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.
5The project was carried out through nine tasks: Task 1. Needs Assessment Task 2. Vision Statement Task 3. Architecture and Design Plan Task 4. Beta Version Task 5. Interface with Eco-Plan Pilot Teams Task 6. Testing Task 7. Midcourse Briefing Task 8. Final Version Task 9. Final Documentation and User Guide The work that was conducted and the major outcomes of each task are summarized in this chapter. 2.1 Task 1. Needs Assessment and Task 5. Interface with Eco-Plan Pilot Teams The purpose of Task 1 was to characterize the needs of the intended end users of Eco-Plan in support of an ecological approach to transportation decision making. The needs assessment was carried out through three subtasks: (1) estab- lish a user group to inform all aspects of the project, (2) char- acterize the needs of the intended end users of Eco-Plan, and (3) perform an assessment of existing systems. The purpose of Task 5 was to collaborate with three separate teams funded to inform and pilot-test Eco-Plan. Since the interface with these teams began in Task 1, it is explained in this section. 2.1.1 Interface with Eco-Plan Pilot Teams and Formation of the User Group TRB supported three separate but related projects during the development of Eco-Plan, referred to in the remainder of this report as the Eco-Plan Pilot Teams. A shared purpose among each of these projects was to inform and test Eco-Plan. The principal investigators of these projects were also members of an Eco-Plan user group. In this way, they informed the identifi- cation of needs and vision for Eco-Plan. They also participated in interim demonstrations throughout beta development. Finally, these teams participated in the beta test of Eco-Plan, which is explained in Section 2.6. In addition, the Eco-Plan pilot-test teams, the Eco-Plan project team, TRB, FHWA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) collaborated during monthly coordination calls. During these conversations, each project team shared their progress, plans, and barriers, and any issues were also discussed. The user group was envisioned as a small and engaged group of potential Eco-Plan users who could inform tool develop- ment and become champions for tool implementation. The project team established the following set of criteria or desired qualities for the user group: ⢠Are available and have leadership support for participation. ⢠Are leaders in the field and novices who have demonstrated interest in linking transportation and ecological decision making. ⢠Can provide an interface with transportation and resource agencies. ⢠Represent geographic and ecological diversity; as a group, participants work in a rich and varied ecological context and face a range of threats to ecological integrity. ⢠Represent a mix of areas adding capacity through large and small transportation projects and long and short temporal scales. ⢠Avoid overlap with the group of experts overseeing the proj- ect to provide a broad range of input. Additional potential members meeting the criteria estab- lished for the user group were identified using recent grant funding and webinars highlighting projects with an ecologi- cal and a geospatial focus. A set of recommended user group members and a set of alternate user group members were C h A P T E r 2 Methods and Outcomes
6vetted with and approved by TRB. Potential members were contacted first by e-mail, to gauge potential interest, and then through a phone conversation about expectations and level of commitment. This process resulted in the final user group membership shown in Table 2.1. The project team met with the user group at least once during each task, via teleconference and WebShare. The types of input the user group provided to each task were ⢠Task 1. Needs Assessment: Provided input on their specific needs and how they relate to a national-scale geospatial eco- logical screening tool for transportation. ⢠Task 2. Vision Statement: Validated data and analytic tools considered for incorporation in the tool. Provided feedback on the draft vision for the tool. ⢠Task 3. Architecture and Design Plan: Provided input on design previews. ⢠Task 4. Beta Version: Participated in demonstrations of tool development and provided input. ⢠Task 5. Pilot Team Interface: User group members desig- nated and funded to pilot-test Eco-Plan provided feedback and insights from their project work. ⢠Task 6. Testing: Vetted information received from a separate beta test group and helped to prioritize modifications. ⢠Task 7. Midcourse Briefing: User group members desig- nated and funded to pilot-test Eco-Plan participated in a midcourse workshop with FHWA, resource agency partners, and industry representatives to review progress and discuss implementation. ⢠Task 8. Final Version: Participated in demonstrations and provided input. ⢠Task 9. User Guide: Provided input on user help. 2.1.2 Identification of User Needs The purpose of this subtask was to identify the anticipated needs of Eco-Plan users. These needs then informed the overall vision for the tool. User needs were identified through a five- step approach. 1. Team discussion, drafting, and revisions using multi- disciplinary perspectives and information from the request for proposal (RFP) as a guideline; 2. User group review and discussion; 3. Revisions based on user group comments; 4. Review by the group of experts overseeing project work; and 5. Final revisions. User needs were identified for each type of anticipated Eco- Plan user. Five user types were identified. ⢠Transportation planner or environmental staff. Encompasses all state and local agencies whose primary mission is to build Table 2.1. Members of the User Group User Group Member Primary Member Organizations State Reason Jim Thorne University of California-Davis (working with Caltrans) CA Eco-Plan Pilot Teams Mary Grace Lewandowski David Diamond East-West Gateway Council of Governments and Missouri Resources Assessment Partnership MO Eco-Plan Pilot Teams Mary Gray Parsons Transportation Group (working with Contra Costa Transportation Authority) CA Eco-Plan Pilot Teams Sharon Osowski U.S. EPA Region 6 TX U.S. EPA Region 6 and Texas DOT use a GIS-based, inter-state, ecological assessment tool for transportation planning and permitting. There are plans to integrate this tool with NEPAssist. Richard Bostwick Maine DOT ME Maine DOT has partnered with Maine Beginning with Habitat to use advanced GIS-based tools to integrate ecological and transportation planning and mitigation decisions. John Thomas Utah DOT UT Developed UPlAN, a publicly accessible, web-based, GIS tool with data sharing and analysis. UPlAN generates a Planning and Environmental linkages report summarizing impacts of the long-range transportation plan. Greg Servheen Idaho Department of Fish and Game and Western Regional Governorsâ Association ID Idaho DOT, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and the Western Regional Governorsâ Association are in the process of developing Crucial Habitat Assessment Tools, or CHATs, designed to inform the preplanning of large-scale energy, transportation, and land use projects.
7 and maintain the transportation system. Includes the differ- ent staff-disciplines within metropolitan planning organiza- tions (MPOs), regional planning organizations (RPOs), state departments of transportation (DOTs), and their consul- tants. These are the primary users of the tool. This user type was further defined as transportation planners and environ- mental staff who are equipped with little to no geospatial experience and support. ⢠Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). FHWA may use the tool for collaborative project oversight/review and sup- port approval of decisions. It is expected that the needs of FHWA are representative of other federal transportation agency users. ⢠Resource agency. Federal, state, and local resource agencies generate data used in the tool and may access the tool for advisory and approval purposes. ⢠Conservation organizations. Nongovernmental organiza- tions with a stake in the ecological impacts of transportation plans and projects may generate data used in the tool and could access the tool to provide input or advice. ⢠System owner. The eventual owner of the geospatial tool or the administrator of the tool for a specific agency user. User needs were organized into seven categories: 1. Access the tool. 2. Import and export data. 3. View map data. 4. Analyze data. 5. Generate reports. 6. Save and share information. 7. Manage user and account settings. The needs under each of these categories are listed in Appen- dix A, along with an indication of which users are expected to have this need for the geospatial tool. Specific comments made by the user group during the review process are provided in the last column of each table. 2.1.3 System Assessment Initial System Assessment The purpose of the system assessment was to determine whether there was an existing web-based tool or system that could address some or all of the needs identified for Eco-Plan. An existing tool that met the majority of the needs could have served as the basis for Eco-Plan if there were viable methods to license the software for modification and use. The assess- ment also gave the project team an opportunity to learn of evolving best practices with geographic information system (GIS) tools and find any creative and useful ideas developed by others. For this assignment, the team started with the list of existing systems identified in the research proposal. Additional systems were identified by user group members and members of the project team and through review of FHWAâs Eco-Logical web- site (FHWA 2013a). Other systems were discovered during the initial assessment and added to the list. In all, the project team initially identified 27 existing systems. Of those, two systems were not available during the assessment period and two were informational websites rather than geospatial tools. Subse- quently, the initial assessment included 23 existing systems. Initially, the following characteristics for each system were documented: ⢠System configuration: The hardware/software configuration. ⢠Interoperability and standards: Any method beyond direct user interaction with the interface for accessing the report- ing, data delivery, or analytical functions of the tool. Whether the system adheres to any public standards for data format or interoperability (i.e., does the tool include functions that would allow the export of data into it, or directly exporting output from the tool?). ⢠Analytical functions and reports available: Analysis types, que- ries, and reports that are available (e.g., overlaying transpor- tation plans, assigning ecological values, assessing impacts). This part of the assessment distinguished between: 44 Spatial query (list features within the analysis boundary); 44 Spatial analysis [additional scoring and weighting (e.g., the percent of wetlands within a boundary)]; and 44 Spatial analysis or data supporting enhanced ecological evaluation (e.g., overlay of many data layers with weight- ing, such as wetlands and endangered species layers com- bined to weight an area higher for the presence of both). ⢠Data loading and downloading tools: Whether users are able to upload or download information. If so, whether uploaded data could be used for analysis. ⢠Data types or data sets used: The types of data (i.e., species, water resources, etc.) or data sets available through the tool. ⢠Technical support: The user documentation, metadata, or other technical support that is available to the end user. ⢠Highlights (if applicable): Features which were unique or especially applicable to this project. Next, the systems were rated in regard to whether or not they supported these general criteria: ⢠Interoperability ⢠Map Navigation ⢠Basic Spatial Query ⢠Customized Spatial Query ⢠Ecological Analysis Tools ⢠Reporting Tools ⢠Data Upload
8⢠Data Download ⢠Ecological Model Results For this rating, each system was simply assigned a âYesâ or âNoâ value for each of the criteria (indicating whether or not the system supported the functionality). Next, the number of âYesâ responses were counted for each system (i.e., the systems with more of the functions ranked higher). Of the 23 systems initially assessed, 16 received a rating of 5 or higher. The proj- ect team reviewed these in more detail, requesting more infor- mation or demonstrations from the system owners when necessary. Finally, five of the systems were selected for a gap analysisâ comparing the system to the user needs (see Appendix A) identified for Eco-Plan. This part of the assessment used a three-scale ranking system to indicate how well the system met each identified need. The ranking system is shown in Table 2.2. A weighted score was calculated for each of the five systems based on the numeric equivalents. The results of the assessment are summarized in Table 2.3 and Table 2.4. A complete gap analysis showing how each assessed system addressed (or did not address) the identified user needs is provided in Appendix B. Additional System Assessments Two additional system assessments were conducted after the initial set. The first one was for the Environmental Protection Agencyâs (EPAâs) EnviroAtlas tool, which was not available dur- ing the initial assessment, and the second one was for the Department of Energyâs Eastern Interconnection States Plan- ning Council (EISPC) EZ Mapping Tool, which was identified after the initial assessment was complete. These two systems were assessed using the same criteria used for the initial set. EnviroAtlas has a simple web interface, making it very easy to navigate. In addition to the map viewer, there are other tools and resources organized on the website. All tools are well documented. Some of the map products would be help- ful for Eco-Plan users, like protected versus not protected lands. EnviroAtlas handles data from sources outside of EPA well; for example, it pulls the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) directly from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) map service. The tool also has a good example of a disclaimer (USEPA 2014). The EISPC EZ Mapping Tool is also a website with a map viewer. The analytic tools and reports of model results are impressive but support energy applications rather than ecological and transportation applications. Therefore, they are not transferable to Eco-Plan. The system is accompanied by a well-documented user manual that also captures the fea- tures and functions of the tool and is provided in Appendix B (EISPC 2014). The findings from these assessments, along with those com- pleted in Task 1, will inform the development of Eco-Plan in Task 4. Individual assessments of each system are provided in Appendix C. 2.1.4 Conclusions from Task 1 After developing and validating a list of user needs, assessing existing systems, and comparing them to the needs, the proj- ect team made several conclusions: ⢠There are numerous existing GIS tools to help with conserva- tion planning. However, many are built with a specific sub- ject matter or geographic focus and are not broad enough to support transportation planners nationwide. Also, most were developed as a one-way push of information to the user and not as a collaborative tool to allow dynamic additions of additional data. ⢠The existing federal systems that the team assessed were not good candidates for starting points for Eco-Plan. They typi- cally do not provide the collaborative sharing of data, cross- discipline subject matter, ability to import user-defined data, or extensible frameworks for future analytical tools to address user needs. ⢠Two existing systems, UPLAN and Data Basin, far surpassed all other systems in the assessment of how they address user needs. These two systems were considered further as build- ing blocks for the new Eco-Plan website in the development of Task 2âVision Statement (UDOT 2013, CBI 2013). 2.2 Task 2. Vision Statement The purpose of Task 2 was to create a vision for Eco-Plan. The vision was informed by the user needs and system assessment in Task 1, the project teamâs own expertise and experience in transportation and habitat planning, evolving best practices in GIS system and web design, and input from the user group and experts overseeing the project. It addressed the basic param- eters of the system, including the inputs and outputs of existing tools, data sources that can be leveraged, analytical tools to be incorporated, and how users would access and use it. Table 2.2. Ranking Approach for Existing Systems Criteria Numeric Equivalent Symbol Meets the need 2 Partially meets the need 1 Does not meet the need 0 â
9 Table 2.3. Initial Assessment of 23 Existing Systems System Name Interoperability Map Navigation Basic Spatial Query Customized Spatial Query Ecological Analysis Tools Reporting Tools Data Upload Data Download Ecological Model Results Number of Criteria Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) (USFWS 2014b) Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y 8 Data Basin (CBI 2014) N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 ScienceBase (USGS 2014b) Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y 7 Southern Great Plains Crucial Habitat Assessment Tool (SGP CHAT) (Oklahoma et al. 2013) Y Y Y Y N Y N Y Y 7 The Wyoming Interagency Spatial Database & Online Management (WISDOM) System (WISDOM 2014a) N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y 7 UPlan (AASHTO 2013) Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N 7 HabiMap⢠Arizona (AGFD 2013) N Y Y Y N Y N Y Y 6 Information Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) (USFWS 2014c) Y Y Y N N Y Y Y N 6 NEPAssist (USEPA 2013b) Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N 6 FWS Critical Habitat Portal (USFWS 2013a) Y Y Y N N Y N Y Y 6 Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE-II) (CDFG 2013) N Y Y N Y N N Y Y 5 ESA Webtool (FHWA 2013a) N Y N Y N Y Y Y N 5 Integrated Resource Management Applications (IRMA) (NPS 2014a) Y N N N N Y Y Y Y 5 NPScape (NPS 2013) Y Y N N N Y N Y Y 5 NWI Website (USFWS 2014d) Y Y Y N N Y N Y N 5 Washingtonâs Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) (Washington DFW 2014) N Y Y Y N Y N N Y 5 (continued on next page)
10Table 2.3. Initial Assessment of 23 Existing Systems (continued) System Name Interoperability Map Navigation Basic Spatial Query Customized Spatial Query Ecological Analysis Tools Reporting Tools Data Upload Data Download Ecological Model Results Number of Criteria Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks Crucial Areas Planning System (CAPS) (Montana FWP 2014) N Y Y Y N N N N Y 4 NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2014b) Y N Y N N Y N Y N 4 NPS Vegetation Inventory Map Viewer (NPS 2014c) Y Y Y N N N N Y N 4 RIBITS (Regulatory In lieu fee and Bank Information Tracking System) (USACE 2014) N Y Y Y N Y N N N 4 FWS Lands Mapper (USFWS 2014a) Y Y Y N N N N N N 3 Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG) Fish Resource Monitor (ADFG 2013) N Y Y N N N N N N 2 Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET) (USFWS 2013b) N N N N N N N N Y 1
11 2.2.1 Identification of Data Identifying data sets to provide through Eco-Plan was one aspect of developing the vision. Data were identified from a variety of sources, including: ⢠The SHRP 2 RFP, which listed specific data sets as well as broad categories of data that should be included in Eco- Plan; ⢠The relevant data in existing systems assessed in Task 1; ⢠Input from the project team; ⢠Information from federal stakeholders; and ⢠Input from the user group. The data were organized into thematic categories and sub- categories. The three main categories of data were ⢠Natural Environment: Data that describe the current or historic condition of land and water, habitats, and species distribution, as well as delineations of areas with varying types of protection and management. ⢠Built Environment: Data that describe how land is being used, along with environmental contamination of soil, water, and air. ⢠Cultural/Social: Demographic data and political boundaries. These categories are shown in Figure 2.1, along with sub- categories of example data sets. Note that the examples are not a comprehensive list of all data sets within the category. The full list of data sets provided through Eco-Plan is in Appendix D. 2.2.2 Assessment of Analytic Tools The purpose of this subtask was to identify existing analytic tools that may be integrated with Eco-Plan. The inventory of tools captured through the SHRP 2 project, Development of an Ecological Assessment Process for Enhancements to High- way Capacity (TRB 2013) was used as a starting point, as these were already deemed specifically relevant to Eco-Logical. There were 154 distinct tools available through the Integrated Eco- logical Framework (IEF) application on the Transportation for CommunitiesâAdvancing Projects Through Partnerships (TCAPP) website (ICF 2013). (TCAPP is a beta version of PlanWorks, a web resource tool for collaborative decision making in transportation planning.) Each of these tools was screened to determine whether they were also relevant to inte- grate with Eco-Plan. Factors considered in the screening were ⢠Is the tool current? ⢠Does the analytic tool have a geospatial component? ⢠Can the analytic tool be applied to any geographic area, or is it relevant only to a specific geographic area? Based on the screening, the team identified 17 tools as primary candidates for integration. Note that there is some duplication among analytic tools and systems assessed. Both provide analytic capabilities. ⢠Better Assessment Science Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources (BASINS) (USEPA 2013a). Multipurpose environ- mental analysis system designed for use by regional, state, and local agencies in performing watershed and water quality-based studies. Within the open-source MapWindow GIS interface are a data download tool, a project builder, watershed delineation routines, and data analysis and model output visualization tools. New features include plug-in interfaces for well-known watershed and water quality mod- els Storm Water Management Model 5 (SWMM5), Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP7), and Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) 2005. ⢠Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N-SPECT) (NOAA 2014a). Use OpenNSPECT, the open- source version of the Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool, to investigate potential water quality impacts from development and other land uses and climate change. OpenNSPECT was designed to be Table 2.4. Summary of Gap Analysis Program (GAP) Analysis User Need Category UPlan Data Basin IPaC NEPAssist ESA Webtool Access the tool 6 6 2 3 3 Import and export my data 8 8 1 1 0 View map data 25 25 17 21 12 Analyze data 14 12 9 7 6 Generate reports 8 8 8 8 1 Save and share information 14 14 3 3 9 Manage user and account settings 17 18 5 5 15 Overall Weighted Total 92 91 45 48 46
12 broadly applicable. When applied to coastal and non- coastal areas alike, the tool simulates erosion, pollution, and their accumulation from overland flow. N-SPECT is a complex yet user-friendly GIS extension that helps coastal managers and local decision makers predict potential water quality impacts from nonpoint source pollution and erosion. ⢠NEPAssist (USEPA 2013b). NEPAssist is a tool that facilitates the environmental review process and project planning in relation to environmental considerations. These features contribute to a streamlined review process that potentially raises important environmental issues at the earliest stages of project development. ⢠CommunityViz (Placeways 2013). ArcGIS software extension widely used by planners; features flexible and interactive analysis tools, a rich set of presentation tools, and several options for 3-D visualization of future places. ⢠Data Basin (CBI 2014). Data Basin is a science-based map- ping and analysis platform that supports learning, research, and sustainable environmental stewardship. ⢠Ecosystem Management Decision Support (EMDS) (UOR EMDS 2013). Application framework for knowledge-based decision support of ecological assessments at any scale. The Hotlink browser displays the evaluated state of a knowledge base. Users can navigate the networks of analysis topics to trace the logic of evaluations in an intuitive interface. More importantly, the presentation of results in this graphic for- mat is sufficiently intuitive that users of the system can use the Hotlink browser as a powerful communication tool that effectively explains the basis of evaluation results to broad audiences. ⢠Habitat Priority Planner (HPP) (NOAA 2014b). HPP is a spatial decision-support tool designed to assist users in pri- oritizing important areas in the landscape or seascape for conservation or restoration action. Creates maps, reports, and data. Teams of people working on habitat decisions use this tool to share information and find answers to questions. The HPP packages spatial analysis and stakeholder engage- ment in one geospatial tool. This Esri-based toolbar has been used for strategic conservation planning, to create spe- cies monitoring plans, and to plan for climate change adap- tation. Users can customize base data, select a series of spatial analyses, and work with stakeholders to prioritize areas for management action. ⢠Land Change Modeler (LCM) (LCM 2013). The LCM for Ecological Sustainability is an integrated software environ- ment for analyzing land cover change, projecting its course into the future, and assessing its implications for habitat and biodiversity change. LCM is a vertical application devel- oped by Clark Labs and integrated within the IDRISI GIS and Image Processing software package. The LCM for Eco- logical Sustainability is oriented to the pressing problem of Figure 2.1. Data categories and organization.
13 accelerated land conversion and the very specific analytical needs of biodiversity conservation. ⢠Landuse Evolution and Impact Assessment Model (LEAM) (Illinois 2013). Environmental, economic, and social sys- tem impacts of alternative scenarios such as different land use policies, growth trends, and unexpected events can be tested out in the LEAM modeling environment. ⢠Marxan (Australia UQ 2013). Marxan is a freely available conservation planning software that provides decision sup- port to a range of conservation planning problems includ- ing the design of new reserve systems, reporting on the performance of existing reserve systems, and developing multiple-use zoning plans for natural resource manage- ment. It provides many good solutions to complex prob- lems, offering several options and encouraging stakeholder participation. These features provide users with decision support to achieve an efficient allocation of resources across a range of different uses. ⢠NatureServe Vista (NatureServe 2014b). Free decision- support system that helps users integrate conservation with land use and resource planning of all types. Planners, resource managers, scientists, and conservationists can use Nature- Serve Vista to conduct conservation planning and assess- ments; integrate conservation values with other planning and assessment activities, such as land use, transportation, energy, natural resource, and ecosystem-based manage- ment; and evaluate, create, implement, and monitor land use and resource management scenarios designed to achieve conservation goals within existing economic, social, and political contexts. ⢠Watershed Analysis Risk Management Framework (WARMF) (USEPA 2013c). WARMF is a physically based watershed modeling framework and decision-support system for watershed management. It is suitable for applications includ- ing watershed stewardship, land use planning, climate change impact, mercury transport, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). It also includes a consensus module designed to bring scientific information to a stakeholder group and facil- itate decision making on a watershed scale. ⢠Automated Geospatial Watershed Assessment (AGWA) (USEPA 2011). AGWA is designed to provide qualitative esti- mates of runoff and erosion relative to landscape change. A GIS provides the framework within which spatially distrib- uted data are collected and used to prepare model input files and evaluate model results. AGWA uses widely available, standardized, spatial data sets that can be obtained via the Internet. The data are used to develop input parameter files for two watershed runoff and erosion models: Kinematic Runoff and Erosion Model (KINEROS2) and SWAT. ⢠Envision (ORST 2013). Created to conduct research about the nature and properties of coupled human and natural environmental systems in the context of climate change. Also created to develop alternative futures analysis used to model the landscape impacts of various policy scenarios on land use change and accompanying biophysical impacts. Strongest applications are mapping the cumulative effects of multiple actions at multiple sites as it tracks impacts over time. Envision has the ability to plug in evaluative models (e.g., credit calculators). ⢠FRAGSTATS (UMASS 2012). Computer software program designed to compute a wide variety of landscape metrics for categorical map patterns. ⢠Land Transformation Model (LTM) (PU 2011). The model uses landscape ecology principles, that is, patterns of inter- actions to simulate land use change process, to forecast land use change. Though the model can be used in any definable region, precedence is given to watersheds. It is useful for simulating land use/cover changes across large regions and can be used to simulate land change in areas that contain several million to even a few hundred million cells. It is thus a useful tool to couple to regional climate, hydrologic, and carbon sequestration models. ⢠TransCAD (Caliper 2011). TransCAD is a GIS system designed specifically for use by transportation professionals to store, display, manage, and analyze transportation data. It features 2-D and 3-D visualizations, cartography, buffering, region/cluster grouping, spatial statistics, and grid genera- tion. Its strengths lie in the ability to create and model trans- portation networks and matrices, providing functions to develop an integrated Urban Transportation Planning Sys- tem (UTPS). In addition to these tools, 12 tools were identified as poten- tially applicable but in need of further investigation. Addi- tional information for each of these tools and the remaining analytic tools considered in the screening is available in Appendix E. In the appendix, tools are categorized as primary candidates for integration, potential candidates needing fur- ther investigation, or not appropriate for integration. 2.2.3 Draft Vision The next major work item was to develop the draft vision for Eco-Plan. Based on feedback from the initial user group call, the project team determined that a visual graphic was the best way to communicate these combined ideas: ⢠User needs; ⢠Appropriate data for analysis; ⢠Appropriate tools for analysis; ⢠Creative or useful ideas for other leading GIS or ecological assessment systems; ⢠Industry-standard GIS methodologies; ⢠Real-world experience in running Florida DOTâs Environ- mental Screening Tool; and ⢠Emerging web standards and user expectations in usability and design.
14 A small subgroup of the project team met for a visual solution session to summarize the information into groups of users, inputs, types of functionality, and outputs. This subgroup drafted a diagram of the vision and shared it with the full cross-discipline team for review and comment. After updating the diagram based on the comments, a designer created a professional graphic, shown in Figure 2.2. Each additional section of the vision is explained in Table 2.5. The vision diagram shows the users, data, functionality, and outputs that can be used as a foundation for transpor- tation planning, identifying and avoiding priority conser- vation areas, and identifying mitigation sites, and to support the eventual National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 2.2.4 Implementing the Vision At the end of Task 2, the project team determined that there were two preferred implementation options, each with consid- erable advantages and disadvantages. The first option was based on an ArcGIS Online (AGO) application. The second option was a new custom tool. These two approaches are described in this section, along with advantages and disadvantages. Option 1: AGO Implementation One option explored was to build Eco-Plan as an AGO appli- cation. AGO is a web-based mapping platform provided by Esri, a major industry vendor of GIS solutions. This imple- mentation model was pioneered in the transportation area by the Utah DOT (UDOT) and resulted in the UPLAN applica- tion (UDOT 2013). UPLAN, through standard AGO func- tionality, allows the UDOT to develop online interactive maps for planning and analysis; easily and securely share maps with other groups, states, and the public; and import up-to-date data sets with any organization already registered with AGO. Several states have followed the UPLAN model for their own transportation planning applications. This cloud-based application model was highlighted in FHWAâs May 2013 Successes in Stewardship newsletter (FHWA 2013b). Transfer of the technology to other state DOTs is also being supported by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) through a Technology Implementation Group (TIG) program (AASHTO 2013). The envisioned implementation of this option was to package the appropriate data sets (while allowing the user to add others), provide exploration and analysis tools, Figure 2.2. Vision for Eco-Plan.
15 provide an intuitive layer wizard to jump-start users into solving specific problems, and tailor the view to the plan- ning task at hand. The disadvantage identified for this option was that, while Eco-Plan can be packaged as a product in an AGO application, it would not be a stand-alone entity. It would exist within a third-party platform-as-a-service architecture. All users would need AGO accounts (free or paid depending on the level of data hosting). Option 2: Custom New Tool The second option explored was to build a new custom, stand- alone tool. This approach would be similar to Data Basin (CBI 2013). It would be a stand-alone tool, still built using Esri technologies, but hosted separately on Amazon cloud servers instead of within the AGO platform. While this option would result in a stand-alone product, it could miss significant opportunities for adoption, engagement, and collaboration if more state DOTs implement systems based on the UPLAN model with AGO. 2.2.5 Conclusions from Task 2 After developing the draft list of data sets, evaluating existing analytical tools, and documenting the vision for the tool, the project team concluded: ⢠Easy and secure sharing of layers is essential to collaboration. Table 2.5. The Components of the Vision User Types: The primary intended users of Eco-Plan are transportation planners, especially those without existing resources and tools (within their organization) to help them use ecological data during planning. Other users are anticipated to provide data, advice or to maintain the tool. Data Inputs: The primary data inputs are existing, web-based, federal data sets encompassing the natural environment, built environment, and cultural/social information. Eco-Plan will connect to these data sources using industry-standard web services to ensure timely and accurate data. Consolidating these data sets in a single location will allow novice users to use the wealth of data immediately. The tool must easily support the addition of new data sets over time as they are published by federal agencies. Experienced users will need the ability to load additional regional and local data as well. To encourage collaboration and knowledge sharing, the tool must support easy and secure ways to share data sets across groups of users. Functionality: Eco-Plan was envisioned to have several major areas of functionality: ⢠Planning areas to group and store map information; ⢠Intersection tool to determine items of interest within geographic boundaries of the buffered lines or polygons of projects; ⢠Layer wizard to allow users to select specific data sets based on topics or problem type without requiring the usual long list of data layer check boxes; ⢠Metadata to allow users to determine whether the data are current, are accurate, and the scale; and ⢠New analytical tools to enhance support for determining priority conservation areas and mitigation sites. Outputs: Eco-Plan was envisioned to support several standard outputs of data such as Excel spreadsheets, GIS data, formatted PDF reports, APIs, and possible e-mail notifications. Support Planning: Eco-Plan was envisioned to serve as a foundation for integrated transportation and ecological planning.
16 ⢠There are several examples of local, regional, and state conservation prioritization tools, but none at the national level that could be scaled down to provide value to local planners. ⢠Most of the existing analytical tools were not built with future web integration in mind. ⢠Two general implementation approaches arose as pre- ferred options: using the AGO platform similar to UPLAN or building a new tool following the Data Basin approach. The project team presented these two options during a meeting with TRB and the group of experts overseeing the project. It was decided that the UPLAN implementation option should be investigated further in Task 3. 2.3 Task 3. Architecture and Design Plan The purpose of Task 3 was to create an architecture and design plan for Eco-Plan to guide the development of the tool in Task 4. To do this, the team conducted an additional investigation of AGO as a platform for the tool, created a proposed design, developed a workflow demonstrating how the tool could be used to support the IEF, and created draft wireframes (sketches of page design) for the tool. 2.3.1 Review of AGO Application in Practice As part of Task 3, the team further conducted an investiga- tion and validation of AGO as a potential platform for Eco- Plan. The investigation included targeted conversations with states participating in the AASHTO TIG for UPlan and exploration of the use and acceptance of AGO by federal agencies. The purpose of the calls was to validate the benefits and challenges of the AGO platform. Conversations were guided by the following general questions: 1. What is the status of their tool? (In development? Operational?) 2. How are they using it? (Have they mapped their long- range transportation plan? Have they used it to influence planning? Have they used it to identify or avoid important ecological resources?) 3. What ecological data are they accessing? 4. Are they using the tool collaboratively with regulatory agencies? How? 5. What are the major benefits of using AGO? 6. What are the major drawbacks of using AGO? Conversations were held with key AASHTO TIG partici- pants. In addition, Fact Sheets reporting the status of Pennsylvaniaâs and Montanaâs applications of AGO were reviewed (PennDOT 2013, MDT 2012). Key findings are that ⢠TIG participants are hoping to make spatial data available to more users within the DOT; AGO has been a useful plat- form for this purpose. ⢠There are challenges associated with integrating custom code in an AGO application. ⢠Most data sets of interest are available through AGO. ⢠Participants are still in the early stages of tool development and implementation and are working through the details of user permissions, confidential data, analysis, and so forth. AGO is also being adopted by federal agencies, including FHWA. Of the 125 proposed data sets for Eco-Plan, 73 are already hosted on AGO by agencies like the EPA, National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and USGS. Given the coverage of user needs and growing adoption by states and by federal agencies, the design approach created for Eco-Plan used AGO as the backend GIS server. 2.3.2 Tool Architecture and Design The proposed architecture and implications of using AGO are described in this section. Design The team used the findings from Tasks 1 and 2 and input from experts to develop a draft architecture and design for Eco-Plan. A hybrid solution incorporating a unique Eco-Plan application and using AGO as the data storage and sharing backbone was recommended. Figure 2.3 illustrates the proposed architecture and the planned connection points with AGO. Pros and Cons of the AGO Approach Using AGO will require the system owner and some organi- zations to pay for AGO subscriptions for some functionality. While TRB currently builds all research websites with license- free, open-source software, it is likely that previous TRB proj- ects required specific software licenses for proprietary components, such as Oracle or SQL server databases. These products require licenses for the development team while the application is being built and the future system owner for hosting. The use of AGO presents a similar situation but with more flexibility (due to a scalable subscription model) com- pared to older, more expensive enterprise license models.
17 Several advantages and disadvantages for the proposed solu- tion using AGO are itemized in Table 2.6. AGO pricing plans include annual per-user access plus organization service credits for some data processing services. Given the variability in how quickly service credits will be used, it is not feasible to accurately predict subscription costs. It should be noted that the architecture work was an itera- tive process influenced by several external factors and goals, some of which competed against each other. During this task, there were several discussions about architecture, especially how uncertainty in final product ownership affects design decisions. There were also discussions to ensure that the architecture also meets the specific TRB goal of providing a distinct and unique SHRP 2 product, above and beyond just an AGO implementation. 2.3.2.1 Draft Wireframes Draft wireframes, or sketches of the different screens that could be available in Eco-Plan, were created in Task 3 to serve Figure 2.3. Proposed architecture of Eco-Plan. 1. Federal agencies already publish much of their live GIS data in AGO directly or indirectly via web services. 2. The future Eco-Plan tool owner will host custom maps and applications within their instance of AGO. 3. A custom web application will display information on the IEF and link it to Eco-Plan. 4. Federal data sets will be available for use in Eco-Plan while actually being sourced from AGO. 5. Eco-Plan will embed custom AGO maps and applications. 6. Eco-Plan will have custom web content (not possible in AGO). 7. AGO subscribers will be able to upload their own local data or use data already loaded into their AGO instance. 8. Nonsubscribers will be able to use publically published functionality. Table 2.6. Advantages and Disadvantages of the AGO Platform for Eco-Plan Pros Cons ⢠Allows the project team to use AGOâs out-of-the-box functionality to meet many of the user needs: Ç·Ç· CÇ· map viewing Ç·Ç· CÇ· basic map tools Ç·Ç· CÇ· data retrieval Ç·Ç· CÇ· data sharing Ç·Ç· CÇ· security groups ⢠Increases chances for adop- tion with state DOTs given the growing popularity of AGO within that community. ⢠Increases chances for adop- tion with FHWA given their recent investments in AGO. ⢠Allows the system owner to use future AGO enhance- ments within Eco-Plan with minimal investment. ⢠Requires the use of a third-party, proprietary product. This is like using proprietary web controls and databases in an appli- cation instead of using all open-source technologies. ⢠Requires the system owner to cover applicable AGO subscription fee. ⢠Requires general users to have AGO subscriptions for data loads. ⢠AGOâs pricing includes a complex credit model for some intensive computa- tions (like geo-encoding street addresses and large data transfers).
18 as a starting point to guide the developers in their initial work. Figure 2.4 shows one of the wireframes for the main Eco-Plan page. Five wireframes are provided in Appendix F: 1. Login: Page where users enter their credentials to enter a personal or group workspace; 2. Landing: Main page where users can access all pages of their workspace; 3. Map: Map viewer only, without workflow; 4. Map with Guidance: Map viewer with workflow, detailed guidance collapsed; and 5. Map with Guidance Expanded: Map viewer with workflow, detailed guidance expanded. The following architecture and design guidelines were used in developing the wireframes: ⢠The overall goal of the site is intended to help facilitate creation, collaboration, and completion of various GIS- related tasks. ⢠The framework of the site accomplishes this through the use of simple graphic prompts and icons as well as direc- tions that are easy to understand and follow. ⢠The simple iconography and clean graphical presentation will help novice users perceive an intuitive and nonthreaten- ing interface. ⢠Basic elements of navigation will remain consistent through- out the website but will not intrude on the core activities supported by the GIS. ⢠Users of the website will not be bound by specific steps but may optionally access additional guidance, help, and fre- quently asked questions (FAQs). ⢠All users will have access to targeted guidance for using the tool to support the IEF. ⢠Advanced users will be able to âhideâ the guidance and maximize their workspace within the website but may ref- erence the guidance at any time. ⢠Guidance will reference the steps involved with the IEF process but use web-friendly labels and verbiage. Figure 2.4. Wireframe of the main Eco-Plan page. Bold frame indicates part of the AGO platform. Everything outside of the frame is part of the .NET custom application.
19 2.4 Task 4. Beta Version The purpose of Task 4 was to create a beta (draft) version of Eco-Plan for testing and refinement in future tasks. The vision, architecture, and design guided the development of the beta tool. The team used an Agile approach to develop- ment. Simplified, this means instead of mapping out the entire development process and the expected outcome from start to finish, the team worked in sprints. Working in sprints, the team can be flexible to adjust strategies and approaches as new information is gathered, priorities are refined, and issues arise. Each sprint started with a planning session. During the planning session the team established the goal for the sprint, identified and assigned individual subtasks (or cards) to reach the goal, identified success criteria, and set an end date. During the sprint, the development team communicated on a daily basis to resolve any issues. The sprint ended with a demonstration during which each team member presented the results of their work. The beta version of Eco-Plan was developed in seven sprints. The overall goal and a brief description of tasks for each sprint are shown in Table 2.7. During the course of beta development, it was determined that âEco-Planâ would refer to the .NET website where all user help and guidance would be available and âEco-Plan Table 2.7. Goals and Tasks of Each Sprint Leading to the Beta Release of Eco-Plan Complementary Activities Eco-Plan Activities Eco-Plan Advanced Activities Sprint 1: Get organized Introduce development team to the project and schedule sprint meetings Create wireframes for pages Purchase AGO account Determine approach for involving the user group in beta development Create graphic design concepts Find authoritative sources of data (from list developed in earlier tasks) on AGO and associate with Eco-Plan account Sprint 2: Prove it! Create a page with a dynamic map pulled from Eco- Plan Advanced showing authoritative data Configure AGO account Build a data portal Determine what AGO services will be used Finalize graphic design Sprint 3: Demo Acquire some Eco-Plan pilot team data to use in demonstrations Create the wireframe for the Maps page Add data sets to AGO groups Create the home page Create theme maps Work on functionality to upload a data layer onto a theme map Sprint 4: Make it pretty Acquire additional Eco-Plan pilot team data Design the home page Make revisions to theme maps Complete detailed information for data sets Design the data gallery page Design the map page Publish development page Sprint 5: Make it work Create a prototype for a map that merges infor- mation from multiple theme maps Complete styling for all pages Review theme maps Coordinate with NatureServe to determine if Landscope America data are published in AGO Finalize home page text Design map detail page and create HTML Design data detail page and create HTML (continued on next page)
20 Table 2.7. Goals and Tasks of Each Sprint Leading to the Beta Release of Eco-Plan (continued) Complementary Activities Eco-Plan Activities Eco-Plan Advanced Activities Sprint 6: Prepare for TRB meeting with Eco-Plan Pilot Teams Finalize text for all data services Write content for Getting Started page Develop scripts for testing Design Getting Started page Implement Getting Started page using an AGO story map Implement text for download-only data sets Set up staging environment Investigate data/file upload function Complete internal usability testing Sprint 7: Beta releaseâfinish tasks needed for testing and publish Eco-Plan Complete test scripts for functional and usability testing Make changes based on feedback from internal usability testing Create placeholder text for pages that will not be ready for beta testing Complete language and graphics explaining the differ- ence between Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced Complete upload Shapefile function for Data Detail and Map Detail pages Complete a âMail toâ link that testers can use to pro- vide feedback Advancedâ would refer to the AGO application. The first col- umn in Table 2.7 refers to activities supporting development of both applications, the second column refers to activities that supported only the development of Eco-Plan, and the last column refers to activities specific to Eco-Plan Advanced. The differences between Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced are explained further in the table. ⢠Eco-Plan. Supports transportation planning by providing prepared maps of national ecological data sets that can be used to avoid and minimize transportation impacts. Users can review maps of national ecological data sets, find data and other useful GIS information, and upload or draw a planning area or transportation network. No GIS skills are needed to use Eco-Plan, and it is free to all users. ⢠Eco-Plan Advanced. A separate website hosted by Esri AGO provides all of the information available through Eco-Plan with additional capabilities. Users can add any data set to the prepared maps of national ecological data; set up groups to save, share, and comment on maps; and conduct GIS analysis and create reports. Eco-Plan Advanced requires GIS skills. Users can access Eco-Plan Advanced through free or paid accounts with different levels of accessibility. Not all of the functionality envisioned for Eco-Plan was in place at the time of the beta release. Input from the beta test would be used to prioritize and inform final development tasks. 2.5 Task 6. Testing 2.5.1 Objectives The purposes of testing Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced were to receive comments on the beta version and gather input on the usefulness of planned functionality. Specifically, feedback from testers would identify any modifications needed to improve the usability of Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced and inform the utility of ⢠Building search capabilities so that content could be found by using keywords. ⢠Incorporating ways for users to draw or upload a project on Eco-Plan. ⢠Providing an intersection tool to allow users to see what important data layers intersect with their project. ⢠Building the About and Help pages. 2.5.2 Methods Three groups participated in testing of Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced: (1) the user group described in Section 2.1.1, (2) the pilot teams described in Section 2.1, and (3) a separate beta test group that had no prior involvement in the development of the tool. The third group was established as a control, to see how a typical user who had no prior knowledge of Eco-Plan would approach and use it. The beta test group included multiple
21 individuals from North Front Range (Colorado) MPO, Charlottesville-Albemarle (Virginia) MPO, Alaska DOT, Rogue Valley (Oregon) Council of Governments (COG), and North Central Texas COG. Each test began with a brief, initial introduction to present the purpose of the tool and test. During this conversation, no instructions were provided on how to use the tool. After agreeing to participate, each testing organization was sent a testing plan (Appendix G) and testing script (Appendix H). The testing plan fully explained the purpose of the test, how feedback would be used, and expectations for the level of effort. The test scripts asked testers to conduct specific tasks and provide feedback about them. The testers were also given an opportunity to provide general feedback. The testing process was structured to test two different aspects of Eco-Plan: functionality and usability. Functionality testing served as a verification of the proper functioning of the system. In this test, the test scripts listed the steps testers need to take to successfully complete a task. Each step also described the expected result. Participants were asked to follow the scripts to perform a few tasks, mark whether the actual result matched the expected result, and record any difficulties, comments, or questions. A short questionnaire was included for participants to assess their overall experience and indicate how useful the content and functionality were. No moderation was needed. Participants were asked to complete this test within 2 weeks. The goal of the usability test was to determine how well testers were able to use Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced on their own, uncover any usability issues, evaluate the partici- pantâs satisfaction, and identify opportunities for enhance- ments. The test participant joined an online meeting with one moderator and one or more silent observers. Participants were asked to perform a few realistic task scenarios without any instruction and verbalize their thoughts. The moderator initiated tasks and asked probing questions to understand the testerâs perspective but did not provide assistance. 2.5.3 Test Results ICF conducted beta testing from February 1, 2013, through February 17, 2013. The testing consisted of both functionality testing based on a provided test script and usability testing based on high-level verbal instructions. The testing involved the three C40B pilot organizations, FHWA, four MPOs, and one state DOT. The full details and results of beta testing are included in Appendix I. Testers answered a questionnaire at the end of testing. Three of the questions asked users how satisfied they were with the ease of use, usefulness of content, and navigation. The results are generally positive and are illustrated in Fig- ures 2.5 through 2.7. The other questions were open-ended and asked for various feedback. Table 2.8 summarizes the responses per question. Dissasfied, 2, 12% Sasfied, 10, 63% Very Sasfied, 4, 25% Figure 2.5. Ease of Use question results. Neither, 3, 19% Sasfied, 8, 50% Very Sasfied, 5, 31% Figure 2.6. Usefulness of Content question results. Dissasfied, 2, 12% Neither, 2, 13% Sasfied, 8, 50% Very Sasfied, 4, 25% Figure 2.7. Navigation question results. 2.6 Task 7. Midcourse Briefing Before the release of the beta version of Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced, the research team participated in a midcourse brief- ing hosted by TRB in Washington, D.C. Other participants included FHWA, AASHTO, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the committee of experts overseeing this proj- ect, resource agencies, the pilot-test teams, and private GIS
22 Eco-Plan Count Relevancy of the theme maps to your transportation planning Relevant 11 Already use the data 1 Too coarse 1 Relevant but some issues 1 Confusing content or terms Yes 5 No 6 Initially confusing 1 What do you like most? Information and Data 6 Ease/Simplicity 4 Getting Started 3 Maps 2 Speed 1 Design 1 What do you NOT like? Theme maps 2 Map legend 1 Map search not working 1 Map gallery 1 Navigation 1 Additional content or function you want Different data 4 Add maps to ArcDesktop 1 More layers 1 Keep location across pages 1 Geoprocessing tools 1 Dynamic legend 1 Full-screen maps 1 How would you use this site? Preliminary scoping 6 Data 2 Overview for nontechnical audience 2 Wonât use 1 Eco-Plan Advanced 1 Eco-Plan Advanced Count What functions do you like most? Interact with maps and add data 7 Save own maps 3 Add own data 3 Data 3 Speed 2 Basemaps 1 Ease of analysis 1 What additional functions would you like to have? link accounts 1 Sketch or draw 1 Export layers 1 Additional symbology 1 Attribute tables 1 Default to my location 1 Create communities 1 How would you use Eco-Plan Advanced web application in your planning efforts? Share maps 3 Create maps 2 Upload data 2 Develop lRTP 2 Find areas of concern 1 Basic corridor planning 1 Browse layers 1 Are the differences between Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced clear to you? Yes 14 No 0 Maybe 1 Table 2.8. Summary of Responses to Test Questionnaire
23 providers. The purpose of the briefing was to share results and the planned direction for Eco-Plan and discuss implementa- tion scenarios. The event was used to inform Task 4 and will inform ongoing discussions about implementation of Eco- Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced. 2.7 Task 8. Final Version After beta testing, the team executed three additional devel- opment sprints. The final version of Eco-Plan included the ⢠Intersection tool ⢠Intersection API ⢠Other Tools section ⢠About page ⢠Help page ⢠Map updates ⢠Usability enhancements included accordion styling on Get Started, additional clarifying text through the site, and additional links Task 8 was the final development task of the project. The project did not include hosting a live, production version of the site. TRB and FHWA are investigating future ownership and hosting issues. Based on feedback during testing and the final state of functionality, the future owner may want to con- sider the following enhancements: ⢠Customize the default pop-up windows for each data layer. Most of the federal data layers publish the raw data, along with the original field labels. Most of the field labels and data are not clear and could be updated with more mean- ingful labels in the pop-up windows. ⢠Customize the symbology (symbols, colors, shapes), if possible. Many of the federal data sets do not allow the user to update the symbology. During user testing, many users complained that the symbology chosen by the data source did not look good or was confusing. For the few data sets that could be updated, the symbology should be changed to be more appealing and useful. ⢠Update the Data section to include interactive maps, instead of just the detailed information on the data set. This section was intended to be a resource for experienced GIS users to find information on authoritative sources of data, but many users wanted to be able to explore the data in a map right on the page. ⢠Determine a way to size the maps to full screen while still being responsive on mobile devices. ⢠Update the prototype intersection tool with additional data sets and coverage across all 50 states. During the proj- ect, the prototype intersection tool was only loaded with three major data sets (critical habitats, protected areas, wetlands) for seven states to conserve disk space during the interim hosting period. ICF estimates that 160 GB will be required to store data for all 50 states for the three data sets. The majority of the disk space required was for the wet- lands data. Of the 22 GB used in the prototype, 98% of the space was for wetlands. Additional space will be required to load other data sets. 2.8 Task 9. Final Documentation and User Guide The final task was to deliver this final report as documenta- tion of the methods used to develop Eco-Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced and as help to transportation practitioners wish- ing to use these tools. The next chapter of this report serves as a quick-start guide. Further help can be found by access- ing the tool.
