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.

33 APPENDIX A PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Table A.1. Project Participants Organized by Affiliation Data Provider: Personally provided data for the mapping effort. Data Facilitator: Helped us find the right person to ask for data. Financial Support: Provided funding or personnel for projecttTeam. Stakeholder Committee: Member of Stakeholder Committee, attended at least one meeting. Technical Assistance: Advised us on the type or nature of data we collected, on our data analysis, or on the global applicability of our project. Technical Review Group: Attended at least one review group meeting, or provided input via email. Individual Affiliation(s) Role(s) Pepper Trail, PhD Audubon Society, Rogue Valley Chapter; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Technical Review Group Tom Humphrey City of Central Point; Oregon Hunters’ Association Stakeholder Committee Jim Huber City of Medford, Planning Stakeholder Committee Chris Oliver City of Medford, Planning Data Provider Brian Barr Geos Institute Technical Review Group Jessica Leonard Geos Institute Technical Assistance Keith Massey Jackson County, GIS Data Provider Jon Vial Jackson County, Roads and Parks Stakeholder Committee Jeff LaLande, PhD Jeffrey M LaLande Consulting (archaeological/historical consulting) Technical Review Group Jaime Stephens Klamath Bird Observatory Technical Review Group, Letter of Support for Grant Application John Alexander, PhD Klamath Bird Observatory Technical Review Group, Letter of Support for Grant Application Bill Leavens L & S Rock Products Stakeholder Committee Brian Spence NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Data Facilitator

34 Individual Affiliation(s) Role(s) Eric Bjorkstetd NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Data Facilitator Leora Nanus NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Data Provider Mike Gardiner Oak Harbor Freight Lines Stakeholder Committee Lindsey Wise Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) Data Provider Sue Vrilikis Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) Data Provider Jimmy Kagan Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC); Oregon State University Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR) Data Provider, Technical Assistance Brent Crowe Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stakeholder Committee Dan Van Dyke Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stakeholder Committee, Data Provider Steve Niemela Oregon Department Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) Stakeholder Committee, Data Provider Jerry Vogt Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Stakeholder Committee Jim Collins Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Stakeholder Committee, Financial Partner (funding) Kasey Ragain Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Technical Assistance Philip Smith Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Technical Assistance Shirley Roberts Oregon Department of Transportation; Metropolitan Planning Organization Letter of Support for Grant Application, Funding Support Anna Krug Oregon Department Parks and Recreation (OPRD) Stakeholder Committee Kathy Schutt Oregon Department Parks and Recreation (OPRD) Stakeholder Committee Jeff Griffin Oregon Governor’s Economic Revitalization Team Stakeholder Committee Dennis Griffin, PhD Oregon State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Technical Assistance John Brauer Oregon State University Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR) Data Provider Matt Noone Oregon State University Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR) Data Provider

35 Individual Affiliation(s) Role(s) Gail Achterman Oregon State University Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR); Oregon Transportation Commission Technical Assistance Joel Simmons PacificCorp (power company) Data Provider Monte Mendenhall PacificCorp (power company) Data Facilitator Yuichiro Miyata PacificCorp (power company) Data Provider Randy Frick Randy Frick Consulting (fisheries consulting) Technical Review Group, Data Provider Mike Quilty Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Stakeholder Committee Mike Montero Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); Rogue Valley Clean Cities Coalition; Montero & Associates (development consulting) Stakeholder Committee Julie Brown Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTD) Stakeholder Committee Mike Ayers Rogue Whitewater Company Stakeholder Committee Brian Auman SEDA Council of Governments (Pennsylvania) Technical Assistance Kristi Mergenthaler Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) Technical Review Group Su Rolle Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) Data Provider Ron Fox Southern Oregon Regional Economic Development, Inc. (SOREDI) Stakeholder Committee Paul Blanton, PhD Southern Oregon University, Dept. of Environmental Studies (SOU) Financial partner (intern) Greg Jones, PhD Southern Oregon University, Dept. of Environmental Studies (SOU); Southern Oregon Winegrowers’ Association (SOWA) Data Provider Michael Schindel The Nature Conservancy, Conservation Information System, Portland, OR (TNC) Data Provider Darrin Borgias The Nature Conservancy, Southern Oregon Field Office (TNC) Stakeholder Committee, Data Provider, Letter of Support Molly Sullivan The Nature Conservancy, Southern Oregon Field Office (TNC) Data Facilitator

36 Individual Affiliation(s) Role(s) Corrie Veenstra U.S. Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) Project Liaison Chad Stewart U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) Technical Review Group Mark Mousseaux U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District (BLM) Technical Review Group, Data Provider Steve Godwin U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District (BLM) Data Provider, Technical Review Group Steve Haney U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Medford District (BLM) Data Provider Cindy Donegan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Stakeholder Committee Jim Thrailkill U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Data provider, Letter of Support for Grant Application Sam Friedman U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Data provider, Technical Review Group Dave Clayton U.S. Forest Service, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest (USFS) Technical Review Group, Data Provider Ian Reid U.S. Forest Service, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest (USFS) Data Provider Scott Conroy U.S. Forest Service, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest (USFS) Letter of Support for Grant Application Stephen Brazier U.S. Forest Service, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest (USFS) Data Provider Su Maiyo U.S. Forest Service, Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest (USFS) Technical Review Group, Data Provider Ralph Hessian U.S. National Academies’ Transportation Research Board (TRB) Project Liaison Paul Hosten, PhD U.S. National Park Service; formerly U.S. BLM, Medford District Data Provider, Review Team Erin Kurtz USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Stakeholder Committee Evelyn Conrad USDA, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Stakeholder Committee

37 Table A.2. Rogue Valley Council of Governments Project Team Core team in bold. Individual Affiliation(s) Funding Role(s) Craig Tuss RVCOG, Natural Resources This grant Project Coordinator (all tasks) Jeannine Rossa Contractor (self-employed) This grant Assistant Project Coordinator (all tasks) Craig Harper RVCOG, Natural Resources This grant Stakeholder Team Coordination, Budget Assistance, Editing Dominic DiPaolo Contractor (self-employed) This grant GIS Database Lead Eugene Weir RVCOG, Natural Resources This grant Data Collection Greg Stabach RVCOG, Natural Resources This grant GIS Analysis Lead Jeff LaLande, PhD Contractor (self-employed) This grant; ODOT Archaeology Support/Data Steve Kale Contractor (self-employed) This grant Document Editing Therese DuVon Southern Oregon University This grant GIS Student Intern Pat Foley RVCOG, Planning This grant Website, Stakeholder Team Support Dick Converse RVCOG, Planning This grant Support, Planning Dept. Dan Moore RVCOG, Planning This grant Support, Planning Dept. Vicki Guarino RVCOG, Planning/MPO This grant Support, Planning/MPO Shirley Roberts RVCOG – ODOT MPO Liaison ODOT ODOT Liaison, Fiscal support Sue Casavan RVCOG, Planning RVCOG Planning Funds Support, Planning GIS Alan Hudson RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, budget Brian Benton RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, IT Lisa Marston RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, contracts Pat Bale RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, budget René Sjothun RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, meetings Sandi Morton RVCOG, Admin RVCOG Admin Funds Support, contracting

38 APPENDIX B Federal and State Species of Concern Table B.1. Federal and State Species of Concern (Excluding Federal or State “Threatened” Or “Endangered”) Occurring Within Project Area In Jackson County, Oregon. SPECIES Federal Listing Statusa State Listing Statusb Common Name Scientific Name Fisher Martes pennanti C SC North American wolverine Gulo gulo luscus C Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus C Oregon spotted frog Rana pretiosa C Mardon skipper Polites mardon C Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis C Umpqua mariposa lily Calochortus umpquaensis C Siskiyou mariposa lily Calochortus persistens C Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii SOC SC Purple martin Progne subis SOC SC Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis SC Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SOC SC Streaked horned lark Eremophila alpestris strigata SC Western pond turtle Actinemys marmorata marmorata SOC SC Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes SOC SV Long-legged myotis Myotis volans SOC SV Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis SOC Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus pacificus SOC SV Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis SOC Silver-haired myotis Lasionycteris noctivagans SOC SV Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis SOC SV Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SOC Western burrowing owl Athene cunicularia hypugaea SOC Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SOC Band-tailed pigeon Patagioenas fasciata SOC White-headed woodpecker Picoides albolarvatus SOC Acorn woodpecker Melanerpes formicivorus SOC Lewis’ woodpecker Melanerpes lewis SOC Mountain quail Oreortyx pictus SOC Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi SOC SV Del Norte salamander Plethodon elongatus SOC SV

39 Siskiyou Mountains salamander Plethodon stormi SOC SV Coastal tailed frog Ascaphus truei SOC SV Cascades frog Rana cascadae SOC SV Common kingsnake Lampropeltis getula SOC SV California mountain kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata SOC SV Coastal cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus clarkii ssp. SOC Denning’s Agapetus caddisfly Agapetus denningi SOC Franklin’s bumblebee Bombus franklini SOC Siskiyou Chloaeltis grasshopper Chloaeltis aspasma SOC Green Springs Mountain Farulan caddisfly Farula davisi SOC Sagehen Creek Goeracean caddisfly Goeracea oregona SOC Schuh’s Homoplectron caddisfly Homoplectra schuhi SOC Siskiyou carabid beetle Nebria gebleri siskiyouensis SOC Greene’s mariposa lily Calochortus greenei SOC Broad-fruit mariposa lily Calochortus nitidus SOC Howell’s Camassia Camassia howellii SOC Baker’s cypress Cupressa bakeri SOC Clustered lady’s slipper Cypripedium fasciculatum SOC Siskiyou willow-herb Epilobium siskiyouense SOC Henderson’s Horkelia Horkelia hendersonii SOC Bellinger’s meadowfoam Limnanthes floccosa ssp. Bellingerana SOC Mt. Ashland lupine Lupinus aridus spp. Ashlandensis SOC White Meconella Meconella oregano SOC Detling’s Microseris Microseris laciniata ssp. Detlingii SOC Red root yampah Perideridia erythrorhiza SOC Coral-seeded allocarya Plagiabothrys figuratus var. corallicarpus SOC Howell’s Tauschia Tauschia howellii SOC Small-flowered death camas Zigadenus fontanus SOC California myotis Myotis californicus SV Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus SV Swainson’s hawk Buteo regalis SV American peregrine falcon Falco pregrinus anatum SV Great gray owl Strix nebulosa SV Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus SV Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii adastus SV Little Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii brewsteri SV

40 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis aculeata SV Western bluebird Sialia mexicana SV Steelhead, Klamath Mountains Province, Rogue summer run Oncorhynchus mykiss SV Chinook Salmon, Rogue spring run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SV Chinook Salmon, Rogue fall run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SV Western brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoni SV Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentate (Entosphenus tridentate) SV Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii SV Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora SV Western toad Anaxyrus boreas SV a Listing Status under the federal Endangered Species Act, as amended 1973. C= Candidate; SOC = Species of Concern. http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/Species/Lists/Documents/County/JACKSON%20COUNTY.pdf; accessed 2/8/2012. b Listing Status by the State of Oregon – Wildlife: SC = Sensitive-Critical; SV = Sensitive-Vulnerable. http://www.dfw.state.or.us/wildlife/diversity/species/docs/SSL_by_category.pdf; accessed 2/8/2012.

41 APPENDIX C Detailed GIS Analysis Methods Background As stated in the body of the document, our project had two objectives: 1) test the first three steps of a planning tool (the Integrated Ecological Framework) developed by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources (OSU-INR) to aid with integrating conservation and transportation planning; and 2) create a Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF) to aid transportation planning in the Rogue Valley, Jackson County, Oregon. The first three steps of OSU-INR’s framework are intended to guide a interdisciplinary interagency team through the process of creating an REF. The results of testing the first three steps of OSU-INR’s planning tool are included in the body of this document, under “Research Approach.” This appendix details our methods in creating the Regional Ecosystem Framework. 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. 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. We refer to the Rogue Valley REF as the Conflict and Opportunity map. Overall Approach In order to complete a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis, we first had to build a geospatial data library (Figure C.1). Although every GIS map has an associated data library, our objective was to build a comprehensive geospatial database of as many quality environmental and infrastructure data sets as possible given funding and time limitations in order to improve the data available to ODOT (and other regional entities) for its planning efforts. In the process of developing the REF, we created three mapping products, all of which are stand-alone tools to aid with transportation planning: 1) the raw raster calculator results (Figures 3.1 and 3.2, main document); 2) high-lighted ecological nodes and linkages (Figure 3.3, main document); and 3) areas of conflict and opportunity (Figure 3.4, main document).

42 Figure C.1. Rough schematic of the various data processing, decision-making, and analytical steps required to create our data library and final mapping products. GEOSPATIAL DATA LIBRARY Gathering Data Before gathering any data for the geospatial data library, the team used its collective expertise to identify data gaps and known data unavailable on GIS at that time. We collected data from federal, state, county, municipal, utility, non-profit, and private individual sources. Using personal contacts and knowledge of agency hierarchy, we called individual scientists, land managers, and GIS database managers to request geospatial data for the Rogue Valley. We mined online data repositories, especially those from Jackson County and the State of Oregon. We also acquired copies of earlier conservation prioritization efforts from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW; conservation opportunity areas), The Nature Conservancy (TNC; conservation portfolio sites), Jackson County (open space zoning designations), RVCOG’s own Agate Desert Working Group (high conservation priority vernal pools), and others. Local transportation plans contained very little environmental data. Based on a strong request from our stakeholder group, we also hired an archaeological consultant to create maps of important historical and potential archaeological sites (with approval from Oregon’s State Historic Preservation Office). Before our project effort, archaeological and

43 historical information had not been collected for long-term planning. The four maps created by Dr. Jeff LaLande included: 1. High-potential archaeological sensitivity zones based on the contractor's knowledge of archaeological Native land-use patterns and historic-period (post-1850) sites. 2. Locations of historic properties that are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), based on the contractor's review of National Park Service's and Oregon SHPO's current online NRHP records. 3. Remnants of culturally-important plant communities (e.g., major black oak (Quercus kellogii) groves, historically important camas (Camassia quamash) harvesting areas). 4. Significant historical landscapes and viewscapes. With almost 200 vetted data layers in our data library, it was necessary to create a system of organization. We grouped data layers into nine categories and named them based on the type of data they depict. A two to three character category abbreviation (e.g., bm, env, ip) was used before the file name. Categories used in the project and their subsequent abbreviations are defined below: bm = Base Map - Data used as the background on which other data is laid over (e.g., aerial photos, DEM). env = Environmental - Data that depicts features of the physical landscape (e.g., rivers and streams, contours). ip = Infrastructure and Political - Data that depicts physical infrastructure and political boundaries (e.g., streets, taxlots, county boundary). fw = Fish and Wildlife - Data depicting information about fish and wildlife not specific to any special sensitive status (e.g., species occurrence data, road kill data). veg = Vegetation - Data depicting vegetation cover. rte = Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species/Habitat - Data depicting information on special status species and habitats. (e.g., USFWS Critical Habitat maps, Coho range map). cp = Conservation Planning - Important places for biodiversity conservation that have been identified through a process or analysis (e.g., Threatened and Endangered species’ Critical Habitat, TNC portfolio sites, Jackson County open space). cl = Conserved Lands - Data depicting lands in some kind of conservation status (e.g., Public Lands, TNC preserves). ag = Agricultural Resources - Data depicting agricultural related information (e.g., prime soils, vineyard locations). The vast majority of data providers were comfortable with the data becoming widely available. We had anticipated more reluctance, especially considering the sensitive nature of

44 some data (e.g., Threatened and Endangered species habitat). Only two organizations asked us not to release data to the public. The Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC) supplies data regardless of land ownership. They control data release in order to protect private landowners. ORBIC requires data recipients to sign a limited use agreement. The Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) was concerned about the potential misinterpretation of their conservation priority areas. Using ORBIC’s agreement as a guide, we created our own data agreement for SOLC. We include this template (Appendix F) as a tool for others with similar data sharing issues. Both ORBIC and SOLC allowed us to use their data for our analysis (below). After our analysis effort, we removed their data from our corporate library to ensure that other departments did not accidentally use it for different mapping projects. Prioritizing Data The project team evaluated each data layer to determine its value for the data library. • Did the data layer meet a need we identified for analysis? • Was the data source reliable? • Did the data layer fully cover the area it was intended to cover, or was it missing data? • Did the data layer have attributes associated with the displayed features (to explain what the polygons or lines represented)? After this “first cut,” we worked with the stakeholdercCommittee and Technical Review Team to refine our list further. Although time-consuming, the time spent evaluating and prioritizing data was well spent. The team stayed focused on the types of data necessary for the upcoming analysis, and the stakeholder committee members understood and participated in the decisions underlying the final data library. Transforming Data All of the data layers required some manipulation before they could be used for the project: reprojecting, clipping, merging, or repairing. Many had been created in different mapping projections. We chose to use the state plane projection (NAD_1983_StatePlane_Oregon_South_FIPS_3602) because this is the one used by Jackson County, a primary data source, as well as several other state and local agencies. ODOT does not use the state plane projection; however, conversion from the state plane to ODOT’s standard projection is relatively simple. Other data layers covered too large of a spatial area, or included too much data. These layers were clipped to both the project area and the county line. We saved most of the layers at the larger spatial scale of the county to make the data in the data library more useful to other agencies in the Rogue Valley.

45 Some data layers were incomplete. To create layers covering the entire project area, we merged compatible data layers into one. Examples include wetlands and parks (national, state, county, and city). Our chosen raster analysis program (discussion below) required all data be in a polygon format, not lines or points. We converted our line (streams, canals, trails) and point (road kill, plant locations) data to polygons by adding buffers. Our concern was to find a balance between representing the data line or point while not artificially increasing the importance of the adjacent land due to an over-wide polygon. In regard to streams, polygon data associated with streams, e.g., riparian areas and FEMA floodplains, covered the width of the entire active channel; therefore it was not necessary to create a wide polygon for streams. The GIS team selected relatively narrow widths based on commonly used non-federal-land buffers of 50' (25' each side) for a fish-bearing stream and 25' (12.5' each side) for others. Canal line data were also buffered to 25' (12.5' per side). The Bear Creek Greenway, which parallels Bear Creek (and Interstate-5), was buffered at 30' to incorporate the width of the actual path and the 10-foot right-of-way on each side. Road kill points were buffered by the count attribute for each point: 50 feet for a count of 1-10 and 100 feet for any count greater than 10. ORBIC’s point data was already buffered. We presented our polygon dilemma to the stakeholdercCommittee. They approved our buffer width choices. This discussion was critical. In Oregon, stream “buffers” are commonly viewed as “no action” zones; therefore, it was necessary for the stakeholders to understand that these polygons were created only for the GIS analysis. GIS Modeling Choosing the Analytical Program Existing GIS analysis programs are all based on Esri’s ArcMap programs (e.g., Esri 2009). To the best of our knowledge, all agency GIS departments use ArcMap as a platform. Therefore, GoogleEarth (Google, Inc. 2011) or other platforms were not viable for this project. We looked at several analytical tools and quickly focused on choosing between raster calculator programs developed by Nature Serve (“Vista;” NatureServe 2011) and a team funded by Northern Arizona University (“CorridorDesign;” Majka et al. 2007). After running many pilot tests with some of our data, we chose to use the raster calculator function of CorridorDesign. Corridor Design (Majka et al. 2007) was very straightforward and intuitive to use. It seemed more appropriate for our pilot project where part of our responsibility was to help improve the C06 IEF process in order to make it easily repeatable by others. The disadvantage of the raster calculator in CorridorDesign was that weighting variables (if so desired) required clipping and repeating layers. It did not have a weighting component built into it. We did not use the corridor design tool of CorridorDesign. This tool was species-

46 specific and too simplistic for our needs – drawing corridors of the shortest route between two points. Nature Serve’s “Vista,” on the other hand, was neither simple nor intuitive to navigate. Vista required rating species viability, weighting ecological importance, and entering other information for each data layer (NatureServe 2011), which would have been difficult for us to complete with our modest funding. Vista highlights rare or at-risk species; this was not the focus of our ecosystem framework. Most importantly, the complexity of Vista’s approach risks alienating potential users. We have all been part of earlier mapping efforts; those not part of the mapping process do not trust a map unless they know what each polygon represents. The more complicated the math, the more difficult it is for uninvolved stakeholders to trust the map. Finally, we reflected on the purpose of our effort: to create a tool to aid transportation planning. We did not need a complicated analysis program. We tested to see what would happen if we gave our entire Vista test variables the same weight; the result looked identical to that produced by CorridorDesign. Therefore, we went with the simpler and more cost-effective program. Selecting Data Layers for Model Analysis Data layers for use in the analysis were selected from all of the layers compiled for the project. Potential data layers were then presented to the stakeholder group and peer review team. With their feedback, the list was refined to 63 of the best, most complete, and most important geospatial data layers (Appendix E) from our collected library. We used an additional six layers for our conflictaAreas overlay. We recognized that non-synoptic data could give the false impression that rare species were not present in parts of the valley, when in fact, surveys had not yet been conducted in that area. After much debate, the only layers we included in the analysis that might not be considered synoptic are the ORBIC rare plant sites and the Medford Bureau of Land Management (BLM) rare flora and rare fauna sites. The two layers together provide broad enough coverage of the project area to be considered synoptic even though there are holes in the sampling. Without these data, our map would be lacking crucial information. Local scientists continue to survey for and document these rare species over a large part of the landscape, so we anticipate that these layers will be updated regularly. We used different layers for different modeling analyses (Appendix D). In all of our analyses, data layers were weighted equally. Raster Calculator We used Corridor Designs raster calculator program to analyze the prevalence of selected environmental and ecological data across the project area (Majka et al. 2007) We used four different modeling scenarios (below) with different data layers to achieve different analysis objectives.

47 Our raster analyses required important, yet subjective decisions to interpret our results. To highlight important areas of data overlap we selected different percent-based categories for each analysis based on the number of overlapping cells. Categories were percent-based to allow for repeatability and transferability to other areas. The categories varied for each analysis. We selected categories based on the number of layers and type of data, resulting overlap, and review team feedback. Cells were color-coded based upon the data categories (percent data per cell) chosen. Figure C.2. Conceptual illustration of raster calculator. Image courtesy of the University of Washington, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, http://courses.washington.edu/gis250/less ons/raster analysis1/index.html How a Raster Calculator Works A raster calculator divides each data layer into discrete square or rectangular cells laid out in a grid. Each cell in each data layer grid has a value; for example, in a coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) data layer, all cells in a geospatial data set containing data (i.e., coho habitat) are assigned a “1” and cells without data are assigned “zero.” The raster calculator then overlays these raster datasets on top of each other (Figure C.2), calculates the number of data values for each cell, and displays the analysis result (Figure 3.1, main document) in a new dataset. For example, a particular cell near a major stream might include floodplain, coho salmon habitat, and a wetland, and as such would receive a higher score than a nearby cell with only floodplain.

48 For example, in the Ecological Analysis, seven percent categories were used to display the data: 0 - 10, 10.1 - 20, 20.1 - 30, 30.1 - 40, 40.1 - 50, 50.1 - 75, and 75.1 - 100 (Figure 3.1). We then interpreted those categories. Raster cells scoring more than 50.1% were deemed most important. Cells scoring between 30.1% and 50% were also ecologically important, but their importance was relative to adjacent cells. Cells scoring between 10.1% and 30% were deemed transitional. Cells scoring between 0% and 10% were considered ecologically unimportant. These results highlighted areas that are most important from a conservation standpoint and helped us delineate core areas, nodes, and linkages. We used known ecologically important nodes to vet the results – if these were not visible; we knew our overlap categories were too coarse. Modeling Scenarios We built three raster analyses as separate data frames in CorridorDesign (Majka et al. 2007) using the appropriate data layers (Table C.1). We presented the raster calculation results to both the stakeholdercCommittee and Review Team members. 1. All Values: Included all data layers selected by the Stakeholder Committee, other review committees, and project staff. This analysis gave the project team an early idea of how resources are distributed across the landscape. 2. Ecological Analysis: Included data layers that showed species, habitat, and other environmental data of importance to conservation. The goal of this analysis was to show areas of overlap of important species and habitat. The results from this layer were used to select Node polygons as described below. These results also informed the selection of Linkage polygons, also described below. 3. Linkage Analysis: Included all data layers depicting features that potentially serve as corridors between Node polygons: linear features such as streams and ridgelines, as well as coverages depicting conserved land and native vegetation. This data analysis was used to draw Linkage polygons. We ran two additional raster analyses which we were unable to pursue further (Table C.2). They are only included here because we plan to complete them in the near future as we secure additional funding. 1. Conservation Analysis: Included data layers depicting land with conservation status and important places for conservation as identified through a designated process or analysis by a non-profit organization or government agency. Data layers that depict similar data coverage types that do not overlap were merged (e.g., OWEB (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board) conservation easements and SOLC conservation easements). The

49 goal of this analysis was to show areas of overlap of currently conserved land, special conservation designations, and institutional priorities for conservation Table C.1. Raster Calculator Modeling Scenarios Model Name Data Type Selected Model Purpose Notes All Values All data layers Preliminary Testing Not used for Nodes or Linkages. Ecological Species, habitat, and other environmental data Select Node polygons These results also informed the selection of Linkage polygons. Linkage Conserved lands, native vegetation, and linear features such as streams and ridgelines Aid for drawing linkage polygons These results also helped delineate nodes. Note: Data layers included in each scenario are found in Appendix D. Table C.2. Raster Calculator Modeling Scenarios for Future Analyses Involving Existing Conservation Areas Model Name Data Type Selected Model Purpose Notes Conservation Land with conservation status or important for conservation as identified by a government agency or non-profit organization For use in overlap analysis (below). These results will help refine nodes, linkages, and conflict areas in the future. Ecological and Conservation Combined data layers from the Ecological and Conservation Analyses Overlap analysis: compares important species and habitat with existing conserved lands. Can be used to refine existing conservation plans and set new priorities. Note: Data layers included in each scenario are found in Appendix D. 2. Ecological and Conservation Analysis: Included a combination of the data layers in the Ecological Analysis and Conservation Analysis. The goal of this analysis was to compare areas of overlap between important species and habitat with currently conserved lands, special conservation designations, and institutional priorities for conservation: do they match up? In the future, this layer will provide information to refine nodes, linkages, and conflict/opportunity areas (REF) in future stages of the project.

50 Nodes and Linkages To communicate important ecological concepts to a broad audience, we highlighted “ecological nodes” (highly-ranked areas) and “linkages” (moderately-ranked) between nodes. Ecological Nodes: Areas of ecological importance stemming from the type and quality of habitat and presence of rare species. Can be of varying sizes and shapes; the larger the better (Meiklejohn et al. 2009). Linkages: Areas of connectivity important to facilitate the movement of multiple species and ecological processes (Hess and Fisher 2001; Meiklejohn et al. 2009). Linkages connect nodes to each other and to areas outside the study area. Linkages can be continuous or “stepping stones” and do tend to be “corridor”-shaped rather than circles or squares. Nodes Using the Ecological Analysis raster calculator results, the GIS team drafted preliminary ecological nodes. We looked for clusters of Ecological Analysis raster cells scoring over 40.1%. We also looked at clusters of cells scoring between 30.1% and 40%; if they were adjacent to higher-scoring clusters, they were included in a node. Small, isolated, or diffused clusters of cells in the results raster were included as nodes only if raster results over 50% or 75% occurred within those clusters. Linkages To create linkages, we looked for clusters of Linkage Analysis raster cells scoring above 50.1%. Clusters of cells scoring between 25.1% and 50% and Ecological Analysis raster cells scoring between 10% and 30% helped define linkages if they were adjacent to nodes or clusters of high- scoring linkage cells. Size also mattered: if a cluster was too small, we ignored it. Refining Cores Areas, Nodes, and Linkages We refined these preliminary polygons following review from the stakeholder group and Technical Review Team. Several Technical Review Team members emphasized the ecological importance of oak woodlands; therefore, we used the oak woodland layer, as well as project team expertise, topography, and aerial photos, and other GIS layers (e.g., streams), to help decide which raster cells to include within as well as to define the extent of our ecological nodes. We manually drew the node and linkage boundaries using ArcMap (Esri2009). If clusters of high- scoring Ecological Analysis (node) raster cells were isolated but functioned as “stepping stones,” we incorporated them into a linkage corridor. Finally, we field-checked nodes and linkage areas throughout the valley, confirming that our modeling results reflected reality.

51 Conflict and Opportunity Areas – The REF In ArcMap9.3 (Esri2009), we created an overlay using transportation, infrastructure, and archaeological data. Specific data in the overlay included fish passage barriers and types (culverts, dams), animal collision data (deer, bear, cougar, and elk), utilities (power lines, substations), greenways, roads, planned transportation projects from the most recent Regional Transportation Plan, and Regional Problem Solving expanded urban reserves. This overlay was laid on top of a map of nodes andlLinkages illustrating areas and points of potential conflict between planned road projects and ecological nodes, linkages, and archaeological sensitivity areas. The map also highlighted sites with an ecological or environmental restoration opportunity. For example, a high road kill site might be where a small stream crosses under a road in a culvert. During future road work, that culvert could be replaced with a wide, cement box culvert and well-placed fencing, facilitating animals crossing under the road, not over it. As mentioned earlier, a Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF) overlays conservation and transportation plans. By their very nature, these plans prioritize both conservation areas and transportation projects. Our Conflict and Opportunity map does not prioritize. It simply provides the information in one location, thereby providing transportation planners with the environmental and ecological information necessary to prioritize future projects, adjust long- term planning scenarios, and anticipate mitigation opportunities. The map also allows developers, city managers, and others to identify and avoid conflicts between environmental resources and urban growth projects. We reviewed the conflict and opportunities map with both the stakeholdercCommittee and the Technical Review Team. We incorporated some small revisions based on those discussions.

52 APPENDIX D Data Layers Table D.1. Data layers Used in our GIS Analyses. DATA LAYER EXPLANATION ANALYSIS OVERLAY Study Area Project area boundary Base Map Aerial Photographs 2009 ortho photos Base Map Hexagons Hexagon grid (to aid analysis) Base Map LAND MANAGEMENT & CONSERVATION BLM Reserves Medford BLM Late-Successional Reserves and other District-defined reserves Cv County & City Open Land All County- and City-owned parcels not including urbanized, predominantly developed parcels (e.g., ball fields) Link Cv CSNM Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument Cv Federal Lands All federal lands: USFS, ACOE, BOR, and Bureau of Land Management Link Cv Other Open Space Land designated as “open space” by Jackson County, not including parks Link Cv OWEB Easements Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) conservation easements Link Cv Parks Public Parkland Link Cv FEMA Floodplain 100-year and 500-year floodplains designated by the Federal Emergency Management Authority, spring, 2011 Eco Link Cv RNAs, ACECs, & Botanic Areas BLM Research Natural Areas (RNAs), BLM Areas of Critical Ecological Concern (ACECs), and USFS Botanic Areas Eco Cv SOLC Conservation Easements Conservation easements and fee-owned land held by Southern Oregon Land Conservancy (SOLC) Link Cv State Lands State of Oregon lands Link Cv TNC Preserves & Easements The Nature Conservancy's (TNC) current preserves and held conservation easements Link Cv Open Space Reserve Zoning Jackson County zoning designations for Open Space Reserve Link Cv USFS Reserves USFS Late-Successional Reserves, Riparian Reserves, Wild and Scenic Rivers, Special Interest Areas, Backcountry Areas, and the Ashland Watershed (drinking water for City of Ashland, in National Forest) Cv

53 Wilderness Federal Wilderness and Wilderness Study Areas on BLM and USFS lands Cv ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS Bullitt Core Areas & Nodes (Level 1) Large-scale ecologically important Core Areas and Nodes from RVCOG’s February 2011 pilot effort funded by Bullitt Foundation Eco Link Cv Bullitt Corridors (Level 1) Large-scale ecological corridors from RVCOG’s February 2011 pilot effort funded by Bullitt Foundation Eco Link TNC Aquatic Portfolio - Headwaters The Nature Conservancy’s headwater and tributary aquatic conservation priorities Cv TNC Aquatic Portfolio -Streams Rivers and major creeks identified as conservation priorities in the Nature Conservancy’s East West Cascades Ecoregional Assessment Cv TNC Portfolio Sites Integrated portfolio of The Nature Conservancy’s conservation sites excerpted from the statewide portfolio Cv CBI Roadless Areas Roadless areas as defined by the Conservation Biology Institute (CBI) Eco Link Cv ODFW Conservation Opportunity Areas ODFW Conservation Strategy Conservation Opportunity Areas Cv ORBIC Wetland Restoration Hubs Large areas with major wetlands restoration projects ongoing, from Oregon Biodiversity Institute (ORBIC) Cv RPS Environmental Lands considered unbuildable due to extreme slope (greater than 25%), wetlands, or floodplains, generated for the Regional Problem Solving (RPS) urban growth planning process (RVCOG lead) Link Cv SOLC Priorities Southern Oregon Land Conservancy’s priority lands on which to focus its conservation efforts Cv Vernal Pools SC Ranked Conserve Protect Vernal pools in the White City area with stakeholdercCommittee rankings "Conserve", "Protect" only Cv

54 VEGETATION AND LANDFORMS Hlltops TPI Hilltops and ridges extracted from the Topographic Position Index raster Eco Link Lakes Ponds Lakes and ponds extracted from Jackson County’s “waterpoly” GIS shape file Eco Streams All waterways including small disjunct seasonal drainages, but not canals Eco Link CO Agriculture All agricultural cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Link Grassland All grassland cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Mature Conifer Late-Successional (“Old growth”) conifer forest from the Oregon Conservation Strategy’s “strategy habitats” raster Eco Link Oak All oak woodland cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Ponderosa Pine All Pinus ponderosa cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Riparian All riparian cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Serpentine All serpentine cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Shrubland All shrubland cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Valley Bottom Native vegetation cover below 2,000 foot elevation; vegetation data from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link Wetland All wetland cover types from the Oregon Ecological Systems 2010 raster created by Oregon State University’s Institute for Natural Resources Eco Link

55 HABITAT DATA Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat USFWS Critical Habitat Units for Strix occidentalis ssp. caurina Cv Critical Habitat, large-seed wooly meadowfoam USFWS Critical Habitat Units (2010) for Limnanthes floccosa ssp. grandiflora Eco Cv Critical Habitat, Cook’s lomatium USFWS Critical Habitat Units (2010) for Limnanthes floccosa Eco Cv VP Fairy Shrimp Critical Habitat USFWS Critical Habitat (2006) for Branchinecta lynchi Eco Cv Fall Chinook Habitat Fall run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha habitat from Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and USFS fish distributions Eco Spring Chinook Habitat Spring run Oncorhynchus tshawytscha habitat from ODFW Eco Coho Habitat Oncorhynchus kisutch (Southern Oregon/Northern California Coasts Ecologically Significant Unit) habitat from ODFW and USFS fish distribution data Eco Cutthroat Habitat Oncorhynchus clarkii habitat from USFS and Jackson County data Eco Deer Elk Winter Range ODFW’s deer and elk winter range Eco Elk Calving Areas Suspected Elk calving areas digitized by Paul Hosten from ODFW research data Eco Rainbow Habitat Oncorhynchus mykiss habitat distribution from the USFS and Jackson County data Eco Steelhead Summer Habitat Oncorhynchus mykiss (summer anadromous run) from ODFW Eco Steelhead Winter Habitat Oncorhynchus mykiss (winter anadromous run) from ODFW Eco Vernal Pools The current extent of vernal pools within Jackson County derived from soil layer -- with developed and “leveled" pools removed Eco SPECIES DATA ORBIC rare species Rare and sensitive species data from Oregon Biodiversity Institute -- polygons larger than 1,500 meters removed Eco Road Kill - Deer Deer road kill (tallies by milepost) collected by ODOT and collated by ODFW Link CO Road Kill - Non-deer All wildlife species except deer killed along state highways (tallies by milepost). Data collected by ODOT and collated by ODFW Link CO

56 BLM Fauna Sites Medford Bureau of Land Management’s “GeoBOB” (geographic biotic observations) data of animal sightings from the 1800s through the present Eco Spotted Owl KOAC Known Spotted Owl Activity Centers (polygons) from the Bureau of Land Management Eco BLM Flora Sites All sensitive vascular and non-vascular plant, lichen, and fungi species locations from the Medford Bureau of Land Management Eco NPSO Important Plant Sites Important plant sites identified by members of the Native Plant Society of Oregon, Siskiyou Chapter Eco Cv INFRASTRUCTURE Canals Canals extracted from Jackson County’s “waterline” shape file Link Greenway Completed and proposed path of the Bear Creek and Rogue River Greenway multi-use trail along Bear Creek Link Cv CO Trails Comprehensive trails layer with both urban and wildland trails Link CO Roads All paved roads, from Jackson County CO Fish Barriers Irrigation dams, road culverts, and one bridge CO Powerlines CO Power substations CO RPS Proposed Urban Reserve Boundaries Proposed Urban Reserve boundaries (urban growth boundary extensions) from the Regional Problem Solving process CO ARCHAEOLOGY-CULTURAL RESOURCES Arch Sensitivity Areas with high potential to include archaeology sites that need to be surveyed CO Note: ACOE = Army Corps of Engineers; BOR = Bureau of Reclamation; Cv = Conservation raster; CO = Conflict and opportunities overlay; Eco = Ecology raster; Link = Linkage raster; RVCOG = Rogue Valley Council of Governments; USFS = U.S. Forest Service; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

57 APPENDIX E INTEGRATED ECOSYSTEM FRAMEWORK From: Venner, Marie and URS Corporation. forthcoming. 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. Table E.1. The Entire Integrated Ecosystem Framework, from SHRP 2 C06 Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships for statewide or regional integrated planning, along with a vision to address and tangible improve priority resources of concern across agencies and programs. 1a. Identify preliminary planning region (e.g., watersheds, eco-regions, and/or political boundaries). Drivers may be environmental factors such as water quality needs or 303(d) listings, species’ needs, watershed restoration needs, or rare wetlands. 1b. Identify counterparts and build relationships among agencies, including local government and conservation NGOs (stakeholders). 1c. Convene a team of stakeholders, share aspirations. Define and develop commonalities and a shared vision. Build an understanding of the benefits of a watershed/ecosystem/ recovery planning approach and develop a shared vision of regional goals for transportation, restoration, recovery, and conservation. 1d. Record ideas and vision. Develop Memoranda of Understanding on potential new processes for increasing conservation, efficiency, and predictability. 1e. Initially explore funding and long-term management options to support conservation and restoration actions and long-term management. Step 2: Characterize resource status. Integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans. 2a. Identify the spatial data needed to create understanding of current (baseline) conditions that are a by-product of past actions and understand potential effects from future actions. 2b. Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the REF or other assessment and planning. 2c. Develop necessary agreements from agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data that agencies use in their own decision-making processes. Agreements should allow data to be used to avoid, minimize, and advance mitigation, especially for CWA Section 404 and ESA Section 7. 2d. Identify data gaps and how they will be addressed in the combined conservation/restoration plan. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling any remaining gaps. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans outlined above, as well as supporting priorities, to guide the development of an overall conservation strategy for the planning region that identifies conservation priorities and opportunities, and evaluates stressors and opportunities for mitigation and restoration.

58 2f. Convene a team of stakeholders to review the geospatial overlay and associated goals/priorities, and identify actions to support them. 2g. Record methods, concurrence, and rationales of this step based on stakeholder input (e.g., how the identified areas address the conservation/preservation or restoration needs and goals identified for the area). 2h. Distribute the combined map of conservation and restoration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework (Conservation Strategy + Transportation Plan). 3a. Overlay the geospatially-mapped Long Range Transportation Plan (or TIP/STIP) with conservation priorities and other land uses. 3b. Identify and show 1) areas and resources potentially impacted by transportation projects and 2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities that could count for 404 and Section 7 regulatory requirements. 3c Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities, and opportunities for achieving them, relative to the transportation plan and other land uses/plans. 3d. Review and verify REF with stakeholders. Step 4: Assess land use and transportation effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the REF. 4a. Work collaboratively with stakeholders to weight the relative importance of resource types (including consideration of resource retention) where needed to help establish the significance of impacts and importance for mitigating action. 4b. Identify/rate how priority conservation areas and individual resources respond to different land uses and types of transportation improvements. 4c. Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment scenarios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing development and disturbances, other impacting features and disturbances, and existing secured conservation areas. Include climate change threats to better understand what resources/areas may no longer be viable or what new resources may become conservation priorities in the planning region during the planning horizon. 4d. Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects assessment scenarios to identify which priority areas and/or resources would be affected, to identify the nature of the effect (e.g., negative, neutral, beneficial) and to quantify the effect, noting the level of precision based on the precision of the map inputs. 4e. Compare plan alternatives, and select the one that optimizes transportation objectives AND minimizes adverse environmental impacts (the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative). 4f. Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoidable and that may require minimization through project design/implementation/maintenance, and that may require off-site mitigation. For impacts that do not appear practicable to mitigate in-kind, review with appropriate resource agency partners the desirability of mitigating out-of-kind (e.g., by helping secure a very high priority conservation area supporting other resource objectives).

59 4g. Establish the preferred transportation plan, and quantify mitigation needs including the amount and quality of area by resource type for which impacts could not be avoided and require further mitigation attention. Step 5: Establish and prioritize ecological actions. 5a. Identify areas in the REF planning region that can provide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mitigation opportunities. Ranking should be based on the site’s ability to meet mitigation targets, along with: a) anticipated contributions to cumulative effects; b) the presence in priority conservation/restoration areas of the REF; c) ability to contribute to long-term ecological goals; d) the likelihood of viability in the landscape context; e) cost; and f) other criteria determined by the stakeholders. 5b. Select potential mitigation areas according to the ranking protocols described above. 5c. To increase confidence in the mitigation component of the plan, field-validate the presence and condition of target resources for attention at mitigation sites and reassess the ability of sites to provide necessary mitigation. Revise the mitigation assessment as needed to identify a validated set of locations to provide mitigation. Compare feasibility/cost of conservation and restoration opportunities with ranking score and context of conservation actions of other federal, state, local, and NGO programs to determine overall benefit/effectiveness. Predictive species modeling can target field validation process. 5d. Develop/refine a regional conservation and mitigation strategy (set of preferred actions) to achieve ecoregional conservation/restoration goals and advance infrastructure projects. 5e. Decide on and create a map of areas to conserve, manage, protect, or restore, including documentation of the resources and their quantities to be retained/restored in each area, and the agency and mechanisms for conducting the mitigation. 5f. Obtain agreement on ecological actions from stakeholders. Step 6: Develop crediting strategy. 6a. Diagnose the measurement need. Examine the ecological setting (including regulated resources and frameworks, non-regulated resources, and ecosystem services), examine the regulatory and social setting, and identify additional opportunities. 6b. Evaluate ecosystem and landscape needs and context to identify measurement options. 6c. Select or develop units and rules for crediting (e.g., rules for field measurement of ecological functions, approved mitigation/conservation banking, outcome-based performance standards using credit system). 6d. Test applicability of units and rules in local conditions. 6e. Evaluate local market opportunities for ecosystem services. 6f. Negotiate regulatory assurance for credit. 6g. Program implementation.

60 Step 7: Develop programmatic consultation, Biological Opinion, or permit. 7a. Ensure agreements are documented relating to CWA Section 404 permitting, avoidance and minimization, ESA Section 7 consultation, roles and responsibilities, land ownership and management, conservation measures, etc. 7b. Plan for long-term management/make arrangements with land management agencies/organizations (e.g., land trusts or bankers) for permanent protection of conservation and restoration parcels. Notify and coordinate with local governments for supportive action. 7c. Design performance measures for transportation projects that will be practical for long-term adaptive management and include in 404 permit and/or Section 7 BA/BO. 7d. Choose a monitoring strategy for mitigation sites, based on practical measures above, ideally using the same metrics as those used for impact assessment, site selection, and credit development. 7e. Set up periodic meetings (at least annual) to identify what is working well and what could be improved. Step 8: Implement agreements and adaptive management. Deliver conservation and transportation projects. 8a. Design/implement methods to complete transportation project(s) consistent with REF, conservation/restoration strategy, and agreements. 8b. Identify how advance mitigation/conservation will be funded, if this has not been done already. 8c. As needed, develop additional project-specific, outcome-based performance standards related to impact avoidance and minimization. 8d. Design transportation projects and integrate performance measures to minimize impacts to resources. 8e. Use adaptive management to ensure compliance with requirements and intent of performance measures. i. Develop and track ecoregional biodiversity, indicators of viability, and integrity. ii. Develop and track conservation status, protected and managed area status, and management effectiveness. iii. Identify remedial actions and needed plan adjustments. iv. Adjust the planning process and management processes and/or management of individual conservation areas. v. Incorporate outputs into future cumulative effects analyses for the region. Step 9: Update Regional Integrated Plan/Ecosystem Framework. 9a. Integrate any revised conservation plans into the regional integrated plan/ecosystem framework and, where appropriate, individual resource spatial information. 9b. Update the area/resource conservation requirements, responses, and indicators in collaboration with stakeholders (e.g., assess regional goals, update to minimum required area for species and/or habitat, review confidence threshold for achieving goals, review

61 weighting values of resources in REF, and evaluate responses to land use and infrastructure). 9c. Update the implementation status of areas in the REF to review those areas that are contributing to REF goals and priorities, and determine if additional conservation/protection action is required. 9d. Update the cumulative effects analysis with new developments, new disturbances, proposals and trends (e.g., ecosystem-altering wildfire, new policies, plans, proposals, and trends such as new sea level rise inundation model). 9e. Conduct regular review of progress, including effectiveness at meeting goals and objectives, current take totals, and likelihood of exceeding programmatic take allowance.

62 APPENDIX F Limited Use Agreement for Digital Data Limited Use Agreement for Digital Data: RVCOG as Data Recipient ROGUE VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 155 No. 1st St., P. O. Box 3275, Central Point, OR 97502 www.rvcog.org The Rogue Valley Council of Governments understands that some organizations or individuals consider their data to be sensitive and CONFIDENTIAL. Because of the sensitivity of such information and the organization/individual’s concern about possible misuse and misinterpretation, RVCOG agrees to the following terms and conditions with regard to the use of digital data (“your data”) from the following organization or individual (“you”): _________________________________________________________________________. To be used within the following RVCOG department (“us” and “we”): NATURAL RESOURCES. 1. RVCOG is hereby granted a nonexclusive license to make copies of your data provided to us by you in digital form for use or distribution only within the department(s) specified above. 2. Subcontractors may have access to these data during the course of any given project, but will not be given a copy for their use on subsequent unrelated work. 3. Your data will not be further distributed or sold in any format. Should individuals approach RVCOG asking for the type of data that we provide, we will refer them to you. 4. Once we are finished using your data or our project is completed, whichever comes first, we will delete your data off of our shared drives, hard drives, and any temporary file transfer media (e.g., data sticks, DVDs). If we need the data files again at a later time, we will contact you again. 5. As a professional courtesy, we will acknowledge you and/or your organization where appropriate and prudent. You agree to supply RVCOG with your data in an ArcGIS shapefile. Signature: Date: Name: [Organization’s Executive Director, or similar decision authority] Title: [phone or email] Signature: Date: Name: [Project’s Principal Investigator, or similar authority] Title: [phone or email]

63 APPENDIX G Stakeholder Survey Results Table G.1. Stakeholder Committee TCAPP Survey Results, July 2011. QUESTIONS Average Sample Size Stakeholder Communication I am able to clearly articulate key messages with decision makers. 4.1 15 I am able to communicate the appropriate messages at the appropriate times and to the appropriate people. 4.0 15 I understand the process required to communicate my message. 4.1 15 I have ample opportunity to make my voice heard. 4.2 15 The input I provide has an influence on the decisions made by formal decision- making partners. 4.0 15 Stakeholder Understanding I understand the decision-making process, the proposed plans, and the purpose of the plans. 3.6 15 I have access to the information I need to make informed choices. 3.8 15 I understand the process I can use to influence the decision-making process. 3.9 15 I understand my role in the decision-making process. 3.8 15 I understand the roles of others (other stakeholders, decision makers) in the decision-making process. 3.7 15 I receive feedback on the decision-making team's status and decisions made. 3.7 15 I understand how the decisions made will affect my special interest. 3.7 15 Stakeholder Commitment I have a high level of individual commitment to the process and the outcomes of the decision-making process. 3.9 15 I am able to consistently participate in the process and represent my interest throughout the decision-making process. 4.0 15 There is a formal group available to support my needs during the decision-making process. 3.9 15 I have been able to engage with others of similar interest throughout the process. 3.7 15 I am able to identify, recognize, and accept interests of others and work from common interests. 4.1 15 Note: Results are ranked from 1 – 5, with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. If the respondent chose “Not Applicable,” that answer was assigned a zero and not included in the analysis.

64 Table G.2. Stakeholder Committee TCAPP Survey Results, January 2012. QUESTIONS Average Sample Size Stakeholder Communication I am able to clearly articulate key messages with decision makers. 4.0 9 I am able to communicate the appropriate messages at the appropriate times and to the appropriate people. 4.0 9 I understand the process required to communicate my message. 4.0 9 I have ample opportunity to make my voice heard. 4.1 9 The input I provide has an influence on the decisions made by formal decision- making partners. 3.9 9 Stakeholder Understanding I understand the decision-making process, the proposed plans, and the purpose of the plans. 4.1 9 I have access to the information I need to make informed choices. 4.0 9 I understand the process I can use to influence the decision-making process. 4.2 9 I understand my role in the decision-making process. 4.2 9 I understand the roles of others (other stakeholders, decision makers) in the decision-making process. 4.0 9 I receive feedback on the decision-making team's status and decisions made. 4.1 9 I understand how the decisions made will affect my special interest. 3.9 9 Stakeholder Commitment I have a high level of individual commitment to the process and the outcomes of the decision-making process. 4.1 9 I am able to consistently participate in the process and represent my interest throughout the decision-making process. 4.0 9 There is a formal group available to support my needs during the decision- making process. 3.9 9 I have been able to engage with others of similar interest throughout the process. 4.2 9 I am able to identify, recognize, and accept interests of others and work from common interests. 4.2 9 Note: Results are ranked from 1 – 5, with 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. If the respondent chose “Not Applicable,” that answer was assigned a zero and not included in the analysis.