TCAPP and Integrated Ecological Framework Pilot Projects: Synthesis of Lessons Learned (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.

The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2013 www.TRB.org REPORT S2-C41-RW-1 TCAPP and Integrated Ecological Framework Pilot Projects Synthesis of Lessons Learned Cambridge SyStematiCS, inC.

Subscriber Categories Environment Highways Planning and Forecasting

SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 SHRP 2 Report S2-C41-RW-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-27311-4 © 2013 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for ob- taining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate ac- knowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new oppor- tunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant trans- portation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results.

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer for SHRP 2 Capacity. The summaries of the research and synthesized findings reported herein were conducted by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The primary authors for this study were Elizabeth Sanford and Virginia Smith Reeder of Cambridge Systematics, Inc. SHRP 2 STAff Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Rosalind Gomes, Accounting/Financial Assistant James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Michael Marazzi, Senior Editorial Assistant Linda Mason, Communications Officer Reena Mathews, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications/Media Associate

Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) is a web-based resource that offers guidance to agencies and practitioners on reaching col- laborative decisions as they work through the transportation planning, programming, and permitting processes. TCAPP also serves as a portal to other tools, including the Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF), which is a step-by-step approach to reaching consensus on environmental goals and identifying and protecting conservation areas. To test the premises of both TCAPP and the IEF, SHRP 2 conducted four pilot tests of TCAPP in the C18 proj- ect and four of the IEF in C21. This report presents an overview of the pilot studies, and it highlights and synthesizes key findings of the research. The main objective of the C18 series of pilot tests was to test TCAPP while it was still under development and to use feedback from the pilots to modify the product and enhance its usefulness to practitioners. The pilots tested TCAPP in four scenarios in Washington, Min- nesota, and Colorado. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) pilot used TCAPP to work collaboratively with stakeholders to successfully define Phase 1 of the I-5/SR 509 Corridor Completion and Freight Improvement Project. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) evaluated the ability of TCAPP to update the project prioritization criteria in its long-range transportation plan. The Minnesota DOT (MnDOT) used TCAPP to provide guidance on effective collaboration while developing a Complete Streets plan for the City of Grand Rapids. The Pikes Peak Council of Governments (PPACG) tested the applicability of the TCAPP process during its 2013 transportation planning update. The C18 pilots showed that TCAPP was helpful in supporting collaborative decision making and getting to decisions that stick. The pilot tests also showed how TCAPP can be adapted to the different needs of practitioners. To help transportation agencies with environmental mitigation, the SHRP 2 C06 projects—An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Vol- umes 1 and 2—developed the IEF, a nine-step process designed to bring about efficient, integrated consultation on natural resources that can inform transportation mitigation decisions. The C06 Guide to the Integrated Ecological Framework supports transportation planners and resource specialists in the use of a standardized, science-based approach to identifying ecological priorities and their integration into transportation decision mak- ing. The C21 series of pilots tested the IEF in Colorado, Oregon, California, and West Virginia. Each of the IEF pilots tested specific steps of the nine-step process. In the C21A pilot test of the IEF, Colorado DOT, Colorado State University, and numerous partners were able to bring conservation stakeholders and data together to generate a comprehensive vision for development. In the C21B pilot, the Rogue Valley Council of Governments used the IEF to identify high-priority national resource areas, to avoid impacts, and to select mitigation improvements for a section of US-20 in Oregon. The University of California, Davis, and the F O R EWO R D Jo Allen Gause, SHRP 2 Senior Program Officer, Capacity

California Department of Transportation teamed up to apply the IEF to a corridor planning study of Highway 37 in the San Francisco Bay Area in the C21C pilot. In the C21D pilot, the West Virginia Department of Highways and West Virginia University applied the IEF to two highways under construction in southern West Virginia. The C21 pilots found that the IEF is a useful process for guiding agencies through a multi- agency ecology-oriented effort in a state or region, and the diverse scope of the four pilots indicates that the IEF is applicable across a variety of scenarios.

C O N T E N T S 1 CHAPTER 1 Introduction and Purpose of the Synthesis Report 1 Philosophy and Overview of the SHRP 2 Capacity Program 1 TCAPP and IEF Pilot Projects 4 CHAPTER 2 Pilot Project Summaries 4 TCAPP Pilot Project: Washington State DOT 6 TCAPP Pilot Project: Puget Sound Regional Council 6 TCAPP Pilot Project: Pike’s Peak Area Council of Governments 7 TCAPP Pilot Project: Minnesota DOT 8 IEF Pilot Project: Colorado State University 10 IEF Pilot Project: Rogue Valley Council of Governments 12 IEF Pilot Project: University of California, Davis, Road Ecology Center 13 IEF Pilot Project: West Virginia University Research Corporation 16 CHAPTER 3 Findings 16 Context for Success 17 Benefits of a Collaborative Approach 19 Lessons Learned 21 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions 21 TCAPP Conclusions 21 IEF Conclusions 22 Specific Comments about TCAPP and IEF 23 Next Steps