NWR

In 

Progress X X District 1

Port Louisa 

NWR 2004 X X District 5

Union Slough 

NWR 1996 District 2

ILLINOIS

Chautauqua 

NWR 2004 District 6

Crab Orchard 

NWR 2006 1999 X X District 9

Cypress Creek 

NWR 1997 X District 9

Emiquon NWR 2004 District 4

Meredosia NWR 2004 District 6

Savanna District 2006

East Central 

Intergovernmental 

Association (IA)

District 2

Two Rivers 

NWR 2004 X East-West Gateway Council of Government District 8

Upper 

Mississippi 

River NWR

2006 District 6/8

Middle 

Mississippi

River NWR

2004 X X East-West Gateway 

Council of Government District 8/9
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 70

State Service Unit

Planning Studies Planning Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCP

CHMP

RSA

Traffic Studies

Transp. Studies

Comprehensive/La

rge Scale

Issue Driven

Small Scale or 

None

MPO**

Regional Planning 

District

DOT regions

INDIANA

Big Oaks NWR In 

Progress X Seymour 

Muscatatuck 

NWR 2009 X Seymour 

Patoka River 

NWR 2008 Vincennes

MICHIGAN

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife Refuge

2005

Southeast 

Michigan COG 

(SEMCOG) 

Metro / 

University

Harbor Island 

NWR

In 

Progress Superior

Huron NWR In 

Progress Superior

Jordan River 

NFH

In 

Progress X North

Kirtlands 

Warbler WMA 2009 North / Bay

Michigan WMD 2001 University / 

Southwest 

Michigan 

Islands NWR

In 

Progress

North / 

Superior

Pendills 

Creek/Sullivan 

Creek NFH

X Superior

Seney NWR 2009 X Superior

Shiawassee 

NWR 2001 X

Saginaw 

Metropolitan Area 

Transportation 

Study

Bay

OHIO

Cedar Point 

NWR 2000

Toledo 

Metropolitan Area 

COG (TMACOG) District 2

Ottawa NWR 2000

Toledo 

Metropolitan Area 

COG (TMACOG) District 2

West Sister 

Island 2000 District 2
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 71

State Service Unit

Planning Studies Planning Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCP

CHMP

RSA

Traffic Studies

Transp. Studies

Comprehensive/La

rge Scale

Issue Driven

Small Scale or 

None

MPO**

Regional Planning 

District

DOT regions

MINNESOTA

Agassiz NWR 2005 District 2

Big Stone NWR In 

Progress X District 4 / 8

Big Stone WMD 2003 X District 8

Crane Meadows 

NWR 2010 District 3

Detroit Lakes 

WMD 2003 District 4 

Fergus Falls WMD 2003 District 4

Glacial Ridge 

NWR

In 

Progress District 2

Hamden Slough 

NWR

In 

Progress District 4 

Litchfield WMD 2003 X

St. Cloud Area 

Planning 

Organization 

(APO) *

District 3/ 8

Mille Lacs NWR 2007 District 3

Minnesota Valley 

NWR 2004 X Metropolitan Council Metro

Minnesota Valley 

WMD 2004 X Metropolitan Council

Metro / 

District 6 & 

7

Morris WMD 2003 X X District 4 

Northern Tallgrass 

Prairie NWR

In 

Progress District 4 

Rice Lake NWR 2007 X District 3

Rydell NWR 2001 X District 2 

Sherburne NWR 2005 X District 3

Tamarac NWR 2010 District 4 

Windom WMD 2003 X District 7 / 8

Winona District 2003 X District 6
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 72

State Service Unit

Planning Studies Planning Need Non-Service Planning Jurisdictions

CCP

CHMP

RSA

Traffic Studies

Transp. Studies

Comprehensive

/Large Scale

Issue Driven

Small Scale or 

None

MPO**

Regional 

Planning 

District

DOT regions

MISSOURI

Big Muddy 

National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge

In 

Progress X

Columbia Area 

Transportation Study 

Organization, EastWest Gateway Council 

of Government, MidAmerica Regional 

Council 

Kansas City, North 

Central, Central, 

Northeast, St. Louis 

Clarence Cannon 

NWR 2004 X Northeast

Great River NWR 2004 Northeast

Mingo NWR 2007 X Southeast

Neosho NFH X Southwest

Ozark Cavefish 

NWR Southwest

Pilot Knob NWR 2007 South Central

Squaw Creek 

NWR 2005 X Northwest

Swan Lake NWR In 

Progress X North Central

WISCONSIN

Fox River NWR 2007 North Central Region

Genoa NFH 2007 X X Vernon County Transp. 

Coord. Committee Southwest Region

Gravel Island 

NWR

In 

Progress Northeast Region

Green Bay NWR In 

Progress Northeast Region

Horicon NWR 2007 X X N.E. and S.E.Regions

Iron River NFH X Northwest Region

LaCrosse District 2006 X La Crosse Area 

Planning Committee Southwest Region

Leopold WMD 2008 X

Madison Area 

Transportation 

Planning Board

North Central, N.E, 

S.E., and S.W.

Regions

Necedah NWR 2004 X Southwest Region

St. Croix WMD 2009 X Northwest Region

Trempealeau 

NWR 2008 X Northwest Region

Whittlesey Creek 

NWR

In 

Progress X Northwest Region

Source: FWS, 2010
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 73

2.4.2 Identifying Planning Areas

Units that have not yet adopted a CCP or CHMP should reach out to non-Service transportation 

planning agencies when developing a plan. Early identification of partnership opportunities 

improves the likelihood of successful cooperation. As such, Table 8 identifies non-Service 

planning organizations that should be considered when developing the transportation component 

of a CCP or CHMP. Contact information for non-Service planning organizations identified in 

Table H-8 is available in Appendix H.

As stated in the overall planning goal discussion, the Service strives for objective processes to 

guide transportation funding decisions. This LRTP is an initial step towards meeting this goal. 

Each LRTP goal area establishes a framework in which data can be used to objectively locate 

opportunities and need for transportation projects.

Planning is critical to the success of the Refuge Transportation System. It identifies needs, set 

priorities and outlines strategic approaches to meet those needs. Planning incorporates the 

missions and goals of the organization into actionable activities at the project, unit, regional and 

national levels.

2.4.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

An opportunity to having a more comprehensive planning areas section include:

• Identify and prioritize units that need to adopt and/or develop a CCP or CHMP.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 74

2.5 PARTNERSHIPS

The partnership goal of the LRTP is to “develop and seek partnerships to leverage resources 

and develop integrated transportation solutions that provide mutual benefits to the Service 

and its external partners.” The following objectives and strategies serve to further the 

sentiment expressed by the goal.

Objective 1

Maximize leveraging opportunities for both funding and resources. Strategies for this 

objective are:

• Participate in transportation partnering meetings in each state.

• Identify and pursue projects of mutual interest and benefit to partners.

Objective 2

Work with partners to address shared transportation issues that impact Service goals.

Strategies for this objective are:

• Ensure that all Service transportation needs and contributing resources are 

accounted for in local and state partner transportation plans.

• Inform appropriate Service staff and potential transportation partners about 

Service transportation plans.

• Work with partners to reduce wildlife-vehicle collisions.

• Improve fish passage at roads adjacent to Service lands.

• Identify and increase key potential internal and external partnerships at the 

national, regional, and unit levels.

Objective 3

Coordinate within Service programs, including Refuges, Ecological Services, Fisheries, 

and Migratory Birds during the development of regional long range and project level 

planning.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 75

2.5.1 Partnerships Data

To help identify potential partnerships, it is important to know if a unit is intersected by nonService transportation assets and/or is within the boundaries of a non-Service transportation 

planning organization such as a metropolitan planning organization (MPO) or public agency.

This can indicate mutual interests and shared priorities. Partnership data therefore includes an 

inventory of non-Service agencies that routinely participate in transportation planning and 

intersect unit boundaries, as shown in Table 18. Non- Service transportation assets that intersect 

service boundaries such as major public roads are also included as partnership data, as 

summarized in Appendix C (Table 122). Non-Service routes that are Scenic Byways and 

intersect or are co-located with Service routes are identified for their potential for partnering, as 

identified in Table 18.

2.5.2 Identifying Partnership Opportunities

There may exist a number of opportunities for partnership where Service mission and needs 

overlap with those of a non-Service organization, as they pertain to a transportation asset or 

project of common interest. In these situations, potential Service provided funding and resources 

could be leveraged with those available from other partners to accomplish mutually beneficial 

work. Not only does partnering offer such practical benefits, but it further advances the 

integrated regional and planning goals of President Obama’s October 2009 executive order, 

Federal Leadership in Environmental Energy, and Economic Performance. The executive order 

promotes, “participating in regional transportation planning and recognizing existing community 

transportation infrastructure.”

Identifying opportunities for partnership may be complex and highly unique between units. As 

such, unit managers are encouraged to gain an understanding of surrounding communities and 

local resources and develop relationships with these entities when seeking partnerships. In 

addition, there are several high-level opportunities for transportation related partnerships –

including state DOTs, MPOs, and regional planning organizations. Opportunities for partnership 

with these organizations may exist if a unit is intersected by a state DOT asset such as a rural 

primary highway and/or a transportation planning organization’s boundary. Table 18 and 

Appendix C (Table 122) identify these locations within Region 3. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 76

While several units are successfully partnering with gateway communities to leverage funding 

for new trail connections or to use buses for special events, additional partnership opportunities 

may exist where non-Service assets are of special significance – such as a state highway route 

formally designated as a Scenic Byway and/or is regionally significant. These routes are 

typically high value assets and may be eligible for supplemental discretionary funding sources. 

Table 18 identifies Service routes that intersect or share a route designation with designated 

Scenic Byways. Table 19 identifies bicycle and pedestrian trails of regional significance. Those 

trails are approximately 50 miles in total length and could potentially be a good partnership 

opportunity with state and local governments to support livability efforts.

Figure 18. Genoa National Fish Hatchery. 

Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 77

Table 18 . Service Routes and Scenic Byways

State Service 

Unit

Byway 

Designation Byway Name National Route ID

Service 

Route Name

Relationship 

to Byway

IL

Chautauqua 

NWR

National Scenic 

Byway Illinois River Road FWS-CHAU-0010 Headquarters Entrance Road Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway Illinois River Road FWS-CHAU-0011 Eagle Buff Access Intersects

Cypress Creek 

NWR

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FWS-CYCR-408 Ice Grain Access Road Intersects

Two Rivers 

NWR

National Scenic 

Byway and Illinois 

State Scenic Byway

Meeting of the 

Great River Scenic 

Route

FHWA-TWRI-410 Access to Sit Basin 

Road Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway and Illinois 

State Scenic Byway

Meeting of the 

Great River Scenic 

Route

FWS-TRWI-104 Gilbert Lake 

Overlook Road Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway and Illinois 

State Scenic Byway

Meeting of the 

Great River Scenic 

Route

FWS-TWRI-011 Gilbert Lake Road Intersects

Upper 

Mississippi 

River NWR -

Savannah 

District

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FHWA-UPSA-100 Frog Pond Access 

Road Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FHWA-UPSA-424 Spring Lake Service 

Access Road Intersects

IN Muscatatuck 

NWR

Indiana State Scenic 

Byway, National 

Scenic Byway

Indiana's Historic 

Pathways FWS-MUSC-301 Residence Access 

Road Intersects

Indiana State Scenic 

Byway, National 

Scenic Byway

Indiana's Historic 

Pathways FWS-MUSC-010 County Line Road Intersects

IOWA Port Louisa 

NWR

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FWS-POLO-0010 N/A Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FWS-POLO-0102 N/A Intersects

OHIO Ottawa NWR

Ohio State Scenic 

Byway and National 

Scenic Byway

Lake Erie Coastal 

Ohio Trail FWS-OTTA-0010 Ottawa Entrance Road Intersects

Ohio State Scenic 

Byway and National 

Scenic Byway

Lake Erie Coastal 

Ohio Trail FWS-OTTA-433 Diefenthaler Service Road Intersects

WI Trempealeau 

NWR

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FWS-TREM-0100 Marshland Road Intersects

National Scenic 

Byway Great River Road FWS-TREM-405 River Bottoms Access Road Intersects

Source: FHWA Byways (2011), FHWA, Road Inventory Program, Cycle 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 78

Besides a unit having a geographic connection with non-Service transportation assets and/or 

planning boundaries, other factors may provide leverage for establishing partnerships. 

Conditions discussed in sections pertaining to other goal areas may help identify areas where 

joint projects could serve the goals of multiple agencies, and provide a stage or partnership.

These conditions include:

• Locations where there are deficiencies (such as poor road condition or high occurrence of 

accidents) in both Service and non-Service transportation systems within a common area. 

Section 2.2, Conditions and Safety, identifies areas of deficiency of Service and nonService assets (where possible).

• Regions with documented air quality issues and/or existing transit service. These 

locations are identified in Section 2.6, Sustainability.

• Units that have not completed CCPs or CHMPs. These locations are identified in this 

section.

• Visitor enhancement hot-spots as discussed in Section 2.3, Welcome and orientation. 

As partnerships require not only a shared geography, but shared interests as well, successful 

partnership hinges on finding topics of common ground. There are several paths to finding this 

common ground. First, units can learn about an organization’s future transportation projects by 

reviewing documented plans such as a metropolitan level transportation improvement program 

(TIP), the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP) as prepared by a state DOT, or 

an LRTP prepared at the local community, metropolitan or statewide levels. Second, the 

transportation interests of a particular unit should be made available to relevant planning 

organizations through the sharing of Service developed CCP or CHMP documents. Third, inperson collaboration is necessary. 

If a project is programmed for construction in the next one or two years in a TIP or STIP, the 

project may be too far along to develop a partnership that fully suits both parties. Early 

collaboration by both Service and non-Service agencies in their respective planning activities 

ensures that projects of mutual interest develop with partnership in-mind from inception. It is 

recommended that units involve non-Service transportation planning agencies in relevant 

planning activities, and proactively seek opportunities for collaboration in the planning activities 

of relevant non-Service agencies. Units that regularly incorporate their projects into the 

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are better able to coordinate their needs into planned 

future regional improvements.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 79

Regionally significant trails can accommodate non-motorized access to the units, in some cases, 

reducing the number of vehicles unit roads and parking lots. Units can take simple steps to 

partner with groups that own and maintain some trails to improve and/or extend access to visitor 

centers and amenities or add signage to direct trail users to units.

Table 19 . Regionally Significant Trails

State Service Unit Name Trail 

miles

IOWA

DeSoto NWR Bertrand Excavation Site Trail 0.42

Neal Smith NWR Prairie Overlook Trail 0.36

ILLINOIS Savanna District -

Upper Mississippi Thomson Sand Prairie Trail - Great River Bike Trail 1.78

MICHIGAN

Seney NWR Pine Ridge Nature Trail 1.36

Detroit River IWR Humbug Marsh Trails 1.60

Shiawassee NWR Ferguson Bayou Nature Trail 4.93

MINNESOTA

Big Stone NWR Sidewalk to DNR Trail 0.01

Fergus Falls WMD Prairie Wetland Learning Center Trails 4.21

Minnesota Valley 

NWR

Bluff Trail 3.80

Black Dog Trail 2.05

Morris WMD Froland WPA Interpretative Trail 1.7

Rydell NWR

Tamarac Lake Trail 0.75

Rice Lake 0.57

Round Lake Trail 1.01

Church Lake Trail 1.05

Golden Pond Trail 1.19

Sherburne NWR

Blue Hill Trail 5.21

Mahomen Trail 3.13

MISSOURI

Big Muddy National 

Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge

Lewis and Clark Trail of Discovery 0.76

Boone's Crossing Trail 1.10

Mingo NWR Boardwalk Nature Trail 0.60

NEBRASKA Boyer Chute NWR Meadowlark Trail 6.00

OHIO Ottawa NWR Wildlife Trail 7.14

WISCONSIN Horicon NWR Connection to Wild Goose State Park 0.25

Source: FWS Staff, 2011
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 80

2.5.3 Recommendation for Future Analysis

• Identify partnership opportunities with non-Service transportation agencies by identifying 

route jurisdiction for the roads listed in this chapter and Appendix C (Table 122). 

Additional data acquisition is needed in order to have a complete inventory of road 

jurisdictions.

• Identify organizations that manage regional trail networks near high-visitation units 

within 5-10 miles of gateway communities to build potential partnerships and connect 

trails between units and communities.

• Identify local transit agencies organizations or schools that own transit vehicles, as a 

means to increase ATS access to the site or use transit for special events.

• Identify any additional regionally significant trails or state designated trails that pass 

within 5 miles of high-visitation refuges.

2.6 SUSTAINABILITY

The LRTP sustainability goal is to “adopt and promote sustainable environmental, equitable 

and economical transportation practices.”

The following objectives and strategies serve to further the environmental sentiment expressed 

by the goal.

Objective 1

Address climate change and other environmental factors at all levels of transportation 

planning, design, project delivery, operations, and maintenance. Strategies for the 

achievement of this objective are:

• Identify transportation resources that are at-risk of climate change impacts by 

using a comprehensive risk assessment.

• Develop adaptive management strategies, such as relocating, strengthening, or

downgrading assets, to prepare for both short term (25 to 40 years) and long term 

(40 to 100 years) impacts of climate change on the transportation infrastructure.

• Encourage transportation practices and design that responds to climate change 

impacts.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 81

Objective 2

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

transit and non-motorized transportation and information systems. Strategies for this 

objective are:

• Identify the need for unit level alternative transportation projects through the 

Service planning process.

• Encourage refuges and hatcheries to consider applying for partner funding for the 

provision of alternative transportation projects involving Service lands.

• Increase availability of information in public outreach and education programs to 

encourage transit, car-pooling, bicycling, and walking to and within Service lands.

Objective 3

Reduce fossil fuel energy consumption by refuge staff and visiting public. The strategy 

for this objective is:

• Increase number of alternatively fueled vehicles and promote the use of bicycle 

fleets by refuge staff, on-refuge visitor tours and transit access to and within 

Service lands.

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

directional information.

When it comes to equity transportation practices, a targeted outreach towards underserved areas 

can help promote refuge resources among the underserved populations and provide enjoyable 

recreational and cultural experiences to those who may typically lack the means to visit. 

Promotion of ATS connections within these communities (as well as throughout the surrounding 

regions of all refuges) can serve to increase visitation among those without access to a personal 

vehicle. This can be carried out through marketing campaigns or partnering with local 

transportation or recreational advocacy groups. One method of targeted outreach that has been 

employed by the Minnesota Valley NWR is partnering with schools in underserved 

communities. Students visit the refuge on field trips, and refuge staff visits the schools to 

conduct related lessons. Positive experiences among school groups may convince families to 

visit refuges at a later time.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 82

Figure 19. Bicycle rack at Necedah National Wildlife Refuge.

For an economic standpoint, there is a need to ensure that the transportation system to and within 

refuges are not overbuilt and need to be maintained in perpetuity.

Some strategies are as follows:

• Provision of new or improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, facilities, and 

connections: The construction or provision of non-motorized paths, trails, sidewalks, and 

bicycle lanes are necessary to connect units with gateway towns, existing non-motorized 

trail networks, and local and regional amenities. In some cases, existing connections only 

need minor maintenance improvements or updates to increase their usability. These types 

of facilities can be added or enhanced/improved in units to allow for non-motorized travel 

on or adjacent to auto tour or unit roadways, where appropriate. Signage for non-motorized 

users, particularly bicyclists, can be added or improved in units to help improve site access 

for existing and new bicyclists.

Photograph by Norah Ocel - EFLHD
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 83

• Partnerships: Transit agencies, local governments, other state and federal agencies, and 

friends groups can help to enhance or add new transit service, fundraise for new or 

improved non-motorized infrastructure or bus/shuttle rentals, promote existing connections, 

and provide transit for special events. Partnerships with transit agencies are the first step to 

connect urban and suburban units within transit service areas to local bus routes. 

Partnerships may also help unit staff expand their capacity for the maintenance of trails 

within and leading to the unit.

• Promotion: Units can advertise existing and underutilized ATS connections through the 

unit website, brochures, local media, unit staff, and its partners’ promotional materials. 

Promotional partnerships and materials can emphasize refuge access via non-motorized 

trails or transit, and they can also advertise the use of transit at special events. Signage 

along trails may be another means to promote non-motorized refuge access.

• Use of transit for special events and peak weekends: Refuge staff can use transit vehicles, 

such as buses and vans, during festivals, special events, or peak weekends when visitation 

is much higher than normal. During these events, refuges can use transit for wildlife 

observation tours, shuttles to on- or off-site parking, or transportation to public transit units. 

Having a large van or small shuttle bus on-site or shared between units would also enable 

unit staff to accommodate school groups that are not able to use their school bus to access 

and/or tour the unit.

• Consideration of ATS at early planning stages of new visitor facilities: Several units are 

planning for or have recently completed construction on new visitor centers. These new 

centers will draw more visitors from nearby schools and communities. Units slated for new 

visitor facilities in coming years should anticipate higher visitation and the potential for 

ATS service to address new transportation issues. Unit staff can plan for parking lots that 

can accommodate shuttles and buses and kiosks and entrances to their facilities that are 

proximate to drop-off areas for ATS passengers.

• Utilize water-based access: Many of the units in Region 3 include or area adjacent to major 

rivers and lakes in the region. Accordingly, units have the potential to utilize water-based 

access to bring visitors to and transport visitors within their lands. In some cases, private 

water-based tours and access exist; units could potentially partner with these companies to 

explore more public operations.

• Alternative Transportation System Analysis: The Transit and Trails to National Wildlife 

Refuge report and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Alternative Transportation 

Evaluation Report- Region 3 (Appendix J) can be used by region and unit level staff.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 84

2.6.1 Data

Sustainable transportation practices and climate change are addressed in two ways. First, the 

potential risks to existing transportation assets due to changes in climate are examined. Second, 

the Service supports programs and projects that would result in lower greenhouse gas emissions 

through increased use of alternative transportation systems (ATS), such as transit, cycling, or 

walking to, within, and through Service lands. See Appendix J for more information on ATS 

opportunities.

Risks to Transportation Assets

Identifying specific units and related transportation assets that are at risk due to climate change 

requires comprehensive risk analysis. This type of risk analysis would include factors such as sea 

level rise (rising water levels, increased coastal and estuarine flooding), changing precipitation 

levels (more precipitation, higher water tables in lakes and wetlands, greater flooding potentials 

along streams and rivers, higher soil moisture), temperature changes (rising maximum 

temperatures, lower minimum temperatures) and storm surges (larger and more frequent storm 

surges). Data on all of these factors are not widely available, and requires additional research, 

data collection, and analysis. Some factors, however, are examined in this LRTP that could be 

used as part of a larger scale risk analysis at a future date when additional information on this 

topic is more readily available.

Factors such as precipitation levels, flooding and soil moisture can be identified for their 

potential to impact Service transportation assets. In Region 3 there are 37 units located near 

rivers and lake areas that may be at risk of environmental change due to rises in water levels. 

Table 20 identifies all units located near rivers and lakes. Such areas include:

• 11 units along the Mississippi River, including Clarence Cannon NWR, Genoa National 

Fish Hatchery, Great River NWR, La Crosse District Upper Mississippi National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge, McGregor District, Upper Miss National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge, Middle Mississippi River NWR, Trempealeau NWR, Two Rivers NWR, Upper 

Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge Headquarters, Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife and Fish Refuge - Savanna District, and the Winona District of the 

Upper Mississippi River NWR.

• Four units located along the Illinois River, including Chautauqua NWR, Emiquon 

NWR, Meredosia NWR and Two Rivers NWR; 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 85

• Three units along the Missouri River, Big Muddy NWR, Boyer Chute NWR and 

DeSoto NWR.

There are several Region 3 units that contain multiple lakes within and/or at located along 

multiple rivers. These include: Chautauqua NWR, Crab Orchard NWR, Crane Meadows NWR, 

Minnesota Valley NWR, Sherburne NWR, Shiawassee NWR, Swan Lake NWR, Tamarac NWR 

and Two Rivers NWR. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 86

Table 20 . Units located near Major Rivers and Lakes

Service Unit River Lake

Agassiz NWR - Mud Lake

Big Muddy NWR Missouri River -

Big Stone NWR Yellow Bank River -

Boyer Chute NWR Missouri River -

Chautauqua NWR Illinois River

Billsbach Lake

Weis Lake

Lake Chautauqua

Clarence Cannon NWR Mississippi River -

Crab Orchard NWR -

Little Grassy Lake

Devils Kitchen Lake

Crab Orchard Lake

Crane Meadows NWR - Skunk Lake

Rice Lake

DeSoto NWR Missouri River Desoto Lake

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge - Lake Erie

Emiquon NWR Illinois river Quiver Lake

Genoa National Fish Hatchery Mississippi River -

Great River NWR Mississippi River -

Horicon NWR West Branch Rock River -

La Crosse District Upper Mississippi National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge Mississippi River -

McGregor District, Upper Miss National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge Mississippi River -

Meredosia NWR Illinois river Meredosia Lake

Middle Mississippi River NWR Mississippi River -

Mille Lacs NWR - Mille Lacs Lake

Minnesota Valley NWR Minnesota River

Black Dog Lake

Long Lake

Rapids Lake

Long Meadow Lake

Horseshoe Lake

Rice Lake

Blue Lake

Fisher Lake

Chaska Lake

Grass Lake
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 87

Service Unit River Lake

Ohio River Islands NWR Ohio River -

Ottawa NWR Toussaint River Lake Erie

Pendills Creek National Fish Hatchery - Lake Superior

Port Louisa NWR Iowa River -

Rice Lake NWR - Rice Lake

Rydell NWR - Maple Lake

Sherburne NWR -

Rice Lake

Big Mud Lake

Elk Lake

Shiawassee NWR

Tittabawassee River

Cass River -

Shiawassee River

Swan Lake NWR - Swan Lake

Silver Lake

Tamarac NWR -

Many Point Lake

Bemidji Lake

Ice Cracking Lake

Waboose Lake

Upper Egg Lake

Lower Egg Lake 

Island Lake

Rice Lake

Blackbird Lake

Chippewa Lake

Little Flat Lake

Tamarack Lake

Height of Land Lake

Flat Lake

Trempealeau NWR Mississippi River -

Two Rivers NWR

Mississippi River Swan Lake

Illinois River Gilbert Lake

Fuller Lake

Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish Refuge HQ Mississippi River -

Savanna District Mississippi River -

Whittlesey Creek NWR - Lake Superior

Winona District of the Upper Mississippi River NWFR Mississippi River -

Source: FHWA, 2011
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 88

Sustainable Policies and Alternative Transportation Systems

The Service seeks opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions generated from the use of 

fossil fuels to power transportation equipment through programs that focus on the use of 

alternative transportation modes for travel to and through Service lands. This desire to reduce the 

NWR and NFH greenhouse gas emissions responds to the Service-wide commitment to 

responsible and sustainable practices as well as President Obama’s October 5, 2009 executive 

order, Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance, which calls for 

a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect Federal agency activities. 

Furthermore, Goal 4 of the USFWS Strategic Plan for Responding to Accelerating Climate

Change in the 21st Century calls for the Service to achieve carbon neutrality by 2020 by reducing 

the carbon footprint of the Service’s facilities, vehicles, and work force.

The Service has launched a pilot initiative, Climate Friendly Refuges that seeks to assist refuges 

in responding to climate change. This pilot includes a component, Climate Leadership in 

Refuges (CLIR) Tool, that is being developed in collaboration with Office of Federal Lands 

Highway. The CLIR Tool is a beta version of a USFWS greenhouse gas (GHG) management 

tool. This tool estimates GHG emissions that result from refuge energy consumption in 

buildings, fleet vehicles, and equipment as well as GHG emissions that result from visitor travel 

to and within the refuge. Four workshops, (in Region 3, Horicon NWR hosted a workshop) were 

conducted to familiarize Service staff and stakeholders with the CLIR tool and encourage 

dialogue among participants on climate change adaptation, mitigation, and engagement 

strategies.

Programs that reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled have the potential to substantially 

reduce GHG emissions and the Service’s carbon footprint. The Service believes that ATS are an 

important tool in achieving this end. To identify candidate locations for ATS, the following 

planning factors should be considered on a regular and continuing basis: 

• Adopted unit and national level planning documents that identify Service lands as 

having potential or need for ATS.

• Areas where non-Service entities may have an interest in creating or expanding 

external ATS programs into or through Service lands. This consideration should 

particularly include neighboring metropolitan areas where there is existing public 

mass-transit services and/or poor air quality. The Service has a desire to develop 

access for growing metropolitan areas and traditionally underserved urban 

populations.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 89

The Service is committed to reducing green house 

emissions. One example of the Service’s 

commitment to meeting this end, is the Climate 

Change Mitigation Project currently underway. The 

project entails developing a beta version of a 

greenhouse gas management tool that would be 

capable of estimating emissions for energy 

consumption within, and visitor transportation to and 

within, National Wildlife Refuges.

The beta version tool will be populated by data 

provided by Service headquarters and used by 

refuge and regional staff to plan greenhouse gas 

mitigation and climate change education and 

outreach strategies. The tool will be completed in 

cooperation with the Service, USGS, and FLH.

ATS addresses LRTP goals in several ways, including:

• The use of transit, non-motorized, and water-based modes supports natural 

resource protection. By reducing the use of personal automobiles, FWS can also 

reduce the impacts that these vehicles have upon natural resources. Vehicular 

resource impacts include wildlife collisions, invasive species, noise pollution, 

particulate emissions, erosion, and pollutants that can enter the soil or water. 

• Over the long term, increasing ATS for units with increasing visitation can 

minimize the need for new roads or parking, thus preserving more area for 

wildlife habitat. 

• ATS can be a critical visitor management tool for unit staff facing increasing 

visitor demands and limited resources. 

• The use of transit can enhance visitors’ understanding of the unit’s natural 

resources by facilitating interpretive tours or directing visitors for special events. 

• Signage and orientation information directed at non-automobile modes can also 

help integrate these modes effectively into unit transportation. 

• ATS can reduce the 

Service’s carbon 

footprint, reduce the 

use of carbon-based 

fuels, enhance 

accessibility, and 

reduce air pollutants 

emitted from vehicles.

• Increasing availability 

of ATS can allow 

more access to lower 

income groups and 

those that do not use 

private motor vehicles.

While many units are located far from population centers, most expressed the need or desire for 

improved non-motorized infrastructure for access to and within units. The inclusion of 

sidewalks, bicycle lanes, separated non-motorized paths, and similar infrastructure can enhance 

the visitor experience and reduce the number of vehicles at units.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 90

As expressed by the sustainability goal, the Service wishes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

through the use of multimodal transportation systems that reduce the use of privately owned and 

operated motor vehicles. In some cases, unit and national level planning activities have identified

locations that are in need of ATS. Other opportunities may exist where non-Service entities have 

a vested interest in creating or expanding alternative transportation programs. 

Opportunities for partnership may exist in places where units are in or near transit districts, 

especially in locations where air quality fails to meet national standards – where there is added 

incentive for local municipalities to reduce emissions.

Although no currently adopted CCP for any Region 3 unit identify specific ATS initiatives, CCP 

planning efforts underway should increasingly consider ATS. These planning efforts are 

discussed further in Section 2.4, Planning and Section 2.6, Partnerships. 

Greater opportunities to work with partners on programs that reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

are likely in larger metropolitan areas that have existing mass-transit programs and/or where air 

quality is an issue. Adopting strategies or policies of GHG besides reducing VMT will play a 

significant role to accomplish the sustainability the service is looking for.

Units that overlap air quality non-attainment or maintenance areas or existing transit districts are 

considered places where there may be partnership opportunities for Service oriented alternative 

transportation programs. Table 21 identifies units within EPA designated air quality nonattainment area. Units intersected by transit districts are summarized in Table 22.

The use of transit may be a feasible solution for units with high visitation (or seasonal high 

visitation) or at units that attract high visitation during special events.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 91

Table 21 . Air Quality Non-Attainment

State City Service Unit

Unit 

Visitation

(2010)

Nonattainment

ILLINOIS

Brussels, IL Two Rivers NWR 7,519 PM-2.5.1997

Chester, IL Middle Mississippi River 

NWR

135,000 PM-2.5.1997

INDIANA Seymour, IN Muscatatuck NWR 173,000 PM-2.5.1997

MICHIGAN Grosse Ile, MI Detroit River International 

WR

3,724 PM-2.5.2006

MISSOURI Columbia, MO Big Muddy National Fish 

and Wildlife Refuge

26,268 PM-2.5.1997

OHIO

Oregon, OH Cedar Point NWR 600 PM-2.5.2006

Oregon, OH Ottawa NWR 182,538 PM-2.5.2006

SteubenvilleWeirton, OH & 

WV

Ohio River Islands NWR

Data not 

available PM-2.5.2006

WISCONSIN Washington Island, 

WI Green Bay NWR Closed to the public PM-2.5.2006

Source: RITA/BTS, 2008

Non-motorized ATS connections, however, may be instituted more easily and accommodate 

lower visitation levels. This may be a more appropriate strategy for units within 5 miles of 

gateway communities.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 92

Table 22 . Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts

State Transit District (city) Service Unit

Michigan Saginaw Stars (Saginaw) Shiawassee NWR

Minnesota

Metro Transit (Bloomington) Minnesota Valley NWR

Metro Transit - Northstar Commuter 

Rail (Big Lake, MN) Sherburne NWR

State Amtrak Service Service Unit

Illinois

Alton, IL Two Rivers NWR

Carbondale, IL Crab Orchard NWR

Iowa Burlington, IA Port Louisa NWR

Michigan

Dearborn, MI Detroit River IWR

East Lansing, MI Michigan WMD

Minnesota

Detroit Lakes, MN Detroit Lakes WMD, Hamden Slough 

NWR, Tamarac NWR

St. Cloud, MN Sherburne NWR, Crane Meadows 

NWR

Winona, MN Winona District/Upper Miss NWR's

Missouri

Jefferson City, MO Big Muddy NWR

Marceline, MO Swan Lake NWR

Poplar Bluff, MO Mingo NWR

Nebraska Omaha, NE Desoto NWR, Boyer Chute NWR

Ohio Toledo, OH Ottawa NWR, Cedar Point NWR

Wisconsin

Columbus, WI Horicon NWR

La Crosse, WI La Crosse District NWR, Genoa NFH

Portage, WI Leopold WMD, Fox River NWR

Tomah, WI Necedah NWR

Sources: Amtrak, FWS, Federal Railroad Administration, Google
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 93

Units that fall within existing transit areas may offer opportunities to extend transit service to 

better accommodate unit visitors. This may include small-scale service shifts, such as extra 

routes during seasonal weekends or agreements for use of transit vehicles for special educational 

programs or one-time special events.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 94

2.6.2 Identifying Sustainability Improvement Areas

Baseline condition data helps identify areas that should receive special consideration for topics 

of sustainability. As discussed previously, sustainability considerations occur on two fronts: (1) 

consideration of assets that could be at risk due to climate change and (2) consideration of 

transportation projects that could potentially reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Service lands that may have assets at risk due to climate change if they:

• Are located in a coastal area

• Are likely to experience more frequent flooding events

• Will experience greater temperature fluctuations

• Are likely to experience more frequent storm surges

Service lands that are best suited to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through ATS are those that 

fall in one or more of the following categories:

• A unit is identified in a national-level planning document as having the potential or need 

for ATS

• A unit’s CCP documents a need for alternative transportation system

• A unit is located in or adjacent to an existing mass-transit district

• A unit is located in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated air quality 

non-attainment area

2.6.3 Recommendations for Future Analysis

Several actions are necessary to better evaluate the sustainability goal, including the performance 

of a comprehensive risk analysis of climate change. Factors that should be included in a 

comprehensive risk analysis are:

• Precipitation levels, including associated impacts on water tables, flooding, and soil 

moisture

• Temperature changes

• River Flooding potentials and projected changes in 100-year flood elevation

• Historical water level changes due to climate change could be better quantified if data 

were available for units along rivers, lakes, and wetland areas,

• Provide boilerplate transportation language for CCPs and CHMPs to improve the quality 

of transportation material in these plans.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 95

2.7 PERFORMANCE MEASURES

In order to determine if the goals and objectives are being met, it is necessary reference baseline 

conditions and measure their performance and evaluate if improvement is needed. While a 

complete scope of an organization can never really be obtained, as generally some parameters 

cannot be measured directly but must be estimated, examples of some of the ones that can be 

measured are:

• Total of projects that improve ingress/egress issues at refuges and hatcheries.

• Number of safety audits completed and proposed improvements implemented.

• Number of transportation projects on or accessing Service units using multiple funding 

Sources.

• Increased percentage of road and trail miles in good/excellent condition.

• Number of transportation funds spent to reduce fish/wildlife conflicts with the 

transportation system; and results from monitoring systems set up to measure wildlifevehicle crashes or use of wildlife passages under or over roads.

• Percentage of units accessible through alternative modes (i.e. bike, transit, walking, 

waterway).

• Percentage of units with good/better satisfaction rating for transportation system.

• Number of agreements for partnerships

• Number of projects or percentage of refuge road funds that address more than one of the 

goals.

• Implementation of the National Safety Management System in the Region.

• Number or percentage of refuges with completed plans that address climate variability 

and incorporate action plans.

• Percentage of units that have increased multimodal connections.

• Percentage of units with adequate wayfinding systems.

It is fundamental to have the appropriate feedback loop to determine if performance measures 

described above are adequate and/or need to be revised at changing times and priorities of the 

Fish and Wildlife Service.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 96

CHAPTER 3: FUNDING AND PROJECT SELECTION

INTRODUCTION

Maintaining funding levels and access to various types of funding is important to management of 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) transportation program. Developing a Project 

Selection process that acknowledges a limited funding environment while prioritizing projects

that incorporate goals of the Service transportation is a challenge. This chapter indicates current 

funding levels, summarizes funding sources and gives a description of the project selection 

process. This 2012 LRTP may be used as a tool to demonstrate need for increased funding levels 

and identify partnering or cost share opportunities.

3.1 CURRENT AND PROJECTED FUNDING

The magnitude of the future funding levels to support the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(Service) transportation program (including activities at both wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries) 

may change significantly with the reauthorization of the current federal surface transportation 

bill (SAFETEA-LU). These changes may cause a different trajectory for funding over the next 

20 years. Current drafts of reauthorization language submitted to the Congress by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation that is reflective of input received from the Service envision a 

slight increase in funding for FY2012 compared to current levels and an 8-12% increase each 

year from FY2012 through FY2016. 

Separate SAFETEA-LU reauthorization proposals have been developed by the respective 

committees of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives with primary responsibility 

for the nation’s surface transportation programs. These reauthorization proposals all contain 

substantial differences from each other, and envision differing future funding levels, from 

modest increases to an essentially stable funding level to some reductions in future years.

Regardless of the final form or contents of the reauthorization legislation, there is a need to 

develop and implement improved evaluation criteria and a data driven based approach for the 

programming of new projects in the new era of transportation funding. A well defined 

investment strategy can provide a basis by which to do this.

Between FY2007 and fiscal year 2011, Region 3 of the Service received an average of 

approximately $3.28 million annually through the Refuge Road Program. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 97

Table 23 shows the annual funding levels that were previously allocated for Region 3 under the 

Refuge Road Program over the period of FY2007 – FY2011. This table also illustrates the 

anticipated future funding levels of the region between FY2012 and FY2015 assuming that 

annual future funding levels are maintained at the recently observed historical average of 

approximately $3.28 million annually.

Table 23 . Previous and Anticipated Annual Funding Levels 

for Refuge Road Program 2007-2015 

Fiscal Year Funding

2007 $2,812,130

2008 $3,350,000

2009 $4,175,183

2010 $2,834,735

2011 $3,216,467

2012 $3,196,934

2013 $3,177,401

2014 $3,156,868

2015 $3,147,335

As of the date of this document, the new multi-year transportation authorization legislation has 

not been enacted; therefore, the projected funding levels for FY2012 and beyond through the 

2030 horizon year for the LRTP are uncertain at this time. In the subsequent update cycle (many 

LRTPs are updated every 5 years) of the Region 3 LRTP, a more definitive projection of future 

available transportation funding can be provided that is reflective of the adopted reauthorization 

proposal’s funding levels. 

The majority of the Service’s transportation system consists of asphalt, gravel, and native roads. 

FHWA identifies route segments and assigns route numbers and functional classifications for 

each route. All segments (roads and parking lots) are mapped using GPS and visually assessed

for condition. Roadways are given a rating of excellent, good, fair, poor or failed based on 

evaluation of a series of characteristics such as cracking, roughness and rutting. Then an 

estimate is provided to upgrade each route to excellent condition. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 98

Table 24 shows calculations of the amount of money that would be required to bring all the FWS 

maintained roadways in each state of Region 3 to an excellent condition rating. The Road 

Inventory Program (RIP) Cycle 4 data compiled by the FLH was utilized to develop this 

analysis. 

Other transportation improvements such as parking lots, trails, culverts and bridges and 

enhancements for non-motorized transportation are also needed. Thus, the estimate shown 

should be viewed as a minimum estimate of the costs required to maintain the existing service

roadway system in Region 3 at an acceptable level. 

Table 24 . Estimated Funding Required to Improve Region 3 roads

State Miles of 

Roadway

Current Condition Total Cost to 

E G F P Improve

Iowa 52.4 12% 59% 28% 1% $1,425,104

Illinois 267.8 17% 50% 23% 10% $2,177,645

Indiana 102.9 42% 45% 13% 0% $147,400

Michigan 131.4 35% 45% 17% 3% $1,650,400

Minnesota 351.5 28% 51% 17% 1% $2,213,000

Missouri 131.0 42% 42% 15% 1% $1,512,200

Ohio 58.2 24% 61% 15% 0% $267,400

Wisconsin 102.6 27% 50% 23% 1% $1,278,500

Total $10,671,649

E-Excellent, G-Good, F-Fair, P-Poor. Minnesota has 5.9 miles of failed roadway segments.

Table 24 shows a total cost of approximately $10.7 million (in year 2008 dollars) required to 

maintain the existing Region 3 Service maintained public road system to desirable conditions. 

These estimates are based upon the currently available field inventory data on condition and take 

into account the location factors and unit cost information contained in the 2008 RS Means 

“Heavy Construction Cost Data” report (22nd Annual Edition). Location factors can greatly 

influence the cost of labor, equipment and material. These unit cost values are based on the 

published location factor (indicates the cost of commercial construction for major commercial 

centers); the remoteness factor (calculated by factoring in the distance and difficulty of accessing 

a specific construction site from the nearest urban area); and the prevailing federal wage rate 

factor for the specific area of the country.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 99

A comparison of transportation needs and funding level expectations must be established for the 

Service to achieve stated goals of providing a safe and reliable transportation network that 

enhances visitor experience. Although “worst-first “ strategies that prioritize worst condition 

roads for funding have been used in the past this will not be the case as we move toward more 

data-driven and/or performance-based decision making. This document aims to implement a 

process that analyzes transportation needs throughout the region and funds needs that are in 

alignment with stated goals and objectives.

3.1.1 Refuge Roads Program

The Refuge Roads Program (RRP) has been in existence since 1998. Between 2006 and 2011, 

approximately $3 million (11 percent of the national program) has been allocated to Region 3.

These funds can be used for planning, programming, construction, reconstruction, and 

improvement of existing public roads in the National Wildlife Refuge System, including bridges 

and appurtenances, in connection with the administration of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. In addition, up to five percent can be used for the improvement of public use trails 

within refuges. Through the RRP, the Service is working to improve public access to refuges and 

provide a better overall visitor experience. Eligible project types under this program include 

improvements to existing public use roads, bridges, parking lots, transit and trails, including 

those needed to correct identified safety problems at high accident locations within National 

Wildlife Refuges. Additional information on project eligibility can be found in the FWS 

publication Guidance on the Federal Lands Highway Refuge Roads Program (September 2005).

This document can be viewed online: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/guidance/priorities.html

The funds available for refuge roads are to be disbursed based on the relative needs of the

various refuges. Funds are allocated to the RRP from the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) according to Title 23 United States Code (USC), Chapter 2 Section 202(e). In keeping 

with its decentralized decision making structure, the Service has chosen to allocate the majority 

of its funds to its eight regional offices using an internally developed formula based on the 

National Park Service’s Park Roads and Parkways Program fund allocation formula. The 

Washington Office is currently developing a process to integrate an allocation of funding for 

trails. A small percentage of the national program amount, which varies with the RRP actual 

allocation from the Highway Trust Fund, is used to fund the on-going Inventory and Assessment 

Program and national level research, technical assistance training, partnership development, and 

coordination of legislative affairs with the Service’s Congressional and Legislative Affairs 

Division. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 100

The Service’s allocation formula has three components: 

1) Size of a region’s combined adjusted road/bridge/parking inventory 

2) Amount of the region’s road/bridge/parking assets in fair/good/excellent conditions

3) Public use (annual visitation) of the region’s refuges, wetland management districts and 

hatcheries

The formula for regional funding allocation is broken down to the following percentages:

• 55% of a region’s allocation is based on the miles of roads and their type (paved, 

improved gravel, improved native and native surfaces); square footage of bridges; square 

footage of parking lots and their type (paved, improved gravel, improved native, native 

surfaces and mowed). This data is gathered by the ongoing public use roads inventory 

conducted by Federal Lands Highway Division offices (FLH) of FHWA.

• 30% of the allocation is based on asset condition determined to be in fair/good or 

excellent condition. 

• 15% of the formula is based on the amount of public visitation per region as reported in 

the Refuge Annual Performance Plan each year. 

In Region 3, the Refuge Roads Program is establishing a more quantitatively based project 

selection process. The process outlined in the LRTP will improve project selection by creating a 

more transparent evaluation procedure that integrates defensibility and justification into 

identification of certain projects for advancement and implementation. Beyond project selection, 

the LRTP will also help to identify opportunities for the Service to make better use of refuge 

road funding by promoting partnerships with other agencies. Partnering will support reaching the 

Service’s goal of facilitating cooperation with other federal, state, and local agencies and 

identifying opportunities to work together to conserve wildlife habitats.

3.1.2 Fish Hatchery Deferred Maintenance

The Region 3 Fisheries program is largely funded by resource management and reimbursable 

funds. Transportation plays a key role in mission critical activities for the fisheries program. 

Activities include transportation for fish release, fish transfer to acclimation ponds, and transfer 

for specific research purposes. Transportation activities assist in effort to promote sustainable 

fish populations in waterways in the Midwest. 
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 101

Throughout the history of the fisheries program, deferred maintenance and resource 

management funds have been used to fund transportation activities and projects in the region. 

Transportation specific funding as part of the current Surface Transportation Act is not yet 

available for the fisheries program; however, this may change. Currently, the Service has 

proposed that the Refuge Roads Program be broadened to become the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Transportation Program, which will include fish production facilities in the region in addition to 

just wildlife refuges. If approved under new transportation legislation, funds will improve public 

use transportation assets on all Service lands, including National Fish Hatcheries. This Long 

Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) will help project prioritization for the program by influencing 

policy and planning level decisions. 

3.2 ADDITIONAL SOURCES OF FUNDING FOR REFUGE TRANSPORTATION 

PROJECTS

Other funding sources are available for transportation improvements in addition to the funding 

provided through the RRP. The following programs and funding sources are examples of those 

have been used on past Service transportation projects. 

Transportation enhancements include:

• Recreational trails program

• Scenic byways

• Rivers, trails, and conservation assistance program

• Public lands highway – discretionary program

• High priority projects program

• Emergency relief for federally owned roads (ERFO)

• Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks

These programs and funds are available at the state and local level, which is why partnering is 

critical to addressing the recognized funding gap. A description of each funding program is in 

the following section.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 102

3.2.1 Transportation Enhancements

Transportation enhancement (TE) activities offer funding to help expand transportation choices 

and enhance the built and natural environment. To be eligible for funding, a TE project must fit 

into one or more of the 12 eligible transportation enhancement activities related to surface 

transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety programs, scenic and 

historic highway programs, landscaping and scenic beautification, historic preservation, and 

environmental mitigation (23 USC 104). Every project must demonstrate a relationship to the 

surface transportation system. Overall, bicycle and pedestrian projects have been the most 

commonly funded project type since the TE program began (55%). 

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users 

(SAFETEA-LU) authorized approximately $800 million annually for 2005 to 2009. Funds are 

distributed through state departments of transportation (DOT) and each has its own process to 

solicit and select projects. This program is an 80 percent federal share. The Service could 

provide the 20 percent match with other federal funds to which it has access, or through 

partnerships with other federal, state, or local agencies. Profiles for each state’s transportation 

enhancement program can be found online: http://www.enhancements.org/Stateprofile.asp. 

TE funded projects in Region 3:

Desoto NWR - Steamboat Bertrand Metals Conservation Project

Project was $325,000 to preserve, document and catalogue metal artifacts from the Steamboat 

Bertrand collection at the Desoto NWR. This collection is located in the visitor center and is a 

significant historical and archaeological transportation enhancement. (This collection has been 

temporarily relocated, but will reopen during 2012).

Figure 20. Desoto NWR Project

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 103

Big Stone NWR - "No Bridge" Fishing Pier, Parking Lot, Access Trail Project. 

This project has allowed access to viewing of water fowl and shore birds as well as access to 

recreation hiking and fishing.

Figure 21. Big Stone NWR Project – The before picture

Figure 22. Big Stone NWR Project – The after picture

Photograph by FWS Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 104

Figure 23. Big Stone NWR – Access to viewing of water fowl

Figure 24. Big Stone NWR – Observation deck

Photograph by FWS

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 105

3.2.2 Recreational Trails Program

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds to the states to develop and maintain 

recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational 

trail use (23 USC 206). SAFETEA-LU authorized $370 million annually in funding nationwide. 

Examples of trail uses include hiking, bicycling, equestrian use, all-terrain vehicle riding, and 

four-wheel driving. Eligible activities include trail maintenance and restoration and new trail 

construction. Funds are distributed through the states, and each has its own process to solicit and 

select projects. This program is an 80 percent federal share. The Service could provide the 20 

percent match with other federal funds to which it has access, or through partnerships with other 

federal, state, or local agencies. There are currently no RTP funded projects associated with the 

FWS wildlife refuges in Region 3

In the summer of 2011, a Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation (RATE) for Region 3 

was completed. The RATE report details information on trails that pass near or through refuges. 

Specifically the report includes a table with alternative transportation opportunities including 

locations of connections with major regional recreation trails. The Region 3 RATE report can be 

found in Appendix J. 

3.2.3 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program

The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program provides assistance with 

planning, project development, and construction related to natural resource conservation and 

outdoor recreation. While not a funding program, this community assistance branch of the 

National Park Service offers valuable staff assistance for local project planning for communities, 

state and Federal agencies. The RTCA Program in the Midwest Region is managed from RTCA 

regional offices in Omaha, Nebraska. The following RTCA project is associated with the FWS 

in Region 3:

Hackmatack NWR- Preservation of over 5,000 acres of land in NE Illinois and SE Wisconsin 

The RTCA guides the Friends of Hackmatack through the process of defining the acres to be 

protected, partnership building and public involvement opportunities while building a sustainable 

non-profit organization.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 106

3.2.4 Scenic Byways

The National Scenic Byways Program is funded through FHWA to help recognize, preserve, and

enhance designated roads throughout the United States. Designation is awarded to certain roads

based on one or more archeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreational, and scenic qualities

(23 USC 162). Eligible activities include, but are not limited to, planning, non-motorized trail 

enhancements, interpretive facilities and signage, pedestrian access, and roadway improvements. 

SAFETEA-LU allocated $175 million in funding over six years for byways related projects, with 

$43.5 million allocated in 2009. FHWA awards funds competitively each year covering 80 

percent of project cost, with the requirement that the remaining 20 percent be matched by local, 

state, other federal or in-kind means. 

Grant applications are submitted annually. The Service submits applications for National Scenic 

Byways funding through the state DOT, in cooperation with or through a Byway Organization. 

Because many of the National Wildlife Refuge and National Fish Hatcheries units in Region 3

are located along or near National Scenic Byways, partnering with the local scenic byway 

organizations is important to gain access to this funding for potential projects. The following 

scenic byways projects are in Region 3:

Upper Mississippi - Browns Marsh Observation Deck Halfway Creek area 

In 2006, this project funded the construction of an Architectural Barriers Act (BA), and 

American Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant, accessible observation deck overlooking Browns 

Marsh. This deck is located on the Great River State Bike Trail, WI.

Figure 25. Browns Marsh Project

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 107

Upper Mississippi - Shady Maple Overlook (Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge)

This existing pull-off is just below Goose Island (south of La Crosse, WI) along Hwy 35. 

Improvements were made to the pull-off including aesthetics, parking area, and interpretation. 

This area overlooks the Refuge's Goose Island No Hunting/No Motors Zone, which makes it a 

quieter backwater area near the Great River Road (GRR). Byway travelers will get to see 

migrating waterfowl close-up. The Service is working with Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT) on this project.

Figure 26. Shady Maple Project

Trempealeau NWR - Bike Trail Enhancement

This project will provide safety enhancements for the Great River State Trail on the 

Trempealeau NWR, as well as shorten the trail for southbound trail travelers. The plan is to 

widen a one-way portion of the Refuge's auto tour route to accommodate the road and a two-way 

bike trail. This involves widening about 1 mile of road. This project would also include a pull-off 

along the widened trail with interpretation for a CCC building remnant. The Service is working 

with Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources on this project.

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 108

Genoa National Fish Hatchery- Design and Construction of an Education and Interpretive 

Facility 

This facility is located adjacent to the Upper Mississippi National Fish and Wildlife Refuge and 

three miles south of the river town of Genoa, Wisconsin. FHWA awarded a $1.69 million grant. 

The new education and interpretive center will showcase the unique natural, historical and 

cultural resources of the Upper Mississippi River basin.

Figure 27. Genoa NFH Project

3.2.5 Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program

Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program (PLHD) funds are available for transportation 

planning, research, engineering, and construction of highways, roads, parkways, and transit 

facilities within federal public lands. These funds are also available for operation and 

maintenance of transit facilities located on federal public lands. Funding is provided for projects 

designated by Congress. Certain projects not designated by Congress may also be eligible. 

Because only state departments of transportation can submit candidate projects for this program, 

it is critical that the Service coordinates with the respective state Departments of Transportation 

to align common project priorities to become eligible for these funds. Eligible projects may 

include:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 109

• Transportation planning for tourism and recreational travel, including National Forest

Scenic Byways, Bureau of Land Management Back Country Byways, National Trail

System, and similar federal programs

• Adjacent vehicle parking areas

• Interpretive signs

• Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites

• Provision for pedestrians and bicycles

There are currently no PLHD funded projects associated with Region 3 FWS units.

3.2.6 High Priority Projects Program

The High Priority Project (HPP) program provides designated funding for specific projects

identified in SAFETEA-LU. High priority projects are funded by contract authority and are 

available until expended. This program is an 80 percent federal share. The 20 percent match 

may come from other FLH Program or Service appropriated funds. All eligible projects must be 

listed in section 1702 of SAFETEA-LU. Region 3 received HPP funds for the following project:

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge (Michigan)- Humbug Marsh Unit Linked Greenways 

System

The High Priority Projects Program awarded $880,000 for the construction of roads and trails. 

This project constructed a 2 mile paved bike trail along the Humbug Marsh unit .This trail will 

eventually connect all Detroit downriver communities. 

Figure 28. Detroit River Project

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 110

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge - Land Acquisition Adjacent to I-75Parcels are 

beginning to be purchased with the $1.7 million that was granted to the Service. Land purchased

will be restored to native wetlands for mitigation purposes.

3.2.7 Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads

The Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program was established in July 

1977 and is authorized under Title 23, United States Code (USC) Section 125(e). The ERFO 

program provides assistance for the repair and reconstruction of federal roads that have been 

damaged by a natural disaster over a wide area or by a catastrophic failure from any external 

cause to pre-disaster conditions. This program is meant to supplement the commitment of 

resources from other federal sources to help pay unusually high expenses resulting from extreme 

conditions. Funds are provided from the Highway Trust Fund. No match is required; federal 

share is 100 percent. 

In 2008, Region 3 requested ERFO Funding for repair of road damages at several refuges in 

Illinois as a result of extreme weather and significant storm flooding events that occurred the last 

two weeks of February and between March 18 and 29. Squaw Creek NWR received funding to 

restore the gravel surface auto tour route. The damages included a muddy, impassible surface 

due to a washout of gravel from the driving surface due to high water levels. Approximately half 

of the 10 mile tour loop experienced damage, 3.5 miles were heavily damaged. Approximately 

$120,000 was awarded to repair the most heavily damaged segment.

Figure 29 shows Squaw Creek NWR Auto Tour Route - February 2008 damage from severe 

snow and ice storm. Figure 30 shows the same route after being repaired.

 

Figure 29. Squaw Creek NWR Project – The beforePhotograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 111

Figure 30. Squaw Creek NWR Project – The after

3.2.8 Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program

The Sarbanes Transit in Parks program is administered by the Federal Transit Administration in

conjunction with the Department of the Interior and U.S. Forest Service. It is a competitive grant

program open to the Service, the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of

Reclamation, and the U.S. Forest Service. The program funds capital and planning expenses for

alternative transportation systems such as shuttle bus, rail, or any other publicly available means 

of transportation and includes sightseeing service. It also includes non-motorized transportation 

systems such as pedestrian and bicycle trails that result in a reduction of vehicle miles traveled.

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

congestion and pollution; improve visitor mobility and accessibility; enhance visitor experience; 

and ensure access to all, including persons with disabilities. In addition, 10 percent of the annual 

allocation is available for technical assistance in alternative transportation planning where 

project proposals are not already well-developed. Allocation for this program is approximately 

$27 million each year. 

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 112

Neal Smith NWR - Planning/Engineering for a Bike Trail along the entrance road

This project engineering will begin in 2011 and will lead to the construction of a paved shoulder 

and 2 bike bridges along the Neal Smith NWR entrance road. 

Figure 31. Neal Smith NWR project

Photograph by FWS
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 113

3.3 PROJECT SELECTION PROCESS

Currently, transportation projects in Region 3 are generated through work orders developed in

the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS). The Service uses SAMMS to

identify, plan, prioritize and implement capital improvements and maintenance projects under

the RRP and fisheries deferred maintenance funding at both the regional and field unit level.

Because of differences in the funding sources between the refuge and fisheries programs, the

RRP relies on a five-year work plan, while the fisheries program relies on a five-year 

maintenance plan for prioritized projects, both under the direction of the regional transportation 

coordinator. However, SAMMS work orders do not account for projects within the fisheries 

reimbursable program or other funding sources. Therefore, when in view of regional

transportation priorities as a whole, it is important to consider multiple funding sources across all

Service programs.

This LRTP seeks to create a framework for a project selection process based on established goals 

and available funding that clearly identify Regional and National Service priorities for the 

Transportation system. This process will serve as a guide to programming future projects. The 

core team (Brandon Jutz, Maggie O’Connell, David Radloff, and Jared Bowman from FWS; and 

Lewis Grimm, Christoph Jaeschke, and Norah Ocel from FHWA-EFLHD) met in December 

2010 to discuss the regional FWS priorities and a methodology for ranking projects. These 

projects can be proposed by Unit level Service staff, Regional Leadership and interested parties 

or generated by SAMMS work orders. Once proposed projects are submitted to the Regional 

Transportation Coordinator they can undergo review and evaluation by the Regional Refuge 

Transportation System Committee. The members of the committee will consist of 3-5 persons 

one of which will be the Regional Transportation Coordinator. 

3.3.1 Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria for project selection were chosen during the December 2010 core team 

meeting as a combination of the agencies’ goals and top priorities:

• Resource Protection 30% - avoid, minimize and mitigate potential impacts to natural 

resources and wildlife

• Visitor Experience 20% - relates to wayfinding, visitor safety, and access

• System Performance 25% - improves safety and condition of transportation assets
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 114

• Partnering 10% - collaboration with other groups/agencies, multiple funding sources

• Sustainability 10% - extending use of facilities and incorporating sustainable practices 

into construction, operations, and maintenance

• Planning 5% - coordination with other transportation or management plans

3.3.1. 1 Process

Through a quantitative screening using the “Project Evaluation Criteria Sheet” shown in Table 

25, a value and a weight is assigned to each potential project by an Evaluation Committee. After 

the proposals are evaluated and prioritized, the Regional Refuge Transportation System 

Committee will select and program projects, considering additional qualitative factors such as 

availability of funds, project development delivery schedules, and time constraints for right-ofway and environmental work.

It is expected for the Project Selection Process Criteria to be implemented in the summer of 

2012.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 115

Table 25 . Project Evaluation Criteria Score Sheet

Evaluation Criteria

Value 

(Raw 

score)

Weight (%)

Rating 

(Score x 

Weight)

1. Resource Protection

Mitigating impact on critical habitat and fragmentation? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Mitigating impact on hydrology? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Restoring connectivity? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Enhancing wildlife crossings? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Minimizing impact on stream buffers and water quality? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Minimizing impact on water movement and rights? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Minimizing impact on Wetlands? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Minimizing impact on endangered species/in priority species list?(YES=10;NO=0) 3%

Minimizing impact on federally and state threatened species? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Complying with wildlife action plan? (YES=10; NO=0) 3%

Subtotal 30%

2. Visitor Experience

Enhancing/providing wayfinding signage? (YES=10; NO=0) 4%

Identifying critical network points? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Closing connectivity gaps? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Avoiding levy or marsh? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Enhancing/providing a traveler information system? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Providing a safe experience? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Consistent visual experience? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Following good principles of design? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Integrating interpretation into project? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Subtotal 20%

3. System Performance

Enhancing/providing safety? (YES=10; NO=0) 10%

Improving infrastructure conditions? (YES=10; NO=0) 5%

Improving road inventory rating? (YES=10; NO=0) 5%

Preserving good road surface? (YES=10; NO=0) 5%

Subtotal 25%

4. Partnering

Using outside funding source availability? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Involvement of other federal, state and local agencies and private sector? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Leveraging of other funding sources? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

On Scenic Byway? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Trail Partnering? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Partnering with County road? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Subtotal 10%

5. Sustainability

Road abandonment? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Increasing remaining service life of facility? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Reinvestment quality? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Promoting walking and biking/reducing green house gas emissions? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Usage of raw materials for project? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Usage of local materials for project? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Seeking to limit annual operations and maintenance costs? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Is project environmentally friendly? (YES=10; NO=0) 1%

Subtotal 10%

6. Planning

Existing Road Safety Audit (RSA)? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Filling data gaps? (YES=10; NO=0) 2%

Project included in CCP, TIP, STIP or other plan? ( (YES=10 per plan; NO=0) 1%

Subtotal 5%

Proposed Project Score Total : 100%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 116

CHAPTER 4: OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION PLAN

An outreach plan for long-range transportation planning is designed to solicit input from 

interested parties and inform stakeholders for whom the LRTP may be of interest. Outreach 

helps stakeholders understand and influence how LRTP strategies could eventually translate into 

specific projects. Outreach methods are used to communicate the intent of the plan, garner 

agreement of the plan’s approach and assumptions, and solicit input that furthers the intent 

and/or effectiveness of the plan, and provide opportunities to comment on a draft plan. Although 

the level of outreach conducted on behalf of this LRTP does not meet the levels required of 

NEPA projects, it can be used as a springboard for subsequent NEPA efforts as projects undergo 

preliminary engineering phases.

During the development of the LRTP, agency senior management was briefed on LRTP purpose, 

goals and objectives, and status to ensure concurrence with the plan and its outcome. Buy-in 

from senior management is exceedingly important for this LRTP as the plan reflects elements the

agency’s national transportation policy goals.

External outreach helped to ensure that the LRTP would in fact promote policies that are 

mutually beneficial to non-Federal lands and Federal lands interests. The intent is to further the 

interests of regional and local communities while also fulfilling the mission of FWS wherever 

possible. 

The goals of the LRTP for Region 3 outreach effort include: 

• Inform and educate external stakeholders about the FWS transportation program and the 

process used for transportation planning for FWS

• Provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify their concerns, values, ideas, and 

interests

• Allow agency management and external stakeholders the opportunity to provide input to 

the LRTP 

• Build support for the transportation planning process

• Strengthen existing partnerships while forging new ones
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 117

4.1 OUTREACH LEVELS

Outreach activities occur throughout the transportation planning process. This LRTP builds 

upon, and is integrated with, other planning efforts for consistency among the partner agencies’ 

planning and outreach activities, thereby providing multiple opportunities for entities internal 

and external to the agencies to become aware and/or involved in the planning process.

Transportation planning-related outreach is categorized by policy-level, plan-level, and projectlevel opportunities. Policy-level outreach occurs during the development of a LRTP and other 

regional transportation plans. Such long-range policy plans provide guidance and direction for a 

transportation program. In short, they address “the big picture.” Plan-level outreach occurs 

during development of shorter-term plans like agency specific TIPs, which list specific desired 

improvements and often include prioritized lists of projects to be implemented over the plan’s 

timeframe. Project-level outreach occurs when specific projects are being developed through the 

process used to evaluate and assess projects under NEPA. 

The public will have further opportunity to provide input on specific proposed projects through 

the process used to evaluate and assess projects under NEPA. All projects that include Federal 

funding must comply with the NEPA process. The NEPA process requires public outreach at 

several stages: project scoping (to present the proposed project and identify potential issues), 

public review of the draft environmental document (environmental assessment or environmental 

impact statement), and public review of the final environmental document. Categorical 

exclusions have less public outreach. Additional public involvement opportunities are often 

provided, such as public meetings at various stages of project development.

Recognizing that not all potential stakeholders are interested in participating in every outreach 

activity, different stakeholders were identified, as shown in Appendix F. Outreach content is 

tailored to the interests of specific audiences. Tables in Appendix F show the most involved 

stakeholders, with involvement intensity and level of information detail regarding the LRTP.

Appendix F shows the public involvement plan for this LRTP, as well as the list of all internal 

and external stakeholders contact information in Region 3.

4.2 OUTREACH DELIVERY TOOLS

Numerous outreach tools are used during the development of a LRTP. Outreach tools range 

from passive informational resources such as newsletters and websites, to more formal briefings 

and presentations. Participation is achieved by using the following methods:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 118

Briefings

Briefings are comprised of a summary and status of work to date and future planned activities.

They are used most extensively for participants that are actively involved in the development of 

the plan (core and extended teams, as well as other internal staff). These briefings also provide 

senior and other agency leaders LRTP progress updates and findings. They contain question and 

answer periods as well as an opportunity for feedback. Participants are engaged throughout the 

planning process and provided concise information in-person or by phone discussion by Core 

Team representative(s).

Presentations

In-person presentations provide a comprehensive basis for understanding the LRTP effort 

through direct face-to-face interaction. Presentations are tailored specifically to audience 

interests.

4.3 CAPTURING COMMENTS

During development of the LRTP, comments were collected through various means. Comments 

received during in-person outreach events such as meetings and workshops were documented in 

meeting notes. Comments were also collected through the monthly conference calls from the 

core team members. Comments received from agency senior management were collected in 

meeting notes, memorandums, and emails. Entities were given either written or verbal 

confirmation that their comments were received. All comments were evaluated and many were 

incorporated into the LRTP.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 119

CHAPTER 5: RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE PLAN ACTIVITIES

While the most accurate and latest/most recent data and concepts are incorporated in this plan, 

the always changing and evolving transportation needs of the region should be reflected as 

comprehensively as possible for the next plan update. Through the development of this plan 

document and the transportation planning process the Core Team and relevant staff have 

identified recommendations for future planning efforts.

Several items will be addressed during the next update and plan activities. 

• Initiate LRTP update in 5 years of this document. Based on the need for additional 

analysis described in the following action items, this plan should be revised within 5

years. If there are significant changes to legislation and the Refuge Roads program, the 

update may occur sooner.

• Use the most latest available version of FWS Cadastral GIS data to do analysis and to 

depict unit maps in the refuge and fish hatchery fact sheets. The Cadastral GIS data can 

be found at http://www.fws.gov/GIS/data/CadastralDB/index.htm. Use: FWS approved 

and FWS interest layers to show the approved boundaries and FWS owned managed 

lands.

• Develop a better cross-compatibility between data sources to eliminate data gaps and 

increase the reliability and usefulness of identified needs and hotspot analyses.

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

parking lots, and trails 

 Data will need to be reconciled and fully converted into a GIS format by 

both agencies for accuracy.

 Create a master data management system that uses the same identifier 

code/number for assets.

o Update refuge unit GIS shapefiles at EFLHD with the most recent version of 

FWS cadastral GIS layers.

o Coordinate GIS interagency data/maps by creating a Federal Lands Management 

Agency transportation GIS database and keep it in a central location as well as 

sharing all and most updated information.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 120

• Improve resource protection analysis. Use a systematic method to quantify the 

significance of the conflict between fish and wildlife and transportation facilities to better 

demonstrate a need for improvements. 

o Obtain wildlife habitat locations and fish passage corridors at a regional and local 

level to help identify potential animal-transportation conflict areas as well as the 

type of potentially impacted wildlife. 

o Identify the locations of access conflicts between resources (fish and wildlife 

habitat) and transportation facilities to help decision makers develop appropriate 

solutions. 

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

areas and potentially impacted species. 

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

understanding of historic vehicle-animal conflict hot-spots.

• Improve safety and condition analysis

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

meaningfulness of need determinations.

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

improvements within service lands.

o Use a detailed crash rate analysis to determine hotspots.

o Obtain complete current replacement value, asset priority index, facility condition 

index, and deferred maintenance for all refuge and hatchery roads, parking lots, 

and trails to eliminate data gaps and improve the reliability of need 

determinations.

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

eliminate data gaps in the determinations of improvement need and partnership 

opportunity.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 121

o Full implementation of the National Safety Management System (SMS) at the 

regional level to monitor and identify where resources are needed when it comes 

to addressing safety.

• Improve welcome and orientation analysis.

o Identify where State way-finding and variable message signs are located to assist 

in identifying areas of possible partnership. Use a Service sign inventory that 

includes sign location, condition, and adherence to Service sign standards (those 

specifically related to way-finding and interpretation) to help identify locations of 

need.

o Quantify access points and create a geo-referenced mapped inventory

o Identify existing visitor counters and or propose a counting system to provide data 

to the regional offices.

o Utilize USFWS Visitor Use survey results where applicable or create and 

complete an OMB-approved user survey on transportation.

o Identify which trails are eligible for transportation funding. Identify visitor’s 

preferences related to type of trails (asphalt, concrete, gravel, native) and consider 

with other factors such as traffic (pedestrian and multi-modal) volumes and 

context of trail. 

o Identify new and under construction major visitor amenities (visitor centers or 

major trails). This may indicate potential for future growth in the transportation 

network.

• Showcase planning efforts put into practice

o Incorporate examples of how the project selection criteria specified in this plan 

has been built-in into the programming of projects.

• Improve partnership analysis

o Identify any and all other partnership opportunities with non-Service 

transportation agencies by identifying route jurisdiction for the roads that are 

within at least one mile from any refuge and hatchery unit in the region.

o Identify and geo-reference refuge units that can be considered urban refuges 

(proximity to a metro area and/or within a Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) to leverage better funding opportunities.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service – LRTP R-3 Page 122

• Improve sustainability analysis and section

o Perform comprehensive risk analysis to determine risks to transportation

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

comprehensive risk analysis are: Precipitation levels, including associated impacts 

on water tables, flooding and soil moisture; and temperature changes.

o Create a transportation action plan for climate change and share the information.

o Provide boilerplate transportation language for CCPs and CHMPs to improve the 

quality of transportation material in these plans.

• Improve the outreach and communication plan

o With the publication of the draft LRTP, comments received are reviewed and 

used to improve the quality and usefulness of the final LRTP. Comments 

received regarding the draft LRTP should be answered as to how the comment 

will be addressed.

o The use of more outreach tools:

 Newsletters. Use newsletters to introduce the LRTP effort, and to build 

ongoing interest. Newsletter content should be concise and suitable for all 

levels of outreach participants.

 Website. A website is to be intended for all outreach participants as a 

source for general project information, updates, and forum for input. 

 E-blast. It combines advantages of printed and electronic resources 

through the use of an email list serve. The e-blast is to be intended for all 

interested outreach participants.

 Document all ad hoc comments received through the project website and 

e-mail in digital form.

As the LRTP is updated, there will be additional refinements of the Vision and Goals. As 

transportation funding for Refuges transitions toward a Performance- Based Program, 

performance measures and monitoring components will be incorporated as well. It is important 

that the LRTP reflects the direction of the transportation systems in Region 3 and it serves as a 

tool to coordinate and interface with partners.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page A-1

APPENDIX A

Plan Contributors
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page A-2

LRTP Contributors

Name Affiliation Address Phone Email

Core team:

Jared Bowman FWS - Planning 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5495 Jared_bowman@fws.gov 

Gabe DeAlessio FWS - Planning 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5496 Gabriel_DeAlessio@fws.gov

Lewis Grimm EFLHD Planning Team Leader 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 703-404-6289 lewis.grimm@dot.gov

Chris Jaeschke EFLHD Transportation Planner 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 703-404-6306 christoph.jaeschke@dot.gov

Brandon Jutz FWS - Region 3 Roads Coordinator 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5407 brandon_jutz@fws.gov

Norah M. Ocel EFLHD Transportation Planner 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 703-404-6213 norah.ocel@dot.gov

Maggie O'Connell FWS - Visitor Services 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5167 Maggie_O'connell@fws.gov

David Radloff FWS - Fisheries 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5158 David_radloff@fws.gov

Makayah Royal EFLHD Transportation Planner 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, VA 20166 703-948-1405 makayah.royal@dot.gov

Alex Schwartz FWS Landscape Architect 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue-S100, Portland, OR 97266 503-231-6179 alex_schwartz@fws.gov

Extended Team:

Nathan Caldwell FWS - Trails, Byways, TE, & ATS 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-2205 nathan_caldwell@fws.gov

Jeff Gosse FWS - Ecological Services 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5138 jeff_gosse@fws.gov

Rob Miller FWS - Facilities Management 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5297 Rob_miller@fws.gov

Joe Spah FWS - Facilities Management 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5447 Joe_spah@fws.gov

Steve Suder FWS - Refuge Roads Program 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-1752 Steve_Suder@fws.gov

Todd Turner FWS - Fisheries 5600 American Blvd. West, S 990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5127 Todd_turner@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page B-1

APPENDIX B

National Wildlife Refuges 

and 

Fish Hatcheries in Region 3
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page B-2

National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries by State

State Station Headquarters/Complex

IA Boyer Chute NWR -

IA DeSoto NWR -

IA Driftless Area NWR -

IA McGregor District, Upper Miss National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge -

IA Neal Smith NWR -

IA Port Louisa NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

IA Union Slough NWR -

IL Chautauqua NWR Illinois River NWR Complex

IL Crab Orchard NWR -

IL Cypress Creek NWR -

IL Emiquon NWR Illinois River NWR Complex

IL Illinois River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge -

IL Mark Twain NWR Complex -

IL Meredosia NWR Illinois River NWR Complex

IL Middle Mississippi River NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

IL Two Rivers NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

IL Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and 

Fish Refuge - Savanna District -

IN Big Oaks NWR -

IN Muscatatuck NWR -

IN Patoka River NWR -

MI Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge -

MI Grassy Island NWR -

MI Gravel Island NWR -

MI Harbor Island NWR Seney NWR 

MI Huron NWR Seney NWR 

MI Jordan River National Fish Hatchery -

MI Kirtland's Warbler Wildlife Management Area Seney NWR 
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page B-3

State Station Headquarters/Complex

MI Michigan Islands NWR Seney NWR 

MI Pendills Creek National Fish Hatchery -

MI Seney NWR -

MI Shiawassee NWR -

MI Sullivan Creek National Fish Hatchery -

MN Agassiz NWR -

MN Big Stone NWR -

MN Crane Meadows NWR -

MN Glacial Ridge NWR -

MN Hamden Slough NWR -

MN Mille Lacs NWR -

MN Minnesota Valley NWR -

MN Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR -

MN Rice Lake NWR -

MN Rydell NWR -

MN Sherburne NWR -

MN Tamarac NWR -

MN Upper Mississippi National Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge Headquarters -

MN Winona District of the Upper Mississippi River 

NWFR -

MO Big Muddy NWR -

MO Clarence Cannon NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

MO Great River NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

MO Middle Mississippi River NWR Mark Twain NWR Complex

MO Mingo NWR -

MO Neosho National Fish Hatchery -

MO Ozark Cavefish NWR -

MO Pilot Knob NWR -

MO Squaw Creek NWR -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page B-4

State Station Headquarters/Complex

MO Swan Lake NWR -

OH Cedar Point NWR Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex

OH Ottawa NWR Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex

OH West Sister Island NWR Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex

WI Fox River NWR -

WI Genoa National Fish Hatchery -

WI Gravel Island NWR -

WI Green Bay NWR -

WI Horicon NWR -

WI Iron River National Fish Hatchery -

WI La Crosse District Upper Mississippi National 

Wildlife and Fish Refuge -

WI Necedah NWR -

WI Trempealeau NWR -

WI Whittlesey Creek NWR -

Sources: FWS, 

http://www.fws.gov/midwest/Fisheries/library/R3-

Fishlines/current-edition.pdf

WMD = Wetland Management District

NWR = National Wildlife Refuge
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-1

APPENDIX C

Data Sources
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-2

C. DATA SOURCES AND ANALYSIS

Baseline conditions are established for a number of factors including physical characteristics as

condition and asset type as well as external factors such as value, visitation, population, 

sensitivity to/from climate change, safety, and non-service partnership opportunities.

Understanding of these factors is achieved by synthesizing various datasets and establishing a 

baseline condition. The Data Sources and Analysis appendix documents the data and processes 

used to synthesize information used in the baseline condition analysis.

Data Sources Overview

Information used to establish baseline conditions is mined from regularly updated Service data 

sources like the Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) and the Road 

Inventory Program (RIP). SAMMS provides information on facility and equipment deficiencies, 

justifies budget requests for maintenance needs, and provides a sound basis for management 

decision-making. RIP data contains a condition assessment of all Service roads, parking lots, and 

trails. The dataset is updated in regular five year periods.

Supplemental information from non-Service sources is also used to establish baseline conditions. 

These sources include the US Census, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal 

Transit Administration (FTA), US Geological Survey (USGS), Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI), Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS), and state departments of transportation (DOT). Table 1 indicates commonly 

used datasets for determining baseline conditions in each goal area.

Table 1 . Data Sources

Goal Area Dataset Source

1. Resource Protection Fatal Accidents NHTSA and State DOTs

2. Conditions and Safety

Asset Conditions (RIP) FWS

API Rankings (SAMMS) FWS

Facility condition index (SAMMS) FWS

Crashes DOT

Road Pavement Condition DOT

Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) DOT

3. Welcome and Orient

Visitation FWS

Population US Census

Populated Places US Census

4. Planning Service planning status FWS

State Planning boundaries DOT, FWS

5. Partnerships N/A N/A

6. Sustainability

FWS Plans FWS

Seismic Risk USGS

Air quality non-attainment areas Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics (BTS)

Transit Districts FTA, BTS, State DOTs, Google
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-3

C.1 Resource Protection

At this time, region-wide, resource protection data consists of fatal accident locations caused by 

animal vehicle collisions. This data was derived from NHTSA vehicle fatality tables, for 2006 

through 2009. Filtering for animal collision deaths (using “HARM_EV” = 11), latitude and 

longitude values were used to plot, and select based on proximity to FWS boundaries. A spatial 

join was used to identify the accidents that were located in or near a particular unit.

Table 2 . Regional Animal/Vehicle Collision Fatalities

Year

Fatalities related 

to Animal / 

Vehicle Collisions

Locations of AV Collision 

fatalities within one 

mile of FWS unit

Near FWS unit On 

Route/Road 

2006 59 1 Big Muddy NF and WR US Hwy 435

2007 66 1*

Upper Mississippi River 

NWR and Fish Refuge –

Savanna District *

US Hwy 67*

2008 65 1 Neal Smith NWR CR 117

2009 47 - - -

Source: NHTSA, July 2011, *Data from State Files, see C.2 Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety.

C.2 Safety and Conditions

The Service is committed to providing safe and reliable access to and within its lands and

facilities. As such, baseline condition analyses have been established for issues related to access

and safety.

Priority, Condition Index, Value, and Condition

Transportation asset conditions, value, priority, and deferred maintenance summaries combine

SAMMS, RIP, and GIS data provided by FHWA (Federal Lands Highway (FLH) and FWS. This 

information is summarized in Table 3 through Table 109. Current asset priority index (API), and 

facility condition index (FCI) data is aggregated to the unit level. In order to decrease data gaps 

between RIP and SAMMS databases and get better tabular summaries, the RIP and SAMMS 

data was reconciliated and joined by “asset id” manually. For trails, the same labor intensive 

procedure of joining “asset-id” fields was performed.

To verify the completeness or coverage of the SAMMS information, the recorded trail lengths 

were compared against measured trail lengths generated through the GIS dataset. The outcome of 

this exercise is represented in the “% Coverage” columns in the final outcome table. 

Deferred maintenance (DM) could not be summarized using the process described above because 

the table containing DM values does not list trail lengths. As a result, information could not be

weighed/averaged or verified for completeness. Instead, and despite the gap in asset IDs, the

SAMMS asset number was used to perform a table relate with the GIS dataset. The measured

lengths generated through the GIS dataset were then used to weighed/average DM information.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-4

Road, Parking, and Trail Conditions

To better understand the composition of roads, parking, and trail condition rankings, it was

necessary to aggregate surface type from condition ranking. This information is summarized in

Table 111 through Table 120 in addition to the condition summary tables in the Goals and 

Conditions chapter, Safety and Condition section. The result is a table that breaks out the lengths 

of surface type contained within a condition ranking. For context, this information is 

supplemented with: percentages of surface type within a particular condition category, percent of 

a particular condition and surface type that make up the total of Service trails, and total percent 

condition category of all trail miles – regardless of surface type. The summaries were produced 

using Access queries of RIP data.

FWS Trail Deficiencies

Trail deficiencies are identified in baseline conditions in tabular form by state, unit, and

deficiency classification. Access queries of RIP trail deficiencies data show the number and type 

of deficiencies found in each unit, by state. This data is shown in Table 110.

Non-Service Road Condition, Use, and Safety

The LRTP uses non-service road condition, use, and safety improvement information to help

identify areas in need of improvement and possible partnership support. To accomplish this, data 

is required from each Region 3 state’s department of transportation.

To determine fatalities where the main cause was an animal, selection by attributes was done. 

For table zcta_year, the attribute used was firstharm=25(animal) and for table zsev, attribute used 

was csev=1(fatal). There were five fatalities related to animals as the main cause, between 2006 

and 2010, from those, only one occurred within one mile of the Upper Mississippi River NFWR

– Savanna District on US Hwy 67.

For Iowa, crash data was provided as a GIS layer and as tables for years 2006 to 2010. Tables 

were spatially joined by field “CRASH KEY”. The crashes shown in table “hotspots” are 

crashes in general, not only fatalities. There were two hot spots identified based on a 

combination of the number of crashes and the Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on that 

segment of road ((Crashes/AADT)*1000>=5.00).

AADT data was also provided however not all routes had AADT values. Roadways within one 

mile from a refuge that had more than 20,000 AADT, were I-29/680 near Boyer Chute NWR and 

US Hwy 20 near Upper Mississippi River NWR and Fish Refuge – Savanna District.

Pavement data was provided for main roadways around refuges as a GIS layer for principal and 

secondary roadways.

For Illinois, crash data was provided as a GIS layer for years 2006 to 2010 with collision type 

information. AADT data was also provided in a GIS format however the years of data varied. 
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-5

Pavement condition data was not provided. There were only two animal related fatalities in nonservice roads in Illinois in the last five years; however they were not within a mile of a FWS unit.

For Indiana, crash data was not provided by the state, however general crash data from the 

NHTSA files was analyzed. AADT data was provided in GIS format for the year 2007. 

Pavement condition was provided as an excel table, which had latitude and longitude data and 

was used to create a GIS shapefile. Pavement data was spatially joined to those roads within one 

mile of the refuge. The main hotspots were for pavement poor conditions on US Hwy 250, US 

Hwy 50 and State Rd 61 in Big Oaks, Muscatatuck and Patoka respectively. There was only one 

hotspot regarding AADT, it was on US Hwy 50 near Muscatatuck NWR.

For Michigan, only AADT data was provided for 2009 by the state DOT. Similar to Indiana, 

crash data from the NHTSA files was analyzed for Michigan.

For Minnesota, crash data was provided as a GIS layer for the years 2006 to 2010.

Pavement condition data was also provided and AADT data for years 1992 to 2009, from which 

only current volumes were used for the hot spot analysis. For pavement conditions, the data was 

collected in 2010. There was only one hotspot for poor pavement conditions on road segments 

within one mile of a unit. All the data can be found in Chapter 2 (table 4).

For Ohio, no data was provided by the state DOT, however looking at crash data from NHTSA, 

it is visible that no more than five crashes in average a year have occurred between 2006 and 

2009. For AADT data, NHPN routes layer was used. Roads within one mile of Cedar Point 

NWR and Ottawa NWR appear to have less than 20,000 AADT. Based on this information, Ohio 

was not incorporated in the hotspot table.

For Wisconsin, Crash, AADT and Pavement condition data was provided by the State DOT. 

Crash data covered 2005 to 2009. 

For Missouri, Crash data was provided for years 2006 and 2010 by the state DOT, as well as 

Pavement condition data and AADT in GIS shapefiles.

Refer to Table 4 in Chapter 2 for the output summary referenced above, and figures.

As a general note, crash data was processed as follows: A buffer of 0.05 mile was created for the 

GIS layer of road segments identified within one mile of the refuge unit to capture crashes on 

both directions of the roadway. A spatial join (one to one) was done between the buffer road 

layer and crashes for the different years to identify crashes that occurred on that segment of road. 

The average of crashes per year in that specific segment of primary and /or secondary road is the 

number shown in the hotspot table.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-6

Table 3 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data - IOWA

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Boyer 

Chute 

NWR

Auto Tour Route 10032912 010 Asphalt Fair 1.66 - -

Auto Tour Route North 10032912 011 Asphalt Fair 0.72 - -

River Tree Road 10032935 100 Gravel Good 0.67 100 0.21

Island Service Road-Section 10032908 400 Gravel Good 0.79 100 0.26

Island Service Road-Section 10032908 400 Native Good 0.93 100 0.26

Island Service Road-Section 10032908 400 Native Fair 2.26 100 0.26

Nathan Service Access Road 10060388 401 Native Good 0.25 - -

North River Lane 10060404 402 Gravel Fair 1.17 - -

DeSoto 

NWR

Main Refuge Road 10012812 010 Asphalt Excellent 3.13 - -

Main Refuge Road 10012812 010 Asphalt Fair 2.69 - -

Visitor Center Entrance Rd 10043074 011 Asphalt Excellent 0.06 80 0.05

Visitor Center Entrance Rd 10043074 011 Asphalt Fair 0.22 80 0.05

Refuge Headquarters Road 10043075 100 Asphalt Fair 0.05 - -

Bertrand Turnoff Road 10012791 101 Asphalt Excellent 2.58 - -

Excavation Site Road 10043081 102 Asphalt Excellent 0.12 65 0.09

Wildlife Overlook Road 10012790 103 Gravel Excellent 3.14 65 0.11

Wildlife Overlook Road 10012790 103 Gravel Good 0.99 65 0.11

Lakeview Drive 10012872 104 Gravel Excellent 0.71 65 0.37

Prairie Lane 10012874 105 Gravel Excellent 0.42 65 0.39

Whitetail Drive 10012876 106 Gravel Excellent 0.99 65 0.41

Southgate Recreation Area 10012797 107 Asphalt Poor 0.45 65 0.08

Southgate Recreation Area 10012797 107 Gravel Excellent 0.10 65 0.08

West Side South Archery 

Access Road - 108 Gravel Good 0.50 - -

East Dike Access Road 10012801 400 Gravel Excellent 1.57 30 0.76

East Dike Access Road 10012801 400 Native Good 1.82 30 0.76

East Dike Access Road 10012801 400 Native Fair 1.06 30 0.76

Marquardt Pond Road 10054008 401 Gravel Good 0.12 65 0.5

Center Island Access Road - 402 Gravel Good 2.60 - -

Center Island Access Road - 402 Primitive Good 0.66 - -

West Dike Access Road - 403 Gravel Excellent 0.56 - -

West Dike Access Road - 403 Native Good 1.68 - -

Red Barn Road 10060637 404 Gravel Fair 0.10 - -

Residence Road - 405 Asphalt Fair 0.16 - -

Residence Road - 405 Gravel Good 0.19 - -

V.C. Well Road 10060638 406 Gravel Good 0.25 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-7

Table 4 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – IOWA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Driftless 

Area NWR

Howard Creek Shop Road 10050837 300 Gravel Excellent 0.16 - -

Dave Smith Tract - 400 Native Fair 0.53 - -

Howard Creek Road 10050837 401 Native Good 0.07 - -

Iowa 

WMD

Dugout Creek Road - 100 Gravel Excellent 1.00 - -

Harrier Marsh Road - 101 Gravel Excellent 0.60 - -

McGregor 

District

Bagley Bottoms Road 10043767 103 Gravel Fair 0.36 65 0.35

Ballard Tract Access Road - 107 Gravel Excellent 0.03 - -

Ballard Tract Road - 400 Primitive Good 0.98 - -

New Albin Road 10043764 101 Gravel Good 1.21 65 0.97

Lynn Hollow Road 10043768 104 Gravel Good 0.05 65 0.23

Casseville Maintenance 

Shop Road - 300 Gravel Excellent 0.14 - -

Turkey River Road 10043765 105 Gravel Good 0.81 65 0.11

Turkey River Road 10043765 105 Gravel Excellent 0.51 65 0.11

Winneshiek Road 10043766 100 Asphalt Poor 0.22 65 0.8

Visgers Road 10043769 102 Gravel Good 0.08 65 0.62

Potosi Point Access Road - 106 Gravel Fair 0.54 - -

Neal 

Smith 

NWR

Refuge Entrance Road 10014077 010 Asphalt Fair 4.75 65 0.13

Auto Tour Route 10043682 100 Gravel Excellent 0.75 - -

Waste Water Wetland 

Road 10055407 400 Gravel Good 0.14 65 0.06

Weather Station Access 

Road 10055407 401 Primitive Good 0.07 65 0.06

Bison Handling Facility 

Road 10055407 402 Native Fair 0.30 65 0.06

Hillltop Barn Access Road 10055407 403 Gravel Good 0.47 65 0.06

Dogleg Access Road 10055407 404 Gravel Fair 0.52 65 0.06

Argyle Access Road 10055407 405 Native Good 0.51 65 0.06

North Middle Access 

Road 10055407 406 Primitive Good 0.08 65 0.06

Interim Road 10055407 407 Native Fair 0.45 65 0.06
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-8

Table 5 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – IOWA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Port 

Louisa 

NWR

Headquarters Entrance 

Road 10013840 010 Asphalt Poor 0.05 - -

Auto Tour Route 10013830 011 Gravel Good 4.96 - -

Auto Tour Route 10013830 011 Gravel Excellent 0.47 - -

Port Louisa Road 10013819 100 Gravel Good 0.79 65 0.14

Big Timber Boat Landing 

Access Road 10013901 102 Gravel Good 0.07 - -

Spring Slough Road - 103 Gravel Fair 0.10 - -

Keithsburg Boat Ramp 

Access Ramp 10013864 104 Gravel Excellent 0.03 - -

X61 Maintenance Shop 

Road - 300 Gravel Excellent 0.04 - -

Keithsburg Levee Road 10013861 400 Native Good 2.94 - -

Kiethsburg North Levee 

Road 10013861 401 Native Good 0.42 - -

Kiethsburg Access Road 10013861 402 Native Fair 1.17 - -

Rush Lake Service Road 10013862 403 Gravel Excellent 0.25 - -

Rush Lake Service Road 10013862 403 Native Good 0.28 - -

Rocky Road 10013862 404 Gravel Good 1.26 - -

Rocky Road 10013862 404 Native Good 0.76 - -

Muscatine Slough Service 

Road 10013863 405 Gravel Fair 0.68 - -

Port Road 10013863 406 Native Good 0.55 - -

Port Road 10013863 406 Native Fair 0.32 - -

Goose Pond Service Road 10013863 407 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Goose Pond Service Road 10013863 407 Gravel Good 1.32 - -

Goose Pond Service Road 10013863 407 Native Good 0.61 - -

Goose Pond Service Road 10013863 407 Native Fair 0.16 - -

21 Service Road 10013863 408 Native Excellent 0.43 - -

20 Service Road 10013863 409 Native Good 0.59 - -

Beebe Service Road 10013863 410 Native Fair 0.55 - -

Union 

Slough 

NWR

East Auto Tour 10013252 010 Gravel Good 4.41 70 0.17

Office Access Road 10054532 400 Gravel Excellent 0.19 - -

Middle Dike Access Road 10054532 401 Native Good 0.22 - -

South Dike Access Road 10054532 402 Native Good 1.01 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-9

Table 6 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Chautauqua 

NWR

Headquarters Entrance Road 10013968 010 Asphalt Fair 0.47 65 0.11

Eagle Bluff Access Road 10013973 011 Gravel Good 0.23 65 0.16

Cameron Billsbach Unit Access - 400 Native Good 0.19 - -

South Lake Chautauqua Lake 

Wildlife Drive 10013961 401 Concrete Good 0.14 100 0.18

South Lake Chautauqua Lake 

Wildlife Drive 10013961 401 Concrete Fair 0.13 100 0.18

South Lake Chautauqua Lake 

Wildlife Drive 10013961 401 Gravel Excellent 1.05 100 0.18

South Lake Chautauqua Lake 

Wildlife Drive 10013961 401 Gravel Good 8.45 100 0.18

Cross Dike Road 10013969 402 Gravel Good 0.85 65 0.14

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

A-12 Field Lane 10060750 455 Primitive Fair 0.05 - -

A-24a Field Lane 10060752 474 Native Good 0.13 - -

A-26 Field Lane 10060753 477 Native Fair 0.36 - -

A-32 East Lane 10060757 488 Primitive Good 0.29 - -

A-5 Road East 10049431 428 Asphalt Fair 0.68 65 0.09

A-27-E Field Access Road 10060754 469 Gravel Excellent 0.17 - -

A-41 Pond Dam Road 10060760 440 Gravel Good 0.55 - -

A-41 Pond Dam Road 10060760 440 Native Good 0.47 - -

Area 10 Access Road 10060765 478 Gravel Fair 0.23 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Asphalt Poor 1.06 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Asphalt Fair 0.76 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Concrete Fair 1.06 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Gravel Fair 0.57 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Native Good 0.22 - -

Area 11 Access Road 10060766 486 Native Fair 0.67 - -

Area 11 West Access Road 10049458 451 Native Good 0.21 65 0.06

Area 11 West Access Road 10049458 451 Native Fair 0.25 65 0.06

Area 13 Roads 10013514 449 Gravel Excellent 0.58 65 0.37

Area 13 Roads 10013514 449 Gravel Good 10.32 65 0.37

Area 14 Lane 10060769 414 Native Good 0.05 - -

Area 2 Road 10013516 422 Gravel Poor 0.51 - -

Area 2 Waterline Trail Road 10060770 421 Gravel Fair 0.15 - -

Area 2-B Access Road 10013516 430 Asphalt Fair 1.01 - -

Area 2-B Access Road A 10013516 218 Asphalt Poor 0.47 - -

Area 2-B Access Road B 10013516 219 Asphalt Fair 0.17 - -

Area 2-B Access Road C 10013516 220 Asphalt Fair 0.61 - -

Area 2-B Access Road D 10013516 221 Gravel Good 0.08 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-10

Table 7 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Area 2-B Access Road E 10013516 222 Gravel Good 0.18 - -

Area 2-B Access Road G 10013516 223 Gravel Good 0.07 - -

Area 2-B Access Road H 10013516 224 Gravel Good 0.12 - -

Area 2-B Access Road I 10013516 225 Gravel Excellent 0.05 - -

Area 2-B Access Road J 10013516 226 Gravel Excellent 0.12 - -

Area 2-P Access Road 10013516 217 Asphalt Fair 0.61 - -

Area 2-P North Access Road 10013516 228 Asphalt Fair 0.19 - -

Area 6 Bunker Road 10049445 433 Gravel Good 7.77 65 0.13

Area 6 Bunker Road 10049445 433 Primitive Good 0.14 65 0.13

Area 6 Road 10036260 431 Gravel Good 3.96 65 0.09

Area 8 Access Road - 472 Gravel Good 1.24 - -

Area 8 Access Road - 472 Native Good 0.66 - -

Area 8 Cut-Across Road - 471 Gravel Good 0.17 - -

Area 8 West Access Road - 473 Native Good 0.14 - -

Area 9 Central Access Road 10049433 215 Asphalt Excellent 0.75 65 0.08

Area 9 Cut-Across Road 10049433 214 Asphalt Poor 0.09 65 0.08

Area 9 Jim Price Road 10049433 212 Asphalt Good 0.90 65 0.08

Area 9 North Access Road - 216 Gravel Good 0.23 - -

Area 9 PCB Trail Road - 464 Gravel Fair 1.04 - -

Area 9 South Access Road 10049433 213 Asphalt Fair 0.05 65 0.08

Bald Eagle Lane 10036149 112 Gravel Excellent 0.88 - -

Bass Pond Levee Road 10060774 481 Gravel Good 0.36 - -

Blue Heron Pond Road 10060776 463 Gravel Fair 0.58 - -

Big Grass RNA Lane 10060775 484 Gravel Good 0.25 - -

Boy Scout Camp Service Road 10049700 203 Gravel Good 1.30 50 0.37

Camp Carew Road - 206 Asphalt Fair 0.22 - -

Broken Handle Road 10036248 111 Gravel Good 0.32 65 0.81

Camp Carew Service Road 10060778 442 Gravel Excellent 0.15 - -

Carterville Beach Lane 10055753 405 Asphalt Fair 0.73 65 0.32

Cedar Point Youth Camp Road 10036253 202 Asphalt Good 0.08 65 0.15

Cedar Point Youth Camp Road 10036253 202 Asphalt Fair 0.92 65 0.15

Cedar Point Youth Camp Road 10036253 202 Asphalt Poor 0.20 65 0.15

Cedar Point Youth Camp Road 10036253 202 Gravel Excellent 0.52 65 0.15

Central Tripp Access Trail Road 10049454 438 Native Fair 0.45 65 0.13

CO & E Yard Road 10060783 423 Gravel Good 0.34 - -

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club Acc 10036238 204 Asphalt Fair 0.48 65 0.15

Crab Orchard Campground Access 10013585 200 Asphalt Excellent 0.09 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Access 10013585 200 Asphalt Good 0.30 65 0
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-11

Table 8 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Route Name Asset Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Crab Orchard Campground Access 

Road 10013585 200 Asphalt Fair 0.59 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit A 10013585 229 Asphalt Fair 0.34 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit A 10013585 229 Asphalt Poor 0.37 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit B 10013585 230 Concrete Fair 0.09 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit B 10013585 230 Asphalt Fair 0.36 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit C 10013585 231 Asphalt Poor 0.14 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit C 10013585 231 Gravel Good 0.11 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit D 10013585 232 Asphalt Fair 0.22 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit D 10013585 232 Asphalt Poor 0.45 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit E 10013585 233 Asphalt Poor 0.23 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground Roads 

Unit E 10013585 233 Asphalt Fair 0.10 65 0

Crab Orchard Campground 

Service Road 10060743 406 Gravel Good 0.04 - -

Crab Orchard Dam Road 10060784 489 Gravel Good 0.69 - -

Devil's Kitchen Boat Ramp Access 

Road 10036251 114 Asphalt Fair 0.14 65 0.75

Devil's Kitchen Campground Road 10036244 113 Asphalt Poor 0.21 65 0.07

Devil's Kitchen Line 11 Road 10013517 115 Gravel Excellent 0.71 65 0.31

Devil's Kitchen Line 12 Road 10036252 116 Asphalt Poor 0.39 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 13 Road 10036252 117 Asphalt Poor 0.68 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 13 Road 10036252 117 Asphalt Excellent 0.24 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 13 Spur Road 10036252 103 Asphalt Poor 0.06 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 16 Road 10036252 118 Asphalt Poor 0.73 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 16 Spur Road - 119 Asphalt Poor 0.10 - -

Devil's Kitchen Line 3 Road 10036252 121 Asphalt Poor 0.36 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 4 Road 10060790 436 Gravel Fair 1.05 - -

Devil's Kitchen Line 5 Road 10036252 122 Asphalt Poor 1.28 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 5 Spur Road 10036252 123 Asphalt Poor 0.11 65 0.7
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-12

Table 9 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Route Name Asset Number

Route 

Numbe

r

Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Devil's Kitchen Line 6 Loop Road 10013517 125 Gravel Good 0.66 65 0.31

Devil's Kitchen Line 6 Road 10036252 124 Asphalt Fair 0.74 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Line 6 Spur Road 10013517 126 Gravel Good 0.14 65 0.31

Devil's Kitchen Line 9 Road 10036252 120 Asphalt Fair 0.23 65 0.7

Devil's Kitchen Road 10036232 017 Asphalt Fair 3.17 65 0.22

Diagraph Corporation Access 

Road 10036259 470 Asphalt Poor 0.46 65 0.06

Diagraph Corporation Access 

Road 10036259 470 Gravel Good 0.41 65 0.06

Dispatch Lane South 10060788 427 Primitive Good 0.06 - -

Dispatch Lane South 10060788 427 Gravel Good 0.16 - -

DK Dam Service Access Road 10060744 301 Gravel Fair 0.15 - -

Doerr Road 10060791 461 Asphalt Fair 0.33 - -

East Tripp Trail Access Road 10049454 475 Gravel Excellent 0.64 65 0.13

East Tripp Trail Access Road 10049454 475 Native Good 0.14 65 0.13

ECO Bay Lane 10060792 465 Native Good 0.60 - -

EMA Access Road 10036257 105 Asphalt Poor 0.59 65 0.69

Flatts School Road 10049448 468 Asphalt Fair 0.48 65 0.07

Flatts School Road 10049448 468 Native Fair 0.78 65 0.07

Fowler Cemetary Road 10060797 432 Primitive Poor 0.08 - -

Girl Scout Camp Service Road - 418 Native Good 0.31 - -

Goose Banding Lane 10060802 435 Primitive Fair 0.60 - -

Grassy Creek Trail Road - 408 Asphalt Poor 2.29 - -

Greenbriar Road 10036239 102 Concrete Fair 0.48 65 0.19

Greenbriar Road 10036239 102 Asphalt Fair 0.97 65 0.19

Hampton Cemetary Lane 10060800 416 Gravel Good 0.19 - -

Hampton Road 10060801 415 Gravel Excellent 1.03 - -

Haven Access Loop 10036242 201 Asphalt Excellent 0.10 65 0.75

Haven Access Loop 10036242 201 Gravel Excellent 0.11 65 0.75

Headquarters Road 10013636 011 Asphalt Fair 0.53 65 0

Heron Flats North Access Road 10060802 426 Gravel Good 0.44 - -

Heron Flats North Access Road 10060802 426 Native Good 0.75 - -

Hogan's Point Lane 10049429 401 Asphalt Poor 0.34 65 0.22

Isaac Chamness Road 10060815 425 Gravel Good 0.14 - -

Job Corps Pond Lane 10060806 413 Native Good 0.06 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-13

Table 10 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Route Name Asset Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Lagoon Access Road - 407 Primitive Fair 0.11 - -

Lift Station Road 10049449 462 Gravel Good 1.53 65 0.99

Lift Station Spur Road 10049449 466 Native Good 0.18 65 0.99

Little Grassy Dam Lane 10060809 444 Gravel Good 0.25 - -

Little Grassy Lake Campground 

Road 10036255 205 Asphalt Excellent 0.86 65 0.12

Little Grassy Lake Campground 

Road 10036255 205 Gravel Excellent 0.57 65 0.12

Lookout Point Lane 10049428 402 Asphalt Fair 0.61 - -

Lookout Point Spur Road 10049428 403 Asphalt Poor 0.21 - -

Little Grassy Pumphouse Road 10060808 446 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Marshall Road 10060812 460 Asphalt Fair 0.33 - -

Lost Branch North Trail Road 10060811 411 Primitive Fair 0.57 - -

Methodist Youth Camp Entrance 

Road 10036256 207 Asphalt Excellent 0.22 65 0.08

Methodist Youth Camp South 

Spur Road 10036256 208 Gravel Excellent 0.16 65 0.08

Methodist Youth Camp Spur Road 10036256 209 Asphalt Fair 0.09 65 0.08

Methodist Youth Camp NorthWest Access Road 10049695 211 Gravel Good 0.25 50 0.05

Methodist Youth Camp North 

Access Road 10036256 210 Asphalt Fair 0.31 65 0.08

Methodist Youth Camp North 

Access Road 10049695 210 Gravel Fair 0.15 50 0.05

Methodist Youth Camp North 

Access Road 10049695 210 Gravel Excellent 0.14 50 0.05

North Prairie Lane 10060816 404 Primitive Good 0.45 - -

North Boundary Trail Road 10049443 429 Native Good 0.38 65 0.37

North McGeesville Road 10060814 447 Native Fair 0.55 - -

Mousertown Road 10060813 459 Asphalt Fair 0.85 - -

North McGeesville Road 10060814 447 Native Fair 0.55 - -

North Trail Road East 10049443 453 Native Good 0.78 65 0.37

North Trail Road East 2 10049443 454 Native Good 0.63 65 0.37

North Trail Road East 3 10049443 456 Gravel Good 0.39 65 0.37

North Trail Road East 3 10049443 456 Primitive Fair 0.74 65 0.37

Ogden Road East 10036233 018 Asphalt Fair 0.98 65 0.39

Ogden Road Service East 10036233 457 Asphalt Fair 0.82 65 0.39

Ogden Road Service East 10036233 457 Gravel Good 0.24 65 0.39
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-14

Table 11 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Ogden Road West 10036234 476 Gravel Excellent 1.59 65 0.2

Ogden Road West 10036234 476 Asphalt Good 0.32 65 0.2

Ogden Watertower Road 10049447 467 Gravel Excellent 0.25 65 0.15

Old Carterville Road 10060817 417 Gravel Excellent 1.07 - -

Old Carterville Road 10060817 417 Gravel Good 0.33 - -

Old Carterville Road 10060817 417 Native Fair 0.06 - -

Old Chamnestown Road 10049434 434 Concrete Poor 1.42 65 0.37

Old Chamnestown Road 10049434 434 Gravel Good 0.87 65 0.37

Old Chanmesstown Road 

South 10036258 458 Gravel Fair 0.47 65 0.14

Old Chanmesstown Road 

South 10036258 458 Asphalt Fair 0.50 65 0.14

Old Highway 13 10036236 100 Asphalt Poor 0.06 100 0.33

Old Highway 13 10036236 100 Concrete Fair 0.38 100 0.33

Pigeon Creek MSU Lane 10019442 419 Gravel Good 0.64 - -

Pigeon Creek MSU Lane 10019442 419 Native Good 0.33 - -

Pigeon Creek Road 10013510 010 Asphalt Fair 0.23 65 0.09

Pine Ridge Scout Camp 

Access Road 10036254 106 Gravel Good 0.67 80 0.12

Playport North Access Road 10036244 108 Asphalt Fair 0.25 65 0.07

Playport Road 10036243 107 Concrete Fair 0.24 65 0.68

Post Oak Road 10036229 013 Asphalt Fair 0.76 65 0.21

Prarie Creek Marina Road 10036240 104 Gravel Good 0.48 65 0.71

Propeller Road 10036247 110 Gravel Good 0.64 65 0.81

Propeller Point Service Road 10060821 409 Primitive Fair 0.07 - -

Red Shale Road 10049461 483 Native Good 0.87 65 0.13

Research Road 10036230 014 Asphalt Fair 0.53 65 0.23

Stringtown Road 10036228 012 Asphalt Fair 1.78 65 0.45

Sandpiper Slough Road 10060823 452 Gravel Good 1.01 - -

Sewage Treatment Plant 

Road 10049440 420 Gravel Good 0.59 65 0.13
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-15

Table 12 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Shop Access Road 10049432 300 Gravel Excellent 0.16 65 0.22

Shop Access Road 10049432 300 Asphalt Fair 0.14 65 0.22

Smith Cemetery Lane 10060824 410 Gravel Good 0.18 - -

South Bald Eagle Lane 10049462 412 Gravel Good 0.02 65 0.09

South Wolf Creek Service Road 10060822 445 Gravel Excellent 0.80 - -

Spillway Landing Road 10036246 109 Gravel Good 0.23 65 0.81

Suger Creek Lane 10049465 441 Primitive Fair 0.04 65 0.14

Tacoma Lake Road 10013586 016 Asphalt Fair 4.18 65 0.22

Take Pride Point Road 10049429 400 Asphalt Poor 0.80 65 0.22

Tacoma Lake Road 10013586 016 Concrete Good 0.10 65 0.22

Tall Timbers Lane 10060826 437 Native Good 0.21 - -

Trypsaculm Road 10060745 101 Gravel Good 0.28 - -

Turtle Pond Levee Road 10060827 479 Native Good 1.08 - -

Turtle Pond Levee Road 10060827 479 Native Fair 0.16 - -

Unit 3 Access Roads 10049441 227 Gravel Excellent 0.85 65 0.37

Unit 3 Access Roads 10049441 227 Gravel Good 3.19 65 0.37

Unit 3 Access Roads= 10049441 227 Gravel Good 1.08 65 0.37

US Powder Road 10049458 487 Gravel Good 0.96 65 0.06

US Powder Road - 443 Native Good 0.19 - -

US Power Pond Lane - 450 Gravel Fair 0.52 - -

West A-5 Road - 424 Native Good 0.48 - -

West Gate Road 10049460 482 Gravel Good 2.61 65 0.83

West Tripp Access Trail Road 10049454 439 Gravel Good 0.89 65 0.13

Wild Turkey Trail Road 10060829 448 Native Good 0.82 - -

Wolf Creek Bay Lane 10049459 480 Gravel Good 0.78 65 0.13

Wolf Creek Road 10013513 015 Asphalt Fair 3.03 65 0.2

Wolf Creek Road 10013513 015 Gravel Good 1.00 65 0.2

Wolf Creek Service Road 10013513 485 Gravel Good 1.12 65 0.2
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-16

Table 13 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Cypress 

Creek 

NWR

Baldwin Tract Access Road - 402 Native Good 0.23 - -

Bellrose Levee Road 10012677 415 Gravel Excellent 2.37 - -

Bellrose Levee Road 10012677 415 Gravel Good 0.81 - -

Bellrose Levee Road 10012677 415 Native Good 3.84 - -

Bellrose Levee Road 10012677 415 Native Fair 1.55 - -

Boyd North Access Road - 405 Native Good 0.49 - -

Boyd South Public Access Road 10060256 104 Native Good 0.12 - -

Boyd South Service Access Rd - 427 Native Good 0.36 - -

Boyd Tree Farm Road 10060255 103 Gravel Good 0.23 - -

Boyd Tree Farm Road 10060255 103 Gravel Excellent 0.06 - -

Brushy Levee Access Road 10060678 412 Native Good 3.49 - -

Brushy Levee Access Road 10060678 108 Gravel Fair 0.29 - -

Century Access Road 10059848 430 Native Fair 0.64 - -

Churchill Road - 416 Gravel Fair 0.59 - -

Cypress Pond Road - 428 Native Good 0.20 - -

Delta Lands East Access Road 10060676 410 Gravel Excellent 0.36 - -

Delta Lands East Access Road 10060676 410 Native Excellent 0.27 - -

Delta Lands North Access Road 10060676 107 Native Good 0.32 - -

Delta Lands West Access Road 10060676 409 Native Excellent 0.83 - -

Easter Slough Access Road - 431 Native Good 0.85 - -

Eggner Road 10054792 419 Native Good 1.96 - -

Goings Barn Access Road - 411 Native Good 0.13 - -

Greenberg Hunter Access Road 10060257 105 Gravel Good 0.05 - -

Greenberg Service Access Road - 406 Native Good 0.10 - -

Harris Road - 429 Gravel Good 0.08 - -

Hickory Bottomas Service Acc - 425 Native Good 1.05 - -

Hickory Bottoms Access Road 10012635 100 Gravel Good 0.32 100 0.4

Hilmanns 70 Road - 414 Native Good 0.40 - -

Hodge Park Cemetery Road - 106 Gravel Excellent 0.11 - -

Ice Grain Access Road 10059854 408 Primitive Good 0.79 - -

Johnsons Road - 432 Native Good 0.24 - -

Junkers Road 10060675 422 Native Good 0.75 - -

Kerley Road - 420 Native Good 5.16 - -

Maintenance Shop Road 10012625 300 Asphalt Fair 0.59 - -

Mount Olive Service Road - 426 Native Good 0.69 - -

Needham Road - 400 Gravel Good 0.22 - -

North Kerley Wetlands Road - 423 Native Poor 0.07 - -

Old Channel Access Road 10060254 102 Gravel Good 0.12 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-17

Table 14 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Cypress 

Creek NWR

Owens Access Road 10045676 424 Gravel Good 0.54 - -

Pools Road - 413 Primitive Good 0.18 - -

Richardson Tract Access Road - 404 Native Fair 0.65 - -

Richardson Tract North 

Access Road - 403 Native Good 0.08 - -

Schierbaum Road - 418 Native Good 0.40 - -

Stringer Tract Access Road - 401 Native Fair 0.88 - -

Stubblefield Road - 417 Native Good 0.20 - -

Unity North Field Access 

Road - 407 Native Good 0.26 - -

Wood Duck Slough Access 

Road 10055968 101 Gravel Excellent 0.26 - -

Wood Duck Slough Service 

Access Road 10055968 421 Native Good 0.31 - -

Emiquon 

NWR

Glode District Service Road - 402 Native Excellent 3.56 - -

Minter Access Road - 401 Gravel Good 0.39 - -

Minter Access Road - 401 Native Excellent 1.39 - -

North Glode District Service 

Road - 403 Native Excellent 0.66 - -

Old Oxbow Access Road 10052374 400 Primitive Fair 0.32 65 0.28

Meredosia 

NWR

Nature Trail Entrance Road 10014040 010 Gravel Good 0.11 65 0.08

Shearl/Skinner Wetlands 

Road 10014047 101 Gravel Good 0.11 65 0.44

Kloker Entrance Road 10043497 100 Gravel Failed 0.10 65 0.01

Shop Road - 300 Native - 0.07 - -

Skinner Levee Road - 400 Native - 1.05 - -

Willow Creek Levee Road - 401 Native - 1.98 - -

Shearl Levee Road - 402 Native - 1.07 - -

Meredosa Levee Road - 403 Native - 0.87 - -

Savanna 

District

B Area Road 10052704 413 Asphalt Fair 0.91 - -

B Area Road 10052704 413 Gravel Excellent 1.74 - -

B Area Road 10052704 413 Gravel Good 1.26 - -

Barge Lake Landing Road 

(Esmay Slough) - 102 Gravel Good 0.07 - -

Beacheather Loop 10052704 412 Asphalt Poor 0.94 - -

Beacheather Loop 10052704 412 Asphalt Fair 0.37 - -

Beacheather Loop 10052704 412 Gravel Excellent 0.45 - -

Coast Guard Boat Launch 

Road 10052704 401 Gravel Excellent 0.33 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-18

Table 15 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Savanna 

District

E 400 Area Service Road 10052704 407 Gravel Excellent 1.39 - -

E 1700 Service Road 10052704 409 Asphalt Poor 1.02 - -

E Area Service Road 10052704 408 Gravel Excellent 0.91 - -

E Area Service Road 10052704 408 Asphalt Fair 0.17 - -

E Service Road 10052704 410 Gravel Excellent 1.44 - -

E Road 10052704 411 Gravel Excellent 1.09 - -

E Road 10052704 411 Asphalt Poor 0.58 - -

Frog Pond Access Road 10011848 100 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

F 700 Service Road 10052704 406 Gravel Good 1.16 - -

F Area Service Road 10052704 405 Gravel Excellent 4.65 - -

Ingersoll Wetlands Learning 

Center Access 10011821 010 Asphalt Good 0.08 - -

K Service Road 10052704 403 Asphalt Poor 5.69 - -

North Service Road 10052704 402 Gravel Excellent 1.08 - -

North Service Road 10052704 402 Native Good 1.59 - -

Pleasant Creek Moist Soil 

Unit Road 10052704 415 Native Good 0.95 - -

Pleasant Creek Service Road 10052704 414 Native Good 2.57 - -

Pleasant Creek Service Road 10052704 414 Native Fair 2.05 - -

Potter's Marsh Access Road 10011826 416 Gravel Good 0.80 - -

Potter's Marsh Dike Road 10011818 417 Gravel Good 1.13 - -

River Road 10052704 101 Asphalt Excellent 1.02 - -

River Road 10052704 101 Asphalt Poor 1.49 - -

River Service Road 10052704 400 Asphalt Fair 2.17 - -

River Service Road 10052704 400 Asphalt Poor 4.86 - -

Sloane Marsh Levee Road 10011838 418 Native Fair 1.31 - -

Sloane Marsh Levee Road 10011838 418 Gravel Good 0.19 - -

Shinske Service Road 10052704 404 Asphalt Fair 3.35 - -

Spring Lake Cross Dike Road 10011802 420 Gravel Excellent 1.42 - -

Spring Lake Exterior Levee 

Road 10011846 419 Gravel Excellent 4.28 - -

Spring Lake Exterior Levee 

Road 10011846 419 Native Excellent 1.08 - -

Spring Lake Exterior Levee 

Road 10011846 419 Native Good 1.72 - -

Spring Lake Interior Dike A 10011845 422 Gravel Good 0.37 - -

Spring Lake Interior Dike C 10011845 421 Gravel Fair 0.72 - -

Spring Lake Interior Dike B 10052552 423 Gravel Excellent 0.69 - -

Spring Lake Service Access 10011808 424 Native Good 0.29 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-19

Table 16 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Two Rivers 

NWR

Access To Silt Basin Road - 410 Primitive Good 0.27 - -

Batchtown Entrance Road 10013788 102 Gravel Good 0.20 - -

Batchtown Middlle Pool 

Road 10013786 401 Gravel Good 1.11 - -

Batchtown Middlle Pool 

Road 10013786 401 Gravel Fair 0.57 - -

Batchtown MSU Dike Road 10013789 402 Native Good 0.94 - -

Blooms Landing Access 

Road 10013764 106 Gravel Good 0.23 80 0.94

Calhoun Wetlands Pump 

Station Road 10013740 101 Gravel Excellent 0.95 - -

Calhoun Msu Road 10013756 406 Gravel Good 0.79 - -

Calhoun Savanna Road - 412 Native Good 0.29 - -

County Road MSU 10013757 417 Native Good 0.13 - -

Duck Club MSU Road 10013756 405 Gravel Fair 0.35 - -

Duck Pocket Access Road - 411 Primitive Good 0.12 - -

Employee Entrance Road 10013749 300 Gravel Excellent 0.18 80 0.34

Gilbert Lake Overlook Road 10013781 104 Gravel Good 0.39 80 0.42

Gilead Entrance Road 10013795 103 Gravel Good 0.15 - -

Gilbert Lake Road - 011 Gravel Good 0.06 - -

Gilbert Lake Leeve Road 10013780 409 Gravel Good 2.95 - -

Headquarters Entrance 

Road 10013765 010 Asphalt Fair 0.09 - -

Little Swan MSU Road 10013773 407 Gravel Good 0.62 - -

Little Swan Savanna Road - 408 Native Good 0.50 - -

Lower Swan Lake Pump 

Station Road 10013767 105 Gravel Good 0.51 100 0.31

Lower Swan Lake Access 

Road 10013741 100 Asphalt Fair 0.58 - -

Maintenance to Office MSU 

Road 10013769 403 Gravel Good 0.28 80 0.68
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-20

Table 17 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – ILLINOIS (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Two Rivers 

NWR

Office MSU Road 10013737 404 Native Good 0.27 - -

Pump Station MSU Road 10013744 414 Native Good 0.92 - -

Swan Lake Levee Road 10013766 400 Gravel Excellent 3.14 - -

Swan Lake Levee Road 10013766 400 Gravel Good 3.04 - -

Upper Calhoun MSU Dike 

Road 10013751 415 Native Good 0.55 - -

Upper Calhoun Boundary 

Road - 416 Native Good 0.88 - -

Well #2 and 3 Road 10057579 413 Gravel Good 0.49 - -

Middle 

Mississippi 

River NWR

Middle Harlow Island 

Access Road 10043505 100 Native Fair 0.16 100 0.25

Rockwood Island Service 

Road 10061186 400 Primitive Good 0.05 - -

Wilkinson Island North 

Road 10061160 401 Primitive Good 1.12 - -

Wilkinson Island Dike Road 10061162 402 Native Fair 0.85 - -

Wilkinson Island Center 

Access Road 10043500 403 Native Fair 1.27 100 0.23

Middle Wilkinson Island 

Access Connector Road 10061152 404 Primitive Good 0.25 - -

Middle Wilkinson Island 

Access Spur Road 10061157 405 Primitive Good 0.08 - -

Wilkinson Island Southern 

Access Road 10061162 406 Gravel Good 0.07 - -

Meissner Island Service 

Road 10061184 407 Primitive Good 0.24 - -

Middle Harlow Island 

Service Road 10061180 408 Primitive Good 0.02 - -

Shop Road 10055415 409 Gravel Good 0.06 50 0.73
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-21

Table 18 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – INDIANA

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Big Oaks 

NWR

A Road East 10010709 424 Gravel Good 0.21 65 0.07

Big Tree Point 10010734 106 Gravel Good 0.55 65 0.13

B Road West 10010710 405 Gravel Good 0.43 65 0.1

A Road West 10010709 406 Gravel Good 1.33 65 0.07

A Road West 10010709 406 Gravel Excellent 1.33 65 0.07

Avco Alley Road 10010725 425 Gravel Excellent 1.93 65 0.03

Avco Alley Road 10010725 425 Gravel Good 1.93 65 0.03

B Road East 10010710 426 Gravel Good 0.39 65 0.1

Bombfield Road 10010728 408 Gravel Good 0.92 65 0.17

C Road 10010711 404 Gravel Good 3.04 65 0.03

Center Recovery A Road 10010726 431 Gravel Good 1.12 65 0.03

Center Recovery A Road 10010726 431 Gravel Good 0.90 65 0.03

Center Recovery A Road 10010726 432 Gravel Excellent 1.01 65 0.03

Center Recovery A Road 10010726 432 Gravel Good 0.53 65 0.03

Center Recovery B North 

Road 10010727 407 Gravel Excellent 1.32 65 0.02

Center Recovery B South 

Road 10010727 413 Gravel Good 1.17 65 0.02

Cottrell Road A South 10010717 423 Gravel Good 1.06 100 0.03

Cottrell Road A South 10010717 423 Gravel Excellent 0.57 100 0.03

Cottrell Road B 10010718 410 Gravel Excellent 5.83 65 0.03

Cottrell Road B 10010718 410 Gravel Good 0.97 65 0.03

Cottrell Road B 10010718 410 Gravel Fair 3.34 65 0.03

D Road Central 10010712 401 Gravel Good 2.46 65 0.03

D Road West 10010712 402 Gravel Good 0.63 65 0.03

D Road West 10010712 419 Gravel Good 0.87 65 0.03

D Road East 10010712 420 Gravel Good 0.73 65 0.03

E Road West 10010713 416 Gravel Good 2.55 65 0.03

E Road West 10010713 416 Gravel Fair 0.50 65 0.03

E Road East 10010713 421 Gravel Excellent 0.80 65 0.03

East Outlet Road 10010731 100 Gravel Excellent 1.65 65 0.06

East Outlet Road 10010731 100 Gravel Good 1.65 65 0.06

Emergency Landing Field 

Road 10010733 409 Gravel Excellent 2.13 100 0.04

Emergency Landing Field 

Road 10010733 409 Gravel Good 0.35 100 0.04

F Road East 10010714 428 Gravel Good 0.43 65 0.03

F Road East 10010714 428 Gravel Excellent 0.47 65 0.03
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-22

Table 19 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – INDIANA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Big Oaks 

NWR

F Road West 10010714 415 Gravel Good 1.61 65 0.03

Heron Inlet Road 10010735 105 Gravel Excellent 0.35 65 0.14

I Road East 10010715 411 Gravel Good 1.09 65 0.1

I Road East 10010715 411 Gravel Fair 0.67 65 0.1

I Road West 10010727 414 Gravel Fair 0.64 65 0.02

Jinestown Road 10010723 400 Gravel Excellent 4.07 100 0.05

L Road 10010716 101 Gravel Excellent 1.06 65 0.32

L Road 10010716 101 Gravel Good 0.94 65 0.32

Machine Gun Road 10010732 011 Gravel Excellent 2.81 100 0.14

Middle Fork North Road 10061611 403 Gravel Excellent 0.78 - -

Middle Fork South Road 10061611 417 Gravel Excellent 0.14 - -

Morgan Road A North 10010721 429 Gravel Good 1.89 100 0.03

Morgan Road A South 10010721 430 Gravel Excellent 1.06 100 0.03

Morgan Road A South 10010721 430 Gravel Good 2.23 100 0.03

Morgan Road B 10010722 427 Gravel Good 2.01 65 0.03

Northeast Exit Road 10010730 010 Gravel Fair 1.03 65 0.1

Northeast Exit Road 10010730 010 Gravel Excellent 1.49 65 0.1

Northeast Exit Road North 10010730 107 Gravel Excellent 0.99 65 0.1

Serano Brett Road 10010724 102 Gravel Excellent 1.96 65 0.14

Old Chimney Point Road 10010736 104 Gravel Excellent 0.61 65 0.14

Shaped Charge Road 10010729 012 Gravel Excellent 2.06 65 0.24

Shaped Charge Road 10010729 012 Gravel Good 1.68 65 0.24

Snag Hole Point Road 10010737 103 Gravel Excellent 0.51 65 0.14

Wonju Road A 10010719 418 Gravel Excellent 2.36 - -

Wonju Road A 10010719 418 Gravel Good 1.07 - -

Wonju Road B North 10010720 412 Gravel Good 1.01 65 0.04

Muscatatuck 

NWR

1225E Road 10043678 103 Gravel Good 1.00 65 0.08

400N Road 10043676 011 Gravel Good 1.03 100 0.13

400N Road 10043676 011 Gravel Excellent 1.02 100 0.13

500N Road 10043677 102 Gravel Excellent 0.68 65 0.1

County Line Road 10010608 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.59 65 0.09

County Line Road 10010611 010 Gravel Good 0.68 65 0.19

County Line Road 10010611 010 Gravel Excellent 2.69 65 0.19

East 400N Road 10049632 415 Native Good 0.35 65 0.1

East Linda Lake Road 10049633 416 Native Good 0.63 65 0.13

Endicott Dike Access Road 10010626 407 Native Fair 0.30 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-23

Table 20 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – INDIANA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Muscatatuck 

NWR

G1 Dike Access Road 10010618 418 Gravel Excellent 0.83 - -

G2 Access Road 10010621 422 Native Fair 0.52 - -

Judy Pond Access Road 10010624 414 Native Good 0.35 - -

Linda Lake Dike Road 10010593 417 Native Excellent 0.15 - -

M5 Dike Access Road 10010633 408 Native Good 0.43 - -

M3 Dike Access Road 10010579 410 Native Fair 0.28 - -

M7 Access Road 10010617 420 Gravel Excellent 0.67 - -

M9 Access Road 10010641 423 Native Good 0.47 - -

M8 Access Road 10010619 424 Native Fair 0.65 - -

M10 Access Road 10010622 421 Native Good 0.46 - -

McDonald South Dike Road 10010682 402 Native Good 0.29 - -

McDonald North Dike Road 10010679 403 Native Fair 0.20 - -

Moss Lake Dam Access 

Road 10010616 419 Gravel Good 0.98 - -

MS 1 Dike Road 10010632 401 Native Fair 0.75 - -

MSU 4 Dike Access Road 10010589 409 Native Fair 0.56 - -

MSU 2 Dike Access Road 10010590 411 Native Fair 0.48 - -

Myers Cabin/Lake Linda 

Road 10043679 104 Gravel Excellent 0.71 65 0.13

North 1225 East Road 10049637 404 Native Good 0.21 65 0.13

North 500E Road 10049631 405 Gravel Good 0.82 65 0.13

North 500E Road 10049631 405 Concrete Fair 0.15 65 0.13

Office Pond Road 10010604 400 Primitive Good 0.18 - -

Q40 Road 10010591 406 Native Good 0.58 - -

Residence Access Road 10049635 301 Asphalt Fair 0.09 65 0.13

Shop Access Road 10049635 300 Gravel Excellent 0.61 65 0.13

Sioux Pond Dike Road 10010625 412 Native Good 0.30 - -

Visitor Center Road 10010610 101 Asphalt Good 0.20 - -

West Wagner Farm Field 

Access Road 10010629 413 Primitive Good 0.32 - -

Patoka River 

NWR

Bel Ox-Bow Access Road - 404 Primitive Excellent 0.03 - -

Cane Ridge Dike Road 10056486 409 Native Fair 0.82 - -

Cane Ridge Dike Road 

South 10056486 412 Native Fair 0.42 - -

Dillin Service Access Road 10055519 400 Gravel Good 0.78 - -

Dillin Spur Access Road 10055519 401 Native Excellent 0.05 - -

DU Lane - 408 Primitive Fair 0.60 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-24

Table 21 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – INDIANA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Patoka River 

NWR

DuPont Service Access 

Road 10061191 403 Primitive Fair 0.59 - -

East Graulich Field Road 10036059 405 Primitive Good 0.25 65 0.1

Fromme Access Road 10054429 402 Native Fair 0.49 55 0.72

Monty Lane - 413 Native Good 0.16 - -

Oil Well Road 10061188 407 Gravel Fair 0.57 - -

Ray's Island Access Road 10055523 411 Gravel Excellent 0.09 - -

Tern Island Access Road 10054300 410 Gravel Excellent 0.09 - -

West Graulich Field Road A 10036058 406 Primitive Good 0.48 65 0.11
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-25

Table 22 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MICHIGAN

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Detroit 

Lakes WMD

Anderson Access Road 10058643 400 Gravel Good 0.37 80 0.23

Arneson Access road - 408 Gravel Excellent 0.37 - -

Beaulieu Lake Access Road 10058639 409 Gravel Fair 0.41 80 0.22

Christensen Access Road 10058644 405 Native Good 0.04 80 0.23

Jenkins Access Road - 403 Native Excellent 0.13 - -

Kruger Access Road - 407 Gravel Good 0.31 - -

Melvin Slough Access Road - 402 Gravel Good 0.49 - -

North Shop Access Loop - 300 Gravel Good 0.09 - -

Paul Sr. Access Road - 401 Primitive Good 0.02 - -

Rushfeldt Access Road 10058636 404 Gravel Good 0.44 80 0.23

Seilt Access Road 10058636 406 Primitive Good 0.13 80 0.23

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Humbug Marsh Access 

Road 10058589 400 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Humbug Marsh Access 

Road 10058589 400 Native Good 0.14 - -

Humbug Pumphouse 

Easement Road 10058589 401 Gravel Good 0.40 - -

Michigan 

WMD Kinney WPA Access Road 10060050 100 Gravel Good 0.27 - -

Seney NWR

A-2 to Pine Creek Road 10010489 423 Gravel Good 1.10 65 0.21

A-2 to Pine Creek Road 10010489 423 Native Good 1.04 65 0.21

A-2 to Pine Creek Road 10010489 423 Native Fair 0.41 65 0.21

C-2 Dike Top Road 10010485 424 Gravel Good 3.37 65 0.08

C-3 Pool Road 10010488 102 Gravel Excellent 0.35 65 0.15

C-3 Pool Service Road 10010486 402 Gravel Excellent 2.93 - -

Chicago Farm Loop 10010442 410 Primitive Good 1.52 - -

Chicago Farm Road 10010475 407 Gravel Excellent 3.55 65 0.03

Chicago Farm Road 10010475 407 Gravel Good 0.96 65 0.03

Delta Creek Road 10010482 406 Gravel Excellent 1.48 - -

Doubtful Road 10010467 422 Gravel Good 1.13 65 0.02

Doubtful to UGP Road 10010472 419 Gravel Good 3.21 65 0.36

Driggs River Road 10010462 101 Gravel Excellent 2.15 65 0.26

Driggs River Service Road 10010485 405 Gravel Excellent 11.55 65 0.08

Driggs River Service Road 10010485 405 Gravel Good 4.12 65 0.08

Driggs River Service Road 10010485 405 Native Good 1.90 65 0.08

Fishing Access Road 10010465 100 Gravel Excellent 1.95 65 0.35

Fishing Access Road 10010465 100 Gravel Good 1.83 65 0.35
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-26

Table 23 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MICHIGAN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Seney NWR

Fishing Loop Back Road 10010471 415 Gravel Good 1.21 - -

Greys Creek Bypass Road 10010466 418 Gravel Excellent 0.48 65 0.34

Log Cabin Road 10010463 302 Gravel Excellent 0.06 - -

I Spur Road 10010469 416 Gravel Good 0.24 - -

I Spur Road 10010469 416 Native Fair 0.39 - -

H Spur Road 10010468 417 Gravel Fair 0.34 65 0.39

Lower Goose Pen Road 10010473 420 Gravel Fair 1.08 - -

Lower Goose Pen Road 10010473 420 Gravel Good 1.21 - -

M-2 Service Road 10010477 408 Gravel Good 2.08 - -

M-2 Service Road 10010477 408 Gravel Excellent 2.09 - -

Maintanence Road 10010463 300 Gravel Excellent 0.77 - -

Maintanence Road 10010463 300 Gravel Good 0.09 - -

Marshland Wildlife Drive 10010464 011 Asphalt Fair 0.03 - -

Marshland Wildlife Drive 10010464 011 Gravel Excellent 4.26 - -

Marshland Wildlife Drive 10010464 011 Gravel Good 2.99 - -

North Show Pool Road - 413 Native Good 0.08 - -

Northern Hardwoods CrossCountry Ski Area Access 

Road 10010473 105 Gravel Good 0.04 - -

Pine Creek Road 10010474 421 Gravel Excellent 2.06 - -

Pine Creek Road 10010474 421 Gravel Good 2.66 - -

Pine Creek Road 10010474 421 Native Good 1.39 - -

Pine Creek Road 10010474 421 Native Fair 2.07 - -

Quarters 2 Road - 304 Asphalt Fair 0.10 - -

Railroad Road 10010470 401 Primitive Excellent 0.14 - -

Quarters Road 10058628 303 Asphalt Poor 0.16 - -

Refuge Main Entrance Road 10010461 010 Asphalt Fair 0.03 65 0.22

Refuge Main Entrance Road 10010461 010 Asphalt Poor 1.03 65 0.22

River Road Residence Access 

Road 10010463 305 Gravel Excellent 0.08 - -

Riverside Dike Road 10010483 425 Native Good 4.77 65 0.03

Riverside Dike Road 10010483 425 Native Fair 8.39 65 0.03

Riverside Dike Road 10010484 425 Native Poor 1.07 - -

Sand Diverson Ditch Road 10010480 404 Native Good 1.52 65 0.13

South Show Pool Road - 414 Native Good 0.10 - -

Shop Access Road 10058628 301 Asphalt Fair 0.07 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-27

Table 24 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MICHIGAN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles

API FCI

Seney NWR

T-2 East Road 10059888 411 Gravel Good 1.01 - -

T-2 East Road 10059888 411 Native Fair 0.97 - -

T-2 Pool Dam Road 10059888 412 Gravel Excellent 0.07 - -

T-2 West Road 10059889 409 Primitive Good 0.16 - -

T-2 West Road 10059889 409 Primitive Fair 2.23 - -

Walsh Creek Hunter Access 

Road 10010431 400 Native Good 1.47 65 0.12

Walsh Road 10010487 103 Gravel Excellent 0.26 65 0.1

Walsh Creek WCS Access 

Road 10010486 403 Gravel Excellent 0.39 - -

Wigwam Picnic Road - 104 Gravel Excellent 0.08 - -

Shiawassee 

NWR

Auto Tour Route 10035955 010 Gravel Excellent 4.71 - -

Auto Tour Route 10035955 010 Native Excellent 0.50 - -

Bartel Dike Road 10010512 406 Gravel Excellent 1.51 - -

Bremer Road 10010499 407 Gravel Good 0.64 80 0.12

Bremer Road 10010499 407 Primitive Good 0.50 80 0.12

Cass River Boat Launch Road 10056480 100 Gravel Excellent 0.07 - -

Evon Service Road 10010516 404 Gravel Excellent 1.15 80 0.07

Farm Unit 1 Road 10010514 410 Gravel Good 2.78 80 0.02

Ferguson Bayou Dike Road 10010527 412 Native Good 2.26 - -

Ferguson Bayou Dike Road 10010527 412 Gravel Excellent 1.71 - -

Flint River Road 10010562 418 Native Fair 2.61 - -

Gossen Road 10010544 411 Gravel Good 0.59 - -

Hart Access Road 10010522 419 Primitive Good 0.10 - -

Houlihan Service Road 10036097 401 Gravel Good 0.51 80 0.13

Houlihan/Evon Connector 

Road 10036098 402 Native Good 0.50 65 0.14

MSU 2 South Dike Road 10060581 414 Native Fair 0.57 - -

MSU 1 South Dike Road 10060581 415 Native Good 0.38 - -

MSU 3/4 Dike Road 10010500 403 Native Good 1.10 - -

MSU 3/4 Dike Road 10010500 403 Native Fair 0.99 - -

MSU 3/4 Dike Road 10010500 403 Primitive Good 1.38 - -

Pool 1a/1b Access Road 10010498 408 Gravel Good 0.49 - -

Pool 1a/1b Access Road 10010498 408 Native Good 1.77 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-28

Table 25 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MICHIGAN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Shiawassee 

NWR

Pool 1a/1b Cross Dike Road 10010510 409 Native Good 0.70 - -

Pool 2 South Dike Road 10010496 416 Gravel Excellent 0.64 - -

Pool 2 Low Level Dike Road 10010562 417 Native Fair 1.02 - -

Pool 3/5 Access Road 10010529 413 Gravel Good 0.91 - -

Schramke Road 10036096 400 Gravel Good 0.28 80 0.07

Schramke Road 10036096 400 Native Good 0.94 80 0.07

Schramke Road 10036096 400 Primitive Good 0.43 80 0.07

Stroebel Access Road 10010528 420 Native Fair 0.31 80 0.12

Turner Service Road 10010515 405 Primitive Fair 0.50 65 0.13

Warner Road 10060580 101 Gravel Excellent 0.09 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-29

Table 26 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Agassiz 

NWR

Goose Pen Road 10011125 411 Native Fair 1.12 - -

Maakstad Trail Access Road 10042455 114 Gravel Good 0.13 - -

Maintenance Center Road 10011167 117 Gravel Excellent 0.96 - -

Madsen Road 10011121 425 Native Fair 3.09 - -

Maintenance Road 10011167 113 Gravel Good 0.43 - -

Middle Berg Road 10042689 427 Native Fair 0.98 - -

Mud River Angle-Dike Road 10011184 419 Native Poor 1.17 - -

Mud River Angle-Dike Road 10011184 419 Native Fair 0.27 - -

Nelson Triangle Road 10058394 421 Native Good 0.78 - -

North Boundary Road 10011058 111 Gravel Excellent 5.06 100 0.05

Northgate Road 10011078 105 Gravel Excellent 1.50 - -

Northgate Road 10011078 105 Gravel Fair 2.34 - -

Northgate Road 10011078 105 Gravel Good 4.57 - -

Northwest Pool Road 10011059 103 Gravel Excellent 1.52 - -

Pool 21 Road 10011104 109 Gravel Excellent 2.23 100 0.38

Preachers Groove Road 10052397 404 Native Poor 1.59 100 0.32

Rodahl Trail 10060920 401 Gravel Excellent 0.58 - -

Rodahl Cutaccross Road 10060921 402 Native Good 1.79 - -

Secondary Road 10052400 417 Native Good 0.38 100 0.32

Tamarac Road 10011054 104 Gravel Excellent 1.73 100 0.28

Tamarac Road 10011054 104 Gravel Fair 0.24 100 0.28

South Boundary Road 10060916 406 Native Fair 1.06 - -

South Boundary Road 10060916 406 Native Good 0.82 - -

South Pool Road 10060918 403 Native Fair 1.46 - -

Thief Bay Road 10011050 429 Native Good 2.14 - -

Thief Bay Road 10011050 429 Native Fair 2.20 - -

Thief Bay Bridge Road 10011067 430 Native Fair 0.89 100 0.03

Thief River Road 10011093 102 Gravel Good 3.32 100 0.13

Thief River Road 10011093 102 Gravel Excellent 0.97 100 0.13

Thief River Road-Service Use 10011093 426 Native Good 2.62 100 0.13

Tower Road 10011094 432 Native Good 1.05 - -

Unit 41-42 Road - 407 Native Good 0.48 - -

Webster Road 10011074 110 Gravel Good 1.41 100 0.04

West Parker Dike Road - 422 Native Fair 0.07 - -

West Parker Road 10011138 100 Gravel Excellent 1.15 100 0.26

Westgate Road 10011119 101 Gravel Excellent 4.83 - -

Wier Road 10011102 420 Native Good 2.14 - -

Wier Road 10011104 420 Native Fair 1.58 100 0.38
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-30

Table 27 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Big Stone 

NWR

Autotour Route 10012681 010 Asphalt Excellent 4.15 - -

Autotour Route 10012681 010 Asphalt Good 1.02 - -

Banding Site Road 10012690 411 Gravel Excellent 1.37 - -

Gravel Pit Island Road 10012716 404 Gravel Good 0.74 100 0.46

Klepel Road 10012692 401 Gravel Excellent 0.74 65 0.12

Koch Road 10012693 402 Gravel Good 1.07 65 0.14

Koch Road 10012693 402 Gravel Excellent 0.60 65 0.14

Low Flow Parking Access 

Road 10055153 103 Asphalt Excellent 0.09 100 0.24

Low Flow Road 10055153 101 Asphalt Poor 0.69 100 0.24

Low Road 10012694 405 Gravel Good 0.75 - -

Low Road 10012715 405 Gravel Excellent 1.16 - -

No Bridge Access Road 10043068 100 Asphalt Excellent 0.17 - -

Pool 5 Dike Road 10012724 412 Gravel Excellent 0.37 - -

Pool 4A Dike Road 10012706 408 Native Good 0.68 - -

Ruby Red Road 10012726 406 Native Good 1.23 65 0.12

Sellin Trail Access Road 10012718 102 Asphalt Excellent 0.07 - -

Sellin Trail Road 10012718 400 Gravel Excellent 2.83 - -

Shop Loop - 300 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Syndicate Road 10012691 403 Gravel Excellent 0.65 65 0.12

West/East Between Road 10012705 407 Gravel Good 0.97 - -

Yellowbank Road 10055155 410 Native Fair 0.45 65 0.17

Arends/Swedzinski WPA 

Dike Road 10054431 400 Gravel Good 0.59 - -

Crane 

Meadows 

NWR

Entrance Road 10038249 010 Gravel Excellent 0.48 100 0.18

Platte River Trail Road 10038266 100 Gravel Excellent 0.14 - -

Girtz Road 10038263 400 Gravel Good 0.14 80 0.28

Fergus Falls 

WMD

Backstorm Service Road 10044439 427 Primitive Fair 0.18 - -

Bah Lakes Service Road 10060729 411 Primitive Good 0.14 - -

Banke Slough Access Road 10059828 129 Gravel Good 0.31 - -

Bellmore WPA Access Road 10052533 127 Gravel Fair 0.65 65 0.2

Benson Service Road 10044439 410 Primitive Good 0.11 - -

Blakesley Service Road 10044454 415 Native Good 0.32 - -

Cheney Access Road 10043101 114 Native Good 0.50 65 0.78

Dahler West Access Road 10043109 106 Native Fair 0.25 65 0.65
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-31

Table 28 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Fergus Falls 

WMD

Ellis Access Road 10043099 121 Native Fair 0.12 65 0.79

End Lake Service Road 10044439 406 Primitive Good 0.03 - -

Equipment Loop 10012123 302 Native Fair 0.09 65 0.05

Frigaard-Nelson Service Road 10044439 421 Primitive Good 0.13 - -

Grandokken North Access 

Road 10043097 108 Gravel Excellent 0.19 65 0.71

Grandokken South Access 

Road 10043098 109 Gravel Excellent 0.37 65 0.72

Grenna Lake Access Road 10043105 102 Native Fair 0.31 65 0.78

Haugrud-Sillerud WPA Access 

Road 10059825 128 Native Fair 0.08 - -

Headquarters Entrance Road 10056211 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.03 - -

Headquarters Rear Garage 

Road 10044439 428 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Hoffman Access Road 10043100 113 Native Fair 0.08 65 0.61

J.I. Case Service Road 10044439 405 Primitive Good 0.10 - -

Julsrud Public Road 10052534 123 Gravel Good 0.38 - -

Klein Service Road 10044439 401 Primitive Fair 0.22 - -

Knollwood WPA Access Road - 125 Gravel Excellent 0.06 - -

Kube North Access Road 10043114 118 Native Failed 0.12 65 0.46

Kunz Access Road 10043113 117 Native Failed 0.10 65 0.79

Lightning Lake Access Road 10043108 105 Gravel Good 0.17 65 0.64

Langos Service Road 10044439 404 Primitive Fair 0.36 - -

Mickelson Service Road 10044439 423 Primitive Fair 0.09 - -

Mud Lake Service Road 10044454 419 Primitive Fair 0.14 - -

Nicholson Access Road 10012120 111 Gravel Good 0.21 65 0.23

Nicholson Hunting Road 10060727 424 Primitive Fair 0.50 - -

Nicholson Service Road 10044439 425 Gravel Good 0.43 - -

Odens West Service Road 10044440 412 Primitive Fair 0.22 - -

Orange Service Road 10044440 400 Primitive Good 0.03 - -

PCA Access Road 10043111 112 Gravel Excellent 0.15 65 0.59

Pelican Creek Service Road 10044454 420 Primitive Good 0.11 - -

Pelican River Road 10043107 104 Native Good 0.02 - -

Peter Lien Access Road 10043110 110 Native Fair 0.20 65 0.77

Prairie Wetlands Learning 

Center Service Drive - 300 Asphalt Good 0.09 - -

Reger Service Road 10044439 402 Primitive Fair 0.59 - -

Redhead Slough Service Road 10044454 414 Primitive Good 0.23 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-32

Table 29 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Fergus Falls 

WMD

Ridgeway Service Road 10052543 426 Primitive Good 0.09 - -

Rolling Acres Service Road 10044439 408 Primitive Excellent 0.20 - -

Runestone Service Road 10044439 407 Primitive Good 0.03 - -

Schultz Lake Access Road 10054826 120 Gravel Good 0.12 - -

Sellevold Service Road 10044439 409 Primitive Good 0.09 - -

Sethrye Access Road 10043104 101 Gravel Good 0.33 65 0.34

Shop Road 10012123 301 Gravel Good 0.89 65 0.05

Spink Access Road 10052280 115 Native Failed 0.23 - -

Spink Service Road East 10044454 417 Primitive Good 0.11 - -

Spink Service Road West 10044454 418 Primitive Fair 0.32 - -

Spink North Public Access 

Road 10052539 124 Gravel Good 0.49 - -

Steinlicht Service Road 10044454 416 Primitive Good 0.18 - -

Stowe Lake Service Road 10044439 403 Primitive Good 0.29 - -

Sumstad Access Road 10012137 107 Native Fair 0.25 65 0.75

Ten Mile Service Road 10044439 422 Primitive Good 0.03 - -

Tomhave Access Road 10043112 116 Gravel Good 0.07 65 0.53

Tweeton WPA Access Road 10043103 126 Native Fair 0.24 65 0.79

Wagner Public Road 10059827 122 Gravel Excellent 0.08 - -

Zickur Access Road 10012092 119 Native Failed 0.16 65 0.6

Zickur Service Road 10044440 413 Primitive Excellent 0.02 - -

Glacial 

Ridge NWR

North Herman Ridge Road - 401 Primitive Good 0.96 - -

Old Pembina Trail 10056932 400 Primitive Good 0.65 - -

Old Pembina Trail 10056932 400 Native Good 1.13 - -

South Herman Ridge Road - 402 Primitive Good 2.39 - -

Hamden 

Slough 

NWR

Bisson Lake Access Road 10058645 402 Gravel Good 0.26 - -

Eagle Lake Access Road 10052403 401 Primitive Fair 0.96 - -

Eagle Lake Access Road 10052403 401 Gravel Good 0.37 - -

Frog Pond Access Road 10060873 403 Primitive Good 0.33 - -

Homestad Lake Access Road 10052403 400 Gravel Good 0.39 - -

Homestad Lake Access Road 10052403 400 Primitive Fair 0.32 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-33

Table 30 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Litchfield 

WMD

Barta-Oliva WPA South 

Parking Access Road - 113 Gravel Good 0.22 - -

Henjum Lake WPA Access 

Road 10046315 111 Gravel Excellent 0.25 65 0.05

Padua East Access Road 10012238 102 Native Failed 0.25 65 0.73

Krain Service Access Road 10058786 401 Primitive Good 0.19 - -

Litchfield Headquarters Road 10046066 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.11 - -

Pelican Lake West Access Rd 10043496 107 Gravel Excellent 0.09 65 0.04

Prairie Storm WPA Access Rd - 110 Gravel Excellent 0.04 - -

Pelican Lake East Service 

Parking 10052177 404 Native Excellent 0.34 65 0.12

Shakopee Creek Access Road 10043494 105 Native Fair 0.10 - -

Sogge Access Road 10012232 100 Native Failed 0.08 65 0.58

Silver Creek Access Road 10012223 106 Gravel Failed 0.12 65 0.98

Swan Lake Access Road 10012252 104 Gravel Good 0.08 65 0.73

Stone Lake Service Road 10012303 400 Gravel Good 0.14 - -

Stone Lake Public Access Road - 108 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Summit Lake Access Road - 112 Native Good 0.24 - -

Twin Lakes Access Road 10012244 101 Native Fair 0.22 65 0.8

Trisko Access Road 10043495 103 Native Fair 0.13 65 0.06

Twin Lakes North Service 

Access Road - 402 Native Good 0.44 - -

Zehrer Hunting Access Road 10052161 109 Native Good 0.22 - -

Zwemke WPA Service Road - 403 Primitive Good 0.04 - -

Minnesota 

Valley NWR

Bass Ponds Access Road 10012375 101 Asphalt Excellent 0.10 - -

Bass Pond Lower Parking 

Access Road 10012334 104 Asphalt Excellent 0.18 - -

Bloomington Ferry Unit Road 10049371 400 Gravel Excellent 0.64 65 0.2

Black Dog Observ Access Rd - 427 Gravel Excellent 0.08 - -

Chaska Moist Soil Unit Acc. Rd 10012482 411 Native Good 0.59 65 0.22

Chaska Unit Service Access Rd 10012482 410 Gravel Good 1.09 65 0.22

Chaska Unit Service Access Rd 10012482 410 Native Good 0.69 65 0.22

Con Grain Dike/Levee Road 10012536 408 Native Good 0.75 - -

Corridor Trail Service Road 10012513 415 Native Good 1.91 65 0.12

County Road 50 Extension 10043518 103 Asphalt Excellent 0.49 65 0.2

County Road 50 Extension 10043518 103 Gravel Good 0.26 65 0.2

Duck Lane Hunter Access Road - 421 Native Good 0.40 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-34

Table 31 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Minnesota 

Valley NWR

Field Offices Access Road 10012310 100 Asphalt Fair 0.07 - -

Fisher Lake Road 10012451 407 Native Good 1.24 65 0.21

Floods Road 10012512 425 Native Good 0.52 - -

Hillside Access Loop 10012379 423 Gravel Good 0.44 - -

Hogback Marsh Access Road 10012379 422 Gravel Good 0.53 - -

Hogback Marsh Access Road 10012379 422 Gravel Excellent 0.07 - -

Hogback Pond Access Road 10012380 424 Gravel Good 0.75 - -

Hogback Pond Access Road 10012379 424 Gravel Excellent 0.06 - -

Jabs Trail Service Road 10012512 416 Gravel Good 2.33 - -

Kelley Trail Access Road 10012365 426 Gravel Excellent 3.58 - -

Kelley Trail Access Road 10012365 426 Gravel Good 0.23 - -

Kelley Trail Access Road 10012365 426 Native Good 0.73 - -

Kelley Trail Access Road 10012365 426 Primitive Excellent 0.72 - -

Louisville North Service Acc Rd 10012492 414 Gravel Good 1.16 65 0.14

Middle Road 10012503 417 Gravel Excellent 1.45 - -

North Mazomani Trail Road 10012517 419 Native Good 1.86 65 0.19

Old County Road 18 10049979 102 Asphalt Fair 0.90 65 0.11

Old County Road 18 Service 

Trail 10049977 401 Asphalt Fair 0.82 65 0.16

Picnic Access Road 10012503 418 Gravel Good 0.46 - -

Rapids Lake Central Service 

Access Rd 10049978 413 Asphalt Excellent 0.27 - -

Rapids Lake Central Service 

Access Rd 10049978 413 Native Good 1.71 - -

Rapids Lake Central Service 

Access Rd 10049978 413 Native Fair 2.36 - -

Rapids Lake Central Service 

Access Rd 10049978 413 Gravel Good 0.66 - -

Rapids Lake Shop Access Rd - 301 Gravel Excellent 0.18 - -

Rapids Lake West Service Rd - 412 Native Good 1.08 - -

Rice Lake Access Road 10012477 409 Native Good 0.14 65 0.14

Rice Lake Levee/Dike Serv Rd 10012537 402 Native Good 1.06 - -

Rice Lake Wayside Service Rd 10012537 403 Gravel Good 0.77 - -

Rice Lake Wayside Service Rd 10012537 403 Native Good 0.24 - -

Shakopee Shop Access Road 10036046 300 Gravel Excellent 0.39 65 0.77

South Mazomani Trail Road 10012523 420 Native Good 1.65 65 0.16

Wikie Unit Moist Soil 

Levee/Dike Rd 10012470 406 Native Good 0.40 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-35

Table 32 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Minnesota 

Valley NWR

Wilkie Blue Lake Trail Service 

Road 10012448 405 Native Good 0.95 65 0.13

Wilkie Central Access Road 10012537 404 Gravel Good 0.74 - -

Soberg WPA Service Road 10052119 400 Native Good 0.60 - -

Hurley WPA Service Road 10052080 401 Native Good 0.14 - -

Felber WPA Access Road 10059776 100 Gravel Excellent 0.08 - -

Cobb River WPA Service Road - 402 Native Good 0.45 - -

MN Pheasants WPA Service 

Road - 403 Gravel Excellent 0.33 - -

Howard Farm WPA Access 

Road 10052075 101 Gravel Excellent 0.13 - -

Mud Lake WPA Service Road 10052093 404 Primitive Excellent 0.22 - -

Mud Lake WPA Access Road 10052091 102 Gravel Excellent 0.05 - -

Perbix WPA Service Road 10052100 405 Gravel Good 0.24 - -

Morris 

WMD

Anderson Entrance Road 10043664 105 Native Failed 0.12 65 0.39

Artichoke Food Plot Road 10060662 402 Primitive Good 0.20 - -

Bengston WCS Road 10060664 409 Primitive Failed 0.12 - -

Clinton Entrance Road 10043665 106 Gravel Good 0.49 65 0.73

Clinton Entrance Road 10043665 106 Primitive Fair 0.10 65 0.73

Dakota Crossing Road 10060670 401 Primitive Good 0.37 - -

Fish Lake #1 Entrance Road 10060230 412 Native Good 0.22 - -

Fish Lake #2 Entrance Road 10060230 127 Gravel Good 0.23 - -

Hillman #2 Entrance Road - 108 Gravel Good 0.99 - -

Heidebrink Entrance Road 10011954 113 Primitive Good 0.15 65 0.13

Huebner Access Road 10048528 136 Primitive Fair 0.33 - -

HQ Predator Fence Road 10060621 300 Native Fair 0.28 - -

Johnson WPA East Access 

Road 10011956 135 Gravel Good 0.27 65 0.37

Klevenburg Entrance Road 10043667 114 Gravel Good 0.24 65 0.63

Lake Johanna Entrance Road 10043668 116 Native Failed 0.13 65 0.43

Loen Access Road 10060658 137 Gravel Good 0.10 - -

Lynch Lake Entrance 10043642 103 Native Failed 0.30 65 0.33
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-36

Table 33 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Morris 

WMD

Loen Food Plot Road 10060658 407 Native Good 0.29 - -

Loen WCS Road 10060659 408 Primitive Fair 0.51 - -

Mattson Entrance Road 10043669 117 Native Fair 0.12 65 0.88

Miller Food Plot Road 10060663 404 Primitive Good 0.05 - -

Mau WCS Road 10060665 405 Primitive Fair 0.31 - -

Nelson Lake #1 Entrance Road 10011957 118 Native Failed 0.46 65 0.25

Nelson Lake #2 Entrance Road 10011957 119 Gravel Good 0.12 65 0.25

Ostenberg Entrance Road 10043670 120 Native Failed 0.33 65 0.82

Robinhood Entrance Road 10043673 101 Native Fair 0.16 65 0.12

Paul Entrance Road 10043672 100 Native Failed 0.09 65 0.13

Solvie Entrance Road 10060231 133 Native Failed 0.16 - -

Staack Entrance Road 10043671 121 Native Failed 0.11 65 0.82

Sherstad Slough Entrance Rd - 132 Native Fair 0.02 - -

Schultz Food Plot Road 10060661 403 Primitive Good 0.18 - -

Stenerson #3 Entrance Road - 410 Gravel Good 0.22 - -

Swede Home Food Plot Road 10060660 400 Native Good 0.17 - -

Tangen Entrance Road 10043666 112 Native Failed 0.12 65 0.39

Welfare Entrance 10060232 134 Gravel Good 0.30 - -

Walden Service Road 10060667 406 Gravel Good 0.13 - -

Westport Crossing Road 10060671 411 Primitive Fair 0.29 - -

Wildlife Trail 10011995 010 Gravel Good 2.56 65 0.4

Rice Lake 

NWR

Auto Tour Road 10011485 011 Gravel Excellent 5.51 65 0.14

Davidson Road 10011497 403 Gravel Excellent 0.93 65 0.11

Magnason Road 10058227 405 Native Fair 0.82 80 0.34

Magnason Road 10058227 406 Gravel Good 0.52 80 0.34

Main Entrance Road 10011473 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.13 65 0.38

Main Entrance Road 10011473 010 Gravel Excellent 1.84 65 0.38

Main Entrance Road 10011473 010 Gravel Good 2.13 65 0.38

Maintenance Site Road 10011476 300 Gravel Good 0.47 65 0.27

Mandy Lake Access Loop 10011496 101 Gravel Excellent 0.25 65 0.47

North Bog Access Road 10011487 407 Gravel Good 0.38 65 0.12

North Bog Access Road 10011487 407 Native Fair 1.03 65 0.12

North Bog Road 10011487 102 Gravel Excellent 1.85 65 0.12

Rice Lake Pool Road 10060631 400 Native Good 0.21 - -

Service Loop Shortcut Road 10058298 402 Gravel Good 0.21 80 0.34

South Landing Road 10058301 404 Native Good 0.31 50 0.17

South Trail Access Road 10011486 408 Gravel Good 2.60 65 0.12
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-37

Table 34 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Rice Lake 

NWR

South Trail Road 10011486 100 Gravel Excellent 0.60 65 0.12

Storage Yard Access Road 10011495 301 Gravel Good 0.14 - -

Twin Lakes Picnic Road 10011488 103 Gravel Excellent 0.13 - -

West Fields Loop Road 10060582 401 Native Good 1.93 - -

Rydell NWR

Aasnes Field Road 10053164 402 Native Good 0.27 65 0.31

Auto Tour Road 10043695 013 Asphalt Fair 0.04 65 0.12

Auto Tour Road 10043695 013 Gravel Excellent 0.91 65 0.12

Bluebird Field Road 10053164 403 Primitive Excellent 0.04 65 0.31

Buness Field Access Road 10053164 407 Primitive Good 0.29 65 0.31

Church Lake Access Road 10053164 400 Gravel Excellent 0.10 65 0.31

Church Lake Road 10043694 012 Gravel Good 1.70 65 0.12

Church Lake Road 10043694 012 Gravel Excellent 0.61 65 0.12

Clifford Lake Road 10043697 101 Gravel Excellent 0.86 65 0.12

Ditch 73 Access Road 10043695 404 Gravel Fair 0.08 65 0.12

Fern Gully Field Access Road 10053164 409 Primitive Good 0.07 65 0.31

Golden Pond Road 10043693 011 Gravel Good 0.47 65 0.12

High Lake Field Access Road 10053164 408 Primitive Fair 0.14 65 0.31

Little Otter Field Access Road 10053164 410 Primitive Good 0.22 65 0.31

Old County 10 Road 10043696 100 Gravel Excellent 1.46 65 0.12

Partridge Field Road 10053164 405 Native Good 0.35 65 0.31

Rance Lake Field Road - 412 Gravel Excellent 0.36 - -

Refuge Entrance Road 10012040 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.02 65 0.4

Refuge Entrance Road 10012040 010 Gravel Excellent 0.15 65 0.4

Shop Access Road - 300 Gravel Excellent 0.26 - -

Rodres Field Road 10053164 401 Native Good 0.07 65 0.31

Tamarac Trail Road 10043695 014 Gravel Excellent 0.47 65 0.12

Tamarac Trail Road 10043695 014 Asphalt Fair 0.08 65 0.12

Solie Field Access Road 10053164 406 Primitive Good 0.15 65 0.31

Sunset Lake Outlet Road 10053164 411 Gravel 0.08 65 0.31

Sunset Lake Outlet Road 10053164 411 Primitive Good 0.28 65 0.31
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-38

Table 35 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Sherburne 

NWR

Auto Tour Road 10011568 011 Gravel Excellent 5.42 65 0.07

Auto Tour Road 10011568 011 Gravel Good 0.91 65 0.07

Bohm Break Road 10058340 425 Native Fair 0.44 100 0.33

Bohm Break Road 10058340 425 Native Good 0.92 100 0.33

Bohm East Break Road 10058340 426 Native Fair 0.83 100 0.33

Brande Break Road 10058340 406 Native Fair 0.65 100 0.33

Brande Road 10043708 100 Gravel Excellent 0.77 65 0.38

Brande Road 10043708 100 Gravel Good 1.77 65 0.38

Burgerson Road Josephine 

Diversion 10011566 417 Primitive Good 0.14 65 0.09

Cty 42 Break Road 10058340 403 Primitive Good 0.69 100 0.33

Carpenter Road 10011552 430 Gravel Excellent 1.48 80 0.12

Deer Pond Road 10058340 412 Primitive Good 0.31 100 0.33

Durgin Road 10011566 431 Gravel Excellent 2.17 65 0.09

Durgin Road 10011566 431 Gravel Good 0.70 65 0.09

East Bergerman Pool Road 10011566 418 Primitive Excellent 0.11 65 0.09

East Break Road 10058351 433 Native Fair 0.45 - -

East Carpenter Road 10011566 437 Gravel Excellent 0.65 65 0.09

East Carpenter Road 10011566 437 Native Good 0.47 65 0.09

Edson Break Road 10058340 400 Native Fair 1.90 100 0.33

Enchanted Break Road 10058340 411 Native Good 0.60 100 0.33

Fox Pool Road 10058351 441 Gravel Excellent 0.82 - -

Headquarters Road 10036211 010 Asphalt Fair 0.10 - -

Josephine Overlook Loop 10011566 416 Gravel Good 0.49 65 0.09

Long Pool Launch Access 10036217 101 Gravel Good 0.40 80 0.09

Lacey Break Road 10058340 401 Native Fair 0.49 100 0.33

Long Lake Access Road 10011566 409 Gravel Good 1.01 65 0.09

Maintenance Shop Road 10011554 300 Gravel Excellent 0.65 65 0.1

Nagorski Break Road 10058340 427 Primitive Fair 0.68 100 0.33

Nikko Road 10058340 423 Gravel Excellent 1.48 100 0.33

Nikko Road 10058340 423 Native Fair 0.83 100 0.33

North Break Road 10058340 404 Native Good 0.99 100 0.33

North Blue Hill Road 10058340 408 Native Good 2.53 100 0.33
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-39

Table 36 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Sherburne 

NWR

North Josaphine Pool Road 10011566 419 Primitive Excellent 0.09 65 0.09

North Muskrat Road 10058340 435 Native Fair 1.02 100 0.33

Oak Savanna Road 10011553 438 Gravel Excellent 0.36 65 0.06

Oak Savanna Road 10011553 438 Native Good 0.89 65 0.06

Oak Savanna Road 10011553 438 Primitive Good 0.71 65 0.06

Orrock Lake Road 10058340 429 Native Good 1.20 100 0.33

Oak Savanna Two Track Road 10011566 439 Primitive Good 0.34 65 0.09

Papike Road 10058340 405 Primitive Good 0.32 100 0.33

Rumbley Bridge Road 10058340 402 Native Good 0.33 100 0.33

Rumbly Bridge West Road 10011566 407 Native Good 0.51 65 0.09

School House Pond Road 10011566 414 Native Excellent 0.26 65 0.09

School House Pool Spur Road 10011566 415 Primitive Good 0.26 65 0.09

School House Pool Dike South 

Road 10011566 421 Native Good 0.25 65 0.09

School House Road 10011551 413 Gravel Excellent 1.34 65 0.08

School House Road 10011551 413 Gravel Good 1.07 65 0.08

Severson Road 10011549 420 Gravel Excellent 0.61 65 0.03

Severson Road 10011549 420 Gravel Good 1.44 65 0.03

South Josaphine Pool Road 10011566 424 Native Good 0.44 65 0.09

South Muskrat Pool Road 10011566 436 Native Good 0.38 65 0.09

St. Francis Dike Road 10011566 434 Gravel Good 1.08 65 0.09

Storlie Road 10043709 103 Gravel Fair 0.49 65 0.1

Storlie Service Road 10058351 440 Gravel Excellent 0.38 - -

Talllakson Road 10011566 432 Primitive Fair 0.96 65 0.09

Teal Break Road 10058340 428 Gravel Excellent 0.57 100 0.33

West Blue Hill Road 10058340 410 Native Good 0.98 100 0.33

White Pine Break Road 10058340 422 Native Fair 0.85 100 0.33

Tamarac 

NWR

Banding House Road 10011622 303 Primitive Good 0.11 80 0.53

Beaver Valley Trail 10057900 417 Primitive Fair 1.33 - -

Big Egg Lake Access Trail 10011616 409 Gravel Fair 0.39 80 0.71

Blackbird Auto Tour Road 10011643 012 Gravel Excellent 5.42 100 0.31

Boneyard/Equipment Road 10060506 302 Gravel Good 0.60 - -

Booth Lake Trails 10057898 427 Native Good 1.06 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-40

Table 37 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Tamarac 

NWR

Booth Lake Trails 10057898 427 Primitive Fair 0.57 - -

Bruce Boulevard 10011614 011 Gravel Excellent 0.85 - -

Bruce Boulevard 10011614 011 Gravel Good 4.01 - -

Bunkhouse Access Road 10060506 301 Gravel Good 0.09 - -

Cabin Point Trail 10057927 403 Primitive Good 0.33 - -

Carmen Lake Access Road 10055189 413 Gravel Good 0.11 80 0.16

Chippewa Trail 10011624 418 Gravel Excellent 1.08 80 0.06

Chippewa Trail 10011624 418 Native Good 1.06 80 0.06

Chippewa Trail 10011624 418 Gravel Good 0.50 80 0.06

Dike Road 10057895 400 Gravel Excellent 0.47 100 0.62

Dike Road 10057895 400 Native Good 1.84 100 0.62

Dry Lake Trail 10011617 407 Gravel Fair 1.14 80 0.07

East Boundary Road - 416 Primitive Fair 0.41 - -

East Height of Land Lake 

Access Road 10057902 430 Gravel Good 0.09 65 0.4

Egg Lake Trail 10011615 408 Gravel Good 1.06 80 0.41

Egg Lake Trail 10011616 408 Gravel Fair 0.42 80 0.71

Egg Lake Trail 10011616 408 Native Good 4.05 80 0.71

Flat Lake Trail 10011626 401 Gravel Good 3.42 80 0.46

Food Plot Road - 428 Primitive Fair 0.54 - -

Herfendahl Road 10011641 421 Gravel Excellent 0.88 80 0.33

Herfendahl Landing Access 

Road 10055184 422 Gravel Excellent 0.62 80 0.26

Job Corp Road 10057906 420 Native Good 0.50 100 0.48

Job Corp Road 10057906 420 Asphalt Poor 0.09 100 0.48

Job Corp Road 10057906 420 Gravel Excellent 0.20 100 0.48

Johnson Lake Road 10055188 425 Native Good 1.05 80 0.36

Johnson Lake Road 10055188 425 Native Fair 0.33 80 0.36

Long Fields Trail 10011622 424 Gravel Fair 0.46 80 0.53

Lost Lake Trail 10011620 405 Primitive Good 0.17 80 0.44

Lost Lake Trail 10011620 103 Gravel Good 1.20 80 0.44

Lost Lake Trail 10011620 103 Gravel Fair 0.65 80 0.44

Lost Lake Trail 10011620 405 Native Good 0.81 80 0.44

Lower Egg Lake Access Trail 10055192 410 Gravel Good 0.14 80 0.9

Maintenance Access Road 10057912 300 Gravel Good 0.16 100 0.34

Mallard Lake Trail 10056574 406 Gravel Good 0.20 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-41

Table 38 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Tamarac 

NWR

Mallard Lake Trail 10056574 406 Native Fair 0.51 - -

Mallard Lake Trail 10056574 406 Primitive Fair 0.96 - -

North Flat Lake Trail 10057926 402 Native Good 1.22 - -

Ogemash Trail 10011630 404 Gravel Good 1.12 80 0.4

Ogemash Trail 10011630 404 Native Excellent 0.38 80 0.4

Ogemash Trail 10011630 404 Native Good 3.17 80 0.4

Pine Lake Access Road 10055185 429 Gravel Good 0.21 80 0.74

River Road 10011621 414 Gravel Good 1.72 80 0.38

River Road 10011621 414 Native Good 2.05 80 0.38

South Tamarac Lake Access 

Road 10043748 102 Gravel Excellent 0.27 - -

Sugarbush Trail Landing 

Access Road 10011625 101 Gravel Excellent 0.52 80 0.67

South Chppewa Trail Service 

Road 10011623 426 Gravel Good 1.14 80 0.66

Spruce Doll - 423 Primitive Good 0.11 - -

Tower Road - 411 Primitive Fair 0.17 - -

Two Island Lake Access Road 10011619 412 Native Good 0.04 80 0.71

Teacracker Road 10036757 415 Gravel Good 1.12 80 0.28

Teacracker Road 10036757 415 Native Good 4.07 80 0.28

Tower Road - 411 Primitive Fair 0.17 - -

Two Island Lake Access Road 10011619 412 Native Good 0.04 80 0.71

Visitor Center Entrance Road 10011647 010 Asphalt Poor 0.23 - -

Wauboose Lake Access Road 10011618 100 Gravel Excellent 0.40 80 0.49

West Rice Lake Access Road - 419 Gravel Fair 0.98 - -

West Height of Land Lake 

Access Road 10057905 431 Native Good 0.08 65 0.97

Windom 

WMD

Dutch Creek Access Road 10043746 100 Gravel Good 0.47 65 0.73

Cottonwood Lake Access Road - 408 Native Good 0.20 - -

Goose Lake Access Road 10012204 409 Gravel Good 0.46 65 0.73

Halls Lake South Parking 

Access Road 10060685 108 Gravel Fair 0.07 - -

Headquarters Road 10012047 104 Asphalt Fair 0.27 - -

Lost Lake WPA Access Road 10060691 110 Gravel Good 0.26 - -

Pierce Lake WPA Access Road 10060680 410 Primitive Good 0.39 - -

Iowa, Chicago & Eastern 

Access Road 10060693 109 Primitive Good 0.20 - -

Pletz Marsh Access Road 10043791 101 Native Good 0.58 65 0.32
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-42

Table 39 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MINNESOTA (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Windom 

WMD

Pipestone WPA Access Road - 401 Native Fair 0.31 - -

Pilot Grove Lake WPA Access 

Road - 411 Native Good 0.20 - -

Rush Lake Access Road 10060695 403 Primitive Fair 0.32 - -

Slaughter Slough WPA Access 

Road - 402 Native Good 0.76 - -

Sioux Forks Access Road 10012188 103 Gravel Fair 0.19 65 0.73

Souix Forks WPA Access Road - 404 Gravel Fair 0.29 - -

Swan Lake Access Road 10060689 412 Native Good 0.38 - -

Timber Lake Access Road - 400 Gravel Good 0.26 - -

Wolf Lake West Access Road 10043779 405 Gravel Good 0.24 65 0.14

Wolf Lake West Access Road 10043779 405 Primitive Good 0.18 65 0.14

Wolf Lake East Access Road 10012182 406 Native Good 0.12 65 0.36

Wolf Lake Food Plot Access 

Road - 407 Native Good 0.34 - -

Winona 

District

McNally Landing Road 10011739 100 Asphalt Good 0.19 - -

Half Moon Canoe Landing 

Road 10011725 101 Asphalt Excellent 0.14 - -

Half Moon Boat Landing Road 10011725 102 Asphalt Excellent 0.08 - -

Peterson Lake Boat Launch 

Access Road 10043773 103 Asphalt Excellent 0.06 - -

McNally Landing Service Road 10060942 400 Gravel Excellent 0.21 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-43

Table 40 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MISSOURI

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Big Muddy 

National 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Baltimore Bottom East Access 

Road 10042849 106 Gravel Excellent 0.89 65 0.07

Baltimore Bottom Service 

Road 10060713 408 Native Good 0.86 - -

Bluff View Road 10060719 404 Gravel Fair 1.07 - -

Bluff View Road 10060719 404 Native Fair 0.35 - -

Boone's Crossing Levee Road 10051881 411 Native Good 0.20 - -

Boone's Crossing Road 10060721 400 Native Good 0.90 - -

Bryant Cabin Road 10060716 402 Gravel Good 0.63 - -

Cranberry Bend Access Road 10042853 100 Gravel Excellent 0.57 65 0.04

Cranberry Bend Levee Road 10051879 406 Gravel Good 3.23 - -

Cranberry Bend Levee Road 10051879 406 Native Good 2.56 - -

Cranberry Bend West Levee 

Road 10060714 407 Native Good 0.20 - -

Cranberry Bend West Levee 

Road 10060714 407 Native Fair 0.28 - -

Jackass Bend Access Road 10042845 104 Gravel Good 1.06 - -

Jackass Bend Rock Road 10042847 409 Gravel Good 0.22 - -

Jackass Bend Rock Road 10042847 409 Primitive Good 0.52 - -

Jameson Chute Service Road 10060712 405 Native Good 0.31 - -

Jameson Island Access Road 10042854 102 Gravel Good 0.13 - -

Lisbon Bottoms Access Road 10042843 101 Gravel Excellent 0.03 - -

Loesing Road 10051880 107 Gravel Good 0.20 65 0.09

Lone Tree Scour Road 10060718 403 Gravel Fair 0.57 - -

Overton Bottoms Access Road 10042839 103 Gravel Good 0.95 - -

Rock Sill River Road 10060710 410 Native Excellent 0.08 - -

St. Aubert Upland Access Road 10042852 401 Gravel Good 0.24 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-44

Table 41 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MISSOURI (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Clarence 

Cannon 

NWR

Big Pond Road 10043092 100 Gravel Excellent 0.99 - -

Hemphill Road 10013948 401 Gravel Good 0.59 100 0.06

Main Access Road 10013940 010 Gravel Excellent 3.39 - -

Maintenance Road 10013948 300 Gravel Excellent 0.10 100 0.06

Pond Structure Road 10013948 403 Gravel Good 0.36 100 0.06

Pumphouse Road 10013948 402 Gravel Good 1.07 100 0.06

Rabbit Ears Road 10043093 400 Gravel Good 0.95 100 0.37

Unit 5 Road 10013948 404 Native Good 0.88 100 0.06

Unit 7 Road 10013948 405 Gravel Good 0.77 100 0.06

Great River 

NWR

Cattail Marsh Road 10013922 402 Gravel Excellent 0.87 - -

Levee Road 10013922 405 Gravel Good 2.88 - -

Shed Road 10013922 404 Gravel Excellent 0.63 - -

Shoveler Marsh Road 10013922 401 Gravel Good 0.82 - -

Sny Outlet Road 10013922 403 Gravel Good 0.53 - -

Upper Swan Road 10013922 400 Gravel Good 1.13 - -

Mingo 

NWR

Auto Tour Route Cut Off Road 10057305 107 Asphalt Fair 0.17 - -

Bluff Road 10012964 102 Asphalt Excellent 0.79 65 0.18

Bluff Road 10012964 102 Asphalt Fair 4.37 65 0.18

Disabled Hunter Blind Access 

Road 10057309 400 Gravel Excellent 0.10 100 0.91

Bow Hunter Road - 110 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Ditch 10 Road 10012950 402 Gravel Good 0.25 65 0.36

Ditch 1 Radial Gate Access 

Road 10057286 408 Gravel Fair 0.32 100 0.9

Ditch 11 Access/Sewage

Lagoon Road 10057239 417 Gravel Good 0.09 100 0.87

Ditch 11 Road 10057252 415 Primitive Good 0.51 - -

Ditch 2 & 3 Lateral Road 10037634 406 Gravel Good 0.97 65 0.31

Ditch 2 Levee Road 10037631 410 Gravel Good 1.38 55 0.33

Ditch 2 Levee Road 10037631 410 Primitive Good 1.55 55 0.33

Ditch 4 Road 10012952 109 Gravel Good 1.08 65 0.24

Ditch 4 Road 10012952 109 Gravel Fair 1.24 65 0.24

DItch 5/11 Road 10057253 112 Gravel Good 0.22 100 0.9

Ditch 6 Auto Tour Route 10012967 12 Gravel Excellent 3.04 - -

Ditch 6 Auto Tour Route 10012967 012 Gravel Good 0.61 - -

Employee Entrance Road 10012968 300 Asphalt Poor 0.04 80 0.09
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-45

Table 42 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MISSOURI (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Mingo 

NWR

Flat Banks Road 10012963 105 Gravel Excellent 0.54 - -

Flat Banks Road 10012963 105 Gravel Good 0.70 - -

Fox Pond Road 10057294 108 Gravel Excellent 0.10 65 0.9

Goose Pen Road 10057257 414 Primitive Good 0.22 100 0.88

Job Corps Entrance Road 10012962 104 Asphalt Fair 1.09 65 0.22

Job Corps Entrance Road 10012962 104 Gravel Excellent 0.43 65 0.22

May Pond Entrance Road 10049354 200 Gravel Good 0.08 - -

Mingo Creek Picnic Road - 401 Gravel Good 0.13 - -

McGee Entrance Road 10012982 411 Gravel Good 1.27 65 0.23

Moist Soil Unit 4 Road 10012979 409 Native Fair 1.09 - -

Moist Soil Unit 4 Road 10012979 409 Native Good 0.94 - -

Moist Soil Units 2 & 3 Road 10012978 412 Gravel Good 0.42 - -

Moist Soil Units 2 & 3 Road 10012978 412 Native Fair 1.34 - -

Moist Soil Units 5 & 6 Road 10012976 413 Primitive Good 0.13 - -

Moist Soil Units 5 & 6 Road 10012976 413 Native Good 0.58 - -

Moist Soil Units 8 & 9 Acc Rd 10057247 404 Gravel Fair 0.27 100 0.9

Moist Soil Units 8 & 9 Dike Rd 10012981 405 Native Fair 1.45 - -

Moist Soil Units 8 & 9 Dike Rd 10012981 405 Native Good 1.19 - -

Pierman Road 10057242 111 Gravel Good 0.08 100 0.87

Red Mill Entrance Road 10012965 100 Gravel Good 0.99 65 0.25

Red Mill Drive 10012969 101 Gravel Excellent 4.16 65 0.37

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Asphalt Poor 1.01 - -

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Asphalt Good 0.15 - -

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Asphalt Excellent 0.11 - -

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Asphalt Fair 0.19 - -

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Gravel Excellent 12.44 - -

Refuge Auto Tour Route 10037240 011 Gravel Good 1.34 - -

Residence Road 10037242 301 Asphalt Fair 0.23 65 0.07

Rockhouse Culvert Storage Rd 10057241 418 Gravel Good 0.18 100 0.87

Sandblow Ridge Road 10037630 106 Gravel Good 1.01 - -

Sandblow Ridge Road 10037630 106 Gravel Excellent 1.28 - -

Sandblow Ridge Service Road 10057311 407 Primitive Good 0.33 80 0.76

Sifford Field Road 10057310 403 Primitive Good 0.35 80 0.9

Visitor Center Entrance Road 10012968 010 Asphalt Fair 0.29 80 0.09

Visitor Center/Sewage Lagoon 

Road 10057215 416 Gravel Good 0.24 80 0.9
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-46

Table 43 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – MISSOURI (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Squaw 

Creek NWR

Auto Tour Route 10050579 011 Asphalt Good 0.52 65 0.1

Auto Tour Route 10013096 011 Gravel Excellent 7.82 100 0.1

Auto Tour Route 10013096 011 Gravel Good 2.00 100 0.1

Bird House Road 10053186 408 Native Excellent 0.22 65 0.01

Boneyard Road 10053190 302 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Davis Creek Ditch Road 10053186 405 Native Good 3.83 65 0.01

Davis Creek Ditch Road 10053186 405 Native Fair 1.07 65 0.01

Farm Field Road 10053186 404 Native Fair 0.75 65 0.01

Farm Field Road 10053186 404 Gravel Excellent 0.61 65 0.01

Golden 40 Hunt Club Road 10053186 406 Native Good 0.25 65 0.01

Headquarters Entrance Road 10050583 010 Asphalt Fair 0.20 - -

Loess Hill Road 10053186 407 Primitive Good 0.37 65 0.01

Mallard Marsh Trail Road 10043721 012 Gravel Excellent 1.25 65 0.11

Mallard Marsh Trail Road 10043721 012 Gravel Good 1.01 65 0.11

Pelican Pool Levee Road 10053186 400 Native Good 1.18 65 0.01

Residence Road 10053186 301 Gravel Good 0.13 65 0.01

Snow Goose Access Road 10053186 402 Native Good 2.46 65 0.01

Split Levee Road 10053186 401 Native Fair 2.19 65 0.01

Squaw Creek Ditch Road 10053186 403 Gravel Excellent 0.21 65 0.01

Squaw Creek Ditch Road 10053186 403 Native Good 3.69 65 0.01

Upper Shop Road 10053190 300 Gravel Excellent 0.14 - -

Swan Lake 

NWR

Levee 1 Road 10036773 014 Gravel Excellent 2.39 65 0.02

Levee 1 Road 10036773 014 Gravel Good 1.00 65 0.39

Levee 2 Road 10036770 011 Gravel Excellent 1.09 65 0.14

Levee 3 Road 10036772 013 Gravel Excellent 2.96 65 0.14

Levee 5 Road 10036771 012 Gravel Excellent 3.16 65 0.14

Maintenance Road 10013218 300 Gravel Excellent 0.19 65 0.13

North Hunter Road 10036774 102 Gravel Good 0.37 65 0.39

North Swan Lake Agric Serv Rd 10060129 400 Gravel Excellent 0.60 - -

Old Nature Trail Road 10013220 101 Gravel Excellent 0.53 65 0.12

Parking Area P Access Road 10036774 401 Primitive Good 0.24 65 0.39

Service Patrol Road 10013181 404 Gravel Excellent 1.58 - -

Service Patrol Road 10013181 404 Gravel Good 1.24 - -

Service Patrol Road 10013181 404 Gravel Fair 1.07 - -

Silver Lake Overlook Road - 103 Gravel Excellent 0.24 - -

South Pool Levee Road 10060132 402 Gravel Good 3.36 - -

Taylor Point Fishing Access 10013219 100 Gravel Good 0.77 65 0.13

Training Levee Road 10060131 403 Gravel Good 0.85 - -

Visitor Center Access Road 10013217 010 Gravel Excellent 1.96 65 0.13

West Swan Lake Levee Road 10060130 405 Gravel Excellent 1.07 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-47

Table 44 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – OHIO

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Cedar Point 

NWR

Cedar Point Loop Road 10010923 401 Gravel Excellent 1.05 100 0.09

Cedar Point Loop Road 10010923 401 Gravel Good 4.89 100 0.09

Cedar Point Loop Road 10010923 401 Native Good 1.56 100 0.09

Pheasant Farm Dike Road 10010923 402 Gravel Fair 1.10 100 0.09

Pheasant Farm Dike Road 10010923 402 Gravel Good 0.27 100 0.09

Pheasant Farm East Dike Road 10010930 403 Native Fair 0.75 - -

Potters Pond Access Road 10010923 400 Gravel Excellent 1.17 100 0.09

Yondota Road Fishing Access 10043088 100 Gravel Good 0.26 65 0.34

Ottawa 

NWR

Blausey Service Road 10042925 447 Asphalt Fair 0.11 - -

Blausey Service Road 10042925 447 Gravel Good 0.21 - -

Darby East Entrance Road 10010801 451 Gravel Good 0.42 65 0.09

Darby Entrance Road 10010802 448 Gravel Good 0.52 65 0.09

Darby Entrance Road 10010802 448 Gravel Good 0.52 65 0.09

Darby Pool 1 South Dike Road 10010864 454 Gravel Good 0.48 - -

Darby Pool 3 Dike Road 10010886 457 Native Good 0.47 - -

Darby Pool 3 Dike Road 10010886 457 Native Fair 0.47 - -

Darby Pool 2 Dike Road 10010862 458 Native Good 0.24 - -

Darby Pool 3/4 Dike Road 10010863 456 Gravel Good 0.53 - -

Darby Pool 4 Cross Dike Road 10010863 455 Gravel Excellent 0.48 - -

Darby Pool 4 Road 10010861 452 Gravel Excellent 1.05 - -

Darby Pool 4 Road 10010861 452 Gravel Good 0.49 - -

Darby South Boundary Dike 

Road 10010884 453 Native Fair 0.28 - -

Darby Unit Lake Erie Entrance 

Road 10010865 449 Gravel Good 1.25 - -

Diefenthaler Service Road - 433 Gravel Excellent 0.40 - -

Entrance Pool Dike Road 10042937 437 Native Good 1.07 - -

Gaeth-Kurdy West Dike Road 10042927 444 Native Good 0.20 - -

Gaeth-Kurdy Center Service 

Road - 443 Native Fair 0.41 - -

Gaeth-Kurdy Center Service 

Road - 445 Gravel Good 0.18 - -

Gaeth-Kurday Access Road 10010921 446 Gravel Good 0.47 65 0

Linsey-Limestone MS Unit 

Road 10010883 407 Gravel Good 0.39 - -

Lodge Road 10010799 430 Gravel Good 0.24 65 0.1

Linsey Dike Road 10010767 431 Native Good 0.47 - -

Metzger's Marsh Road 10010902 412 Gravel Good 0.96 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-48

Table 45 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – OHIO (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Ottawa 

NWR

MS 6 East Road 10010837 424 Native Fair 0.24 - -

Mini Marsh Road 10010823 432 Native Good 0.32 - -

MS 6 South Road 10010881 425 Native Good 0.35 - -

MS 6 West Road 10010882 426 Native Fair 0.36 - -

MS 6 North Dikes Road 10042934 427 Native Fair 0.30 - -

MS 8b Loop Road - 404 Gravel Good 0.26 - -

MS 8b West Road 10050813 405 Gravel Excellent 0.37 - -

MS LL Woods Road - 406 Gravel Good 0.48 - -

MS 7 North Road 10010770 428 Gravel Good 0.57 - -

MS Unit 3 North Side Road 10010774 419 Gravel Fair 1.09 - -

MS Unit 2 Road 10059903 420 Native Good 1.60 - -

MS Unit 3 West Dike Road 10010869 421 Native Fair 0.57 - -

MS Unit 4/5 North Road 10010871 416 Gravel Fair 1.01 - -

MS Unit 5 South & East Dike 

Rd 10010841 417 Gravel Good 1.24 - -

MS Unit 3/4 Common Dike Rd 10010870 418 Gravel Good 0.57 - -

MS Unit 3/4 South Dike Road 10010872 423 Native Good 0.61 - -

MS Unit 6 North Side Road 10010797 422 Gravel Good 0.70 65 0.09

North Lodge Road 10010767 429 Gravel Good 0.35 - -

North Entrance Pool Access Rd 10010853 434 Gravel Excellent 0.49 - -

Ottawa Entrance Road 10010782 010 Asphalt Fair 0.52 - -

Ottawa Entrance Road 10010782 010 Asphalt Excellent 0.06 - -

Ottawa Auto Tour Route 10010796 011 Gravel Excellent 2.13 100 0.17

Ottawa Auto Tour Route 10010796 011 Gravel Good 3.05 100 0.17

Pool 1 West Road 10010866 438 Gravel Good 1.41 - -

Pool 1 Northeast Road 10010850 439 Gravel Excellent 1.58 - -

Pool 1 South Road 10010851 440 Gravel Good 0.39 - -

Pool 2 Dike Road 10010854 401 Gravel Good 2.04 - -

Pool 2a/8a Dike Road 10010856 402 Gravel Excellent 0.52 - -

Pool 2c West & South Dike Rd 10010855 403 Gravel Good 0.73 - -

Pool 2b South & West Dike Rd 10010857 408 Gravel Excellent 0.77 - -

Pool 3 Lakefront Road 10057059 411 Gravel Excellent 1.02 - -

Pool 3 South Dike Road 10010873 414 Gravel Excellent 1.15 - -

Pool 3/9 Common Dike Road 10042932 415 Gravel Excellent 0.28 - -

Pool 4 Lakefront Dike Road 10010867 413 Gravel Good 1.01 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-49

Table 46 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – OHIO (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Ottawa 

NWR

Pool 9 West Dike Road 10052311 409 Gravel Good 0.38 - -

Pool 9 North Side Road 10057050 410 Gravel Good 0.45 - -

Price Unit Access Road - 459 Primitive Fair 0.57 - -

Schneider Access Road 10057047 442 Native Good 0.22 - -

Show Pool Road 10010852 441 Gravel Good 0.27 - -

Show Pool Road 10010852 441 Native Good 0.19 - -

South Woods Service Road - 400 Native Good 0.56 - -

South Woods Service Road - 400 Native Fair 0.27 - -

South Woods Service Road - 400 Primitive Excellent 0.07 - -

South Woods Service Road - 400 Primitive Good 0.30 - -

Stange Road 10060237 100 Asphalt Poor 0.15 - -

Visitor Center Access Road 10051717 012 Asphalt Excellent 0.57 - -

VC Auto Tour Access Road - 101 Gravel Excellent 0.27 - -

West Darby Dike Road 10010865 450 Gravel Good 1.06 - -

West Darby Dike Road 10010865 450 Gravel Excellent 0.35 - -

Woodie's Roost North Access 

Road 10010859 435 Native Good 0.99 - -

Woodie's Roost West Access 

Road 10010858 436 Native Fair 1.10 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-50

Table 47 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – WISCONSIN

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Fox River 

NWR

Fox River Entrance Road 10043094 100 Gravel Good 0.07 - -

Fox River Service Road 10040415 400 Gravel Good 0.30 - -

Fox River Service Road 10040415 400 Primitive Fair 1.08 - -

Horicon 

NWR

Auto Tour Access Road 10011223 013 Asphalt Fair 0.27 - -

Auto Tour Road 10011222 014 Asphalt Fair 2.80 - -

Babbit Road 10041729 102 Primitive Fair 0.14 - -

Boat Ramp Access Road 10040651 409 Gravel Good 0.18 - -

Dike I-4/I-5 Service Road 10041737 401 Gravel Fair 0.46 - -

Dike I-5/Redhead Lake Service 

Road 10011238 402 Gravel Good 0.31 - -

Dike I-7 Road 10011240 410 Primitive Good 0.20 - -

Explosive Shed Road - 300 Gravel Good 0.06 - -

Frankfurth Road 10011293 103 Gravel Fair 1.07 - -

Frankfurth Road 10011293 103 Gravel Good 0.75 - -

I-5 Service Road 10011234 404 Gravel Good 0.25 - -

I-8 Dike Road 10011235 412 Primitive Fair 0.59 - -

Ledge Road - 101 Gravel Excellent 0.78 - -

Little Stoney Island Road 10011257 400 Gravel Excellent 0.10 - -

Luebke Service Road 10041725 411 Gravel Excellent 0.58 - -

Luehring Dike Road 10011256 407 Primitive Fair 1.12 - -

Main Dike Administrative 

Road 10041582 413 Gravel Excellent 3.12 65 0.4

Main Dike Road 10041582 011 Gravel Good 1.47 65 0.4

Main Dike Road 10041582 011 Gravel Excellent 3.89 65 0.4

Maintenance Area Access 

Road 10040490 408 Asphalt Excellent 0.11 65 0.49

Maintenance Area Road 10040490 301 Asphalt Fair 0.20 65 0.49

Old Marsh Road 10011224 012 Gravel Excellent 2.77 65 0.41

Old Marsh Road 10011224 012 Asphalt Poor 0.31 65 0.41

Potato Dike Road 10011224 405 Native Fair 1.58 65 0.41

Redhead/Teal Dike Road 10011262 406 Gravel Excellent 0.09 - -

Redhead/Teal Dike Road 10011262 406 Primitive Good 1.53 - -

Sterr Road 10011237 415 Gravel Good 1.79 65 0.27

Stoney/Redhead Lake Service 

Road 10011286 403 Gravel Fair 0.94 - -

Visitor Center Access Road 10011221 010 Asphalt Fair 0.45 - -

Visitor Center Kiosk Road 10055768 015 Asphalt Fair 0.05 - -

WUI Project Road 10045895 414 Primitive Fair 0.52 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-51

Table 48 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – WISCONSIN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

LaCrosse 

District Lone Tree Road 10011663 100 Gravel Good 0.81 65 0.37

Leopold 

WMD

Bulgrien Road 10060596 400 Gravel Good 0.38 - -

Eckstein WPA Parking Access 

Road 10011396 100 Gravel Excellent 0.03 - -

Harvey's Marsh Road 10011353 202 Gravel Good 0.06 65 0.37

Harvey's Parking Access Road 10043305 201 Native Failed 0.19 65 0.31

Uihlein WPA Service Road 10011388 401 Gravel Excellent 0.81 - -

Vangen WPA Access Road 10011344 402 Native Good 0.12 - -

Necedah 

NWR

Annex Road 10058872 410 Gravel Excellent 0.12 80 0.44

Becker Road 10058848 442 Native Fair 0.71 - -

Bewick Dike Road 10058813 428 Gravel Good 1.34 - -

Bewick South Road 10058813 429 Gravel Good 1.06 - -

Bewick North Road 10058874 430 Gravel Good 1.94 80 0.21

Canfield East Road 10058878 420 Gravel Good 0.70 80 0.2

Camp Road 10058877 431 Gravel Good 1.69 80 0.2

Coaver East Road 10011442 417 Gravel Good 1.34 80 0.86

Coaver Middle Road 10058880 418 Gravel Good 0.90 80 0.15

Coaver West Road 10058881 419 Native Good 1.03 80 0.14

Dam Access #1 Road 10058882 411 Gravel Excellent 1.39 80 0.17

Dike DU Cell 3 Road 10058819 403 Native Good 0.41 - -

Dike DU Cell 1 Road 10058818 405 Native Good 0.67 - -

Dike DU Cell 4 Road 10058822 402 Native Good 0.67 - -

Dike DU Cell 6 Road 10058824 404 Native Good 0.16 - -

Dike Pool 1E North Road 10058900 416 Gravel Excellent 0.70 80 0.22

Dike Pool 2 Spillway Road 10058861 408 Gravel Excellent 0.54 - -

Dike Pool 2 Access Road 10058883 407 Native Good 0.21 80 0.14

Dike Pool 1E Road 10058848 415 Gravel Good 2.16 - -

Dike Pool 29 Road 10058863 435 Gravel Excellent 0.70 - -

Dike Sprague Pool Middle 

Road 10058867 437 Gravel Fair 1.09 - -

Dike West Sprague Pool Road 10058871 438 Gravel Excellent 1.07 - -

East Sprague Dike Road 10058827 436 Gravel Good 1.07 - -

Goose Pool Dike Road 10058837 439 Gravel Good 1.95 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-52

Table 49 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – WISCONSIN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Necedah 

NWR

Goose Pool Road 10058884 440 Gravel Good 1.07 80 0.16

Goose Pool Road 10058884 440 Native Good 0.30 80 0.16

Harvey Pond Road - 409 Primitive Fair 0.45 - -

Hansen East Road 10058885 426 Primitive Excellent 0.86 80 0.15

Hansen West Road 10058886 427 Primitive Good 1.13 80 0.19

Lupine Loop 10011441 100 Gravel Excellent 0.14 65 0.42

Laske East Road 10058887 413 Gravel Excellent 0.33 80 0.13

Laske West Road 10058888 414 Gravel Good 0.91 80 0.13

Observation Tower Access 

Road 10043687 104 Gravel Good 0.29 - -

OSR 5/6 Road 10058896 412 Gravel Excellent 0.71 80 0.19

Old Barrens Road 10058889 425 Native Good 1.31 80 0.16

Pair Ponds Road 10043684 101 Gravel Excellent 0.27 - -

Photo Blind Road 10058897 424 Native Excellent 0.10 80 0.06

Pool 19 Road 10058902 432 Gravel Good 1.52 80 0.99

Shop Road - 300 Gravel Excellent 0.17 - -

Storage Yard Road 10058876 301 Gravel Excellent 0.22 80 0.04

Secondary Headquarters Road 10058904 441 Primitive Good 0.16 80 0.17

Suk Cerney Flowage 10043686 103 Gravel Excellent 0.33 - -

Suk Cerney Road 10043685 102 Gravel Good 1.81 65 0.82

Suk Cerney Dike Road 10058868 406 Native Good 0.28 - -

Turkey Tracks East Road 10058964 105 Gravel Fair 0.21 - -

Turkey Tracks East Service 

Road 10058905 434 Gravel Fair 2.22 80 0.19

Turkey Tracks East Service 

Road 10058905 434 Gravel Good 0.46 80 0.19

Turkey Tracks West Service 

Road 10058906 433 Gravel Fair 1.36 80 0.58

Visitor Center Entrance Road 10059662 010 Gravel Excellent 0.31 - -

Williams North Road 10011428 421 Gravel Good 0.99 - -

Williams Levee Road 10011413 422 Gravel Good 1.26 - -

Williams South Road 10011428 423 Gravel Excellent 0.44 - -

St. Croix 

WMD

St. Croix Prairie Entrance Road 10011864 010 Gravel Excellent 0.12 65 0.38

Bass Lake South Service Road 10011864 400 Primitive Good 0.11 65 0.38

Bettery Nursery Trail Road 10060592 401 Primitive Fair 0.50 - -

Bettery Service Road 10011880 402 Gravel Good 0.33 65 0.23

Steffens Access Road 10043726 100 Primitive Fair 0.18 65 0.69

Maintenance Road 10059332 300 Asphalt Poor 0.12 - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-53

Table 50 . Combined SAMMS and RIP Road Data – WISCONSIN (continuation)

FWS Unit Route Name Asset 

Number

Route 

Number Surface Condition Miles API FCI

Trempealeau 

NWR

Delta Dike Road 10011920 403 Gravel Excellent 0.88 - -

Delta Point Trail 10011890 404 Native Good 0.46 - -

Dike Road 10043750 101 Gravel Excellent 0.37 - -

East End Ox Bow Dike Road 10011892 407 Native Good 0.60 65 0.16

Entrance Road 10011914 010 Asphalt Fair 1.03 - -

Entrance Road 10011914 010 Gravel Good 0.17 - -

Fire Break Road 10059069 400 Primitive Good 1.04 80 0.28

Keips Island Dike Road 10011917 401 Gravel Excellent 1.19 - -

Keips Island Road 10011896 102 Gravel Excellent 0.13 65 0.69

Lower Diversion Dike Road 10059062 402 Gravel Good 2.33 65 0.16

Marshland Road 10011891 100 Gravel Excellent 2.54 65 0.34

Ox Bow Dike Road 10011922 406 Gravel Good 0.65 - -

River Bottoms Access Road 10044399 405 Gravel Good 0.34 65 0.12

River Bottoms Access Road 10044399 405 Native Good 0.60 65 0.12

Wildlife Drive 10011887 011 Gravel Excellent 1.05 65 0.26

Wildlife Drive 10011887 011 Gravel Good 3.01 65 0.26

Whittlesey 

Creek NWR No road sections to report - 400 Primitive Excellent 0.00 - -

RIP - Cycle 4, SAMMS Report December 2010.

http://cflgis1.cflhd.gov/egis/ds/ReportSearch.aspx

GIS files - CFLHD - November 22, 2010
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-54

Table 51 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Agassiz 

NWR

East Kiosk Parking 10042461 Gravel 5,908 65 0.42 27200 Good

Maintenance Yard Parking 10042458 Gravel 30,459 65 0.37 140100 Good

East Boundary Road Parking 10042459 Native 12,597 - - 25000 Good

Maakstad Trail Parking 10042456 Gravel 5,069 65 0.37 23300 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10011204 Asphalt 34,288 - - 289000 Good

West Kiosk Parking 10011148 Gravel 7,808 65 0.37 35900 Fair

Hunter Access Parking 10042462 Native 13,071 - - 25900 Poor

Rodahl Trail Parking 10056691 Gravel 9,117 65 0.42 41900 Excellent

Observation Tower Parking 10042457 Gravel 4,262 65 0.37 19600 Good

Maintenance Yard North 

Parking 10042458 Gravel 6,770 - - 31100 Good

Shop Parking 10042685 Gravel 8,231 65 0.37 37900 Good

West Shop Parking 10042685 Gravel 2,668 65 0.37 12300 Good

Equipment Parking 10042685 Native 3,126 65 0.37 6200 Good

Bunkhouse Parking 10042685 Concrete 2,212 65 0.37 22600 Good

Big 

Muddy 

NWR

Overton Bottoms Parking 

Area "A" 10042842 Gravel 5,573 - - 28800 Good

Overton Bottoms Parking 

Area "B" 10042840 Gravel 8,911 - - 46000 Good

Boone's Crossing Parking 

Area 10054223 Gravel 3,041 - - 15700 Good

Overton Bottoms Parking 

Area "C" 10042841 Gravel 10,857 - - 56000 Good

Overton Bottoms Loesing 

Parking 10058403 Gravel 4,662 - - 24100 Good

Bryant Cabin Parking 10060717 Gravel 4,789 - - 24700 Good

Lisbon Bottoms Parking 

Area 10042844 Gravel 7,877 - - 40700 Good

Jameson Island Parking 

Area 10042855 Gravel 5,352 - - 27600 Good

Cranberry Bend East 

Parking 10056896 Gravel 1,999 - - 10300 Good

Baltimore Bottom East 

Parking Area 10042851 Gravel 5,217 - - 26900 Good

Baltimore Bottom Hodge 

Parking Area 10042850 Primitive 1,209 - - 0 Fair

Jackass Bend Parking Area 10042846 Gravel 3,477 65 0.80 17900 Excellent

Jackass Bend Egypt Road 

Parking 10060711 Primitive 5,385 - - 0 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-55

Table 52 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Big 

Oaks 

NWR

Snag Hole Point Picnic Parking - Gravel 1945 - - 9800 Good

Old Chimney Point Parking - Gravel 2498 - - 12600 Fair

Heron Inlet Boat Launch 10010751 Gravel 6038 - - 30500 Good

Big Tree Point Parking - Gravel 1570 - - 7900 Poor

Machine Gun Road A Parking 10010706 Gravel 10706 65 0.00 54100 Good

Machine Gun Road B Parking 10010706 Gravel 3521 - - 17800 Fair

L Road Little Otter Creek 

Parking 10010707 Gravel 926 - - 4700 Fair

Shaped Charge Road A Parking - Gravel 3684 - - 18600 Poor

Maintenance Shop East 

Perimeter Parking 10059419 Gravel 12739 - - 64300 Good

L Road Little Otter Creek 

Parking 10010707 Gravel 7748 - - 39100 Good

Machine Gun Road A Overflow 

Parking 10010706 Gravel 7038 - - 35500 Fair

Michigan Road Kiosk After 

Hours Parking 10056492 Asphalt 3513 - - 32500 Good

Big 

Stone 

NWR

Headquarters Parking Area 10012695 Asphalt 37328 65 0.42 299300 Fair

Parking Area # 5 10043070 Native 6757 - - 12800 Good

Parking Area # 6 10043070 Native 9712 - - 18300 Good

Parking Area # 8 10043070 Native 3589 - - 6800 Fair

Parking Area # 9 10043070 Native 8947 - - 16900 Fair

Parking Area # 10 10043070 Native 3828 - - 7200 Fair

South Spillway Parking Area - Asphalt 32486 - - 260500 Fair

North Spillway Parking Area - Asphalt 16222 - - 130100 Fair

Parking Area # 14 10043070 Native 5067 - - 9600 Fair

Parking Area # 13 10043070 Native 9553 - - 18000 Good

Parking Area # 4 10043070 Native 4242 - - 8000 Good

Parking Area #7 10036180 Gravel 7581 65 0.30 33200 Poor

Parking Area #17 10043070 Native 13934 - - 26300 Good

Parking Area # 16 10043070 Native 8390 - - 15800 Good

Parking Area # 15 10043070 Native 7975 - - 15100 Good

Parking Area # 2 10043070 Native 12526 - - 23600 Good

Parking Area # 3 10043070 Native 10936 - - 20600 Good

Minnesota River Boat Access 

Parking #2 10012680 Asphalt 6428 - - 51500 Poor

Parking Area #18 10036180 Gravel 2933 - - 12800 Poor

Auto Tour Entrance Parking 10036179 Asphalt 5822 - - 46700 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-56

Table 53 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Big 

Stone 

NWR

Sellin Trail Parking Area 10043069 Asphalt 6198 - - 49700 Excellent

Overlook Parking Area 10012688 Asphalt 1438 - - 11500 Excellent

Hiking Trail Parking Area 10012689 Asphalt 15832 - - 126900 Excellent

Shop Parking Area 10036180 Gravel 10798 - - 47200 Good

Equipment Parking Area - Primitive 15335 - - 0 Good

Employee Parking Area - Primitive 4623 - - 0 Good

No Bridge Access Parking 10012702 Asphalt 1207 - - 9700 Excellent

Low Flow Parking Area 10043073 Asphalt 1076 - - 8600 Excellent

Low Flow RV/Bus Parking 10043073 Asphalt 1428 - - 11500 Excellent

Anderson WPA Parking 10055794 Native 3606 - - 7900 Good

Agribank WPA Parking 10060701 Primitive 5907 - - 0 Poor

Shaokatan WPA Parking 10060702 Primitive 1600 - - 0 Fair

Fox WPA Parking 10060705 Gravel 5774 - - 29200 Fair

Weber WPA Parking 10060704 Native 5936 - - 12900 Fair

Alleckson WPA Parking 10060709 Native 3809 - - 8300 Fair

Coon Creek WPA Parking 10060706 Native 10982 - - 23900 Fair

Sherman WPA Parking 10055796 Native 5599 - - 12200 Fair

Black Rush Lake WPA North 

Parking 10036181 Primitive 5489 65 0.89 0 Poor

Black Rush Lake WPA 

Southeast Parking 10055797 Gravel 5051 - - 25500 Fair

Black Rush Lake WPA 

Southwest Parking 10055798 Gravel 5381 - - 27200 Fair

Yellow Medicine River WPA 

Parking 10060707 Primitive 5207 - - 0 Fair

Arends WPA South Parking 10055795 Native 6838 - - 14900 Good

Arends WPA North Parking 10060703 Native 6759 - - 14700 Fair

Cedar 

Point 

NWR Fishing Access Parking 10043089 Gravel 1910 - - 10600 Good

Clarence 

Cannon 

NWR

Visitor Center Parking 10013939 Gravel 7169 - - 36200 Good

Nature Trail Parking 10060578 Gravel 2490 - - 12600 Good

Big Pond Parking 10060577 Gravel 2231 - - 11300 Good

Rabbit Ears Parking 10060579 Gravel 3485 - - 17600 Fair

Pumphouse Road Parking - Gravel 3748 - - 18900 Good

Shop Parking 10057583 Gravel 8697 65 0.69 43900 Good

Maintenance Parking 10057583 Gravel 12960 65 0.69 65400 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-57

Table 54 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Crab Orchard Marina North 

Parking 10036283 Asphalt 26928 65 0.08 260200 Good

West End Landing Parking 10036284 Asphalt 77901 - - 752800 Good

Devil's Kitchen Boat North 

Ramp Parking 10036287 Asphalt 21977 65

0.56

212400 Poor

Pine Ridge Landing Parking 10036288 Asphalt 27012 65 0.28 261000 Good

Pine Ridge Camp Parking 10036288 Gravel 33320 65 0.28 175700 Fair

Camp Carew Parking 10036288 Asphalt 3207 65 0.28 31000 Excellent

North Fisheries Office Parking 10036292 Gravel 27356 65 0.22 144300 Poor

SR 148 Observation Deck 

Parking 10036298 Asphalt 15819 - - 152900 Good

Crab Orchard Marina Parking 10036282 Asphalt 97953 - - 946500 Good

Crab Orchard Spillway Parking 10036285 Gravel 5307 65 0.36 28000 Good

Bald Eagle Lane Parking 10036286 Gravel 9174 65 0.36 48400 Good

Devil's Kitchen Campground 

Overflow Parking 10036287 Asphalt 21299 - - 205800 Fair

Methodist Youth Camp 

Parking 10036288 Asphalt 11371 65 0.28 109900 Good

Little Grassy Marina Parking 10036288 Gravel 13952 65 0.28 73600 Good

Spillway Pond Parking 10036302 Gravel 6544 65 0.36 34500 Good

Crab Orchard Campground 

Beach Parking 10056788 Gravel 11023 - - 58100 Fair

Crab Orchard Campground 

Loop E Boat Ramp Parking 10036291 Asphalt 6742 65 0.09 65100 Poor

Community Cemetary Parking 10060253 Gravel 3469 - - 18300 Fair

Carterville Boat Ramp Parking 10036290 Asphalt 12290 65 0.73 118800 Poor

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht 

Club Dock Parking 10060252 Gravel 9781 - - 51600 Fair

Chamesstown School Trail 

Parking 10013623 Gravel 32085 65 0.73 169200 Good

Prarie Creek Rec Area Parking 10036279 Gravel 64575 65 0.46 340500 Good

SR 13 Boat Landing Parking 10036280 Gravel 26640 65 0.12 140500 Fair

SR 148 Observation Blind 

Parking 10013719 Asphalt 13186 - - 127400 Good

SR 148 Boat Landing Parking 10036297 Gravel 26014 65 0.36 137200 Good

FEMA Office Parking 10036294 Gravel 13085 65 0.36 69000 Good

Illinois Inter Agency Dispatch 

Center Parking 10036295 Gravel 56139 65 0.73 296000 Fair

Area 4 Warehouse Parking 10036293 Gravel 76021 65 0.36 400900 Good

Visitor Center Parking 10036274 Asphalt 37959 - - 366800 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-58

Table 55 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Devil's Kitchen Dam Overlook 

Parking 10036287 Gravel 12490 - - 65900 Good

Devil's Kitchen Line 13 Road 

Parking 10036287 Asphalt 12805 - - 123700 Excellent

Tamarac Lake Road Parking 10036287 Asphalt 13987 - - 135200 Poor

Devil's Kitchen Line 16 Parking 10036287 Asphalt 17291 - - 167100 Good

Devil's Kitchen Line 6 Landing

Parking 10036287 Gravel 4882 - - 25700 Fair

East Greenbriar Landing Parking 10036278 Asphalt 6594 - - 63700 Good

Managers Fishing Pond Parking - Gravel 2022 - - 10700 Excellent

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht Club 

East Parking 10060252 Asphalt 3435 - - 33200 Good

Crab Orchard Campground 

Parking 10036291 Asphalt 5386 65 0.09 52000 Good

Bald Eagle Lane at Spillway Road 

Parking 10060734 Gravel 2216 - - 11700 Fair

Wolf Creek Fishing Access East 

Parking 10036289 Gravel 17142 65 0.37 90400 Good

Wolf Creek Road Viewing 

Parking 10060730 Gravel 9946 - - 52400 Good

South Fisheries Office Parking 10036292 Asphalt 5389 65 0.22 52100 Good

Area 9 Parking 1 10049422 Asphalt 3099 - - 29900 Fair

Area 9 Parking 2 10049422 Asphalt 72860 - - 704100 Good

Area 9 Parking 3 10049422 Asphalt 5278 - - 51000 Good

Area 9 Parking 4 10049422 Gravel 12129 - - 64000 Excellent

Area 9 Parking 5 10049422 Gravel 12031 - - 63400 Excellent

Area 9 Parking 6 10049422 Asphalt 98839 - - 955100 Good

Area 9 Parking 7 10049422 Gravel 8339 - - 44000 Good

Area 9 Parking 8 10049422 Asphalt 4938 - - 47700 Good

Area 2-P Service Parking - Asphalt 6443 - - 62300 Good

Area 2-B Parking 1 - Gravel 3592 - - 18900 Good

Area 2-B Parking 2 - Gravel 6316 - - 33300 Good

Area 2-B Parking 3 - Gravel 3340 - - 17600 Good

Area 2-B Parking 4 - Gravel 10216 - - 53900 Fair

Area 2-B Parking 5 - Gravel 2965 - - 15600 Good

Area 2-B Main Parking - Gravel 14822 - - 78200 Good

Area 2-B Main Public Parking - Asphalt 5138 - - 49600 Good

North Headquarters Parking 10036275 Asphalt 2119 65 0.73 20500 Good

Shop North Parking - Asphalt 24381 - - 235600 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-59

Table 56 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft

AP

I FCI CVR Condition

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Route 148 Causeway South 

Parking 10060731 Gravel 8289 - - 43700 Fair

Shop South Parking - Gravel 109462 - - 577200 Good

A-41 and Bluegill Fishing Pond 

Parking 10060732 Gravel 5998 - - 31600 Good

Devil's Kitchen Campground 

Parking 10036287 Gravel 5630 - - 29700 Excellent

Devil's Kitchen Line 16 Spur 

Parking 10060737 Gravel 2305 - - 12200 Good

United Methodist Youth Camp 

Spur Parking 10060736 Asphalt 1894 - - 18300 Good

Grassy Road Landing Parking 10036288 Asphalt 25038 65 0.28 241900 Excellent

Camp Carew East Parking - Gravel 6600 - - 34800 Good

Headquarters Parking 10036275 Asphalt 25455 65 0.73 246000 Good

Primex Stringtown Parking 10036277 Gravel 19150 65 0.73 101000 Fair

West Greenbriar Landing 

Parking 10036278 Asphalt 72025 - - 696000 Good

Wolf Creek Fishing Access West 

Parking 10036289 Gravel 25050 65 0.37 132100 Fair

Crab Orchard Boat & Yacht 

Club West Parking 10060252 Asphalt 3516 - - 34000 Good

Crab Orchard Campground 

North Parking 10036291 Asphalt 7815 65 0.09 75500 Good

Crane 

Meadows 

NWR

Platte River Trail Parking 10038266 Gravel 14169 65 0.27 84300 Excellent

Visitor Parking 10038266 Gravel 14250 65 0.27 84700 Good

Stumpf House Parking 10060848 Gravel 8109 - - 48200 Good

Stumpf Garage Parking 10060848 Concrete 502 - - 6600 Good

Rear Headquarters Parking 10059113 Gravel 16287 - - 96900 Good

Maintenance Parking 10059113 Gravel 37628 - - 223800 Good

Entrance Pad - Concrete 800 - - 10600 Good

Cypress 

Creek 

NWR

Bellrose Reserve Viewing 

Parking 10045680 Asphalt 14069 - - 136000 Excellent

Old Channel Fishing Access 

Parking 10012660 Gravel 16071 - - 84700 Good

Delta Lands Parking 10012650 Gravel 12293 - - 64800 Good

Mount Olive Road Parking 10012641 Gravel 4817 65 0.91 25400 Fair

Cypress Road Parking 10043041 Gravel 6560 - - 34600 Fair

Hileman Parking 10012641 Gravel 9171 65 0.91 48400 Good

Friendship Church Parking 10012641 Gravel 2794 65 0.91 14700 Fair

Hickory Bottoms Parking 10012667 Gravel 5107 - - 26900 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-60

Table 57 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Cypress 

Creek 

NWR

Brushy Parking 10012641 Gravel 4777 65 0.91 25200 Fair

Thomure Parking 10012641 Gravel 2524 65 0.91 13300 Fair

Pumphouse Slough Parking 10012640 Gravel 6469 - - 34100 Fair

Cache Bend Parking 10012659 Gravel 4053 - - 21400 Good

Greenberg Hunter Parking 10012641 Primitive 1940 65 0.91 0 Fair

Delta Lands North Parking 10012650 Native 2209 - - 5000 Fair

Dodd Parking 10012641 Native 5204 65 0.91 11800 Fair

Goings Barn Parking 10012641 Gravel 3157 65 0.91 16600 Good

Limekiln East Parking 10060672 Gravel 2206 - - 11600 Good

Eastern Slough Parking 10012641 Gravel 2802 65 0.91 14800 Fair

Limekiln Springs Parking 10060672 Gravel 5194 - - 27400 Good

Maintenance Shop Parking 10060674 Gravel 36816 - - 194100 Good

Mud Pond 10012641 Gravel 2788 65 0.91 14700 Good

Eggner Parking 10012641 Gravel 1900 65 0.91 10000 Good

Wood Duck Slough Parking 10060673 Gravel 3125 - - 16500 Good

Detroit 

Lakes

Kenyon Parking 10012174 Native 1740 65 0.73 4100 Poor

Syverson Parking 10012147 Native 4636 65 0.82 11000 Poor

Fuglie North Parking 10012163 Native 3208 - - 7600 Fair

Fuglie South Parking 10012163 Native 4139 65 0.82 9800 Fair

Davis Parking 10012147 Native 7964 65 0.82 18900 Fair

Lee Marshes West Parking 10012147 Native 6376 65 0.82 15100 Good

Lee Marshes East Parking 10012147 Native 5281 65 0.82 12500 Fair

Borgrud Parking 10012168 Native 14853 65 0.94 35200 Poor

Kent Parking 10012147 Native 2675 65 0.82 6300 Poor

Tillman East Parking 10012147 Native 8790 65 0.82 20800 Good

Tillman West Parking 10012147 Native 818 65 0.82 1900 Fair

Jacobsen Parking 10012174 Native 6166 65 0.73 14600 Fair

Bay Lake Parking 10012147 Native 6402 65 0.82 15200 Good

Matter Parking 10012147 Native 5115 65 0.82 12100 Fair

Helliksen Prairie North Parkng 10012147 Native 4748 65 0.82 11300 Poor
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-61

Table 58 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Detroit 

Lakes

Hatcher Lake Parking 10012163 Native 8307 65 0.82 19700 Fair

Hoykens Parking 10012163 Gravel 8567 65 0.82 47100 Good

Lake Park Parking 10012147 Native 7140 65 0.82 16900 Fair

Haugrud Parking 10012147 Native 3429 65 0.82 8100 Fair

Kasin Parking 10012163 Native 10588 65 0.82 25100 Good

Doran Lake Parking 10012163 Native 4190 65 0.82 9900 Good

Kenyon Parking 10012163 Native 3205 65 0.82 7600 Good

Christainson Parking 10012163 Native 8559 65 0.82 20300 Good

Rushfeldt East Parking 10012163 Native 6240 65 0.82 14800 Fair

Rushfeldt West Parking 10012163 Native 4889 65 0.82 11600 Fair

Lee Lake Parking 10012163 Native 4399 65 0.82 10400 Fair

Strangeland Parking 10012163 Native 8856 65 0.82 21000 Good

Dunham Parking 10012147 Native 8831 65 0.82 20900 Fair

Bakken Parking 10012147 Native 8627 65 0.82 20500 Fair

Audobon West Parking 10012147 Native 3806 65 0.82 9000 Fair

Audobon East Parking 10012147 Gravel 9281 65 0.82 51000 Good

Flickertail Parking 10012163 Gravel 3535 65 0.82 19400 Good

Headquarters Parking 10012159 Asphalt 35270 65 0.60 355300 Good

Maintenance Parking 10012160 Gravel 24897 65 0.39 136900 Good

Lengby Parking 10012174 Native 3036 65 0.73 7200 Poor

Gustafson Parking 10012174 Native 7714 65 0.73 18300 Poor

Lepier Parking 10012174 Native 3432 65 0.73 8100 Fair

Halverson Parking 10012174 Native 3969 65 0.73 9400 Fair

Vaa Parking 10012174 Native 3134 65 0.73 7400 Fair

Salvkus Parking 10012174 Native 3316 65 0.73 7900 Fair

Espeseth Parking 10012174 Native 7228 65 0.73 17100 Fair

Winger South Parking 10012174 Native 7947 65 0.73 18800 Fair

Winger North Parking 10012174 Gravel 7894 65 0.73 43400 Fair

Nelson North Parking 10012168 Gravel 7859 65 0.94 43200 Poor

Nelson South Parking 10012168 Native 8757 65 0.94 20800 Good

Nelson East Parking 10012168 Native 8025 65 0.94 19000 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-62

Table 59 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area 

Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Detroit 

Lakes

Paul Sr Parking 10012168 Native 5597 65 0.94 13300 Fair

Salboerger Parking 10012168 Native 5660 65 0.94 13400 Fair

Moose Lake Parking 10012168 Native 5012 65 0.94 11900 Fair

Stumbo Parking 10012147 Native 3688 65 0.82 8700 Poor

Rothschadl Parking 10012168 Native 3195 65 0.94 7600 Failed

North Maintenance 

Parking 10012160 Gravel 6505 65 0.39 35800 Good

Hellickson Prairie Parking 10012147 Gravel 1865 65 0.82 10300 Fair

Melvin Slough Hunter 

Access Parking 10012174 Gravel 6460 65 0.73 35500 Fair

Haugtvedt Parking 10012163 Gravel 6132 65 0.82 33700 Excellent

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Humbug Marsh Parking 10058586 Gravel 30998 - - 180900 Fair

Emiquon 

NWR

South Spoon River Parking 10014053 Gravel 4315 65 0.13 24200 Good

North Spoon River Parking 10014054 Gravel 11346 65 0.05 63700 Good

Old Oxbow Hunter Access 

Parking 10060632 Primitive 8681 - - 0 Poor

South Globe Parking 10052378 Native 14078 65 0.13 34100 Fair

Wilder Parking 10060633 Native 2690 - - 6500 Fair

Forgotten Road Parking 10060634 Native 5604 - - 13600 Fair

Fergus Falls

Oscar Parking 10043200 Native 7001 - - 14400 Fair

Monson Parking 10043201 Native 10151 65 0.04 20900 Fair

Pelican Valley South

Parking 10043202 Native 8827 - - 18200 Fair

Pelican Valley North 

Parking 10044478 Native 3970 65 0.11 8200 Good

Erhard North Parking 10043203 Native 10353 - - 21300 Good

Knobel Lake Parking 10043204 Native 7442 65 0.06 15300 Poor

Erhard South Parking 10044479 Native 11219 - - 23100 Fair

Aaberg Parking 10043205 Native 6191 65 0.07 12700 Good

Scribner North Parking 10043206 Native 5847 - - 12000 Fair

Scribner South Parking 10044481 Native 7936 65 0.06 16300 Fair

Redhead Slough South 

Parking 10044508 Native 7933 - - 16300 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-63

Table 60 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fergus 

Falls

Williams Parking 10043188 Native 5078 65 0.09 10400 Fair

Blakesley Parking 10043189 Native 4256 - - 8800 Fair

Belleview Parking 10043190 Native 3998 - - 8200 Good

Historical Society Parking 10043191 Native 10936 65 0.04 22500 Fair

Island Lake Parking 10043192 Native 5453 - - 11200 Good

Hoffman Parking 10043193 Native 3571 - - 7300 Good

Uphoff Parking 10043194 Native 5585 65 0.08 11500 Good

Bates Parking 10043186 Native 4764 - - 9800 Fair

Cheney Trust Parking 10043182 Native 8609 - - 17700 Good

Braukmann Parking 10043250 Native 5697 65 0.08 11700 Poor

Hintsala Parking 10043249 Native 5761 - - 11900 Fair

Heinola Northwest Parking 10043248 Native 5330 - - 11000 Fair

Spink South Parking 10052280 Native 4304 65 0.10 8900 Fair

Bailey Slough Parking 10052538 Native 5026 - - 10300 Good

Green South Parking 10052287 Native 5536 - - 11400 Good

Wirth Parking 10043251 Native 3825 - - 7900 Fair

Prairie Wetlands Learning 

Center Parking 10012115 Asphalt 63491 - - 554800 Good

Grewe Parking 10054776 Native 5284 - - 10900 Fair

Rokes Parking 10052283 Native 3961 - - 8100 Good

Reidel Parking 10052278 Native 4565 - - 9400 Fair

Lien Parking 10043243 Native 5701 - - 11700 Fair

Iverson Parking 10043241 Native 2158 - - 4400 Poor

Mortenson Parking 10043240 Native 2806 65 0.16 5800 Fair

PCA Parking 10043239 Native 8218 65 0.06 16900 Fair

Wasvick Parking 10043238 Native 5292 65 0.08 10900 Fair

Mondt North Parking - Native 9086 - - 18700 Fair

Mondt South Parking 10043245 Native 2832 65 0.15 5800 Fair

Anderson Parking 10052283 Native 4727 - - 9700 Fair

Stang Lake Parking 10043243 Gravel 6061 - - 28900 Fair

Klein North Parking 10043174 Native 7393 65 0.06 15200 Fair

Reger Parking 10043173 Native 11130 65 0.08 22900 Fair

Ernest Olson North Parking 10044472 Native 4884 - - 10000 Fair

Ernest Olson South Parking 10043172 Native 5277 - - 10900 Poor
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-64

Table 61 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fergus 

Falls

Odens Parking - Native 7151 - - 14700 Fair

Bah Lakes Parking 10054767 Native 3800 65 0.10 7800 Fair

Rachel Parking 10043169 Native 4420 65 0.20 9100 Fair

Mickelson South Parking 10043215 Native 4886 - - 10100 Good

Mickelson North Parking 10044493 Native 11973 65 0.04 24600 Fair

Duenow Parking 10043216 Native 4325 65 0.11 8900 Poor

Old Headquarters Asphalt 

Parking 10012105 Asphalt 2499 - - 21800 Fair

Haugen Parking 10043217 Native 9667 - - 19900 Good

Baumann Parking 10043247 Native 5202 - - 10700 Fair

Staff 390th Street Parking - Native 4994 - - 10300 Fair

Staff County 41 Parking - Native 3387 - - 7000 Fair

Agassiz Parking 10043207 Native 6729 - - 13800 Good

Gerlach Parking 10043208 Native 6081 - - 12500 Fair

Scott-Crays Parking 10043209 Native 8754 65 0.05 18000 Good

Rush Lake North Parking 10043210 Native 10979 - - 22600 Fair

Rush Lake South Parking 10044487 Native 25290 - - 52000 Good

Jorgenson North Parking 10043211 Native 5473 - - 11300 Fair

Rabbit River North Parking 10043212 Native 5867 - - 12100 Good

Rabbit River South Parking - Native 4443 - - 9100 Fair

Dahler Slough North Parking 10043213 Native 5683 65 0.08 11700 Fair

Lightning Lake West Parking 10042314 Native 6778 - - 13900 Fair

Dahler Slough East Parking 10044490 Native 5769 - - 11900 Good

Lightning Lake East Parking 10044492 Native 6145 - - 12600 Fair

Stoney Brook Parking 10012084 Native 7432 - - 15300 Fair

Lillemoen Parking 10043175 Native 8448 65 0.74 17400 Poor

Germanson Parking 10043177 Native 6452 - - 13300 Good

Demaree Parking 10043178 Native 6548 65 0.14 13500 Good

Pruess Parking 10043179 Native 6959 65 0.07 14300 Good

Neuman Southeast Parking 10055173 Native 7095 - - 14600 Good

Neuman North Parking 10043227 Native 5345 65 0.06 11000 Good

Rossow Parking 10043228 Native 4410 - - 9100 Good

Wildung Parking 10043230 Native 5146 - - 10600 Good

Kunz Parking 10043231 Native 1963 - - 4000 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-65

Table 62 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fergus 

Falls

Tomhave Parking 10043232 Native 4315 65 0.10 8900 Fair

Berning House Parking 10043168 Native 4196 - - 8600 Fair

Ash Parking 10043166 Native 7049 65 0.13 14500 Fair

Finkelson Parking 10043237 Native 2604 65 0.17 5400 Fair

Morrison Parking 10043236 Native 11320 - - 23300 Fair

Blacken Lake Parking 10043235 Native 5576 65 0.08 11500 Fair

Klein South Parking 10044474 Native 5277 - - 10900 Fair

Orange Parking 10043165 Native 2234 65 1.88 4600 Fair

Pocket Lake Parking 10012089 Native 21747 - - 44700 Fair

McDowell Parking 10043164 Native 6956 65 0.06 14300 Fair

Sabolic Parking 10043163 Native 4859 65 0.18 10000 Fair

Kensington Parking 10043162 Native 4802 - - 9900 Fair

Runestone Parking 10043161 Native 6953 - - 14300 Fair

Eng Lake Parking 10043160 Native 4821 - - 9900 Fair

Rolling Acres Parking 10043159 Native 5622 - - 11600 Fair

Sellevald South Parking 10044471 Native 5076 - - 10400 Fair

Sellevald North Parking 10043158 Native 6318 - - 13000 Fair

Benson Parking 10043157 Native 5709 65 0.08 11700 Fair

J.I. Case North Parking 10044470 Native 9278 - - 19100 Fair

J.I. Case South Parking 10043156 Native 6676 - - 13700 Fair

Banke Slough North 

Parking 10044456 Native 4384 - - 9000 Fair

Banke Slough South 

Parking 10043156 Native 7393 - - 15200 Fair

Lobster Lake Parking 10043154 Native 5352 - - 11000 Fair

Fedje Parking 10043153 Native 9027 - - 18600 Fair

Seifert Parking 10043195 Native 7667 65 0.06 15800 Fair

Tweeton Parking 10043196 Native 3874 65 0.11 8000 Fair

Gardner Parking 10043197 Native 4496 65 0.10 9200 Fair

Haiby West Parking 10043198 Native 4945 65 0.18 10200 Fair

Julsrud Parking 10043199 Native 16408 - - 33800 Fair

Julsrud North Parking 10044477 Native 16499 - - 33900 Fair

Bellmore Parking 10012056 Native 5707 - - 11700 Fair

Meadows North Parking 10043253 Native 4174 - - 8600 Good

Meadows South Parking 10044462 Native 8164 65 0.06 16800 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-66

Table 63 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fergus 

Falls

Brown North Parking 10043254 Native 4730 - - 9700 Good

Brown South Parking 10044463 Native 8687 - - 17900 Fair

Hintermeister Parking 10043218 Native 16078 65 1.39 33100 Poor

C & M Ranch Parking 10043219 Native 6054 65 0.07 12500 Fair

Wagner Parking 10052285 Native 3444 - - 7100 Fair

Stowe Lake East Parking 10044438 Native 4325 - - 8900 Fair

Stowe Lake West Parking 10054769 Native 4094 - - 8400 Good

Odens East Parking 10044437 Native 3961 - - 8100 Fair

Schultz Lake Parking 10052541 Native 2711 - - 5600 Poor

Tenhoff Parking 10044432 Native 4459 - - 9200 Good

Forada Parking 10044433 Native 6800 - - 14000 Good

Yonda-Paulzine Parking 10052271 Native 3529 - - 7300 Good

Mittlestat Parking 10044434 Native 4595 - - 9500 Good

Haseman Parking 10044435 Native 3827 - - 7900 Fair

Delong Parking 10054775 Native 4927 65 0.10 10100 Poor

Nachbor Parking 10052540 Native 4213 - - 8700 Fair

Spink North Parking 10054773 Native 7073 - - 14500 Good

Elbow Lake Parking 10054774 Native 8583 65 0.09 17700 Good

Pomme De Terre South 

Parking 10044510 Native 1348 65 0.10 2800 Good

Ridgeway South Parking 10054777 Native 5651 - - 11600 Fair

Ridgeway Central Parking 10044436 Native 11841 - - 24400 Good

Hanneman Parking 10054771 Native 3864 - - 7900 Good

Peter Lien North Parking 10043221 Native 7606 65 0.06 15600 Fair

Peter Lien South Parking 10044498 Native 12959 - - 26700 Fair

Nicholson South Parking 10043222 Native 5323 65 0.09 10900 Good

Nicholson North Parking 10044499 Native 11388 65 0.04 23400 Fair

Sumstad Parking 10043180 Native 3383 - - 7000 Good

Grandokken North Parking 10043152 Native 3962 65 0.11 8100 Fair

Bakke South Parking 10043223 Native 5134 65 0.09 10600 Good

Hoff-Fronning Parking 10043224 Native 11805 65 0.04 24300 Good

Bakke North Parking 10044500 Native 11394 65 0.04 23400 Good

Kube South Parking 10043225 Native 10540 - - 21700 Fair

Busko East Parking 10043226 Native 5665 65 0.08 11700 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-67

Table 64 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fergus 

Falls

Busko North Parking 10044503 Native 5152 - - 10600 Good

Kube North Parking 10044502 Native 5848 65 0.16 12000 Good

Redhead Slough North 

Parking 10043181 Native 8020 - - 16500 Good

Pomme de Terre Parking 10043183 Native 4910 - - 10100 Poor

Ten Mile South Parking 10043220 Native 1868 65 0.23 3800 Poor

Ten Mile Central Parking 10044495 Native 10494 65 0.04 21600 Fair

Ten Mile North Parking 10044496 Native 3728 - - 7700 Good

Heinola South Parking 10052544 Native 3559 - - 7300 Fair

Bjerketvedt Parking 10055170 Native 5254 - - 10800 Poor

Millerville Center Parking 10054768 Native 3913 - - 8000 Fair

Millerville Southwest Parking 10055169 Native 6331 - - 13000 Fair

Grandokken South Parking 10044468 Gravel 1151 - - 5500 Good

Bah Lakes West Parking - Native 3789 - - 7800 Good

Bah Lakes North Parking - Native 4038 - - 8300 Good

Jenny Larson Parking - Native 3983 - - 8200 Poor

DeLong East Parking 10054775 Native 4308 65 0.10 8900 Fair

Spink East Parking - Native 3949 - - 8100 Fair

Barley Slough Parking 10054774 Native 4292 65 0.09 8800 Good

Mud Lake Parking 10052537 Native 3083 - - 6300 Fair

Demaree East Parking - Native 3468 - - 7100 Good

Old Headquarters Native 

Parking - Native 1827 - - 3800 Good

Equipment Parking 10042982 Gravel 4658 - - 22200 Good

Maintenance Parking 10042982 Gravel 15136 - - 72200 Good

Tractor Trailer Parking 10042982 Gravel 4591 - - 21900 Good

Shop Employee Parking 10042982 Asphalt 3707 - - 32400 Excellent

Headquarters Parking 10012105 Asphalt 12780 - - 111700 Excellent

Headquarters Admin Parking - Asphalt 20807 - - 181800 Excellent

Headquarters Garage Parking - Gravel 18460 - - 88000 Fair

Headquarters Employee Park. 10056209 Gravel 11343 - - 54100 Good

Knollwood WPA Parking - Gravel 4212 - - 20100 Good

Julsrud Central Parking 10043199 Native 3394 - - 7000 Fair

Scribner East Parking 10044484 Native 3123 - - 6400 Good

Ridgeway East Parking 10044436 Native 3219 - - 6600 Good

Jorgenson South Parking - Native 3841 - - 7900 Fair

Rose City Parking 10055168 Native 3799 - - 7800 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-68

Table 65 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Fox 

River 

NWR

Fox River North Parking 10040412 Gravel 9674 - - 53700 Fair

Fox River South Parking 10055766 Gravel 3277 - - 18200 Good

Glacial 

Ridge 

NWR

160th Avenue Parking 10056959 Native 7336 - - 14600 Good

US Highway 2 Parking 10056912 Native 5305 - - 10500 Fair

Central Parking 10056944 Native 7704 - - 15300 Fair

West County Road 45 

Parking 10056957 Native 2894 - - 5700 Good

Central County Road 45 

Parking 10056955 Native 7704 - - 15300 Good

East County Road 45 

Parking 10056954 Native 7216 - - 14300 Good

138th Avenue Parking 10056941 Native 4978 - - 9900 Good

Great 

River 

NWR

Upper Swan Parking 10060573 Gravel 2299 - - 11600 Fair

Upper Swan North Parking 10060574 Gravel 7861 - - 39700 Fair

Sny Outlet Parking 10060575 Native 3788 - - 8300 Fair

Shop Parking - Gravel 2251 - - 11400 Good

Levee Parking 10060576 Gravel 3640 - - 18400 Fair

Hamden 

Slough 

NWR

County 14 Parking 10012603 Gravel 7720 - - 36800 Good

Old Headquarters Parking 10043034 Gravel 10417 - - 49700 Good

Hesby Memorial Parking 10012619 Gravel 7726 - - 36800 Good

Hesby Memorial 

Handicapped Parking - Concrete 504 - - 5300 Good

Shop Parking 10042988 Gravel 19392 - - 92500 Good

County Highway 12 Parking - Native 7005 - - 14400 Fair

Horicon 

NWR

Lehners Ditch Parking 10011244 Gravel 2480 - - 14300 Fair

Rockvale Parking 10041723 Gravel 2315 - - 13400 Good

Point Road Parking 10041724 Native 8173 - - 20400 Poor

Visitor Center Parking 10011334 Asphalt 23625 - - 250200 Good

EE Barn Parking 10043096 Native 14643 - - 36500 Good

Old Marsh Parking 10011242 Asphalt 5497 - - 58200 Fair

Viewing Area Parking 10011239 Asphalt 72300 65 0.23 765500 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-69

Table 66 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Horicon 

NWR

Reiser Road Parking 10011330 Gravel 3172 - - 18300 Poor

Auto Tour Road Midway 

Parking 10011248 Asphalt 13853 - - 146700 Good

Peachy Road Parking 10011251 Gravel 8100 - - 46800 Good

Milligan Road Parking 10011333 Gravel 6915 - - 40000 Poor

Neitzel Road Parking 10011331 Gravel 6285 - - 36300 Good

Auto Tour Parking 10011246 Asphalt 45245 - - 479100 Good

Bud Cook Hiking Area Parking 10011299 Gravel 4156 - - 24000 Good

Carp Trap Parking 10041730 Gravel 4498 - - 26000 Fair

5-Way Pump Station Parking 10011247 Gravel 1089 - - 6300 Fair

Employee Parking 10060747 Asphalt 5261 - - 55700 Good

Maintenance Shop Parking - Gravel 19221 - - 111100 Good

Front of Shop Parking - Asphalt 4975 - - 52700 Fair

Gas Pump Parking - Asphalt 3596 - - 38100 Fair

Main Dike Road Parking 10060746 Gravel 3088 - - 17800 Good

Leopold 

WMD

Duffys WPA Parking 10043323 Native 14134 65 0.30 33900 Fair

New Chester Ember Avenue 

Park 10043287 Native 1508 65 0.30 3600 Fair

New Chester 2nd Drive Park. 10043286 Native 2621 65 0.25 6300 Fair

Eckstein WPA Parking 10043310 Native 8178 65 0.30 19600 Fair

Sime WPA Parking 10043308 Gravel 5684 65 0.36 31600 Good

Northrup King WPA Parking 10043311 Gravel 5817 65 0.25 32300 Excellent

Uihlein Osborne Road Asphalt 

Parking 10043337 Asphalt 8039 65 0.23 81800 Fair

Uihlein Osborne Road Gravel 

Parking 10011392 Gravel 13049 65 0.25 72500 Good

Uihlein County M Gravel Park. 10011393 Gravel 22803 65 0.36 126600 Good

Trenton Oakwood Road East 

Parking 10043317 Gravel 4009 65 0.36 22300 Fair

Trenton Cottonwood Road 

Parking 10043319 Gravel 3836 65 0.36 21300 Good

Trenton Oakwood Road West 

Parking 10043320 Gravel 8918 65 0.73 49500 Fair

Pieper WPA Parking 10043321 Native 5520 65 0.73 13200 Poor

Red Cedar Lake WPA Parking 10043327 Gravel 2720 65 0.36 15100 Excellent

Johnstown WPA Parking 10043331 Gravel 3935 65 0.12 21900 Good

Sheepskin WPA Parking 10043332 Native 1219 65 0.30 2900 Fair

Lund WPA Parking 10043334 Native 2901 65 0.71 7000 Poor
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-70

Table 67 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Leopold 

WMD

Harvey's Marsh East Parking 10043310 Native 6431 65 0.30 15400 Fair

Harvey's Marsh West Parking 10011354 Concrete 7872 65 0.35 97300 Poor

Uihlein Elm Drive Parking 10043338 Gravel 6811 65 0.50 37800 Fair

Kettle Moraine WPA Parking 10011340 Gravel 3075 65 0.23 17100 Excellent

Cedar Grove WPA Parking 10043324 Native 1595 65 0.56 3800 Poor

Six Mile North Parking 10043330 Native 1472 65 0.65 3500 Poor

ULAO Lake Shore Road Parking 10011371 Gravel 4843 65 0.36 26900 Good

Severson WPA Parking 10043290 Gravel 3780 65 0.66 21000 Good

Schoenberg Priem Road Parking 10011345 Gravel 3808 65 0.67 21100 Fair

Schoenberg Harvey Road Parking 10011347 Native 3917 65 0.22 9400 Fair

Schoenberg Mielke Rd South 

Parking 10011348 Gravel 10713 65 0.10 59500 Excellent

Schoenberg Hall Road West 

Parking 10043288 Gravel 4509 65 0.25 25000 Excellent

Schoenberg Hall Road East Park. 10043289 Native 502 65 0.59 1200 Poor

Rowe WPA West Parking 10011346 Gravel 3721 65 0.25 20700 Excellent

Rowe WPA East Parking 10043291 Native 2414 65 0.73 5800 Poor

Manthey Erdman Road South 

Parking 10043292 Native 511 65 0.30 1200 Fair

Manthey Erdman Road North 

Parking 10043293 Native 1540 65 0.30 3700 Fair

Manthey Erdman Road Middle 

Parking 10043294 Native 4231 65 0.30 10100 Fair

Doylestown WPA Parking 10043296 Native 3144 65 0.30 7500 Fair

Oakfield WPA Central Parking 10043322 Native 13812 65 0.30 33100 Fair

Swan Pond County D Parking 10043312 Native 1439 65 0.30 3400 Fair

Swan Pond County M Parking 10043314 Gravel 3854 65 0.25 21400 Excellent

Shoveler County S Parking 10011361 Gravel 9319 65 0.14 51800 Good

Becker SR 22 Parking 10043298 Gravel 5669 65 0.25 31500 Excellent

Becker Haynes Road East Parking 10043312 Native 3152 65 0.30 7600 Fair

Becker Haynes Parking 2 Drive 

Parking 10043299 Native 5736 65 0.30 13700 Fair

Baraboo River Parking 10042907 Gravel 11770 65 0.14 65400 Excellent

Uihlein Waukau 91 Parking 10043335 Gravel 2447 65 0.73 13600 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10060597 Asphalt 5921 - - 60300 Good

Jackson WPA Parking 10060603 Gravel 1937 - - 10800 Good

Shoveler Timber Lane Parking 10043315 Gravel 1648 65 0.25 9200 Good

Robinsons Shorebird WPA Park. 10060604 Gravel 1229 - - 6800 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-71

Table 68 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Leopold 

WMD

Oakfield West WPA Parking 10043322 Gravel 1835 65 0.30 10200 Good

Oakfield East WPA Parking 10043322 Gravel 1774 65 0.30 9900 Good

Breakneck Oak Center Parking 10060606 Gravel 2403 - - 13300 Good

Breakneck WPA Cemetary 

Parking 10060605 Gravel 1218 - - 6800 Good

Breakneck WPA Highway B 

Parking 10060607 Gravel 2137 - - 11900 Good

Lamartine WPA Parking 10060608 Gravel 1447 - - 8000 Good

Uihlein Bradley Avenue 

Parking 10060618 Gravel 2673 - - 14800 Good

Strauss WPA Parking 10060620 Native 1360 - - 3300 Fair

Pietroske WPA Parking 10060612 Native 3846 - - 9200 Excellent

Cedar Grove WPA Highway K 

West Parking 10060613 Gravel 1435 - - 8000 Excellent

Schwengel WPA Jay Road 

Parking 10060614 Gravel 8556 - - 47500 Good

Six Mile South Parking 10043329 Gravel 1555 65 0.47 8600 Excellent

Batavia WPA Trout Spring 

Parking 10060615 Gravel 1783 - - 9900 Excellent

Batavia WPA Highway A 

Parking 10060616 Gravel 2205 - - 12200 Excellent

Boltonville WPA Parking 10060617 Gravel 1639 - - 9100 Excellent

Manthey Gravel Parking 10060600 Gravel 1668 - - 9300 Excellent

Anderson WPA Parking 10060595 Gravel 1713 - - 9500 Good

Hinkson Creek WPA Parking 10060599 Gravel 1435 - - 8000 Excellent

Employee Parking 10060597 Gravel 4832 - - 26800 Good

Shop Parking - Gravel 19714 - - 109500 Good

Becker WPA Wendlick Road 

Parking 10060598 Gravel 1523 - - 8500 Good

Becker Lake WPA Parking 10060601 Gravel 1537 - - 8500 Excellent

Uihlein Orchid Parking - Gravel 2387 - - 13300 Fair

Lund WPA Union Dane Road 

Parking - Gravel 1311 - - 7300 Excellent

Gadwall Swamp WPA Parking 10060602 Gravel 2030 - - 11300 Excellent

Red Cedar Lake WPA East 

Asphalt Parking 10043327 Asphalt 966 65 0.36 9800 Fair

Red Cedar Lake WPA East 

Gravel Parking 10043327 Gravel 951 65 0.36 5300 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-72

Table 69 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Litchfield

Crosier Parking 10043454 Native 4704 - - 10200 Poor

Whitney East Parking 10043455 Native 7940 65 0.65 17300 Poor

Whitney West Parking 10043456 Native 7827 - - 17000 Fair

Ashley North Parking 10043457 Native 8265 65 0.73 18000 Poor

Ashley South Parking 10012234 Gravel 5254 65 0.74 26500 Poor

Padua Northwest Parking 10043458 Native 6061 - - 13200 Fair

Olson Lake 90th St Parking 10043426 Native 11274 - - 24600 Fair

Meeker Parking 10043419 Native 7942 - - 17300 Fair

Ella Lake North Parking 10046058 Native 7814 - - 17000 Fair

Robinson County 7 Parking 10043487 Native 8494 - - 18500 Fair

Marysville 30th St Parking 10043486 Native 4132 65 0.54 9000 Fair

Victor West Parking 10043484 Native 3187 - - 6900 Fair

Victor East Parking 10043483 Native 10298 - - 22400 Fair

Temperance Parking 10043482 Native 6366 - - 13900 Fair

Hanson Parking 10043430 Native 9135 - - 19900 Fair

Olson Lake County 3 West 

Parking 10043429 Native 7291 - - 15900 Fair

Olson Lake County 3 East 

Parking 10043428 Native 8101 65 0.74 17600 Poor

Olson Lake County 116 

Parking 10043427 Native 7608 - - 16600 Fair

Padua Southwest Parking 10043460 Native 5574 - - 12100 Fair

Johnson Parking 10043425 Native 7234 - - 15800 Poor

Big Kandiyohi Parking 10043424 Native 6593 - - 14400 Fair

Lake Grandotte Parking - Native 6057 - - 13200 Fair

Parmon County 132 Parking - Native 8393 - - 18300 Fair

Parmon County 8 Parking - Native 9721 - - 21200 Fair

Padua West Parking 10043459 Native 5185 - - 11300 Fair

Ella Lake South Parking 10043418 Native 8018 - - 17500 Fair

Summit Lake Parking 10043417 Native 6656 - - 14500 Poor

Uncle Matts East Parking 10043416 Native 5523 - - 12000 Poor

Sperry Lake Parking 10043415 Native 3674 - - 8000 Fair

Uncle Matts West Parking 10043414 Native 8281 - - 18000 Fair

Bur Oak Lake Parking 10043413 Gravel 5326 - - 26900 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-73

Table 70 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Litchfield

Swanson Parking 10043412 Native 8257 - - 18000 Fair

Sweep Parking 10043411 Native 9711 - - 21200 Fair

Carlson Lake Parking 10043410 Native 5066 - - 11000 Fair

Allen Parking 10043409 Native 5307 - - 11600 Fair

New London Parking 10043408 Native 4571 65 0.33 10000 Fair

Roscoe Parking 10043478 Native 10200 - - 22200 Poor

Rice Lake Parking - Native 4645 - - 10100 Fair

Mud Lake North Parking 10043476 Native 9614 - - 20900 Fair

Mud Lake South Parking 10043475 Native 7938 - - 17300 Fair

Tyrone Flats Parking 10052164 Native 8296 - - 18100 Fair

Clear Lake Parking 10043444 Native 9796 - - 21300 Fair

Peifer School Parking 10043442 Native 7132 - - 15500 Fair

Geroy Parking 10012226 Native 8787 - - 19100 Poor

Faber Parking 10043479 Native 8976 - - 19500 Poor

Sogge Parking 10043480 Native 8607 - - 18700 Poor

Twin Lakes Parking 10043450 Native 4333 - - 9400 Good

Costello Parking 10043451 Native 8642 - - 18800 Fair

McCormic Lake Parking #2 10043452 Native 3072 - - 6700 Poor

McCormic Lake Parking #1 10043453 Native 1813 - - 3900 Poor

Swan Lake Parking 10043400 Native 15799 65 0.73 34400 Good

Shakopee Creek Parking 10043401 Native 1081 65 0.84 2400 Fair

Pennock Parking 10043402 Native 5297 - - 11500 Poor

Linden Lake East Parking 10043403 Native 15023 - - 32700 Fair

Linden Lake West Parking 10043404 Native 7480 - - 16300 Poor

Weber North Parking 10058787 Gravel 8900 65 0.73 44900 Good

Everson Parking 10043407 Native 6148 - - 13400 Poor

Barber Lake Parking 10012307 Native 7735 - - 16800 Fair

Boon Lake Parking 10043445 Native 13346 - - 29100 Fair

Brookfield Parking 10043446 Native 10660 - - 23200 Good

Cosmos Parking 10043421 Native 8870 - - 19300 Good

Pelican Lake East South 

Parking - Gravel 11709 - - 59100 Excellent

Pelican Lake East North 

Parking - Gravel 9914 - - 50100 Excellent

Angus Lake Parking 10043491 Gravel 4161 65 0.91 21000 Good

Silver Lake Parking 10012218 Gravel 6820 - - 34400 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-74

Table 71 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Litchfield

Corrina Parking 10043490 Native 11222 - - 24400 Fair

Albion Parking 10043489 Native 7401 - - 16100 Fair

Padua East Parking 10012238 Native 9296 - - 20200 Fair

Behnen Parking 10043462 Native 5387 - - 11700 Poor

Trisko South Parking 10043447 Native 5302 - - 11500 Fair

Trisko Central Parking 10043463 Native 4920 - - 10700 Poor

Trisko North Parking 10043464 Native 4912 - - 10700 Poor

Kenna North Parking 10043465 Native 7768 - - 16900 Fair

Kenna South Parking 10043448 Native 9352 - - 20400 Fair

Greenwald Parking 10043466 Native 9610 - - 20900 Good

Spring Hill Parking 10043467 Native 3289 - - 7200 Fair

Lake Henry Parking 10043468 Native 9650 - - 21000 Poor

Burbank North Parking 10043387 Native 8331 - - 18100 Good

Burbank Southwest Parking 10043388 Native 7692 - - 16800 Good

Burbank East Parking 10043389 Native 7845 - - 17100 Good

Crow Lake Parking 10043449 Gravel 9508 65 0.69 48000 Poor

Miller Hills Parking 10012247 Gravel 4994 65 0.36 25200 Good

Frease Parking 10043390 Native 5008 - - 10900 Poor

Sunberg Parking 10043391 Native 9513 65 0.73 20700 Poor

Colfax Parking 10043386 Gravel 7637 65 0.73 38600 Fair

Arctander South Parking 10043392 Native 4765 - - 10400 Fair

Arctander Northeast Parking 10043393 Native 8036 65 0.64 17500 Poor

Arctander Northwest Parking 10043394 Native 3488 - - 7600 Fair

Henjum Parking 10043395 Native 1659 - - 3600 Poor

Dengerud North Parking 10043396 Native 6208 - - 13500 Good

Dengerud South Parking 10043396 Gravel 12857 - - 64900 Good

Florida Slough Parking 10043397 Native 10071 - - 21900 Good

Rosendale East Parking 10043431 Native 8700 - - 18900 Good

Rosendale West Parking 10043432 Native 7627 - - 16600 Good

Greenleaf Parking 10043433 Native 8212 - - 17900 Good

Lake Hardin Parking 10043434 Native 8755 - - 19100 Fair

Litchfield South Parking 10043477 Native 8513 - - 18500 Good

Casey Lake West Parking 10043437 Native 8229 - - 17900 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-75

Table 72 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Litchfield

Casey Lake East Parking 10043438 Native 8662 - - 18900 Good

Hanson Lake East Parking 10043439 Native 9231 - - 20100 Good

Hanson Lake West Parking 10043440 Native 3565 - - 7800 Poor

Harvey Parking 10043441 Native 8512 - - 18500 Good

Stone Lake Parking 10012277 Gravel 11811 - - 59600 Fair

Big Fish Lake Parking 10043469 Native 10463 - - 22800 Fair

Sand Lake Parking 10043470 Native 5693 - - 12400 Fair

Farming Parking 10043471 Native 5871 - - 12800 Fair

St. Martin Parking 10043472 Native 5028 - - 11000 Poor

Lovell Lake East Parking 10043473 Native 7832 - - 17100 Fair

Lovell Lake West Parking 10043474 Native 8109 - - 17700 Fair

Forest City Parking 10043443 Native 9986 - - 21700 Fair

Robinson 35th St Parking 10043488 Native 14592 - - 31800 Fair

Forest City Parking 10043443 Native 7943 - - 17300 Poor

Eden Valley East Parking - Native 4237 - - 9200 Poor

Eden Valley North Parking 10052173 Gravel 3304 - - 16700 Good

Lake Henry North Parking 10046048 Native 7295 - - 15900 Fair

St. Martin East Parking 10046049 Native 3491 - - 7600 Poor

Lake Lillian Parking 10052185 Gravel 11191 - - 56500 Fair

Bomsta Parking 10052183 Native 7842 - - 17100 Fair

Cedar Mills Southwest Parking 10046072 Native 9791 - - 21300 Fair

Cedar Mills Southeast Parking 10046071 Native 9157 - - 19900 Fair

Weber South Parking 10058787 Gravel 6665 65 0.73 33700 Excellent

Stone Lake Service Parking Lot - Native 18950 - - 41300 Good

Tyrone Flats Hunter Access Park 10052164 Native 2917 - - 6400 Fair

Collegeville Hunter Access 

Parking Loop 10046055 Gravel 7881 - - 39800 Fair

Krain Hunter Access Parking 10058786 Primitive 1292 65 0.73 0 Poor

Crosier Hunter Access Parking 10043454 Native 9009 - - 19600 Fair

Terfehr Hunting Access Rd - Native 1161 - - 2500 Poor

West Union Hunting Access Rd - Native 563 - - 1200 Poor

Weiner Parking 10058777 Native 562 65 0.32 1200 Poor

Ashley WPA Parking 10052181 Native 5590 - - 12200 Fair

Prairie Storm WPA East Parking 10058778 Primitive 716 65 0.32 0 Poor

Prairie Storm WPA South 

Parking 10058779 Native 2078 65 0.10 4500 Poor

Bauman WPA Northwest 

Parking 10058774 Native 507 65 0.73 1100 Poor
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-76

Table 73 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Litchfield

Bauman WPA East Parking 10058773 Native 610 65 0.73 1300 Poor

Colfax WPA West Parking 10051198 Native 1523 - - 3300 Poor

Randall WPA South Parking 10058781 Gravel 7751 65 0.73 39100 Excellent

Randall WPA North Parking 10058780 Gravel 7109 65 0.12 35900 Excellent

Brenner Lake WPA Parking 10058782 Gravel 5154 65 0.32 26000 Excellent

Henjum Lake WPA North 

Parking 10043611 Native 3982 - - 8700 Fair

Henjum Lake WPA Central 

Parking 10046312 Gravel 6369 - - 32200 Fair

Century WPA Parking 10058783 Gravel 8893 65 0.32 44900 Fair

New London WPA SW Parking 10058784 Gravel 9543 65 0.32 48200 Good

Allen WPA East Parking 10046057 Native 2424 - - 5300 Fair

Weber South Parking 10058787 Gravel 9421 65 0.73 47600 Good

Ella Lake WPA Central Road 10058789 Primitive 517 65 0.32 0 Poor

Rosendale WPA North Parking 10046069 Gravel 3105 - - 15700 Fair

Cream City WPA Parking - Primitive 404 - - 0 Poor

Sacred Heart WPA Northeast 

Parking 10058792 Native 827 65 0.32 1800 Fair

Sacred Heart WPA West Parking 10058791 Primitive 399 65 0.32 0 Fair

Barber Lake WPA Parking 10012307 Primitive 428 - - 0 Fair

Last One West Parking 10058793 Primitive 417 65 0.32 0 Fair

Last One East Parking 10058794 Primitive 647 65 0.32 0 Fair

Barta-Oliva WPA South Parking 10046063 Primitive 870 65 0.73 0 Poor

Barta-Oliva WPA West Parking 10046060 Native 8230 65 0.32 17900 Fair

Lake Harden WPA EastParking - Primitive 654 - - 0 Fair

Lake Harden WPA North Parking - Primitive 706 - - 0 Fair

Litchfield Headquarters Parking - Asphalt 17401 - - 161000 Excellent

Litchfield Main Shop Parking 10043435 Gravel 39043 - - 197100 Excellent

Litchfield North Parking 10043436 Gravel 1174 - - 5900 Poor

Harvey East Parking 10043436 Native 1530 - - 3300 Poor

Goose Lake Parking 10043436 Primitive 3415 - - 0 Fair

Pelican Lake West Parking 2 10043492 Native 29124 - - 63400 Good

Pelican Lake West Parking 1 10043492 Native 23870 - - 52000 Good

Pelican Lake West Parking 3 10043492 Gravel 5483 - - 27700 Good

Pelican Lake North Parking 1 10058796 Gravel 8391 65 0.21 42400 Good

Pelican Lake North Parking 2 10058796 Gravel 10319 65 0.21 52100 Excellent

Pelican Lake South 45th and 

Ibarra Intersection Parking 10043481 Gravel 9815 65 0.21 49600 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-77

Table 74 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Meredosia 

NWR

Shearl/Skinner Wetlands 

Parking 10043498 Gravel 3094 65 0.11 0 Poor

Nature Trail Parking 10014048 Gravel 7070 65 0.10 0 Good

Boat Ramp Parking 10043499 Gravel 8467 65 0.09 0 Fair

Shop Parking - Native 13822 - - Fair

Michigan 

Islands 

NWR

Malan WPA Parking 10060046 Gravel 3085 - - 16400 Excellent

Schlee WPA Parking 10060044 Gravel 8814 - - 47000 Good

Kinney WPA Parking 10060048 Gravel 3650 - - 19500 Fair

Edgar WPA Parking 10060052 Gravel 2161 - - 11500 Good

Middle 

Mississippi 

River NWR

North Wilkinson Island Access 

Parking 10043501 Native 8236 65 0.35 17900 Fair

South Central Wilkinson Island 

Access Parking 10043503 Native 5235 65 0.30 11400 Fair

Middle Harlow Island Access 

Parking 10043507 Primitive 5890 65 0.73 0 Poor

South Harlow Island/Truman 

Boat Ramp Access Parking 10043506 Asphalt 873 65 0.73 8100 Good

Central Wilkinson Island 

Parking 10061163 Gravel 3235 - - 16300 Fair

Southern Wilkinson Island 

Parking 10061165 Primitive 17113 - - 0 Poor

Meissner Island Parking 10061183 Native 6341 - - 13800 Fair

South Harlow Island/Truman 

Boat Ramp Handicapped 

Access Parking 10043506 Asphalt 379 65 0.73 3500 Good

Shop Parking 10055415 Gravel 1787 - - 9000 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10055417 Gravel 3809 - - 19300 Good

Mingo 

NWR

Bow Hunters Parking Area 10013000 Gravel 3748 65 0.37 18700 Fair

Schoolhouse Parking 10012999 Asphalt 2895 65 0.24 26500 Good

Red Mill Parking Area 10013001 Gravel 9810 65 0.37 49000 Good

Boardwalk Parking Area 10037637 Gravel 1849 65 0.22 9200 Good

Bluff Tower Parking Area 10037638 Asphalt 14966 - - 136900 Fair

Headquarters Employee 

Parking 10037646 Asphalt 5891 - - 53900 Fair

Boat Ramp Parking Area 10037647 Gravel 623 65 0.99 3100 Fair

Flat Banks Parking Lot 10013002 Gravel 2504 65 0.37 12500 Fair

Boardwalk Nature Trail South 

Parking - Asphalt 8560 - - 78300 Good

Maintenance Parking 10013004 Asphalt 32704 65 0.38 299200 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-78

Table 75 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area 

Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Mingo 

NWR

Trailer Parking 10013003 Asphalt 8352 65 0.38 76400 Poor

Covered Shop Parking 10013003 Gravel 3178 65 0.38 15900 Fair

Maintenance Employee Parking 10013004 Asphalt 17839 65 0.38 163200 Good

Maintenance Equipment Parking 10013004 Asphalt 33063 65 0.38 302500 Fair

Spillway Parking Area 10037648 Gravel 4242 - - 21200 Good

Refuge Auto Tour Route Lookout 

Parking 10037240 Gravel 1768 - - 8800 Good

Mingo River Boat Launch 

Parking 10057249 Gravel 4743 - - 23700 Good

Monopoly Marsh Parking 10057297 Gravel 1996 - - 10000 Fair

Highway 51 Overlook Parking 10057284 Gravel 7803 65 0.46 39000 Good

Schoolhouse Overflow Parking 10012999 Gravel 3293 65 0.24 16400 Good

Hunt Area Parking - Gravel 1346 - - 6700 Excellent

Rockhouse Overlook Parking 10057222 Asphalt 1006 - - 9200 Excellent

Pierman Parking 10057242 Gravel 3099 - - 15500 Fair

DItch 5/11 Parking 10057253 Asphalt 2201 - - 20100 Excellent

Minnesota 

Valley 

NWR

County Road 50 Parking 10043519 Gravel 23147 65 0.14 144100 Good

County Road 45 Parking 10043521 Gravel 6292 65 0.17 39200 Good

Louisville Swamp Parking 10012495 Gravel 26915 65 0.37 167600 Good

Upgrala West Parking 10012478 Asphalt 25920 65 0.09 295800 Good

Wilkie Parking 10012458 Gravel 10781 65 0.37 67100 Poor

Visitor Center Parking 10012332 Asphalt 65842 - - 751300

Field Offices Parking 10012315 Asphalt 17466 - - 199300 Fair

Bass Ponds Parking 10012376 Asphalt 2030 - - 23200 Excellent

Cedar Avenue Parking 10012400 Asphalt 26427 65 0.10 301600 Good

Lyndale Avenue Parking 10012425 Asphalt 43709 65 0.09 498800 Good

Bloomington Ferry Parking 10012542 Asphalt 14032 65 0.09 160100 Fair

Old County Road 18 Parking 10012541 Asphalt 30017 65 0.04 342500 Good

Duck Lane Parking 10060225 Gravel 4699 29300 Good

Rapids Lake Parking 10043521 Gravel 20335 65 0.17 126600 Good

Visitor Center Employee Parking 10012330 Asphalt 12873 65 0.11 146900 Good

Wilkie Boat Launch Parking 10012540 Gravel 7139 65 0.14 44500 Good

Shakopee Shop Parking 10012451 Native 11233 - - 30200 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-79

Table 76 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset No. Surfac

e

Area 

Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Minnesota 

Valley 

NWR

Educational Center Visitor Parking 1 - Asphalt 2771 - - 31600 Excellent

Educational Center Visitor Parking 2 - Asphalt 4958 - - 56600 Excellent

Rapids Lake Shop Parking - Gravel 51381 - - 320000 Excellent

Rapids Lake Residence Parking - Gravel 1217 - - 7600 Excellent

Rapids Lake Residence Handicap 

Parking - Asphalt 309 - - 3500 Excellent

Rapids Lake Unit South Hunter 

Parking Lot - Gravel 6079 - - 37900 Good

Duck Lane Hunter/Seasonal Parking - Native 2733 - - 7300 Good

Black Dog Observation Parking 10059901 Gravel 5051 - - 31500 Excellent

Bass Pond Lower Parking 10012377 Asphalt 16694 65 0.97 190500 Good

Rice Lake Launch and Parking 10012539 Gravel 25838 65 0.36 160900 Fair

Louisville Swamp Hunter Parking 10012505 Gravel 4733 65 0.75 29500 Good

Minnesota 

Valley 

WMD

Soberg WPA Parking 10043522 Gravel 9558 - - 59500 Excellent

Straight Creek WPA Parking 10043525 Gravel 5590 - - 34800 Fair

Cobb River Parking 10043516 Gravel 5607 - - 34900 Fair

Cobb River South Parking 10043515 Gravel 5878 - - 36600 Fair

Cobb River East Parking 10043517 Native 4038 - - 10800 Fair

Perbix WPA Parking 10043520 Gravel 3893 - - 24200 Fair

Redhead WPA Parking 10043523 Gravel 5860 - - 36500 Fair

Rice Lake WPA Parking 10052114 Native 5818 - - 15600 Fair

Erin Prairie Parking 10052014 Native 3848 - - 10300 Fair

Hurley WPA Parking 10052079 Native 11477 - - 30800 Fair

Wolf Creek WPA Parking 10052135 Native 4245 - - 11400 Fair

Dodge Center Creek Parking 10052006 Native 6219 - - 16700 Fair

Howard Farm WPA Parking 10052074 Native 14231 - - 38200 Fair

Preuss WPA Parking 10052018 Native 5676 - - 15200 Fair

Delehanty WPA Parking 10060219 Native 6172 - - 16600 Fair

Fickling WPA Parking 10052022 Native 3840 - - 10300 Fair

Dehning WPA Parking 10060218 Native 5927 - - 15900 Fair

Hahn Lake WPA Parking 10052025 Native 4105 - - 11000 Fair

High Island WPA Parking 10052034 Native 6731 - - 18100 Fair

Felber WPA Parking 10059773 Native 22811 - - 61300 Good

Shelby WPA Parking 10059770 Native 5976 - - 16100 Good

Willow Creek WPA Parking - Native 5646 - - 15200 Good

Evans Slough WPA Parking 10059771 Native 5575 - - 15000 Good

MN Pheasants WPA Parking 10059775 Native 1295 - - 3500 Good

Mud Lake WPA Parking 10043524 Gravel 6297 - - 39200 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-80

Table 77 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Scofield 10043607 Native 4317 65 0.32 9400 Fair

Lynch Lake #1 10043647 Native 4238 65 0.32 9200 Fair

Lynch Lake #2 10043647 Native 7614 65 0.32 16600 Fair

Maki 10043654 Native 3483 65 0.32 7600 Fair

Lynch Lake #3 10043647 Native 3775 65 0.32 8200 Fair

Benson Lake #2 10043580 Native 6647 65 0.32 14500 Fair

Benson Lake #1 10043580 Native 7191 65 0.32 15700 Fair

Hagstrom 10043591 Native 5826 65 0.32 12700 Fair

New Prairie 10043612 Native 2711 65 0.32 5900 Fair

Snetting 10043611 Native 2656 65 0.32 5800 Fair

Stewart #2 10043595 Native 5877 65 0.32 12800 Fair

Stewart #1 10043595 Native 4119 65 0.32 9000 Fair

Stammer 10043594 Native 2383 65 0.32 5200 Fair

Starbuck 10043596 Native 5411 65 0.32 11800 Fair

Froland 10043597 Native 7461 65 0.14 16300 Good

Rolling Forks #5 10043614 Native 14423 65 0.32 31400 Fair

Rolling Forks #4 10043614 Native 6308 65 0.32 13700 Fair

Rolling Forks #3 10043614 Native 8664 65 0.32 18900 Fair

Rolling Forks #2 10043614 Native 6169 65 0.32 13400 Fair

Rolling Forks #1 10043614 Native 5294 65 0.32 11500 Fair

Pedersen #2 10012018 Native 5602 65 0.32 12200 Fair

Pedersen #1 10012018 Native 6274 65 0.32 13700 Fair

Bengtson 10043651 Native 6378 65 0.32 13900 Fair

Horton 10011978 Native 7114 65 0.32 15500 Fair

Moore East 10011991 Native 5221 65 0.32 11400 Fair

Hoff 10043590 Native 4715 65 0.32 10300 Fair

Moore West 10011991 Native 2399 65 0.32 5200 Fair

Fitzgerald 10043615 Native 7196 65 0.32 15700 Fair

Solvie 10043640 Native 1079 65 0.32 2400 Fair

Klevenburg 10043610 Native 2382 65 0.32 5200 Fair

Little Chippewa River 10043609 Native 7471 65 0.32 16300 Fair

Glacial Lakes 10043584 Native 6326 65 0.32 13800 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-81

Table 78 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Berg 10043583 Native 2398 65 0.32 5200 Fair

Blue Mounds 10043582 Native 5644 65 0.32 12300 Fair

Kolstad #1 10043581 Native 5909 65 0.32 12900 Fair

Kolstad #2 10043581 Native 7101 65 0.32 15500 Fair

Kolstad #3 10043581 Native 6725 65 0.32 14600 Fair

Stenson Lake 10043599 Native 6944 65 0.32 15100 Fair

Larson Slough 10043544 Native 4696 65 0.14 10200 Good

Eids Lutheran 10043542 Native 5079 65 0.14 11100 Good

Thomson 10043543 Native 5708 65 0.14 12400 Good

Krogsrud 10011937 Native 7187 65 0.14 15700 Good

Nelson 10011935 Native 8053 65 0.14 17500 Good

Welsh 10043648 Native 6846 65 0.32 14900 Fair

Svor 10043649 Native 5578 65 0.32 12100 Fair

Loen #1 10043650 Native 6721 65 0.32 14600 Fair

Welker 10043653 Native 5249 65 0.32 11400 Fair

Stenerson Lake #1 10043598 Native 3240 65 0.32 7100 Fair

Powers 10043568 Native 9275 65 0.32 20200 Fair

Morris District Office 

Parking 10011973 Asphalt 34739 65 0.86 321400 Poor

Aal 10054489 Native 5329 65 0.14 11600 Fair

Ben Wade 10054485 Native 3933 65 0.17 8600 Fair

Geise 10054480 Native 6246 65 0.17 13600 Fair

Barry Lake #1 10043566 Native 12529 65 0.50 27300 Fair

Geyer #1 10043661 Native 6987 65 0.23 15200 Fair

Geyer #2 10048520 Native 5155 65 0.33 11200 Fair

Geyer #3 10043661 Native 5238 65 0.23 11400 Fair

Chokio 10048527 Native 3820 65 0.33 8300 Fair

Odden #1 10043551 Native 9646 65 0.32 21000 Fair

Dismal Swamp #1 10043548 Native 11448 65 0.32 24900 Fair

Dismal Swamp #2 10043548 Native 9067 65 0.32 19700 Fair

Big Stone 10043631 Native 9011 65 0.32 19600 Fair

Golden 10043628 Native 7078 65 0.32 15400 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-82

Table 79 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Olson #1 10043545 Native 9662 65 0.32 21000 Fair

Olson #2 10043545 Native 3759 65 0.32 8200 Fair

Olson #3 10043545 Native 4892 65 0.32 10700 Fair

Olson #4 10043545 Native 4896 65 0.32 10700 Fair

Akron 10011934 Native 7565 65 0.32 16500 Fair

Lubenow #3 10043644 Native 7235 65 0.21 15800 Fair

Lubenow #1 10043644 Native 6766 65 0.21 14700 Good

Lubenow #2 10043644 Native 6036 65 0.21 13100 Good

Byre #1 10043646 Native 8174 65 0.32 17800 Fair

Byre #2 10043646 Native 6956 65 0.32 15200 Fair

Spring Lake 10012005 Native 8547 65 0.32 18600 Fair

Westhausen 10043643 Native 9770 65 0.14 21300 Good

Hastad #2 10043579 Native 8062 65 0.32 17600 Fair

Hegland #2 10043579 Native 6323 65 0.32 13800 Fair

Hastad #1 10043579 Native 2693 65 0.32 5900 Fair

Hegland #1 10043578 Native 5738 65 0.32 12500 Fair

Boraas 10043577 Native 2543 65 0.32 5500 Fair

Quaal 10043576 Native 4620 65 0.32 10100 Fair

Swede Home 10043663 Native 5235 65 0.32 11400 Fair

Dakota 10043662 Native 3466 65 0.32 7500 Fair

Bailey Slough 10011946 Native 3702 65 0.32 8100 Fair

Pearson 10011947 Native 3944 65 0.32 8600 Fair

Taylor 10011945 Native 2340 65 0.32 5100 Fair

Bolson Slough 10043571 Native 5724 65 0.32 12500 Fair

Florida Creek 10043572 Native 3225 65 0.32 7000 Fair

Colbert #1 10043573 Native 6897 65 0.32 15000 Fair

Colbert #2 10043573 Native 5152 65 0.32 11200 Fair

Wildlife Trail Overlook 

Parking 10011977 Native 1751 65 0.42 3800 Fair

Long Lake #4 10043641 Native 5759 65 0.32 12500 Fair

Long Lake #5 10043641 Native 9785 65 0.32 21300 Fair

Beck 10043561 Native 476 65 0.89 1000 Poor

Sherstad Slough 10043624 Native 1578 65 0.32 3400 Fair

Staack 10011965 Native 3047 65 0.21 6600 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-83

Table 80 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Hassel Creek 10011953 Native 3660 65 0.32 8000 Fair

Greiner #2 10043588 Native 8183 65 0.32 17800 Fair

Greiner #1 10043588 Native 9725 65 0.32 21200 Fair

Walden #1 10043589 Native 7746 65 0.32 16900 Fair

Twin Lakes 10043539 Native 9892 65 0.32 21500 Fair

Lamprecht #2 10043617 Native 6679 65 0.32 14500 Fair

Stimmler #1 10043618 Native 9409 65 0.32 20500 Fair

Schultz #1 10043619 Native 7414 65 0.32 16100 Fair

Schultz #2 10043619 Native 6315 65 0.32 13800 Fair

Pepperton #1 10043620 Native 6917 65 0.32 15100 Fair

Pepperton #2 10043620 Native 5685 65 0.32 12400 Fair

Pepperton #4 10043620 Native 7545 65 0.32 16400 Fair

Pepperton #5 10043620 Native 6645 65 0.32 14500 Fair

Freeman 10043621 Native 9959 65 0.32 21700 Fair

Pepperton #3 10043620 Native 5691 65 0.32 12400 Fair

Miller 10043626 Native 8585 65 0.32 18700 Fair

Fults 10043625 Native 9759 65 0.32 21300 Fair

Hutchinson 10043638 Native 5270 65 0.32 11500 Fair

Struck 10043637 Native 6610 65 0.32 14400 Fair

Mau 10043635 Native 2237 65 0.32 4900 Fair

Wente #2 10043636 Native 7258 65 0.32 15800 Fair

Wente #1 10043636 Native 5272 65 0.32 11500 Fair

Pomme de Terre Lake 10043634 Native 5407 65 0.32 11800 Fair

Pomme de Terre River #2 10043639 Native 5665 65 0.32 12300 Fair

Krantz Lake 10043605 Native 2846 65 0.32 6200 Fair

Grove Lake #1 10043604 Native 6650 65 0.32 14500 Fair

Mosquito Ranch #2 10012017 Native 7455 65 0.32 16200 Fair

Mosquito Ranch #1 10012017 Native 2559 65 0.32 5600 Fair

Brady 10043652 Native 8283 65 0.32 18000 Fair

Rice 10012006 Native 6337 65 0.32 13800 Fair

Walden #2 10043589 Native 7015 65 0.32 15300 Fair

Grove Lake #2 10043604 Native 10090 65 0.32 22000 Fair

Grove Lake #3 10043604 Native 11343 65 0.32 24700 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-84

Table 81 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Glenwood #3 10043606 Native 10954 65 0.32 23900 Fair

Glenwood #2 10043606 Native 5498 65 0.32 12000 Fair

Glenwood #1 10043606 Native 4206 65 0.32 9200 Fair

Bangor #2 10043603 Native 6675 65 0.21 14500 Fair

Benson Lake #3 10043580 Native 5204 65 0.32 11300 Fair

Artichoke #3 10043546 Native 7416 65 0.31 16200 Fair

Anderson 10043629 Native 4677 65 0.32 10200 Fair

Stevens 10043630 Native 9744 65 0.32 21200 Fair

Dybdahl 10043547 Native 5244 65 0.32 11400 Fair

Jorgenson #1 10043555 Native 5939 65 0.32 12900 Fair

Jorgenson #2 10043555 Native 6392 65 0.32 13900 Fair

Wiley 10043554 Native 10958 65 0.32 23900 Fair

Mero 10043616 Native 6833 65 0.32 14900 Fair

Lamprecht #1 10043617 Native 5047 65 0.32 11000 Fair

Lake Johanna #1 10043602 Native 8201 65 0.32 17900 Fair

Welfare 10043633 Native 4852 65 0.32 10600 Fair

Artichoke Lake #5 10043657 Native 5571 65 0.19 12100 Fair

Artichoke Lake #4 10043657 Native 4860 65 0.19 10600 Fair

Artichoke Lake #3 10043657 Native 5110 65 0.19 11100 Fair

Artichoke Lake #2 10043657 Native 2617 65 0.19 5700 Fair

Artichoke Lake #1 10043657 Native 25006 65 0.19 54500 Fair

Henry 10043569 Native 4014 65 0.32 8700 Fair

Twin Lakes Eastside 10043570 Native 5667 65 0.32 12300 Fair

Artichoke #1 10043546 Native 7225 65 0.31 15700 Fair

Artichoke #2 10043546 Native 4790 65 0.31 10400 Fair

Johnson #2 10043553 Native 2657 65 0.32 5800 Fair

Johnson #1 10043553 Native 5236 65 0.32 11400 Fair

Bangor #1 10043603 Native 3085 65 0.21 6700 Fair

Heidebrink #2 10011952 Native 18729 65 0.32 40800 Fair

Overby #2 10043600 Native 4878 65 0.32 10600 Fair

Overby #1 10043600 Native 9502 65 0.32 20700 Fair

Nelson Lake #1 10043601 Native 3595 65 0.32 7800 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-85

Table 82 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Nelson Lake #2 10043601 Native 2794 65 0.32 6100 Fair

Ouren 10043613 Native 4389 65 0.32 9600 Fair

Heidebrink #1 10011952 Native 1988 65 0.32 4300 Fair

Horse Lake 10043608 Native 4833 65 0.32 10500 Fair

McIver #3 10043593 Native 4015 65 0.32 8700 Fair

McIver #2 10043593 Native 3019 65 0.32 6600 Fair

Mattson 10043592 Native 5177 65 0.32 11300 Fair

Fish Lake #1 10043622 Native 6452 65 0.49 14100 Fair

Fish Lake #2 10043622 Native 5242 65 0.49 11400 Poor

Edwards West Lot 10011977 Native 3573 65 0.42 7800 Fair

Edwards East Lot 10011977 Gravel 7418 65 0.42 37500 Fair

Nordby 10043632 Native 9760 65 0.32 21300 Fair

Wildlife Trail Entrance 

Parking 10011977 Native 8117 65 0.42 17700 Fair

Tangen 10043537 Native 6090 65 0.32 13300 Fair

Red Head Marsh 

North 10043538 Native 3881 65 0.14 8500 Good

Johnson 10043623 Native 4660 65 0.16 10100 Fair

Menzel 10043536 Native 7494 - - 16300 Excellent

Hillman #2 10043535 Native 8844 65 0.14 19300 Good

Hillman #1 10043535 Native 9755 65 0.14 21200 Good

Rothi #3 10043541 Native 6196 65 0.52 13500 Fair

Rothi #2 10043541 Native 2153 65 0.52 4700 Poor

Rothi #1 10043541 Native 10839 65 0.52 23600 Poor

Helgeson #2 10043540 Native 5622 65 0.32 12200 Fair

Helgeson #1 10043540 Native 5132 65 0.32 11200 Fair

Larson 10043574 Native 3292 65 0.32 7200 Fair

Hackert 10043575 Native 3246 65 0.32 7100 Fair

Anderson 10043567 Native 3107 65 0.32 6800 Fair

Robin Hood #3 10043658 Native 2931 65 0.32 6400 Fair

Robin Hood #2 10043658 Native 7051 65 0.32 15400 Fair

Robin Hood #1 10043658 Native 5295 65 0.32 11500 Fair

Murphy 10043660 Native 4619 65 0.32 10100 Fair

Paul 10043659 Native 6522 65 0.32 14200 Fair

Togua 10043565 Native 2397 65 0.14 5200 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-86

Table 83 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Morris

Lane #2 10043564 Native 4309 65 0.21 9400 Fair

Lane #1 10043564 Native 7564 65 0.21 16500 Good

Seidl 10043563 Native 6312 65 0.14 13700 Good

Boehnke 10043560 Native 8051 65 0.14 17500 Good

Karsky #1 10043559 Native 9392 65 0.14 20500 Good

Karsky #3 10043559 Native 10733 65 0.14 23400 Good

Karsky #2 10043559 Native 6925 65 0.14 15100 Good

Haugen 10043562 Native 5218 65 0.14 11400 Good

Bauman 10048517 Native 5616 65 0.35 12200 Fair

Almond 10043557 Native 5377 65 0.14 11700 Good

Goldsmith 10043556 Native 4232 65 0.14 9200 Good

Stegner #1 10043558 Native 5947 65 0.23 13000 Fair

Stegner #2 10043558 Native 5808 65 0.23 12600 Good

Barry Lake #2 10043566 Native 7337 65 0.50 16000 Fair

Spellman Lake 10054483 Native 4316 65 0.17 9400 Good

Red Head Marsh 

Central 10048519 Primitive 1755 65 0.33 0 Fair

Clinton 10048521 Native 4771 65 0.33 10400 Fair

Curran 10048518 Native 4714 65 0.33 10300 Fair

Fish Lake #3 - Native 16309 - - 35500 Fair

Huebner 10048528 Native 4495 65 0.33 9800 Fair

Equipment Parking - Gravel 23168 - - 117000 Fair

Shop Parking 10054490 Asphalt 18604 65 0.42 172100 Excellent

Employee/Maintanence 

Parking - Asphalt 23768 - - 219900 Fair

Employee Parking - Native 2215 - - 4800 Good

Walden #4 10043589 Native 5621 65 0.32 12200 Fair

Rustad 10060221 Native 4148 - - 9000 Fair

Loen #2 10043650 Gravel 512 65 0.32 2600 Good

Gjerdigen 10048524 Native 8010 65 0.22 17400 Fair

Paulson 10048524 Primitive 681 65 0.22 0 Fair

Stenerson Lake#2 10043598 Native 4437 65 0.32 9700 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-87

Table 84 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area 

Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Muscatatuck 

NWR

Persimmon Pond 

Parking A 10054333 Gravel 6120 65 0.13 30900 Good

Lake Linda Parking 10054335 Gravel 9200 65 0.13 46500 Fair

Myers Cabin Site Parking 10054334 Gravel 6961 65 0.13 35100 Good

Visitor Center Parking A 10043675 Asphalt 7409 65 0.09 68500 Good

Check Station Loop A 10043680 Asphalt 3915 65 0.36 36200 Excellent

Visitor Center Parking B 10054329 Asphalt 14171 65 0.13 131100 Good

Headquarters Parking 10043674 Asphalt 4942 65 0.09 45700 Good

Shop South Parking 10049636 Gravel 8142 65 0.13 41100 Fair

Visitor Center Overflow 

Annex Parking 10054330 Gravel 54250 65 0.15 273900 Fair

Overlook Structure 

Access Parking 10054343 Gravel 1894 - - 9600 Fair

Check Station Loop B 10054331 Gravel 2027 65 0.36 10200 Fair

Turkey Trail Parking 10054338 Gravel 2860 65 0.36 14400 Good

Bird Trail Parking 10054345 Gravel 3629 65 0.13 18300 Good

Hackman Overlook 

(Richart TH) Parking 10054344 Gravel 5973 65 0.13 30200 Good

Stanfield Lake Restroom 

Parking - Native 1007 - - 2200 Good

Persimmon Pond 

Parking B 10054357 Native 3627 65 0.84 7900 Failed

Stanfield Lake Loop 

Parking 10054342 Gravel 7699 65 0.11 38900 Good

Stanfield Lake Boat 

Ramp Parking 10054332 Gravel 5753 65 0.13 29000 Good

County Line Road 

Parking A 10054346 Gravel 762 65 0.13 3800 Good

County Line Road 

Parking B 10054350 Gravel 706 65 0.36 3600 Good

County Line Road South 

Parking 10054347 Gravel 3611 65 0.13 18200 Good

Sandhill Ponds Parking 10054349 Gravel 3623 65 0.13 18300 Good

Myers Cabin South 

Roadside Parking 10054336 Gravel 2037 65 0.13 10300 Good

Main Shop Parking 10049636 Gravel 19021 65 0.13 96000 Good

Shop Central Parking 10049636 Gravel 8242 65 0.13 41600 Fair

Storm Creek TH Parking 10054339 Gravel 11398 65 0.13 57500 Good

Restle Unit Parking 10054488 Gravel 3219 65 0.00 16300 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-88

Table 85 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Necedah 

NWR

Observation Tower Parking 10043690 Gravel 2203 65 0.98 11600 Good

DU Parking 10043691 Gravel 9213 - - 48600 Good

Headquarters Parking 10041418 Asphalt 11609 - - 112200 Good

Highway 21 Parking 10041423 Asphalt 13009 - - 125700 Excellent

Sprague Fishing Access #1 10011443 Gravel 3712 65 0.77 19600 Fair

Sprague Fishing Access #2 10043688 Gravel 7220 65 0.33 38100 Fair

Sprague Kiosk Parking 10043689 Gravel 5825 65 0.49 30700 Good

Suk Cerney Parking 10058710 Gravel 3936 - - 20800 Fair

Turkey Track East Parking 10058755 Native 24044 - - 54700 Fair

Speedway Road Parking 10058749 Native 49604 - - 112800 Fair

Speedway Road Parking #2 10058750 Native 23397 - - 53200 Fair

Speedway Road Parking #3 10058719 Native 21912 - - 49800 Fair

Headquarters Service Parking 10058704 Gravel 7166 65 0.31 37800 Good

Headquarters Service Loading 

Dock Parking 10058707 Gravel 803 - - 4200 Good

Cleary Building Service Parking 10058706 Gravel 2749 - - 14500 Good

Headquarters Staff Asphalt 

Parking 10058699 Asphalt 6850 65 0.51 66200 Fair

Headquarters Staff Concrete 

Parking 10058699 Concrete 1608 65 0.51 18900 Good

Maintenance Shop Parking 10058702 Gravel 10894 - - 57400 Fair

Maintenance Side of Shop 

Parking 10058702 Gravel 1046 - - 5500 Good

Staff New Maintenance Shop 

Parking 10058701 Gravel 5509 - - 29100 Good

Fire Cache Front Vehicle Parking 10058703 Gravel 5582 - - 29400 Good

Fire Cache Rear Vehicle Parking 10058703 Gravel 5787 - - 30500 Good

Ellen Allen Learning Center 

Parking 10058765 Asphalt 722 - - 7000 Fair

New Visitor Center Staff Parking 10059664 Gravel 9376 - - 49400 Excellent

New Visitor Center Staff Parking 10059663 Gravel 13705 - - 72300 Excellent

Grand Dike Hunter Parking 10058743 Gravel 1884 - - 9900 Good

Pair Ponds Parking - Gravel 988 - - 5200 Good

Bowshoot Parking 10058729 Native 1564 - - 3600 Fair

Staff Annex Parking 10058700 Gravel 13475 65 0.46 71100 Good

Laske Gate Parking 10058746 Primitive 1282 - - 0 Poor

Laske West Parking - Gravel 4025 - - 21200 Good

Canfield East Parking - Gravel 1256 - - 6600 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-89

Table 86 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Necedah 

NWR

Speedway Hunter Parking #1 - Primitive 2240 - - 0 Fair

Speedway Parking #1 10058717 Primitive 7800 - - 0 Fair

Speedway Parking at SpencerRobinson Ditch 10058718 Primitive 2369 - - 0 Fair

Speedway Hunter Parking #2 10058721 Primitive 4688 - - 0 Fair

Becker Gate Parking 10058726 Primitive 2799 - - 0 Fair

Parking 10th Avenue OSR 9A N. 10058728 Primitive 752 - - 0 Fair

Hansen West Gate Parking 10058732 Primitive 1772 - - 0 Good

Canfields Parking at Wildlife 

Viewing Area 10058713 Gravel 1202 - - 6300 Good

7th Avenue Northeast Side Park. 10058748 Primitive 872 - - 0 Fair

5th Avenue and 173 Parking 10058764 Primitive 6786 65 1.00 0 Fair

Turkey Tracks Gate South Side 

Parking 10058756 Gravel 338 - - 1800 Fair

Sprague-Mather West Boundary 

Parking 10058735 Primitive 2482 - - 0 Good

Sprague-Mather Albert Lateral 

Ditch North Parking 10058733 Primitive 3924 - - 0 Fair

Sprague-Mather Albert Lateral 

Ditch South Parking 10058734 Primitive 1352 - - 0 Fair

6th Avenue Canfield Gate Parking 10058753 Gravel 366 - - 1900 Good

Sprague-Mather #45 Parking 10058742 Primitive 328 - - 0 Fair

Sprague-Mather #44 Parking 10058752 Native 2777 - - 6300 Good

Spencer-Robinson Ditch Parking 10058758 Primitive 1922 - - 0 Good

6th Avenue North of Canfield Park. 10058714 Primitive 763 - - 0 Fair

6th Avenue Canfield Gate Parking 10058731 Native 2130 - - 4800 Fair

Bewick Lateral South Side Parking 10058739 Primitive 1378 - - 0 Good

Bewick Lateral North Side Parking 10058738 Primitive 1827 - - 0 Fair

5th Avenue Parking 10058736 Native 967 - - 2200 Good

7th Avenue Northeast Side Parking 10058751 Primitive 1987 - - 0 Good

Speedway at Spencer-Robinson 

Trail Gate 10058716 Primitive 1419 - - 0 Fair

Speedway OSR 9B North Line Park. 10058722 Primitive 12750 - - 0 Good

Speedway OSR 9B Parking 10058723 Primitive 5194 - - 0 Fair

Hansen East Gate Parking 10058747 Primitive 769 - - 0 Good

Grand Dike East Parking 10058745 Native 3008 - - 6800 Good

Grand Dike West Parking 10058744 Native 3063 - - 7000 Good

Suk Cerney Dike Parking 10058730 Native 1297 - - 3000 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-90

Table 87 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Ottawa 

NWR

Visitor Parking 10010804 Gravel 19223 65 0.47 106800 Good

Office Parking 10010803 Asphalt 4972 65 0.84 50600 Excellent

MS Unit 7b Parking 10010800 Gravel 526 - - 2900 Fair

MS Unit 7a Parking - Gravel 352 - - 2000 Fair

Pool 9 Blind 9 Parking - Gravel 715 - - 4000 Fair

Pool 9 Blind 12 Parking - Gravel 932 - - 5200 Fair

Stange Parking 10010809 Gravel 5524 - - 30700 Good

County Line Road Parking 10010807 Gravel 3684 - - 20500 Good

Boneyard Parking - Gravel 57912 - - 321600 Fair

YCC Lodge Parking 10010806 Native 24783 65 0.22 59400 Fair

Grimm Prairie Parking 10050878 Gravel 2731 65 0.00 15200 Good

Diefenthaler Access Road 10050876 Native 9244 - - 22100 Good

Linsey-Limestone Road 

Parking 10010840 Asphalt 6552 - - 66700 Fair

Visitor Center Employee 

Parking 10051719 Asphalt 7554 - - 76900 Excellent

Visitor Center Parking 10051718 Asphalt 23615 - - 240300 Excellent

Visitor Center Large Vehicle 

Parking 10056054 Asphalt 33910 - - 345100 Excellent

Visitor Center Overflow 

Parking 10056053 Gravel 43187 - - 239900 Good

Entrance Barn Parking - Gravel 15710 - - 87300 Fair

Entrance Kiosk Parking - Asphalt 3574 - - 36400 Excellent

Wetland Management 

Observation Parking 10051717 Asphalt 1261 - - 12800 Good

Shop Parking 10010805 Gravel 25037 65 0.15 139100 Good

Graffis Parking 10010808 Gravel 2246 - - 12500 Fair

Pool 7 Parking - Native 1600 - - 3800 Fair

Pool 9 Parking - Native 3347 - - 8000 Fair

Pool 8 Parking - Native 1026 - - 2500 Fair

Schnieder Access Parking 10057047 Gravel 2953 - - 16400 Fair

Gaeth-Kurdy Parking - Gravel 733 - - 4100 Excellent

Schoonover North Parking - Gravel 1704 - - 9500 Good

Schoonover East Parking - Gravel 3186 - - 17700 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-91

Table 88 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Patoka 

River 

NWR

Buck Parking 10054292 Gravel 4174 65 0.10 21100 Fair

McClure Monument Parking 10010943 Gravel 1973 65 0.36 10000 Fair

South Fork Trail Head Parking 10054294 Gravel 4543 - - 22900 Fair

Pikeville Boat Ramp Parking 10054296 Gravel 18733 - - 94600 Fair

Pikeville Boat Ramp Handicapped Park. - Concrete 324 - - 3600 Good

Kinman Parking 10061192 Native 1471 - - 3200 Failed

Dillin Bottom Parking 10055514 Gravel 4329 - - 21900 Fair

Survant Boat Ramp Parking 10036060 Gravel 9988 65 0.25 50400 Good

Survant Boat Ramp Handicapped Park. 10036060 Concrete 275 65 0.25 3100 Good

DuPont Parking 10061191 Gravel 2097 - - 10600 Fair

Lexington Parking 10059877 Gravel 2033 - - 10300 Good

Boyd Parking 10054298 Gravel 5966 - - 30100 Good

Maxey Parking 10061189 Gravel 4278 - - 21600 Good

Snakey Point Turnout Parking 10010945 Gravel 584 65 0.37 2900 Good

Storage Bulding Parking Lot 10036057 Gravel 5342 65 0.13 27000 Fair

Northwest Oatsville Parking 10059876 Gravel 3550 - - 17900 Good

Southwest Oatsville Parking 10059876 Gravel 4119 - - 20800 Good

Bel Parking 10061190 Native 1587 - - 3500 Good

Cane Ridge Parking 10056486 Gravel 7940 - - 40100 Good

Rice 

Lake 

NWR

Rice River Parking 10037563 Gravel 15711 65 0.37 87300 Good

Mandy Lake Parking 10011496 Gravel 4591 - - 25500 Good

1939 CCC Camp Parking 10058292 Gravel 3261 50 0.16 18100 Fair

Twin Lakes Picnic Area Parking 10058294 Gravel 2457 - - 13600 Fair

Observation Deck Parking 10011475 Gravel 11323 65 0.38 62900 Fair

Lake Control Parking 10060583 Gravel 6104 - - 33900 Good

Radial Gates Parking 10060584 Gravel 3939 - - 21900 Good

Refuge Office Parking 10011506 Asphalt 13547 - - 137900 Excellent

Storage Yard Parking 10011500 Gravel 5781 65 0.74 32100 Fair

Maintenance Parking 10011500 Gravel 25080 65 0.74 139300 Good

Twin Lakes Handicapped Parking - Asphalt 336 - - 3400 Excellent

West Fields Hunter Parking 10058299 Native 9793 65 0.13 23500 Fair

North Bog Hunter Parking - Native 5644 - - 13500 Good

North Highway 65 Parking 10058283 Native 6880 65 0.08 16500 Good

Magnason Hunter Parking 10058228 Native 3760 80 0.08 9000 Fair

Wiitta Parking 10058279 Native 4491 80 0.08 10800 Good

North Bog East Parking 10060585 Gravel 4729 - - 26300 Fair

South Trail Hunter Parking - Native 5276 - - 12600 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-92

Table 89 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Rydell 

NWR

Auto Tour Parking #4 10053163 Gravel 1249 - - 5700 Fair

Auto Tour Parking #3 10043699 Gravel 6023 - - 27700 Poor

Auto Tour Parking #2 10043699 Gravel 4839 - - 22300 Fair

Auto Tour Parking #1 10043699 Gravel 8393 - - 38600 Good

Church Lake Parking 10043700 Gravel 5136 - - 23600 Fair

Clifford Lake Parking 10043701 Gravel 7718 - - 35500 Good

Route 100 Parking 10043702 Gravel 5021 - - 23100 Good

Headquarters Parking 10012049 Asphalt 15732 - - 132600 Good

Front Gate Parking - Asphalt 3801 - - 32000 Excellent

Overflow Parking 10043698 Gravel 22089 - - 101600 Fair

Overflow RV/Bus Parking - Native 17367 - - 34500 Fair

Shop Parking - Gravel 4350 - - 20000 Good

Shop Parking #2 - Gravel 5191 - - 23900 Good

Shop Parking #4 - Gravel 3111 - - 14300 Good

Shop Parking #3 - Gravel 8643 - - 39800 Good

Seney

Refuge Office Parking 10043704 Asphalt 15785 65 0.22 134700 Fair

C-3 Pool Road Parking - Gravel 5292 - - 24600 Good

Shay Road Parking 10043705 Gravel 2584 65 0.37 12000 Good

Visitor Center Parking 10043703 Asphalt 21961 65 0.22 187400 Fair

Northern Hardwoods CrossCountry Ski Parking 10043705 Gravel 4851 65 0.37 22600 Good

Driggs River Hunter Access 

Parking 10010462 Gravel 11813 - - 55000 Good

Wigwam Picnic Parking - Gravel 958 - - 4500 Fair

Boneyard Parking 10060628 Gravel 7700 - - 35900 Poor

Shop Parking 10058628 Asphalt 27850 - - 237600 Fair

Shop Gravel Parking - Gravel 6913 - - 32200 Fair

Bunkhouse Parking 10056127 Gravel 7194 - - 33500 Fair

Sherburne 

NWR

Fox Road North Parking 10060831 Gravel 5230 - - 31100 Fair

County Road 5 Hunter West 

Access Parking 10060838 Gravel 11703 - - 69600 Fair

County Road 9 Hunter Access 

Parking 10060840 Gravel 2099 - - 12500 Fair

County Road 3 Hunter Access 

Parking 10060833 Native 7816 - - 20000 Fair

East Entrance Kiosk Parking 10043707 Gravel 11890 65 0.23 70700 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-93

Table 90 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Sherburne 

NWR

Mahnomen Trail Parking 10011522 Asphalt 13768 65 0.00 150000 Good

Old Schoolhouse Parking 10036212 Asphalt 19014 65 0.59 207200 Good

Blue Hill Trail Parking 10011585 Asphalt 10299 65 0.15 112200 Good

County Road 3 Fishing Access 

Parking 10036215 Gravel 5381 65 0.30 32000 Good

Storlie Fishing Access 10060832 Gravel 7252 - - 43100 Fair

Long Pool Boat Launch & 

Parking 10036218 Native 28684 65 0.30 73600 Good

Headquarters Parking 10011523 Asphalt 14306 65 0.64 155900 Good

North Entrance Kiosk Parking 10043712 Gravel 9498 65 0.24 56500 Good

Brande Road Parking 10060843 Native 4399 - - 11300 Fair

Rumbley Bridge Parking 10058350 Gravel 6404 80 0.41 38100 Good

County Road 16 Parking 10060836 Gravel 3599 - - 21400 Fair

Carpenter Pool Parking 10060835 Native 2594 - - 6700 Fair

Savanna Trail Parking 10043710 Gravel 9180 65 0.25 54600 Good

South Entrance Kiosk Parking 10043711 Gravel 7273 65 0.40 43200 Good

County Road 4 Parking 10011583 Gravel 4706 - - 28000 Good

County Road 4 Fishing Access 

Parking 10036216 Gravel 4192 65 0.33 24900 Good

County Road 1 Fishing Access 

Parking 10036214 Gravel 2658 65 0.51 15800 Good

Cemetery Parking - Native 6740 - - 17300 Fair

County Road 5 East Hunter 

Parking 10060839 Gravel 8221 - - 48900 Fair

Prairie Trail Parking - Gravel 3014 - - 17900 Good

Wetland Overlook Parking - Gravel 4085 - - 24300 Good

Woodland Trail Parking - Gravel 3250 - - 19300 Good

Memorial Overlook Parking - Gravel 1243 - - 7400 Good

Durgin Parking 10060837 Native 3102 - - 8000 Fair

County Road 42 Parking 10060842 Native 5916 - - 15200 Fair

Maintenance Parking 10060844 Gravel 60059 - - 357100 Good

Maintenance Parking Pad 1 10060844 Concrete 1485 - - 19600 Good

Maintenance Parking Pad 2 10060844 Concrete 6785 - - 89800 Good

Maintenance Office Parking 10060844 Native 10389 - - 26600 Good

Shop South Parking 10060844 Native 11942 - - 30600 Good

Storlie Fishing Access West 10060830 Native 5647 - - 14500 Good

Fox Parking 10060831 Native 4461 - - 11400 Fair

County Road 70 Parking 10058351 Native 5997 - - 15400 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-94

Table 91 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Shiawassee 

NWR

Stroebel Road Parking 10010555 Gravel 14409 65 0.39 75200 Good

Visitor Center Parking 10010567 Asphalt 12859 - - 122900 Good

Refuge Nature Trail Parking 10010558 Gravel 20866 65 0.38 108900 Good

Cass River Parking 10040359 Gravel 11745 - - 61300 Good

Visitor Center Staff Parking Asphalt 20293 - - 194000 Excellent

Moore/Cresswell Road Parking 10052166 Gravel 2727 - - 14200 Good

Evon Road Service Parking 10010556 Gravel 10509 - - 54800 Fair

Houlihan Road Service Parking 10010557 Gravel 10295 65 0.38 53700 Fair

SR 13 Boat Launch Parking 10060228 Gravel 9361 - - 48800 Good

Ambrose Road Parking 10010559 Gravel 5673 65 0.77 29600 Good

Maintenance Parking 10010572 Gravel 34879 65 0.15 182000 Good

Squaw 

Creek NWR

Visitor Center Rear Parking 10050581 Asphalt 13301 65 0.08 131300 Excellent

Visitor Center Restroom 

Parking 10050582 Asphalt 2345 65 0.08 23100 Excellent

Visitor Center Parking 10050578 Asphalt 17006 65 0.07 167800 Good

Visitor Center Bus Parking 10050582 Asphalt 1057 65 0.08 10400 Excellent

Davis Creek Parking - Asphalt 6542 - - 64600 Excellent

Davis Creek Handicapped 

Parking - Asphalt 1824 - - 18000 Excellent

Teal Pool Parking 10053185 Gravel 4674 65 0.21 25200 Good

Shop Parking 10013144 Asphalt 10251 65 0.15 101200 Good

George L. Scheil Classroom 

Parking - Gravel 6961 - - 37500 Good

Boneyard Parking 10053190 Gravel 14473 65 0.56 77900 Fair

Auto Tour Route #5 Parking - Gravel 2277 - - 12300 Good

Mallard Marsh Parking - Gravel 3989 - - 21500 Fair

Upper Shop Parking 10053190 Gravel 2616 65 0.56 14100 Good

Shorebird Management Unit 

Parking - Gravel 968 - - 5200 Good

Cattail Pond Parking - Gravel 9156 - - 49300 Excellent

Pintail Pond Parking - Gravel 1886 - - 10200 Good

Split Levee Parking - Native 476 - - 1100 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-95

Table 92 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

St 

Croix

Kostka WPA Parking 10043725 Native 9354 65 0.73 24700 Good

Deerpark WPA North Parking 10011879 Native 6151 65 0.79 16200 Fair

Suckat WPA Parking 10043727 Native 2922 - - 7700 Fair

Flaters WPA Parking 10043728 Gravel 4423 65 0.24 27000 Fair

Alden WPA Parking 10043729 Native 6962 65 0.22 18400 Fair

Bierbrauer WPA Parking West 10073732 Native 2039 - - 5400 Fair

Bierbrauer WPA Parking East 10043732 Gravel 7532 65 0.24 46100 Good

Hanten WPA Parking 10043733 Gravel 4885 65 0.22 29900 Good

Amschler WPA Parking 10043734 Native 5830 65 0.55 15400 Poor

District Office Parking 10011863 Asphalt 8843 - - 99100 Good

Somerset WPA Parking 10043738 Native 2011 - - 5300 Fair

Prairie Flats-South WPA Parking 10043737 Native 4098 65 0.26 10800 Fair

Steffens WPA Parking 10043730 Native 6420 - - 16900 Good

Ten Mile WPA East Parking 10043722 Gravel 28593 65 0.22 174800 Fair

Lundy WPA Parking 10043739 Native 4322 65 0.00 11400 Fair

Kerber WPA Parking 10043740 Native 6286 65 0.22 16600 Fair

Risberg WPA Parking 10043741 Native 3429 - - 9000 Fair

Clapp WPA Kinney Ave Parking 10043742 Gravel 5186 - - 31700 Good

Hammond WPA Parking 10043743 Native 2649 - - 7000 Fair

Rock Creek WPA Parking 10043723 Native 7078 65 0.22 18700 Fair

Rose Lee WPA Parking 10043724 Native 2108 65 0.51 5600 Good

Beyl Parking 10060587 Native 5512 - - 14500 Good

Prairie Flats North 10059339 Native 6607 80 0.00 17400 Good

Erickson WPA Parking 10043735 Gravel 11880 65 0.09 72600 Good

Betterly WPA Parking 10043736 Gravel 8173 - - 50000 Good

Deerpark WPA South Parking 10043731 Asphalt 546 - - 6100 Good

Bass Lake Parking 10060593 Gravel 3762 - - 23000 Good

Ten Mile WPA West Parking 10043722 Gravel 2639 65 0.22 16100 Good

Oak Ridge Parking 10059340 Gravel 10807 - - 66100 Good

Star Prairie Parking 10060590 Gravel 6475 - - 39600 Good

Clear Lake WPA 10060588 Native 6595 - - 17400 Good

Kobernick WPA Parking 10060589 Primitive 465 - - 0 Fair

Maintenance Parking 10059332 Asphalt 7430 - - 83300 Good

Maintenance Rear of Shop 

Parking 10059332 Gravel 22966 - - 140400 Good

Clapp WPA 70th St Parking 10043742 Gravel 7032 - - 43000 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-96

Table 93 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Swan 

Lake 

NWR

Observation Tower Parking 10036807 Gravel 3099 - - 15500 Good

Parking Area P 10036816 Primitive 968 65 0.84 0 Fair

Parking Area A3 10036816 Gravel 5515 65 0.84 27500 Good

Parking Area B 10036816 Gravel 989 65 0.84 4900 Fair

Parking Area B 10036816 Native 1198 65 0.84 2600 Poor

Taylor Point Fishing Parking 10036811 Native 3412 - - 7300 Fair

Parking Area F 10036809 Native 5840 65 0.19 12600 Fair

Parking Area G 10036816 Native 1410 65 0.84 3000 Fair

Parking Area H 10036808 Native 4259 - - 9200 Fair

Visitor Center Parking 10036805 Gravel 5137 - - 25600 Poor

North Swan Lake Agriculture 

Parking 10036815 Gravel 2370 65 0.38 11800 Good

Parking Area N 10036812 Gravel 3119 - - 15600 Good

Hunting Headquarters 

Parking 10036815 Gravel 50758 65 0.38 253400 Fair

Parking Area A4 10036813 Gravel 4753 - - 23700 Good

Hunter Blinds Parking W 10060127 Gravel 994 - - 5000 Good

Hunter Blinds Parking S 10060124 Gravel 2699 - - 13500 Good

Hunter Blinds Parking T 10060125 Gravel 1836 - - 9200 Good

Maintenance Parking 10013218 Gravel 28411 - - 141900 Good

Parking Area A7 10060128 Gravel 2826 - - 14100 Good

Parking Area J 10036813 Gravel 2430 - - 12100 Fair

Parking Area C 10036810 Gravel 4638 65 0.21 23200 Good

Tamarac 

NWR

Pine Lake Ski Trail Parking 10011627 Native 7026 65 0.44 16700 Good

East Tamarac Landing Parking 10036430 Gravel 6361 65 0.29 35000 Good

West Entrance Kiosk Parking 10043747 Gravel 11505 65 0.29 63300 Good

North Tamarac Landing 

Parking 10036429 Gravel 16945 65 0.29 93200 Fair

South Chippewa Lake Picnic 

Parking 10036428 Native 12690 65 0.44 30100 Fair

Office Parking 10011658 Asphalt 7934 65 0.49 79900 Fair

South Entrance Kiosk Parking 10043748 Gravel 14657 65 0.29 80600 Good

Visitor Center Parking 10011658 Asphalt 9928 65 0.49 100000 Fair

Flat Lake Historic Marker 

Pullout - Gravel 2220 - - 12200 Fair

Highway 143 West 

Information Pullout - Gravel 537 - - 3000 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-97

Table 94 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Tamarac 

NWR

Highway 143 East 

Information Pullout - Gravel 5778 - - 31800 Fair

Highway 26 Information 

Pullout - Native 2520 - - 6000 Fair

Cotton Lake Parking Area 10056082 Gravel 20298 65 0.29 111600 Good

South Tamarac Lake 

Parking 10057915 Gravel 4711 65 0.78 25900 Good

Old Indian Trailhead 

Parking - Gravel 1137 - - 6300 Good

Wauboose Lake Parking 10057920 Gravel 2571 65 0.63 14100 Good

Big Egg Lake Parking 10057925 Native 3757 65 0.52 8900 Fair

Lower Egg Lake Parking 10055192 Native 1334 65 0.36 3200 Fair

Lost Lake Parking 10057918 Gravel 5275 65 0.63 29000 Fair

Herfendahl Landing 10011641 Gravel 5979 - - 32900 Good

Blackbird Landing 

Parking 10057916 Gravel 2225 65 0.46 12200 Good

Pine Lake Landing 10055187 Gravel 3536 65 0.36 19400 Fair

Maintenance Parking 10060504 Gravel 24228 - - 133200 Fair

Employee Parking 10060504 Native 2244 - - 5300 Good

Bunkhouse Parking 10060506 Gravel 3627 - - 19900 Good

Shop Parking 10060504 Gravel 7578 - - 41700 Good

Trempealeau 

NWR

Dike Road Parking 10043751 Gravel 2952 65 0.28 15700 Good

Trempealeau River Park. 10043755 Gravel 3773 65 0.32 20100 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10035868 Asphalt 8616 65 0.56 84100 Good

Observation Deck Park. 10043753 Gravel 3590 65 0.26 19100 Good

Boat Landing Parking 10011886 Gravel 21769 65 0.78 116000 Fair

Overlook Parking 10043754 Gravel 11224 65 0.29 59800 Good

Shop Parking South 10011888 Asphalt 11287 65 0.65 110200 Good

Entrance Road 

Turnaround 10011889 Asphalt 2433 65 0.38 23800 Good

Kiosk Parking 10011903 Gravel 8182 65 0.28 43600 Fair

Entrance Parking 10035869 Asphalt 2749 - - 26800 Good

Marshland Parking 10011908 Asphalt 4885 65 0.57 47700 Good

River Bottoms Parking 10044399 Gravel 4796 - - 25600 Good

Entrance Road Boat 

Ramp Parking 10011924 Gravel 2283 - - 12200 Fair

Prarie View Parking 10043752 Gravel 4817 - - 25700 Fair

Shop Parking North 10011888 Gravel 10891 65 0.65 58000 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-98

Table 95 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Two 

Rivers

NWR

Lower Swan Lake Boat Ramp 

Parking 10013760 Asphalt 12130 - - 128400 Good

Blooms Landing Boat Ramp 

Parking 10013763 Gravel 16189 - - 93500 Fair

Prairie Pond Boat Ramp 

Parking 10013793 Gravel 10193 - - 58900 Good

Gilead Boat Ramp Parking 10013791 Gravel 21524 65 0.71 124400 Fair

Lower Swan Lake Pump 

Station Parking 10035854 Gravel 4570 - - 26400 Good

Calhoun Wetlands Pump 

Station Parking 10035853 Gravel 2133 - - 12300 Good

Gilbert Lake Parking 10042890 Gravel 3982 - - 23000 Good

Duck Club Parking - Asphalt 1738 - - 18400 Good

Prairie Pond Pump Station 

Parking - Gravel 2553 - - 14800 Good

Headquarters/Visitor Center 

Parking 10013746 Asphalt 24472 - - 259100 Good

Lower Swan Lake Overflow 

Parking 10013760 Asphalt 2729 - - 28900 Good

Employee Parking 10013746 Gravel 4660 - - 26900 Good

Shop Parking 10013746 Gravel 36810 - - 212700 Good

Apple Creek Parking Area 10035855 Gravel 1579 - - 9100 Fair

Upper 

Mississippi 

- Mc 

Gregor

Potosi Point Parking Area - Gravel 24188 - - 128900 Fair

Cold Spring Parking Area 10012569 Gravel 22501 65 0.13 119900 Good

Bertom Lake Parking Area 10012588 Asphalt 50571 65 0.05 493900 Good

Glen Lake Boat Ramp Parking 10051819 Asphalt 21372 - - 208700 Good

Jay's Lake Parking Area - Gravel 42135 - - 224600 Fair

Turkey River Parking Area 10012581 Gravel 35420 65 0.57 188800 Good

Big Slough Parking Area 10012568 Asphalt 28416 - - 277500 Good

Winneshiek Boat Ramp 

Parking Area 10051853 Gravel 9217 - - 49100 Good

Winneshiek Parking Area 10012567 Gravel 23420 65 0.79 124800 Good

Upper Winneshiek Parking 

Area 10051856 Gravel 16375 - - 87300 Poor

New Albin Parking Area 10012564 Gravel 38427 65 0.38 204800 Good

Ambrough Slough Parking 

Parking Area 10012573 Gravel 15485 65 0.38 82500 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-99

Table 96 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Upper 

Mississippi 

- Mc 

Gregor

Cold Spring Fishing Access 

Parking Area 10012570 Asphalt 16760 - - 163700 Fair

Ambrough Slough Parking Parking 

Area 10012586 Gravel 8550 65 0.38 45600 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10012580 Asphalt 9894 - - 96600 Good

Bagley Bottoms Parking Area 10012584 Gravel 8988 65 0.39 47900 Good

Lynn Hollow Parking Area 10012583 Gravel 23870 65 0.76 127200 Fair

Ballard Tract Parking - Gravel 2627 - - 14000 Good

Shop Parking 10052308 Gravel 4114 - - 21900 Fair

Glen Lake Boat Ramp Gravel 

Parking - Gravel 5775 - - 30800 Good

Casseville Maintenance Shop 

Parking 10051809 Gravel 3942 - - 21000 Fair

Upper 

Mississippi 

River -

Lacrosse

Halfway Creek Parking 10011705 Gravel 5566 - - 29700 Fair

Highway 26 Parking 10043763 Gravel 6076 - - 32400 Good

Round Lake Parking 10011675 Gravel 19594 - - 104400 Fair

I-90 Landing Parking 10011685 Asphalt 41736 - - 407600 Good

Long Lake Parking 10050592 Asphalt 16212 - - 158300 Good

Warehouse Parking 10053996 Asphalt 6433 - - 62800 Poor

Brownsville Overlook Parking 10057893 Asphalt 14542 - - 142000 Excellent

Upper 

Mississippi 

- Savana

Ingersoll Wetlands Learning 

Center Parking 10011822 Asphalt 33899 - - 331100 Good

Sloan Marsh Parking 10011813 Asphalt 7639 - - 74600 Good

Frog Pond Parking 10011840 Gravel 6330 65 0.78 33700 Good

Mickelson's Landing Parking 10011833 Gravel 14431 65 0.45 76900 Fair

Barge Lake Landing Parking 

(Esmay Slough) 10011795 Gravel 9320 65 0.36 49700 Poor

Spring Lake Overflow Parking 10011807 Gravel 31712 - - 169000 Poor

Spring Lake Parking 10011825 Asphalt 31200 65 0.00 304700 Fair

Pleasant Creek Parking 10011798 Native 13156 65 0.34 30200 Fair

River Road Parking - Gravel 11804 - - 62900 Good

Lost Mound Unit Parking 10052701 Asphalt 1013 - - 9900 Poor

Maintenance Front Parking 10011823 Gravel 5863 - - 31200 Good

Maintenance Shop Main Parking 10011823 Gravel 38121 - - 203200 Good

Prickly Pear Trail Parking 10060495 Gravel 1797 - - 9600 Good

Office Parking 10060493 Asphalt 14221 - - 138900 Good

Shop Parking 10060491 Gravel 26379 - - 140600 Good

Coast Guard Boat Launch Parking - Gravel 3682 - - 19600 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-100

Table 97 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS Unit Name Asset 

No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Upper 

Mississippi 

- Winona

Pontoon Slough Landing 10060234 Gravel 5195 - - 27700 Good

Beef Slough Parking 10060235 Gravel 4471 - - 23800 Fair

Mertes Slough Handicapped 

Parking 10011767 Asphalt 4384 - - 42800 Good

Mertes Slough Access Parking 10011767 Asphalt 20589 - - 201100 Good

Upper McNally Landing Parking 10043763 Asphalt 30533 - - 298200 Good

Verchota Landing Parking 10011740 Asphalt 25594 - - 250000 Good

Weaver Landing Parking 10011745 Gravel 38916 - - 207400 Good

SR 25 Parking - Gravel 4726 - - 25200 Good

Zumbro Parking 10043776 Gravel 5010 - - 26700 Good

Indian Slough Landing Parking 10060233 Gravel 3214 - - 17100 Fair

Half Moon Canoe Landing 

Parking 10011724 Asphalt 11967 - - 116900 Excellent

Half Moon Boat Landing Parking 10011722 Asphalt 37017 - - 361500 Good

Garvin Brook Bottoms Parking 10060941 Gravel 1366 - - 7300 Good

Peterson Lake Landing 10043774 Asphalt 3766 - - 36800 Good

Peterson Lake Parking 10043774 Asphalt 6989 - - 68300 Good

Barton/Lofgren Parking 10011782 Gravel 1217 - - 6500 Fair

Shop Parking 10053996 Asphalt 13849 - - 135200 Good

Przybylski's Access Parking 10011755 Gravel 2440 - - 13000 Good

McNally Landing Service Parking 10060942 Native 2850 - - 6600 Fair

Whittlesey 

Creek 

NWR

Terwilliger Road Parking 10050745 Gravel 2926 - - 16900 Fair

Poppe Parking 10050741 Gravel 2937 - - 17000 Fair

Andrus Access Parking 10050743 Gravel 1974 - - 11400 Good

Educational Center Parking 10054897 Gravel 9647 - - 55700 Good

Educational Center Handicapped 

Parking 10054897 Gravel 543 - - 3100 Excellent

Maintenance and Service 

Building Parking 10054897 Gravel 26705 - - 154300 Good

Windom 

WMD

Lake Augusta Parking 10043783 Native 4072 65 0.32 7600 Fair

Harden Lake Parking #1 10055517 Native 4153 65 0.32 7700 Fair

Watonwan River Parking 10043786 Native 6950 65 0.32 13000 Fair

Des Moines River Parking 10043781 Native 4445 65 0.32 8300 Fair

Cottonwood Lake Parking 10043780 Native 5309 65 0.32 9900 Fair
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-101

Table 98 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Windom 

WMD

Mountain Lake Parking 10043784 Gravel 3447 65 0.32 14900 Good

Wolf Lake Parking #1 10012216 Gravel 6935 65 0.32 30000 Fair

String Lake Parking 10043801 Native 6980 65 0.32 13000 Fair

Timber Lake Parking 10043803 Native 5785 65 0.32 10800 Fair

Halls Lake Parking #1 10012202 Native 6219 65 0.16 11600 Fair

Halls Lake Parking #2 10012202 Native 5854 65 0.16 10900 Fair

Blixseth Parking 10055515 Gravel 3857 65 0.32 16700 Excellent

Harder Lake West Parking 10055517 Gravel 7185 65 0.32 31000 Good

Harder Lake North Parking 10055518 Native 13323 65 0.32 24800 Fair

Buffalo Lake Parking 10055528 Native 4098 65 0.32 7600 Fair

Slaughter Slough Parking 10055529 Native 6460 65 0.14 12000 Good

Graham Lakes Parking 10055530 Native 4377 65 0.32 8200 Fair

Bloom Parking 10055532 Native 4603 65 0.32 8600 Fair

Lake Bella Parking 10055533 Native 6280 65 0.14 11700 Good

Sioux River Parking 10055534 Native 7444 65 0.32 13900 Fair

Skunk Creek Parking 10055535 Native 4617 65 0.32 8600 Fair

Pletz Marsh Parking 10055536 Native 6557 65 0.72 12200 Poor

Holy Trinity Parking 10055537 Native 4678 65 0.32 8700 Fair

Hunter Parking 10055538 Native 4633 65 0.32 8600 Fair

Pilot Grove Lake Parking 10055539 Gravel 6990 65 0.32 30200 Good

Maple River Parking 10055540 Native 4294 65 0.32 8000 Fair

Foster Creek Parking 10055541 Native 4213 65 0.14 7900 Good

Goose Creek Parking 10055542 Gravel 6986 65 0.73 30200 Good

Kiester Parking 10055543 Native 4336 65 0.32 8100 Fair

Headquarters Parking 10050800 Asphalt 34868 - - 276000 Good

Dovray Parking 10055408 Native 4636 65 0.32 8600 Fair

Talcott Lake Parking 10055531 Native 5536 65 0.32 10300 Fair

Long Lake Parking #2 10043796 Gravel 6402 65 0.98 27700 Good

Spirit Lake Parking 10043800 Gravel 6166 65 0.32 26600 Good
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-102

Table 99 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface Area Sq. Ft API FCI CVR Condition

Windom 

WMD

Rush Lake Parking 10043798 Native 3672 65 0.32 6800 Fair

Sioux Forks Parking #1 10043799 Native 5694 65 0.17 10600 Fair

Little Sioux Parking #2 10043795 Native 6386 65 0.32 11900 Fair

Little Sioux Parking #1 10043795 Native 7626 65 0.32 14200 Fair

Iowa Parking #2 10043793 Native 4566 65 0.24 8500 Fair

Iowa Parking #1 10043793 Native 5053 65 0.24 9400 Fair

Round Lake Parking 10043797 Native 5912 65 0.32 11000 Fair

Worthington Parking 10043804 Gravel 8623 65 0.36 37200 Good

La Crosse Parking 10043794 Native 1971 65 0.32 3700 Fair

Big Slough Parking 10043802 Native 6135 65 0.25 11400 Fair

Westbrook Parking 10043787 Native 6383 65 0.32 11900 Fair

Long Lake Parking #1 10043796 Native 6105 65 0.98 11400 Fair

Storden Parking 10043785 Native 6081 65 0.32 11300 Fair

Touch the Sky Southeast Parking 10055200 Native 3461 65 0.14 6400 Excellent

Touch the Sky North Parking 10055202 Native 3263 65 0.14 6100 Good

Touch the Sky Southwest Parking 10055202 Native 2911 65 0.14 5400 Good

Pipestone WPA Parking 10055545 Gravel 6405 65 0.14 27700 Fair

Big Slough WPA Access Road 10043802 Native 4084 65 0.25 7600 Good

5-Mile Corner WPA Access Parking 10059881 Native 3712 - - 6900 Good

Mason WPA Access Parking 10059882 Native 4786 - - 8900 Fair

Jerry Schotzko WPA Parking 10060681 Native 5530 - - 10300 Good

Pletz Marsh Parking 10043791 Native 3819 - - 7100 Good

Iowa WPA Southwest Parking 10043793 Native 4754 65 0.24 8900 Fair

Souix Forks WPA South Parking 10043799 Native 4431 65 0.17 8300 Fair

Boot Lake Parking 10012178 Gravel 5056 65 0.38 21800 Excellent

Fish Lake Parking 10043782 Gravel 4283 65 0.65 18500 Good

Wolf Lake Cold Storage Parking 10055782 Gravel 17511 65 0.37 75600 Fair

Wolf Lake Parking #2 10012216 Gravel 8420 65 0.32 36400 Good

Headquarters Maintenance 

Parking 10060684 Gravel 20534 - - 88700 Excellent
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-103

Table 100 . RIP and SAMMS Parking Lot Data by Unit (continuation)

FWS 

Unit Name Asset No. Surface

Area 

Sq. 

Ft

API FCI CVR Condition

Windom 

WMD

Wolf Lake Parking #3 10012216 Gravel 6050 65 0.32 26100 Good

Swan Lake Parking 10060688 Native 4063 - - 7600 Fair

Harden Lake Parking #2 10055518 Gravel 6672 65 0.32 28800 Good

Pierce Lake Parking 10055515 Gravel 4452 65 0.32 18600 Good

Prescott WPA Parking 10055515 Native 4341 65 0.32 8100 Fair

Iowa, Chicago & Eastern Access 

Road Parking 10060692 Native 5312 - - 9900 Fair

Turtle Creek Parking 10043788 Gravel 6964 65 0.32 30100 Good

Lost Lake WPA Access Road 

Parking 10060691 Gravel 4292 - - 18500 Excellent

RIP - Cycle 4, SAMMS Report December 2010.

http://cflgis1.cflhd.gov/egis/ds/ReportSearch.aspx

GIS files - CFLHD - November 22, 2010
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-104

Table 101 Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

IOWA

10012849

DeSoto NWR

Wood Duck Trail Mowed Excellent 55 0.9

10012866 Grassland Nature 

Trail Gravel Excellent 55 0.14

10012829 Cottonwood 

Nature Trail Native Excellent 55 0.33

10012828 Missouri Meander 

Foot Trail Gravel Excellent - -

10012846

Missouri Meander 

Foot Trail 

w/viewing area

Concrete Excellent 65 0.84

10012870

Bertrand 

Excavation Site 

Trail

Asphalt Good 55 1.66

Gravel Excellent 55 1.66

Boardwalk Excellent 55 1.66

10055404

Neal Smith 

NWR

Basswood Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10055405 Savanna Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

Wood Chip Excellent - -

10014084 Prairie Overlook 

Trail Concrete Excellent 65 0.47

10014084 Tallgrass Trail Asphalt Good 65 0.47

10013833

Port Louisa 

NWR

Muscatine Slough Admin Road Not rated - -

10013834 Interpretive Trail

Native

Excellent 65 0.99

Good 65 0.99

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.99

10012591 McGregor 

District NWR

Sturgeon Slough 

Hiking Trail Native Excellent 65 0.9

N/A Guttenburg Boat 

Launch Trail Mowed Excellent - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-105

Table 102 Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

ILLINOIS

10013996 Chautauqua 

NWR

Chautauqua 

Nature Trail

Boardwalk Excellent 65 1

Gravel Excellent 65 1

10014002 Eagle Bluff Trail Gravel Excellent 65 1

10013622

Crab 

Orchard 

NWR

Harmony Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.33

Native Excellent 65 0.33

N/A Prairie Trail Mowed Excellent - -

N/A Two Ponds Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10046426 Wild Turkey Trail Native Excellent - -

10049427 Rocky Bluff Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.43

Native Excellent 65 0.43

N/A Grassy Creek Trail Asphalt Fair - -

N/A Woodland Nature 

Trail

Asphalt Good - -

Gravel Excellent - -

10012666

Cypress 

Creek NWR

Hickory Bottoms 

Trail

Native

Excellent 80 0.28

Fair 80 0.28

Mowed

Good 80 0.28

Very Poor 80 0.28

10045689 Limekiln Springs 

Trail

Native

Excellent 80 0.62

Fair 80 0.62

Boardwalk Excellent 80 0.62

10014055 Emiquon 

NWR Belle Rose Trail

Mowed Excellent 65 0.02

Native Excellent 65 0.02

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.02

10014037 Meredosia 

NWR Nature Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.18

10014039 Boardwalk Excellent - -

10011844

Savanna 

District -

Upper 

Mississippi

Great River Bike 

Trail Gravel Excellent - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-106

Table 103 Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

INDIANA

10054481

Muscatatuck 

NWR

Richart Trail

Mowed Excellent - -

Native Very Poor - -

10059187 Bird Trail Native Very Poor 65 0.25

N/A Wood Duck Trail Gravel Excellent - -

10054487 River Trail - East

Mowed

Good 65 0.84

Very Poor 65 0.84

Native Excellent 65 0.84

10054487 River Trail - West Native Fair 65 0.84

10054487 Myer's Cabin Trail Native Good 65 0.84

10054486 Persimmon Ponds 

Trail Mowed Excellent 65 0.84

10054482 Mallard Pond Trail Mowed Poor 65 0.47

10059188 Turkey Trail Native

Fair 65 0.45

Very Poor 65 0.45

10054484 Endicott Trail

Mowed Very Poor - -

Native Excellent - -

10010623 Chestnut Ridge 

Trail

Asphalt Excellent 65 0.03

Gravel Excellent 65 0.03

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.03

10049634 Sandhill Ponds Trail

Concrete Excellent - -

Mowed Excellent - -

10054283

Patoka River 

NWR

Hugh Boyd Trail Gravel Excellent 65 0.91

10055145 Bird Trail Mowed

Excellent - -

Fair - -

10054284 South Fork Fishing 

Trail

Native Excellent 65 0.11

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.11
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-107

Table 104 Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

MICHIGAN

10056120

Seney NWR

Bear Hollow Loop 

Ski Trail

Mowed Excellent - -

Admin Road Not rated - -

10056120 Cub Hollow Ski 

Trail Native Excellent - -

10056120 Otter Run Ski Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10056120 Goose Pen Bend 

Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10056120 Manistique River 

Run Trail

Mowed Excellent - -

Admin Road Not rated - -

10056120 Smith Farm Trail

Mowed Excellent - -

Admin Road Not rated - -

10056120 Skunk Ridge Ski 

Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10010432 Pine Ridge Nature 

Trail

Mowed Excellent 65 0.13

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.13

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.13

Native Excellent 65 0.13

10036101

Shiawassee 

NWR

Ferguson Bayou 

Nature Trail

Native Excellent 65 0.45

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.45

10036042 Stroebel Woodland 

Nature Trail Native

Excellent 65 0.06

Good 65 0.06

10055674 Cass River Nature 

Trail Native

Excellent 45 0.34

Fair 45 0.34

10036103 Green Point Nature 

Trail

Native Excellent 65 0.53

Wood Chip Excellent 65 0.53

Gravel Excellent 65 0.53
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-108

Table 105 Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

MINNESOTA

10042686

Agassiz 

NWR

Maakstad Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10011208 Headquarters 

Hiking Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

Boardwalk Excellent - -

10056625 Rodahl Trail Admin Road Not rated 30 0.8

10055160

Big Stone 

NWR

Granite Outcrop 

Trail Native Excellent - -

10036164 No Bridge Fishing 

Area Hiking Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10055156 Kaercher 

Overlook Trail Asphalt Excellent 65 0

10011588

Crane 

Meadows 

NWR

Platte River Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.98

Mowed Excellent 65 0.98

N/A Detroit 

Lakes 

WMD

Prairie Marsh 

Interpretive Trail

Asphalt Excellent - -

Gravel Excellent - -

Admin Road Not rated - -

10012158 Boardwalk Trail Boardwalk Excellent - -

10012124 Fergus 

Falls WMD

Native Prarie Trail Mowed Excellent - -

Malarad Marsh 

Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

Gravel Good - -

Boardwalk Excellent - -

Wetland Way 

Trail Gravel Excellent - -

Tatanka Trail Gravel Excellent - -

Mowed Excellent - -

Tintah Trail Native Poor - -

10012604

Hamden 

Slough 

NWR

Hesby Memorial 

Trail Concrete Excellent - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-109

Table 106 . Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

MINNESOTA

10012355

Minnesota 

Valley 

NWR

Bluff Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

Boardwalk Excellent - -

Native

Excellent - -

Good - -

Poor - -

Very Poor - -

10012412 Hog Back Ridge Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.09

Native Excellent 65 0.09

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.09

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.09

10012517 Middle Road Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

N/A Observation Deck 

Trail Native Excellent - -

10012512

Mazomani Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

10012391

Mowed

Excellent - -

10012391 Good - -

10012391 Native Excellent - -

10012482 Chaska Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10012451 Fisher Lake Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10012448 Blue Lake Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10012453 Kopp Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10049371 Bloomington Ferry 

Trail Admin Road Not rated 65 0.74

10012428

Black Dog Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.47

10012434 Mowed Excellent 65 0.46

10012365 Kelly Trail Admin Road Not rated 65 0.25

10012356 Bass Ponds Trail

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.3

Gravel Excellent 65 0.3

10012519 Little Prairie Loop 

Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10012347 Hillside Trail Asphalt Excellent 65 0.84

Gravel Excellent 65 0.84

10012355 Bluff Prairie Path Asphalt

Good - -

Fair - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-110

Table 107 . Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

MINNESOTA

10054546

Morris 

WMD

Prairie Pothole Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10011958 Froland Nature Trail Mowed Excellent 65 1

10054545

Prairie Pothole 

Handicap Accessible 

Trail

Asphalt Excellent 65 0.84

10012045

Rydell 

NWR

Tamarac Lake Trail

Admin Road Not rated 80 0.33

Boardwalk Excellent 80 0.33

10053158 Rice Lake Asphalt Excellent 80 0.35

10053159 Round Lake Trail Asphalt Excellent 80 0.15

10012045 Church Lake Trail Asphalt Excellent 80 0.33

10053157 Golden Pond Trail Asphalt Excellent - -

Boardwalk Excellent - -

N/A Golden Pond 

Observation Deck Trail Boardwalk Excellent - -

10011586

Sherburne 

NWR

Blue Hill Trail Native Excellent 65 0.47

10011521 Mahomen Trail Mowed Excellent 80 0.46

10058370 Prairie Trail

Mowed Excellent 65 0.73

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.73

10011569 Nelson Pool #13 Trail Native Excellent 65 0.54

10058372 Woodland Trail Native Excellent 65 0.84

10011567 Old Savanna Trail Asphalt Excellent - -

10055183

Tamarac 

NWR

Pine Lake Loop

Mowed Excellent 65 0.9

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.9

10055182 Tamarac Lake Loop Mowed Excellent 65 0.86

10055180 Visitor Center Trail Mowed Excellent 65 0.79

10057898 Booth Lake Trail Admin Road Not rated 80 0.13

10055179 Old Indian Trail Native Excellent 65 0.14

10055243

Windom 

WMD

Wolf Lake Trail Native Under Const. - -

10012194 Worthington WPA Trail Gravel

Excellent 65 0.52

Good 65 0.52
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-111

Table 108 . Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

MISSOURI

10051878

Big Muddy 

National 

Fish and 

Wildlife 

Refuge

Overton Bottoms 

Trail Admin Road Not rated 65 0.29

10042856 Lewis and Clark Trail 

of Discovery

Gravel Excellent 80 0.82

Native Poor 80 0.82

10055724 Historic River 

Landing Trail Gravel Good - -

10051884 Boone's Crossing 

Trail Wood Chip Excellent 65 0.11

10057300

Mingo 

NWR

Sweets Cabin Trail Native Excellent 55 0.91

10013023 Hartz Pond Trail Native Fair 55 0.91

10013006 Bluff Trail

Native Excellent 65 0.15

Gravel Excellent 65 0.15

Asphalt Fair 65 0.15

10013005 Boardwalk Nature 

Trail

Boardwalk Good - -

Boardwalk Excellent - -

Asphalt Poor - -

N/A Rockhouse Marsh 

Overlook Trail Asphalt Poor - -

10013141

Squaw 

Creek NWR

Loess Bluff Trail

Gravel Excellent - -

Native Excellent - -

Wood Chip Excellent - -

N/A Eagle Overlook Trail Admin Road Not rated - -

10043008 Callow Memorial 

Trail Asphalt Excellent - -

10013221 Swan Lake 

NWR Foot Trail Wood Chip Excellent - -

Native Excellent - -

OHIO 10010811 Ottawa 

NWR Wildlife Trail

Gravel Excellent 65 0.05

Boardwalk Excellent 65 0.05

Mowed Excellent 65 0.05

Admin Road Not rated 65 0.05
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-112

Table 109 . Combined SAMMS and RIP FWS Trail Data (continuation)

State Asset ID Service 

Unit Name Surface Condition API FCI

WISCONSIN

10011306

Horicon 

NWR

Redhead Trail Native Excellent - -

10011307 Red Fox Nature 

Trail Native Excellent - -

10041739 Viewing Area Trail Native Excellent - -

Asphalt Excellent - -

10011309 Deer Track Trail Native Excellent - -

10011310 Two Hawks Trail Native Excellent - -

10041738 Connection to Wild 

Goose State Park Asphalt Excellent - -

10011308 Egret Trail Gravel Excellent - -

Asphalt Excellent - -

10053999 LaCrosse 

District

Goose Island 

Interpretive Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10011865 St. Croix 

WMD Prairie Trail Mowed Good - -

N/A

Trempealeau 

NWR

Nature Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10011913 Prairie View Loop 

Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10011894 Pine Creek Dike 

Trail Mowed Excellent - -

10044399 River Bottom Road Admin Road Not rated - -

10011922 Oxbow Dike Admin Road Not rated - -

10011890 Delta Road Admin Road Not rated 65 0.17

10011893 Lower Diversion 

Dike Admin Road Not rated - -

10011896 Kieps Island Dike Admin Road Not rated - -

10011910 Deck Trail Asphalt Good - -

10054901 Whittlesey 

Creek NWR

Coaster Classroom 

Trail Gravel Excellent - -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-113

Table 110 . FWS Trail Deficiencies

State Service Unit Type of deficiency

Number of 

Deficient 

Locations

IOWA

DeSoto NWR

Erosion 1

Trail Structure 1

Neal Smith NWR

Erosion 2

Drainage 1

Port Louisa NWR Erosion 4

ILLINOIS Cypress Creek NWR

Trail Structure 2

Drainage 1

Erosion 2

Savanna District - Upper Mississippi Erosion 10

INDIANA

Muscatatuck NWR

Erosion 16

Drainage 32

Patoka River NWR Drainage 2

MICHIGAN Shiawassee NWR

Drainage 34

Trail Structure 1

Erosion 11

MINNESOTA

Fergus Falls WMD

Erosion 2

Trail Structure 1

Minnesota Valley NWR

Trail Structure 9

Drainage 2

Erosion 11

Windom WMD Trail Structure 1

MISSOURI

Big Muddy National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge

Erosion 4

Drainage 1

Mingo NWR Erosion 2

Trail Structure 2

WISCONSIN

Horicon NWR

Drainage 4

Erosion 2

Trail Structure 1

LaCrosse District Erosion 1

St. Croix WMD Erosion 1

Trempealeau NWR Erosion 1

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, RIP Cycle 3 (2007), Cycle 4 not available for deficiencies.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-114

Table 111 . Road Conditions by Surface Type

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

IOWA

Boyer Chute NWR

Asphalt Fair 2.38 28%

Gravel Good 1.46 17%

Gravel Fair 1.17 14%

Native Good 1.18 14%

Native Fair 2.26 27%

DeSoto NWR

Asphalt Excellent 5.89 22%

Asphalt Fair 3.12 12%

Asphalt Poor 0.45 2%

Gravel Excellent 7.49 28%

Gravel Good 4.65 17%

Gravel Fair 0.10 0%

Native Good 3.50 13%

Native Fair 1.06 4%

Primitive Good 0.66 2%

Driftless Area NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.16 21%

Native Good 0.07 9%

Native Fair 0.53 70%

Iowa WMD Gravel Excellent 1.60 100%

McGregor District

Asphalt Poor 0.22 4%

Gravel Excellent 0.67 14%

Gravel Good 2.15 44%

Gravel Fair 0.90 18%

Primitive Good 0.98 20%

Neal Smith NWR

Asphalt Fair 4.75 59%

Gravel Excellent 0.75 9%

Gravel Good 0.61 8%

Gravel Fair 0.52 6%

Native Good 0.51 6%

Native Fair 0.75 9%

Primitive Good 0.15 2%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-115

Table 112 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

IOWA

Port Louisa NWR

Asphalt Poor 0.05 0%

Gravel Excellent 0.89 5%

Gravel Good 8.40 44%

Gravel Fair 0.78 4%

Native Excellent 0.43 2%

Native Good 6.15 33%

Native Fair 2.20 12%

Union Slough NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.19 3%

Gravel Good 4.41 76%

Native Good 1.23 21%

ILLINOIS

Chautauqua NWR

Concrete Good 0.14 1%

Concrete Fair 0.13 1%

Asphalt Fair 0.47 4%

Gravel Excellent 1.05 9%

Gravel Good 9.53 83%

Native Good 0.19 2%

Crab Orchard NWR

Concrete Good 0.10 0%

Concrete Fair 2.25 2%

Concrete Poor 1.42 1%

Asphalt Excellent 2.24 2%

Asphalt Good 1.60 1%

Asphalt Fair 29.99 23%

Asphalt Poor 11.68 9%

Gravel Excellent 10.64 8%

Gravel Good 50.48 38%

Gravel Fair 4.91 4%

Gravel Poor 0.51 0%

Native Good 9.68 7%

Native Fair 3.83 3%

Primitive Good 0.94 1%

Primitive Fair 2.19 2%

Primitive Poor 0.08 0%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-116

Table 113 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

ILLINOIS

Cypress Creek NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.59 2%

Gravel Excellent 3.15 9%

Gravel Good 2.38 7%

Gravel Fair 0.88 3%

Native Excellent 1.10 3%

Native Good 21.62 63%

Native Fair 3.72 11%

Native Poor 0.07 0%

Primitive Good 0.96 3%

Emiquon NWR

Gravel Good 0.39 6%

Native Excellent 5.61 89%

Primitive Fair 0.32 5%

Meredosia NWR

Gravel Good 0.23 4%

Gravel Failed 0.10 2%

Native - 5.04 94%

Savanna District

Asphalt Excellent 1.02 2%

Asphalt Good 0.08 0%

Asphalt Fair 6.97 12%

Asphalt Poor 14.58 25%

Gravel Excellent 19.58 33%

Gravel Good 4.97 8%

Gravel Fair 0.72 1%

Native Excellent 1.08 2%

Native Good 7.13 12%

Native Fair 3.35 6%

Two Rivers NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.67 3%

Gravel Excellent 4.27 20%

Gravel Good 10.82 50%

Gravel Fair 0.92 4%

Native Good 4.49 21%

Primitive Good 0.40 2%

Middle Mississippi 

River NWR

Gravel Good 0.14 3%

Native Fair 2.29 55%

Primitive Good 1.77 42%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-117

Table 114 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

INDIANA

Big Oaks NWR

Gravel Excellent 37.28 46%

Gravel Good 37.75 46%

Gravel Fair 6.18 8%

Muscatatuck NWR

Concrete Fair 0.15 1%

Asphalt Excellent 0.59 3%

Asphalt Good 0.20 1%

Asphalt Fair 0.09 0%

Gravel Excellent 7.21 34%

Gravel Good 4.51 21%

Native Excellent 0.15 1%

Native Good 4.08 19%

Native Fair 3.74 18%

Primitive Good 0.50 2%

Patoka River NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.17 3%

Gravel Good 0.78 14%

Gravel Fair 0.57 11%

Native Excellent 0.05 1%

Native Good 0.16 3%

Native Fair 1.72 32%

Primitive Excellent 0.03 1%

Primitive Good 0.72 13%

Primitive Fair 1.19 22%

MICHIGAN

Detroit Lakes WMD

Gravel Excellent 0.37 13%

Gravel Good 1.70 61%

Gravel Fair 0.41 15%

Native Excellent 0.13 5%

Native Good 0.04 1%

Primitive Good 0.15 5%

Detroit River 

International 

Wildlife Refuge

Gravel Excellent 0.10 16%

Gravel Good 0.40 63%

Native Good 0.14 22%

Michigan WMD Gravel Good 0.27 100%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-118

Table 115 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

MICHIGAN

Seney NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.22 0%

Asphalt Poor 1.19 1%

Gravel Excellent 34.56 37%

Gravel Good 27.24 29%

Gravel Fair 1.42 2%

Native Good 12.27 13%

Native Fair 12.23 13%

Native Poor 1.07 1%

Primitive Excellent 0.14 0%

Primitive Good 1.68 2%

Primitive Fair 2.23 2%

Shiawassee NWR

Gravel Excellent 9.88 30%

Gravel Good 6.20 19%

Native Excellent 0.50 2%

Native Good 7.65 23%

Native Fair 5.50 17%

Primitive Good 2.41 7%

Primitive Fair 0.50 2%

MINNESOTA

Agassiz NWR

Gravel Excellent 29.31 28%

Gravel Good 17.15 17%

Gravel Fair 2.57 2%

Native Good 28.52 28%

Native Fair 21.62 21%

Native Poor 3.90 4%

Primitive Good 0.15 0%

Big Stone NWR

Asphalt Excellent 4.48 23%

Asphalt Good 1.02 5%

Asphalt Poor 0.69 3%

Gravel Excellent 7.82 39%

Gravel Good 3.53 18%

Native Good 1.91 10%

Native Fair 0.45 2%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-119

Table 116 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

MINNESOTA

Crane Meadows 

NWR

Gravel Excellent 0.62 82%

Gravel Good 0.14 18%

Fergus Falls WMD

Asphalt Excellent 0.03 0%

Asphalt Good 0.09 1%

Gravel Excellent 0.95 7%

Gravel Good 3.39 27%

Gravel Fair 0.65 5%

Native Good 0.84 7%

Native Fair 1.61 13%

Native Failed 0.62 5%

Primitive Excellent 0.23 2%

Primitive Good 1.69 13%

Primitive Fair 2.61 21%

Glacial Ridge NWR

Native Good 1.13 22%

Primitive Good 4.00 78%

Hamden Slough 

NWR

Gravel Good 1.02 39%

Primitive Good 0.33 13%

Primitive Fair 1.28 49%

Litchfield WMD

Asphalt Excellent 0.11 3%

Gravel Excellent 0.48 14%

Gravel Good 0.44 13%

Gravel Failed 0.12 4%

Native Excellent 0.34 10%

Native Good 0.91 27%

Native Fair 0.46 13%

Native Failed 0.33 10%

Primitive Good 0.23 7%

Minnesota Valley 

NWR

Asphalt Excellent 1.04 3%

Asphalt Fair 1.79 5%

Gravel Excellent 6.45 17%

Gravel Good 9.42 25%

Native Good 15.92 42%

Native Fair 2.36 6%

Primitive Excellent 0.72 2%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-120

Table 117 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

MINNESOTA

Minnesota Valley 

WMD

Gravel Excellent 0.59 26%

Gravel Good 0.24 11%

Native Good 1.19 53%

Primitive Excellent 0.22 10%

Morris WMD

Gravel Good 5.65 50%

Native Good 0.68 6%

Native Fair 0.57 5%

Native Failed 1.81 16%

Primitive Good 0.95 8%

Primitive Fair 1.55 14%

Primitive Failed 0.12 1%

Rice Lake NWR

Asphalt Excellent 0.13 1%

Gravel Excellent 11.11 51%

Gravel Good 6.45 29%

Native Good 2.45 11%

Native Fair 1.85 8%

Rydell NWR

Asphalt Excellent 0.02 0%

Asphalt Fair 0.12 1%

Gravel Excellent 5.18 55%

Gravel Good 2.17 23%

Gravel Fair 0.08 1%

Native Good 0.70 7%

Primitive Excellent 0.04 0%

Primitive Good 1.02 11%

Primitive Fair 0.14 1%

Sherburne NWR

Asphalt Fair 0.10 0%

Gravel Excellent 16.70 34%

Gravel Good 8.87 18%

Gravel Fair 0.49 1%

Native Excellent 0.26 1%

Native Good 10.49 21%

Native Fair 7.46 15%

Primitive Excellent 0.20 0%

Primitive Good 2.77 6%

Primitive Fair 1.64 3%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-121

Table 118 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

MINNESOTA

Tamarac NWR

Asphalt Poor 0.32 1%

Gravel Excellent 10.71 18%

Gravel Good 16.89 29%

Gravel Fair 4.05 7%

Native Excellent 0.38 1%

Native Good 21.05 36%

Native Fair 0.84 1%

Primitive Good 0.71 1%

Primitive Fair 4.15 7%

Windom WMD

Asphalt Fair 0.27 4%

Gravel Good 1.70 26%

Gravel Fair 0.54 8%

Native Good 2.59 40%

Native Fair 0.31 5%

Primitive Good 0.77 12%

Primitive Fair 0.32 5%

Winona District

Asphalt Excellent 0.28 41%

Asphalt Good 0.19 28%

Gravel Excellent 0.21 31%

MISSOURI

Big Muddy National 

Fish and Wildlife 

Refuge

Gravel Excellent 1.49 9%

Gravel Good 6.66 42%

Gravel Fair 1.64 10%

Native Excellent 0.08 0%

Native Good 5.03 31%

Native Fair 0.62 4%

Primitive Good 0.52 3%

Clarence Cannon 

NWR

Gravel Excellent 4.48 49%

Gravel Good 3.74 41%

Native Good 0.88 10%

Great River NWR

Gravel Excellent 1.50 22%

Gravel Good 5.35 78%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-122

Table 119 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

MISSOURI

Mingo NWR

Asphalt Excellent 0.90 2%

Asphalt Good 0.15 0%

Asphalt Fair 6.34 12%

Asphalt Poor 1.05 2%

Gravel Excellent 22.19 42%

Gravel Good 11.04 21%

Gravel Fair 1.83 3%

Native Good 2.71 5%

Native Fair 3.88 7%

Primitive Good 3.09 6%

Squaw Creek NWR

Asphalt Good 0.52 2%

Asphalt Fair 0.20 1%

Gravel Excellent 10.13 34%

Gravel Good 3.13 10%

Native Excellent 0.22 1%

Native Good 11.42 38%

Native Fair 4.01 13%

Primitive Good 0.37 1%

Swan Lake NWR

Gravel Excellent 15.77 64%

Gravel Good 7.59 31%

Gravel Fair 1.07 4%

Primitive Good 0.24 1%

OHIO

Cedar Point NWR

Gravel Excellent 2.22 20%

Gravel Good 5.42 49%

Gravel Fair 1.10 10%

Native Good 1.56 14%

Native Fair 0.75 7%

Ottawa NWR

Asphalt Excellent 0.63 1%

Asphalt Fair 0.63 1%

Asphalt Poor 0.15 0%

Gravel Excellent 10.86 23%

Gravel Good 21.62 45%

Gravel Fair 2.10 4%

Native Good 7.29 15%

Native Fair 4.00 8%

Primitive Excellent 0.07 0%

Primitive Good 0.30 1%

Primitive Fair 0.57 1%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-123

Table 120 . Road Conditions by Surface Type (continuation)

State Service Unit Surface Condition Miles % in Unit

WISCONSIN

Fox River NWR

Gravel Good 0.37 26%

Primitive Fair 1.08 74%

Horicon NWR

Asphalt Excellent 0.11 0%

Asphalt Fair 3.76 13%

Asphalt Poor 0.31 1%

Gravel Excellent 11.32 40%

Gravel Good 4.81 17%

Gravel Fair 2.47 9%

Native Fair 1.58 6%

Primitive Good 1.73 6%

Primitive Fair 2.37 8%

LaCrosse District Gravel Good 0.81 100%

Leopold WMD

Gravel Excellent 0.83 53%

Gravel Good 0.44 28%

Native Good 0.12 8%

Native Failed 0.19 12%

WISCONSIN

Necedah NWR

Gravel Excellent 7.44 17%

Gravel Good 22.47 52%

Gravel Fair 4.88 11%

Native Excellent 0.10 0%

Native Good 5.05 12%

Native Fair 0.71 2%

Primitive Excellent 0.86 2%

Primitive Good 1.29 3%

Primitive Fair 0.45 1%

St. Croix WMD

Asphalt Poor 0.12 9%

Gravel Excellent 0.12 9%

Gravel Good 0.33 24%

Primitive Good 0.11 8%

Primitive Fair 0.69 50%

Trempealeau NWR

Asphalt Fair 1.03 6%

Gravel Excellent 6.17 38%

Gravel Good 6.51 40%

Native Good 1.66 10%

Primitive Good 1.04 6%

Whittlesey Creek 

NWR Primitive Excellent 0.00 100%

Source: FHWA, Road Inventory Program Cycle 4.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-124

C.3 Welcome and Orientation

Population trends are used in the baseline conditions analysis as a general indicator for future

visitation. Population trends were derived from U.S. Census datasets. Census data from 2000 and 

2010 were used to illustrate recent trends, while U.S. Census 2030 projections were used to

indicate possible future trends. The summaries were created by using GIS to union county level

population data with Service units and are shown in Table 121. Gateway communities were 

identified using U.S. Census data, supplemented with expert knowledge from FWS on which 

communities serve as gateways.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-125

Table 121 . Population Change

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Boyer Chute NWR

Pottawattamie/IA 87704 93158 6% 5454

7%

92799 0%

7%

Washington/NE 18780 20234 8% 1454 22962 13%

DeSoto NWR

Pottawattamie/IA 87704 93158 6% 5454

3%

92799 0%

Harrison/IA 15666 14928 -5% -738 14260 -4% 3%

Washington/NE 18780 20234 8% 1454 22962 13%

Driftless Area NWR

Allamakee/IA 14675 14330 -2% -345

-1%

13904 -3%

-5%

Clayton/IA 18678 18129 -3% -549 16563 -9%

Dubuque/IA 89143 93653 5% 4510 91305 -3%

Jackson/IA 20296 19848 -2% -448 19012 -4%

McGregor District, Upper 

Mississippi National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge 

Houston/MN 19718 19244 -2% -474

0%

20564 7%

2%

Allmakee/IA 14675 14330 -2% -345 13904 -3%

Clayton/IA 18678 18129 -3% -549 16563 -9%

Dubuque/IA 89143 93653 5% 4510 91305 -3%

Vernon/WI 28056 29773 6% 1717 31867 7%

Crawford/WI 17243 16644 -3% -599 19437 17%

Grant/WI 49597 51208 3% 1611 51433 0%

Neal Smith NWR Jasper/IA 37213 36842 -1% -371 -1% 37589 2% 2%

Port Louisa NWR

Tama/IA 18103 17767 -2% -336 -1%

16118 -9%

0%

Benton/IA 25308 26076 3% 768 27286 5%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-126

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Iowa/IA 15671 16355 4% 684 16346 0%

Poweshiek/IA 18815 18914 1% 99 18867 0%

Louisa/IA 12183 11387 -7% -796 12195 7%

Mercer/IL 16957 16434 -3% -523 15833 -4%

Union Slough NWR Kossuth/IA 17163 15543 -9% -1620 -9% 11419 -27% -27%

Chautauqua NWR

Marshall/IL 13180 12640 -4% -540 -6%

11640 -8% -6%

Mason/IL 16038 14666 -9% -1372 13936 -5%

Crab Orchard NWR

Williamson/IL 61296 66357 8% 5061

2%

73961 11%

Jackson/IL 59612 60218 1% 606 62889 4% 8%

Union/IL 18293 17808 -3% -485 19112 7%

Cypress Creek NWR

Union/IL 18293 17808 -3% -485

-9%

19112 7%

-1%

Johnson/IL 12878 12582 -2% -296 16123 28%

Pulaski/IL 7348 6161 -16% -1187 5062 -18%

Alexander/IL 9590 8238 -14% -1352 6455 -22%

Emiquon NWR Fulton/IL 38250 37069 -3% -1181 -3% 33758 -9% -9%

Meredosia NWR

Cass/IL 13695 13642 0% -53 -2%

12854 -6% -3%

Morgan/IL 36616 35547 -3% -1069 35591 0%

Two Rivers NWR

Greene/IL 14761 13886 -6% -875

6%

12265 -12%

6%

Calhoun/IL 5084 5089 0% 5 4625 -9%

Jersey/IL 21668 22985 6% 1317 24891 8%

St Charles/MO 283883 355367 25% 71484 483684 36%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-127

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Upper Mississippi River 

NWR

Jo Daviess/IL 22289 22678 2% 389 -3%

22652 0% -6%

Carrol/IL 16674 15387 -8% -1287 13431 -13%

Middle Mississippi River 

NWR

Jefferson/MO 198099 219046 11% 20947

9%

279796 28%

15%

Monroe/IL 27619 32957 19% 5338 38691 17%

Jackson/IL 59612 60218 1% 606 62889 4%

Perry/MO 18132 18847 4% 715 21063 12%

Big Oaks NWR

Jennings/IN 27554 28525 4% 971

5%

33546 18%

Ripley/IN 26523 28818 9% 2295 32093 11% 12%

Jefferson/IN 31705 32428 2% 723 35123 8%

Muscatatuck NWR

Monroe/IN 120563 137974 14% 17411

7%

161218 17%

Jackson/IN 41335 42376 3% 1041 47506 12% 16%

Jennings/IN 27554 28525 4% 971 33546 18%

Patoka River NWR

Gibson/IN 32500 33503 3% 1003

2%

34488 3%

2%

Pike/IN 12837 12845 0% 8 12987 1%

Detroit River International 

Wildlife Refuge

Washington/NE 18780 20234 8% 1454

7%

22962 13%

7%

Pottawattamie/IA 87704 93158 6% 5454 92799 0%

Harbor Island NWR Chippewa/MI 38543 38713 0% 170 0% 43507 12% 12%

Huron NWR

Baraga/MI 8746 8604 -2% -142

0%

9072 5%

2%

Marquette/MI 64634 65703 2% 1069 65029 -1%

Kirtlands Warbler WMA

Kalkaska/MI 16571 16891 2% 320 -2%

24119 43%

36%

Crawford/MI 14273 14203 0% -70 19437 37%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-128

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Oscoda/MI 9418 8707 -8% -711 11719 35%

Ogemaw/MI 21645 21234 -2% -411 27528 30%

Roscommon/MI 25469 24682 -3% -787 34637 40%

Clare/MI 31252 30104 -4% -1148 39064 30%

Michigan WMD

Schoolcraft/MI 8903 8127 -9% -776

-5%

8479 4%

13%

Mackinac/MI 11943 10591 -11% -1352 12060 14%

Emmet/MI 31437 33649 7% 2212 41922 25%

Charlevoix/MI 26090 25796 -1% -294 31838 23%

Alpena/MI 31314 29289 -6% -2025 29311 0%

Arenac/MI 17269 16092 -7% -1177 19809 23%

Huron/MI 36079 32236 -11% -3843 33132 3%

Seney NWR Schoolcraft/MI 8903 8127 -9% -776 -9% 8479 4% 4%

Big Stone NWR

Big Stone/MN 5820 5251 -10% -569 -11%

3692 -30% -30%

Lac qui Parle/MN 8067 7110 -12% -957 4918 -31%

Crane Meadows NWR Morrison/MN 31712 32883 4% 1171 4% 35799 9% 9%

Glacial Ridge NWR Polk/MN 31369 30776 -2% -593 -2% 28467 -8% -8%

Hamden Slough NWR Becker/MN 30000 32076 7% 2076 7% 35162 10% 10%

Mille Lacs NWR Mille Lacs/MN 22330 26383 18% 4053 18% 30407 15% 15%

Minnesota Valley NWR

Carver/MN 70205 92107 31% 21902

19%

119405 30%

Hennepin/MN 1116200 1156212 4% 40012 1268088 10% 22%

Ramsey/MN 511035 506278 -1% -4757 532342 5%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-129

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Dakota/MN 355904 396500 11% 40596 542347 37%

Scott/MN 89498 131939 47% 42441 168996 28%

Rice Lake NWR Aitkin/MN 15301 15646 2% 345 2% 17789 14% 14%

Rydell NWR Polk/MN 31369 30776 -2% -593 -2% 28467 -8% -8%

Sherburne NWR Sherburne/MN 64417 87832 36% 23415 36% 117883 34% 34%

Tamarac NWR Becker/MN 30000 32076 7% 2076 7% 35162 10% 10%

Big Muddy National Fish 

and Wildlife Refuge

Clay/MO 184006 221939 21% 37933

6%

261506 18%

10%

Jackson/MO 654880 674158 3% 19278 279796 -58%

Ray/MO 23354 23494 1% 140 27066 15%

Lafayette/MO 32960 33381 1% 421 37418 12%

Carroll/MO 10285 9295 -10% -990 13431 44%

Saline/MO 23756 23370 -2% -386 22442 -4%

Chariton/MO 8438 7831 -7% -607 5986 -24%

Randolph/MO 24663 25414 3% 751 26533 4%

Howard/MO 10212 10144 -1% -68 9859 -3%

Cooper/MO 16670 17601 6% 931 18802 7%

Boone/MO 135454 162642 20% 27188 197754 22%

Moniteau/MO 14827 15607 5% 780 18104 16%

Cole/MO 71397 75990 6% 4593 92475 22%

Callaway/MO 40766 44332 9% 3566 53308 20%

Osage/MO 13062 13878 6% 816 15120 9%

Montgomery/MO 12136 12236 1% 100 12881 5%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-130

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Gasconade/MO 15342 15222 -1% -120 17465 15%

Warren/MO 24525 32513 33% 7988 42335 30%

Franklin/MO 93807 101492 8% 7685 126574 25%

St. Charles/MO 283883 355367 25% 71484 483684 36%

St. Louis/MO 1016315 998954 -2% -17361 1041667 4%

Clarence Cannon NWR Pike/MO 18351 18516 1% 165 1% 19050 3% 3%

Great River NWR

Clark/MO 7416 7139 -4% -277

-4%

6443 -10%

Adams/IL 68277 67103 -2% -1174 64446 -4% -7%

Pike/IL 17384 16430 -5% -954 15086 -8%

Mingo NWR

Wayne/MO 13259 13521 2% 262

1%

16402 21%

15%

Stoddard/MO 29705 29968 1% 263 32306 8%

Pilot Knob NWR Iron/MO 10697 10630 -1% -67 -1% 11259 6% 6%

Squaw Creek NWR Holt/MO 5351 4912 -8% -439 -8% 3961 -19% -19%

Swan Lake NWR Chariton/MO 8438 7831 -7% -607 -7% 5986 -24% -24%

Cedar Point NWR Lucas/OH 455054 441815 -3% -13239 -3% 515126 17% 17%

Ottawa NWR

Lucas/OH 455054 441815 -3% -13239 -1% 515126 17%

11%

Otawa/OH 40985 41428 1% 443 44067 6%

Fox River NWR Marquette/WI 15832 15404 -3% -428 -3% 19714 28% 28%

Horicon NWR

Fond du Lac/WI 97296 101633 4% 4337

4%

109494 8%

10%

Dodge/WI 85897 88759 3% 2862 99194 12%

Necedah NWR Juneau/WI 24316 26664 10% 2348 10% 30303 14% 14%

Trempealeau NWR Buffalo/WI 13804 13587 -2% -217 3% 13479 -1% 3%
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-131

Facility Name

Intersecting 

Counties and 

States

Population (2000-2010) Projections (2010-2030)

2000 2010 % 

Change Difference

Average 

Change 

by FWS 

Facility

2030 % 

Change

Average 

Change by 

FWS 

Facility

Trempealeau/WI 27010 28816 7% 1806 30837 7%

Whittlesey Creek NWR Bayfield/WI 15013 15014 0% 1 0% 17049 14% 14%

Source: U.S. Census 

Data in Light Blue background is a projection to 2009 base on 2000 Census
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-132

C.4 Planning

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

locations of non-service planning districts varies by state. Some states require manual reference 

of published maps. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) data is provided by BTS, 

however, many data gaps were found so the data cannot be considered a stand-alone MPO 

resource.

C.5 Partnerships

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

benefit multiple organizations, non-Service owned roads that intersect Region 3 units have been

identified and summarized. These roads were located using a GIS’s ability select by location for

all US Census Tiger roads intersecting FWS boundaries. The results of this process are

summarized in Table 122. Other data cited in the Partnerships section comes from the 

information established in Planning.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-133

Table 122 Non-Service Roads Intersecting Service Units

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Iowa

Boyer Chute

I-29

Iowa

Upper Mississippi 

River National 

Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge

Ansel Briggs Hwy

I-680 N Riverview Dr

Desoto 

NWR US Hwy 30 S Riverview Dr

Neal Smith 

NWR

Poplar Ave State Hwy 62

State Hwy 163 State St

W 2nd St

Upper Mississippi 

River National 

Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge - Mc 

Gregor District

7th St

Port Louisa 

NWR

11th Ave Ash

13th St Bus US Hwy 18

212th Blvd First St

220th Trl Great River Rd

330th St Hwy 26

42nd Ave Hwy 76

7th Ave Hwy Bus 18

Co Hwy 21 Main St

Co Rd E49 N 2nd St

Co Rd V18 N 5th St

E 13 St N Hwy 52

E 5th St Old Rd No 29

Great River Rd Pikes Peak Rd

Harding St Point Ann 

Highway 6 Trl Prospect 

Hwy 63 Railroad Ave

Hwy V18 Railroad St

J Ave S 5th St

Riverview Ct S US Hwy 52

S County Rd State Hwy 182

S State St State Hwy 26

State Hwy 131 State Hwy 76

State Hwy 21 State Hwy 9

State Hwy 212 US Hwy 18

State Hwy 220 US Hwy 18 Bus

State Hwy 99 US Hwy 52

State St Water St

Station St Upper Mississippi 11th Ave S
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-134

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

T Ave River National 

Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge - Savanna 

District

460th Ave

U Ave 8th Ave S

US Hwy 151 Bellevue Rd

US Hwy 30 Broad St

US Hwy 6 Bus Hwy 67

US Hwy 63 Camanche Ave

W 13 St Co Hwy Z36

W Ave Dodge St

W South St Great River Rd

Western Ave Hwy 52

Y Ave Hwy 67

Julien Dubuque Bridg

Kerrigan Rd

Lincoln Way

N 3rd St

N Hwy 52

N Hwy 67

N Riverview Dr

N Washington Blvd

S 2nd St

S 3rd St

State Hwy 64

Sycamore St

US Hwy 151

US Hwy 20

US Hwy 30

US Hwy 52

US Hwy 61

US Hwy 67

Iowa

Iowa

Upper 

Mississippi 

River 

National 

Wildlife 

and Fish 

Refuge -

Savanna 

District

Port 

Louisa 

NWR
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-135

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Illinois

Chautauqua 

NWR 

Old Rte 29

Illinois

Meredosia NWR

Main St

Prairie St Mill St

State Rte 18 State Hwy 104

State Rte 26 State Rte 100

State Rte 29 State Rte 104

Crab Orchard 

NWR

E Main St State Rte 99

i-57 US Hwy 67

State Rte 13 Middle Mississippi 

River NWR

State Rte 156

State Rte 148 Walnut Rd

N Refuge Rd

Two Rivers NWF

Great River Rd

State Rte 13 Hwy 100

S Park Ave Mc Adams Hwy

W Deyoung St River Rd

Noah's Ln Rte 100

Cypress 

Creek NWR

Cache River State Hwy 100 N

I-57 State Hwy 100 W

N Church Rd State Rte 100

State Hwy 127 Upper Mississippi River 

National Wildlife 

Refuge and Fish

State Rte 84

State Hwy 3 State Rte 84 S

State Rte 169

Savana District

3rd St

State Rte 37 Chicago Ave

US Hwy 51 Clinton Rd

Walnut St E Main St

Emiquon 

NWR

E Dearborn St Main St

E Laurel Ave N Main St

E Laurel St Rte 84 N

N State Rte 78 S Main St

N State Rte 97 Sinsinawa Ave

Oak St South Ln

S Promenade St State Rte 35

S Water St State Rte 64

State Rte 78 State Rte 84

State Rt 97 US Hwy 20

US Hwy 136 US Hwy 30

US Hwy 24 US Hwy 52

W Dearborn St Viaduct Rd

W Main St

Waller Rd

Wisconsin Ave
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-136

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Indiana

Big Oaks 

NWR

US Hwy 421

Ohio Ottawa NWR

Bono Port Clinton 

Rd

N Graham Rd N Camp Rd

State Rd 250 Navarre Ave

US Hwy 50 State Rte 163

Muscatatuck 

NWR

US Hwy 31 State Rte 2

US Hwy 50 State Rte 358

E Tipton St State Rte 579

I-65 State Rte 590

Patoka River 

NWR

E Morton St W Harbor Rd

E State Rd 364 W Lakeshore Dr

E State Rd 64 W State Rte 2

N 9th St Willston Rd

N Main St

Michigan

Detroit River 

International WR

Detroit-Toledo Expy

N Vincennes Ave Fisher Fwy

Old Princeton Rd Fort St

Poplar St I-75

State Rd 364 State Hwy 85

S State Hwy 57

Seney NWR

M 28

S State Rd 257 State Hwy 28

S State Rd 61 State Hwy 77

State Rd 257 State Hwy M 28

State Rd 57

Shiawassee NWR

East Rd

State Rd 56 Gratiot Rd

State Rd 61 I-75

State Rd 64 Midland Rd

W State Rd 56 S Washington Ave

W State Rd 64 State Hwy 13

State Hwy 46

State Hwy 47

State Hwy 58

State St

US Hwy 23
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-137

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Minnesota Minnesota 

Valley NWR

1st Ave E

Minnesota

Big Stone NWR

2nd St SE

1st Ave W Main St

Cedar Ave State Hwy 7

Chaska Blvd US Hwy 12

Co Hwy 101 US Hwy 75

Co Rd 101 Crane Meadows Hwy 27

Co Rd 18 State Hwy 27

Co Rd 23

Glacial Ridge NWR

N Mill St

Co Rd 40 State Hwy 32

Co Rd 69 State Hwy 32 SW

Co Rd G US Hwy 2

E 6th St Rice Lake NWR State Hwy 65

Flying Cloud Dr

Upper Mississippi 

River National and 

Fish Refuge - La 

Crosse District

Front St

Great Plains Blvd Great River Rd

Hwy 13 E Hwy 14

I-35 I-90

I-494 Leeward Rd

I-694 Miller Valley Rd

Johnson Memorial Dr Spillway Ln

Jonathan Carver Pkwy Twin Bluffs Dr

Lewis St N US Hwy 14

N Chestnut St US Hwy 61

Shakopee Byp Mc Gregor District State Hwy 26

Sibley Memorial Hwy

Upper Mississippi 

River National and 

Fish Refuge -

Winona District

2nd St

Spring Creek Dr Hince Dr

State Hwy 101 Hwy 14

State Hwy 13 Hwy 61 W

State Hwy 41 Pembroke Ave

State Hwy 5 State Hwy 60

State Hwy 65 US Hwy 61

State Hwy 77

State Hwy 96W

Townline Ave

US Hwy 10

US Hwy 169

US Hwy 212

US Hwy 8

W 6th St
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-138

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Missouri

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

10 Hwy 

Missouri

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

E Winner Rd

13th St First Capitol Dr

14th St Franklin

1st St Gateway

23rd St S Goethe St

3rd St Granvel Blvd

5th St Hillside Blvd

Armour Rd Hwy 100

Arrowhead Fwy Hwy 100

Ash St Hwy 131

Bell St Hwy 179

Bingham Rd Hay 291

Bluff Rd Hwy 364

Broadway Fwy Hwy F

Burlington St I-270

Christy St I-29

Clark St I-35

Clarkson Rd I-435

Co Rd 361 I-64

Co Rd 404 I-670

Co Rd 433 I-70

Commerce Dr Independence Ave

Cr 247 James Rd

Defiance Rd Kingd Hwy

E 1st St Main St

E 2nd St Market St

E Ashley Rd McLean St

E Broadway St Midtown Fwy

E Fourth St Missouri Ave

E Hwy 100 Mo 210 Hwy

E Hwy 224 N 2nd St

E Hwy 240 N 3rd St

E Jackson St N Antioch Rd

E Main St N Gateway Ave

E Pacific St N Hwy 87

E State St N Kingshighway St

E Truman Rd N Main St

E US Hwy 24 N Pine St

E Walnut St N Saline 65 Hwy
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-139

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Missouri

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

N Spartan Dr

Missouri

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

State Hwy 10

N State Hwy 7 State Hwy 100

N State Hwy 94 State Hwy 11

N Twyman Rd State Hwy 12

N US Hwy 65 State Hwy 122

N Woods Mill Rd State Hwy 127

NE Antioch Rd State Hwy 129

NE Vivion Rd State Hwy 13

Nelson Ave State Hwy 131

NW Gateway Ave State Hwy 135

NW Platte Dr State Hwy 139

NW Vivion Rd State Hwy 141

Old Bridge St State Hwy 179

Olive Blvd State Hwy 180

Old Hwy 179 State Hwy 19

Randolph St State Hwy 210

Rex M Whitton 

Expy State Hwy 213

Riverway Blvd State Hwy 224

Rock Hill Rd State Hwy 23

S 13th St State Hwy 240

S 1st Capitol Dr State Hwy 291

S Cherry St State Hwy 3

S Elizabeth St State Hwy 33

S First Capitol Dr State Hwy 340

S Hwy 94 State Hwy 364

S Missouri St State Hwy 370

S Mo 7 Hwy State Hwy 41

S Pine St State Hwy 47

S Saline 127 Hwy State Hwy 5

S Spartan Dr State Hwy 7

S State Hwy 7 State Hwy 78

Saint Charles Rock 

Rd State Hwy 87

Saline 127 Hwy State Hwy 89

Saline St State Hwy 9

Salisbury Rd State Hwy 94

State Hwy 1 State Hwy 94
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-140

State Service Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Missouri

Big Muddy 

National Fish 

and Wildlife 

Refuge

Union St

Missouri

Clarence 

Cannon NWR State Hwy 79

US Hwy 169

Great River 

NWR US Hwy 61

US Hwy 24 Mingo NWR State Hwy 51

US Hwy 40 Ozark Cavefish 

NWR

Old Hwy 66

Us Hwy 50 State Hwy 266

US Hwy 54 State Hwy 96

US Hwy 61 Pilot Knob NWR State Hwy 21

US Hwy 63

Squaw Creek 

NWR

5th St

US Hwy 65 E 3rd St

US Hwy 69 I-29

US Hwy 71 Nebraska St

I-70 State Hwy 111

Volker Blvd State Hwy 118

W 224 Hwy State St

W 23rd St S US Hwy 159

W Ashley Rd US Hwy 59

W Broadway St

W Cunningham Dr

W Jackson St

W Missouri Ave

W Park St

W State St

W Sugar Creek Dr

W Tuttle Ave

W Van Horn 

Tavern Rd

W Walnut St

Walker Rd

Walnut St

Willow Ave

Woods Mill Rd
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-141

State Service 

Unit Road Name State Service Unit Road Name

Wisconsin

Fox River 

NWR

Co Rd F

Wisconsin

Upper Mississippi 

River National 

Wildlife and Fish 

Refuge - McGregor 

District

A St

Co Rd O Bluff Rd

Fox River Rd Co Hwy V

Upper 

Mississippi 

River 

National 

Wildlife 

and Fish 

Refuge - La 

Crosse 

District

2nd Ave Co Hwy Vv

3rd St Co Rd A

4th St Co Rd N

7th St Co Rd P

Cass St Co Rd V

Co Rd XX Co Rd Vv

Copeland Ave Co Rd X

Division St Denniston St

E 3rd St E Amelia St

George St E Chicago St

Great River Rd Great River Rd

Hwy 53 Main St

I-90 Marquette Rd

Jackson St State Hwy 133

La Crosse St State Hwy 171

Main St State Hwy 35

Mormon Coulee 

Rd State Hwy 56

N Main St State Hwy 81

Rose St State Hwy 82

S Main St State Rd 133

South Ave State Rd 81

State Hwy 16 US Hwy 18

State Hwy 162 W Amelia St

State Hwy 33 W Iowa St

State Hwy 35 W Wisconsin St

State Hwy 56

Necedah NWR

State Hwy 173

US Hwy 14 State Hwy 21

US Hwy 61 State Hwy 80

US Hwy 53 W 3rd St

W George St Trempealeau NWR Great River Rd

West Ave S State Hwy 54

Horicon NWR

Co Rd Z

State Hwy 26

State Hwy 49
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page C-142

State Service Unit Road Name

Wisconsin

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge - Savanna District

Great River Rd

State Hwy 11

State Hwy 35

US Hwy 151

US Hwy 61

Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife 

and Fish Refuge - Winona District

3rd St

Front St

Great River Rd

Hill St

Main St

Shore Dr

North St

Oak St

State Hwy 25

State Hwy 35

State Hwy 37

State Hwy 43

State Hwy 54

State Hwy 95

Whittlesey Creek NWR

Co Hwy G

State Hwy 13

US Hwy 2

C.6 Sustainability

Baseline conditions associated with sustainability represent topics of climate change, transit, and

non-motorized access to Service lands and reduced fossil fuel consumption. These themes are

captured in several baseline condition indicators, including:

• Air-Quality Non-Attainment

• Service Units Intersected by Transit

Air Quality Non-Attainment

Because the Service is interested in helping to reduce emissions that contribute to climate 

change, locations identified as non-attainment areas by the EPA are identified in the baseline

conditions section. A GIS layer was used to select any EPA non-attainment areas within one mile 

of a Service unit.

Service Units Intersected by Transit Districts

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

mile traveled and lower emissions. As such, partnership with existing non-Service transit

systems is viewed as an emerging opportunity for future transportation investment. Service units

intersected by transit districts are summarized in the baseline conditions section. 
APPENDIX D

USFWS R-3

Roadway Design Guidelines
Roadway Design 

Guidelines

Midwest Region

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Cover: Bison as viewed from a road 

at Neil Smith NWR on a foggy 

morning. Roadways on National 

Wildlife Refuges create wonderful 

opportunities for wildlife viewing 

and photography, two of the Big Six 

activities supported by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System.

Photo: Richard C. Hager/USFWS

Primary Contact

Alex Schwartz, RLA 

Landscape Architect, 

R1 Branch of Transportation

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

911 NE 11th Avenue

Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 

Alex_schwartz@fws.gov 

503/736 4723

Acknowledgements 

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

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

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

Special Thanks 

Peter Field - Western Federal Lands, Federal Highway Administration

Doug Staller - Refuge Manager, Necedah NWR, FWS Region 3

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

Steve Suder - National Coordinator, Refuge Transportation Program, FWS

Eva Paredes - Refuge Roads Coordinator, FWS Region 6

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

Consultant Team 

SvR Design Company 

 Tom von Schrader, PE

 Nate Cormier, RLA

 Justin Martin, ASLA

Quatrefoil, Inc. 

 Brian Bainnson, ASLA

Region 3 Contact

Brandon Jutz

Regional Coordinator, 

R3 Refuge Roads Program

1 Federal Drive

Federal Building

Ft. Snelling, MN 55111-4056 

Brandon_Jutz@fws.gov

612/713 5407

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
Purpose

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

(FWS) is the world’s premier 

conservation agency, managing over 

150 million acres of wildlife habitat 

on National Wildlife Refuges alone. 

FWS is in a unique position to 

demonstrate the land ethic so deeply 

interwoven in the rich fabric of our 

national heritage. 

This guide highlights state of the 

art ecological, planning, design 

and engineering considerations 

for roadway projects that heed 

both the significant benefits and 

impacts these projects present. 

Roadway projects on FWS 

managed lands should conform to 

planning and design criteria that 

have been established to support 

the FWS mission. This document 

provides such criteria in the form 

of guidelines. These guidelines are 

summarized in a table of contents 

that serves as a project checklist. 

The Roadway Design Guidelines 

are a wayfinding tool intended to 

facilitate dialog and decision making 

among project teams. The guidelines 

have been crafted to support the 

interdisciplinary team typically 

Brian Bainnson Eva Paredes/USFWS

involved with decision making 

regarding a roadway project: 

Project Leaders, Project Managers, 

and technical experts from various 

disciplines. 

This document includes 30 individual 

project planning and design 

guidelines, organized around 6 major 

themes. The project checklist serves 

as an overview of these guidelines, 

and has been provided as a tool to 

assist in project planning, design and 

implementation.

In the pages that follow you will find 

information and resources that will 

be useful in your work on roadway 

projects. Using these guidelines 

is not an end in itself. Rather, the 

guidelines are a starting point 

from which to explore solutions to 

implement a roadway project of the 

highest standard. Every guideline 

begins with a brief discussion of the 

intent for presenting a particular 

topic, followed by supporting 

principles central to honoring the 

guideline, as well as associated 

metrics. Selected resources 

are provided to gain a deeper 

understanding of the topic. 

More Than Just A Road

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

the suite of typical improvements associated with a vehicle-focused 

transportation project, but also related facilities such as parking, 

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

summarized as follows:

 Typical transportation improvements extend from the centerline 

of an existing or proposed road outward and include associated 

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

and planting. 

 Other facilities and infrastructure commonly associated with 

vehicular transportation, include parking, visitor contact facilities, and 

pullouts. 

 Ecological connections and impacts beyond the edge of the 

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

disturbance, pollution and aquatic and terrestrial species conflicts. 

Visitor contact facilities are often 

located in close proximity to 

roadways like this one at McNary 

National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

(top). Bison herd as viewed from 

roadway at the National Bison 

Range (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Dalton Highway river crossing at 

Kanuti NWR

The mission of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

is working with others to conserve, protect and 

enhance fish, wildlife, plants and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the 

American People.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Highway through Siletz Bay NWR provides 

travelers with visual access to the Refuge. 

The highway affects habitat connectivity and 

the landscape’s hydrology.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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, Planning at the Scale 

of Landscape Ecology, is intended 

to help you consider the broadscale environmental impacts of 

your decisions regarding roadways 

and transportation infrastructure. 

It addresses a range of issues, 

providing you with a set of tools for 

decision-making.

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. 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 - Midwest Region
Landscape Ecology | LE-1

LE-1 Improve Habitat Connectivity

Principles

 Identify and prioritize habitat 

restoration and connectivity 

opportunities at the landscape 

scale

 Review state habitat connectivity 

plans

 Consider impacts and footprint of 

the entire roadway as defined in 

these guidelines

 Develop partnerships among 

land management agencies

 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.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Patricia White/Flickr.com

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 - Midwest Region
Roadway Design Guidelines | Landscape Ecology | LE-2

LE-2 Reduce Impacts to Wildlife and Habitat

Principles

 Identify and limit the ‘road-effect 

zone’ (road ecology metric, see 

Definitions)

 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 - Midwest Region
Principles

 Consider how road design may 

protect hydrologic processes 

 Consider how to adapt an 

existing roadway for greater 

permeability

 Consider what effects the 

roadway might have on 

subsurface flows, water tables, 

and nearby aquifers, as well 

as how these elements affect 

construction options and 

feasibility

 Consider balance between 

restoring to pre-development 

conditions and maintaining 

historic alterations to hydrology

 Consider how development 

and roadway work will support 

current hydrologic and habitat 

management goals

Metrics

 Hydrologic modeling showing 

potential changes from roadways

 Stream flow data

 Changes in species composition 

(invasives vs. natives)

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

Resources

General reference on road ecology. 

See in particular overview of 

roadway effects on hydrology in 

Chapter 7.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington D.C.

Guidelines that address hydrology 

impacts of roadways.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA. 

Guidebook on design and best 

practices for providing aquatic 

organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

See also:

Section SM - Stormwater 

Management

Roads both affect and are affected by 

hydrology. Floodwaters wash out a 

road at Flint Hills NWR (top); levee 

road at Blackwater NWR (bottom).

Roadways disrupt 

natural hydrology.

Landscape Ecology | LE-3

Intent

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

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

habitat caused by roadways. Impervious surfaces have a cumulative effect 

across a watershed, altering its hydrology and often creating detrimental 

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

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

management. Project teams should consider carefully how a roadway will 

impact local hydrology, or conversely how hydrologic processes can inform 

design decisions. Roadway improvements might support FWS management 

goals by addressing known issues and/or restoring historic hydrologic 

processes.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

LE-4 Respond to Intrinsic Qualities of Regional Landscapes

Principles

 Consider Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) for general 

design guidelines and engage a 

landscape architect

 Develop benchmarking tools for 

ecological performance

 Consider what local land use 

traditions are consistent with 

FWS goals and management 

activities

 Respond to visual appearance of 

regional landforms, vegetation, 

and other natural features

 Review historic land use patterns 

and cultural practices

 Consider visitor experience 

and potential educational and 

interpretive benefits of road and 

visitor facility designs

Metrics

 Visitor satisfaction

 Ecological literacy of visitors

 Documentation of visual analysis 

(visual resource assessment) 

process (see Resources below)

Resources

Context-sensitive highway planning 

and design case study.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. 

Performance metrics for CSS 

design.

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc., and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Items to address or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Roadway design guidelines from 

applied ecology and experiential 

perspective.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139), 

and Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

In Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Available at: http://

www.jonesandjones.com/news/

publications.html.

Guidelines for visual and context 

considerations for roadway design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 

2002. A Guide to Best Practices 

for Achieving Context Sensitive 

Solutions (NCHRP Report 480).

Regional design guidelines.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Nevada Department of 

Transportation. 2002. Pattern and 

Palette of Place: A Landscape 

and Aesthetic Master Plan for the 

Nevada State Highway System.

Leota Butte overlook at Ouray NWR 

provides an excellent landscape view.

Historic land use patterns 

and natural features can 

help drive design.

Context Sensitive Solutions

The term Context Sensitive 

Solutions (CSS) refers to a 

decision-making process used 

by roadway designers and 

transportation engineers that 

accounts for many factors of a 

site’s context—from topography 

and geology to cultural history 

and the intended users—during 

the planning, design, and 

maintenance of transportation 

facilities. Landscape architects 

played a leading role in 

developing this concept and are 

valuable team members for their 

expertise in determining how a 

project can appropriately respond 

to its context. Fundamental 

landscape architecture 

capabilities include identifying 

and expressing in built form the 

intrinsic qualities of a project’s 

regional landscape.

Landscape Ecology | LE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

approach should be taken when planning and designing all roadways on 

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

location of visitor facilities. Consider local vernacular architecture and 

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

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

seasonal access to recreational opportunities.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Provide alternative modes 

and means of access to FWS 

managed lands

 Consider potential climate 

change impacts when making 

decisions on location, scale and 

design life of infrastructure 

investments

 Consider construction materials 

and methods that have lower 

carbon footprints and climate 

impacts consistent with FWS 

and Department of the Interior 

(DOI) policies

 Use climate change research to 

inform transportation planning 

efforts at the landscape scale

Metrics

 Regional trends in weatherrelated damage and maintenance 

needs

 Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on 

FWS roadways and associated 

greenhouse gas emissions

 Transportation modes used by 

visitors to reach and use FWS 

facilities

 Reports and data from the 

Emergency Relief for Federally 

Owned Roads (ERFO) program

Resources

Overview of transportation industry 

connection with climate change.

Transportation Research Board. 

1997. Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Potential climate impacts of 

transportation sector and work 

towards reducing them.

Sperling, Daniel and Deborah 

Gordon. 2008. Two Billion Cars: 

Transforming a Culture. In: TR 

News, No. 259 (Nov-Dec).

Overview of general impacts of 

climate change on transportation 

infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation (TRB 

Report 290).

Regionally specific climate change 

impact information.

Climate Impacts Group. 2009. 

The Washington Climate Change 

Impacts Assessment. 

Information, resources and 

organizations relating to 

sustainable transportation systems.

Green Highways Partnership. http://

www.greenhighwayspartnership.org. 

Assistance with emergencies and 

data on federally owned roads.

Emergency Relief for Federally 

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

fhwa.dot.gov/programs/erfo/.

Official FWS climate change 

information and strategy.

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

climatechange/.

Climate change will impact roads on 

FWS managed lands. Road damage 

due to flooding at Arrowwood NWR 

(top); washed out bridge at Flint 

Hills NWR (bottom).

Facilitate greener 

transportation options.

Landscape Ecology | LE-5

Intent

Responding to climate change is a growing imperative for land managers 

and natural resource professionals, as well as the transportation and 

infrastructure sectors. Roadways on FWS managed lands may be 

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

wetlands and floodplains. Factors to consider include how might roadways 

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

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

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

and multifunctional manner that serves not only transportation, but perhaps 

other purposes such as protecting valuable facilities or habitat.

Eva Paredes/USFWS Eva Paredes/USFWS

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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 Midwest 

Region’s infrastructure, management and public access priorities. Consider 

how the access a roadway enables and impacts a roadway creates will fit into 

the management goals for the FWS managed lands it serves.

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

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

It also serves as a reminder for project elements that are sometimes 

overlooked, such as developing a communications plan that addresses both 

internal and external communications about the project.

Planning Context

Overview

Typical FWS Region 3 Refuge Roads Project as delivered in partnership 

with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

Planning Context | Overview

Projects Identified

in SAMMS 

(Service Asset Maintenance 

Management Systems)

Regional priorities 

determined by 

the Refuge Roads 

Coordinator based 

on input from Field 

Station Managers 

and Refuge 

Supervisors

Inclusion of Project 

in Refuge Roads 

Program 5 Year Plan

Planning & Design Phase/ 

Preliminary Engineering (PE)*

A. Project Scoping Visit*

B. Establish Goals for the project 

and select applicable guidelines 

to pursue*

C. Establish Detailed Project 

Scope

D. Establish Scope/Schedule/

Budget and Roles + 

Responsibilities*

E. Design Phase includes NWR 

and R3 Branch of Transportation 

Staff incremental review and 

comments*

F. NWR Sign Off on 100% Design 

Drawings

Project 

Construction 

(CN) 

* Denotes the phase where the Roadway Design 

Guidelines are being used by the project team

1

4

2

3

5

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Information

Principles

 Review local, regional and 

state transportation plans to 

determine how efforts by other 

agencies may inform your project 

planning and design

 Contact GIS staff to initiate data 

gathering and discuss mapping 

and analysis needs

 Review your Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

step down plan sections on 

transportation planning

 Conduct survey work and 

geotechnical investigations

 Review the Regional Long Range 

Transportation Plan (LRTP)

 Review existing asset 

management data and any asset 

management plans

 Review requirements of NEPA 

and other applicable local 

regulations 

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 - Midwest Region
PC-2 Define Level of Service for the Project

Principles

 Develop performance based, 

rather than prescriptive, goals 

and objectives

 Avoid unnecessarily overdesigning facilities

 Consider utilizing partnerships 

and alternative transportation 

to accommodate special events 

that generate traffic or atypical 

demands on roadways

 Determine jurisdiction

 Decide whether roadways should 

enable more direct access to 

facilities or amenities

 Balance needs with resources 

and intended capacity and vehicle 

or user types

 Decide if and how it may be 

appropriate to promote lower 

design speeds

 Consider seasonal and multimodal issues

 Examine case studies for other 

similar facilities in order to “right 

size” your facility for current and 

anticipated demands

 Consider Intelligent 

Transportation Systems (ITS) or 

other means of sharing traveler 

information to distribute traffic, 

inform visitors of seasonal 

closures and provide more trip 

planning

 Consider how the roadway can 

serve as a link to communities – 

gateways, access, etc.

USFWS

Wide gravel shoulder allows 

visitors to pull off of a 2-lane 

highway to view wildlife.

Determine the intended vehicles and 

traffic volumes for the roadway.

Metrics

 Visitor use statistics (vehicle and 

trailhead)

 Visitor satisfaction

 Traffic and parking violations

 Traffic or congestion statistics

 Existing parking and roadway 

capacity

Resources

Design recommendations for 

various road types. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Design recommendations for 

various road types.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Public involvement may help clarify 

visitor needs.

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public Roads 

(Mar./Apr. 1999).

Level of Service

The term Level of Service 

(LOS) is commonly used among 

transportation planners to refer 

to the number of vehicles served. 

However users of these guidelines 

should also consider the term 

to include other elements, such 

as types of users, seasonality of 

use and modes of transportation 

that a particular roadway serves. 

Multimodal access refers to the 

ability of a transportation facility 

to provide access via a variety 

of modes, such as car, bicycle, 

public transit or walking. In 

keeping with the FWS mission, 

consider where it is possible 

and appropriate to provide 

multimodal access to FWS 

facilities, and whether the scale 

and type of roadway is in line with 

local management objectives.

Planning Context | PC-2

Intent

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

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

facility compatibility with current and anticipated demand. Designing for 

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

Plan to balance roadway improvements with wildlife conservation and 

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

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

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

PC-3 Evaluate Multiple Siting and Alignment Alternatives

Principles

 Determine if a roadway or road 

improvement is necessary

 Consider whether the roadway is 

in the right place

 Consider physical elements (e.g. 

hydrology), ecological effects 

(e.g. habitat fragmentation) 

as well as experiential factors 

(e.g. views, openness, arrival 

experience)

 Consider appropriateness of 

existing alignments versus 

potential alternatives

 Consider benefits or drawbacks 

of decommissioning existing 

facilities

 Determine how and when 

vehicles and people will move 

through the FWS managed lands

 Consider alternative modes of 

travel and potential for facility 

conversion, such as road to trail, 

trail in lieu of road, etc.

 Determine whether funding is 

tied to existing facilities

Explore and assess the 

effects of alternative road 

alignments.

Planning Context | PC-3

Intent

Project teams should explore multiple design alternatives for roadway 

projects. A systematic alternatives evaluation process can be effectively used 

to arrive at a preferred alternative for further development. Alternatives 

development can reveal opportunities for projects to enhance visitor 

experience, protect wildlife, reduce ecological impacts to landscapes, 

minimize habitat fragmentation and provide alternative transportation 

methods. Reviewing a suite of alternatives will ensure that roadway 

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

best possible information. The evaluation of alternatives will also support 

your NEPA process.

Evaluate Alternatives

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

A decommissioned roadway is 

restored with native vegetation.

Metrics

 Comparison of road density for 

options considered

 Analysis of potential habitat 

fragmentation (e.g. vegetation 

or habitat mapping, wildlife 

tracking)

Resources

Case Studies.

Conboy Lake NWR, Visitor 

Experience Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple vehicular and pedestrian 

circulation routes at HQ site. 

Contact Alex Schwartz, Project 

Manager (503/736 4723) for more 

information.

Umatilla NWR, McCormack Unit, 

Quarters Area Site Plan. Evaluated 

multiple roadway realignment 

concepts in conjunction with a new 

bunk house and residence. Contact 

Alex Schwartz, Project Manager.

Roadway design guidelines using 

applied ecology and experience.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). 

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Environmental impacts should be 

considered

 Evaluate the embodied energy of 

materials used

 Minimize externalization of 

environmental impacts through 

emissions and materials used

 Include comparison of costs of 

facilities for alternative modes of 

transportation in analysis

 Consider projected maintenance 

costs (often 65% of life cycle cost 

of an asset)

Metrics

 Carbon footprint (or ecological 

footprint)

 Vehicle miles traveled

 Long-term maintenance costs

 Life of pavement and other 

materials

 Greenroads rating system

 Life cycle costing (of total costs 

for construction and maintenance 

of a proposed transportation 

alternative)

USFWS

Resources

Overview of various systems of 

performance metrics.

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 23. 

Performance metrics for CSS.

TransTech Mgmt., et al. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Info & data on sustainable material.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Overview of climate change impacts 

on transportation infrastructure.

Transportation Research Board. 

2008. Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation.

Sustainability metrics.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

Example of triple bottom line 

assessment of infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

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

Flint Hills NWR. 

Examine the characteristics 

of materials used in a project, 

including embodied energy and 

recyclability.

Planning Context | PC-4

Triple Bottom Line in Transportation Management

The triple bottom line concept 

originates in business and 

accounting practices. It stipulates 

three key areas or ‘resources’ that 

should be addressed in measuring 

sustainability:

 Society (human capital) 

 Environment (natural capital)

 Economy (financial capital)

This concept, also known as 

“people, planet, profit,” offers an 

expanded spectrum of values and 

criteria for measuring a project 

or organization’s success. Using 

this perspective in transportation 

management means that you 

would not only consider the longterm economic costs and benefits 

of a project, but also account for 

potential environmental and social 

costs and benefits over time.

Intent

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

to the traditional design and construction costs. Consider the environmental 

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

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

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

assigning monetary value to environmental costs.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Principles

 Address both internal and 

external communication needs in 

your project management plan

 Define clear roles and 

responsibilities for members of 

the project team

 Designate key agency contact(s) 

for all agencies/organizations 

involved

 Create a cross-functional (multidisciplinary) team

 Develop design visualization 

and communication tools, such 

as graphics, plans, models, 

newsletters, web pages

 Identify the audience and develop 

solutions for communicating with 

people who don’t read plans or 

technical documents

 Coordinate with transportation 

planning partners

 Contact Transportation 

Biologists in Ecological Services 

(ES) State Field Office to ensure 

project delivery is consistent 

with the mission of the Service

 Schedule project team meetings 

at regular intervals

Metrics

 Character and amount of public 

feedback on project

 Level of support and 

understanding of project within 

the organization

 Achievement of project goals

USFWS

Resources

Guidelines for community and 

interdisciplinary planning process.

Lennertz, Bill, and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Case studies in collaborative 

management of wetlands and 

wildlife areas.

Porter, Douglas, and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning for 

Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues and 

Examples.

Public involvement for CSS.

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

Getting It Right in the Right-of-Way: 

Citizen Participation in ContextSensitive Highway Design. Scenic 

America. Available at: http://www.

scenic.org/.

Public involvement for 

transportation projects.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available at: 

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

public_involvement/pubinvolve.htm. 

Project staff and stakeholders 

meet in the field at Pelican 

Island NWR (right).

Develop a communications 

strategy and network.

Planning Context | PC-5

Intent

Craft and document your approach for communications among your 

project team and with stakeholders. Ensure that roles and responsibilities 

are clearly defined in a project management plan. Carefully coordinate 

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

support of the best possible design outcome. Interdisciplinary project teams 

are the modern standard to ensure that work products are comprehensive 

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

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

appropriate opportunities for involvement and review among your project 

team and stakeholders. 

Members of Your Team

There are many professionals 

and stakeholder groups that 

you may want to include as part 

of your project team. Some 

possibilities include:

 Professional Engineers (PE)

 Landscape Architects (RLA)

 Transportation and Natural 

Resource Planners

 Field Biologists

 Project Leaders and Refuge 

Managers

 Refuge Roads Coordinators

 ES Transportation Biologists

 Representatives of other 

jurisdictions and agencies 

with local involvement

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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. 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.

Design and Engineering

Overview

Design and Engineering | Overview

Process - Design to Construction

Planning

Site 

Analysis

Schematic 

Design

Construction 

Documents

Maintenance

Design 

Development

Construction

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Explore ways to integrate 

restoration opportunities into 

project

 Consider how road surface 

conditions will affect nearby 

vegetation (e.g. dust, heat, other 

pollutants generated)

 Consider what types of 

vegetation and habitat along 

roadways will be compatible with 

management goals

 Use site prep and construction 

methods that protect and 

conserve existing native 

vegetation and natural resources

 Protect or stockpile and re-use 

healthy existing/native soils on 

site

 Protect heritage and other 

significant trees during and 

after construction (e.g. provide 

fencing, do not dig in or store 

material on top of root zones)

 Consider irrigation needs for 

establishing roadway vegetation

 Consider how invasive species 

will be managed during native 

vegetation establishment periods

DE-1 Preserve and Restore Native Vegetation and Other 

Natural Resources

Alex Schwartz/USFWS Brian Bainnson

Metrics

 Amount of post-construction 

restoration planned

 Vegetation surveys

 Reduced invasive species control 

needs

Resources

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Comprehensive guidebook on 

roadside revegetation.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Road alignment at 

Nestucca Bay NWR preserves 

upland vegetation and forest.

Restored vegetation along 

road corridor can help support 

management goals.

Design and Engineering | DE-1

Intent

Roadway projects present opportunities to protect and restore native 

vegetation. Roadways commonly represent a barrier to wildlife and 

fragment habitat. However, roadway projects can represent an opportunity 

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

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

stands of existing vegetation. Look for restoration opportunities and 

consider what types of vegetation along roadway corridors are compatible 

with management goals.

This roadway project at Steigerwald 

NWR required integration of native 

vegetation restoration (right). 

The planting plan was 

prepared by a registered landscape 

architect. The plants were installed 

by a licensed landscape contractor. 

Work included a temporary 

irrigation system and a 1-year 

maintenance and warranty period.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

DE-2 Consider and Plan for Invasive Species Management

Principles

 Inventory invasive species in the 

region that are already present 

and what steps have been taken 

to combat their spread

 Ensure that planting 

plans feature plant species 

and densities, as well as 

establishment techniques to limit 

future invasive establishment

 Consider latest tools and 

techniques available to combat 

spread of invasive species

 Examine relevant state and 

regional lists of invasive species 

threats

 Search for and consider lessons 

from other relevant projects, 

based on similar ecosystems and/

or similar project types

 Develop pre-project baselines 

to measure success of future 

management goals

 Address and plan for invasive 

species management during 

construction and general use 

 Create an invasive species 

management plan following local 

Best Management Practices 

(BMPs), addressing both 

roadside and adjoining habitats

 Minimize disturbance and project 

footprint, including mobilization 

and staging areas

Metrics

 Invasive species survey data

 Staff time dedicated to invasive 

species management (and how 

that changes over time)

Resources

Invasive species along roadways 

from the perspective of road and 

landscape ecology (see Chapter 4, pp. 

75-111).

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions.

Establishment and maintenance of 

native plants along roadways.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Available 

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

environment/rdsduse/index.htm.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

Plants.

Guidance on roadside weed 

management.

Ferguson, Leslie, C. L. Duncan and 

K. Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management.

Comprehensive list of roadside 

vegetation management resources.

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. See: http://environment.

transportation.org/environmental_

issues/invasive_species/

docs_reports.aspx.

List of many resources on 

controlling invasive species, from 

construction best practices to 

ongoing maintenance.

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

Controlling invasive species after 

their spread can be labor-intensive; 

spraying melaluka in FL (right).

Invasive species often spread 

outward from roadways.

Selected Steps for Invasive 

Species Management

 Post-construction 

maintenance plan

 Minimize disturbance

 Retain shade to the extent 

possible

 Know the quality of topsoil 

and mulch; avoid importing 

contaminated topsoils

 Know the quality of seed 

sources

 Clean equipment that has had 

contact with weed sources

 Over-sow disturbed areas 

with native seeds

 Avoid nitrogen fertilizers in 

the first year

List adapted from FHWA 

Roadside Revegetation Manual. 

See section 5.8 in manual.

Landscape Ecology | 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 - Midwest Region
Principles

 Consider roadway alignments 

that will minimize and balance 

cut and fill volumes

 Consider alternative structures 

to reduce fill volumes (e.g. bridge 

vs. culvert, etc.)

 Use roadways to highlight 

Refuge habitats as they follow 

existing terrain

 Look for continued opportunities 

to minimize and improve 

“aesthetic wounds”

Metrics

 Earthwork volumes per mile 

(compare to similar projects)

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Visual resources assessment

Resources

See cut and fill guideline on page 83.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Case study on context sensitive 

solutions (CSS) for scenic highway.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

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

Fort Photo/Flickr.com

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

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

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

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

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

index.htm.

Common standard on roadway 

design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book). Washington, D.C.

Guidelines for design of very low 

volume roadways.

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

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

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

Gravel roads maintenance and 

design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Roadway terraced along hillside 

at Hart Mountain NWR 

responds to opportunities and 

constraints of the topography

Fitting in with existing topography 

is key to minimizing impacts.

Design and Engineering | DE-3

Intent

Roadways can be designed to fit with natural topography and seamlessly 

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

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

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

to the natural topography can minimize interruptions to the natural 

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

vegetation and habitat. 

Elevated structures are often preferable for wildlife and habitat 

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

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

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

and trailheads. Earthwork considerations discussed in this guideline 

are appropriate for both new construction projects and alterations or 

improvements to existing roadways.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

and Alertness

Principles

 Road alignments may include 

continuous curves, spiral curves, 

curving alignment, etc. in order 

to support safety and alertness

 Consider how curvilinear road 

geometries achieve multiple 

objectives and can specifically 

support habitat and wildlife 

management goals

 Consider the effect of road 

surface on travel speeds

 Determine and design around a 

roadway ‘design speed’ so that 

people will want to drive slower

 Consider safety and engineering 

standards that are applicable to 

the roadway’s context

Metrics

 Road speed and volume study

 Accident reports

 Visual resources assessment

 Balanced cut and fill volumes

 Protection of vegetation and 

habitat

 FHWA Road Safety Audit

Alex Schwartz/USFWS USFWS

Resources

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems.

Guidelines on appropriate lowerimpact road alignment.

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

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning (pp.130-139) and 

Road Alignment (pp.330-341). In 

Landscape Architecture Graphic 

Standards. Hoboken, New Jersey: 

John Wiley & Sons. Available at: 

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

publications.html.

Road design guidelines.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. Access at: http://

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

index.htm.

Standards for roadway design.

AASHTO. 2004. AASHTO 

A Policy on Geometric Design of 

Highways and Streets, 5th Edition 

(aka ‘Green Book).

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Curving roadway at

Nestucca Bay NWR highlights 

scenery and discourages 

high speeds (top); emergency 

personnel respond to an accident 

at Ridgefield NWR (bottom).

Curving roads with varying 

views can promote alertness 

and lower speeds.

Design and Engineering | DE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

alternative modes of transportation, including walking and bicycling. Lower 

actual speeds are achieved through deliberate roadway geometry and 

design, not simply signage.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

silt fencing help reduce construction 

impacts to adjacent habitat.

Principles

 Consider appropriate season for 

construction

 Minimize construction impacts to 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms

 Implement construction best 

practices, such as dust and 

erosion control

 Look for staging opportunities 

that use existing developed sites 

and minimize impact to adjacent 

habitat areas

 Consider impacts of construction 

needs, such as water, on the 

surrounding environment

 Consider how construction 

elements, such as water wells, 

could be used for staff and visitor 

services in the future

Metrics

 Changes in population counts or 

behavior (e.g. breeding) of local 

organisms

 Visible signs of disturbance 

beyond limits of work

 Compliance with erosion control 

plan elements

DE-5 Consider Construction Impacts and Best Practices

Resources

Handbook with design guidance on 

appropriate construction techniques 

for low traffic volume roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Guidelines with resources 

on environmentally-friendly 

construction practices.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

New technology to minimize piledriving construction impacts to 

aquatic organisms.

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air Bubble 

Curtains.

Design and Engineering | DE-5

Intent

Roadway construction can have major impacts to terrestrial and aquatic 

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

project management and construction management should be applied 

to ensure that impacts from construction activities are minimized and 

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

possible, especially with regard to construction activities such as staging 

materials and equipment.

FHWA

Construction on an entry road, 

parking lot, and trailhead 

project at Steigerwald NWR, in 

partnership with FHWA’s Federal 

Lands Highways program. 

Project required extensive 

multidisciplinary planning, design, 

and construction expertise to ensure 

implementation of best construction 

practices and minimization of 

habitat and scenic area disturbance.

BMPs: Best Management Practices

Best management practices are 

methods that have been determined 

to be the most effective and 

practical means of preventing or 

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

focus on prescriptive measures, 

typically in the construction and 

maintenance phases of a project. 

Design Guidelines are more general 

and require interpretation and 

adaptation.

BMPs available for roadway 

construction projects include:

 Erosion control

 Equipment and operation

 Noise and emissions

 Spill and Pollution Prevention

 Safety

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Identify range of materials that 

would be suitable or possible to 

use in a given project

 Consider various qualities of 

material options, including 

environmental performance, 

longevity, maintenance needs and 

aesthetic fit

 Study past performance and 

success of materials in other sites 

(case studies)

 Consider using materials that are 

certified for sustainability

 Consider paying more for a more 

durable material that may save 

money (through performance 

and maintenance) in the long run

 Source materials locally where 

possible

Metrics

 Embodied energy calculations

 Runoff discharge rates

DE-6 Consider Range and Sources of Materials for 

Sustainable Construction

Resources

See materials listed in Greenroads 

Guidelines.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads Rating 

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

us/.

Check on embodied energy of 

proposed materials at University 

of Bath’s Inventory of Carbon & 

Energy (ICE) Wiki.

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

ICE/Home+Page.

The Sustainable Sites Initiative 

(SSI) provides resources and 

guidelines for materials and site 

development.

See: http://www.sustainablesites.

org/.

For sites that include buildings, 

calculate the project’s carbon 

footprint at BuildCarbonNeutral.

See: http://buildcarbonneutral.org.

Information and data on 

sustainable materials.

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites.

Materials may vary for travel 

lanes, parking stalls and 

pedestrian pathways.

Design and Engineering | DE-6

Intent

There are numerous options available for materials that have sustainable 

characteristics. Consider selecting materials with lower embodied energy 

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

high level of environmental performance. Using sustainable materials can 

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

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

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

fill material.

Steve Clay/USFWS Brain Bainnson

Embodied Energy and Carbon Footprints

Embodied energy is generally 

defined as the energy (commercial 

and industrial) that was used to 

make a product. It generally 

includes the energy used to 

deliver the product to its point of 

use or consumption, and may also 

include any energy needed for the 

deconstruction and disposal of the 

product. It is commonly measured 

in megajoules of energy per 

kilogram of product (MJ/kg). 

A carbon footprint is a similar 

metric, which measures the 

total amount of greenhouse gas 

emissions caused by a product. It 

is often expressed in terms of tons 

of CO2

 produced per kilogram of 

product (tCO2/kg).

A parking lot at Tualatin River

NWR used warm mix asphalt for

main travel ways, pervious 

pavers in parking stalls and 

features a bioswale with amended 

soils and native plants to cleanse 

stormwater in order to protect

 habitat (top); local and sustainable

 materials were used to construct an 

Auto Tour pullout / wildlife viewing

area at Modoc NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Examine current maintenance 

budgets, responsibilities and 

staff availability in concert with 

partners

 Estimate increase or reduction 

of maintenance needs for new 

facilities

 Consider current skills of 

maintenance staff and what types 

of training may be needed

 Consider whether contractors 

would be required to complete 

maintenance activities

 Be aware of concerns about 

adopting new practices, and 

be prepared to understand 

and address the concerns of 

operations and maintenance staff

 Provide achievable and 

responsive BMPs

 Discuss early in project who 

is responsible for repairs and 

maintenance to wildlife-specific 

facilities such as fencing

 Consider maintenance 

partnerships with State and 

County Transportation Dept’s 

to leverage their transportation 

resources and expertise

 Consider the impacts of 

chemicals or other products that 

are used in roadway maintenance

Metrics

 Historic vs. current maintenance 

costs

 Road closure data

 BMPs correctly applied in field

DE-7 Consider Maintenance

Resources

Handbook with design guidance 

on construction and maintenance 

techniques for low traffic volume 

roads.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Good checklist for items to address 

or consider.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Gravel roads maintenance & design.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

BMPs for rural road maintenance.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadside vegetation management.

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

Maintenance guidelines for 

sensitive areas.

Crane, Bill. 2006. Road Maintenance 

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

Maintenance guidelines.

Ruiz, Leo. 2005. Guidelines for Road 

Maintenance Levels.

Consider trade-offs 

between longevity and 

maintenance needs.

Design and Engineering | DE-7

Intent

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

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

During the design phase, consider whether anticipated maintenance of 

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

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

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

wildlife underpasses or signals) may have new maintenance needs requiring 

staff training. Consider also that regular maintenance practices can extend 

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

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

USFWS

Fire being used for 

maintenance of roadside 

vegetation

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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 regionally-appropriate 

techniques to facilitate passage of 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms. 

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 - Midwest Region
Principles

 Develop organizational 

partnerships

 Solicit expert review and input; 

wildlife crossing structures 

require expert design and review

 Monitor to locate roadkill 

hotspots but consider how roads 

change animal movements 

(avoidance)

 Identify target species based on 

management objectives

 Consider how crossing needs 

align with other transportation 

priorities and budgets

 Consider species’ home range 

size and seasonal movements 

to determine extent of passage 

needed

 Consider how current or future 

roadway design speed and traffic 

volumes may impact wildlife

Metrics

 Safety (animal/vehicle collision 

reductions)

 Species population health

 Dispersal capability

 Daily/seasonal movement 

necessary to meet life requisites

Resources

Latest information on road 

ecology as it relates to mitigating 

interactions between roads and 

wildlife.

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

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

Passages.

OP-1 Develop Your Corridor Plan for Crossing

Robert Henke et al.

Coordinating aquatic and 

terrestrial passage opportunities.

Jacobson et al. 2007. Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous Discipline. 

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing facilities.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Best practices for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. Access at http://

www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/

hconnect/wvc/index.htm.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

Effects of roadways on wildlife (see 

entire Conservation Biology issue).

Trombulak, Stephen and C. Frissell. 

2000. Review of Ecological Effects 

of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities.

Background research on roadway 

impacts to wildlife.

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

Examine the roadway corridor for 

locations where organisms would 

prefer to cross in the absence of 

a roadway. Study topography, 

vegetation patterns and hydrology 

along the corridor.

Organism Passage | OP-1

Intent

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

terrestrial connectivity along a roadway. Corridor level plans are necessary 

to document habitat fragmentation, lack of stream continuity, population 

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

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

organisms, plans should identify funding opportunities and partnerships 

in support of recommended mitigation measures. Successful plans identify 

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

crossing projects and include conceptual design documentation for crossing 

structures and supporting mitigation measures.

A corridor management and 

wildlife crossing plan is a critical 

tool to plan and fund projects; map 

showing monitoring locations for 

crossing plan study (below).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for road

 Consider seasonality of wildlife 

movement and stream flows

 Develop list of target species for 

aquatic organism passage and 

focus planning and design efforts 

on supporting overall ecosystem 

health

 Consider range of stream 

crossing solutions and techniques

 Culverts or bridges that 

mimic the slope, structure and 

dimensions of the natural stream 

bed can allow aquatic species to 

freely move under roadways

 Plan for appropriate postconstruction riparian and 

streambed restoration work

 Consider maintenance needs for 

various stream crossing designs

 Plan for appropriate in-water 

work windows

 Consider how to best complete 

road maintenance activities at or 

near stream crossings in order to 

avoid impacts to water quality

Metrics

 Surveys to show healthy passage 

of aquatic organisms

 Water quality measurements 

(upstream vs. downstream)

 Re-colonization of upstream 

habitat by aquatic organisms (in 

cases of improving/upgrading 

existing crossings)

OP-2 Provide and Enhance Aquatic Organism Crossings

John Sauer/USFWS Florian Schulz

Resources

Analysis & costs of culvert design 

and aquatic organism passage.

MN Dept. of Transportation. 2009. 

Cost Analysis of Alternative Culvert 

Installation Practices in Minnesota.

Design guidelines and best practices 

for aquatic organism passage.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach to Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Riparian restoration guidance.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

Design guidelines for stream 

crossings and proper road drainage.

William Weaver and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads.

See list of crossing issues by state, 

by FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator (unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See aquatic organism passage in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

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

Locate aquatic crossings to 

minimize interruption to normal 

stream flow and channel migration.

Organism Passage | OP-2

Intent

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

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

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

and fish and wildlife passage have historically been impeded by engineering 

solutions intended to minimize disruptions to roadway infrastructure. 

Recognizing the importance of aquatic resources on FWS managed lands, 

an ecosystem-based approach to aquatic organism passage focuses on 

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

system intersects a roadway.

Site visit 

to a new aquatic crossing structure 

during a Refuge Roads coordination 

meeting at Kenai NWR (top); 

viability for many aquatic 

species, such as salmon, depend on 

their ability to move through river 

and stream ecosystems (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Identify design species and their 

crossing structure needs; design 

crossings that work for as many 

species as possible

 Consider and design for longrange traffic volume projections 

for roadway

 Consider visual quality and 

aesthetic impact of structures

 Improve nearby habitat for 

wildlife, especially areas leading 

to or connecting with crossings

 Maximize opportunity for 

restoration project links to 

crossing/connectivity sites

 Consider “right crossing, right 

place” when locating crossings

 Review the corridor management 

or crossing plan

 Bridge replacements are the 

best opportunity in a 50-70 year 

time frame to create movement 

opportunities and should be 

taken advantage of even if no 

other projects are in the area

Metrics

 Evidence of unmet need to cross

 Improved wildlife counts in 

adjacent areas after crossing 

implementation

 Improved wildlife dispersal rates

 Reduction in WVC

OP-3 Provide and Enhance Terrestrial Wildlife Crossings

Florian Schulz Brian Bainnson

Resources

Bridge construction guidance.

AZ Game and Fish Dept., Habitat 

Branch. 2008. Guidelines for Bridge 

Construction or Maintenance to 

Accommodate Fish & Wildlife 

Movement and Passage.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing US Hwy 93 Evaro to Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings. 

Best practices for WVC reduction.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual.

Guidance on reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report to 

Congress. 

See FWS Refuge Roads Coordinator 

list of crossing issues by state 

(unpublished).

Wildlife Crossing and Aquatic 

Organism Passage Issues by State.

See crossing structure design in:

Proceedings of International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation (ICOET). Access 

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

Bridge replacements are excellent 

opportunities to enhance 

terrestrial crossing opportunities 

(top); a wildlife overcrossing 

in Banff NP, Canada has 

successfully improved both safety 

and wildlife movement (bottom).

Terrestrial wildlife crossings 

provide safer crossings 

for wildlife and connect 

fragmented habitat patches.

Organism Passage | OP-3

Intent

Roadways are a significant barrier and danger for terrestrial organisms. 

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

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

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

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

habitat fragmentation caused by roadways is avoidance behaviors that can 

have significant effects on populations.

The most effective mitigation measure to reduce WVC and to enhance 

terrestrial organism passage across roadways is to design and construct 

suitable crossing structures, in combination with barrier and diversion 

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

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

seek to meet multiple ecosystem connectivity objectives simultaneously.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Study WVC or other interactions 

along the corridor

 Recognize that fencing is a 

last resort option, and that the 

outcomes can be deadly for 

wildlife inadvertently trapped on 

a roadway

 Design fencing treatments based 

on species and environmental 

conditions

 Include escape structures in 

the design; jumpouts are more 

effective than the commonly used 

one-way gates

 To avoid “end run” WVC, end 

fencing beyond prime habitat 

areas or at locations with good 

visibility

 Boulder piles can act as a 

maintenance-free fence for 

ungulates

 Consider how best to 

accommodate multiple species

 Consider the aesthetic impacts of 

wildlife fencing

 Consider how to handle fencing 

at access roads

Metrics

 WVC counts

 Reduction in wildlife mortality 

due to WVC

OP-4 Evaluate Need for Wildlife Fencing and Other Guiding 

Features

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Effectiveness of various wildlife 

crossing types.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Website with additional guidelines 

and case studies of construction and 

maintenance practices to benefit 

wildlife along roadways.

FHWA - Keeping It Simple: Easy 

Ways to Help Wildlife Along Roads. 

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

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Fencing can help guide wildlife to 

safer crossing areas.

Organism Passage | OP-4

Intent

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

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

structures, including overpasses or underpasses. Effective wildlife barrier 

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

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

be designed in conjunction with fencing. Project teams should consider 

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

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

should be designed in consultation with an expert.

Barrier and diversion fencing requires maintenance. Successful projects 

account for maintenance concerns and budgets during the design phase. 

Fencing discussions might include a consideration of how to handle fence 

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

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

USFWS lisahends/Flickr.com

Continuous page wire fencing is 

commonly used to keep wildlife off 

roads and to direct them to crossing 

structures (top); jumpouts are 

essential features to allow trapped 

animals to leave the road whenever 

continuous fencing is used (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Select the appropriate type of 

signage for the species, roadway 

LOS and site conditions

 Provide public information on the 

crossing design and intent

 Consider active warning systems 

for “end runs” of fencing, 

crossing hot spots and as 

temporary mitigation measures 

in the absence of crossing 

structures

 Consider the related benefits 

of communicating crossing and 

habitat areas, such as public 

education and communicating 

stewardship

Metrics

 Wildlife-vehicle collision (WVC)

statistics (note that these are a 

better measure of safety than 

ecological conditions; even then, 

they are suspect unless expertly 

interpreted)

OP-5 Consider Warning and Safety Systems for Drivers

Resources

BMPs for reduction of WVC.

FHWA. 2008. Best Practices 

Manual, Wildlife Vehicle Collision 

Reduction Study (Report to 

Congress). Found at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/hconnect/

wvc/index.htm.

Wildlife crossing structures and 

fencing effectiveness evaluation.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute. 2007. Evaluation of 

Wildlife Crossing Structures and 

Fencing on US Hwy 93 Evaro to 

Polson.

Research on effectiveness of methods 

for collision reduction.

Huijser et al, and Salsman and 

Wilson. 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, Design 

And Implementation, SPR-3(076). 

Warning signs can help 

remind drivers to look out 

for wildlife on the road.

Organism Passage | OP-5

Intent

An important component of facilitating terrestrial organism passage is 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

volume roads.

Florian Schulz

In areas where wildlife is 

known to cross roadways, active 

warning systems can be effective 

to alert drivers to the presence of 

wildlife on or near a roadway.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Adhere to a low impact 

development (LID) strategy in 

planning and designing repairs 

and improvements

 Consider natural drainage 

system (NDS) treatment 

facilities, including filter strips 

and bioswales

 Stormwater treatment facilities 

and approach need to be sitespecific

 Consider appropriate NDS 

features for the type of 

roadway—parking, auto tour 

route, entry/access road, 

highway, etc.

 Look at hydrology planning in 

the area and be aware of roadway 

impacts on it

Metrics

 Water quality testing

 Temperature monitoring

Resources

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

SM-1 Buffer Habitat from Polluted Runoff

Brian Bainsson

LID guidelines for Pacific NW.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Access at: http://

www.psparchives.com/publications/

our_work/stormwater/lid/lid_tech_

manual05/LID_manual2005.pdf.

Buffer design guidelines for that 

include stormwater treatment.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-109. Access 

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

bufferguidelines/.

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

White paper on integrated LID and 

ecological analysis.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach.

Parking lot runoff at McNary NWR 

drains to a central bioswale that 

treats polluted runoff and buffers 

habitat from roadway impacts.

NDS features receive, clean and 

detain or retain runoff from 

roadways and other impervious 

surfaces; they can buffer habitat 

areas from negative ecological 

impacts.

Stormwater Management | SM-1

Intent

Runoff from roadways can carry unwanted pollutants into adjacent streams 

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

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

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

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

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

other nearby sources.

Water Quality 101

 Conventional facilities collect 

and drain polluted runoff using a 

variety of methods, such as sheet 

draining, “grassy swales,” curbs 

and drainage inlets. These can 

quickly convey pollutants directly 

to sensitive habitats before the 

pollutants can be filtered out 

(left).

 Improved facilities are designed 

to intercept and filter polluted 

runoff before discharge to 

sensitive habitats (right).

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Minimize quantity of stormwater 

runoff

 Minimize use of impervious 

materials

 Technologies to address water 

quantity issues include wet 

ponds, porous pavements, 

bioswales and rain gardens

 Improvements (stormwater 

facilities) must be sized 

appropriately to handle flow

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates and volumes

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

Resources

Design guidelines for low-use roads, 

focusing largely on hydrology.

Weaver, William and Danny 

Hagans. 1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM-2 Protect Habitat from Erosive Flows and Flooding

Jeff Holm/USFWS

Low impact development (LID) 

guidelines for Pacific Northwest.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, WA. 

Design guidelines for LID features.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development.

Info on vegetative filter strips (page 

44) and other practices.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Roadway design guidance for lower 

impact to hydrology.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program.

BMPs for ESA compliance.

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA Sec 

4(d) Habitat Protection.

A gravel parking lot with central 

vegetative swale at Ash Meadows 

NWR minimizes impervious 

materials and allows for large storm 

events to be infiltrated on site, away 

from more sensitive habitats.

NDS features can detain 

runoff, slowing its flow to 

adjacent water bodies.

Stormwater Management | SM-2

Intent

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

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

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

rates create erosion and flooding issues and prevent groundwater recharge. 

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

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

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

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

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

concerns.

Water Quantity 101

 Runoff from impervious areas 

often concentrates flows, which 

impacts adjacent lands and also 

leads to cumulative downstream 

and watershed-scale impacts

 Where space is limited or linear 

alignment is tight, choose 

materials such as pervious paving 

(left) to reduce runoff rates

 Use NDS features to detain 

runoff before discharge (right)

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

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Stormwater Management | SM-3

Principles

 Employ stormwater facility 

monitoring protocols (per ASCE 

or other standards)

 Maintain facilities in a 

manner that optimizes facility 

performance

 Collect relevant baseline data 

before project construction

 Check for and use appropriate 

control measures on any invasive 

species

 Check for levels of contaminants 

coming from roadway, and track 

their fate in areas adjacent to 

roadway

 Monitor level of compatibility 

with local wildlife and 

surrounding habitats

 Document maintenance needs 

and costs

 Document effectiveness of soil 

mixes and plants used

 Share or publish monitoring 

results to help improve design 

and results in other projects

 Use monitoring results in 

adaptive management

Metrics

 Measurements of stormwater 

runoff rates, volumes, 

temperature and contaminants

 Hydrographs for receiving water 

bodies

 Analysis documenting water 

quality improvements due to 

NDS features

Resources

Technical guidelines for monitoring 

of stormwater in various conditions.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

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

scitech/wastetech/guide/stormwater/

monitor.cfm.

NDS maintenance guidelines that 

include guidance on monitoring.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Study from UC Davis & USFS 

finding that bioswale significantly 

reduced runoff and removed 

pollutants; includes monitoring 

protocols used.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

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

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

Standard operating procedures for 

stormwater monitoring.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2010. Stormwater monitoring 

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

wa.gov/programs/wq/stormwater/

municipal/strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Guidance on stormwater 

monitoring for construction sites.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for construction 

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

wa.gov/biblio/0610020.html.

Monitoring for larger debris.

ASCE. 2010. Guideline for 

Monitoring Stormwater Gross 

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

org/Product.aspx?id=2147485997.

Intent

Monitoring and maintaining stormwater facilities after project construction 

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

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

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

following standard monitoring and maintenance protocols are a critical 

component for stormwater management on FWS managed lands.

USFWS

Similar to 

managed wetlands, stormwater 

facilities should be periodically 

monitored for performance and 

to inform adaptive management 

and maintenance regimes.

Monitoring projects will help 

advance the development of a 

focused approach to stormwater 

management on FWS managed 

lands that is responsive to the 

Service’s mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Low impact development (LID) facilities for stormwater management serve 

the functional purposes of cleaning and slowing or retaining stormwater 

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

raise public awareness and understanding of the relationship of roadways to 

aquatic resources, wildlife and habitat conservation. Stormwater facilities 

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

development on aquatic resources. Facilities can communicate how they 

protect aquatic resources, and can influence behavior and management 

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

SM-4 Promote Stewardship of Aquatic Resources

Resources

Social benefits of road and highway 

systems.

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s Highway 

Programs.

Promotional information for 

visitors to FWS sites.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Green Values calculator can help 

to quantify benefits from LID (aka 

green infrastructure) facilities.

Center for Neighborhood 

Technology. 2010. Green Values 

Stormwater Management Calculator. 

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

Additional resources on green 

infrastructure (another term 

that includes natural stormwater 

management facilities).

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

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

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

Report examining social, economic, 

and environmental benefits of green 

infrastructure.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A Triple 

Bottom Line Assessment of 

Traditional and Green Infrastructure 

Options for Controlling CSO Events 

in Philadelphia’s Watersheds.

Stormwater treatment facilities 

integrated into roadways provide 

places where FWS stewardship 

of aquatic resources can be 

demonstrated.

Stormwater Management | SM-4

Principles

 Prioritize aesthetic and 

educational components of highly 

visible stormwater management 

facilities

 Use stormwater facilities to 

communicate stewardship 

commitment of FWS

 Design stormwater facilities 

with native plants in 

arrangements that respond to 

multiple objectives, including 

management, educational/ 

interpretive, aesthetic and 

maintenance goals

 Make stormwater part of the 

site’s interpretive story and 

reveal the process of stormwater 

quantity and quality controls to 

the extent possible

 Consider educational and 

volunteer opportunities 

presented by stormwater 

management facilities

 Consider potential benefits or 

drawbacks of additional wetland 

habitat areas created by natural 

drainage facilities

Metrics

 “Friends” groups involvement & 

awareness

 Production/use of interpretive 

materials or content

 Use of stormwater facilities as 

positive examples or success 

stories (e.g. in public media, 

professional circles, within FWS)

USFWS Justin Martin

Stormwater facilities can be an 

important part of visitor experience, 

providing interpretive opportunities 

(top) and allowing visitors hands-on 

experience planting or maintaining 

native vegetation (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
Engaging the Public

Conservation of fish, wildlife, plants 

and their habitats is at the core of 

the Service’s mission. Providing 

public access compatible with 

conservation goals is paramount to 

achieving this mandate. Roadways 

are the primary infrastructure 

elements that facilitate public access 

to FWS managed lands. Conversely, 

landscapes without roads or limited 

or restricted public access on 

roads can support protection of 

sensitive habitats when necessary. 

This section is intended to help you 

consider how best to provide access 

to FWS managed lands. Welldesigned roadways on FWS lands 

can help demonstrate to visitors how 

the Service’s mission is carried out 

at the landscape scale.

Scenic roadways offer visitors a 

glimpse into the habitat areas that 

the Service manages, helping to 

inspire an ethic of stewardship and 

conservation among the public. 

Roadways should be designed to 

afford such experiences and to 

convey a sense of place that is unique 

to each site and destination. They 

should take into account both the 

natural and cultural histories of 

the land they traverse, revealing 

but not destroying special places 

and artifacts along the way. This 

section of the guidelines will point 

you to resources to help with design 

solutions focused on the visitor’s 

experience. Design of roadway 

elements such as safety and guiding 

features, interpretive signs and 

visitor facilities should be relevant 

and specific to the region, if not to 

the individual site or refuge.

National Wildlife Refuges, Fish 

Hatcheries and other FWS managed 

lands are national treasures. 

Facilities there should help visitors 

connect with the natural heritage 

that the Service works to conserve.

Visitor Experience

Overview

Visitor Experience | Overview

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Consider designs that respond 

to the character of the landscape 

and management practices. For 

example, an entrance road may 

offer a change in design speed, 

scale and geometry in order to 

help visitors decompress from 

previous highway travel

 Provide appropriate orientation 

and directional signage in a style 

that fits with the local character 

and landscape

 Consider and plan the viewsheds 

and impacts of roadways on the 

visual and auditory landscape 

 Consider and plan coherent and 

consistent design elements with 

the facility (color, texture, form)

 Consider the entry experience 

(does it welcome and orient 

visitors?) and sequence of visitor 

experiences when arriving at 

FWS managed lands or high use 

areas such as visitor centers

 Consider opportunities for 

interpreting culture and the 

landscape along the corridor

 Provide safe places, such as 

overlooks and viewpoints, to 

enjoy scenery

Metrics

 Visual resource analysis/

management - USFS or BLM 

methodologies (see Resources 

below)

VE-1 Preserve and Highlight Scenic Value

Resources

Scenic byways guidelines with 

details on benefits of good road 

design.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Study on context sensitive roadway 

design from New Mexico.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design Guidelines 

for Context Sensitive Design and 

Context Sensitive Solutions. 

Roadside treatment design 

guidelines.

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. 

Regional guidelines for roadside 

development.

ODOT. 2006. Roadside Development 

Design Manual - Guidelines for 

Visual Resource Management, 

Landscaping, and Hardscaping 

(DRAFT).

Design guidance based on human 

behavior patterns.

Transportation Research Board 

of The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for Road 

Systems (NCHRP Report 600B).

USFS visual assessment technique.

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: A 

Handbook for Scenery Management. 

AH-701.

BLM visual assessment technique.

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

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

Plan roadways to afford views 

to areas of high scenic value.

Visitor Experience | VE-1

Intent

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

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

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

on FWS managed lands should afford views and simultaneously prevent 

roadways from becoming dominant features of the visual landscape.

Brian Bainnson USFWS

Roadways provide or give access 

to scenic vistas (top) and visitor 

facilities such as a viewing blind at 

Finley NWR (bottom).

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Design alternative transportation 

facilities that are compatible with 

wildlife and habitat conservation

 Provide parking for bicycles 

and other alternative types of 

transportation

 Consider adding charging 

stations for electric vehicles

 Coordinate with other agencies 

or organizations that could 

provide public transportation to 

FWS managed lands

 Promote and partner to develop 

bicycle routes to FWS managed 

lands 

 Consider bicycle routes through 

FWS managed lands where 

compatible with wildlife, safety, 

and user experience

 Consider signage or pavement 

markings to alert drivers to other 

types of road users

 Use outreach to encourage use of 

alternative transportation modes 

to and within the FWS managed 

lands

Metrics

 Counts of users arriving by 

public transportation, using 

bicycles, etc.

 Use rates of stationary facilities, 

such as special parking or bike 

racks

Resources

Potential funding source for transit 

and other alternative transportation 

options.

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks 

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

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

grants_financing_6106.html.

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

Case studies for alternative 

transportation projects in National 

Parks.

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

projects.html.

Design guidelines (see pp. 70-76).

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Potential funding for developing 

alternative transportation systems 

for visitors through the Transit in 

Parks Program (5230)

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

grants/grants_financing_6106.html.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

Case studies that include alternative 

transportation programs in parks, 

such as shuttle bus systems.

NPS Partnerships Case Studies 

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

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

Lessons from Europe on traffic 

calming, enhancing mobility 

options.

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

Case Study.

Tualatin River NWR. Two parking 

spaces designated for hybrid 

vehicles; bicycle racks provided at 

parking area; bus stop for a public 

transit line adjacent to the Refuge.

Roadway 

projects should facilitate multiple 

modes of transportation; a roadway 

at Ding Darling NWR (top) 

accommodates both autos and bikers 

for wildlife observation; parking lot 

at Great Swamp NWR visitor center 

(bottom) provides a safe, convenient 

place for bicycle parking.

Providing separate facilities can 

encourage users who don’t want to 

bike or walk along a roadway.

Visitor Experience | VE-2

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

to accommodate sustainable transportation options can help to achieve the 

FWS mission.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Define and consider visitor 

expectations for accessibility

 Balance safety and accessibility 

concerns

 Apply all relevant design criteria 

in order to meet or exceed the 

requirements of ABA

 Consider the relationship of 

accessible improvements to 

related infrastructure. Is there 

a completely accessible visitor 

experience?

Metrics

 Compliance with requirements, 

guidelines and standards

 Visitor use counts

 Outcomes of DCR facility audits

VE-3 Comply With Accessibility Standards and Guidelines

Resources

See ABA accessibility standards.

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

Draft Final Guidelines for 

accessibility in Outdoor Developed 

Areas on Federal lands:

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

outdoor/.

Accessibility guidance for Federal 

outdoor areas (specific to USDA 

Forest Service lands/facilities).

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails. 

Visitor Experience | VE-3

Intent

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

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

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

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

exceed the mandates of the ABA.

What Federal Accessibility criteria should FWS projects follow? 

The Architectural Barriers Act 

(ABA) of 1968 

FWS is subject to the ABA. The 

ABA requires access to facilities 

designed, built, altered or leased 

with Federal funds. Passed by 

Congress in 1968, it marks one of 

the first efforts to ensure access to 

the built environment. The Access 

Board develops and maintains 

accessibility guidelines under this 

law. These guidelines serve as the 

basis for the standards used to 

enforce the law, the Architectural 

Barriers Act Accessibility Standard 

(ABASS). 

Americans with Disabilities Act 

and the Architectural Barriers 

Act Accessibility Guidelines 

for Buildings and Facilities 

(ADAABAAG) as published in the 

Federal Register on July 23, 2004. 

FWS should follow the scoping 

and technical requirements under 

the ABA sections. This direction 

covers accessibility to sites, 

facilities, buildings and elements 

by individuals with disabilities. The 

requirements are to be applied 

during design, construction, 

additions to and alterations of 

facilities. 

Draft Final Accessibility Guidelines 

for Outdoor Developed Areas

Many FWS facilities can be 

characterized as Outdoor 

Developed Areas. The Access Board 

is proposing to issue accessibility 

guidelines for outdoor developed 

areas designed, constructed or 

altered by Federal agencies subject 

to the ABA of 1968. The guidelines 

cover trails, outdoor recreation 

access routes, beach access routes 

and picnic and camping facilities. 

Once these guidelines are finalized 

they will become the technical 

requirements for accessibility 

in outdoor developed areas. At 

this time, FWS may use these 

guidelines.

Brian Bainnson

Provide accessible 

parking spaces with appropriate 

access aisles and access to 

pathways (top); accessible parking

 at Great Swamp NWR (right).

Accessibility Guidebook for Outdoor 

Recreation and Trails, USDA Forest 

Service, April 2006. 

These guidelines only apply within 

National Forest System boundaries. 

However, they are a very useful 

tool for FWS projects recognizing 

that the Draft Final Accessibility 

Guidelines for Outdoor Developed 

Areas are still a work in progress. 

And In General...

 Use principles of universal 

design—programs and facilities 

should be usable by all people, 

to the greatest extent possible, 

without separate or segregated 

access for people with 

disabilities.

 Accessibility does not supersede 

requirements for safety.

 Consider the level of 

development at a site to help 

balance safety and accessibility.

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

 Consider whether current or 

anticipated visitor impacts are 

compatible with wildlife and their 

habitats

 Consider safety for visitors, staff 

and wildlife

 Provide orientation and 

interpretive information to 

support visitor experiences

 Consider the enabling legislation 

of the refuge - what is the 

purpose of the unit?

 Consider relationships with other 

recreational or educational sites 

within the region

 Consider demand, site carrying 

capacity and quality of visitor 

experience

 Determine what kind of access 

to recreation sites is available, 

appropriate and necessary

 Consider impacts to recreational 

activities from roads

 Promote appropriate facilities for 

safely viewing wildlife from roads 

where necessary

 Plan for appropriate signage, 

including entrance, orientation, 

directional and interpretive

 Consider access for and needs of 

school groups

Metrics

 Visitor counts

 Diversity and quality of activities 

available for visitors

 Ease of use (proximity, clarity, 

etc.) of recreational and 

educational elements

VE-4 Facilitate Compatible Wildlife Dependent Recreation 

and Education

Resources

California State Parks Children in 

Nature Campaign.

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

id=24914.

Information on local, regional and 

national programs to connect kids 

with nature.

Children and Nature Network. See: 

http://www.childrenandnature.org/

movement/info.

National Wildlife Federation’s kids 

outside program.

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

Washington State Parks “No Child 

Left Inside” campaign.

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

NoChildLeftInside/.

USDA Forest Service Discover the 

Forest campaign.

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

Bicycling on federal lands - case 

studies include two National 

Wildlife Refuges.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

Roadways are one of the principal 

infrastructure elements that 

facilitate access to the Big 6 on 

FWS managed lands.

Visitor Experience | VE-4

Intent

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

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

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

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

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

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

conservation mission of the Service.

USFWS

Auto tour route at Ridgefield 

NWR provides visitors access to 

Big 6 activities, such as wildlife 

observation and photography.

The Big Six

The 1997 Refuge System 

Improvement Act outlines “The 

Big Six” priority public uses for 

Refuge system improvements:

 Hunting

 Fishing

 Wildlife Photography

 Wildlife Observation

 Environmental Interpretation

 Environmental Education

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

with Threatened, Endangered, or 

Sensitive Plants: Finding Solutions. 

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

Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 60 p.

Ferguson, Leslie, Celestine 

L. Duncan and Kathleen 

Snodgrass. 2003. Backcountry 

Road Maintenance and Weed 

Management. 0371 2811. 

Missoula, MT: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Missoula Technology and 

Development Center. 22 p.

FHWA. 2007. Roadside 

Revegetation: An Integrated 

Approach to Establishing Native 

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

Vancouver, WA.

FHWA. Undated. Flexibility in 

Highway Design. FHWA Pub. No. 

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

fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/

index.htm.

Forman, Richard, et al. 2003. Road 

Ecology: Science and Solutions. 

Island Press. Washington, D.C.

Harper-Lore, Bonnie and Maggie 

Wilson, editors. 2000. Roadside 

Use of Native Plants. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kentucky Transportation Center. 

Undated. Context-Sensitive Design 

Case Study No. 1: Paris Pike - 

Kentucky. College of Engineering, 

University of Kentucky. Lexington, 

KY.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Reyff, James. 2009. Reducing 

Underwater Sounds with Air 

Bubble Curtains. TR News, No. 262 

(May-June).

PC - Planning Context

AASHTO. 2008. Guidelines For 

Environmental Performance 

Measures. NCHRP 25-25, Task 

23. Prepared by Cambridge 

Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA.

Florida Department of 

Transportation. 2003. Public 

Involvement Handbook. Available 

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

EMO/pubs/public_involvement/

pubinvolve.htm.

Jones, Grant R., David F. Sorey and 

Charles C. Scott. 2007. Applying 

Visual Resource Assessment for 

Highway Planning. In Landscape 

Architecture Graphic Standards 

(pp.130-139). Hoboken, New 

Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Lennertz, Bill and Aarin 

Lutzenhiser. 2006. The Charrette 

Handbook. American Planning 

Association. 

Myerson, Deborah L., AICP, 1999. 

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

Context-Sensitive Highway Design. 

Scenic America. http://www.scenic.

org/.

NEPA information for EPA Region 

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

epa.gov/R10/ECOCOMM.NSF/

webpage/national+environmental+

policy+act.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Peaks, Harold E. and Sandra Hayes. 

1999. “Building Roads in Sync With 

Community Values.” In Public 

Roads (Mar./Apr. 1999).

Porter, Douglas and David Salvesen, 

eds. 1995. Collaborative Planning 

for Wetlands and Wildlife: Issues 

and Examples. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 1997. 

Toward A Sustainable Future: 

Addressing the Long-Term Effects 

of Motor Vehicle Transportation on 

Climate and Ecology (SR 251). 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Potential Impacts of Climate 

Change on US Transportation 

(TRB Report 290).

TransTech Mgmt., Oldham 

Historic Properties Inc. and 

Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & 

Douglas for National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program. 2004. 

Performance Measures for Context 

Sensitive Solutions - A Guidebook 

for State DOT’s.

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

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

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

WSDOT. 2003. Building Projects 

that Build Communities: 

Recommended Best Practices.

DE - Design and Engineering

AASHTO. 2001. Guidelines for 

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

1st Edition. Washington, D.C.

AASHTO. 2004. A Policy on 

Geometric Design of Highways and 

Streets, 5th Edition (aka ‘Green 

Book). Washington, D.C.

BuildCarbonNeutral. 2010. http://

buildcarbonneutral.org. 

Calkins, Meg. 2009. Materials for 

Sustainable Sites. John Wiley & 

Sons. Hoboken, NJ. 

Center for Environmental 

Excellence by AASHTO - Invasive 

Species/Vegetation Management, 

Reseach, Documents & Reports 

web page. Access at: http://

environment.transportation.org/

environmental_issues/invasive_

species/docs_reports.aspx.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Maintenance Levels. 0577 1205P. 

San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

San Dimas Technology and 

Development Center. 71 p.

Skorseth and Selim. 2000. Gravel 

Roads Maintenance and Design 

Manual. South Dakota Local 

Transportation Assistance Program 

(USDOT - FHWA).

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Sustainable Sites Initiative (SSI). 

http://www.sustainablesites.org/.

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems. NCHRP Report 

600B.

University of Bath. Inventory of 

Carbon & Energy (ICE) Wiki. 

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

Home+Page.

University of Washington and 

CH2MHill. 2009. Greenroads 

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

greenroads.us/.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Washington Department of Ecology. 

2006. How to do Stormwater 

Monitoring: A guide for 

construction sites. Access at: http://

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

html.

Washington Department of 

Ecology. 2010. Stormwater 

monitoring resources. Access at: 

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

wq/stormwater/municipal/

strmH2Omonitoring.html.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

Wisconsin Department of 

Transportation (WisDOT). 2003. 

Best Practices for Control of 

Invasive Plant Species. 

WSDOT. 1997. Integrated Vegetation 

Management for Roadsides.

OP - Organism Passage

Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Habitat Branch. 2008. Guidelines 

for Bridge Construction or 

Maintenance to Accommodate Fish 

& Wildlife Movement and Passage.

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

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

2010. Safe Passages. Island Press. 

Washington, D.C.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Best 

Practices Manual. http://www.fhwa.

dot.gov/environment/hconnect/wvc/

index.htm.

FHWA. 2008. Wildlife-Vehicle 

Collision Reduction Study, Report 

to Congress. Access at http://www.

fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/

safety/08034/index.cfm.

FHWA. 2010. Keeping It Simple: 

Easy Ways to Help Wildlife Along 

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

environment/wildlifeprotection/

index.cfm.

Hardy et al, Western Transportation 

Institute (Montana State Univ.). 

2007. Evaluation of Wildlife 

Crossing Structures and Fencing 

on US Highway 93 Evaro to 

Polson. Phase I: Preconstruction 

Data Collection and Finalization of 

Evaluation Plan.

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

and T. Sprunk. 2001. Habitat 

connectivity study of the I-25 

and US 85 corridors, Colorado. 

Pages 499-508. Proceedings of 

the International Conference 

on Ecology and Transportation. 

Keystone, Colorado, September 

24-28, 2001. Center for 

Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

University, USA.

Huijser et al (Western 

Transportation Institute - Montana 

State University) and Salsman and 

Wilson (Sensor Technologies and 

Systems, Inc.). 2006. Animal Vehicle 

Crash Mitigation Using Advanced 

Technology, Phase I: Review, 

Design And Implementation, 

SPR-3(076). Oregon Dept. of 

Transportation Research Unit. 

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

Jacobson, Sandra, Robert Gubernick 

and Michael Furniss. “Combining 

Aquatic and Terrestrial Passage 

Design into a Continuous 

Discipline”. In Proceedings of the 

2007 International Conference on 

Ecology and Transportation, edited 

by C. Leroy Irwin, Debra Nelson, 

and K.P. McDermott. Raleigh, NC: 

Center for Transportation and the 

Environment, North Carolina State 

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

escholarship.org/uc/item/6w6573r8. 

Mader, Sharon. 2006. Comparing 

the Ecological Effects of Linear 

Developments on Terrestrial 

Mammals. Wildlands CPR. 

Missoula, MT. http://www.

wildlandscpr.org/biblio-notes/

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

Minnesota Department of 

Transportation. 2009. Cost Analysis 

of Alternative Culvert Installation 

Practices in Minnesota.

Proceedings of the International 

Conference on Ecology and 

Transportation. Access biennial 

conference proceedings (2003, 2005, 

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

icoet.net/. 

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Evaluation and the Use and 

Effectiveness of Wildlife Crossings 

(NCHRP Report 615). 

Trombulak, Stephen and 

Christopher Frissell. 2000. 

Review of Ecological Effects of 

Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic 

Communities. Conservation 

Biology 14(1), February 2000, pp. 

18-30.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. 

Management Techniques for 

Riparian Restorations (Roads Field 

Guide, Volume II).

USDA Forest Service, StreamSimulation Working Group. 2008. 

Stream Simulation: An Ecological 

Approach To Providing Passage for 

Aquatic Organisms at Road-Stream 

Crossings.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

Crossing and Aquatic Organism 

Passage Issues by State. Contact 

FWS national Refuge Roads 

Coordinator.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

SM - Stormwater Management

AASHTO. 2008. Above and Beyond: 

The Environmental and Social 

Contributions of America’s 

Highway Programs.

Bentrup, G. 2008. Conservation 

buffers: design guidelines for 

buffers, corridors, and greenways. 

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

NC: Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Southern Research 

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

unl.edu/nac/bufferguidelines/.

City of Bellevue, WA. 2009. Natural 

Drainage Practices Maintenance 

Guidelines. Access at: http://www.

bellevuewa.gov/pdf/Utilities/

Natural_Drainage_Practices.pdf.

Dashiell and Lancaster. Undated. 

Road Design Guidelines for Low 

Impact to Hydrology. Five Counties 

Salmonid Conservation Program. 

Weaverville, CA.

Hinman, Curtis. 2005. Low Impact 

Development: Technical Guidance 

Manual for Puget Sound. Puget 

Sound Action Team. Olympia, 

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

publications/our_work/stormwater/

lid/lid_tech_manual05/LID_

manual2005.pdf.

Mensing and Chapman. Undated. 

Conservation Development 

and Ecological Stormwater 

Management: An Ecological 

Systems Approach. Applied 

Ecological Services. Prior Lake, 

MN.

Smith, Stacy (Idaho Technology 

Transfer Center, Univ. of Idaho). 

2005. BMP Handbook: Best 

Management Practices for Idaho 

Rural Road Maintenance. 

Stratus Consulting. 2009. A 

Triple Bottom Line Assessment 

of Traditional and Green 

Infrastructure Options for 

Controlling CSO Events in 

Philadelphia’s Watersheds. 

Prepared for City of Philadelphia 

Water Department.

US Dept. of Defense. 2004. Unified 

Facilities Criteria (UFC) - Design: 

Low Impact Development. 

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

US EPA. 2002. Urban Stormwater 

BMP Performance Monitoring. 

Access online at: http://water.

epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/

stormwater/monitor.cfm.

US EPA. 2010. Green 

Infrastructure: Managing Wet 

Weather With Green Infrastructure 

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

epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_

id=298.

USFWS. 2005. Byways to America’s 

Wildest Places: Discover Your 

National Wildlife Refuges.

Weaver, William and Danny Hagans. 

1994. Handbook for Forest 

and Ranch Roads: A Guide for 

Planning, Designing, Constructing, 

Reconstructing, Maintaining and 

Closing Wildland Roads. 

WSDOT. Best Management 

Practices Field Guide for ESA 

Sec 4(d) Habitat Protection. 

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

rdonlyres/A0C3F307-1548-

4BED-8C7B-C4A79A788791/0/

BMP_Field_Guide.pdf.

Xiao, Qingfu and E. G. McPherson. 

2009. Testing a Bioswale to Treat 

and Reduce Parking Lot Runoff. 

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

psw/programs/cufr/products/psw_

cufr761_P47ReportLRes_AC.pdf.

VE - Visitor Experience

BLM. 2007. Visual Resource 

Management (website). Access at 

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

Brewer, Jim, et al. 2001. Geometric 

Design Practices for European 

Roads. FHWA, Office of 

International Programs.

California State Parks. Children 

in Nature Campaign. http://www.

parks.ca.gov/?page_id=24914.

Children & Nature Network. 

Regional Campaigns and 

Initiatives. http://www.

childrenandnature.org/movement/

info.

FHWA. 2008. Guide to Promoting 

Bicycling on Federal Lands. FHWA 

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

FHWA. 2008. Safe and Aesthetic 

Design of Urban Roadside 

Treatments. NCHRP Report 612. 

www.TRB.org.

National Park Service. NPS 

Partnerships Case Studies 

(Transportation). http://www.

nps.gov/partnerships/cs_type.

htm#anchor19.

National Wildlife Federation. 2010. 

Be Out There Campaign. http://

www.nwf.org/beoutthere/.

New Mexico Department of 

Transportation. 2006. Architectural 

and Visual Quality Design 

Guidelines for Context Sensitive 

Design and Context Sensitive 

Solutions.

ODOT (Oregon Department of 

Transportation). 2006. Roadside 

Development Design Manual - 

Guidelines for Visual Resource 

Management, Landscaping, and 

Hardscaping (DRAFT).

Transportation Research Board of 

The National Academies. 2008. 

Human Factors Guidelines for 

Road Systems (NCHRP Report 

600B).

US Access Board. Guidelines and 

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

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

USDA Forest Service. 1995 (rev. 

2000). Landscape Aesthetics: 

A Handbook for Scenery 

Management. AH-701.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Scenic 

Byways: A Design Guide for 

Roadside Improvements.

Bibliography

Roadway Design Guidelines

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

USDA Forest Service. 2006. 

Accessibility Guidebook for 

Outdoor Recreation and Trails. 

Publication number 0623-2801-

MTDC.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. 

Discover the Forest campaign. 

http://www.discovertheforest.org/

index.php.

USDOT Federal Transit 

Administration. 2010. Transit in 

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

fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_

financing_6106.html.

Washington State Parks. 2008. 

No Child Left Inside campaign. 

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

NoChildLeftInside/.

Additional Resources

Anderson, Linda. 2005. Highway 

Crossing Structures for 

Metropolitan Portland’s Wildlife. 

Portland State University. Portland, 

OR.

Bates, Ken. 2003. Design of Road 

Culverts for Fish Passage. 

Washington Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife.

Cosgrove and Orrick. 2004. The 

Future that Never Was: Lessons 

from Visions of Transportation. 

FHWA. 2008. Consistency In 

Safety-Related Design Decisions 

on Federal Lands Highway Jobs. 

FHWA Pub. No. 

FHWA and USFWS. 2005. Guidance 

on the Federal Lands Highway 

Refuge Roads Program. 

Green Infrastructure Wiki. 

2010. Access at: http://www.

greeninfrastructurewiki.com/.

Iowa State University Dept. of Civil 

Engineering and Minnesota Dept. 

of Transportation. 2005. Economics 

of Upgrading an Aggregate Road. 

Marriott, Paul Daniel. 1998. Saving 

Historic Roads: Design and Policy 

Guidelines. Preservation Press and 

John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 

Maryland National Capital Park 

and Planning Commission and The 

Montgomery County Department 

of Parks and Planning. 1996. Rustic 

Roads Functional Master Plan. 

National Park Service. 1984. Park 

Road Standards.

Otto, Sandra. 2000. 

“Environmentally Sensitive Design 

of Transportation Facilities.” 

In Journal of Transportation 

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

363-366.

Regional Road Maintenance 

Technical Working Group 

(Washington) Regional Road 

Maintenance Endangered Species 

Act Program Guidelines. 

Robson, Sara, and James Kingery. 

2006. Idaho Native Plants for 

Roadside Restoration and 

Revegetation Programs. Idaho 

Transportation Department.

USFWS. 2008. Project List 

Meeting Report: Long-Range 

Transportation Plan for the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service Lands 

in Region 1. Report prepared by 

PBS&J.

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
Abbreviations

ABA Architectural Barriers Act

ABAAS Architectural Barriers Act 

Accessibility Standards

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act

ASCE American Society of Civil 

Engineers

BLM Bureau of Land Management

CCP Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DCR Office of Diversity and Civil 

Rights (FWS Region 3)

EE Environmental Education

ES Ecological Services

ESA Endangered Species Act

FHWA Federal Highway 

Administration

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

NDS natural drainage system

NEPA National Environmental 

Policy Act

NWR National Wildlife Refuge (also 

Refuge).

NWRS National Wildlife Refuge 

System

ODOT Oregon Department of 

Transportation

Appendix B: Glossary

R3 Region 3 of the FWS (IL, IN, IA, 

MI, MN, MO, OH and WI)

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 - Midwest Region
Definitions

Adaptive Management. Refers to a 

process in which policy decisions are 

implemented within a framework 

of scientifically driven experiments 

to test predictions and assumptions 

inherent in management plan. 

Analysis of results help managers 

determine whether current 

management should continue as is 

or whether it should be modified to 

achieve desired conditions.

Alternative. Alternatives are 

different means of accomplishing 

Refuge purposes and goals and 

contributing to the System mission 

(draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5). The no action alternative is 

the manner in which the refuge 

is currently managed, while the 

action alternatives are all other 

alternatives.

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 longrange 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.

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 

human-caused 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 (Federal). 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.

Environmental Education Facility. 

A building or site with one or more 

classrooms or teaching areas and 

environmental education resources 

to accommodate groups of students.

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).

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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).

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.

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.

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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. 

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).

Glossary

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
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 - Midwest Region
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service

http://www.fws.gov

January 2011

Roadway Design Guidelines

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service - Midwest Region
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-1

APPENDIX E

Glossary
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-2

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

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

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

management combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory, and 

provides tools to facilitate a more organized, logical approach to decision making.

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

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

ensure that maintenance activities and projects proposed for funding are focused on highest priority 

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

Best Management Practices (BMPs) – BMPs are effective, practical, structural or nonstructural

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

from the land to surface or ground water, or which otherwise protect water quality from potential 

adverse effects of human activities. These practices are developed to achieve a balance between water 

quality protection and the production of wood crops within natural and economic limitations.

Congestion Management System (CMS) also known as Congestion Management Process (CMP) –

The CMS is a systematic approach, used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other land 

management agencies that provides for the safe and effective management and operation of new and 

existing transportation facilities through the use of demand reduction and operational management 

strategies. The CMS represents the state of the-practice in addressing congestion, by providing 

information on transportation system performance, and alternative strategies for alleviating congestion 

and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet Federal, State and local needs. 

See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/resourcecenter/teams/planning/cms.cfm and 

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/guidance for more information.

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) – CSS is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves 

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

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

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

See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/what.cfm for more information. The LRTP Region 3 

emphasizes this concept through the encouragement of using the FWS Roadway Design Guidelines 

Midwest Region Document (Appendix D).

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

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

guidance for the project leader to accomplish purposes of the refuge system and the refuge. CCPs 

establish management direction to achieve refuge purposes.

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

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

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

integrate FWS objectives and priorities with those of other agencies; fulfill obligations under the 

Endangered Species Act and other management programs; identify and define specific hatchery 

reforms to implement; and provide a foundation for future program and budget development.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-3

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

Range Transportation Plan for FWS Lands in Region 3. The groups is composed of representatives 

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

the Federal Highway Administration Federal Lands Highway Division.

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

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

aesthetic values.

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

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

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

non-renewable.

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

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

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

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

context knowledge to the Core Team for the Long Range Transportation Plan for FWS lands in 

Region 3.

Facility condition index (FCI) – FCI is the ratio of the deferred maintenance costs to replacement 

value. This ratio is generated from data generated from condition assessments. This is an industry 

accepted indicator of the overall health of facility infrastructure.

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) - The FLHP was created by the 1982 Surface

Transportation Assistance Act and is administered through the Office of Federal Lands Highway of 

the Federal Highway Administration. The Office of Federal Lands Highway provides program 

stewardship and transportation engineering services for planning, design, construction, and 

rehabilitation of the highways and bridges that provide access to and through federally owned lands. 

The primary purpose of the FLHP is to provide financial resources and technical assistance for a 

coordinated program of public roads that service the transportation needs of Federal and Indian lands.

Fisheries Program – The FWS Fisheries Program partners with states, Native American Tribes, and 

other interested groups to restore and maintain fish and other important aquatic resources at selfsustaining levels and to support federal mitigation programs for the benefit of the American public. 

FWS takes a holistic approach to fishery conservation focusing on an array of scientific fishery 

management and conservations efforts. 

Intergovernmental agreement (IGA) – An IGA is a formal contract between two or more

jurisdictions under which governmental agencies agree to provide a service, perform a function or 

provide funding to another governmental agency under specific terms, as defined in the contract. For 

example, an agency may contract with another entity for law enforcement services. Intergovernmental 

agreements may also take the form of a joint service agreement where two or more jurisdictions join 

forces to plan, finance and deliver a service within the boundaries of all participating jurisdictions. 
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-4

Agencies may also enter into various types of service exchange arrangements under which 

participating jurisdictions agree to lend services to one another, generally without any payment being 

required.

Level of service (LOS) - Roadway traffic congestion is expressed in terms of LOS as defined by the 

Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) http://www.trb.org/main/blurbs/164718.aspx. Operational LOS is a 

congestion measure used to describe service quality and is related to the density of the traffic stream. 

Free flow conditions with no restrictions are described as LOS A. LOS B through D conditions 

demonstrates progressively worse traffic conditions. LOS F is generally defined as “failure”, where the 

observed or forecasted traffic demand equals or exceeds the defined capacity of the roadway system 

element. LOS F represents extremely congested, stop-and-go traffic flow conditions with excessive or 

unacceptable travel time delays.

Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) - The LRTP is a long-term blueprint of a region’s

transportation system. Usually LRTPs are conducted every five years and are plans for twenty to thirty 

years into the future. The plan identifies and analyzes transportation needs of the metropolitan region 

or of a state, and creates a framework for project priorities. These plans are normally the product of 

recommendations and studies carried out and put forth by a Metropolitan Planning Organization 

(MPO) or a state Department of Transportation (DOT). In the context of the USFWS transportation 

planning process, the LRTP term can be applied to a single service unit, a complex of several units, or 

a multistate regional grouping of FWS units.

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) - A MPO is a transportation policy-making

organization made up of representatives from local government and transportation authorities. In 1962, 

the United States Congress passed legislation that required the formation of a MPO for urbanized areas 

with a population greater than 50,000. Congress created MPOs in order to ensure that existing and 

future expenditures for transportation projects and programs are based on a continuing, cooperative 

and comprehensive (“3-C”) planning process. Federal funding for transportation projects and 

programs are channeled through this planning process.

Mission critical – Mission critical refers to a road or facility that is vitally important to meet mission 

of the FWS.

Multimodal transportation – The term multimodal refers to all forms of motorized and nonmotorized transport including cars, trucks, buses, boats, planes, bicycles, and pedestrians, etc.

National Highway System (NHS) – The term refers to the thousands of miles of roadway important 

to the nation’s economy, defense, and mobility. It includes different subsystems: Interstate, other 

principal arterials, strategic highway networks, major strategic highway network connectors and 

intermodal connectors. The NHS was developed by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in 

cooperation with the states, local officials and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs)

National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) - The National Highway Planning Network (NHPN) 

is a 1:100,000 scale network database that contains line features representing just over 450,000 miles 

of current and planned highways in the U.S. The NHPN consists of interstates, principal arterials, and 

rural minor arterials.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-5

National Park Service (NPS) - The National Park Service was created by an Act signed by President 

Woodrow Wilson on August 25, 1916. The National Park Service is a bureau of the Department of the 

Interior. Directly overseeing its operation is the Department's Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife 

and Parks.

Natural resources – Natural resources include features and values found in nature such as plants and 

animals, water, air, soils, topographic features, geologic features, paleontological resources, natural 

quiet, and clear night skies that are worthy of preservation.

Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks Program (Section 5320) – Congress established the program to 

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

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

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

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

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

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

all, including persons with disabilities.

Project Leaders – The Project Leader is responsible to the refuge, hatchery or refuge complex 

Regional Director for the safe and efficient implementation of activities within their unit, including

cooperative activities with other agencies or landowners, in accordance with delegations of authorities.

Real Property Inventory (RPI) – The RPI contains information on all fixed assets with a replacement 

cost of $5,000 or more. These fixed assets include such items as buildings, roads, bridges, levees, 

water management structures, fish raceways, boardwalks, fences, and other structures and facilities. 

The FWS collects data annually and report it to the General Services Administration.

Refuge Road Program - The Refuge Roads program was created under the 1998 Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). That act and the subsequent passage of the Safe,

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

provides authorization for National Wildlife Refuge System roads under the Federal Lands Highway 

program (FLHP). Through the refuge road program, $29 million annually is authorized for spending 

on maintenance and improvements on Refuge Roads within the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This includes project planning and contract administration as well as construction. Enhancements such 

as comfort stations, parking lots, bicycle/pedestrian facilities and interpretive signage related to roads 

are also allowable.

Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) - A RTPO is formed through a voluntary 

association of local governments within a county or contiguous counties. RTPO members include 

cities, counties, tribes, ports, transportation service providers, private employers and others. MPOs and 

RTPOs serve the same basic transportation planning functions – to develop a long-range transportation 

plan, coordinate within a region, and prepare a transportation improvement program. RTPOs are 

specific to the state of Washington. However, other states have similar regional transportation 

planning entities that serve this same purpose.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-6

Road Inventory Program (RIP) - With the use of state-of-the-art equipment and engineering 

expertise, this program documents the condition assessment of all public roads and parking lots on 

national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries over a five year period. This inventory and 

condition assessment serves as the FWS’s basic public use road management system. It provides a 

benchmark from which the FWS is able to document the status, condition, funding needs and 

improvements of the public roads. This information is integrated within a Geographic Information 

System (GIS). FWS currently manages over 4,900 miles of public roads in the 50 states, Puerto Rico, 

Virgin Islands and Guam. Approximately 8% of the roads are paved. The remaining 92% are gravel or 

native material. The value of these assets is estimated at $1.5 billion. 

Road Safety Audit (RSA) – A road safety audit is a formal safety performance examination of an

existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team. It qualitatively 

estimates and reports on potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for improvements in 

safety for all road users. A RSA, adaptable to local needs and conditions, are a powerful tool for 

agencies to enhance the state of safety practices on the United State. 

Service Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) – SAMMS is an asset management 

database developed and maintained by the FWS that documents facility and equipment deficiencies, 

justifies budget requests for maintenance needs, and provides a sound basis for management decisionmaking.

Property inventory data is maintained as part of the SAMMS to aid in completing inspection and

maintenance activities and quantify the complete picture of facilities and equipment owned by FWS. 

This tool allows field station managers obtain accurate and current information on all real and personal 

property for which they are responsible. Two types of inventories are conducted and maintained within 

SAMMS, a Real Property Inventory and a Personal Property Inventory.

Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) – The STIP is a prioritized, multiyear

program for the implementation of transportation improvement projects. As such, it serves as a 

management tool to ensure the most effective use of funding for transportation improvements. The 

STIP is a requirement of the transportation planning process, legislated by the SAFETEA-LU. 

Traditional state sponsored transportation improvements are not eligible for federal funding unless 

they are listed in the STIP.

Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) – The TIP is a program prepared by a metropolitan or 

rural planning organization that lists projects to be funded with FHWA/FTA funds for the next one- to 

three-year period. The Federal Lands Highway Divisions (FLH) prepare each year a four-year frame 

TIP of projects, mainly from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), The National Park Service (NPS) and 

the Forest Service (FS).

Transportation infrastructure – Transportation infrastructure includes roads, bridges, sidewalks, 

trails (paved and unpaved, front country and back country), waterways, etc.

Transportation planning – Transportation planning for federal land management agencies 

incorporates a continuing, comprehensive, and collaborative process to encourage and promote the

development of multimodal transportation systems to ensure safe and efficient movement of visitors, 

employees, and goods while balancing resource protection, visitor experience, and community needs.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page E-7

Travel Demand Management (TDM) – TDM is a term given to a broad range of strategies that

optimize transportation system performance for commute and non-commute trips. Strategies typically 

include those that encourage travelers to change their travel mode from driving alone to choosing a 

carpool, vanpool, public transit vehicle, or other commuter alternative. Managing travel demand 

focuses on providing all travelers, regardless of whether they drive alone, with choices of location, 

route, and time, not just mode of travel. Information technology is playing and increasingly more 

important role in the delivery of TDM strategies.

Transportation System Management (TSM) - It focuses on operational and minor capital actions 

(signal timing optimization, adding a turn lane, etc.) to improve operations on a road network element.

User capacity – As it applies to wildlife refuges and fish hatcheries, user capacity is the type and level 

of use that can be accommodated while sustaining the desired resource and social conditions based on 

the purpose and objectives of a refuge or hatchery unit.

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) – VMT, or the total number of miles that vehicles are driven represents 

key data for highway planning and management, and a common measure of roadway use. Along with 

other data, VMT is often used in estimating congestion, air quality, and potential gas-tax revenues.

Visitor experience – The visitor experience refers to quality and perception of a visitor’s visit to a 

wildlife refuge or fish hatchery in the context of the intended uses at a given facility (wildlife viewing, 

environmental education, and ease of access.

Visitor facility enhancement (VFE) – The VFE program includes improvements on FWS owned

lands aimed at enhancing wildlife viewing opportunities for the public while providing access in the 

form of interpretive pullouts, trails, and interpretive kiosks which provide a public benefit. Projects in 

this program must conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife and plants for the continuing benefit of 

the American people, consistent with the FWS Mission.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-1

APPENDIX F

Communication Plan
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-2

Long Range Transportation Plan for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Lands in Region 3

Public Involvement Plan

Background

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Region 3 is developing a long range transportation plan

(LRTP) that will establish goals, and objectives for how transportation can best help the Service

achieve its overarching mission of connecting people to nature at National Wildlife Refuges and

National Fish Hatcheries. The purpose of this LRTP is to develop a transportation planning process 

for regional level transportation planning within the Service. It will bring the Service into 

compliance with Federal legislation requiring Federal Land Management Agencies to conduct 

long-range transportation planning in a manner consistent with U.S. Department of Transportation 

planning practices for States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

The LRTP will provide Service leaders with a replicable region-level transportation planning

process, benchmarks for evaluating transportation projects in an asset-informed environment

across the region, and essential facts necessary for informing future planning and operational

decisions.

Goals of Public Outreach and Communications

The fundamental purpose of this Public Involvement Plan (PIP) is to provide the structure for an

inclusive public process that internal and external stakeholder groups may participate in during the 

development of the LRTP for Service Lands in Region 3. 

The goals of this effort include:

• Solicit input from Service staff that will inform the transportation planning effort

• Inform and educate external stakeholders about decision-making in Region 3 relative to

transportation planning

• Provide opportunities for stakeholders to identify their concerns, values, ideas, and interests 

of the Region 3 transportation system

• Provide Service staff and external stakeholders the opportunity to review and comment on 

the LRTP at key decision points

• Build support from internal and external stakeholders for the processes and projects 

adopted under the LRTP

• Strengthen existing partnerships while forging new ones

• Identify opportunities for coordination with priority MPOs and States for short and medium

term project development
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-3

Public Involvement Approach

The Service recognizes that different transportation planning efforts have varying levels of public 

participation throughout the decision-making processes. Region 3 LRTP encompasses a 

geographic area of eight Midwestern states and given the geographic and demographic diversity, 

there cannot be an expectation that all or even most of the potential stakeholders will be able to 

participate, or have interest in directly influencing the outcomes of the plan. Figure 1 illustrates the 

varying levels of public participation for this LRTP.

 

Figure 1. Levels of Public Participation for Region 3 LRTP

The Service seeks to affect a large number of interested persons and groups by making them aware 

that the planning activities are taking place, illustrated by the large outer circle. This group will 

realize that the Service has a process for making transportation decisions and that there is a 

potential for specific transportation projects to emerge from that process (the LRTP). A somewhat 

smaller group will be knowledgeable about the LRTP and the transportation problems it seeks to 

address. For this group, the public involvement processes will be designed to inform them of the 

rationale for the LRTP, the related decision-making processes, and the anticipated outcomes for 

Region 3. A much smaller group will be involved, or actively engaged in influencing the decision, 

represented by the small inner circle in Figure 1.

Table 1 summarizes the internal and external stakeholders the Service hopes to engage at these

varying levels throughout the LRTP development. A complete listing of contact information for

these stakeholders can be found in the Table 3 of this appendix.

AWARE

INFORMED

INVOLVED

(engaged in 

influencing 

decisions)
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-4

Table 1. Internal and External Stakeholders in Region 3

I N V O L V E D I N F O R M E D A W A R E

I n t e r n a l 

Region 3 LRTP Core 

Team

Region 3 Area Regional 

Directors

Budget, contracting, and general services offices

External Affairs

Project Leaders Fire and Law Enforcement

Safety Office

Refuge/Hatchery 

supervisors

Cultural Resources Office

Region 3 LRTP 

Extended Team 

(subject matter 

experts)

Fisheries Resource Office

Division Chiefs Aquatic Nuisance Species coordinator

National CCP coordinator

Refuge Road Coordinators

Chiefs of Planning and Natural Resources

National Refuge Chiefs 

Washington Office

E x t e r n a l 

MPOs Congressional/Reauthorization staff and committees

State Departments of 

Transportation Agencies with a MOU with the Service

U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers State Historic Preservation Office

Bureau of Reclamation Collaborative Environmental Transportation 

Agreement for Streamlining

Bureau of Indian Affairs National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

U.S. Forest Service U.S. Coast Guard

National Park Service

Federal Aviation Administration

State Parks

Bureau of Land 

Management

National Wildlife Refuge Association

Refuge and Hatchery Friends Groups

State Byways Conservation Organizations

Council of University Transportation Centers

State Fish and Game 

Agencies

Railroads (those located within the Service units)

Gateway Communities

Department of Defense 

Agencies

Libraries of communities around Service units

Governors Association

FHWA Division offices in 

Region 3

Transportation Research Board (TRB) Transportation 

Needs of Parks and Public Lands Committee

State Tourism Offices
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-5

Strategies

The strategies used to engage the public and agency groups are perhaps the most important

element of a public involvement plan. Strategies are intended to target a specific audience with an 

intended purpose. Table 2 identifies the key milestones in the LRTP decision-making process at 

which specific outreach strategies will be designed to seek input from Service staff and external 

stakeholders.

Table 2. Stakeholder Involvement Strategy by Task

Key Milestones of the Plan Outreach Strategy

Vision, Mission, Goals, and Objectives

Initial Contact - Targeted meetings/contact with

internal core and extended team, solicit input. Purpose and Need

Definition of transportation Service lands

Existing conditions and trends

Midway Update - Targeted meetings with internal 

core team members and some external 

stakeholders, solicit input.

Strategies based on Management

Systems/Needs/Other priorities

Performance Measures

Investigation of funding opportunities

Preferred strategy and fiscal constraint Final input - Final Planning Update and availability 

on website; seek consensus among key 

stakeholders.

Plan and Summary Report

Process Document
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-6

Table 3. Stakeholder Contact List

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Core Team

Involved Bowman Jared Wildlife Biologist 

(Planning)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5495 Jared_bowman@fws.gov 

Involved DeAlessio Gabe Wildlife Biologist (GIS) Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5496 Gabriel_DeAlessio@fws.gov

Involved Grimm Lewis Transportation Planner Federal Lands 

Highway - 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, 

VA 20166 703-404-6289 lewis.grimm@dot.gov

Involved Jaeschke Chris Transportation Planner Federal Lands 

Highway - 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, 

VA 20166 703-404-6306 christoph.jaeschke@dot.gov

Involved Jutz Brandon Planning Team Leader Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5407 brandon_jutz@fws.gov

Involved Ocel Norah Transportation Planner Federal Lands 

Highway - 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, 

VA 20166 703-404-6213 norah.ocel@dot.gov

Involved O'Connell Maggie Chief, Visitor Services Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5167 Maggie_O'connell@fws.gov

Involved Radloff David

Fishery Biologist, 

Outreach, Database 

Management

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5158 David_radloff@fws.gov

Involved Royal Makayah Transportation Planner Federal Lands 

Highway - 21400 Ridgetop Circle, Sterling, 

VA 20166 703-948-1405 makayah.royal@dot.gov

Involved Schwartz Alex Landscape Architect, 

Branch of Transportation 

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 2600 S.E. 98th Avenue-S100, 

Portland, OR 97266 503-231-6179 alex_schwartz@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-7

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Extended Team

Involved Caldwell Nathan

Trails, Byways, 

Transportation 

Enhancements, and 

Alternative Transportation 

Coordinator

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-2205 nathan_caldwell@fws.gov

Involved Gosse Jeff Federal Projects and FERC 

Coordinator

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5138 jeff_gosse@fws.gov

Involved - VACANT Chief, Facilites

Management

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 - -

Extended Team

Involved Spah Joe Facilities Managament 

Coordinator

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5447 Joe_spah@fws.gov

Involved Suder Steve

National Coordinator, 

Refuge Transportation 

Program

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-1752 Steve_Suder@fws.gov

Involved Turner Todd Deputy Assistant Regional 

Director

Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Fisheries 

and Aquatic 

Resources Program

- 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5127 Todd_turner@fws.gov

Region 3 

Management Informed

Project Leaders Informed -

Division Chiefs Informed

Refuge/Hatchery 

Supervisors Informed Foerster Kevin Refuge Supervisor Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 51 E. 4th Street, Room 101 

Winona, MN 55987 507-452-4232 kevin_foerster@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-8

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Informed Sprenger Matt Refuge Supervisor Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5327 matt_sprenger@fws.gov

Informed Leach Jim Refuge Supervisor Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5406 jim_leach@fws.gov

Informed Schilling Kurt Program Manager, 

National Fish Hatcheries

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5139 Kurt_Schilling@fws.gov

Informed Speer Rick Assistant Refuge 

Supervisor

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-55140 rick_speer@fws.gov

Refuge Roads 

Coordinators

Informed Holm Jeff

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R1

Fish and Wildlife 

Service -

911 NE 11th Avenue - Eastside 

Federal Complex, Portland, OR 

97232-4181

503-231-2161 Jeff_Holm@fws.gov

Informed O'Brien Rob

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R2

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - P.O. Box 1306, 500 Gold Ave 

S.W. Albuquerque, NM 81703 505-248-6908 Robert_OBrien@fws.gov

Informed Clark Jo Ann

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R4

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1875 Century Blvd, Atlanta, GA 

30345 404-679-4114 JoAnn_Clark@fws.gov

Informed Mast Jeff

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R5

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 300 Westgate Center Drive, 

Hadley, MA 01035-9589 413-253-8638 Jeffrey_Mast@fws.gov

Informed Graves James

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R6

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 134 Union Blvd., 

Lakewood, CO 80228 303-236-4354 James_Graves@fws.gov

Informed Civitillo Troy

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R7

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 907-786-3579 Troy_Civitillo@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-9

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Informed Holm Jeff

Regional Refuge 

Transportation 

Coordinator R1

Fish and Wildlife 

Service -

911 NE 11th Avenue - Eastside 

Federal Complex, Portland, OR 

97232-4181

503-231-2161 Jeff_Holm@fws.gov

Engineers Informed Swedenborg Craig Regional Engineer Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5265 craig_swedenborg@fws.gov

Budget Aware Spomer Ketti Chief, Refuge Budget and 

Administration

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5464 ketti_spomer@fws.gov

External Affairs Aware Shaw Tina External Affairs, Refuges Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5360 tina_shaw@fws.gov

Fire Aware Dearborn Dan Chief, Fire Management Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5366 dan_dearborn@fws.gov

Law 

Enforcement Aware Jussila Chris Chief, Refuge Law 

Enforcement

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5408 chris_jussila@fws.gov

Cultural 

Resource Office Aware Myster James Regional Archeologist Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5439 james_myster@fws.gov

FWS National 

CCP Coordinator Aware Alliston Ross

Refuge Planner, Div. of 

Conservation Planning & 

Policy

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 4401 North Fairfax Drive, Room 

655, Arlington, VA 22203 703-358-2388 ross_alliston@fws.gov

Chiefs of 

Planning and 

Natural 

Aware Houghten Chuck Chief, Conservation 

Planning (R1)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service -

911 NE 11th Avenue - Eastside 

Federal Complex, Portland, OR 

97232-4181

503-231-6207 charles_houghten@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-10

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Resources

Aware WagnerGreven Jeannie Chief, Conservation 

Planning (R2)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, 

NM 505-248-6823 jeannie_wagnergreven@fws.go

v

Aware Hopp Rose Chief, Planning Branch 

(R4)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 

30345 404-679-7247 rose_hopp@fws.gov

Aware McGarigal Nancy

Refuge Planner, Div. 

Conservation Planning and 

Policy (R5)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 300 Westgate Center Drive, 

Hadley, MA 01035-9589 413-253-8562 nancy_mcgarigal@fws.gov

Aware Lucas David Chief, Conservation 

Planning (R6)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 

80228 303-236-4366 david_c_lucas@fws.gov

Aware Clough Helen Chief, Conservation 

Planning (R7)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 907-786-3353 helen_clough@fws.gov

Aware Pelz mark Chief, CA/NV Refuge 

Planning Office (R8)

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 2800 Cottage Way,-Suite W1832, Sacramento, CA 95825 916-414-6500 mark_pelz@fws.gov

Regional Refuge 

Chiefs

Aware Kurth Jim

Assistant Director 

National Wildlife Refuge 

System

Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Alrington, VA 22203 703-358-2394 jim_kurth@fws.gov

Aware West Robin R1 Fish and Wildlife 

Service -

911 NE 11th Avenue - Eastside 

Federal Complex, Portland, OR 

97232-4181

503-231-6214 robin_west@fws.gov

Aware Archibeque Aaron R2 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - P.O. Box 1306, Albuquerque, 

NM

- aaron_archibeque@fws.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-11

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Aware Schultz Rick R3 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 5600 American Blvd. West, S 

990, Bloomington, MN 55437 612-713-5401 rick_schultz@fws.gov

Aware Viker David R4 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1875 Century Blvd., Atlanta, GA 

30345 404-679-7152 david_viker@fws.gov

Aware Kahan Scott R5 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 300 Westgate Center Drive, 

Hadley, MA 01035-9589 413-253-8550 scott_kahan@fws.gov

Aware Coleman Rick R6 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 134 Union Blvd., Lakewood, CO 

80228 303-236-4303 rick coleman@fws.gov

Aware Eliis Mitch R7 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 1011 East Tudor Road, 

Anchorage, AK 99503-6199 907-786-3667 mitch-ellis@fws.gov

Aware Kolar Margaret R8 Fish and Wildlife 

Service - 2800 Cottage Way,-Suite W1832, Sacramento, CA 95825 916-414-6464 margaret kolar@fws.gov

National Park 

Service

Informed Vander Waine Park Roads Coordinator, 

Midwest Region

National Park 

Service - 601 Riverfront Drive, 

Omaha, NE 68102 402-661-1570 wayne_vander_tuin@nps.gov

Informed Thomson David Rivers, Trails & 

Conservation Assistance

National Park 

Service - 601 Riverfront Drive, 

Omaha, NE 68102 402-661-1570 dave_thomson@nps.gov

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

Informed - Department of 

Commerce - 1315 East West Highway, 

Silver Spring, MD 20910 301-713-1622 regional.collaboration@noaa.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-12

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

Coast Guard Informed Bingaman John Ninth Coast Guard District 

Chief of Staff

Department of 

Homeland Security - 1240 East 9th Street 

Cleveland, OH 44199-2060 216-902-6118 -

Federal Aviation 

Administration Informed - Department of 

Transportation - 800 Independence Ave, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 866-835-5322 -

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs Informed Rosen Diane Midwest Regional Director Department of the 

Interior - One Federal Drive, Room 550, 

Ft Snelling, MN 55111-4007 612-713-4400 -

U.S. Forest 

Service Informed Kim Josiah Region 9 Forest Service - 626 East Wisconsin Ave, 

Milwaukee, WI 53202 414-297-3268 jkim@fs.fed.us 

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPO-IO)

Aware - State - 600 East Locust 

Des Moines, IO 50319 515-281-5111 -

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPO-IL)

Aware - State - 313 South Sixth Street 

Springfield, IL 62701 217-785-4324 -

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPO-MI)

Aware - State - 702 W. Kalamazoo St. P.O.Box 

30740, Lansing MI 48909-8240 517-373-1630 preservation@michigan.gov

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPOMN)

Aware - State - 345 W. Kellogg Blvd, 

St Paul, MN 55102 651-259-3000 webmaster@mnhs.org

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPOMO)

Aware Miles Mark Director - SHPO State - P.O. Box 176, Jefferson City, 

MO 65102 800-361-4827 moshop@dnr.mo.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-13

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPOOH)

Aware - State - 800 E. 17th Ave, 

Columbus, OH 43211-2474 614-298-2000 ohpo@ohiohistory.org

State Historic 

Preservation 

Office (SHPO-WI)

Aware - State - 816 State Street, 

Madison, WI 53706 608-264-6013 -

National Wildlife 

Refuge 

Association

Aware Hirsch Evan President, National 

Wildlife refuge Association Non-Profit -

1250 Connecticut Ave NW, 

Suite 600 Washington, DC 

20036

202-292-2429 nwrapresident@refugeassociati

on.org

State Parks (IO) Aware - State - 502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines, 

IA 50319-0034 515-281-5918 webmaster@dnr.iowa.gov

State Parks (IL) Aware - State - One Natural Resources Way, 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-782-6302 -

State Parks (IN) Aware - State - One North Capitol Suite 600 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 800-677-9800 dnrwebmaster@dnr.in.gov

State Parks (MI) Aware Olson Ron Chief of Parks and 

Recreation State - 530 Allegan, PO Box 30031 

Lansing, MI 48909-7757 517-373-9900 olsonr@michigan.gov

State Parks (MN) Aware - State - 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, 

MN 55155 651-296-6157 info.dnr@state.mn.us

State Parks (OH) Aware - State - 2045 Morse Road, Building B, 

Columbus, OH 43229-6693

614-265-6561 OhioStateParks@dnr.state.oh.u

s
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-14

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

State Parks (WI) Aware - State - 101 S. Webster St PO Box 7921 

Madison, WI 53707-7921 608-266-2621 -

TRB 

Transportation 

Needs of Parks

and Public Lands 

Committee

Aware Zimmerman Carol

Director of Highway 

Operation Program and 

ITS

- 500 Fifth Street NW, 

Washington, DC 20001 202-334-2934 zimmermanc@battelle.org

State Tourism

Office (IO) Aware Lode Shawna Manager State - 200 East Grand Ave., 

Des Moines, IA 50309 515-725-3090 shawna.lode@iowa.gov

State Tourism 

Office (IL) Aware - State - 500 E Monroe, 

Springfield, IL 62701 - ceo.enjoyillinois@illinois.gov 

State Tourism 

Office (IN) Aware Vaughan Amy Tourism Director State - One North Capitol Suite 600 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-232-8860 avaughan@VisitIndiana.com

State Tourism 

Office (MI) Aware - State - 300 N. Washington Sq 

Lansing, MI 48913 800-644-2489 -

State Tourism 

Office (MN) Aware - State - 121 7th Place East 

St.Paul, MN 55101-2146 651-296-5029 -

State Tourism 

Office (MO) Aware - State - P.O. Box 1055 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 573-751-4133 tourism@ded.mo.gov

State Tourism 

Office (OH) Aware - State - P.O.Box 1001 

Columbus, OH 43216-1001 800-282-5393 -
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-15

Internal Stakeholders

Stakeholder

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization /Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

State Tourism 

Office (WI) Aware - State - 201 West Washington Ave 

Madison, WI 53708-8690 608-266-2161 -

External Stakeholders

Stakeholder 

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization/Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

FHWA HQ Byway 

Program Informed Jensen Gary NSB Program Team 

Leader

Federal Highway 

Administration - 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, 

Washington DC 20590 202-366-2048 nsb-director@byways.org

CARE 

(Cooperative 

Alliance for 

Refuge 

Enhancement)

Informed Non-Profit - 1130 17th Street NW 

Washington, DC 20036 800-385-9712 defenders@mail.defenders.org

State DOT (IO) Informed Larson Sandra

Director of Research 

and Technology -

Hwy Division

State - 800 Lincoln Way, 

Ames, IA 50010 515-239-1205 -

State DOT (IL) Informed Illinois Department of Transportation State - 2300 S. Dirksen Parkway, 

Springfield, IL 62764 217-782-7820 -

State DOT (IN) Informed Smith Steve INDOT Division of 

Planning State -

100 North Senate Ave, Room 

N955 Indianapolis, IN 46204-

2217

317-232-5646 ssmith@indot.in.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-16

External Stakeholders

Stakeholder 

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization/Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

State DOT (MI) Informed Michigan Department of Transportation State - 425 W. Ottawa St. P.O. Box 

30050 Lansing, MI 48909 517-373-2090 -

State DOT (MN) Informed Minnesota Department of Transportation State - 395 John Ireland Blvd 

Saint Paul, MN 55155 651-296-3000 info.dot@state.mn.us

State DOT (MO) Informed Missouri Department of Transportation State - 105 W. Capitol Avenue 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 888-275-6636 -

State DOT (OH) Informed Kaseman Dan Administrator for 

Planning & Programs State - 1980 West Broad Street 

Columbus, OH 43223 419-999-6861 Dan.Kaseman@dot.state.oh.us

State DOT (WI) Informed Wisconsin Department of Transportation State - 4802 Sheboygan Avenue, 

Madison, WI 53707-7999 608-266-3662 -

U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Informed Price Michael District Engineer and 

Commander

U.S. Army - St Paul 

District - 180 Fifth St E. St Paul, MN 

55101 651-290-5300 -

Bureau of 

Reclamation Informed Glaser Donald Regional Director DOI - 2800 Cottage Way,-Suite W1832, Sacramento, CA 95825 916-978-5000 -

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Landwehr Thomas

Commissioner, 

Minnesota 

Department of 

Natural Resources

Minnesota - 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul, 

MN 55155 651-259-5022 Tom.Landwehr@state.mn.us

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Stepp Cathy

Secretary, Wisconsin 

Department of 

Natural Resources

Wisconsin - 101 S Webster Street, 

Madison, WI 53707-7921 608-267-7556 dnrsecretary@wisconsin.gov

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Lande Roger Iowa DNR Director Iowa - 502 E. 9th Street, Des Moines, 

IA 50319-0034 515-281-5385 roger.lande@dnr.iowa.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-17

External Stakeholders

Stakeholder 

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization/Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Stokes Rodney

Director, Michigan 

Department of 

Natural Resources

Michigan - Mason Building, Sixth Floor, PO 

Box 30028, Lansing, MI 48909 517-373-0023 STOKESR@michigan.gov

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Zody Scott

Interim Director, 

Ohio Department of 

Natural Resources

Ohio - 2045 Morse Road, Building B, 

Columbus, OH 43229-6693 614-265-6888 scott.zody@dnr.state.oh.us

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Miller Marc

Director, Illinois 

Department of 

Natural Resources

Illinois - One Natural Resources Way, 

Springfield, IL 62702-1271 217-785-0075 marc.miller@illinois.gov

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Carter Robert DNR Director Indiana - 402 W Washington St Room 

W256, Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-232-4020 rcarter@dnr.in.gov

State Fish and 

Game Agencies Informed Parker 

Pauley Sara

Director, Missouri 

Department of 

Natural Resources

Missouri - DNR, PO Box 176, Jefferson 

City, MO 65102 573-522-6221 contact@dnr.mo.gov

FHWA IO 

Division Informed Hiatt Becky Planning Team 

Leader

Department of 

Transportation - 105 6th Street, 

Ames, IA 50010 515-233-7321 Rebecca.Hiatt@dot.gov

FHWA IL Division Informed Kohler Jon-Paul

Planning 

Development 

Manager 

Department of 

Transportation - 3250 Executive Park Drive, 

Springfield, IL 62703 (217) 492-4988 Jon-Paul.Kohler@dot.gov

FHWA IN 

Division Informed DuMontelle Jay Planning Team 

Leader

Department of 

Transportation - 575 N. Pennsylvania St, Room 

254 Indianapolis, IN 46204 317-226-7491 Jay.DuMontelle@dot.gov

FHWA MI 

Division Informed Cameron Donald

Planning 

Development 

Manager 

Department of 

Transportation - 315 W. Allegan, Room 201 

Lansing, MI 48933 517-702-1826 Donald.Cameron@dot.gov

FHWA MN 

Division Informed Moe Susan

Planning and 

Research Program 

Manager

Department of 

Transportation - 380 Jackson Street, Suite 500 

St Paul, MN 55101 651-291-6109 Susan.Moe@dot.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page F-18

External Stakeholders

Stakeholder 

Category PI Category Last Name First Name Title Organization/Agency

Method of 

Communication Mailing Address Phone Email

FHWA MO 

Division Informed McMahon Brad Planning Officer Department of 

Transportation - 3220 W. Edgewood, Suite H 

Jefferson City, MO 65109 573-638-2609 bradley.mcmahon@dot.gov

FHWA OH 

Division Informed Oesterling Leigh

Planning

&Environmental 

Team Leader

Department of 

Transportation - 200 North High Street, Room 

328 Columbus, OH 43215 614-280-6896 Leigh.Oesterling@dot.gov

FHWA WI 

Division Informed Mc Comb Dwight

Planning & Program 

Development 

Engineer

Department of 

Transportation - 525 Junction Road, Suite 8000 

Madison, WI 53717 608-829-7518 Wisconsin.FHWA@dot.gov

Bureau of Land 

Management Informed Abbey Bob Director Department of the 

Interior - 1849 C Street NW, Rm 5665 

Washington DC 20240 202-208-3801 Director@blm.gov
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-1

APPENDIX G

CCP Guidance
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-2

National Wildlife Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Transportation Planning Guidance

Updated February 20, 2008

Transportation Planning Requirements and Guidance

The Refuge Roads Program (RRP) was established in June 1998, when Congress passed the 

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The passage of the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in August 

2005 reauthorized the RRP and authorized the Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public 

Lands (ATPPL) program.

Under Title 23 U.S.C. §204(a)(2), the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the 

Department of the Interior, is required to develop transportation planning procedures for the Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) that are consistent with the metropolitan and statewide planning 

processes.

Under Title 49 U.S.C. §5320(e)(1)(A), the Department of Transportation, in cooperation with the 

Department of the Interior, is required to develop transportation planning procedures for the 

Service that are consistent with the metropolitan planning provisions, the statewide planning 

provisions and the public participation requirements.

All transportation projects funded under the RRP must take into consideration the

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP), related land use planning (i.e. step-down management 

plans) and impacts of planning on existing transportation facilities as required by Title 23 U.S.C. 

§202(e). The whole transportation system should support the mission of the FWS to “conserve, 

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

future generations.”

Failure to address/identify/integrate transportation related planning considerations and needs in a 

station's CCP and step-down management plans would result in the individual refuge or 

waterfowl production area having to develop a separate transportation plan (i.e. a transportation 

step-down management plan) before any RRP funding or other transportation program funding 

can be allocated for transportation related improvements.

Transportation planning is an eligible activity for funding under the Refuge Roads Program. 

There is a nationwide, interagency indefinite delivery indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract for 

architect-engineer services for transportation planning, design and implementation that can be 

used for transportation planning assistance.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-3

When assistance is needed with transportation planning, the Regional Refuge Roads Coordinator 

should be contacted. For regional contacts and additional information on refuge roads visit the 

Service’s web site at http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/index.html.

The Service's refuge planning policy requires that one of the elements to be considered in the 

development of a CCP is transportation, including public use roads and trails, pedestrian and 

cyclist needs, and water and air access as appropriate for each unit of the Refuge System. 

Transportation issues have always been an inherent part of providing public access and 

facilitating the Service’s priority public uses. The transportation element in the planning 

requirements helps focus attention on the public safety and access issues associated with the 

Service’s public use programs.

It is important to note that this assessment needs to include the transportation systems within the 

individual refuge as well as the public access to the refuge. Management and public use changes 

at a refuge may not only impact the refuge transportation systems but also the local 

transportation systems that provide access to the refuge. Like wildlife connectivity issues, 

transportation needs tends to be regional in nature, so transportation planning involves ongoing 

collaboration and coordination with local and regional stakeholders that manage roads, trails, and 

transit systems.

The Service must coordinate any proposed transportation system changes and improvements 

with the respective State, Metropolitan and Rural Planning Organizations to assure that, among 

other considerations, there will be no negative impacts to congestion or air quality.

Every CCP and step-down management plan related to public use should have clearly

identifiable transportation related planning documentation. The transportation planning

component of these plans is intended to identify, evaluate and integrate in a comprehensive 

manner the specific needs, considerations and potential impacts of all transportation alternatives 

identified by the Service and the public during the planning process. This includes public and 

administrative roads, multiple use trails, air and water based transportation, pedestrian issues, 

and public transit all which vary by location and use.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-4

Transportation Project Identification Categories

1) Roads/Bridge improvements – Road segments/bridges in fair and poor condition

2) Maintenance issues – Seasonal road issues, ROW and unclear maintenance agreements with 

counties

3) Parking areas – New areas needed, seasonal parking areas needed to be taken out

4) Safety – speed issues within refuges/hatcheries, Left-hand turn pockets/acel/decal lanes from 

outside unit

5) Wildlife Corridor Connectivity – Fish passage culverts, roads that act as wildlife barriers, 

identifying areas on county/state roads that access refuges with high or potentially high 

wildlife/vehicle collision issues 

6) Resource impacts due to transportation – Invasive species impacts due to roads, ATV use, 

erosion damage, bridge restrictions of river/stream corridors

7) Congestion – Crowded conditions at entry points, roads, parking lots, destinations

8) Bike/ped Issues – Opportunities to increase bike/ped use, connect to local bike/ped networks, 

provide nonmotorized access to refuges from surrounding communities.

9) Trails – Need for new trails, trail improvements, opportunities to convert roads to trail, 

connect to local, regional, or national trails systems

10) Transit/shuttle/trams –Shuttle/tram opportunities, improve external transit connections

11) Dust mitigation/air quality – Air quality issues due to dirt roads, reduction of pollution 

from increased use of alternative transportation

12) Access issues – Too many/not enough/improperly located access points

13) Auto tour route issues – Initiate or improve auto-tour route using green infrastructure and 

context sensitive solutions.

14) External transportation impacts – State/regional/local transportation conditions or projects 

that impact unit, opportunities to partner with surrounding jurisdictions

15) Traveler information – Need for improved ITS, wayfinding, kiosks, brochures, and web

16) Other - Water access/docks/boat ramps, other transportation issues/opportunities
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-5

Alternative Transportation Planning

A holistic approach to transportation includes a variety of concepts that should be incorporated 

into the transportation planning process. Considering ‘Alternative Transportation’ (including 

transit, bike, pedestrian, air, and water access) on federally managed lands can help achieve the 

following goals:

• Relieve traffic congestion and parking shortages - Alternative Transportation reduces the 

number of vehicles needed to transport an equal or greater number of visitors to 

destinations thereby reducing the need for private vehicle parking spaces.

• Enhance visitor mobility and accessibility - Alternative Transportation enhances visitor 

experience by permitting visitors to enjoy their site experience rather than concentrating 

on driving or finding scarce parking spaces. Bike access allows visitors to enjoy their 

surroundings at a slower pace and connect more readily to the resources. Additionally, 

transit can provide visitors with disabilities improved access to many sites.

• Preserve sensitive natural, cultural and historic resources – Alternative Transportation 

can reduce negative impacts to resources made by private vehicles by reducing the 

parking footprint, minimizing impacts to wildlife due to traffic, and providing more 

controlled access to sensitive resources.

• Provide improved interpretation, education and visitor information services – At cultural 

and historical sites, Alternative Transportation can enhance the ability of site personnel to 

provide interpretive services to present past events in a logical, sequential manner.

• Reduce pollution -. Air quality could be improved by decreasing the total number of 

vehicles accessing sites as well as replacing older vehicles with lower emission vehicles. 

Ambient noise levels can also be reduced with alternative transportation, which improves 

visitor experience and reduces wildlife disturbance.

• Improve economic development opportunities for gateway communities - Alternative 

Transportation can improve connectivity with surrounding communities, thereby 

increasing the accessibility of recreational activities. Increasing accessibility through 

Alternative Transportation can increase the site visitation levels, resulting in additional 

economic revenues in the local communities through increased use of hotels, restaurants, 

and other visitor oriented services.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-6

Alternative Transportation Systems

Alternative Transportation systems can serve both internal trips within and external trips to 

Federal Lands. In general, at sites where Alternative Transportation is feasible and prudent, 

needs may be modest and can be served by a small number of vehicles operating on a seasonal 

basis.

Non-motorized Transportation includes bicycling, walking, hiking, wheelchair use, running, 

bird-watching, nature interpretation, backpacking, equestrian, non-motorized human-powered 

snow uses (i.e., skiing, snowshoeing, etc.).

Examples of non-motorized projects include:

• Expand existing bikeways or create new bikeways to increase the opportunity to use a 

bicycle as a mode of transportation and provide better internal linkages.

• Connect Federal agency trails to the regional trail system and adjacent community trails. 

• Build pedestrian paths along tour routes to increase safety and encourage bike/pedestrian 

use.

• Build hiking trails to encourage non-motorized visitation.

• Provide bicycle rental program to encourage non-motorized travel.

Bus transit systems include a variety of vehicle technologies including tourist trams, vans and 

van conversions, school buses, small transit buses, historic trolley replicas, standard transit 

buses, airport apron buses, articulated transit buses, bi-articulated buses, buses with trailers, low 

floor transit buses, motor coaches, double-decker buses, snow coaches, and electric trolley buses. 

These vehicles are typically propelled by conventional internal combustion engines (gasoline or 

diesel) or alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas, bio-diesel, or hybrid electric. Buses 

can use existing or improved public roads to or within parks/public lands.

Most new alternative transportation systems for federally managed public lands will likely be 

based on buses. Examples include:

• Develop a guided internal tour route, monitor use to implement changes in tour length, 

period of operation, seasonality, reservation system. Utilize clean-fuel vehicle, tram, 

and/or an enclosed, climate-controlled shuttle for the hot summer months. 

• In areas of heavy parking congestion, close off access to private vehicles and provide a 

tour route for visitor access. 

• Develop an on-demand or regularly scheduled shuttle service from the visitor center or 

other large parking lots to and from the major activity areas within the Refuge.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-7

• Establish a peak season, weekend shuttle system that operates on a fixed schedule 

between a potential parking lot/activity center located in the gateway community and the 

Federal lands.

• Work with surrounding public transit agencies to extend existing public bus routes to the 

Federal facilities to enhance public access and to increase access by under-served 

communities. It would be operated frequently enough to afford an attractive alternative to 

driving for visitors and residents. 

• Develop a transit program for transporting visitors from hotels to tourist events.

• Fixed guideway (rail, light rail, streetcars) systems could be considered in very limited 

applications where infrastructure is already in place. 

Waterborne Transportation should be considered wherever there are areas with limited, if any, 

access by land, such as on an island, peninsula, or lake. This type of transportation may be 

particularly useful where major communities are located around the waterways. Types of 

waterborne transit vehicles include: pontoons and skiffs, mono hull vessels, canoes, kayaks, 

catamarans and hydrofoils.

Examples include:

• Establish a ferry shuttle to transport visitors between the local area and the Federal lands.

• Establish an interpretive boat ride to tour wetland areas.

• Encourage canoe or kayak use by establishing water trails. 

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

Intelligent Transportation Systems is a term to describe application of the most current

technology to improve communication to the traveling public, a powerful tool in enhancing the 

visitor experience. Examples include electronic signs relaying real-time information on 

roadways, such as road conditions, construction information, parking availability, and weather 

information.

Establishing a 511 telephone number is another way to broadcast information. State Departments 

of Transportation (DOTs) develop ITS plans that develop both the technology needed as well as 

the content of messaging. For more information on ITS, go to

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/its.html
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-8

Transportation Planning Resources

Transportation Plans help identify transportation needs within Refuges and lay out potential 

strategies to improve mobility and safety, while protecting resources. As described earlier, the 

CCP transportation step-down management plan is a tool to comprehensively plan transportation.

Step-down transportation plans should consider Alternative Transportation systems concepts, 

however, they tend to be high-level and policy oriented. Additional transportation planning will 

be required to determine the feasibility and operations of these systems. 

Public Involvement

During the transportation planning process, the Service will provide the public an opportunity to 

comment on the existing and any proposed changes or improvements to the refuge’s public 

transportation systems and infrastructure. This would include public use roads, parking, land and 

water trails, transit systems (including ferries, trams, shuttles, buses, etc.) and other applicable 

forms of land, water and air transportation providing access to or within an individual unit. Also 

included in this would be any related transportation infrastructure such as visitor information, 

signage, comfort stations, guard rails, water access points, etc.

In order to facilitate public access to the list of transportation improvements being proposed for 

funding under the RRP for the current year and subsequent four years, the Service will post a list 

of projects on the Refuge System web site and the three Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) Federal Lands Highway Divisions web sites.

Additionally, the Service and FHWA will post copies of the most current inventory and 

condition assessments, and geographic information systems data for public use roads and trails 

on their respective web servers. This will facilitate the public’s ability to access information 

about the current status and location of the respective trail and road infrastructure.

The comprehensive transportation element (plan) will articulate to the public how access is 

proposed or provided to a specific station; how transportation facilities support and help facilitate 

the Service’s highest priority of comprehensive resource management and protection; ensures 

safe public access and improves the visitor experience; and, that compatibility requirements 

relative to the protected resources will be used to evaluate public use.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page G-9

Transportation Data

The Service’s public use roads and trails on refuges and hatcheries have been identified and 

mapped by FHWA, as part of the Road Inventory Program (RIP) inventory and condition 

assessment conducted on behalf of the Service. This information has been provided to all refuges 

and hatcheries. Copies of specific reports are available for public review upon request. The RIP 

data for improved roads (paved and gravel) is updated on a five-year cycle.

Planning and Funding Resources

Transportation Guidebooks have been developed, link to some of the documents are located at:

Transportation Planning: National Transportation Program, Policies and Guidance, USFWS 

Programs & Data, go to:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads

Scenic Byways Program information, go to:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/byways.html

Refuge Trails information, go to: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/trails.html

Transportation Enhancement Programs information, go to:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/transEnhancements.html

National Park Service Shuttle Systems, go to:

http://www.nps.gov/transportation/tmp/shuttles.htm

Alternative Transportation for Parks and Public Lands Link, go to:

http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants/grants_financing_6106.html

Federal transportation programs link, go to: http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/links.html

Most comprehensive resource is the refuge roads website, go to:

http://www.fws.gov/refuges/roads/index.html
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-1

APPENDIX H

Contact Information for 

Non-Service Transportation

Planning Organizations
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-2

Contact Information for Non-Service Transportation Planning Organizations

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

IA

Ames Area MPO Damion Pregitzer City Hall, 515 Clark Avenue, Ames, IA 50010-0811 projectinfo@aampo.org (515) 239-5275

Area 15 Regional 

Planning Commission

Chris Bowers, 

Transportation Director

Video Conferencing Training Center, 651 Indian 

Hills Drive, Building 17, PO Box 1110, Ottumwa, 

IA 52501

cbowers@indianhills.edu (641) 684-6551

ATURA Transportation 

Planning Alliance -

Southern Iowa Council 

of Governments

Backy Nardy, 

Transportation Planner

101 E. Montgomery Street, PO Box 102, Creston, 

IA 50801 nardy@sicog.com (641) 782-8491

Bi-State Regional 

Commission

Gena McCullough, 

Transportation Director

1504 Third Avenue, PO Box 3368, Rock Island, IL 

61204 gmccullough@bistateonline.org (309) 763-6300

Central Iowa Regional 

Transportation Planning 

Alliance

Tom Kane, Executive 

Director

6200 Aurora Avenue, Suite 300W, Urbandale, IA 

50322 tjkane@dmampo.org (515) 334-0075

Central Section Mike Clayton, District 

Transportation Planner 1020 S. Fourth St., Ames, IA 50010 mike.clayton@dot.iowa.gov (515) 239-1202

Chariton Valley Planning 

& Development

Julie Pribyl, Program 

Support Specialist 205 1/2 N. 13th St., Suite A, Centerville, IA 52544 jpribyl@charitonvalleyplanning.com (641) 437-4359

East Central Border 

Section

Sam Shae, District 

Transportation Planner

8723 Northwest Blvd., PO Box 2646, Davenport, 

IA 52809 sam.shae@dot.iowa.gov (563) 823-4377

East Central 

Intergovernmental 

Association

Kelley Deutmeyer, 

Executive Director 7600 Commerce Park, Dubuque, IA 52002 kdeutmeyer@ecia.org (563) 556-4166

East Central 

Intergovernmental 

Association

Chandra Ravada, 

Transportation Director

East Central Intergovernmental Association, 

7600 Commerce Park, Dubuque, IA 52002 CRavada@ecia.org (563) 556-4166

East Central 

Intergovernmental 

Association

Chandra Ravada, 

Transportation Director

East Central Intergovernmental Association, 

7600 Commerce Park, Dubuque, IA 52002 CRavada@ecia.org (563) 556-4166

East Central Iowa 

Council of Governments

Mary Rump, 

Transportation Planner

700 16th St. NE, Suite 301, Cedar Rapids, IA 

52402 mary.rump@ecicog.org (319) 365-9941

East Central Section

Catherine Cutlerm, 

District Transportation 

Planner

430 16th Ave. SW, Cedar Rapids, IA 52404 catherine.cutler@dot.iowa.gov (319) 364-0235
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-3

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Iowa Northland Regional 

Transportation 

Authority

Kevin Blanshan, 

Transportation Director 229 E. Park Ave., Waterloo, IA 50703 kblanshan@inrcog.org (319) 235-0311

MAPA Rural 

Transportation Planning 

Affiliation

Greg Youell, 

Transportation Director 2222 Cuming Street, Omaha, NE 68102 gyouell@mapacog.org (402) 444-6866

MIDAS Council of 

Governments

Shirley Helgevod, Local 

Assistance Manager 601 1st Avenue South, Fort Dodge, IA 50501 shelgevold-midas@prairienet.net (515) 576-7183

North Iowa Area Council 

of Governments

Chris Diggins, 

Transportation Local 

Assistance Director

526 6th St. SW, Mason City, IA 50401 cdiggins@niacog.org (641) 423-0491

Northeast Iowa Planning 

& Development 

Commission

Aaron Sedey, Regional 

Planner 217 West Fifth, PO Box 1493, Spencer, IA 51301 aaron.sedey@nwipdc.org (712) 262-7225 

ext. 138

Northeast Section Krista Rostad, District 

Transportation Planner 1420 Fourth St. SE, Mason City, IA 50402 krista.rostad@dot.iowa.gov (641) 422-9447

Northwest Section Dakin Schultz, District 

Transportaiton Planner

2800 E. Gordon Dr., PO Box 987, Sioux City, IA 

51102 dakin.schultz@dot.iowa.gov (712) 274-5837

Region Six Planning 

Commission Donna Sampson, Planner 903 East Main Street, Suite A, Marshalltown, IA 50158 dsampson@region6planning.org (641) 752-0717

Region XII Council of 

Governments

Chris Whitaker, 

Transportation Planner 1009 East Anthony PO Box 768, Carroll, IA 51401 cwhitaker@region12cog.org (712) 792-9914

Siouxland Regional 

Transportation Planning 

Association

Michelle Bostinelos, 

Transportation Director

1122 Pierce Street, PO Box 1077, Sioux City, Iowa 

51102 mbostinelos@simpco.org (712) 279-6286

Southeast Iowa Regional 

Planning Commission

Zach James, 

Transportation Planner

211 N. Gear Avenue, Suite 100, West Burlington, 

IA 52655 zjames@seirpc.com (319) 753-5107 

ext. 213

Southeast Section Andy Loonan, District 

Transportation Planner 307 W. Briggs, PO Box 587, Fairfield, IA 52556 andy.loonan@dot.iowa.gov (641) 469-4007

Southwest Iowa 

Planning Council

Courtney Harter, 

Transportation Planner 1501 Southwest 7th Street, Atlantic Iowa courtney.harter@swipco.org (712) 243-4196

Southwest Section Scott Suhr, District 

Transportation Planner 2210 E. 7th St., Atlantic, IA 50022 scot.suhr@dot.iowa.gov (712) 243-7627
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-4

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Upper Exploreland 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Aaron S. Burkes, 

Executive Director

134 West Greene, PO Box 219, Postville, IA 

52162 aburkes@uerpc.org (563) 864-7551

IL

Bi-State Regional 

Commission

Gena McCullough, 

Transportation Director

1504 Third Avenue, PO Box 3368, Rock Island, IL 

61204 gmccullough@bistateonline.org (309) 763-6300

Blackhawk Hills 

Resource Conservation 

and Development 

District

Dave Dornbusch, RC&D 

Coordinator 102 E. Rte. 30, Suite 3, Rock Falls, IL 61071 dave.dornbusch@il.usda.gov (815) 625-3854 

ext. 2

Greater Egypt Regional 

Planning and 

Development 

Commission

A.S. "Ike" Kirkikis, 

Executive Director

608 East College, PO Box 3160, Carbondale, IL 

62902 gerpdc@midwest.net (618) 549-3306

Greater Wabash 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Sarah Mann, Executive 

Director 10 West Main, PO Box 209, Albion, IL 62806 sarahmann@gwrpc.com (618) 445-3612

Morgan County Regional 

Planning Commission Dusty Douglas, Director 345 West State, Jacksonville, IL 62650 ddouglas@morgancounty-il.com (217) 243-9404

North Central Illinois 

Council of Governments

Jeff Joyce, Human 

Services Transportation 

Coordinator 

613 W Marquette Street, Ottawa, IL 61350 jjoyce@ncicg.org (815) 433-5830

Region 2, District 2 Eric Therkildsen, Regional 

Engineer 819 Depot Avenue, Dixon, IL 61021 eric.therkildsen@illinois.gov (815) 284-2271

Region 3, District 4 Joseph E. Crowe, Regional 

Engineer 401 Main Street, Peoria, IL 61602 joseph.crowe@illinois.gov (309) 671-3333

Region 4, District 6 Christine M. Reed, Acting 

Regional Engineer 126 East Ash Street, Springfield, IL 62704 christine.reed@illinois.gov (217) 782-7301

Region 5, District 8 Mary C. Lamie, Regional 

Engineer 1102 Eastport Plaza Drive, Collinsville, IL 62234 mary.lamie@illinois.gov (618) 346-3100

Region 5, District 9 Mary C. Lamie, Regional 

Engineer

State Transportation Building, PO Box 100, 

Carbondale, IL 62903 mary.lamie@illinois.gov (618) 549-2171

South Central Illinois 

Regional Planning and 

Development 

Commission

Lindsey Holtz, Regional 

Human Services 

Transportation Planner

120 Delmar Avenue, Suite A, Salem, IL 62881 lindseyh@scirpdc.com (618) 548-4234
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-5

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Southern Five Regional 

Planning District and 

Development 

Commission

Lisa D. Thurston, 

Executive Director 219 Rustic Campus Drive, Ullin, IL 62992 sfrpc@southernfive.org (618) 634-2284

Southwestern Illinois 

Metro and Regional 

Planning Commission

Sarah Farmer 230 West Poplar Street, PO Box 606, Harrisburg, 

IL 62946 sfarmer.sirpdc@clearwave.com (618) 252-7463

Two Rivers Regional 

Council of Public 

Officials

Cheryl Esselman, 

Executive Director 1125 Hampshire Street, Quincy, IL 62301 c14.esselman@trrcopo.org (217) 224-8171

West Central 

Development Council Michael Sherer, Director 116 South Plum Street, Carlinville, IL 62626 michael.sherer@west-central.org (217) 854-9642

Western Illinois Regional 

Council

Suzan Nash, Executive 

Director 223 South Randolph, Macomb, IL 61455 wirc@wirpc.org (309) 837-3941

IN

Economic Development 

Coalition of Southwest 

Indiana

Greg Wathen, President 

& CEO 318 Main Street, Suite 400, Evansville, IN 47708 gwathen@southwestindiana.org (812) 423-2020

Indiana 15 Regional 

Planning Commission

Lisa R. Gehlhausen, 

Executive Director 221 E. First Street, Ferdinand, IN 47532 lisa@ind15rpc.org (812) 367-8455

River Hills Economic 

Development District

Jill Saegesser, Executive 

Director

300 Spring Street, Suite 2A, Jeffersonville, IN 

47130 jsaegesser@riverhills.cc (812) 288-4624

Seymour Kathy Eaton-McKalip, 

Deputy Commissioner 185 Agrico Lane, Seymour, IN 47274 secommunications@indot.IN.gov (812) 522-5649

Southeastern Indiana 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Susan Craig, Executive 

Director 405 West US 50, PO Box 765, Versailles, IN 47042 susan.craig@sirpc.org (812) 689-5505

Vincennes Russell Fowler, Deputy 

Commissioner 3650 South US Hwy. 41, Vincennes, IN 47591 swincommunications@indot.in.gov (812) 882-8330

MI

Bay Robert A. Ranck Jr., Bay 

Region Engineer 55 E. Morley Dr., Saginaw, MI 48601 RanckJ@michigan.gov (989) 773-3532

Central Upper Peninsula 

Planning and 

Development 

Commission

Peter Van Steen, 

Transportation Planner 2415 14th Avenue South, Escanaba, MI 49829 pvansteen@cuppad.org (906) 786-9234

East Central Michigan 

Planning & 

Anamika Laad, 

Transportation, Land Use 

3144 Davenport Avenue, Suite 200, Saginaw, MI 

48602 info@emcog.org (989) 751-6022
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-6

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Development Regional 

Commission

& GIS

Eastern Upper Peninsula 

Regional Planning and 

Development 

Commission

Nathan Fazer, Community 

Planner PO Box 520 Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783 nfazer@eup-planning.org (906) 635-1581

GLS Region V Planning 

Commission Julie Hinterman, Director 1101 Beach St., Flint, MI 48502 gcmpc@co.genesee.mi.us (810) 257-3010

Metro Tony Kratofil, Metro 

Region Engineer 18101 W. Nine Mile Rd., Southfield, MI 48075 kratofilt@michigan.gov (248) 483-5103

North Scott Thayer, North 

Region Engineer 1088 M-32 East, Gaylord, MI 49735 THAYERS@michigan.gov (989) 731-5090

Northeast Michigan 

Council of Governments

Nico Tucker, 

Transportation and 

Resource Planner

80 Livingston Blvd., Suite 8, PO Box 457, Gaylord, 

MI 49734 ntucker@nemcog.org (989) 705-3732

Northwest Michigan 

Council of Governments

Mathias McCauley, 

Director of Regional 

Planning & Community 

Development

NWM Council of Governments, PO Box 506, 

Traverse City, MI 49685 mccauley@nwm.cog.mi.us (231) 929-5061

Region 2 Planning 

Commission

Steve Duke, Executive 

Director 120 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, MI 49201 sduke@co.jackson.mi.us (517) 788-4426

Saginaw Metropolitan 

Area Transportation 

Study

Brian Wendling, Saginaw 

County Road Commission 

Managing Director

3020 Sheridan Ave., Saginaw, MI 48601 wendlingb@scrc-mi.org (989) 752-6140

Southcentral Michigan 

Planning Council

Rand Bowman, Executive 

Director PO Box 2137, Portage, MI 49081 randbowman@yahoo.com (269) 323-0045

Southeast Michigan COG 

(SEMCOG) 

Jeffrey Tumidanski, 

Transportation Planner

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, 535 

Griswold Street, Suite 300, Detroit, MI 48226-

3602

tumidanski@semcog.org (313) 324-3320

Southwest

Roberta Welke, 

Southwest Region 

Engineer

1501 Kilgore Road, Kalamazoo, MI 49001 welkeb@michigan.gov (269) 337-3910

Southwestern Michigan 

Commission

K. John Egelhaaf, 

Executive Director

185 East Main Street, Suite 701, Benton Harbor, 

Mi 49022 egelhaafj@swmpc.org (269) 925-1137 ext. 12

Superior Randel Van Portfliet, 

Superior Region Engineer 1818 Third Avenue North, Escanaba, MI 49829 vanportfliet@michigan.gov (906) 786-1800
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-7

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Tri-County Regional 

Planning Commission

Paul Hamilton, Chief 

Transportation Planner

913 W Holmes Road, Suite 201, Lansing, MI 

48910 phamilton@mitcrpc.org (517) 393-0342

University Mark Chaput, University 

Region Engineer 4701 W. Michigan Ave., Jackson, MI 49201 ChaputM@michigan.gov (517) 750-0428

West Michigan Regional 

Planning Commission Dave Bee, Director 820 Monroe NW, Suite 214, Grand Rapids, MI 

49503 dbee@wmrpc.org (616) 774-8400

West Michigan 

Shoreline Regional 

Development 

Commission

Brian Mulnix, Program 

manager

P.O. Box 387, 316 Morris Avenue, Suite 340, 

Muskegon, MI 49443 bmulnix@wmsrdc.org (231) 722-7878 

ext. 20 

MN

Arrowhead Regional 

Development 

Commission

Bryan Anderson 221 West 1st Street, Duluth, MN 55802 banderson@ardc.org (218) 529-7529

East Central Regional 

Development 

Commission

Robert Bollenbeck 100 Park Street South, Mora, MN 55051 robert.bollenbeck@ecrdc.org (320) 679-4065 

ext. 24

Headwaters Regional 

Development 

Commission

Matthew Dyrdahl, AICP 

Physical Planner PO Box 906, Bemidji, MN 56619-0906 mdyrdahl@hrdc.org (218) 444-4732

Metropolitan Council David Vessel, 

Transportation Specialist 390 Robert St. N., St. Paul, MN 55101 david.vessel@metc.state.mn.us (651) 602-1000

Mid-Minnesota 

Development 

Commission

Matthew Johnson, 

Community Planning & 

Development Director

333 Sixth Street SW, Suite 2, Willmar, MN 56201-

5615 communityplanning@mmrdc.org (320) 235-8504

MNDOT - District 1

Walter Leu, Assistant 

District Engineer State Aid 

and Planning

1123 Mesaba Ave, Duluth, MN 55811 walter.leu@state.mn.us (218) 725-2705

MNDOT - District 2

Kent Ehrenstrom, 

Northwest District Transit 

Planner

3920 Highway 2 West, Bemidji, MN 56601 kent.ehrenstrom@state.mn.us (218) 755-6555

MNDOT - District 3

Bob Busch, 

Transportation District 

Engineer

7694 Industrial Park Road, Baxter, MN 56425-

8096 robert.busch@state.mn.us (218) 828-5700

MNDOT - District 4 Lee Berget, 

Transportation District 1000 Highway 10 West, Detroit Lakes, MN 56501 lee.berget@state.mn.us (218) 846-3603
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-8

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Engineer

MNDOT - District 6 Nelrae Succio, District 

Engineer

2900 48th Street NW, Rochester, MN 55901-

5848 nelrae.succio@state.mn.us (507) 286.7501

MNDOT - District 7

Douglas Haeder, Assistant 

District Engineer - State 

Aid/Planning

2151 Bassett Drive, Mankato, MN 56001-6888 douglas.haeder@state.mn.us (507) 304-6100

MNDOT - District 8 Jon Huseby, District 

Engineer 2505 Transportation Road, Willmar, MN 56201 jon.huseby@state.mn.us (320) 231-5497

MNDOT - Metro District

Pat Bursaw, Director of 

Planning, Program 

Management, and Transit

2000-2010 Minnesota Department of 

Transportation, 395 John Ireland Blvd, St. Paul, 

MN 55155-1899

pat.bursaw@state.mn.us (651) 234-7783

Northwest Region Don Gutkowski, Director 718 W. Clairemont Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54701 eauclaire.dtd@dot.wi.gov (715) 836-2891

Northwest Regional 

Development 

Commission

Troy Schroeder, 

Transportation Planner 115 South Main, Suite 1, Warren, MN 56762 tschroeder@nwrdc.org (218) 745-9107

Region 5 Development 

Commission

Jake Huebsch, 

Transportation Planner

Region Five Development Commission, 403 

Prairie Ave. NE, Suite 100, Staples, MN 56479 jhuebsch@regionfive.org (218) 894-3233 

ext. 15

Region 7W Long Range 

Transportation Plan

Steven Voss, Region 7W 

Coordinator

7694 Industrial Park Road, Baxter, MN 56425-

8096 steve.voss@state.mn.us (218) 828-5815

Region Nine 

Development 

Commission

Ronda Allis, Director & 

Transportation 

Coordinator

10 Civic Center Plaza Suite 3, PO Box 3367, 

Mankato, MN 56002 ronda@rndc.org (507) 389-8886

Southeastern Regional 

Development 

Commission

Mark Schoenfelder, 

Acting Planning Director 2900 48th St. NW, Rochester, MN 55901 mark.schoenfelder@state.mn.us (507) 286-7552

Southwest Regional 

Development 

Commission

John Shepard, 

Development Planner

2401 Broadway Avenue, Suite 1, Slayton, MN 

56172 jshepard@swrdc.org (507) 836-1633

St. Cloud Area Planning 

Organization (APO) 

Scott Mareck, Executive 

Director and 

Transportation Planning 

Manager

Saint Cloud Area Planning Organization, 1040 

County Road Four, Saint Cloud, MN 56303 mareck@stcloudapo.org (320) 252-7568
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-9

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Upper Minnesota Valley 

Regional Development 

Commission

Michelle Bouta, 

Community Development 

Planner

323 West Schlieman Avenue, Appleton, MN 

56208 michelle.bouta@umvrdc.org (320) 289-1981

West Central Initiative

Wayne Hurley, 

Transportation Planning 

Director

1000 Western Avenue, Fergus Falls, MN 56537 wayne@wcif.org (218) 739-2239

MO

Boonslick Regional 

Planning Commission

Steve W. Etcher, 

Executive Director

Boonslick Regional Planning Commission, 111 

Steinhagen, PO Box 429, Warrenton, MO 63383 etcher@boonslick.org (636) 456-3473 

x106

Bootheel Regional 

Planning & Economic 

Development 

Commission

Scott Perry, 

transportation Planner 105 E. North Main, Dexter, MO 63841 sperry@newwavecomm.net (573) 614-5178 

ext. 104

Columbia Area 

Transportation Study 

Organization

Bill Watkins, City 

Manager

City of Columbia - CATSO, Planning Department, 

PO Box 6015, Columbia, MO 65205-6015 planning@gocolumbiamo.com (573) 874-7239

District 1, Northwest 

Region

Don Wichern, District 

Engineer 3602 North Belt Highway, St. Joseph, MO 64506 don.wichem@modot.gov (816) 387-2350

District 10, Southeast 

Region

Mark Shelton, District 

Engineer

2675 North Main St., PO Box 160, Sikeston, MO 

63801 mark.shelton@modot.gov (573) 472-5333

District 2, North Central 

Region

Dan Niec, District 

Engineer 902 N. Missouri St., PO Box 8, Macon, MO 63552 dan.niec@modot.gov (660) 385-3176

District 3, Northeast 

Region

Paula Gough, District 

Engineer S. Route 61, PO Box 1067, Hannibal, MO 63401 paula.gough@modot.gov (573) 248-2490

District 4, Kansas City 

Region

Beth Wright, District 

Engineer

District 4 Headquarters, 600 NE Colbern Road, 

Lee's Summit, MO 64086 ben.wright@modot.gov (816) 437-3628

District 5, Central Region Roger Schwartze, District 

Engineer 1511 Missouri Blvd., Jefferson City, MO 65109 roger.schwartze@modot.gov (573) 751-3322

District 6, St. Louis 

Region

Ed Hassinger, District 

Engineer 1590 Woodlake Drive, Chesterfield, MO 63017 ed.hassinger@modot.gov (314) 275-1500

District 7, Southwest 

Region

Becky Baltz, District 

Engineer 3901 East 32nd Street, Joplin, MO 64804 becky.baltz@modot.gov (417) 621-6500

District 9, South Central 

Region

Tom Stehn, District 

Engineer

910 Springfield Road, PO Box 220, Willow 

Springs, MO 65793 tom.stehn@modot.gov (417) 469-3134
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-10

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

East-West Gateway 

Council of Government

J. Blair, Transportation 

Planning Director

East-West Gateway Council of Government, One 

Memorial Drive, Ste 1600, St. Louis, MO 63102 TIP@ewgateway.org (314) 421-4220 

Green Hills Regional 

Planning Commission

Randy Railsback, 

Executive Director 1104 Main Street, Trenton, MO 64683 randy@ghrpc.org (660) 359-5636 ext. 11

Harry S Truman 

Coordinating Council

Gloria Bottom, 

Transportation Planner 800 E. Pennell, Carl Junction, MO 64834 gbottom@hstcc.org (417) 649-6400

Kaysinger Basin Regional 

Planning Commissio

Samantha Dingfelder, 

Transportation Planner 908 North Second Street, Clinton, MO 64735 sam@kaysinger.com (660) 885-3393

Mark Twain Regional 

Council of Governments

Robin Ftzgerald, 

Executive Director 42494 Delaware Lane, Perry, MO 63462 fitzgeraldcog@railstech.com (573) 565-2203

Meramec Regional 

Planning Commission

Richard Cavender, 

Executive Director #4 Industrial Drive, St. James, MO 65559 rac@meramecregion.org (573) 265-2993

Mid-America Regional 

Council 

Mell Henderson, Total 

Transportation Policy 

Committee

600 Broadway, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64105 melh@marc.org (816) 701-8257

Mid-America Regional 

Council 

Mell Henderson, Total 

Transportation Policy 

Committee

600 Broadway, Suite 200, Kansas City, MO 64105 melh@marc.org (816) 701-8257

Mid-Missouri Regional 

Planning Commission

Eddie Brickner, Presiding 

Commissioner

Cooper County, 200 Main Street, Boonville, MO 

65233 ekbrick@iland.net (660) 882-2228

Mo-Kan Regional 

Council

Tim Bliss, Executive 

Director 224 North 7th Street, St. Joseph, MO 64501 tom@mo-kan.org (816) 233-3144

Northeast Missouri 

Regional Planning 

Commission

David Davison, Executive 

Director

326 E. Jefferson, PO Box 248, Memphis, MO 

63555 davedavison@nemorpc.org (660) 465-7281

Northwest Missouri 

Regional Council of 

Governments

Dana Ternus, Regional 

Planner 114 West Third Street, Maryville, MO 64468 dana@nwmorcog.org (660) 582-5121

Ozark Foothills Regional 

Planning Commission

Felicity Brady, Executive 

Director 3019 Fair Street, Poplar Bluff, MO 63901 felicity@ofrpc.org (573) 785-6402

Pioneer Trails Regional 

Planning Commission

Randy White, Executive 

Director

802 S. Gordon St., Room 102, PO Box 123, 

Concordia, MO 64020 randy@trailsrpc.org (660) 463-7934
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-11

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Southeast Missouri 

Regional Planning & 

Economic Development 

Commission

A. Drew Christian, 

Regional Planner

1 W. St. Joseph Street, PO Box 366, Perryville, 

MO 63775 dchristian@semorpc.org (573) 547-8357

NE

Omaha - Council Bluffs 

Metropolitan Planning 

Agency

Paul Hunt - Assistant 

Planner, Transportation

Metropolitan Area Planning Agency, 2222 

Cuming Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68102- 4328 phunt@mapacog.org (402) 444-6866 

ext. 221

OH

District 2 Todd M. Audet, District 

Deputy Director 317 East Poe Rd., Bowling Green, OH 43402 todd.audet@dot.state.oh.usa (419) 353-8131

Toledo Metropolitan 

Area COG (TMACOG) 

Diane Reamer-Evans, 

Transportation Project 

Manager

Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of 

Governments, PO Box 9508, Toledo, OH 43697-

9508

evans@tmacog.org (419) 241-9155 

ext . 117

WI

Bay-Lake Regional 

Planning Commission Jeff Agee-Aguayo 441 South Jackson Street, Green Bay, WI 54301 jagee@baylakerpc.org (920) 448-2820

Capital Area Regional 

Planning Commission

Mike Kakuska, Senior 

Environmental Planner

City-County Building, Room 362, 201 Martin 

Luther King Jr. Blvd., Madison, WI 53703 MikeK@CapitalAreaRPC.org (608) 266-9111

East Central Wisconsin 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Walt Raith 400 Ahnaip St., Suite 100, Menasha, WI 54952 wraith@eastcentralrpc.org (920) 751-4770

La Crosse Area Planning 

Committee

Jackie Eastwood, 

Transportation Planner

La Crosse Area Planning Committee, 400 North 

Fourth Street, La Crosse, WI 54601 Eastwood.Jackie@co.La-Crosse.wi.us (608) 785-5977

Madison Area 

Transportation Planning 

Board

William Schaefer, 

Transportation Planning 

Manager

121 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 400, Madison, WI 

53703 wschaefer@cityofmadison.com (608) 266-4336

Mississippi River 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Peter Fletcher 1707 Main St., Suite 240, La Crosse, WI 54601 peter@mrrpc..com (608) 785-9396

North Central Region Dan Grasser, Director 510 N. Hanson Lake Road, Rhinelander, WI 

54501 ncr.dtsd@dot.wi.gov (715) 365-3490

Northcentral Wisconsin 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Darryl Landeau 210 McClellan St., Suite 2010, Wausau, WI 54403 dlandeau@ncwrpc.org (715) 849-5510 

ext. 308

Northeast Region Mike Berg, Director 944 Vanderperren Way, Green Bay, WI 54304 greenbay.dtd@dot.wi.gov (920) 492-5643
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page H-12

State Organization Name Contact Name, 

Position Address E-mail Phone

Northwest Regional 

Planning Commission Sheldon Johnson 1400 South River Street, Spooner, WI 54801 sjohnson@nwrpc.org (715) 635-2197

Southeast Region Dewayne Johnson, 

Director

141 NW Barstow Street, PO Box 798, Waukesha, 

WI 53187 waukesha.dtd@dot.wi.gov (262) 548-5903

Southeastern Wisconsin 

Regional Planning 

Commission & MPO

Chris Hiebert W239 N1812 Rockwood Drive, PO Box 1607, 

Waukesha, WI 53187-1607 chiebert@sewrpc.org (262) 547-6722 

(#227)

Southwest Region Joe Olson, Director 3550 Mormon Coulee Road, La Crosse, WI, 

54601 lacrosse.dtd@dot.wi.gov (608) 785-9022 

ext. 13

Southwestern Wisconsin 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Amy Seeboth One University Plaza, Room 719, Platteville, WI 

53818 seebotha@uwplatt.edu (608) 342-1636

West Central Wisconsin 

Regional Planning 

Commission

Ann Schell 800 Wisconsin St., Mailbox #9, Eau Claire, WI 

54703-3606 aschell@wcwrpc.org (715) 836-2918
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page I-1

APPENDIX I

Refuge Fact Sheets
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Agassiz NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 103.22

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 49.03

• Native Road (Miles) 54.04

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.15

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.54

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Agassiz NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 145,586

Unit Acreage 61,500

Access Point Marshall County Road 7

Main activities Hunting and Fishing

Special Events Public Duck Banding (Mid Sept); Open House (variesSpring & Fall)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction)

Chippewa National Forest (70-E/SE); Voyageurs 

National Park (125-E)

Transportation Hub (miles away) Thief River Falls, MN (23)

Gateway Community (miles away) Holt, MN (11)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Condition of existing transportation assets

County Road bisects the refuge

Habitat Fragmentation County Road bisects the refuge

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer & Canada Geese (non-endangered species) along 

County Road

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

Access roads through and adjacent to refuge are gravel. 

Closest town of 8500 pop is 25 miles away. Grand 

Forks, ND & Winnipeg, Canada are 1.5 hours and 

Minneapolis, MN is 6 hrs driving time
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Agassiz NWR

Middle River, MN More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• An Amtrak station is located more than three miles from the refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The biggest challenges on the refuge are the distance from population centers, staff capacity 

shortages, and the condition of existing transportation assets.

• The refuge is remote with unpaved access roads and no population centers nearby. High gas 

prices have deterred some visitors from driving to the refuge in recent years.
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Big Muddy National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Big Muddy NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 16.04

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 9.79

• Native Road (Miles) 5.73

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.52

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.91

Parking Lot (square feet) 68,349

Unit Acreage 16,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Big Muddy NWR

Access Point New Haven Rd

Main activities Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Observation

Special Events Wings of Spring (May), Missouri River Cleanup (varies); 

Race for the River (September)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction)

Mark Twain National Forest (5-N); Ozark National 

Scenic Riverway (100-S)

Transportation Hub (miles away) Columbia, MO (6)

Gateway Community (miles away) Columbia, MO (6)

Scenic Byway Meeting of the Great Rivers Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.1997

Main transportation challenges 

identified At-grade railroad crossing

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, several species

Animal-Vehicle collisions White tailed deer (non-endangered species) on public 

roads leading to units

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Pedestrian trails to and within station

Most important enhancement 

priority Parking Management solutions

Other Water access facilities and improved signage
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Big Muddy NWR

Columbia, MO

More than 3 miles Direct 

connection

Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Katy Trail State Park trail runs for 225 miles and has a direct connection to some 

of the units of the site, but the nearest section of the trail to visitor amenities in the 

refuge is more than three miles away.

• An Amtrak station is located more than three miles from the station.

• Approximately nine percent of visitors access the site through water-based modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Pedestrian paths could allow greater access to the refuge from nearby towns, as a 

significant number of visitors come from within 10 miles of the station. The refuge 

would also benefit from pedestrian paths for access within station.

• The greatest need is for improved water access facilities and improved signage.

• The station has several special events attracting large numbers of visitors, such as 

Wings of Spring in May and regular Missouri River cleanups. These events could 

incorporate more ATS for access to and within the station, or to shuttle visitors to 

event locations.

• The greatest challenge is the large number of units and their dispersed nature. Social 

media and other promotional tools are important for increasing safe access and 

visitation.
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

 Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Big Oaks NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 81.21

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 81.21

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 61,926

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Big Oaks NWR

Unit Acreage 50,000

Access Point West Niblo Road

Main activities Hunting and Fishing

Special Events Deer hunts (October and November); Take a kid fishing 

(July); Outdoor Women at Big Oaks NWR (June)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Hoosier National Forest (40-W); Mammoth Cave (120-

S)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Louisville, KY (61)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Madison, IN (9)

Scenic Byway Ohio River Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Bus parking

Lack of safe vehicular access within unit

Condition of existing transportation assets

Visitor orientation to and within station

Habitat Fragmentation Forest and grassland

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered specie) on the east perimeter of 

unit

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and Pedestrian trails to and within unit

Parking Management Solutions

Turning lanes for access to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Hazard mitigation

Other No Parking, poor roads, poor access to refuge office
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Big Oaks NWR

Madison, IN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Madison Heritage Trail is located in Madison, IN, approximately 15 miles to the 

south.

• Most visitors come from within 50 miles of the station.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Safety is a key transportation concern for the refuge. They could benefit from 

improved road conditions, new parking, and turning lanes to access to the station. 

They could also use bicycle and pedestrian trails for safe access within the station.

• If there were a transit vehicle available at low or no cost, the refuge may be able to 

use it for programs or special events.

• Challenges facing the refuge include bus parking, safe driving conditions in refuge, 

and visitor orientation. The refuge also faces staff and funding shortages and unsafe 

road conditions surrounding the station.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

 Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Big Stone NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 19.90

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 6.19

• Gravel Road (Miles) 11.35

• Native Road (Miles) 2.36

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Big Stone NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.68

Parking Lot (square feet) 272,191

Unit Acreage 11,521

Access Point Big Stone County Road 19 

Main activities Wildlife Observation

Special Events Youth Fishing Day (3rd Saturday in May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Sheyenne National Grassland (80-NW); Pipestone 

National Monument (85-S)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Ortonville, MN (7)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Odessa, MN (1)

Scenic Byway Minnesota River Valley Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Deer/vehicle collisions

Habitat Fragmentation Frogs and insects

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered species) along roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Improve orientation signage to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Signage
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Big Stone NWR and WMD

Ortonville, MN More than 3 miles Direct connection Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is a local bus service targeted at seniors and persons with disabilities approximately 

eight miles from the refuge. Greyhound and Amtrak service are 120 miles away.

• The Minnesota River Headwaters Trail runs within the refuge. It was developed 

collaboratively between the USFWS and Big Stone County with other state and local 

partners. The multi-use trail connects the headwaters of the Minnesota River with the 

refuge and the auto tour route.

• Approximately 10 percent of visitors access the refuge by walking or bicycling, and most 

visitors live within 10 miles of the refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Due to distance from population centers and lack of transit, the station does not see many 

opportunities for ATS. 

• The refuge would benefit most from promotion of existing ATS connections, improved 

pedestrian trails or paths to access the station and improved signage for visitor 

orientation.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Big Stone Wetland Management District

FACTS Big Stone WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 77,938

Unit Acreage 3,000

Access Point Big Stone County Road 19 

Main activities Wildlife Observation

Special Events Youth Fishing Day (3rd Saturday in May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Sheyenne National Grassland (80-NW); Pipestone 

National Monument (85-S)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Ortonville, MN (7)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Odessa, MN (1)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Deer/vehicle collisions

Habitat Fragmentation? Frogs and insects

Animal-Vehicle collisions? Deer (non-endangered species) along roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Improve orientation signage to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Signage

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Boyer Chute NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 8.45

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 2.38

• Gravel Road (Miles) 2.63

• Native Road (Miles) 3.44

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Boyer Chute NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 9.1

Parking Lot (sqft) 157,430

Unit Acreage 3,350

Access Point County Road 34

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, and 

Environmental Education

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Missouri National Recreation River (90-NW); Nebraska 

National Forest (225-W)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Omaha, NE (21)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Fort Calhoun, NE (4)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Resource conflicts with cars or bicycles

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, Wetlands, floodplain forest and grassland 

dependent species

Animal-Vehicle collisions Yes, Deer, turkey, geese, snakes and turtles (nonendangered species) along the auto tour route

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Properly reducing impacts to wildlife

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Boyer Chute NWR

Calhoun, NE More than 3 miles 2-5 miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• John J. Pershing Drive and North River Road have some bicycle infrastructure (such 

as on-road bike routes) closer to the refuge, but the nearest designated bike path is 

approximately five miles south of the refuge.

• Metro Area Transit (Omaha, NE) has a bus (Route 30) with service approximately 10 

miles south of the refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• There is the potential for a multi-use trail connecting the metropolitan Omaha area 

to multiple recreational sites along the Mississippi River in proximity to the refuge.

• Refuge management expresses concerns about resource conflicts between vehicles 

and resources. Improved infrastructure for non-motorized transportation within the 

refuge may reduce these conflicts and minimize the need for new roads or road 

improvements.

• Most visitors come from 10 to 50 miles from the refuge, and the distance from 

population centers and lack of transit offers challenges in improving access.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Cedar Point National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Cedar Point NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 11.05

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 8.74

• Native Road (Miles) 2.31

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Cedar Point NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 1,910

Unit Acreage 2,445

Access Point Yondota Road

Main activities Fishing from June to August

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Wayne National Forest (150-S); Cuyahoga Valley 

National Park (90-E)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Toledo, OH (17)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Oregon, OH (12)

Scenic Byway Lake Erie Costal Trail Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.2006

Main transportation challenges 

identified Most of the refuge is closed to the public

Habitat Fragmentation? -

Animal-Vehicle collisions? -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other Refuge is managed by staff at Ottawa NWR
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Chautauqua NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 11.51

• Concrete Road (Miles) 0.27

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.47

• Gravel Road (Miles) 10.58

• Native Road (Miles) 0.19

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Chautauqua NWR

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.59

Parking Lot (square feet) 164,015

Unit Acreage 6,200

Access Point 2110N

Main activities Environmental Education, Fishing, Hunting, 

Interpretation, Photography and Wildlife Observation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Illinois and Michigan Canal Corridor (20-NE); Joliet 

Army Ammunition Plant Forest (65-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Peoria, IL (54)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Havana, IL (9)

Scenic Byway Illinois River Road (national Scenic Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Clarence Cannon National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Clarence Cannon NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 9.10

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 8.22

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Clarence Cannon NWR

• Native Road (Miles) 0.88

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.91

Parking Lot (square feet) 40,780

Unit Acreage 3,750

Access Point County Road 206 

Main activities Wildlife Observation and Photography

Special Events Youth Fishing Day, Mobility/Visually Impaired Hunt

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mark Twain National Forest (75-W); Illinois and 

Michigan Canal Corridor (165-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) St. Louis, MO (66)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Annada, MO (1)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation Wetlands

Animal-Vehicle collisions Frogs, crayfish, snakes (non-endangered species) along

refuge roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Parking Management Solutions

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other Managed by Great River NWR
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Clarence Cannon NWR

Annada, MO

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The distance from population centers and lack of transit offers challenges in 

improving access to the refuge. The refuge is approximately one hour and thirty 

minutes from St. Louis.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge faces challenges of safe pedestrian access, visitor orientation, and atgrade railroad crossings.

• The refuge may benefit from parking management solutions; they anticipate 

increasing visitation in the future.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Crab Orchard NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 132.55

• Concrete Road (Miles) 3.77

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 45.52

• Gravel Road (Miles) 66.54

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Crab Orchard NWR

• Native Road (Miles) 13.51

• Primitive Road (Miles) 3.21

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 7.20

Parking Lot (square feet) 1,516,786

Unit Acreage 44,000

Access Point Illinois Route 148

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and 

Environmental Education

Special Events Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing Days (Mid-Sept); 

International Migratory Bird Day (mid-May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Shawnee National Forest (1-S); Jefferson National 

Expansion Memorial (85-NW)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Marion, IL (6)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Marion, IL (6)

Scenic Byway Great River and Ohio River Byways

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of mass transit in area, no bicycle paths, funding 

for school bus transportation

Habitat Fragmentation Roads, agricultural fields

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, small mammals and turtles (non-endangered 

species) on and adjacent roads to the unit 

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Old Highway 13 and Wolf Creek Road

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Bicycle trails to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Transit service
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Crab Orchard NWR

Carbondale, IL More than 3 miles More than 3 miles High

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Greyhound and Amtrak both serve Carbondale, which is located 14 miles from the 

refuge.

• Rides Mass Transit District offers weekday, on-demand transit service to Marion, 

Carbondale, Carterville, and other cities around southeastern Illinois.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Transit may be able to assist the refuge with the Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing 

Days, a large event that attracts 80,000 people. Transit vehicles can help bring people 

from the community college parking lot to sites around the refuge.

• The greatest challenge is a lack of transit service, and the refuge would like to see better 

transit connections with the surrounding urbanized areas. While there is some transit 

available within Carbondale and Marion, there is little service available between the two 

cities and none with stops at the refuge. This may include a shuttle service on weekend 

days from central parking areas in Carbondale or Marion or expansion of their Eagle 

Tours (in FWS-owned vans) for refuge interpretive programs. 

• There may be an opportunity to improve bicycle paths or trails leading to and within the 

station. Refuge staff report increased bicycle use on newly paved roads within the 

station. Roads surrounding the refuge are not safe for bicycles due to high speeds and 

narrow shoulders, but there may be long-term potential to add a bike path through the 

refuge on old rail beds and connect to a regional bike network.

• Other challenges include congestion on roads leading to the station, bus parking, funding 

for school bus transportation, staff capacity, and safe pedestrian access.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Crane Meadows National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Crane Meadows NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.76

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.76

• Native Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Crane Meadows NWR

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 3.71

Parking Lot (square feet) 91,745

Unit Acreage 2,000

Access Point Platte River Trailhead

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mississippi National River and Recreational Area (55-

SE); Chippewa National Forest (70-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) St. Cloud, MN (32)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Little Falls, MN (9)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Cypress Creek NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 34.48

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.59

• Gravel Road (Miles) 6.41

• Native Road (Miles) 26.51

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Cypress Creek NWR

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.96

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.41

Parking Lot (square feet) 156,046

Unit Acreage 15,000

Access Point Shawnee College Road

Main activities Hunting, Wildlife Observation, Environmental

Education and Interpretation

Special Events Cache River Nature Fest (May); Refuge Week (October)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Shawnee National Forest (2-E); Fort Donelson National 

Battlefield (85-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Marion, IL (35)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Ullin, IL (9)

Scenic Byway Great River Road (National Scenic Roadway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of walking/biking trails within the Refuge and 

connecting to existing trails.

Habitat Fragmentation Native Harwood Forest

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, raccoon, skunk and others (non-endangered 

species) throughout

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trails to and within unit

Improved orientation signage to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian trail within unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Cypress Creek NWR

Ullin, IL

More than 3 

miles

Less than 1⁄2 

mile Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Greyhound bus and Amtrak offer transit service more than three miles from the 

refuge.

• The Tunnel Hill State Trails comes within one-half mile of the refuge.

• The refuge is located far from population centers and lacks transit service in close 

proximity.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge’s greatest challenges are bus parking, resource conflicts with vehicles, 

funding and staffing shortages, and safe pedestrian access. 

• The refuge would like to have more pedestrian and bicycle trails for access within the 

station. They would also like to see more trails for access to the station and improved 

signage for orientation to the station.

• The refuge would benefit from stronger connections to existing trails in the region, 

such as the Tunnel Hill State Trail.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

DeSoto National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS DeSoto NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 26.92

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 9.46

• Gravel Road (Miles) 12.24

• Native Road (Miles) 4.56

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.66

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 3.64

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS DeSoto NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 789,297

Unit Acreage 8,358

Access Point US Highway 30

Main activities Fishing, Photography and Interpretation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Missouri National Recreation River Park (95-NW); 

Nebraska National Forest (218-W)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Omaha, NE (28)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Missouri Valley, IA (8)

Scenic Byway Loess Hills Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

DeSoto NWR

Missouri Valley, IA More than 3 miles None Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Regional bicycle networks are located in this section of the Mississippi River Valley, but 

none are in close proximity to the refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• There is the potential for a multi-use trail connecting the metropolitan Omaha area to 

multiple recreational sites along the Mississippi River in proximity to the refuge.

• Refuge management expresses concerns about resource conflicts between vehicles and 

resources. Improved infrastructure for non-motorized transportation within the refuge 

may reduce these conflicts and minimize the need for new roads or road improvements.
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Detroit Lakes Wetland Management District

FACTS Detroit Lakes WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 2.80

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 2.48

• Native Road (Miles) 0.17

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.15

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.20

Parking Lot (square feet) 371,952

Unit Acreage 11,000

Access Point Tower Road 

Main activities Hunting

Special Events Prairie Fun Day (2nd Saturday in August)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Detroit Lakes, MN (3)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Detroit Lakes, MN (3)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Visitor orientation to and within station

Lack of public transportation

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, nesting migratory birds

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer and small mammals (non-endangered species) 

throughout the district

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Bicycle and Pedestrian trail to and within station

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian trail within station

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Detroit Lakes WMD

Detroit Lakes, MN

More than 3 

miles 1⁄2 to 1 mile Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• An Amtrak station is located more than three miles from the Headquarters WPA.

• Although there is a regional bicycle/pedestrian trail, there are few, if any, visitors who 

use the trail to access the WMD. Most visitors live 10 miles or more from the station.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station could benefit from connections to the Detroit Lakes trail system, which 

includes the Pine to Prairie Birding Trail, the Lake Country Scenic Byway, and Winter 

Wonderland snowmobile and cross-country ski trails. The station would like to 

improve bicycle and pedestrian trails for access to and especially within the station.

• The station’s greatest transportation needs include improved signage for effective 

visitor orientation to and within the station.

• Due to distance from population centers and lack of transit, the WMD has no plans for 

ATS. 
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Detroit River International WR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.64

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.50

• Native Road (Miles) 0.14

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Detroit River International WR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 5.6

Parking Lot (square feet) 30,998

Unit Acreage 4,982

Access Point Groh Road

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial (32-

SE); Huron National Forest (145-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Detroit, MI (43)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Grosse Ile, MI (3)

Scenic Byway Woodward Avenue (M1) Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.2006

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Construction of an entry road and parking lot at the 

Refuge Gateway in Trenton, Michigan. This is the 

future site of our visitor center. Once an approved 

hunt plan, unit will need parking areas, etc.

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

Numerous open houses and programming at Humbug 

Marsh Unit. It has an environmental education shelter, 

two wildlife observation decks, and three miles of trails. 

Refuge Gateway (owned by Wayne County, but 

cooperatively managed with USFWS) currently 

undergoing restoration.
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Detroit River IWR

Detroit, MI

Less than 2 

miles 2 to 4 miles High

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The SMART bus line has four routes that stop within two miles of the Humbug Marsh 

unit of the refuge. The bus routes range in frequency from 30 minutes to two hours and 

run six to seven days per week. 

• The Kennedy Park and Elizabeth Park Trails are located within two miles of the refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge would like to add bicycle trails to link some of the units with nearby 

communities.

• The refuge is constructing a new Visitor Center and completing a Visitor Services Plan; 

they expect visitation to increase.

• There are significant opportunities to improve access to underserved populations 

around the refuge through increase in transit and non-motorized access.

Other:

• The refuge is planning to construct an entry road at the gateway in Trenton, the future 

visitor center site (same as Humbug Marsh?)
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Driftless Area NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.76

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.16

• Native Road (Miles) 0.60

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 9,713

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Driftless Area NWR

Unit Acreage 775

Access Point Business Hwy 18 North

Main activities Hunting and Fishing, 

Special Events River Fest, Mississippi River Adventure Days (Spring and 

Summer)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Effigy Mounds National Monument (10-E); Herbert 

Hoover Historic Site (55-S)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) La Crosse, WI (62)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) McGregor, IA (1)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Bus Parking

Funding shortage (including fee collection)

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Lack of safe vehicular access within your station

Condition of existing transportation assets

Unsafe road conditions surrounding the station

Turning lanes for access to station

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, Floodplain forests

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Yes, raccoon, deer, skunks, ducks, (non-endangered

species) on the road between McGregor and 

Marquette, along all the roads that pass by Driftless 

Area tracts.

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Right turn lane needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Internal transit - seasonal

Bicycle trails for access to station

Water Access Facilities

Most important enhancement 

priority

Water Access Facilities

Hazard mitigation

Other Office located at the McGregor District of the Upper 

Mississippi River NW&FR
Refuge Transit Distance Trail 

Distance Priority

Upper Mississippi NWR, Driftless Area 

McGregor, IA More than 3 miles More than 3 miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Yellow River Forest Trail (upstream) and Heritage Trail (downstream) are within four 

miles of the refuge. 

• Coulee Cab is a transit service but access is more than three miles from the station, and 

an Amtrak station is 50 miles from the station.

• The majority of visitors access the station through water-based modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge needs to address safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and within the 

station, bus parking, and road conditions.

• The refuge may benefit from seasonal internal transit, parking management solutions, 

pedestrian paths within the station, and bicycle paths to access the station. 

• With improved water-access facilities, the refuge may enjoy greater visitation from 

water-based access.

• If the refuge gets a new visitor center and office complex, the planning and construction 

of the complex should be integrated with new transportation safety measures and ATS 

infrastructure.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Emiquon National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Emiquon NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 6.32

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.39

• Native Road (Miles) 5.61

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Emiquon NWR

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.32

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.17

Parking Lot (square feet) 46,714

Unit Acreage 284

Access Point Route 97/78, accessible by Highway 24 from Peoria or 

Lewistown, and State Highway 136 from Havana, Illinois

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Lincoln Home National Historic Site (45-SE); Joliet Army 

Ammunition Plant Forest (120-E)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Peoria, IL (54)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Havana, IL (9)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

Emiquon Refuge is part of the Illinois River National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, with headquarters at 

Chautauqua Refuge, in Havana, Illinois.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Fergus Falls Wetland Management District

FACTS Fergus Falls WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 12.71

Concrete Road (Miles) -

Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.12

Gravel Road (Miles) 4.99

Native Road (Miles) 3.07

Primitive Road (Miles) 4.53

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 4.10

Parking Lot (square feet) 1,197,024

Unit Acreage 44,499

Access Point Otter Tail County Road 82 (Exit 61) 

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental education and Interpretation

Special Events Return to the Prairie (August); Christmas on the Prairie 

(December) and Marsh Madness (March)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Fergus Falls, MN (4)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Fergus Falls, MN (4)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, Native Prairie

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, skunk and raccoon (non-endangered species) 

through the district

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails to and within station

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Fergus Falls WMD

Fergus Falls, MN 1- 3 miles Less than 1⁄2 mile Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Greyhound bus service passes within three miles of the WMD. 

• The Central Lakes Trail comes within one-half mile of the WMD.

• Approximately twenty percent of visitors access the site through pedestrian or bicycling 

modes; many visitors live within 10 miles of the station, and most live within 50 miles.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Key challenges for the WMD involve staff and funding capacity, signage, and road 

conditions both leading to and within the station.

• The station has experienced challenges with school groups unable to afford bus costs.

• The station would benefit from pedestrian trails to and within the station, bicycle paths 

for access to the station, and improved bus parking.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Fox River National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Fox River NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 1.45

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.37

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.08

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Fox River NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 12,951

Unit Acreage 1,054

Access Point County Highway F

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Ice Age National Scenic Trail (45-S); Nicolet National 

Forest (110-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Madison, WI (51)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Portage, WI (12)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Genoa National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Genoa NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 3.36

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 3.23

• Native Road (Miles) 0.13

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Genoa NFH

Parking Lot (square feet) 41,706

Unit Acreage 155

Access Point -

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Special Events Open House (February); Fishing days (May); Disabled 

Fishing Event (December)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Effigy Mounds National Monument (30-S); 

Chequamegon National Forest (115-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) LaCrosse, WI (21)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Genoa, WI (4)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Unsafe road conditions surrounding station

Parking areas for special events, and new interpretive 

center

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, Canada geese (non-endangered species) on 

highway 35

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Left turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails within station

Bicycle racks

Water- access facilities

Parking Management Solutions

Most important enhancement 

priority Hazard mitigation

Other Group did a transportation audit at Genoa in June

2011.
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Genoa NFH

Genoa, WI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The hatchery is located along a National Scenic Byway approximately 30 miles from La 

Crosse, WI.

• A large portion of visitors (approximately 15 percent) access the hatchery by school 

bus or other private transit.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatchery is located on a high-speed road, with hatchery facilities on both sides of 

the road. Their largest transportation priority is hazard mitigation. A turn lane would 

also help with safe vehicular access.

• The hatchery will be getting a new interpretive center, built with Scenic Byway funds, 

for which they would like to include parking solutions (including bus parking) and 

pedestrian access. Increasing visitation will increase transportation challenges.

• The hatchery could benefit from bicycle racks, pedestrian paths for station access, 

water access facilities, and parking management solutions. 

• Transportation challenges include bus parking, visitor orientation and signage, staff 

capacity, and lack of transit service.

• If there were a transit vehicle available at low or no cost, the hatchery may be able to 

use it to transport visitors from nearby towns to special events such as Open Houses 

and kids’ fishing days, or to transfer visitors between sites in the hatchery.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Glacial Ridge National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Glacial Ridge NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 5.13

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) 1.13

• Primitive Road (Miles) 4.00

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Glacial Ridge NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 43,137

Unit Acreage 2,790

Access Point -

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Chippewa National Forest (75-E); Independence 

National Historic Park (195-W)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Crookston, MN (30)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Erskine, MN (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other Currently managed by Rydell NWR staff
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Great River National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Great River NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 6.85

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 6.85

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Great River NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 19,839

Unit Acreage 11,600

Access Point County Road 206

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mark Twain National Forest (85-S); Illinois and Michigan 

Canal National Heritage Corridor (150-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) St. Louis, MO (66)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Annada, MO (1)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Green Bay National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Green Bay NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

Concrete Road (Miles) -

Asphalt Road (Miles) -

Gravel Road (Miles) -

Native Road (Miles) -

Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage 330

Access Point Not open to the public

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Green Bay, WI (90)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Washington Island, WI (3)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.2006

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Hamden Slough National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Hamden Slough NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 2.63

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.02

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.61

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Hamden Slough NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.23

Parking Lot (square feet) 52,764

Unit Acreage 5,250

Access Point Road #131/North Tower Road

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Chippewa National Forest (60-E); Mississippi National 

River and Recreation Area (165-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Detroit Lakes, MN (8)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Audubon, MN (2)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Harbor Island National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Harbor Island NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage 695

Access Point -

Main activities Fishing and Hunting

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Sault Ste. Marie, MI

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Drummond, MI

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other The refuge is managed by staff at Seney National 

Wildlife Refuge

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Horicon National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Horicon NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 28.46

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 4.18

• Gravel Road (Miles) 18.60

• Native Road (Miles) 1.58

• Primitive Road (Miles) 4.10

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 6.71

Parking Lot (square feet) 258,487

Unit Acreage 21,000

Access Point County Road Z

Main activities Hunting, Wildlife Observation, and Photography 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Horicon NWR

Special Events

Horicon Marsh Bird Festival (2nd week in May); Horicon 

Marsh 5K (October) and National WR celebration 

(October 2015)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Ice Age National Scenic Trail (55-SW); Nicolet National 

Forest (100-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Oshkosh, WI (40)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Mayville, WI (8)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Congestion on roads leading to station

Resource conflicts with cars and bicycles

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Lack of safe vehicular access within station

Visitor Orientation to and within station

Unsafe road conditions surrounding station

Getting visitors across Highway 49 safely. High numbers 

of visitors using auto tour route at certain times of 

day/year. Lack of trail at visitor center making visitors 

travel further for hiking opportunity.

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, Butler garter snake

Animal-Vehicle collisions Multiple birds, mammals, and frogs (non-endangered

species) along Hw 49 and on auto tour route.

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Left turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trails to and within station

Turning lanes for access to station

Improved signage for orientation to station

Most important enhancement 

priority Internal transit seasonal
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Horicon NWR

Mayville, WI

More than 3 

miles

Direct 

connection Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Wild Goose State Trail passes through the refuge. The multi-use trail has a 

crushed gravel surface and is 34 miles in length.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge would benefit most from seasonal internal transit.

• The refuge would like to improve the safety of pedestrian crossing of S.R. 49, which 

passes through the refuge.

• The addition of hiking trails near the Visitor Center may reduce the need for visitors 

to travel elsewhere in the site for hiking opportunities. 

• The auto tour route is very heavily used and may benefit from an electric tram to 

transport visitors within the refuge.

• Other ATS improvements include new transit for access to the refuge, promotion and 

marketing for existing ATS, and improved signage.

• The Horicon Marsh Bird Festival, held in May, attracts approximately 11,000 visitors, 

and the National Wildlife Refuge Week events, in October, attract approximately 

10,000 visitors. The refuge allows visitors to park in the grass along roads but could 

use transit to help manage crowds.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Huron National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Huron NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage 147

Access Point Only West Huron Island is open to public use by boat

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Houghton, MI

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Skanee Township, MI (12)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Iowa Wetland Management District

FACTS Iowa WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 1.60

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.60

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 33,106

Unit Acreage Part of Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge

Access Point County road A-42

Main activities Hunting

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Mason City, IA (56)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Bancroft, IA (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
 National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Iron River National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Iron River NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 4.61

• Concrete Road (Miles) 1.51

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.90

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.67

• Native Road (Miles) 1.53

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Iron River NFH

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 3.6

Parking Lot (square feet) 47,272

Unit Acreage 1,200

Access Point Fairview Road

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Environmental Education

Special Events Annual Open House (September)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Chequamegon National Forest (2-E); Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore (20-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Duluth, MN (43)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Iron River, WI (8)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of safe pedestrian access

At-grade railroad crossing

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, turkeys, grouse (non-endangered species) on all 

roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails within unit

Improved signage for orientation within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Improve paved road with bicycle access

Other Poor access roads entering facility. These are not 

service owned
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Iron River NFH

Iron River, WI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The hatchery is in a remote setting, far from population centers and transit service, with 

limited alternatives to vehicle access.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatchery’s challenges include funding and staffing shortages, safe pedestrian access, 

at-grade railroad crossings, and unsafe road conditions surrounding the station.

• The hatchery’s greatest need includes improved signage for orientation to the station 

and improved pedestrian trails within the station.

• The hatchery entrance road is unpaved and in poor condition; it is not owned by FWS. 

The hatchery would like to see an improved, paved road with bicycle access.
National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Jordan River National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Jordan River NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 2.41

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 2.26

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.15

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Jordan River NFH

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.7

Parking Lot (square feet) 54,055

Unit Acreage -

Access Point Turner Road

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation

Special Events Annual Open House (July/August); Fall Festival 

(October); Winter Bean Pot (February)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Huron National Forest (30-SE); Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore (40-W)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Gaylord, MI (17)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Alba, MI (4)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Condition of existing transportation assets

Appropriate and effective signage

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Degraded road infrastructure on facility

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions No

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trail to unit (1 mile)

Improved signage for orientation to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Signage
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Jordan River NFH

Elmira, MI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Antrim County Bus Service offers service more than three miles from the refuge.

• The hatchery is in a rural setting, far from population centers and transit service.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatchery’s challenges include condition of existing transportation assets both within 

and surrounding the station and appropriate signage.

• The hatchery’s greatest need includes improved signage for orientation to the station.

• The hatchery would like to add improved pedestrian and bicycle paths for access to the 

station. 

• The hatchery should also explore parking management solutions to handle some of its 

higher visitation events that attract up to 700 people.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Kirtlands Warbler Wildlife Management Area

FACTS Kirtlands Warbler WMA

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Kirtlands Warbler WMA

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage -

Access Point Area closed during nesting season (May-August)

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Huron National Forest (5-E); Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore (70-W)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Traverse City, MI

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Grayling, MI

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

Staff from Seney National Wildlife Refuge (Seney, 

Michigan) is responsible for land management at the 

refuge.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

La Crosse District

FACTS La Crosse District

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.81

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.81

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.15

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS La Crosse District

Parking Lot (square feet) 110,159

Unit Acreage 183

Access Point Lester Avenue

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography 

and Interpretation

Special Events Waterfowl Observation Day (November); IMBD (may) 

and Living Lands and Waters (June)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Effigy Mounds National Monument (35-S); 

Chequamegon National Forest (90-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) LaCrosse, WI (6)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) LaCrosse, WI (6)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

At grade railroad crossing

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Connecting existing bike trails and expanding bike trails 

and new visitor center/office

Habitat Fragmentation

Halfway Creek Marsh; Along Highway 26 in Houston 

County, MN; "Pike" between La Crosse (WI) and La 

Crescent (MN); and others

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Yes, Many species of mammals, turtles, raptors, wading 

birds (non-endangered species) at roads paralleling the 

Upper MS River and those that cross the UMR or 

tributaries

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trail to and within unit

Water - access facilities

Improved signage for orientation to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle trail for access to unit

Other

We are working on a number of projects with partners 

and need assistance with planning, funding, and 

implementation
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Upper Mississippi NWR, La Crosse District 

La Crosse, WI

More than 3 

miles

1-3 miles High

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is a local transit service in La Crosse, but it is not used for refuge access nor is 

information available about its service area.

• There is an Amtrak station in La Crosse, located more than three miles from the 

refuge, but the train stops in La Crosse in the middle of the night.

• The Great River State Trail runs along the Mississippi River and is located within one to 

three miles of the refuge.

• Approximately ten percent of visitors access the station by bicycle or pedestrian 

modes. The refuge also maintains 10 to 15 boat launches and three canoe trails.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• A new Visitor Center will be opening in 2012, with a planned multi-use trail connecting 

the Visitor Center with the Mississippi River shore and a boat launch. The greatest 

priority for the refuge is to connect this trail with existing regional trail networks. 

There may be an opportunity for bicycle rental or sharing.

• There may be an opportunity in the future to extend local bus lines to access the 

Visitor Center.

• Other improvements would include water access facilities, signage, and promotion 

and marketing of existing ATS. Signage has not yet been planned for the new Visitor 

Center.

• Refuge staff work closely with partners to plan for and fund transportation projects; 

they could benefit from additional technical assistance to further these partnerships 

and projects.

• The greatest challenges are in terms of limited funding and staff capacity, as well as 

unsafe road conditions.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Leopold Wetland Management District

FACTS Leopold WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 1.58

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.27

• Native Road (Miles) 0.31

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.42

Parking Lot (square feet) 333,646

Unit Acreage 15,000

Access Point Cascade Mountain Road 

Main activities Hunting and Wildlife Observation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Madison, WI (36)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Portage, WI (5)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Providing adequate off street parking for visitors

Habitat Fragmentation Fragmentation of grassland habitats

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, turkey, salamanders, small mammals and birds 

(non-endangered species)

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and Pedestrian trails to and within unit

Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Parking management solutions

Most important enhancement

priority Improve signage within unit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Leopold WMD

Portage, WI

More than 3 

miles

1-3 miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is an Amtrak station located more than three miles from the station.

• The NPS Ice Age Trail (an auto-based interpretive trail) is located within three miles of 

Shoveler’s Sink, one of the WMD’s “flagship” units.

• Dane County, WI, received funding to build a trail that may run through Swan’s Pond, 

which is two miles south of the Northrup King site and near Madison. FWS will build an 

observation deck at Swan’s Pond when/if the trail is built.

• Approximately nine percent of visitors currently access the station via alternative 

transportation modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station has no major transportation challenges but would like to concentrate on 

improvements to visitor orientation and roads to encourage safer and more reliable 

access to units. 

• The most pressing need at the station is improved signage for orientation within the 

station. 

• The station has a goal of adding small, 2-3 vehicle parking areas with grass or gravel 

surfaces and information kiosks for each of its 55 units. 

• The station would like to add more pedestrian and bicycle trails to and within its units. 

Many visitors come from within 10 miles of the station units and may be likely to 

bicycle or walk.

• A few of the WMD units are located near Madison, WI, could benefit from connections 

to regional trails and transit service.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Litchfield Wetland Management District

FACTS Litchfield WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 3.42

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.11

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.04

• Native Road (Miles) 2.04

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.23

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 1,192,436

Unit Acreage 41,000

Access Point 615th Avenue

Main activities Hunting

Special Events Habitat Day (April)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Litchfield, MN (4)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Litchfield, MN (4)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation Units fragmented

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, turkey and smaller animals and birds (nonendangered species) on all public roads.

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Bicycle trails for access to unit

Other

Unit is three miles from Litchfield. It has over 150 WPAS 

scattered over a seven county area. Public transit is an

option for a few of them.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance 

Priorit

y

Litchfield WMD

Litchfield, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The WMD is located in a rural area, far from population centers and with no nearby 

transit service.

• There may be public transit service near a few WPAs, but the majority of the 150+ 

WPAs are remote.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Some WPAs could benefit from bicycle paths for access to the units.

• All visitors use private vehicles to access WPAs. If fuel costs continue to rise, visitation 

will decrease.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

McGregor District

FACTS McGregor District

Road Miles (TOTAL) 4.93

• Concrete Road (Miles)

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.22

• Gravel Road (Miles) 3.72

• Native Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS McGregor District

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.98

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.28

Parking Lot (square feet) 412,047

Unit Acreage -

Access Point Business Hwy 18N

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography 

and Environmental Education

Special Events Mississippi River Adventure Day (Spring)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Effigy Mounds National Monument (1-W); 

Chequamegon National Forest (115-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) La Crosse, WI (62)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) McGregor, IA (1)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Bus parking

Resource conflicts with cars or bicycles

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Lack of safe vehicular access within unit

At grade railroad crossings

Habitat Fragmentation Forest

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered species) at access road to 

visitor center

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Right turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle trails

Water access facilities 

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian Trails within unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Upper Mississippi NWR, McGregor District 

McGregor, IA

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Yellow River Forest Trail (upstream) and Heritage Trail (downstream) are within four 

miles of the refuge. 

• Coulee Cab is a transit service but access is more than three miles from the station, and 

an Amtrak station is 50 miles from the station.

• The majority of visitors access the station through water-based modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge needs to address safe vehicle and pedestrian access to and within the station, 

bus parking, and road conditions.

• The refuge may benefit from seasonal internal transit, parking management solutions, 

pedestrian paths within the station, and bicycle paths to access the station. 

• With improved water-access facilities, the refuge may enjoy greater visitation from 

water-based access.

• If the refuge gets a new visitor center and office complex, the planning and construction 

of the complex should be integrated with new transportation safety measures and ATS 

infrastructure.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Meredosia National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Meredosia NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 5.37

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.33

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Meredosia NWR

• Native Road (Miles) 5.04

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.15

Parking Lot (square feet) 32,453

Unit Acreage 3,582

Access Point Beach Road

Main activities Fishing, Interpretation, Wildlife Observation and 

photography and Environmental Education

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mark Twain National Forest (100-SW); Illinois and 

Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor (120-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Jacksonville, IL (21)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Meredosia, IL (1)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

The refuge is part of the Illinois River National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, with headquarters at Chautauqua 

Refuge
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Michigan Islands National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Michigan Islands NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 17,710

Unit Acreage -

Access Point The refuge is closed to the public

Main activities -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) -

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) -

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Michigan Wetland Management District

FACTS Michigan WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.27

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.27

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage 470

Access Point Different locations for waterfowl production areas

Main activities Hunting

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Lansing, MI (6)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) East Lansing, MI (3)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Pedestrian trail within unit

Habitat Fragmentation Within the 5 WPAs

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, raccoon and opossum (non-endangered species) 

adjacent main roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Relatively small WPAs away from population hubs, on 

rural roads. A maintained mowed (not paved) trail 

would increase access

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Michigan WMD

East Lansing, MI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Approximately 10 percent of visitors access the refuge by walking, but the distance from 

population centers and lack of transit deter most visitors from using ATS. Most visitors 

live within 10 miles of the station.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• A well-maintained, natural surfaced trail (unpaved) would increase pedestrian access.

• The refuge would benefit most from promotion of existing ATS connections, improved 

pedestrian trails or paths to access the station and improved signage for visitor 

orientation.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Middle Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Middle Mississippi River NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 4.19

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.14

• Native Road (Miles) 2.29

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.77

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 9.9

Parking Lot (square feet) 52,898

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Middle Mississippi River NWR

Unit Acreage "Middle Miss" Refuge is part of the Mark Twain 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex

Access Point Rocky Hollow Road

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, and Wildlife Observation

Special Events Annual Partnership Events

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Shawnee National Forest (10-E); Ulysses S. Grant 

National Historic Site (16-N)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Carbondale, IL (32)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Chester, IL (7)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.1997

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Congestion on roads leading to unit

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Condition of existing transportation assets

Appropriate and effective signage

At grade railroad crossing

Visitor orientation to and within unit

Need a left and right turn lane off of State Route 3 due 

to high coal truck traffic.

Habitat Fragmentation More than 50% of land use around unit is farming

Animal-Vehicle collisions Mammals and avian (not federally avian species) on 

state roads

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center Right turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails within unit

Turning lanes for access to unit

Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Turning lane for access to unit

Other The refuge headquarters is co-located with Crab 

Orchard National Wildlife Refuge
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Middle Mississippi NWR

Rockwood, IL

More than 3 

miles

Less than 1⁄2 

mile Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Husky Bus Line offers service more than three miles from the refuge.

• The Great River Road is located less than 1⁄2 mile from the refuge. Approximately five 

percent of visitors access the refuge by bicycle.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge would benefit most from improved pedestrian trails or paths within the 

station and improved signage for visitor orientation.

• The stretch of S.R. 3 from Chester to S.R. 149 could benefit from a designated bicycle 

lane. There is a significant opportunity to enhance pedestrian and bicycle access, as many 

visitors live within 10 miles of the station and would bicycle.

• The proximity to St. Louis and Marion offer opportunities to enhance visitation, and the 

Great River Road provides an influx of potential visitors using bicycle or pedestrian access.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Mingo National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Mingo NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 53.18

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 8.44

• Gravel Road (Miles) 35.06

• Native Road (Miles) 6.59

• Primitive Road (Miles) 3.09

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.60

Parking Lot (square feet) 177,479

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Mingo NWR

Unit Acreage 21,592

Access Point Highway 51

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography

Special Events Eagle Days (February)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mark Twain National Forest (5-W); Ozark National 

Scenic Riverway (35-W) 

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Poplar Bluff, MO (27)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Puxico, MO (2)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation Bottomland hardwood forest species

Animal-Vehicle collisions Reptiles and mammals (non-endangered species) 

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other Road Rehabilitations programmed for 2011 and 2012
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Mingo NWR

Puxico, MO

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles

Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is an Amtrak station located in Poplar Bluff, approximately 30 miles from the 

refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station would benefit most improved signage for directions to the station and 

orientation within the station. They would also like to add bicycle trails.

• The refuge plans to rehabilitate its interior roads in 2011 and 2012. They plan to complete 

a new visitor center in 2012, which will increase visitation.

• The refuge does not have significant transportation problems, but they do note the 

distance from population centers, the condition of existing assets, and appropriate 

signage.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Minnesota Valley NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 37.70

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 2.83

• Gravel Road (Miles) 15.87

• Native Road (Miles) 18.28

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.72

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Minnesota Valley NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 27.51

Parking Lot (square feet) 4,733

Unit Acreage 14,000

Access Point American Blvd East 

Main activities Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education and Interpretation.

Special Events Kids Birding Day (Early May); Fishing Day (Early May); 

Public Lands Day (September)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Mississippi National River and recreation Area (1-E); 

Chequamegon National Forest (130-E)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Bloomington, MN (6)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Bloomington, MN (6)

Scenic Byway Great River Road, Grand Rounds and Minnesota River 

Valley Byways

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Congestion on roads to and within unit

Habitat Fragmentation Yes by highways, railroads and urban development

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered species) throughout Minnesota 

River Valley

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trail to and within unit

Water-access facilities

Improve signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle trail for access to unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Minnesota Valley NWR and WMD

Bloomington, MN

Less than 1⁄2 

mile

Direct 

connection High

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Metro Transit’s Blue Line Light Rail American Boulevard light rail station is located 

approximately one-half mile from the Long Meadow Lake Unit and Visitor Center. The 

light rail offers high-frequency service seven days per week to the downtown 

Minneapolis area. Metro bus service also runs nearby and near other units of the 

refuge (near Bloomington Ferry Road, the Bass Ponds Unit, and the Black Dog Unit). 

Refuge staff estimates that 15 percent of visitors come via public transit.

• The Minnesota River Trail, maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, is a multi-use gravel trail that runs through the refuge and continues 

(though not perfectly connected) throughout the river valley.

• There are extensive trails throughout the units with strong connectivity to the region’s 

bicycle and pedestrian network. Most trails within the refuge are packed gravel 

surface and subject to flooding.

• There is a paved bicycle trail in the Wilkie Unit, adjacent to CR 101. A local bicycle 

company plows the path during the winter, and it is heavily used by commuters.

• The Sand Creek Pedestrian Bridge in the Louisville Swamp Unit offers a vital 

connection for cyclists and pedestrians.

• The City or County will be converting the Black Dog Road (in the Black Dog Unit) to a 

paved bicycle/pedestrian trail in 2012 or 2013.

• The refuge occasionally rents 16- or 24-passenger shuttles or vans for special events.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Refuge staff has a strong partnership history with local governments, businesses, user 

groups, and the Minnesota Department of Transportation.

• The refuge held two Rail to Refuge tours, in which visitors come to refuge via light rail 

(with or without bicycles) and then tour the refuge by bicycle or foot.

• The refuge needs improved signage to direct visitors to amenities; signage has been 

constrained by local ordinances. Since the refuge units are adjacent to residential 

areas, improved signage may increase visitation by pedestrians.

• The refuge can identify better connections with light rail and bus transit and educate 

the public about these opportunities.

• Old Cedar Avenue Bridge is a missing connection for commuters from south and east 

residential areas to access the refuge and get to points north in the Twin Cities. The 

existing bridge is a safety hazard, but some commuters still use it despite hazardous 

conditions. The refuge has submitted a TRIP application for capital costs to 

supplement funds from the City of Bloomington and other sources.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Minnesota Valley Wetland Management District

FACTS Minnesota Valley WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 2.24

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.83

• Native Road (Miles) 1.19

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.22

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.50

Parking Lot (square feet) 166,313

Unit Acreage 4,255

Access Point American Blvd East 

Main activities Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education and Interpretation.

Special Events Kids Birding Day (Early May); Fishing Day (Early May); 

Public Lands Day (September)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Bloomington, MN (6)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Bloomington, MN (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Congestion on roads to and within unit

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered species) throughout Minnesota 

River Valley

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trail to and within unit

Water-access facilities

Improve signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle trail for access to unit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Morris Wetland Management District

FACTS Morris WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 11.33

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 5.65

• Native Road (Miles) 3.06

• Primitive Road (Miles) 2.62

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.42

Parking Lot (square feet) 1,432,357

Unit Acreage 50,000

Access Point County Road 10

Main activities Wildlife Observation

Special Events Prairie Pioneer Day(2nd Sat in July);2nd Grade Field Day (Oct)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Morris, MN (5)

Gateway Community (miles 

away-as the crow flies) Morris, MN (5)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Resource conflicts with cars or bicycles

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Condition of existing transportation assets

The highway bike trail does not have an adequate shoulder for 

safe biking and walking.

The unit is quite rural so vehicle transportation is likely to 

remain as the primary mode of transportation 

Habitat Fragmentation Unit is a district in farm country

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, raccoon, muskrat and pheasant (non-endangered 

species) where woods and grasslands are on both sides or road

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Morris WMD

Morris, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is an Amtrak station located more than three miles from the station.

• The Pomme de Terre County Park Trail is located more than three miles from some 

units.

• The station is located in a rural setting with no transit surface and most visitors come 

from more than 10 miles away, limiting the ATS access options.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station’s most pressing transportation challenges include resource conflicts with 

vehicles, safe pedestrian access, and condition of existing transportation assets.

• The station would benefit from pedestrian and bicycle trails for access to the station. In 

particular, they would like a wider shoulder on the highway between the city of Morris 

and the station office to accommodate safe bicycle and pedestrian travel.

• Station staff fears that visitation will decrease with rising fuel costs unless appropriate 

alternatives are identified and implemented.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Muscatatuck National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Muscatatuck NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 21.21

• Concrete Road (Miles) 0.15

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.88

• Gravel Road (Miles) 11.72

• Native Road (Miles) 7.97

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.50

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Muscatatuck NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 9.95

Parking Lot (square feet) 202,198

Unit Acreage 7,880

Access Point U.S. Highway 50 

Main activities Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Environmental 

Education

Special Events

Wings Over Muscatatuck Bird Festival (2nd Saturday in 

May); Wetland Day (mid-March); Log cabin Day 

(National WR week)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs 

(miles-direction as the crow flies)

Hoosier National Forest (20-W); Mammoth Cave 

National Park (120-S)

Transportation Hub (miles awayas the crow flies) Louisville, KY (55)

Gateway Community (miles awayas the crow flies) Seymour, IN (6)

Scenic Byway Indiana's Historic Pathway (State/National Scenic 

Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.1997

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Congestion on roads leading to unit

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Unsafe road conditions surrounding the unit

Access to the refuge is on high traffic and narrow road 

with no real shoulder- very dangerous for bikers and 

walkers. Currently transit does not come here. Gravel 

refuge roads are not good for biking.

Funding for paving four miles of Auto Tour would be a 

great improvement.

Habitat Fragmentation Migratory songbirds

Animal-Vehicle collisions White-tailed deer (non-endangered specie) on Us Hwy 

50 and 31

Safety Concern for visitors 

accessing the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails to access unit

Bicycle trails to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Bike paths on Refuge Auto Tour Route
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance 

Priorit

y

Muscatatuck NWR

Seymour, IN 1- 3 miles More than 3 miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Seymour Transit offers its Ride to Recycle service within three miles of the refuge.

• Approximately five percent of refuge visitors access the refuge by pedestrian or bicycle 

modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The current access road to the refuge has no shoulder, heavy traffic, and is hazardous 

for cyclists and pedestrians. Improvements are planned but no date is confirmed.

• The refuge would benefit most from the addition of bicycle paths or paving along the 

unpaved Auto Tour Route. Other ATS improvements that could benefit the refuge 

include internal seasonal transit, transit service for access to the station, and new 

bicycle and pedestrian paths for access to the station.

• Transit may be able to assist the refuge for special events, such as the Wings over

Muscatatuck Bird Festival in May that attracts approximately 1,000 visitors. The Log 

Cabin Day in October attracts 800 visitors.

• A small transit vehicle may offer benefits to the refuge for its visitor programs or to 

access the Auto Tour Route.

• Challenges facing the refuge include unsafe pedestrian and road conditions, lack of 

transit service, and congestion on roads leading to the refuge. Other minor challenges 

include staff and funding shortages, resource conflicts, and condition of transportation 

assets.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Neal Smith NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 8.04

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 4.75

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.88

• Native Road (Miles) 1.26

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.15

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 3.15

Parking Lot (square feet) 196,445

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Neal Smith NWR

Unit Acreage 8,654

Access Point Highway 117 

Main activities Hunting, Wildlife Observation, Environmental 

Education, photography and Interpretation

Special Events

Public Lands/Buffalo day (Last Saturday in 

September); Monarch Madness (First Saturday after 

labor day); Earth Day Celebration (April)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Herbert Hoover National Historic Site (28-E); Mark 

Twain National Forest (200-S)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Des Moines, IA (20)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Prairie City, IA (4)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Resource conflicts with cars or bicycles

Lack of safe pedestrian access

County roads cross the refuge every mile (farm to 

market roads) power lines cross center of refuge.

Habitat Fragmentation Prairie and oak savanna, county roads divide them

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Deer, pheasant, songbirds and rabbits (nonendangered species) on Hwy 163 (north boundary of 

refuge), entry road.

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center

On entry road bicyclists share the road with cars -

there is no shoulder so this a major safety concern

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and Pedestrian trails to and within unit

Bicycle racks

Water - access facilities

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle/pedestrian trail within unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Neal Smith NWR

Prairie City, IA

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles/Planned 

direct 

connection

Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority (DART) offers transit service, 

approximately 20 miles from the refuge.

• The Plainsmen Trail, part of the Central Iowa trail network, runs directly to the refuge. 

Approximately 10 percent of refuge visitors access the refuge by bicycle or pedestrian 

modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge entry road is shared between vehicles and bicycles, and there is no shoulder 

for bicycles, causing a major safety hazard. 

• The refuge is planning a bicycle/pedestrian trail that connects the Visitor Center with the 

Plainsmen trail in Prairie City. The refuge anticipates increasing visitation by bicycle.

• The refuge’s greatest transportation challenges are lack of transit service, lack of safe 

pedestrian access, and resource conflicts with cars and bicycles.

• The refuge would like to consider internal transit and new bicycle infrastructure within 

and leading to the station.
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Necedah National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Necedah NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 43.25

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 34.79

• Native Road (Miles) 5.86

• Primitive Road (Miles) 2.60

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 5.9

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Necedah NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 353,276

Unit Acreage 43,656

Access Point Headquarters Road

Main activities Wildlife Observation and Photography

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Chequamegon National Forest (5-W); Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore (15-NE) 

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Tomah, WI (21)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Necedah, WI (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Condition of existing transportation assets

Appropriate and effective signage

Habitat Fragmentation Karner Blue Butterfly

Animal-Vehicle collisions No

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails within unit

Bicycle trails to unit

Parking Management Solutions

Improved Signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Necedah NWR

Necedah, WI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Amtrak offers transit service more than three miles from the refuge.

• The Elroy Sparta trail is located more than three miles from the refuge.

• The refuge is located far from population centers and lacks transit service in close 

proximity.

• The refuge friends groups help subsidize transportation for an afterschool program at the 

refuge for students in the town of Necedah.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge has a new visitor center, opened in 2011. Refuge staff expects an increase in 

visitation, especially among field trips and charter bus tour groups. A small transit vehicle 

may help the refuge in providing interpretive tours to small groups in restricted areas of 

the refuge.

• The refuge’s greatest challenges are the condition of existing transportation assets and 

appropriate signage. They also are challenged by unsafe road conditions surrounding the 

station, congestion on roads to and within the station, funding and staffing shortages, and 

lack of transit service. 

• The refuge would benefit from improved signage for orientation within the station and 

parking management for visitors at different amenity sites throughout the station.

• The refuge would like to add improved pedestrian access trails within the station and 

bicycle trails to the station. The refuge would also like to explore seasonal transit within 

the station.

• The station contains many miles of unpaved roads, owned and maintained by 

surrounding townships. The refuge must determine whether to allow all-terrain vehicles 

on these roads within the refuge, which is currently illegal.
 National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Neosho National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Neosho NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.42

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.42

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Neosho NFH

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.60

Parking Lot (square feet) 69,128

Unit Acreage 263

Access Point Park Street

Main activities Photography, Environmental Education and 

Interpretation

Special Events

Kids fishing derby, Elderly/Physically disabled fishing 

outing (April); Open House (June) and Friends picnic 

(October)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)George Washington Carver National Monument (8-

N); Mark Twain National Forest (32-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Joplin, MO (22)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Neosho, MO (0)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Parking

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Turning lanes for access to unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Neosho NFH

Neosho, MO

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Greyhound bus offers service more than three miles from the hatchery.

• The hatchery has a direct connection to a regional non-motorized trail, and 

approximately 20 percent of visitors access the site by walking or bicycling.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatchery’s key challenges are staff capacity and signage.

• The hatchery hosts several events in April and June that attract very high visitation 

(5,000 people or more). They could use assistance in identifying parking solutions during 

these high visitation periods.

• The hatchery opened a new visitation center that will increase visitation to over 100,000 

per year. 
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Northern Tallgrass Prairie National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Northern Tallgrass Prairie NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) Refer to managing refuge

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) Refer to managing refuge

Unit Acreage 752

Access Point Big Stone County Road 19 

Main activities Hunting, Wildlife Observation, Photography and 

Environmental Education

Special Events

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Ortonville, MN (7)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Odessa, MN (1)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Ottawa NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 48.22

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 1.41

• Gravel Road (Miles) 34.58

• Native Road (Miles) 11.29

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.94

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 7.14

Parking Lot (square feet) 307,793

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Ottawa NWR

Unit Acreage 9,000

Access Point SR 2

Main activities Environmental Education, Hunting, Interpretation

Photography and Wildlife Observation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Perry's Victory and International Peace Memorial 

(16-E); Wayne National Forest (145-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Toledo, OH (22)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Oregon, OH (17)

Scenic Byway Lake Erie Coastal Ohio Trail (State/National Scenic 

Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.2006

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Patoka River NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 5.41

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 1.53

• Native Road (Miles) 1.93

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.94

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.07

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Patoka River NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 83,306

Unit Acreage 5,587

Access Point State Road 64

Main activities Environmental Education, Fishing, Hunting, 

Photography and Wildlife Observation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)George Rogers Clark National Historic Park (20-

NW); Hoosier National Forest (23-E)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Evansville, IN (34)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Oakland City, IN (1)

Scenic Byway Ohio River Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Pendills Creek National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Pendills Creek NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.82

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.23

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.59

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Pendills Creek NFH

Parking Lot (square feet) 42,497

Unit Acreage 85

Access Point Lake Shore Drive

Main activities Fishing

Special Events Children’s Fishing Event (June), Open house events 

(varies)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Hiawatha National Forest (1-S); Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore (59-W)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Sault Ste. Marie, MI (35)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Bay Mills Township, MI (1)

Scenic Byway Whitefish Bay Scenic Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Visitor orientation to and within unit

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer (non-endangered specie) on highway

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle trail to unit

Parking Management Solutions

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle trail to unit

Other Need larger parking area
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Pendills Creek NFHs

Brimley, MI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The station is located far from population centers and lacks transit service in close 

proximity.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatcheries’ greatest challenges funding and staffing shortages, lack of safe 

pedestrian access, and visitor orientation to and within the station. Other challenges 

include transportation infrastructure conditions, bus parking, and signage.

• The hatcheries would like to add bicycle trails for access to the station. 

• The hatchery would also like to explore parking management solutions, including a larger 

parking area to handle some of its higher visitation events that attract up to 400 people.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Port Louisa National Wildlife Refuge

C

FACTS Port Louisa NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 18.90

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.05

• Gravel Road (Miles) 10.07

• Native Road (Miles) 8.78

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Port Louisa NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 2.02

Parking Lot (square feet) 198,858

Unit Acreage 8,375

Access Point County Hwy 62 to its end on X61

Main activities Fishing and Wildlife Observation

Special Events Running Wild (August); Migratory Bird day (May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Herbert Hoover National Historic Site (28-E); Mark 

Twain National Forest (195-S)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Muscatine, IA (18)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Wapello, IA (6)

Scenic Byway Great River Road (National Scenic Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Improve hiking trails and auto tour road

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Reptiles and amphibians (state listed species) along 

Louisa division roads

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center Right turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails to within unit

Bicycle trail to and within unit

Water - Access facilities

Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian trails

te Road (Miles)

Co
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Port Louisa NWR

Wapello, IA

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Due to its location and lack of transit service, most visitors do not use transit or trails to 

access the site.

• Ten percent of visitors access the site through water-based transportation modes.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The greatest needs include pedestrian and bicycle trails for access to and travel within 

the refuge. Other improvements include improved signage, promotion and marketing, 

and water-access facilities.

• The refuge would benefit most from promotion of existing ATS connections, improved 

pedestrian trails or paths to access the station, and improved signage for visitor 

orientation.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Rice Lake National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Rice Lake NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 21.99

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.13

• Gravel Road (Miles) 17.56

• Native Road (Miles) 4.30

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 5.78

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Rice Lake NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 132,703

Unit Acreage 18,300

Access Point Hwy 65

Main activities Hunting, Fishing Wildlife Observation, Photography 

and Interpretation

Special Events Family Fun Day (2nd Friday in June); Disabled 

Access Deer Hunt (2nd Weekend in October)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Chippewa National Forest (35-NW); Saint Croix 

National Scenic River (50-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Brainerd, MN (57)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) McGregor, MN (6)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Orientation to the unit.

Habitat Fragmentation Old crop fields needing reforestation

Animal-Vehicle collisions White-tailed deer (non-endangered specie) on Hwy 

65 adjacent to unit

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Parking Management Solutions

Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Improved signage to unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Rice Lake NWR

McGregor, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The refuge is located in a rural area, far from population centers and with no nearby 

transit service, limiting the ATS access options.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge’s greatest challenges are lack of safe pedestrian access and staff capacity 

shortages. They also face challenges of funding shortages, signage, and visitor orientation. 

• The refuge may benefit from improved signage for orientation to and within the station, 

and parking management solutions.

• The refuge anticipates greater visitation in the future from school groups or organized 

birding groups. Transit may be able to assist these visitors on a program-by-program basis.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Rydell National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Rydell NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 9.47

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.14

• Gravel Road (Miles) 7.43

• Native Road (Miles) 0.70

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.20

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Rydell NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 4.93

Parking Lot (square feet) 118,663

Unit Acreage 800

Access Point Polk County Road 210 

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation

Special Events Wolves and their habitat (2010); Live animals -

Interesting facts (2010); Star lab (2009)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Chippewa National Forest (67-E); Voyageurs 

National Park (155-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Crookston, MN (30)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Erskine, MN (8)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Road conditions surrounding unit

Condition of roads leading to the unit

Habitat Fragmentation Mature maple/Basswood Forest

Animal-Vehicle collisions No

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails to the unit

Bicycle racks

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

County Road accessing the Refuge is graveled and is 

very dusty. During spring thaw road is nearly 

impassable.
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Rydell NWR

Erskine, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Greyhound bus service runs in the general vicinity of the refuge (with stations at least 3 

miles away).

• The Tri-Valley Heartland Express Bus (T.H.E. BUS) provides subscription and dial a ride 

service around Crookston, Thief River Falls, and Bagley (all within 30 miles of the 

refuge).

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station’s most critical challenges are funding and staffing shortages and unsafe road 

conditions.

• Improvements to the county road leading to the refuge, including new pedestrian and 

bicycle paths, would benefit the station. The gravel road is very dusty and becomes 

impassable during the spring thaw. Road improvements must occur before ATS access 

would be feasible.

• The station would like to install bicycle racks to accommodate visitors who access the 

site by bicycle (approximately five percent).
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Savannah District

FACTS Savanna District

Road Miles (TOTAL) 59.49

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 22.66

• Gravel Road (Miles) 25.27

• Native Road (Miles) 11.55

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.78

Parking Lot (square feet) 250,567

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Savanna District

Unit Acreage -

Access Point Riverview Road

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Photography, 

Environmental Education and Interpretation

Special Events

Mig Bird Day (May); Kids Fishing Day (Sept); 

GeoCaching (March); Bird Tours (monthly); Golf cart 

tours (bi-monthly)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Illinois and Michigan Canal National Heritage Corridor 

(65-SE); Joilet Army Ammunition Plant (110-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Clinton, IA (16)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Savanna, IL (6)

Scenic Byway Great River Road (National Scenic Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Condition of existing transportation assets

Habitat Fragmentation Yes

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Deer, raccoon, skunk, opossum, turtles, birds, snakes 

(Some listed as state threatened species) along 

adjacent state and local highways

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Other

Rural area with no local public transportation. A

short bus would allow the unit to provide greater 

opportunities for Refuge programs.
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Upper Mississippi NWR, Savanna District 

Savanna, IL

More than 3 

miles

Direct 

connection Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Great River State Trail runs directly through the District. 

• The refuge completed a bike trail in 2010 that has increased visitation by bicycle. 

Approximately 15 percent of visitors access the station by bicycle.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge’s greatest challenges stem from their rural location: the lack of transit 

service, the distance from population centers, and the condition of existing 

transportation infrastructure. 

• There may be a future opportunity to further extend the bicycle trail.

• A small transit vehicle may offer benefits to the refuge for its visitor programs.
`

 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Seney National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Seney NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 94.25

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 1.41

• Gravel Road (Miles) 63.22

• Native Road (Miles) 25.57

• Primitive Road (Miles) 4.04

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Seney NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 8.91

Parking Lot (square feet) 112,901

Unit Acreage 95,212

Access Point Highway M-77

Main activities Wildlife Observation

Special Events Kids Fishing Day (2nd week in June); Scout Day (Sept)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Hiawatha National Forest (5-W); Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore (15-N)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Manistique, MI (36)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Seney, MI (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified Maintaining internal roads

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer and some eagles (non-endangered species) on 

state highways outside unit

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Bicycle trails for access to the unit

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Seney NWR

Seney, MI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Due to its rural location and lack of transit service, there are no ATS options for access to 

this refuge.

• The refuge offers some guided auto tours in which participants can ride in refuge 

vehicles; additional participants use their own vehicles and participate via radios.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station would benefit most from bicycle trails for access to the station.

• The refuge could further expand and promote the use of refuge vehicles for 

environmental education and interpretive programs.

• Transportation challenges include lack of transit service, bus parking, funding and 

staffing shortages, and lack of safe pedestrian and vehicle access.
 National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Sherburne NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 48.98

Concrete Road (Miles) -

Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.10

Gravel Road (Miles) 26.06

Native Road (Miles) 18.21

Primitive Road (Miles) 4.61

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 9.43

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Sherburne NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 334,281

Unit Acreage 30,700

Access Point County Road 9

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation.

Special Events Wildlife Festival (September/October); Winter Fest 

(February)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (15-

SE); Chippewa National Forest (100-N)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) St. Cloud, MN (31)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Zimmerman, MN (10)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Lack of bicycle lanes along County roads and access to 

the Northstar commuter rail

Habitat Fragmentation Yes, deer (non-endangered species) along all roads

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

New transit service for access to the unit

Pedestrian trails/paths for access to unit

Bicycle trails

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Sherburne NWR 

Zimmerman, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Northstar Commuter Rail is located 15 miles from the refuge, with connections to 

the Twin Cities.

• Recreational trails in the town of Princeton are located approximately nine miles from 

the refuge. Approximately one percent of visitors currently come to the refuge by 

bicycle.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Transit assistance at special events, such as the Wildlife Festival and Winter Fest.

• There may be opportunities to run a shuttle from the commuter rail station to the 

refuge during special events or programs to allow access to the refuge without the use 

of a personal vehicle.

• Improve and ensure safety of non-motorized trails or bicycle lanes to access the station, 

such as from the town of Princeton. A significant number of the visitors originate from 

within 10 miles of the station.

• Refuge may benefit from enhanced study of transportation needs, transit connections, 

and addition of new bicycle lanes.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Shiawassee NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 32.64

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 16.08

• Native Road (Miles) 13.65

• Primitive Road (Miles) 2.91

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 13.61

Parking Lot (square feet) 153,616

Unit Acreage 5,000

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Shiawassee NWR

Access Point Maple Street

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation

Special Events Open House (September); Kids Free Fishing Day 

(June) and Wild Goose Chase 5K (September)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Huron National Forest (65-N); Sleeping Bear Dunes 

National Lakeshore (140-NW)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Saginaw, MI (8)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Saginaw, MI (8)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Appropriate and effective signage

Visitor orientation to and within unit

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Severely degraded roads leading to refuge public use 

facilities.

Most transportation issues are from poor or 

nonexistent infrastructure off refuge, deterring 

visitors from coming here.

Habitat Fragmentation Blanding's turtle, eastern fox snake, many 

reptiles/amphibians 

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Blanding's turtle, eastern fox snake, many 

reptiles/amphibians (State listed-threatened species) 

near bridges over rivers, roads with wetlands on both 

sides

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trail to and within unit

Improved signage for orientation to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian trail for access to unit
Refuge

Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Shiawassee NWR 

Saginaw, MI

1⁄2 - 1 mile

Less than 1⁄2 

mile High

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Saginaw Transit Authority offers regional bus service near the refuge every 40 minutes, 

six days per week. The bus stop is 6-7 blocks from Green Point Environmental Learning 

Center (ELC). 

• The Saginaw Valley Rail Trail is located approximately two to three miles from the 

refuge, and recent sidewalk improvements (by the County) have connected the trail to 

within 100 yards of a refuge trailhead. Visitation by walking and biking to the trailhead 

has increased over the past few years.

• The City of Saginaw and refuge friends groups have submitted several Public Lands 

Highway Discretionary applications for road improvements to a section of Gabriel 

Road/Maple Street for access to the ELC, but the applications have not been selected.

• Road conditions leading to the refuge are very poor and unsafe, which actively deters 

motorized and non-motorized visitors. Roads in the area are considered to be in poor 

condition for bicycling.

• The refuge has strong partnerships with the City of Saginaw and Saginaw County for 

transportation and non-transportation projects.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Visitors can currently use transit, pedestrian, or bicycle modes to access the refuge, but 

these connections may be unsafe, inconvenient, or inappropriate for some visitors. 

Several simple improvements, such as sidewalk extension near the bus stop and near 

the trailhead, would significantly increase non-motorized and transit access.

• To better connect existing transit to the refuge, partner with Saginaw Transit Authority 

to add bus stops closer to the ELC and promote the use of transit for refuge access.

• Connect the Saginaw Valley Rail Trail and Saginaw County sidewalks with the refuge 

trailhead (100 yards) and provide signage along the Rail Trail to orient users to the 

refuge trails.

• Several schools within one mile of the ELC have discontinued field trips in recent years, 

in part due to costs of buses. These schools may be able to walk to the refuge with 

improved infrastructure.

• Refuge staff would also like improved signage for orientation to and within the station.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Squaw Creek National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Squaw Creek NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 30.00

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.72

• Gravel Road (Miles) 13.26

• Native Road (Miles) 15.65

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.37

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.54

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Squaw Creek NWR

Parking Lot (square feet) 99,802

Unit Acreage 7,350

Access Point Highway 159

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation.

Special Events Eagle Days (Early December); Family Day (October); 

Migratory Bird Day (May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Homestead National Monument (84-W); Mark Twain 

National Forest (185-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) St. Joseph, MO (37)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Mound City, MO (5)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Bus parking

Condition of existing transportation assets

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions White tail deer (non-endangered specie) along Hwy 

159, I-29 and Hwy 118

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center Left turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails to and within unit

Bicycle trails within unit

Turning lanes for access to unit

Parking management solutions

Most important enhancement 

priority New transit service

Other Tour busses
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Squaw Creek NWR

Forest City, MO

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is an Amtrak station located more than 3 miles from the refuge.

• The refuge is located very far from population centers and has no transit service nearby, 

limiting the existing ATS.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• Transportation challenges include bus parking, funding and staffing shortages, and 

condition of existing transportation assets.

• One of the most critical needs is parking management solutions, particularly for parking 

tour buses. There may be a need for better circulation of buses or internal transit within 

the site.

• The refuge could benefit from pedestrian and bicycle trails within the station and 

pedestrian trails for access to the station.

• The refuge has several large events that attract high visitation, such as Eagle Days in 

December with up to 7,500 visitors. The refuge uses partnerships to expand parking 

capacity, but they may be able to rent transit vehicles for use during these events.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

St. Croix Wetland Management District

FACTS St. Croix WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 1.37

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.12

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.45

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.80

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.87

Parking Lot (square feet) 232,010

Unit Acreage 6,760

Access Point 95th Street

Main activities Hunting

Special Events

Boy Scout Invasive Species Event (October); Nature 

walks (Summer and Winter): Plant a Prairie Plug 

(May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) St. Paul, MN (35)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) New Richmond, WI (5)

Scenic Byway -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS St. Croix WMD

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Resource conflicts with cars and bicycles

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Condition of existing transportation assets

Appropriate and effective signage

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Hazard mitigation. Public road system is not designed 

for foot or bike traffic

Congestion problem on roads leading to unit

Habitat Fragmentation All species. Public road crisscross district at 1 mile or 

less intervals

Animal-Vehicle collisions Bear, deer and turkey (non-endangered species) on 

road right-of-way

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Parking Management Solutions

Improved signage for orientation to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Bicycle and pedestrian safety

Other Public roads cannot handle moderate to large traffic 

flows
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

St. Croix WMD

New Richmond, WI

More than 3 

miles

Close 

connection Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Willow State Park Trail runs within close proximity to several WPAs.

• The station is located in a rural setting with no transit surface, limiting the ATS access 

options.

• The station currently uses transit for special events, such as Boy Scout Invasive Species 

Event in October and Plant a Prairie Plug in May, which attract up to 500 visitors.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station’s most pressing transportation challenges include resource conflicts with 

vehicles, funding and staffing shortages, safe pedestrian access, road conditions within 

and near the station, and appropriate signage.

• The roads near the stations are not designed for pedestrian or bicycle traffic, and 

therefore hazard mitigation would be critical to increasing access by alternative modes. 

Widening roads to include a bike lane would be helpful.

• The station could benefit from parking management solutions and improved signage for 

orientation to the WPAs.

• As the WPAs host more public events, the station staff anticipate greater interest in the 

WPAs in general.
National Fish Hatchery Fact Sheet

Sullivan Creek National Fish Hatchery

FACTS Sullivan Creek NFH

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.42

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.21

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.21

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Sullivan Creek NFH

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 25,373

Unit Acreage 7

Access Point Forest Service Road 3131

Main activities Hatchery Tours

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Hiawatha National Forest (1-S); Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore (62-W)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Sault Ste. Marie, MI (25)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Superior Township, MI (1)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance 

Priorit

y

Sullivan Creek NFHs

Brimley, MI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The station is located far from population centers and lacks transit service in close 

proximity.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The hatcheries’ greatest challenges funding and staffing shortages, lack of safe 

pedestrian access, and visitor orientation to and within the station. Other challenges 

include transportation infrastructure conditions, bus parking, and signage.

• The hatcheries would like to add bicycle trails for access to the station. 

• The hatchery would also like to explore parking management solutions, including a 

larger parking area to handle some of its higher visitation events that attract up to 400 

people.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Swan Lake NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 24.67

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 24.43

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.24

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Swan Lake NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.40

Parking Lot (square feet) 136,661

Unit Acreage 10,670

Access Point Route CC 

Main activities Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Observation

Special Events First Fridays (Spring and Summer); Green Wing Day 

(August); Swing the Gates Open (March)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mark Twain National (72-SE); Tallgrass Prairie 

National Preserve (198-SW)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Kansas City, MO (115)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Sumner, MO (3)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Bicycle and pedestrian trails within unit

Bicycle racks

Improved signage for orientation to unit

Bicycling

Habitat Fragmentation No

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, small mammals, reptiles (non-endangered 

species) along roadways

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Swan Lake NWR

Sumner, MO

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The station is located far from population centers and has no transit surface nearby, 

limiting the ATS access options.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station’s most critical challenges are staff capacity and funding shortages and poor 

conditions of current transportation assets.

• The greatest opportunity for improved transportation assets would be infrastructure to 

accommodate bicyclists and horseback riders. The refuge would like to add new 

pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure within the station, such as trails and bicycle racks.

• The refuge could benefit from internal transit, new transit access to the station, and 

improved signage for orientation to the station.

• If there were a transit vehicle available at low or no cost, the refuge may be able to use it 

for special events throughout the spring and summer that attract up to 300 participants 

each.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge

C

te 

FACTS Tamarac NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 59.10

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.32

• Gravel Road (Miles) 31.65

• Native Road (Miles) 22.27

• Primitive Road (Miles) 4.86

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Tamarac NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 14.15

Parking Lot (square feet) 186,601

Unit Acreage 42,724

Access Point County Road 26

Main activities Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Observation

Special Events Fall Festival (October); Birding Festival (may)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Chippewa National Forest (42-E); Voyageurs National 

Park (157-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Detroit Lakes, MN (18)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Detroit Lakes, MN (18)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

At-grade railroad crossing

Road safety and maintenance issues.

Habitat Fragmentation Wolves, migratory birds

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, small mammals (non-endangered species) on 

main roadways

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center None

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Pedestrian trails within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority -

Road (Miles)
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Tamarac NWR and WMD

Rochert, MN

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The refuge currently uses transit for several large events, such as the Fall Festival in 

October and the Birding Festival in May.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The biggest challenges on the refuge are the distance from population centers, lack of 

transit service, and funding shortages. The refuge also faces road safety and maintenance 

issues.

• The refuge could benefit from improved pedestrian paths or trails for access within the 

station.

Concrete Road (Miles)
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Trempealeau National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Trempealeau NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 16.41

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 1.03

• Gravel Road (Miles) 12.68

• Native Road (Miles) 1.66

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.04

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Trempealeau NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 8.20

Parking Lot (square feet) 104,247

Unit Acreage 6,226

Access Point West Prairie Road 

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Environmental Education and 

Interpretation 

Special Events

River Education Days (mid-May); International 

Migratory Bird Day (Mid May); Hunt for people with 

disabilities (End of October)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (75-

NW); Chequamegon National Forest (85-NE); 

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Winona, MN (10)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Trempealeau, WI (10)

Scenic Byway Great River Road (National Scenic Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Road flooding issues and road maintenance costs

The main entrance road to the refuge is subject to 

flooding several times a year. We need funds to 

construct a bridge.

Habitat Fragmentation Yes

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer and songbirds (non-endangered species) along 

state Hwy 35/53 adjacent to the unit

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program Improved signage for orientation to unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Improved Highway signs
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Trempealeau NWR

Trempealeau, WI

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• La Crosse Transit offers bus service more than three miles from the refuge.

• The Great River State Trail has a direct connection to the refuge and offers access to a 

large number of visitors. Staff estimates that 20 percent of visitors walk or bicycle to the 

refuge, mostly along this trail.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge’s greatest transportation challenges are road flooding and maintenance costs. 

Increased flooding is impacting refuge visitation, and they are considering a bridge along 

the entrance road if funds become available.

• The refuge faces a lack of transit service and distance from population centers. They also 

suffer from staff capacity shortages.

• The station’s greatest priority for transportation improvements is improved signs along 

the highway for visitor orientation to the station. They could also benefit from promotion 

for existing ATS access (the Great River State Trail). The refuge would like to explore the 

use of an on-site bike sharing program.

• If there were a transit vehicle available at low or no cost (or shared with the nearby 

Upper Mississippi River Refuge), Trempealeau may be able to use it for special events 

throughout the year that attract up to 1,000 participants each.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Two Rivers National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Two Rivers NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 21.56

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.67

• Gravel Road (Miles) 16.01

• Native Road (Miles) 4.49

• Primitive Road (Miles) 0.40

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Two Rivers NWR

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.10

Parking Lot (square feet) 145,262

Unit Acreage 8,501

Access Point Hagen Road

Main activities Fishing, Wildlife Observation and Photography

Special Events Two Rivers Family Fishing Fair (Early June)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mark Twain National Forest (68-SW); Jefferson 

National Expansion Memorial (28-SE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) St. Louis, MO (39)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Brussels, IL (4)

Scenic Byway Meeting of the Great River Scenic Route 

(State/National Scenic Byway)

Air quality Non-Attainment Area PM-2.5.1997

Main transportation challenges 

identified

roads & trails are negatively impacted by flooding of 

Mississippi and Illinois Rivers

Primary refuge access across local river is by ferry 

boat. Ferries close during severe ice conditions & 

roads are inundated during flood events, making 

access to the Refuge difficult.

Habitat Fragmentation Yes

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Deer, squirrel, raccoons, river otters, amphibians and 

various reptiles (non-endangered species) on county 

highway bisecting unit

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center No

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Pedestrian trails within unit

Bicycle trails to and within unit

Improved signage for orientation within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Pedestrian and bicycle trails within unit
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Two Rivers NWR

Brussels, IL

More than 3 

miles

Less than 1⁄2 

mile Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• There is an Amtrak station located in St. Louis, approximately 30 miles from the refuge.

• There is a regional bicycle and pedestrian trail located less than one-half mile from the 

refuge.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge most needs paved pedestrian and bicycle trails within the station that would 

not be impacted from flooding. They also would like bicycle trails for access to the station.

• Primary refuge access occurs by ferry, and access is impeded during flood events and ice 

conditions. The most significant transportation challenge is road flooding by the 

Mississippi and the Illinois Rivers. Paving more roads within the station would help with 

flood impacts.

• Other transportation challenges include congestion on roads leading to station, road 

conditions, bus parking, funding shortages, visitor orientation, and pedestrian access.

• Promotion, marketing, and improved signage could help to promote the refuge and 

increase visitation.

• If there were a transit vehicle available at low or no cost, the refuge may be able to use it 

for special events such as the Two Rivers Family Fishing Fair, which attracts 4,500 visitors 

in June.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Union Slough NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) 5.83

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) 4.60

• Native Road (Miles) 1.23

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Union Slough NWR

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 99,732

Unit Acreage 3,334

Access Point County road A-42

Main activities Hunting, Fishing and Interpretation

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mississippi National River and recreation Area (115-

NE); Chequamegon National Forest (212-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Mason City, IA (56)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Bancroft, IA (6)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Very rural, located hours from the nearest population 

center.

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions

Trumpeter swan (endangered species), Canada good, 

deer and pheasant (non-endangered species) along 

county highways crossing the refuge.

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program -

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Union Slough NWR

Titonka, IA

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• None

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The distance from population centers and lack of transit offers challenges in improving 

access to the refuge.

• Bicycle or pedestrian paths could allow greater access to the refuge from nearby towns, 

as a significant number of visitors come from within 10 miles of the station.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Whitefish Point National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Whitefish Point NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) Unit of Seney NWR

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) -

Unit Acreage 33

Access Point Refuge Entrance Rd

Main activities -

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles away-as the 

crow flies) Sault Ste. Marie, MI (73)

Gateway Community (miles away-as the 

crow flies) Paradise, MI/ Whitefish Township, MI (11)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges identified -

Habitat Fragmentation -

Animal-Vehicle collisions -

Safety Concern for visitors accessing the 

unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help visitor 

program -

Other Part of Seney NWR

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Whittlesey Creek National Wildlife Refuge

FACTS Whittlesey Creek NWR

Road Miles (TOTAL) -

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) -

• Gravel Road (Miles) -

• Native Road (Miles) -

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 0.10

Parking Lot (square feet) 44,732

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Whittlesey Creek NWR

Unit Acreage 540

Access Point Highway 2

Main activities Wildlife Observation, Photography, Environmental 

Education and Interpretation

Special Events Birding & Nature Festival (mid-May); Kid's Fishing Day 

(June); Northwoods Adventures Series (June-August)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Chequamegon National Forest (5-W); Apostle Islands 

National Lakeshore (11-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Duluth, MN (68)

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Ashland, WI (3)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Lack of safe pedestrian access

Lack of safe vehicular access within unit

Unsafe road conditions surrounding unit

Habitat Fragmentation Coastal wetlands fragmented with uplands by Hwy 13

Animal-Vehicle collisions

White tailed deer, turtles and migratory birds (nonendangered species) from the coastal side of lake 

superior to the upland side 

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center Right turn lane is needed

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle and pedestrian trails to and within unit

Bicycle racks

Water- access facilities

Improved signage to and within unit

Most important enhancement 

priority Internal transit - year round

Other Buses for students
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Whittlesey Creek NWR

Ashland, WI

Less than 1⁄2 

mile 1⁄2 to 1 mile Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The refuge’s Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center is located less than 1⁄2 mile from Bay 

Area Rural Transit (BART) service.

• The refuge is also located within 1 mile of the Tri-County Corridor Trail.

• A significant number of visitors are familiar with transit or bicycling as a transportation 

mode.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The station’s most critical challenges are lack of safe pedestrian and vehicular access to 

the station and vehicular access within the station. The refuge also faces challenges 

with orientation and signage.

• The refuge could benefit from internal transit within the station year-round.

• The refuge would like to explore the following ATS options: bicycle and pedestrian paths 

for access to and within the station, bicycle racks, water-access facilities, signage for 

orientation, and promotion and marketing for existing ATS.

• The refuge could use transit for assistance at several special events in the spring and 

summer, such as Birding & Nature Festival and Kid’s Fishing Day, which attract up to 

2,500 visitors.

• The refuge would like additional options for busing students from nearby schools.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Windom Wetland Management District

FACTS Windom WMD

Road Miles (TOTAL) 6.50

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.27

• Gravel Road (Miles) 2.24

• Native Road (Miles) 2.90

• Primitive Road (Miles) 1.09

Trail Miles (TOTAL) 1.22

Parking Lot (square feet) 442,001

Unit Acreage 13,000

Access Point County Road 17

Main activities Hunting, Wildlife Observation, Photography and 

Interpretation

Special Events Wings on the Prairie (May)

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies) -

Transportation Hub (miles away-as the 

crow flies) Windom, MN (2)

Gateway Community (miles away-as the 

crow flies) Windom, MN (2)

Scenic Byway -

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges identified

Habitat Fragmentation Yes

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer. Birds and mammals (non-endangered 

species) along roads adjacent to units

Safety Concern for visitors accessing the 

unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help visitor 

program

Bicycle and pedestrian trail to and within unit

Bicycle racks

Water-access facilities

Improved signage for orientation within unit

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Windom WMD

Windom, MN 1- 3 miles More than 3 miles Low

Existing or Planned ATS:

• Cottonwood County Transit offers service within 3 miles of one or more units of the 

WMD.

• The Iowa Great Lakes Recreational Trail and the Casey Jones Trail are located within the 

region but are more than three miles from the station.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The WMD would benefit most from promotion and marketing for existing and potential 

ATS. Other strategies would be improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, such as 

trails to and within the station and bicycle racks. They would also benefit from water 

access facilities and improved signage.

• A new visitor center and office complex may increase visitation in the future.
National Wildlife Refuge Fact Sheet

Winona District

FACTS Winona District

Road Miles (TOTAL) 0.68

• Concrete Road (Miles) -

• Asphalt Road (Miles) 0.47

• Gravel Road (Miles) 0.21

• Native Road (Miles) -

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FACTS Winona District

• Primitive Road (Miles) -

Trail Miles (TOTAL) -

Parking Lot (square feet) 224,093

Unit Acreage -

Access Point East 4th Street

Main activities Hunting, Fishing, Wildlife Observation and 

Photography.

Special Events -

Proximity to nearest FLMAs (milesdirection as the crow flies)Mississippi National River and recreation Area (37-

NW); Chequamegon National Forest (80-NE)

Transportation Hub (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Winona, MN 

Gateway Community (miles away-as 

the crow flies) Winona, MN (0)

Scenic Byway Great River Road Byway

Air quality Non-Attainment Area None

Main transportation challenges 

identified

Appropriate and effective signage

Visitor orientation to and within unit

Increasing use of canoes/kayaks on the river and the 

safety concerns that are associated with these users 

and other users like commercial barges

Habitat Fragmentation Floodplain forest

Animal-Vehicle collisions Deer, small mammal, turtle, birds (non-endangered 

species) on highway

Safety Concern for visitors accessing 

the unit/Visitor center -

Enhancements identified to help 

visitor program

Bicycle trails

Improved signage to and within unit

Water access facilities

Promotion and marketing

Most important enhancement 

priority -
Refuge Transit 

Distance

Trail 

Distance Priority

Upper Mississippi NWR, Winona District 

Winona, MN

More than 3 

miles

Direct 

connection Medium

Existing or Planned ATS:

• The Great River State Trail is located within the station, and the Mississippi River Trail is 

located approximately one-half mile from the station.

• The nearest Amtrak station in Winona is located less than one mile from the station (Pool 

6).

• Approximately one third of visitors access the station by boat, and five percent access the 

station by bicycles.

Opportunities for Future ATS:

• The refuge needs to address improved signage and promotion for orientation and ATS.

• Bicycle paths could allow greater access to the refuge from nearby towns, as a significant 

number of visitors come from within 10 miles of the station.

• Safety improvements for canoes and kayaks could lead to increased use of nonmotorized watercraft for access to and within the refuge. The refuge would like to 

increase non-motorized watercraft users and minimize impacts from motorized users.
FWS LRTP R-3 Appendix Page J-1

APPENDIX J

Alternative Transportation 

Priorities and Strategies
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Regional Alternative Transportation Evaluation Report – Region 3 

November 14, 2011 

Prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation 

John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center 

Haley Peckett and Benjamin Rasmussen 
Contents 

RATE Background ..................................................................................................................... 3 

Key Findings .............................................................................................................................. 3 

Region 3 Background and Trends ............................................................................................. 4 

Accessibility for Underserved Populations ................................................................................ 5 

Effective ATS Strategies for Region 3 ....................................................................................... 5

Alternative Transportation Questionnaire ................................................................................ 15 

Station and Visitation Background ....................................................................................... 15 

Transit and Trail Connections .............................................................................................. 16

Transportation Challenges and Opportunities ..................................................................... 17 

Analysis and Implications .................................................................................................... 19 

Funding Sources for ATS ........................................................................................................ 20 

Project Selection ..................................................................................................................... 21 

Priority Refuges ....................................................................................................................... 22
RATE B

The U.S. 

Center (V

which is c

ensure eff

goals and 

Center, FW

Federal L

in Bloomi

2011, to d

transporta

in the regi

Questionn

visited Mi

Wildlife R

Mississipp

District, N

National F

Wetland M

identify sp

ATS in th

also provi

how ATS

broadly ac

FWS Hea

would ben

Region 3 

 T

B

ha

sp

w

 O

fo

 A

an

 T

fa

 S

th

 A

ac

Key Fin

Based on 

following

Backgrou

Fish and Wild

Volpe Center) 

comprised of 

fective consid

recommenda

WS Region 3

ands Highwa

ington, Minne

discuss alterna

ation needs an

ion and to dev

naire. This RA

innesota Vall

Refuge (NWR

pi NWR – La

Necedah NWR

Fish Hatchery

Management 

pecific oppor

hese stations. 

ided insights 

 may be instit

cross Region 

adquarters and

nefit Region 3

LRTP. ATS a

The use of tran

By reducing th

ave upon natu

pecies, noise p

water. 

Over the long t

or new roads 

ATS can be a c

nd limited res

The use of tran

acilitating inte

ignage and or

hese modes ef

ATS can reduc

ccessibility, a

ndings 

the station vi

g are key findi

nd 

dlife Service 

conducted a r

Illinois, India

deration and in

ations of the R

, and Eastern

ays (EFLH) m

esota, in June

ative 

nd constraints

velop an ATS

ATE team the

ley National 

R), Upper 

a Crosse 

R, Genoa 

y, and Leopol

District to 

rtunities for 

The RATE 

and lessons o

tuted more 

3. 

d Regional sta

3 stations and

addresses LR

nsit, non-moto

he use of pers

ural resources

pollution, par

term, increasi

or parking, th

critical visitor

sources. 

nsit can enhan

erpretive tour

rientation info

ffectively into

ce the Service

and reduce air

isits, results fr

ings and outc

(FWS) and th

regional alter

ana, Iowa, Mi

ntegration of 

Region 3 long

n

met

e

s

S

en 

ld 

on 

aff approache

d complement

RTP goals in s

orized, and w

onal automob

s. Vehicular r

rticulate emis

ing ATS for s

hus preserving

r managemen

nce visitors’ u

rs or directing

ormation dire

o station trans

e’s carbon foo

r pollutants em

rom the ATS 

omes from th

Box 1:

Altern

travel 













3

he U.S. Depar

rnative transp

ichigan, Minn

alternative tr

g-range transp

ed the RATE w

t Service-wid

several ways, 

water-based m

biles, FWS ca

resource impa

sions, erosion

stations with i

g more area fo

nt tool for stat

understanding

g visitors for s

ected at non-a

sportation. 

otprint, reduce

mitted from v

Questionnair

he RATE: 

: What are A

native transpor

means other t

Motorized t

internally w

Shuttles an

other destin

Regional tr

commuter r

Bicycle and

paths, bicyc

Water-base

Publicly an

rtment of Tra

portation evalu

nesota, Misso

ransportation 

portation plan

with the unde

de goals, parti

including: 

modes supports

an also reduce

acts include w

n, and polluta

increasing vis

for wildlife ha

tion staff facin

g of the station

special events

automobile mo

e the use of c

vehicles. 

re, and discus

Alternative T

rtation system

than personal

transportation

within stations

d van transit 

nations 

ransit connect

rail, passenge

d pedestrian i

cle lanes, regi

ed transportati

nd privately op

ansportation (

uation (RATE

ouri, Ohio, an

systems (AT

n (LRTP). Sta

erstanding tha

cularly those 

s natural reso

e the impacts 

wildlife collisi

ants that can e

sitation can m

abitat. 

ng increasing

n’s natural re

s. 

odes can also

carbon-based 

ssions with th

Transportatio

ms generally i

l automobile, 

n systems ope

s 

connecting st

tions (bus, lig

er rail) 

infrastructure 

ional trails) 

ion 

perated system

DOT) Volpe 

E) in Region 3

d Wisconsin,

S, Box 1) into

aff from the V

at increased A

contained in 

ource protectio

that these veh

ions, invasive

enter the soil 

minimize the n

g visitor dema

esources by 

o help integrat

fuels, enhanc

he RATE team

on Systems?

include any 

such as: 

erating 

tations with 

ght rail, trolley

(sidewalks, 

ms 

3, 

 to 

o the 

Volpe 

ATS 

the 

on. 

hicles 

e

or 

need 

ands 

te 

ce 

m, the 

y, 
4

1. Station staff tends to have relatively limited awareness of the benefits of ATS, and therefore they 

may be missing straightforward opportunities to enhance ATS as a means to travel to and within 

the station. Staff tends to have limited time to devote to transportation planning, except on an asneeded basis, and have not considered the use of alternative transportation as a potential means to 

manage visitation, resource protection, and special events in much depth, if at all. Education 

about the benefits of ATS is a key first step to increasing its use throughout the region. 

2. With the exception of a few stations in urban settings, many Region 3 stations are located far 

from population centers. However, most stations expressed the need or desire for improved nonmotorized infrastructure for access to and within stations. The inclusion of sidewalks, bicycle 

lanes, separated non-motorized paths, and similar infrastructure can enhance the visitor 

experience and reduce the number of vehicles at stations. 

3. Several stations are successfully partnering with gateway communities to leverage funding for 

new trail connections or to use buses for special events. Through enhancing partnerships with 

gateway communities, stations can significantly increase the amount of visitors that access the 

station using ATS. 

4. The region has limited funds for transportation that must be allocated between all Refuge roads, 

trails, and capital projects. Several measures can help Region 3 better emphasize ATS in its 

transportation program and budget. First, ensure stations are aware of the benefits of ATS, which 

will encourage them to seek partnerships and low-cost opportunities to improve ATS. Second, 

integrate ATS features into roads projects, such as through adding sidewalks or bike lanes. Third, 

prioritize projects that recognize co-benefits between ATS and other transportation needs, such as 

safety and wayfinding. 

Region 3 Background and Trends 

Refuges and hatcheries in Region 3 focus their conservation missions primarily on migratory birds and 

fish breeding. “String-of-pearl” refuges are located along major rivers, such as the Mississippi River, with 

multiple units stretching for many miles along the river’s banks. These refuges include the river itself and 

tend to have multiple uses, such as shipping, recreational boating, and fishing, within varied physical 

environments, including locks and braided river channels. River refuges also may contain or run adjacent 

to major railroad or highway corridors. Region 3 also has 12 Wetland Management Districts (WMDs), 

which consist of numerous small Waterfowl Production Areas (WPAs). The WPAs are pockets of land, 

such as prairie pothole lakes, among agricultural land, most of which are used for hunting and wildlife 

observation. 

Region 3 visitation has been increasing in the past decade, and many stations in the region have been 

actively pursuing new visitor amenities to accommodate and attract new visitors. The recession that began 

in 2008 has slowed growth at the more rural stations, but it may also be responsible for increased growth 

at urban and suburban stations, as people look for outdoor experiences closer to home. Aligned with the 

FWS goal of increasing the number of urban refuges, Region 3 is working to acquire more land for 

refuges near urban areas, with the goal of having a refuge within an hour’s drive of each major city in the 

region. 

Region 3 also has several urban refuges with new transit connections. In December 2009, Metro Transit’s 

Hiawatha Light Rail began offering service to American Boulevard Station in Bloomfield, Minnesota, 

one-quarter mile from the Minnesota Valley NWR Bloomington Visitor Center. Shiawassee NWR’s 

Green Point Environmental Learning Center in Saginaw, Michigan, is located approximately one-half 

mile from the Saginaw Transit Authority bus route. Whittlesey Creek NWR in Ashland, Wisconsin, has a 

Northern Great Lakes Visitor Center located less than one-half mile from Bay Area Rural Transit service. 

These stations have yet to show the full potential of transit connections, but they offer opportunities to 
5

attract new and increased visitation. Other refuge areas that stretch along the Mississippi River and other 

waterways may also be ripe for transit access to points along the shorelines. 

Wildlife observation, and bird watching specifically, are the primary visitor activities at stations. 

Historically, hunting and fishing were extremely popular in the region, and while they remain significant 

activities at many stations, hunters have decreased in recent years. Visitors are seeking more active 

recreation on NWRs in the region. Reports of hiking and bicycling on refuges have increased in the past 

few years; many residents of adjacent communities visit refuges regularly for walking, jogging, cycling, 

and other exercise. The increased active recreation use may be due to urban development approaching 

refuge boundaries, which puts the refuge in closer proximity to people’s homes or workplaces. 

Finally, the region has built six new visitor centers between 2006 and 2011, with three visitor centers 

under construction and one additional interpretive center planned and funded. The stations with new 

visitor centers expect to receive significant increases in visitation, especially from school groups, which 

will have implications for station management and staff capacity to run educational programs. Several of 

these stations that may not have had high visitation in the past may need to consider high visitation, and 

associated transportation challenges, in the near future. 

Accessibility for Underserved Populations 

Overview 

The RATE team selected three metropolitan areas in Region 3 to assess ATS connectivity from locations 

with high densities of underserved populations to nearby NWRs. The team chose the communities of 

Minneapolis, MN (including the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge), Detroit, MI (including the 

Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge), and Carbondale, IL (including the Crab Orchard National 

Wildlife Refuge) for study. The team selected these metropolitan areas based on the presence of nearby 

refuges, the availability of alternative transportation services throughout the region, and the occurrence of 

underserved populations. 

Methods 

The team identified three demographic variables – median household income, car ownership per 

household, and percentage of non-white population – to represent underserved populations. The team 

classified median household income using the 2009 national poverty threshold ($21,954) and national 

median household income ($49,777) figures for reference. The yellow circles on each of the resulting 

maps denote target areas for improving access to refuges, based on high rates of underserved populations 

in those areas. Each of these demographic variables draws upon 2009 data from the American 

Community Survey at the Census block level. 

In addition to thematic maps created for the three demographic variables, an additional map shows the 

transportation infrastructure present in each region. Regional metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPOs), local and state geographic information system (GIS) resources, and other local and state public 

agencies were sought out for each region as potential providers of this data. The RATE team used the best 

data available at the time of publication and at the appropriate regional scale, which may not include 

detailed or new transit routes and trails. 

Detroit, MI (Detroit River IWR) 

Positioned to the southwest of Detroit, the Detroit River IWR lies outside of the core area of Detroit’s 

ATS infrastructure (Figure 1, left). Aside from its northern-most units, much of the refuge lies next to 

sparsely populated areas where ATS connections are limited, although the Eagle Island Unit at the 
6

southern end is close to the city of Monroe. Additionally, the lack of bicycle infrastructure inhibits the use 

of bicycle to reach refuge attractions. 

The Detroit area features some of the country’s highest occurrences of underserved populations. Analysis 

shows that high rates of low-income (Figure 1, right) and minority populations (Figure 2, right) are 

prevalent throughout the metropolitan area, especially in those areas closest to downtown. Accessing the 

refuge without a personal vehicle (Figure 2, left) may be difficult for citizens that do not own a car, as it 

would require multiple transfers using a bus and/or bicycling on roads lacking bike infrastructure. Most 

importantly, however, most of these populations are 10 or more miles away from many of the refuge 

attractions, a significant obstacle in convincing potential visitors to utilize alternative transportation. 

There is strong potential for regional or refuge staff to work with these communities and target expanded 

connections to the refuge. Strategies may include expanding transit service to stop closer to or at the 

refuge, improving connections to non-motorized networks or adding bike lanes, and offering a shuttle 

from underserved communities to the refuge for peak weekends or special events.
7

Figure 1: Transportation infrastructure (left) and median household income (right) in the Detroit metropolitan area
8

Figure 2: Vehicle per household (left) and non-white population rates (right) in the Detroit metropolitan area. 
9

Minneapolis, MN (Minnesota Valley NWR) 

The Minnesota Valley NWR is well-situated near Metro Transit’s Hiawatha Line, as well as adjacent to 

bikeways along the Minnesota River. The refuge is therefore accessible via ATS to much of the 

Minneapolis-St. Paul area (Figure 3). ATS connections remain prevalent near the NWR’s southern and 

western units towards the Rapids Lake Education and Visitor Center. Bike trails along the Minnesota 

River to the northeast provide high-quality access to Minneapolis and St. Paul. 

The Hiawatha Line, which extends south from Minneapolis’s downtown, is particularly well-suited to 

attract ridership from underserved populations. The high-frequency service offered by the light rail and 

the short, one-half mile walking distance between the Bloomington Visitor Center and the American 

Boulevard light rail station position it as an attractive means of accessing the refuge. The areas 

immediately south of downtown, as well as within the downtown and to its east and west, feature a high 

proportion of underserved populations for all three demographic variables (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 

6), many of which are within walking distance or a short bus connection away from a light rail station. 

Additional areas with underserved populations are dispersed within the communities of Bloomington and 

Richfield to the northwest of the Bloomington Visitor Center. Much of the population within these 

communities is connected to the refuge via bus or bikeways. 

The connection between the light rail and the Bloomington Visitor Center and Long Meadow Lake Unit 

are relatively recent, as the American Boulevard light rail station opened in late 2009 and the Visitor 

Center re-opened in 2010. Refuge staff can focus on promotion of the strong ATS connections, focusing 

outreach efforts in geographic areas highlighted in Figure 4: Median household income in the

Minneapolis metropolitan areaFigure 5: Vehicle per household in the Minneapolis metropolitan area, 

and Figure 6: Non‐white population rates in the Minneapolis metropolitan area. 

Figure 3: Transportation infrastructure in the Minneapolis metropolitan area
10

   
11

Figure 4: Median household income in the Minneapolis metropolitan area

Figure 5: Vehicle per household in the Minneapolis metropolitan area 
12

Figure 6: Non-white population rates in the Minneapolis metropolitan area 

Jackson and Williamson Counties, IL (Crab Orchard and Middle Mississippi River NWRs)1

Jackson and Williamson Counties are significantly less populated and have fewer provisions for 

alternative transportation connections between population centers and the counties’ two refuges (Figure 

7). The Crab Orchard NWR is situated between the cities of Carbondale to its west and Marion to its east, 

but there is a lack of transit connections to the refuge from either of those two cities. The Mississippi 

River Trail extends through the Wilkinson Island Division of the Middle Mississippi River NWR, but 

connections to Carbondale and other nearby communities is limited to roadways, usually through 

designated bike routes without bike infrastructure such as bike lanes. 

While the presence of ATS infrastructure is limited, the prevalence of underserved populations is 

decidedly less severe, relative to the other urban areas mapped. Jackson and Williamson Counties (Figure 

8 and Figure 10) seem to have fewer low-income and non-white residents than larger metropolitan areas; 

they also have far fewer low-car-ownership households (Figure 9). Additionally, the presence of Southern 

Illinois University at the southern end of Carbondale may skew these demographic figures somewhat, as 

student populations may be less likely to own vehicles and feature lower median household incomes. The 

student population is less likely to be in town during the summer, which coincides with the most popular 

visitation season for the refuges. To better connect to nearby communities, the refuges in Jackson and 

Williamson Counties can pursue new non-motorized connections or provide transit for peak weekends 

and special events to help underserved populations access the refuges. 

                                                            

1 Note: Information on transit lines within this area is not available.
13

Figure 7: Transportation infrastructure in Jackson and Williamson Counties 

Figure 8: Median household income in Jackson and Williamson Counties
14

Figure 9: Vehicle per household in Jackson and Williamson Counties 

Figure 10: Non-white population rates in Jackson and Williamson Counties 
15

Conclusions 

Targeted outreach towards underserved areas can help promote refuge resources among these populations 

and provide enjoyable recreational and cultural experiences to those who may typically lack the means to 

visit. Promotion of ATS connections within these communities (as well as throughout the surrounding 

regions of all refuges) can serve to increase visitation among those without access to a personal vehicle. 

This can be carried out through marketing campaigns or partnering with local transportation or 

recreational advocacy groups. One method of targeted outreach that has been employed by the Minnesota 

Valley NWR is partnering with schools in underserved communities. Students visit the refuge on field 

trips, and refuge staff visits the schools to conduct related lessons. Positive experiences among school 

groups may convince families to visit refuges at a later time. 

Effective ATS Strategies for Region 3 

Conversations with FWS regional and station staff, as well as with EFLH staff, indicate several planning 

and management strategies that can help Region 3 and its stations increase the use of ATS. These 

strategies include types of ATS that would work well in specific stations and management and planning 

actions at the station and regional level that can increase ATS use. 

For each of the stations included in the RATE, several key strategies would help effectively and 

appropriately increase ATS. These strategies are as follows: 

 Provision of new or improved pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, facilities, and connections: 

The construction or provision of non-motorized paths, trails, sidewalks, and bicycle lanes are 

necessary to connect stations with gateway towns, existing non-motorized trail networks, and 

local and regional amenities. In some cases, existing connections only need minor maintenance 

improvements or updates to increase their usability. These types of facilities can be added or 

enhanced/improved in stations to allow for non-motorized travel on or adjacent to auto tour or 

station roadways, where appropriate. Signage for non-motorized users, particularly bicyclists, can 

be added or improved in stations to help improve site access for existing and new bicyclists. 

 Partnerships: Transit agencies, local governments, other state and federal agencies, and friends 

groups can help to enhance or add new transit service, fundraise for new or improved nonmotorized infrastructure or bus/shuttle rentals, promote existing connections, and provide transit 

for special events. Partnerships with transit agencies are the first step to connect urban and 

suburban stations within transit service areas to local bus routes. Partnerships may also help 

station staff expand their capacity for the maintenance of trails within and leading to the station. 

 Promotion: Stations can advertise existing and underutilized ATS connections through the station 

website, brochures, local media, station staff, and its partners’ promotional materials. Promotional 

partnerships and materials can emphasize refuge access via non-motorized trails or transit, and 

they can also advertise the use of transit at special events. Signage along trails may be another 

means to promote non-motorized refuge access. 

 Use of transit for special events and peak weekends: Refuge staff can use transit vehicles, such as 

buses and vans, during festivals, special events, or peak weekends when visitation is much higher 

than normal. During these events, refuges can use transit for wildlife observation tours, shuttles to 

on- or off-site parking, or transportation to public transit stations. Having a large van or small 

shuttle bus on-site or shared between stations would also enable station staff to accommodate 

school groups that are not able to use their school bus to access and/or tour the station. 

 Consideration of ATS at early planning stages of new visitor facilities: Several stations are 

planning for or have recently completed construction on new visitor centers. These new centers 

will draw more visitors from nearby schools and communities. Stations slated for new visitor 

facilities in coming years should anticipate higher visitation and the potential for ATS service to 

address new transportation issues. Station staff can plan for parking lots that can accommodate 
sh

fo

 U

ri

ac

ba

m

Alterna

The Volp

Transport

for transp

online for

Station an

A total of

response r

each statio

personal v

percent), a

transit. Th

transporta

huttles and bu

or ATS passen

Utilize water-b

ivers and lake

ccess to bring

ased tours and

more public op

ative Trans

e Center, FW

tation Questio

ortation amon

rmat over a th

nd Visitation B

f 51 stations re

rate), and of t

on to estimate

vehicle (87.7 

and bicycling

he majority of

ation to the sta

uses and kiosk

ngers. 

based access: 

es in the regio

g visitors to an

d access exist

perations. 

sportation

WS Region 3, a

onnaire to col

ng stations in

hree-week per

Background 

esponded to t

these, 98 perc

e its visitors’ 

percent), foll

g (3.8 percent)

f stations (85.

ation via bus 

Figure 1

ks and entran

Many of the 

on. According

nd transport v

t; stations cou

n Questio

and EFLH sta

lect informati

n Region 3. Th

riod in July an

the survey (ou

cent (50 statio

access modes

owed by wate

). There are a

.7 percent) no

or van. 

1: Visitor Ac

16

ces to their fa

stations in Re

gly, stations h

visitors within

uld potentially

nnaire 

aff jointly dev

ion comprehe

he questionna

nd August 20

ut of 72 statio

ons) were ope

s, as shown in

er-based acce

a few users wh

ote that schoo

ccess Mode (A

acilities that a

egion 3 includ

have the poten

n their lands. 

y partner with

veloped the R

ensively abou

aire was avail

11. 

ons in the regi

en to public us

n Figure 11. M

ess (6.6 perce

ho access refu

ol groups or fr

Average Per

are proximate

de or area adj

ntial to utilize

In some case

h these compa

RATE Alterna

ut the needs an

lable to station

ion, represent

se. The quest

Most visitors 

nt), private tr

fuges through 

riends groups

rcent)

e to drop-off a

jacent to majo

e water-based 

es, private wat

anies to explo

ative 

nd opportunit

n managers in

ting a 71 perc

ionnaire aske

access station

ransit (6.4 

walking or p

s provide 

areas 

or 

terore 

ties 

n an 

cent 

ed 

ns by 

public 
The quest

senior citi

four perce

number o

Most stati

percent of

bicycling,

under half

none. 

Responde

percent) o

significan

tourists fr

internatio

responden

by hunting

significan

many resp

Transit an

A signific

have trans

have trans

seamless t

Whittlesey

that opera

responden

between t

over 100 m

tionnaire also 

izens are the m

ent of respond

f seniors. App

ions have som

f stations resp

, but only 22 p

f of responden

ents estimated

or from 10 to 

nt numbers of

rom more than

nal visitors, b

nts noted a sig

g (65 percent

nt numbers of

pondents also

nd Trail Conn

cant part of th

sit service wit

sit service bet

transit access

y Creek NWR

ate in the regio

nts listed Amt

these transit st

miles away). 

F

asked for est

most promine

dents noted a 

proximately h

me minority a

ponded that a 

percent respo

nts (45 percen

d that a signifi

50 miles from

f visitors from

n 50 miles aw

but more than

gnificant num

t) and fishing 

f photography

o noted a lesse

nections 

he questionnai

thin one-half 

tween one and

s are Minneso

R (Northern G

on, but curren

trak stations a

tations and th

Figure 12 sho

Figure 12: Di

timations of v

ent visitor dem

significant nu

half of the sta

nd low-incom

significant nu

onded that the

nt) have some

ficant number 

m their station

m multiple dist

way. Forty per

n half of respo

mber of visitor

(51 percent).

y, environmen

er level of par

ire focused on

mile, one stat

d three miles 

ota Valley NW

Great Lakes V

ntly do not of

and thirteen p

he FWS statio

ows the distan

stance from 

17

visitor demogr

mographic gro

umber of fam

ations have a s

me visitors, bu

umber or som

eir visitors wo

e mobility im

of visitors ca

n (83.7 percen

tances). Most

rcent of respo

ondents noted

rs engaged in 

 Approximate

ntal education

rticipation in 

n transit and t

tion has trans

from the stat

WR (Long Me

Visitor Center

ffer service ne

percent listed 

ons varies (som

nce of transit 

Station to Ne

graphics, origi

oup, accordin

milies, and 61 

significant nu

ut not a signif

me visitors wo

ould likely be 

mpaired visitor

ame from with

nt) (note that 

t respondents 

ondents noted

d that they had

wildlife obse

ely 40 percen

n, and interpre

these activitie

trail connectio

sit service wit

tion. Two of t

eadow Lake a

r). Many othe

ear the station

Greyhound st

me stations li

service from

earest Trans

in, and activit

ng to the respo

percent have 

umber of yout

ficant number

ould be comfo

 familiar with

rs while 47 pe

hin 10 miles o

respondents c

also noted vi

d that they had

d few or none

ervation (83 p

nt of responde

etation activit

es. 

ons to station

thin a mile, an

the stations w

and Bass Pond

er stations list

n. Twenty-sev

tations, althou

isted transit st

m stations. 

sit Service

ties. Families 

ondents. Seve

a significant 

th/school grou

r. Sixty-seven

ortable with 

h transit. Just 

ercent have fe

of their statio

could note 

isitation from

d some 

e. Almost all 

percent), follo

ents also note

ties, although 

ns. Two statio

nd three statio

with the most 

d Units) and 

ted transit serv

ven percent of

ugh the proxi

tations that ar

and 

entyups. 

n

ew or 

on (57 

m

owed 

d 

ns 

ons 

vices 

f

imity 

re 
The major

responden

station ha

Trail conn

direct trai

responden

majority o

shows dis

potential c

Transport

The next s

and oppor

14). There

station’s g

control of

from popu

transporta

shortages 

assets (65

minor con

surroundi

rity (73.5 per

nts (26.5 perc

as an opportun

nections are m

l connection 

nts, or 12.5 pe

of respondent

stance from st

connections i

F

tation Challen

section of the

rtunities. Resp

e was a separ

greatest challe

f the USFWS.

ulation center

ation. Other si

(67 percent),

 percent). Saf

ncern for 31 p

ng the station

cent) did not 

ent) did see s

nity for transit

more prevalen

or are located

ercent, are loc

ts (62.5 percen

tations to near

s available on

Figure 13: Dis

nges and Opp

e questionnair

pondents rate

ate section to

enge. The big

. Station man

rs as major ch

ignificant cha

, staff capacity

fe pedestrian 

percent. Almo

n were a chall

see an opport

such an oppor

t to provide a

nt than transit 

d less than on

cated between

nt) are locate

rby regional t

n each station

stance from 

portunities 

re asked statio

ed a list of cha

 fill in challen

ggest transpor

nagers most fr

hallenges, whi

allenges inclu

y shortages (7

access was a 

ost half of resp

lenge. Respon

18

tunity for tran

rtunity. A sma

access for the 

in Region 3. 

e-half mile fr

n one-half mil

d more than t

trails. Informa

n fact sheet. 

Station to Ne

on managers t

allenges as m

nges not liste

rtation challen

requently cite

ich make it di

ude manageme

77 percent), a

major concer

pondents also

ndents also no

nsit to assist f

aller minority

general visito

One-quarter 

rom a regiona

le and three m

three miles fr

ation on spec

earest Regio

to self-evalua

major, minor, o

d in the quest

nges are often

d the lack of 

ifficult for ma

ent capacity i

and condition

rn for 29 perc

o noted that u

oted that sign

for special ev

y (14.6 percen

or. 

of responden

al trail. An ad

miles from a r

rom a regiona

cific trail nam

nal Trails

ate transportat

or little to no 

tionnaire and 

n ones that are

transit servic

any visitors to

issues, such a

n of existing tr

cent of respon

unsafe road co

age and orien

ents. Howeve

nt) believe the

nts have either

ditional six 

regional trail.

al trail. Figure

mes, types, and

tion challenge

challenge (Fi

to prioritize t

e beyond the 

e and distanc

o use alternat

as funding 

ransportation 

ndents, and a 

onditions 

ntation could 

er, 13 

eir 

r a 

 The 

e 13 

d

es 

igure 

the 

e 

tive 

offer 
challenge

with visito

Responde

visitor pro

station (54

station (37

strong nee

percent). A

believed i

motorized

water acce

Ninety pe

60,000. M

open hous

manage in

percent) o

transit. So

s, with 58 per

or orientation

ents overwhel

ograms. The m

4 percent), pe

7.5 percent), 

ed for improv

An additional

internal seaso

d improvemen

ess, and prom

ercent of respo

Many of these 

ses. The most

ncreased visit

or through off

ome responde

rcent expressi

n to and within

Fig

lmingly called

most popular 

edestrian path

and bicycle p

ved signage fo

l 27 percent c

onal transit wo

nts and signag

motion and ma

ondents have 

events focus 

t popular time

tation through

f-site parking 

ents noted that

ing challenge

n stations. 

gure 14: Tra

d for non-mot

transportation

hs within the s

paths within th

or orientation 

called for new

ould benefit th

ge, but a few 

arketing. 

special event

on fishing, h

es of year for 

h providing m

with partners

t their current

19

es with approp

nsportation 

torized infrast

n improveme

station (46 pe

he station (33

to the station

w transit servic

heir station. M

also called fo

ts with high v

hunting, obser

these events 

more parking, 

s (28 percent)

t infrastructur

priate and eff

Challenges

tructure impr

ents were bicy

ercent), pedest

3 percent). Re

n (40 percent)

ce to access t

Most respond

or hazard miti

visitation, with

rving migrato

are May thro

either throug

). Seven perce

re can handle

fective signag

rovements to 

ycle paths for

trian paths fo

espondents als

) and within th

the station, wh

dents would pr

igation, new t

h visitation ra

ry birds and e

ough October.

gh overflow lo

ent (three resp

e the increased

ge, and 45 per

enhance their

r access to the

or access to th

so expressed 

he station (27

hile 21 percen

rioritize the n

transit service

anging from 5

eagles, or pub

. Most station

ots on site (49

pondents) use

d visitation. 

rcent 

r

e

he 

a 

7

nt 

none, 

50 to 

blic 

n staff 

9

e
The statio

visitation 

responden

Some resp

could mee

concern in

Analysis a

The quest

forms of a

requested 

stations. T

greater sh

Regional 

sidewalks

Many stat

motorized

strategies 

coordinati

The greate

locations 

long dista

that may w

station. Si

ons in Region 

levels in the 

nts expected v

pondents (21 

et the demand

n the future, b

Figur

and Implicatio

tionnaire resp

alternative tra

improvemen

This might ref

hift towards w

staff can focu

s, bike lanes, a

tions also requ

d and non-mo

such as impr

ion with neig

est barriers to

of stations an

ances from po

walk or bike t

imilarly, stati

3 overwhelm

future, and 65

visitation to d

percent) note

ds of growing

but the greate

re 15: Concer

ons 

ponses indicat

ansportation, r

nts in pedestri

flect a broade

wildlife observ

us technical a

and other bicy

uested assista

otorized acces

roved signage

hboring jurisd

o alternative tr

nd limited fun

opulation cent

to the station 

on staff can s

mingly expect 

5 percent acti

decrease or we

ed a high leve

g visitation. A

st number (46

rn about Tra

te that most st

rather than tra

an and bicycl

er trend in act

vation activiti

ssistance effo

ycle and pede

ance with way

s. Wayfindin

e and site or tr

dictions and t

ransportation

nding availabi

ters or a lack 

and plan to in

stretch limited

20

increased vis

ively working

ere actively se

el of concern r

A smaller num

6 percent) had

ansportation 

tations in Reg

ansit. Even st

le infrastructu

tive transporta

ies that may b

orts on fundin

estrian faciliti

yfinding and o

g improveme

rail design. Th

transportation

n use in Regio

ility. Stations 

of transit serv

ncorporate m

d resources by

sitation, with 

g to increase v

eeking to dec

regarding tran

mber (33 perce

d little or no c

 and Increas

gion 3 are wel

tations located

ure on roads l

ation preferen

be well-suited

ng programs a

ies. 

orientation, w

ents can often

hese strategie

n agencies. 

on 3 tend to be

may not be a

vice, but they

more non-moto

y enlisting fri

88 percent ex

visitation. On

crease visitatio

nsportation in

ent) recognize

concern (see F

sing Visitatio

ll-suited to no

d in rural or r

leading to and

nces for Regio

d to non-moto

and guidance 

which may be

n be made wit

es often requir

e ones related

able to overco

y can identify 

orized infrastr

iends groups a

xpecting incre

nly two 

on. 

nfrastructure t

ed the potenti

Figure 15). 

on

on-motorized

remote areas 

d within the 

on 3 visitors o

orized modes.

for trails, 

e useful for bo

th inexpensive

re greater 

d to the remot

ome challenge

targeted visit

ructure into th

and leveragin

eased 

that 

ial for 

d

or a 

oth 

e

te 

es of 

tors 

he 

ng 
21

partnerships with local governments and transportation agencies. They can also work with regional staff 

to identify appropriate grant programs or other funding sources. 

While almost all stations expected increasing visitation in the next few years, a much smaller number of 

stations voiced concern about transportation infrastructure meeting visitation demands. Regional staff 

may target these stations, particularly ones in which transit or trail access could be enhanced or promoted 

to minimize the need for costly improvements to the roadway and parking infrastructure. 

Funding Sources for ATS 

Chapter 3 of the Region 3 LRTP describes funding sources, and provides examples of projects funded by 

these sources, for transportation projects in the region. FWS stations can apply directly to these funding 

programs, which include (and are described in detail in Chapter 3): 

• Eligible to receive: 

o Refuge Roads Program 

o Fish Hatchery Deferred Maintenance 

o Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) 

• Can apply to: 

o Transportation Enhancements 

o Recreational Trails Program 

o Scenic Byways 

o Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 

o Public Lands Highway – Discretionary Program 

o High Priority Projects Program 

o Paul S. Sarbanes Transit in Parks (TRIP) 

There exists a multitude of federal alternative transportation funding sources that local transit agencies 

and local governments are eligible to receive. Though the funds are federal in origin, application 

procedures for these funding sources differ by state and some states combine their allotment of federal 

funds with state funds. Information on the most relevant of these state programs is provided in Table 1. 

While FWS stations cannot apply directly for these funds, they can work with local transit authorities 

and/or local governments on project submittals, provided that the local agencies submit the application 

and are the funding recipients. 

Table 1: Relevant Alternative Transportation Programs/Resources in Region 3 States* 

State Transit Non-motorized 

Illinois Division of Public and Intermodal 

Transportation (right margin of page) 

Federal and State Funding Sources for 

Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities 

Indiana Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian Program 

Iowa Office of Public Transit Federal and State Recreation Trails 

Michigan Passenger Transportation Michigan Bike and Pedestrian Funding 

Opportunities (non-DOT website) 

Minnesota Public Transit Participation Program Guide to Funding Bicycle and Pedestrian 

Facilities 

Missouri Transit – Applications – Reports and 

Programs 

Bicycle/Pedestrian Program 

Ohio Office of Transit Bicycle and Pedestrian Information and 

Links 

Wisconsin Public Transportation Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program 
22

*All links are to DOT websites, unless otherwise noted. 

The U.S. DOT has several additional websites with links to resources on alternative transportation 

funding sources. Federal non-motorized transportation funding sources are listed at the following Federal 

Highway Administration website: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/bkepedtble.htm. Federal public transit 

funding sources are available at the following Federal Transit Administration website: 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grants_financing_263.html 

Partnerships with friends groups, adjacent landowners, local governments, school districts, transportation 

and government agencies, and transportation providers can help stations expand their funding capacity. 

These partners may have access to additional funding sources, such as those from local, state, and federal 

government and private foundations, and can provide matching funds for projects of mutual benefit. They 

also may be able to share capital infrastructure, such as buses or overflow parking, and technical 

expertise, such as engineering services. Advanced planning and regular communication with partners 

allows station staff to identify more cost-savings strategies to reduce overall funding needs. 

Project Selection 

The Region 3 LRTP includes a new framework for project selection for funding under the Refuge Roads 

Program (RRP) and the fisheries deferred maintenance program; the framework includes evaluation 

criteria based on the LRTP goals. The evaluation criteria and weighting scheme reflect the region’s 

priorities, as determined by the LRTP core team, and will guide future transportation projects and 

programming. Station and regional staff can propose projects, or projects can originate from a Service 

Asset Maintenance Management System (SAMMS) work order. A small Regional Refuge Transportation 

System Committee will evaluate all proposed projects. Projects are ranked through quantitative scores, 

with final funding decisions subject to additional factors such as funding availability and scheduling 

considerations. 

Under this framework, ATS projects are evaluated according to the same criteria as other transportation 

projects, although ATS projects may be eligible for funding sources outside of the RRP. The evaluating 

Committee should consider ranking projects by eligible funding sources to open up opportunities for 

ATS, or communicate with station staff about relevant alternative funding sources for ATS projects that 

may not score well enough to obtain RRP funds. 

ATS projects have the potential to score well in several evaluation criteria areas, due to the inherent 

benefits of ATS projects. The Committee should consider the following direct and indirect benefits of 

ATS projects, relative to evaluation criteria: 

1. Resource protection: 

a. If ATS projects avoid the need for new or improved roads or parking, they can reduce the 

impact to wetlands, species habitat, streams, and water quality. 

b. ATS infrastructure should be designed to minimize impacts to natural resources. 

2. Visitor Experience: 

a. ATS often enhances the visitor experience by providing fewer barriers between visitors 

and natural resources, thereby increasing the visual experience. 

b. Trails and transit offer multiple opportunities for interpretation that single-occupancyvehicle-based transportation does not. These include interpretive kiosks and signs along 

trails and transit-based interpretive tours. 

c. ATS infrastructure should be designed to include signage for non-motorized and transit 

users that emphasizes safety and seamless connectivity. 
23

d. The evaluation criteria do not address expanding visitor access to underserved groups or 

new visitors, including low-income or low-car-ownership populations. ATS projects may 

enhance the visitor experience for a greater diversity of visitors, which the Committee 

should also consider in their selection process. 

3. System Performance: 

a. If ATS projects can reduce the number of vehicles traveling to and within the station, 

they will also help reduce wear-and-tear on roadways. 

b. If ATS projects can reduce the number of vehicles traveling to and within the station, 

they can reduce the risk of accidents caused by vehicle congestion. ATS facilities should 

be designed for maximum pedestrian and bicycle safety, considering adjacent motorized 

uses. 

4. Partnering: 

a. Strong ATS projects, like strong roads projects, should be the result of collaborative 

planning with partner agencies and adjacent landowners. 

b. ATS projects are eligible for many alternative funding sources, as described in this 

report. Strong ATS proposals should consider these funding sources, and the Committee 

should refer proposal leads to eligible sources. 

c. The Committee should consider partnerships with a county or regional trail network and 

partnerships with a transit agency as fulfilling the criteria “Partnering with County 

Road.” 

5. Sustainability: 

a. All ATS projects will promote walking and biking and reduce the use of greenhouse 

gases. The Committee should consider the total net benefits of greenhouse gas emissions 

reductions, particularly if the ATS project could significantly encourage mode shift away 

from single-occupancy vehicles. 

b. Due to the lesser level of wear-and-tear from non-motorized users, non-motorized ATS 

infrastructure should have both longer service life and lower annual operations and 

maintenance costs than comparable infrastructure serving motor vehicles. 

c. ATS projects should be designed to use sustainable construction materials, be contextsensitive, and minimize long-term maintenance costs. 

d. Regional staff could suggest that project managers include ATS elements (such as 

sidewalks or bicycle lanes) in road project proposals to increase the sustainability 

evaluation score. 

6. Planning: 

a. ATS projects should be coordinated with other management plans, such as 

Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs). Since many CCPs do not include specific 

transportation projects, project proposals should also note regional, county, or local trail 

or transit plans that list the project. 

Priority Refuges 

Criteria 
24

The Volpe Center developed criteria to rate and prioritize the potential and need for ATS at stations 

throughout Region 3 (Table 2). These criteria draw from the goals and objectives of the Region 3 LRTP, 

including focuses on natural resource protection, safety, planning, and partnerships. The criteria focus on 

assessing relative levels of needs and opportunities. This is accomplished through evaluating specific 

needs for visitor management, resource protection, and safety, and through determining capacity from 

existing planning efforts and partnerships. The Volpe Center also incorporated the broad goal areas from 

the National LRTP into these criteria, which include access, mobility, and connectivity, safety and 

security, visitor experience, environmental consideration, and organizational effectiveness and 

coordination. 

Table 2: Criteria to Rate and Prioritize the Potential and Need for ATS in Region 3 Stations 

High Medium Low 

Severity of 

Need 

Station demonstrates urgent or 

critical need for ATS to address 

high visitation, safety, and/or 

resource protection issues. 

Station has a demonstrated or 

strong future need for ATS, 

but the station could function 

effectively without 

improvements. 

ATS is not needed in the 

short term; there may be a 

desire or long-term need 

for ATS. 

Visitation Station has high visitation or 

growing visitation that is 

exceeding facility and 

management capacity. 

Station has relatively high 

visitation, high seasonal 

visitation, or high visitation 

during special events. 

Station has low visitation. 

Opportunity New visitor infrastructure, 

partnerships, and/or nearby 

development provides a unique 

opportunity to add ATS 

improvements. 

General visitation and 

development patterns present 

opportunities for ATS, but 

these opportunities may not 

be unique or time-sensitive. 

Station has limited 

opportunities for ATS (due 

to remote location and lack 

of visitor amenities or 

partnerships). 

Underserved 

Populations 

The station is located near 

underserved populations, and 

ATS can help those potential 

visitors access the station. 

There is some potential to 

offer ATS access to 

underserved populations. 

The station has limited or 

no potential to offer ATS 

access to underserved 

populations. 

Existing ATS 

Plans/Actions 

Station staff are actively 

planning for and pursuing ATS. 

Station staff have considered 

ATS and may have initiated 

some planning for ATS. 

Station has little or no 

planning for ATS. 

The station fact sheets contain priority ratings to help regional staff target technical assistance and 

funding efforts. The overall priority ranking of each station reflects the aggregated total of all criteria. For 

example, a station with a “medium” ranking may meet high priority criteria for one or two areas, but 

medium rankings for most criteria. 

High Priority Stations 

High priority stations and their ATS assets and needs are listed in this section (Tables 3 through 7). 

Ratings for all stations are included on station fact sheets. Low and medium priority stations may become 

eligible for unique opportunities to improve alternative transportation, such as the construction of a new 

regional trail that can include a spur to the refuge or a location-specific grant for funding. All station staff 

should stay connected to local partners to take advantage of these opportunities. 

 
25

Table 3: Crab Orchard NWR 

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority 

Crab Orchard NWR

Carbondale, IL 

More than 3 

miles

More than 3 

miles 

High

Existing or Planned ATS: 

 Greyhound and Amtrak both serve Carbondale, which is located 14 miles from the refuge. 

 Rides Mass Transit District offers weekday, on-demand transit service to Marion, Carbondale, 

Carterville, and other cities around southeastern Illinois. 

Opportunities for Future ATS: 

 Transit may be able to assist the refuge with the Southern Illinois Hunting and Fishing Days, a 

large event that attracts 80,000 people. Transit vehicles can help bring people from the 

community college parking lot to sites around the refuge. 

 The greatest challenge is a lack of transit service, and the refuge would like to see better transit 

connections with the surrounding urbanized areas. While there is some transit available within 

Carbondale and Marion, there is little service available between the two cities and none with 

stops at the refuge. This may include a shuttle service on weekend days from central parking 

areas in Carbondale or Marion or expansion of their Eagle Tours (in FWS-owned vans) for 

refuge interpretive programs. 

 There may be an opportunity to improve bicycle paths or trails leading to and within the station. 

Refuge staff report increased bicycle use on newly paved roads within the station. Roads 

surrounding the refuge are not safe for bicycles due to high speeds and narrow shoulders, but 

there may be long-term potential to add a bike path through the refuge on old rail beds and 

connect to a regional bike network. 

Table 4: Detroit River IWR 

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority 

Detroit River IWR

Detroit, MI 

Less than 2 miles Direct 

connection 

High

Existing or Planned ATS: 

 The SMART bus line has four routes that stop within two miles of the Humbug Marsh unit of 

the refuge. The bus routes range in frequency from 30 minutes to two hours and run six to seven 

days per week. 

 The Kennedy Park and Elizabeth Park Trails are located within two miles of the refuge. 

 A new, two-mile paved section of the North-South Connector Greenway Trail was recently 

completed within the Humbug Marsh unit, with sidewalk and bike trail connections to the 

community of Gibraltar and the Lake Erie Metro Park to the south. This is part of a 16 mile trail 

that will eventually connect to the City of Detroit. 

Opportunities for Future ATS: 

 The refuge would like to add bicycle trails to link some of the units with nearby communities. 

 The refuge is constructing a new Visitor Center and completing a Visitor Services Plan; they 

expect visitation to increase. 

 There are significant opportunities to improve access to underserved populations around the 

refuge through increase in transit and non-motorized access. 

 
26

Table 5: Minnesota Valley NWR and WMD 

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority 

Minnesota Valley NWR and WMD

Bloomington, MN 

Less than 1⁄2 mile Direct 

connection 

High

Existing or Planned ATS: 

 Metro Transit’s American Boulevard light rail station is located approximately one-half mile 

from the Long Meadow Lake Unit and Visitor Center. The light rail offers high-frequency 

service seven days per week to the downtown Minneapolis area. Metro Transit bus service also 

runs nearby and near other units of the refuge (near Bloomington Ferry Road, the Bass Ponds 

Unit, and the Black Dog Unit). Refuge staff estimate that 15 percent of visitors come via public 

transit. 

 The Minnesota River Valley State Trail, maintained by the Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources, is a multi-use gravel trail that runs through the refuge and continues (though not 

perfectly connected) throughout the river valley. 

 There are extensive trails throughout the units with strong connectivity to the region’s bicycle 

and pedestrian network. Most trails within the refuge are packed gravel surface and subject to 

flooding. 

 There is a paved bicycle trail in the Wilkie Unit, adjacent to CR 101. A local bicycle company 

plows the path during the winter, and it is heavily used by commuters. 

 The Sand Creek Pedestrian Bridge in the Louisville Swamp Unit offers a vital connection for 

cyclists and pedestrians. 

 The City or County will be converting the Black Dog Road (in the Black Dog Unit) to a paved 

bicycle/pedestrian trail in 2016. 

 The refuge occasionally rents 16- or 24-passenger shuttles or vans for special events. 

Opportunities for Future ATS: 

 Refuge staff have a strong partnership history with local governments, businesses, user groups, 

and the Minnesota Department of Transportation. 

 The refuge held two Rail to Refuge tours, in which visitors come to refuge via light rail (with or 

without bicycles) and then tour the refuge by bicycle or foot. 

 The refuge needs improved signage to direct visitors to amenities; signage has been constrained 

by local ordinances. Since the refuge units are adjacent to residential areas, improved signage 

may increase visitation by pedestrians. 

 The refuge can identify better connections with light rail and bus transit and educate the public 

about these opportunities. 

 Old Cedar Avenue Bridge is a missing connection for commuters from south and east 

residential areas to access the refuge and get to points north in the Twin Cities. The existing 

bridge is a safety hazard, but some commuters still use it despite hazardous conditions. The 

refuge has submitted a TRIP application for capital costs to supplement funds from the City of 

Bloomington and other sources. 

 
27

Table 6: Shiawassee NWR 

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority 

Shiawassee NWR 

Saginaw, MI

1⁄2 - 1 mile Less than 1⁄2 

mile 

High

Existing or Planned ATS: 

 Saginaw Transit Authority offers regional bus service near the refuge every 40 minutes, six days 

per week. The bus stop is 6-7 blocks from Green Point Environmental Learning Center (ELC). 

 The Saginaw Valley Rail Trail is located approximately two to three miles from the refuge, and 

recent sidewalk improvements (by the County) have connected the trail to within 100 yards of a 

refuge trailhead. Visitation by walking and biking to the trailhead has increased over the past 

few years. 

 The City of Saginaw and refuge friends groups have submitted several Public Lands Highway 

Discretionary applications for road improvements to a section of Gabriel Road/Maple Street for 

access to the ELC, but the applications have not been selected. 

 Road conditions leading to the refuge are very poor and unsafe, which actively deters motorized 

and non-motorized visitors. Roads in the area are considered to be in poor condition for 

bicycling. 

 The refuge has strong partnerships with the City of Saginaw and Saginaw County for 

transportation and non-transportation projects. 

Opportunities for Future ATS: 

 Visitors can currently use transit, pedestrian, or bicycle modes to access the refuge, but these 

connections may be unsafe, inconvenient, or inappropriate for some visitors. Several simple 

improvements, such as sidewalk extension near the bus stop and near the trailhead, would 

significantly increase non-motorized and transit access. 

 To better connect existing transit to the refuge, partner with Saginaw Transit Authority to add 

bus stops closer to the ELC and promote the use of transit for refuge access.

 Connect the Saginaw Valley Rail Trail and Saginaw County sidewalks with the refuge trailhead 

(100 yards) and provide signage along the Rail Trail to orient users to the refuge trails.

 Several schools within one mile of the ELC have discontinued field trips in recent years, in part 

due to costs of buses. These schools may be able to walk to the refuge with improved 

infrastructure. 

 Refuge staff would also like improved signage for orientation to and within the station. 

 
28

Table 7: Upper Mississippi NWR, La Crosse District 

Refuge Transit Distance Trail Distance Priority 

Upper Mississippi NWR, La Crosse District 

La Crosse, WI

More than 3 

miles

1-3 miles High

Existing or Planned ATS: 

 There is a local transit service in La Crosse, but it is not used for refuge access nor is 

information available about its service area. 

 There is an Amtrak station in La Crosse, located more than three miles from the refuge, but the 

train stops in La Crosse in the middle of the night. 

 The Great River State Trail runs along the Mississippi River and is located within one of the 

refuge visitor center (currently under construction). 

Opportunities for Future ATS: 

 A new Visitor Center will be opening in 2012, with a planned multi-use trail connecting the 

Visitor Center with the Mississippi River shore and a boat launch. The greatest priority for the 

refuge is to connect this trail with existing regional trail networks. There may be an opportunity 

for bicycle rental or sharing. 

 There may be an opportunity in the future to extend local bus lines to access the Visitor Center. 

 Other improvements would include water access facilities, signage, and promotion and 

marketing of existing ATS. Signage has not yet been planned for the new Visitor Center. 

 Refuge staff work closely with partners to plan for and fund transportation projects; they could 

benefit from additional technical assistance to further these partnerships and projects.