The Rogue Valley Ecological Framework: Mapping Open Space, Ecologically Important Areas, and Ecological Corridors for Transportation Planners, Agencies, Municipalities, Developers, Conservation NGOs, and Citizens (2013)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Contents 1 Executive Summary 4 CHAPTER 1 Background 4 Participants 4 Context: Environmental, Social, and Transportation 7 Problem 7 Solution 8 Goals and Objectives 9 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach 9 Test SHRP 2 C06 Integrated Ecosystem Framework, Steps 1-3 10 Evaluate Additional TRB Tools 11 Create Regional Ecosystem Framework and Associated Maps 13 CHAPTER 3 Findings and Applications 13 SHRP 2 C06 Integrated Ecosystem Framework, Steps 1-3 versus RVCOG Method: Comparisons and Explanations 21 Evaluation of Additional TRB Tools 22 Regional Ecosystem Framework and Associated Maps 30 Summary 31 References 33 APPENDIX A Project Participants 38 APPENDIX B Federal and State Species of Concern 41 APPENDIX C Detailed GIS Analysis Methods 52 APPENDIX D Data Layers 57 APPENDIX E Integrated Ecosystem Framework 62 APPENDIX F Limited Use Agreement for Digital Data 63 APPENDIX G Stakeholder Survey Results

1 Executive Summary Background The Rogue Valley, Jackson County, southern Oregon, is experiencing growing pains all too common in the western United States. The valley’s population has increased by 40% in the last 20 years, and is expected to grow by another 30% by 2030 (OEA 2004; Jackson County 2007; U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Space is limited by surrounding mountains, so urban growth occurs at the expense of fertile agricultural lands, salmon stream floodplains, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Transportation projects have struggled to keep up with the uncoordinated and haphazard development projects. Special habitats (e.g., wetlands) and species of concern have added regulatory layers. A lack of easily accessible environmental information makes it more difficult for transportation planning agencies to plan appropriate projects or future transportation direction. Our project goal was to improve the environmental and ecological data informing transportation planning in the Rogue Valley, Jackson County, Oregon. Research Approach Our project was chosen as one of four national pilot projects for the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2), Capacity Division, Research Project C21. We tested the first three steps of a nine-step planning framework developed by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources (INR et al. 2010). This framework was the result of SHRP 2 Capacity Research Projects C06A and C06B, which developed ecosystem- based transportation planning tools. The product of our test was a “Regional Ecosystem Framework” (REF), which we defined as an overlay of regional environmental, ecological, and archeological data with planned and existing transportation infrastructure. We hoped this REF would be a helpful transportation planning tool for the Rogue Valley. We convened a stakeholder committee representing diverse public and private sector interests and a technical committee of local resource experts to help create the REF. We created a data library with almost 200 spatially-linked data sets from federal, state, and county agencies; universities; non-governmental organizations; and individual scientists. Using a program called Corridor Design (Majka et al. 2007) and Esri’s ArcMap (2009), we mapped valley locations with the highest concentrations of environmental and ecological factors (“nodes”) and corridors between them (“linkages”). We overlaid planned and existing transportation structures and archeologically and historically important areas to create the final REF (Figure ES.1) A larger version of this map is shown in Figure 3.4.

2 Findings and Applications We found that we had to modify the original C06 framework. For example, we found that pursuing memoranda of understanding and funding in Step 1 was premature; these actions should be moved to Steps 3 or 4. We also believe that mapping ecologically important areas do not need to include identifying conservation and restoration priorities (Step 2, substep 2f), which could stall the process for months. We recommend that these modifications be applied to the framework before it is distributed nationally. We also tested other TRB tools: the Transportation for Communities website, a stakeholder survey, and the SHRP 2 website. We found that each of these tools needs improvement before they can be useful to a wide range of transportation planning teams. We had overwhelming support from data providers. It took much more time than anticipated to manipulate the data into shape files suitable for analysis; other teams replicating this process should budget accordingly. We were pleased with the results of our map analysis. We produced three maps: 1) raster analysis results; 2) ecological nodes and linkages; and 3) conflict and opportunities (our version of the REF; Figure ES.1). The ecological nodes and linkages highlights the location of ecologically and environmentally important areas in the valley. The conflict and opportunities Figure ES.1. Sample of the conflict and opportunity map, covering a small portion of the project area, Rogue Valley, Jackson County, Oregon.

3 map illustrates where planned transportation projects intersect with these areas (as well as with archeologically and historically important areas). We found that both the stakeholder and review teams were critical to the project’s success. Overall, participants enthused about the applicability of the mapping products.

4 CHAPTER 1 Background Participants Rogue Valley Council of Governments Rogue Valley Council of Governments’ (RVCOG) fundamental role is to provide technical expertise and project management for cities and other jurisdictions in the Rogue River basin of southern Oregon. Our Natural Resources and Planning Departments were involved in this project, with Natural Resources taking the lead. The Natural Resources Department has been working on integrating conservation and economic development for many years. Recent projects include removing the Gold Hill Dam and monitoring the effects; basin-wide water quality monitoring; an integrated wetland conservation and economic development plan in the northwest corner of the valley (the Agate Desert Vernal Pool Conservation Plan); and working with a variety of partners to provide economically viable conservation options. RVCOG’s Planning Department provides planning services for local municipalities; it also staffs the region’s Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). Partners Sixty-eight people from 41 different agencies and groups helped complete this project. Partners included city, county, state, and federal agencies; universities; consulting scientists; and representatives from conservation groups, economic infrastructure entities, the agricultural sector, and the transportation industry. A complete list of all participants and their affiliations can be found in Appendix A. Context: Environmental, Social, and Transportation The Rogue Valley is a 30- by-10-mile river valley in the middle Rogue River basin of southern Oregon, hemmed in by forested mountain ranges on all sides (Figure 1.1). Bear Creek, once an important salmon stream, flows down the middle of the valley, paralleled by Interstate-5 and constrained by urban development. In the last 20 years, the county’s population has grown by almost 40% (OEA 2004; Jackson County 2007; U.S. Census Bureau 2012). Another 30% are expected to arrive in the next 30 years. Approximately 70% of the valley’s 200,000 residents live in the incorporated cities (Jackson County 2007); the rest are scattered across rural and agricultural lands in the valley bottom and foothills. Rampant population growth has converted over 30?% of the valley’s orchards into an uncoordinated tangle of business and housing projects (OSU Extension Service 2008). Piecemeal and uncoordinated urban development has fragmented and perforated sensitive environmental areas, e.g., wetlands, riparian areas, and oak woodlands.

5 Figure 1.1. Project area, Rogue Valley Ecosystem Framework, Jackson County, Oregon. Box inset (A) refers to subsequent maps in the document, which show only this section of the project area in order to show mapping detail.

6 Human-wildlife conflicts (e.g., cougar and bear incidents, deer-auto accidents) are increasing as development interrupts migration corridors or fragments habitat. Among the federally and state listed species in the project area, two plants and one animal species have been federally listed under the Endangered Species Act due to vernal pool habitat loss (USFWS 2003; USFWS 2005; Table 1.1). Seventy-seven federal and state species of concern occur within the small project area (Appendix B); shrinking or fragmented habitat poses risks to these species as well. This is a concern to the community, which values recreational opportunities in the surrounding mountains, as well as economic growth. Surrounding mountains are primarily managed by federal agencies (U.S. Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service), private timber companies, or private ranches for timber production, livestock grazing, and wildfire management. Table 1.1. Federally or State Listed Species Occurring Within the Project Area (), Jackson County, Oregon. Species Federal Listing Statusa State Listing Statusb Habitat Association Critical Habitat Common Name Scientific Name Gentner’s fritillary Fritillaria gentneri E E Forest, meadows, oak woodlands No Cook’s desert parsley Lomatium cookie E E Vernal pools 2010 Large-flowered woolly meadowfoam Limnanthes floccose ssp. grandiflora E E Vernal pools 2010 Northern spotted owl Strix occidentalis caurina T T Old-growth conifer forest 2008 Southern Oregon/ Northern California Coasts coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch T SV Rivers, streams 2000 Vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchi T -- Vernal pools 2006 Wayside aster Eucephalus vialis SOC T Dry upland mixed conifer/hardwood forest openings -- Dwarf wooly meadowfoam Limnanthes floccose ssp. Pumila SOC T Vernal pools on top of two mesas -- Note: The project area is the Bear Creek Watershed combined with the Metropolitan Planning Organization Boundary surrounded by a 2-mile buffer. a Listing Status under the federal Endangered Species Act, as amended 1973. E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SOC = Species of Concern. Accessed 2/8/2012. www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/Documents/County/JACKSON%20COUNTY.pdf. b Listing Status by the State of Oregon. E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SV = Sensitive-Vulnerable. Wildlife: Accessed 2/8/2012. www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_category.pdf; Plants: Accessed 2/8/2012. www.oregon.gov/ODA/PLANT/CONSERVATION/county_list_a.shtml#Jackson.

7 Problem As the Rogue Valley’s population skyrockets, valley leaders have been struggling to retrofit undersized and awkwardly-located transportation routes to meet traffic demand. Long-range transportation planning has been complicated by the environmental and ecological sensitivity of the valley (e.g., listed species, unique habitats, culturally important scenic vistas, “wild” recreational areas) and the lack of easily available biological/ecological information. Data is not easily available for several reasons. Each agency uses only its own data library within its own Geographic Information Systems (GIS) department. Each department uses different mapping projections and data storage protocol. Agency employees are overworked and often cannot finish collecting data, digitizing data, or even properly storing data. Much data languishes in file cabinets or even in binders. Without enough reliable data, plans bog down in arguments and distrust, projects grind to a halt over unforeseen mitigation needs, and projects are rarely considered in the context of the “big picture.” Project delays due to public outcry, regulatory planning document revision, and/or mitigation add to mounting frustration, expense, and a final transportation product that benefits neither the environment nor the transportation corridor. Solution The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academy of Sciences works to resolve problems with transportation planning. Through its Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2), it funded two projects in 2008 through its C06 research initiative (TRB 2008). These projects were tasked to develop tools to aid transportation agencies and municipal planning organizations in using an ecosystem approach to transportation planning. One of the funded organizations was Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR). As its tool, OSU-INR developed a nine-step “Integrated Ecosystem Framework” (Table 1.2). This framework guides a regional, multi-agency team through integrating conservation and transportation planning while expediting transportation product delivery, e.g., creating memoranda of understanding (MOUs), regulatory assurance agreements, and mitigation crediting (INR et al. 2010). The first three steps of this process lead the team through the creation of a “Regional Ecosystem Framework” (REF). A REF as defined by OSU-INR is a map overlaying planned transportation projects with ecological conservation areas. Such a map (and associated data products) or something similar, would be the solution to the Rogue Valley’s dilemma. For several years, our team had understood the need for such a map in the Rogue Valley. As mentioned above, the lack of environmental and ecological information at the valley scale had made many planning efforts more difficult. Several mapping efforts had taken place over the previous decade, yet these efforts were very large scale [e.g., The Nature Conservancy’s Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Assessment {Vander Schaaf et al. 2004)], specific to a particular effort, or focused on federal lands. The TRB’s C21 funding presented the opportunity to both create mapping/data products needed for the Rogue Valley, and to help TRB refine ecosystem

8 approach transportation planning tools for eventual use nationwide. TRB selected our project as one of the four research efforts funded by C21. Table 1.2. The Nine Steps of the Integrated Ecosystem Framework as developed by Oregon State University’s INR et al. 2010). Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Vision. Step 2: Integrate Ecosystem Plans. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework. Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions. Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy. Step 7: Develop Agreements. Step 8: Implement Agreements. Step 9: Monitoring and Adaptive Management. Note ;Substeps have been omitted. The three steps tested with this project are in bold. Goals and Objectives 1. Test one of the SHRP 2 C06 tools developed to improve the ecosystem approach for transportation planning, nationwide. a. Use and evaluate the first three steps of OSU-INR’s framework: i. Were the proposed substeps appropriate, efficient, practical, and repeatable by others? ii. Did the substeps guide us to the completion of a REF? b. Evaluate additional SHRP 2 program tools [e.g., Transportation for Communities website (www.transportationforcommunities.com), stakeholder survey]. 2. Improve the environmental and ecological data informing transportation planning in the Rogue Valley, Jackson County, Oregon. a. Gather all known environmental and ecological data for the Rogue Valley, Oregon into a geospatial data library. b. Map ecologically and environmentally important areas. c. Map potential conflict and restoration opportunity areas between transportation projects and ecologically/environmentally important areas. d. Make sure all information is available to all. We hoped our mapping products would build a “big picture” foundation for long-term planning; give an early “heads-up” for short-term project planning; help planners, developers, and conservation advocates work together during the planning process; and streamline regulatory review.

9 CHAPTER 2 Research Approach Methods Note: This report was does not include a complete record of our methods for creating our Geographical Information Systems maps because this was not the information of interest to the TRB. We realize that others (e.g., other councils of government) may want to replicate our efforts; therefore, we have included additional information about our mapping methods in Appendix C. Test SHRP 2 C06 Integrated Ecosystem Framework, Steps 1-3 Our project tested steps 1-3 of the Integrated Ecosystem Framework (IEF) developed by Oregon State University’s Institute of Natural Resources under SHRP 2 C06 (INR et al. 2010; Table 2.1). Since we were testing this framework, we only used their steps as a loose guideline, and adjusted the steps as necessary as we went through our process. Table 2.1. Steps 1-3, With Substeps, of SHRP 2 C06 Integrated Ecosystem Framework Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision. 1a. Identify planning region. 1b. Build relationships. 1c. Convene stakeholders. 1d. Record ideas; develop MOU on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency and predictability. 1e. Explore funding and long-term management options. Step 2: Characterize resource status. Integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans. 2a. Identify spatial data needed for baseline. 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues. 2c. Develop necessary agreements from agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data. 2d. Identify data gaps. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling gaps. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans. 2f. Stakeholder review of geospatial overlay, restoration/conservation goals and priorities. Identify actions to support them. 2g. Record everything. 2h. Distribute map of conservation and restoration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption.

10 Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long-Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. 3b. Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and 2) potentially opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. 3c. Identify high-level conservation goals. 3d. Stakeholder review. Evaluate Additional TRB Tools Stakeholder Survey Upon request from TRB, we set up a “before and after” survey evaluation. We used the stakeholder survey tool from the Transportation for Communities (TCAPP) website (www.transportationforcommunities.com). We provided our stakeholder committee (below, under Project Participants) with information regarding the TCAPP website and asked them to take the stakeholder survey during July, 2011. At this time the stakeholder committee had met twice. The stakeholder committee took the same survey again after the January 2012 meeting. Stakeholders were also asked to provide feedback regarding the ease of using the TCAPP website and whether information on the website assisted the stakeholders with their responsibilities regarding communicating, understanding and committing to the stakeholder process. The TCAPP survey tool was designed for stakeholder groups making decisions about specific transportation projects. Our stakeholder committee was convened to advise us as we developed tools (data library, maps) to help with early stages of transportation plans. After talking with TRB and the consultant responsible for making revisions to the TCAPP survey, we decided to use the original survey questions (as of July, 2011). We knew this could cause confusion within our specific stakeholder committee, but we also felt it would provide useful feedback for the survey developers. TCAPP Website, SHRP 2 Website, SHRP 2 C06 Pilot Studies Part of our responsibility to TRB was to use and evaluate the TCAPP website. We attempted to use this website to help us understand the transportation planning process, to access transportation-related documents, and, as stated, for the stakeholder survey. We also tried to find information via the SHRP 2 website. We were provided with appendices from the SHRP 2 C06 pilot studies at the beginning of our project. We reviewed these reports before we set up our analysis process.

11 Create Regional Ecosystem Framework and Associated Maps Regional Ecosystem Framework Defined The C06 team defined a REF as the merger, or overlay of a regional conservation strategy and a transportation plan (INR et al. 2010). A conservation strategy identifies and prioritizes the ecological and environmental areas to be conserved or protected (“ecological framework”). A transportation plan includes the transportation-related infrastructure planned to support predicted urban and rural growth or change (economic, residential, and otherwise) in a particular area. We used this definition as a guide, but as we developed the REF, we adapted the concept to the needs of and data available to our valley. Project Participants We convened two groups to assist with the project: a stakeholder committee representing diverse public and private sector interests and a technical committee of local resource experts (Appendix A, Table A.1). The stakeholder committee met monthly. The technical review team met twice; we also requested assistance from individual members throughout the project. Eighteen people representing 14 entities participated in the monthly stakeholder meetings. Thirteen people representing 10 entities were members of the technical review group. Several others provided additional technical assistance (Appendix A). Our own project team was made up of a mix of RVCOG employees and contractors, who provided important technical expertise (Appendix A, Table A.2). Project Area Our project area encompassed the intersection of the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary and the entire Bear Creek Watershed, surrounded by a 2-mile buffer (Figure 1.1). We added the buffer to create ecological connectivity across the mountains into adjacent valleys. We removed a small portion of the buffer that would have extended into California, to avoid collecting data from two states, two counties, and two National Forests mapped with different projections. The project area includes seven municipalities; county, state, and federal lands and parks; many large orchards and farms; an interstate; an airport; an irrigation canal system; a recreational greenway; one large and several small reservoirs for municipal water, irrigation, or flood control; vernal pools, wetlands, and streams; complex vegetation types; and approximately 200,000 people. GIS Analysis: Brief Overview We created a digital library of spatially-linked data sets from federal, state, and county agencies; universities; non-governmental organizations; and individual scientists. Much of these data required manipulation (e.g., reprojecting, clipping, merging) before being functional. We

12 evaluated all data received to determine if each met our criteria for inclusion in the data library and for use in the GIS analysis (see Appendix C for details). Using a type of program called a “raster calculator” from Corridor Design (Majka et al. 2007) with Esri’s ArcMap (2009), we mapped valley locations with the highest concentrations of environmental and ecological factors. A raster calculator lays a grid over the project area and “counts” the number of factors in each cell. For our analyses, the project team selected 63 of the best, most complete, and most important data layers (Appendix D) from our collected library. We refined our list based on feedback from the stakeholder group and review team members. We used different data sets (Appendix D) for each of four different modeling analyses (Appendix C). We overlaid an additional six layers for our conflict and opportunities map. From these results and information from additional data layers (e.g. oak woodlands), we determined “nodes” of ecological importance (highly-ranked areas) and “linkages” between these nodes (Meiklejohn et al 2009; Hess and Fisher 2001). We overlaid planned and existing transportation structures and archeologically and historically important areas to create the final REF. We highlighted “potential conflict and opportunity areas” where planned transportation projects could potentially cause problems or alleviate existing ones. The stakeholders and technical review team reviewed every aspect of the GIS mapping process, from data collection to the final mapping products. Outreach Early on, we created an internal project web page at our corporate site. This allowed us to post things for the stakeholders and review team members. We also made a public web page which included a basic project description and external links. Throughout the project, we periodically presented product drafts to our partners, the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and the Rogue Valley MPO Technical Committee. After we completed our analyses and map products, we organized additional presentations at local groups throughout the valley. We included a short article in the RVCOG’s February newsletter. We created a two-page brochure summarizing the project for distribution at presentations. As of this writing, we intend to organize newspaper coverage and an article in a regional magazine. We are also collaborating with other pilot projects on a technical article for a professional journal. Project Budget Our project budget totaled approximately $160,000.

13 CHAPTER 3 Findings and Applications SHRP 2 C06 Integrated Ecosystem Framework, Steps 1-3 versus RVCOG Method: Comparisons And Explanations We tested the first three steps of OSU-INR’s nine-step “Integrated Ecosystem Framework” (IEF). Table 3.1 compares OSU-INR’s version with our final set of steps. In the following section, we compare the original framework with our process and explain why we adhered to or deviated from each substep. See Appendix E for the complete, nine-step IEF. Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision C06 Substep 1a: Identify planning region. RVCOG: Same. (RVCOG Substep 1-b; see Table 3.1) Explanation: We agree that identifying an appropriate planning region is an essential early step to creating a regional ecosystem plan. However, it should follow “build relationships” – the essential first step before embarking on any time of regional planning. C06 Substep 1b: Build relationships. RVCOG: Moved. (RVCOG Substep 1-a.) Table 3.1. Comparing Step 1 of the Original Integrated Ecosystem Framework Model With the Process Used by Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) in this C21 Pilot Project Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision. C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 1a. Identify planning region. 1b. Build relationships. 1c. Convene stakeholders. 1d. Record ideas; develop MOU on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency, and predictability. 1e. Explore funding and long-term management options. 1b. Build relationships 1a. Identify planning region. 1c. Convene stakeholders and technical review team. 1d. Record ideas; develop MOU on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency and predictability. 1 e. Explore funding and long-term management options.

14 Table 3.2. Steps 1-3 of the Integrated Ecosystem Framework Model and the Revised Steps from the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG), This Report Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision. C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 1a. Identify planning region. 1b. Build relationships. 1c. Convene stakeholders. 1d. Record ideas; develop MOU on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency and predictability. 1e. Explore funding and long-term management options. 1a. Build relationships 1b. Identify planning region. 1c. Convene stakeholders and technical review team. Step 2: Characterize resource status. Integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans. C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 2a. Identify spatial data needed for baseline. 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues. 2c. Develop necessary agreements from agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data. 2d. Identify data gaps. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling gaps. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans. 2f. Stakeholder review of geospatial overlay, restoration/conservation goals and priorities. Identify actions to support them. 2g. Record everything. 2h. Distribute map of conservation and restoration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption. 2a. Identify spatial data needed for baseline. Also includes: 2a-1. Prioritize ecological resources and issues. 2a-2. Stakeholder review. 2b. Data collection. Also includes: 2b-1. Data standards, meta data, projections 2b-2. Develop necessary agreements 2b-3. Identify data gaps. 2b-4. Data organization. 2b-5. Stakeholder review. 2c. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans; stakeholder review. 2d. Prioritize ecological resources and issues; stakeholder review. 2e. Record everything. 2f. Preliminary map and adjust model; stakeholder review. 2g. Final map; stakeholder review.

15 Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long- Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. 3b. Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and 2) potentially (sic) opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. 3c. Identify high-level conservation goals 3d. Stakeholder review. 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long- Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. 3b. Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and with 2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. 3d. Stakeholder review. Explanation: The relationships among the participating agencies must be established, either formally or informally, before the process even begins. It is not necessary for every person in the room to know each other. We have learned through decades of experience that relationships are the most important component to any kind of regional planning project – especially when it involves planning issues approached from potentially conflicting value systems. In the Rogue Valley, agencies, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, and other entities have been collaborating in various combinations on a wide variety of natural resource management and planning initiatives and projects for decades. We understand that this factor alone is one reason why we could finish our mapping products in such a short time-span. C06 Substep 1c: Convene stakeholders RVCOG: Altered (italics): Convene stakeholders and technical review team (RVCOG Substep 1c.) Explanation: In addition to a stakeholder committee, we recruited a team of 26 local environmental specialists to be a technical review team. In past projects, we have found that creating a technical advisory group results in more involvement from the professional sector, which gives the stakeholders more confidence in their decisions as well. It also reduces the critique period after the product has been created because so many technical experts had the opportunity to participate in the creation of the mapping products. Our Stakeholder group was a mix of agency specialists from planning, engineering, and environmental backgrounds, business interests, and a variety of NGOs (e.g., Oregon Hunters Association, The Nature Conservancy).

16 C06 Substep 1d: Record ideas; develop MOU on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency, and predictability. RVCOG: Deleted. Possibly move to Step 3. Explanation: We did not follow this step because it was apparent to us that trying to forge an MOU – even with an individual agency - at this early date was very premature, and would have slowed down and possibly killed the entire project. The stakeholder committee took a long time to understand the project and the process. In addition, many of the members did not fully commit until they were able to see draft products (in Step 3). We found that the process of submitting the grant already forced agencies and entities to “support” the project; this was sufficient motivation for agencies and NGOs to participate. C06 Substep 1e: Explore funding and long-term management options. RVCOG: Deleted. Possibly move to Step 3. Explanation: Again, we found that exploring funding and long-term management of conserved areas at this early stage was too premature. Most of the stakeholders were hesitant to support the mapping products until they saw draft versions (in Step 3).

17 Step 2: Characterize resource status. Integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans. Table 3.3. Comparing Step 2 of the Original Integrated Ecosystem Framework Model with the Process Used by Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) in This C21 Pilot Project Step 2: Characterize resource status. Integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans. C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 2a. Identify spatial data needed for baseline. 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues. 2c. Develop necessary agreements from agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data. 2d. Identify data gaps. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling gaps. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans. 2f. Stakeholder review of geospatial overlay, restoration/conservation goals and priorities. Identify actions to support them. 2g. Record everything. 2h. Distribute map of conservation and restoration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption. 2a. Identify spatial data needed for baseline. Also includes: • 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues; • (2f) Stakeholder review. New A. Data collection. Also includes: • New A1. Data standards, meta data, projections. • 2c. Develop necessary agreements. • 2d. Identify data gaps. • New A2. Data organization. • 2f. Stakeholder review. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans; (2f) stakeholder review. 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues; (2f) stakeholder review. 2g. Record everything. New B. Preliminary map and adjust model; stakeholder review. 2h. Final map; (2f) stakeholder review. C06 Substep 2a: Identify spatial data needed for baseline. RVCOG: Added C06 Substeps 2b, 2f. (RVCOG Substep 2a; see Table 3.3.) Includes: • C06 Substep 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues. (Repeated again later.) • C06 Substep 2f. Altered. Stakeholder and Technical Team review.

18 Explanation: Our team had the necessary GIS and ecological expertise to easily identify necessary base data layers needed to create a readable map that would provide context for the ecological data. If a project team does not have this expertise, we recommend seeking assistance from experienced GIS users. We agree that some sort of prioritization should take place early in the process. Searching for and mining data is very time-consuming; therefore, setting boundaries allows the team to focus on finding the most important types of data to answer the ecological questions set forth by the project. For example, one of the issues driving our project was the lack of valley- bottom and low-elevation foothill environmental and ecological data. We prioritized finding data to address this need. (See Appendix C for details.) NEW SUBSTEP: Collect Data; build data library; stakeholder and technical team review. (RVCOG Substep 2c). Includes: • Establish data standards and metadata categories; choose projection(s). (RVCOG Substep 2-c-1) • MOVED: C06 Substep 2c. Develop necessary agreements with agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data. (RVCOG Substep2c2) • MOVED: C06 Substep 2d. Identify data gaps. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling gaps. (RVCOG Substep 2c3) • Data organization. (RVCOG Substep 2c4) Explanation: We understand that the C06 team incorporated “collecting data” into the other substeps; we added it as a separate step in order to highlight not only the vast amount of work inherent in collecting data, but also the critical pieces of this process that might otherwise not be recognized in this framework, for which time and funds need to be budgeted. See Appendix C for details on this, creating a data library, data gaps, and data standards. An example of a data sharing agreement can be found in Appendix F. C06 Substep 2e: Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans. RVCOG: Altered (italics): Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans; stakeholder and technical team review. (RVCOG Substep 2d.) Explanation: This step entails the physical work of clipping, reprojecting, merging, and otherwise manipulating the geospatial data (e.g., in ArcMap or a similar program) into useable layers. The GIS team walked the stakeholders through these processes so that they would understand the work involved in readying data layers for use in an analytical program.

19 C06 Substep 2f: Stakeholder review of geospatial overlays, restoration/conservation goals and priorities. Identify actions to support them. RVCOG: Altered (italics, strikeout): Stakeholder and technical team review. of geospatial overlays. restoration/conservation goals and priorities. Identify actions to support them. Moved. (See RVCOG Substep 2a, 2b, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g.) Explanation: We added stakeholder and/or technical team review at every important review point in order to make the process as understandable and transparent as possible for the stakeholders and review team members. We believe that such transparency streamlines the process. Understanding how the map was created also improves the stakeholders’ ability to become advocates. C06 Substep 2g: Record everything. RVCOG: Same. (RVCOG Substep 2f.) Explanation: We agree that the managing team must be diligent about tracking internal and stakeholder decisions regarding the REF and any other products produced by the team. No matter how many are involved, there will always be key regional players who were not involved. If the process is not transparent, those key players will not “buy in” to the products, and the long- term success of the project is jeopardized. NEW SUBSTEP: Create preliminary conservation strategy (ecological/environmentally important areas); adjust model; stakeholder and technical team review. (RVCOG Substep 2g.) Includes: • C06 Substep 2b. Prioritize ecological resources and issues (REPEATED from above). Explanation: We added this substep in order to help identify the financial and personnel resources needed to create the “conservation strategy” map portion of an REF. This substep entails using a geospatially-linked modeling program or other method to prioritize areas of ecological or environmental importance based on the parameters chosen by the team. In our pilot test effort, this work was time-consuming. As is typical for computer modeling exercises, great care had to be taken to ensure that all model input (i.e., geospatial data layers) was flawless. Many problems are invisible until they surface in a draft modeling run. Hence, we recommend prioritizing data a second time, for the modeling exercise. See “Research Approach” for a quick summary of our process, and Appendix C for more detail.

20 C06 Substep 2h: Distribute final map of conservation and restoration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption. RVCOG: Altered (italics): Distribute final map of environmentally/ecologically important areas (can be considered conservation and restoration priorities) to stakeholders and technical team for review and adoption. (RVCOG Substep 2h). Explanation: By this point, the stakeholders and technical team members should have had significant opportunity to review the process at many points. This step is simply the final run of the modeling effort in RVCOG Substep 2g, above. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework. Table 3.4. Comparing Step 3 of the Original Integrated Ecosystem Framework Model With the Process Used by Rogue Valley Council of Governments in the C21 Pilot Project Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework C06 Version RVCOG Pilot Test 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long-Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. 3b. Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and 2) potentially (sic) opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. 3c. Identify high-level conservation goals 3d. Stakeholder review. 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long-Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. 3b. Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and with 2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. 3c. Identify high-level conservation goals 3d. Stakeholder review. C06 Substep 3a: Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long-Range Transportation Plan with conservation priorities. RVCOG: Same. (RVCOG Substep 3a.) Explanation: We expanded this concept. Our REF also included areas of potential conflict between proposed new urban growth boundaries and nodes, linkages, and archeological sensitivity areas. Fish passage barriers and wildlife collisions provided additional information about current environmental-transportation conflicts. C06 Substep 3b: Identify and show areas and resources 1) potentially impacted by transportation projects and 2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities. RVCOG: Delete.

21 Explanation: This step should really be part of Step 3a. We also recommend rephrasing this concept because the situation can be looked at both ways: not only are environmental/ecological resources potentially impacted by transportation projects, but transportation projects are potentially delayed or prevented due to environmental issues. C06 Step 3d: Stakeholder review. RVCOG: Moved. Same. (RVCOG Step 3c.) C06 Step 3c: Identify high-level conservation goals RVCOG: Deleted for this pilot project, but should be retained in Step 3. Explanation: The goal for our project was to provide information in map form to ODOT and other regional entities. We used the modeling effort in Step 2 to map out important areas for conservation. However, we stressed that the map was neither regulatory nor binding in any way. We feel that long-term funding for data library and mapping product storage and maintenance needs to be identified before moving forward with a regional conservation plan. Evaluation of Additional TRB Tools Stakeholder Survey (TCAPP Website) Fifteen out of 18 people (83%) replied to the July 2011 survey (Appendix H, Table H.1). At this time, most members were comfortable with the level of communication within and between the stakeholder committee and staff. Stakeholders were still a little unclear about the group’s objectives and role in the project. This confusion appeared to be caused by two factors: 1) the stakeholders had yet to see some draft data or map products; and, 2) the TCAPP survey is not really designed for our type of stakeholder group. Nine out of 18 people (50%) replied to the January 2012 survey (Appendix H, Table H.2). Most members were more comfortable with the level of communication within and between the stakeholder committee and staff, and more comfortable with the group’s role. In January 2012, the website was changed from a “Draft” website to a “Beta” website in the middle of our survey window. Some of the stakeholders were unable to complete the survey due to technical difficulties generating the survey result report. After trying multiple times, they gave up. This contributed to the lower number of participants. In general, the stakeholders considered the website survey easy to use. As noted above, some of the questions on the survey tool were confusing to our stakeholders because the survey tool was designed for a stakeholder group with different responsibilities. We also noticed that because survey participants were required to email their completed surveys to the project manager, survey results were no longer anonymous. Most of the committee members chose to include their names – but not all. Those without names were still identifiable by their email

22 addresses. We recommend that the survey submittal process be improved to allow truly anonymous reporting. TCAPP Website, SHRP 2 Website, SHRP 2 C06 Pilot Studies During our project, we turned to some TRB tools: the TCAPP website, SHRP 2 website, and SHRP 2 C06 pilot studies (appendices) for help regarding transportation planning processes, background information, global applicability, jargon definitions, and stakeholder tools. Below are some suggestions for improvement. 1. TCAPP Website www.transportationforcommunities.com a. Simplify site design to better accommodate browsers and first-time users. b. Hotlink all jargon. c. Make the TCAPP library searchable. 2. SHRP 2 Website www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx a. Improve internal site links. b. Add a publication search engine. 3. SHRP 2 C06B Pilot Study Reports Include the following, in addition to the usual background, methods, and project summary: a. Author(s) and contact information; b. A brief cost assessment; c. An analysis of whether the methods and tools helped or hindered the team; and d. Recommendations for improvement. The report to which these appendices were attached, is not available online; this makes them difficult to reference. Regional Ecosystem Framework and Associated Maps Regional Ecosystem Framework: SHRP 2 C06 Version versus RVCOG Our REF differed slightly but significantly from the SHRP 2 C06 version. Both overlay areas important for conservation with planned transportation projects. However, the C06 version asks the team to spend time prioritizing conservation areas; we did not. We felt that months would be wasted. During a previous conservation planning effort for vernal pools, the stakeholder

23 committee spent two years determining its prioritization process. Our REF includes the map of nodes and linkages but stops short of identifying which nodes or linkages are more important. In addition, our REF includes more than planned transportation projects. We included current urban growth plans, utilities, wildlife-traffic conflict areas (“road kill”), and fish passage barriers created by transportation infrastructure. We also mapped State Historic Preservation Office approved historically and archeologically important sites. Data Library Our final digital library contained 103 unique data sets, some of which were projected at two different spatial scales for a total of 193 data layers. One stakeholder committee member declared our digital library “ . . . the best collection of geospatial data for the Rogue Valley in existence.” We did not anticipate the amount of time needed to build the data library. Every data layer collected had to be analyzed for inclusion. Every data layer included had to be manipulated in some way: clipped to the project area (too big), merged with compatible layers to create a new layer covering the entire project area (too small), reprojected to our chosen map projection (NAD_1983_StatePlane_Oregon_South_FIPS_3602), or transformed to be functional in our analysis program. During this time, the stakeholder committee had nothing to do. We recommend that others repeating our process ensure adequate funding and employee availability to both complete this necessary task adequately and to reduce the amount of project time spent on this task. GIS Analysis We created three mapping products: 1) raw raster calculator results (Figures 3.1 and 3.2); 2) ecological nodes and linkages (Figure 3.3); and 3) conflict and opportunity areas (Figure 3.4). We found that including the raster analyses as stand-alone maps proved successful in helping the stakeholder committee understand the next step. The technical review team members pored over these maps to examine their accuracy. The raster maps in Figures 3.1 and 3.2 provide a snapshot of an area at the north end of the valley (see Figure 1.1). Dark areas in Figure 3.1 show greater numbers of ecological and environmental data. In this area of the valley, these areas support oak woodlands and vernal pool habitat as well as Threatened and Endangered vernal pool obligate species (Table 1.1). Dark areas in Figure 3.2 are concentrated along riparian areas including the Rogue River (curving north to west, or from the top center to the left center of the figure), Bear Creek (flowing south to north on the left side of the figure), and Little Butte Creek (flowing east to west). These areas of ecological importance then show up as nodes and linkages in Figure 3.3. The high level of coverage is not typical for the rest of the valley. However, it underscores the ecological sensitivity of this northern area. See Appendix C for details on how nodes and linkages were created.

24 Across the valley, about half of our nodes have conflict areas within in them. For example, in Figure 3.4, 10 of the approximately 20 nodes have white dashed ovals through all or part of the node. These ovals highlight areas where either planned or existing transportation projects intersect with ecologically sensitive areas. This area of the valley is slated for industrial development, airport expansion, and a highway bypass, as well as many small transportation improvement projects. The conflict and opportunity maps also illustrate sites along roads with wildlife collision problems. This project is the first time these data have been mapped. Including these data as an overlay has allowed ODOT to consider improving wildlife crossing areas as future mitigation or restoration projects. Our simple, transparent, and inclusive approach to the GIS analysis proved very successful. Using a simple raster calculator program without weighting data layers allowed people not familiar with data analysis to easily understand the maps. Stakeholders, technical reviewers, and project partners had no issue with our process, and provided helpful ideas and insightful critique throughout. Our analytically simple approach also saved considerable time and money, keeping the GIS team on budget. The stakeholder committee members reviewed the raster results, but were much more engaged with the other two maps, especially the conflicts and opportunities map. At the final stakeholder meeting, the committee members spent the bulk of their time reviewing this map and discussing its relevance to transportation and development projects.

25 Figure 3.1. Results of the raster calculator model to develop nodes, using Corridor Design. Rogue Valley Ecological Framework, Jackson County, OR. Note: The landscape is divided into a grid; each cell is color coded by the amount of ecological or environmental data found in that cell. Given that data are as synoptic as possible, darker cells can be assumed to have more ecological importance. In this map, many of the dark areas in the center have vernal pool habitat, listed species, and other values. See Appendix C for more information.

26 Figure 3.2. Results of the raster calculator model to develop linkages, using Corridor Design. Rogue Valley Ecological Framework, Jackson County, OR. Note: The landscape is divided into a grid; each cell is color coded by the amount of ecological or environmental data found in that cell. Given that data are as synoptic as possible, darker cells can be assumed to have more ecological importance. In this map, many of the cells of high linkage value occur along riparian corridors. See Appendix C for more information.

27 Figure 3.3. Areas of ecological and environmental importance (nodes, light shading with dark boundaries), and the linkages, or corridors between them (cross hatching). Rogue Valley Ecosystem Framework, Jackson County, OR. Note: Note that linkages also flow out of the project area. Matrix areas have no shading, but show the aerial view of the ground surface, so are not blank.

28 Figure 3.4. Potential conflict and opportunity areas between planned transportation projects, existing transportation infrastructure, and ecological and archeological resources. Rogue Valley Ecosystem Framework, Jackson County, OR.

29 Community Response and General Applicability Response to the mapping products has been overwhelmingly positive. An important caveat is that a few participants were reticent until the mapping products were finished. Some had a difficult time visualizing the maps before they were created. This is one of the reasons why we recommend creating an REF without prioritizing conservation actions. Once participants can see the map, and understand its application, they are generally willing to spend another six months on additional planning. Others were unwilling to commit until they could ascertain the usefulness of the mapping products for transportation planning. This was especially true of federal and state agency personnel. The Rogue Valley has seen many regional restoration planning and data unification efforts, most of which sit on the shelf. This makes it difficult for professionals to justify involvement in yet another effort. Helping with such efforts comes at the expense of high priority work. This makes it difficult to find the time, regardless of the long-term benefit. We offer that this situation is an issue for every project and every region of the country. Our meetings with ODOT focused less on content and more on the integration and application of our mapping products into ODOT’s planning processes. ODOT suggested that once these maps are integrated into ODOT’s GIS system, ODOT will use the information for both long-term and project planning, including identifying potential “show stoppers.” ODOT’s environmental and planning departments also saw the potential for identifying mitigation opportunities early in project planning. They suggested using the REF to create a “mitigation bank” of ready-to-go mitigation projects. The stakeholder committee members immediately saw the usefulness of the mapping products to non-transportation projects. Some were interested in using the maps for other valley- wide planning efforts; for example, the Regional Problem Solving effort to redefine urban growth boundaries. Others saw its usefulness for development projects: redesigning proposed development in an ecological node to include conservation easements. The geospatial data library has already proven to be a useful tool for small municipalities, which cannot afford to compile their own. As we present our findings to local resource professionals who were not involved in the project, we anticipate that additional non- transportation agencies and organizations will request these data. What Next? Future steps include working with ODOT’s GIS department to decide how to store and update the geospatial data library. Once decided, we will develop a Memorandum of Understanding with our partners. We hope to establish a “web-based” updating platform. We will be seeking funding for this in the coming year. RVCOG’s Planning Department suggested that we update the maps every four years, in sync with the Rogue Valley MPO schedule. We anticipate that the final keeper of the data library will be the MPO. As we acquire funding, we plan to improve on our data library and mapping products. We plan to collect missing but important data identified by various project participants, for

30 example: fish and wildlife migration barriers, culverts, stream restoration projects, and birds. Some of these data exist but need to be converted to a geospatial data layer. Others must be collected in the field. We plan to work with various partners to fill these data gaps. At a map review meeting, review group members suggested we create a method to “unpack” the layers contributing to the identification of a node or linkage area. Currently, a user must return to the original raster calculator layer to identify which layers contributed to high- value cells. We hope to solve this problem in future iterations of our product. We also plan to conduct an overlay analysis: comparing the location and size of our nodes and linkages with conservation areas identified by other planning efforts (e.g. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Conservation Opportunity Areas (ODFW) or The Nature Conservancy’s Klamath Mountains Ecoregion Assessment Portfolio Sites (Vander Schaaf et al. 2007). Such an analysis may improve our own node and linkage designations, or may highlight ecologically important areas missed by earlier plans which relied on fewer data. We will continue presenting our findings to regional groups. As of this writing (August 2012), upcoming presentations include Jefferson Fish Society and Southern Oregon University’s science seminar program. We are currently deciding on an appropriate professional conference. We also intend to publish articles in local and regional print media. Summary If we have one single message to convey, it is that “simpler is better.” We strongly recommend using a simple analytical process so that stakeholders understand and trust the process, the data used, concepts developed, and the resulting products produced (i.e., maps). Buy-in leads to use of the products. We also recommend using a simple analytical program that does not require a “black box” approach. A simpler approach supports the “living” aspect of the products (i.e., maps) with scheduled updates. The simple approach also allows new data to be added, data to be re-envisioned, and changes in the process to be made as the region changes. We believe that the C06 framework provides useful guidance, but recommend simplifying the first three steps per Table 3.2. It would also be helpful to let users know that the process can be followed in whatever order makes the most sense for a project. We suggest continuing to redesign TCAPP’s website to make it more understandable and user friendly. The site contains a wealth of information, but is overwhelming to the end user. We strongly suggest: 1) Simplifying site design to better accommodate browsers and first-time users, 2) Hotlinking all jargon; and, 3) Making the TCAPP library searchable. We are grateful for the funding and support provided by TRB. Our work illustrates that creating an ecological data and mapping framework for transportation planning is possible at the small, regional scale with modest funding.

31 References Esri (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). 2009. ArcMap 9.3. [Software]. Available at: www.esri.com/products. Google Inc. 2011. Google Earth (Version 6.0) [Software]. Available at: www.google.com/earth/index.html Hess, G. R., and R. A. Fischer. 2001. Communicating clearly about conservation corridors. Landscape and Urban Planning, 55:195-208. Institute for Natural Resources (INR), NatureServe, Parametrix, and CH2M Hill. 2010. Project C06(B): Development of an Ecological Assessment Process and Credits System for Enhancements to Highway Capacity. Report prepared for C06 Technical Expert Task Group (T-ETG) of The Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. 119 pp. Jackson County. 2007. Population Element. Chapter 18 of the Jackson County Comprehensive Plan, Medford, OR. Available at: www.co.jackson.or.us/page.asp?navid=3725. Majka, D., J. Jenness, and P. Beier. 2007. CorridorDesigner: ArcGIS tools for designing and evaluating corridors. [Software]. Available at http://corridordesign.org. Meiklejohn, K., R. Ament & G. Tabor. 2009. Habitat Corridors & Landscape Connectivity: Clarifying the Terminology. Center for Large Landscape Conservation, Bozeman, MT. NatureServe 2011. Vista [Software]. Available at: www.natureserve.org/vista. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW). 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, Oregon. Available at: www.dfw.state.or.us/conservationstrategy/read_the_strategy.asp. Oregon Office of Economic Analysis (OEA). 2004. State and County Long-Term Population Forecasts and Components of Change, 2000 to 2040. Available at: http://cms.oregon.gov/DAS/OEA/Pages/demographic.aspx#Long_Term_County_Forecast Oregon State University (OSU) Extension Service. 2008. Rogue Valley Pears, Medford, Oregon. Corvallis, OR. 3 pp.

32 Transportation Research Board (TRB). 2008. www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Pages/Capacity_Projects_301.a spx. Accessed 8/1/2012. Vander Schaaf, D., M. Schindel, D. Borgias, C. Mayer, D. Tolman, G. Kittel, J. Kagan, T. Keeler-Wolf, L. Serpa, J. Hak, K. Popper. 2004. Klamath Mountains Ecoregional Conservation Assessment. The Nature Conservancy. Portland, Oregon. 207 pp. U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts: Jackson County, Oregon. Available at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/41/41029.html. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Recovery Outline for Lomatium cookii (Cook’s Lomatium) and Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora (Large-flowered Woolly Meadowfoam). USFWS, Roseburg Field Office. 17 pp. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2005. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems of California and Southern Oregon. USFWS, Region 1, Portland, OR. 26 pp. Venner, Marie and URS Corporation. 2011. Guide to the Ecological Framework. Report prepared for C06A Technical Coordinating Committee of the Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Transportation Research Board of The National Academies. 95 pp.