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.

4C h a p t e r 2 tCapp pilot project: Washington State DOt Project Summary The Washington State DOT’s I-5/SR-509 Corridor Comple- tion and Freight Improvement Project is a capacity expansion project that includes three lanes in two directions [two general- purpose lanes and one high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane], and then 6 miles of widening on Interstate 5 to mitigate the traffic brought on by the extension. The project, if constructed, will improve access to the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and the Port of Seattle, alleviate congestion on local arterials, and stimulate economic development. At the start of the SHRP 2 pilot project, the preliminary design was complete, and a federal record of decision (ROD) had been issued in 2003. Since that time, several attempts at securing funding had failed, and legislatures and other local partners had deter- mined that a toll road would be needed to fund the project. In 2009, the state legislature directed the Washington State DOT to conduct a toll feasibility study. The study found that tolling would provide revenue as well as control demand, thus allow- ing for a scaled-down version of the project. Pilot-Tested Elements The goal of the Washington State DOT pilot test was to use the TCAPP tools to facilitate the process of bringing the stake- holders together to define Phase 1 of the project, inclusive of the tolling element. The following tools and techniques were tested during the course of the pilot project. Self-Assessment Tools Funding to test TCAPP enabled the Washington State DOT project team to work with stakeholders collaboratively to advance the SR-509 project by developing phasing options under the tolled condition assumption. Partners were defined as entities that provided a funding contribution to the project or are responsible for implementing a portion of the project. Partners include the Port of Seattle and the cities of SeaTac and Des Moines. As the TCAPP process steps were begun, the project team conducted an initial assessment to determine if the full range of stakeholder interests and perspectives were represented on the steering and executive committees. Based on the results of the assessment and ideas presented in one of TCAPP’s case studies, membership on the steering and executive commit- tees was expanded to include special interest groups and envi- ronmental resource agencies. Stakeholder Collaboration Assessment After every stakeholder meeting, the independent reviewer handed out a one-page paper survey modeled after the TCAPP partner collaboration. User Portal (Decision-Making Authority Definition) According to TCAPP, decision-making authority is the ability of stakeholders and the team as a whole to make key decisions regarding the project outcomes and to have those decisions respected and upheld by the agencies they represent and any other decision-making partners. Washington state law gives decisions related to tolling autho- rization and project funding to the legislature, and the State Transportation Commission sets toll rates and exemptions. Therefore, there were some limits on the ability of the steering and executive committees to make decisions. Decision Guide This pilot focused on applying and testing the tools and protocols for six key decisions developed under the Corri- dor Planning Guide (Figure 2.1). Since the SR-509 project’s Pilot Project Summaries

5Figure 2.1. TCAPP Decision Guide elements tested by the Washington State DOT (COR-4 through COR-9). environmental impact statement (EIS) and ROD were com- pleted before this effort, some of the key decisions did not apply to this project. For those decisions that do apply, the project team modified them slightly to better suit the project. Outcomes and Lessons Learned The Washington State DOT project team found the tools and guidance in TCAPP helpful for identifying and bringing the right people to the table, focusing those people on thinking about the right issues at the right time with the necessary information on hand, and monitoring the effectiveness of the process along the way. Specifically, the TCAPP program was useful in helping identify and involve the right stakeholders early in the pro- cess. Even though this process had been previously estab- lished and begun, the guidance allowed the project team to revisit the composition of their executive and steering com- mittees and to refine participation based on the new project context (i.e., the results of the project would be turned over to the state legislature for a decision about whether to advance the project as a tolled facility). The TCAPP guidance also helped the project team communicate with all partners regard- ing their decision-making roles and authority. These initial conversations helped avoid confusion and reduced the like- lihood that partners had unrealistic expectations of their own roles, as well as those of others. Ten key decisions were adapted to help the Washington State DOT team frame its process around the right set of stakeholder roles, decision-making questions, and data needs. They also found success by using the stakeholder collabora- tion assessment survey to monitor the effectiveness of their collaboration process. While this project did not experience open conflict among the stakeholders, it did have the potential to become a contentious project given the need to develop a plan for phased implementation of the originally adopted SR-509 proj- ect and different agenda of various interest groups. In addition, the lack of funding for the detailed analytical tasks that would normally have taken place for a project of this magnitude left the project team very resource-constrained and not always able to supply answers to stakeholder questions about the impacts of different design decisions on their specific interests. TCAPP provided a good framework for working within this project context. Using the TCAPP structure helped keep the project team on track. The collaboration assessments sup- ported the project timeline because they allowed the project team to quickly identify weak spots in their technical and polit- ical approach to the project. Performing the routine collabora- tion assessments actually provided several benefits, some of them unintentional. One of the unintentional benefits was that the survey and response process helped build trust between the stakeholders and the project team. The questions asked and the responses of the project team to those questions reassured the stakeholders that their issues were being taken seriously. The project team also was forthright in their delivery of informa- tion and relied heavily on stakeholder input to direct where the limited analysis budget was spent. When taken together, this approach gave the stakeholders belief that they had a signifi- cant say in getting the most important issues identified and answered to the best of the project team’s ability. At one point, it became apparent that the executive com- mittee and the steering committee had different perceptions of the project. The openness of information sharing under the TCAPP process was instrumental in helping identify these differences and encouraging the steering committee members to learn more about the issues and perceptions of their execu- tive committee counterparts. This information sharing led to the development of additional project information (a public survey questionnaire), which responded to those key executive

6committee concerns. The result was a considerably easier and more effective transition from the technical project analyses to communications needed at decision-maker levels—in this case, the legislature. TCAPP Pilot Project: Puget Sound Regional Council Project Summary Transportation 2040, the Puget Sound region’s long-range transportation plan (LRTP), was adopted in May 2010. The plan was approved by a large majority of the MPO board; however, some stakeholders were concerned about the plan content and approach. There also were concerns that local agency staff did not have sufficient time to brief their elected representatives before policy decisions were finalized. Based in part on these concerns, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) was directed, as a first step in the T2040 Implementa- tion, to revisit the methodology for prioritizing projects and programs within the long-range plan. The PSRC designed its SHRP 2 C18 pilot test to demon- strate the utility of the TCAPP tool in facilitating consensus- building among PSRC stakeholders on key decisions during the development of this new process for evaluating and pri- oritizing projects in the long-range plan. Pilot-Tested Elements The TCAPP pilot test was designed to test the self-assessment (stakeholder collaboration) tools and to use resources associ- ated with one key decision in the Decision Guide. The pilot test was initiated, in part, to demonstrate to stake- holders a commitment to collaboration. The PSRC staff was able to share the tenets of TCAPP with diverse stakeholders and introduce them to the collaborative underpinnings of the approach. To help determine the potential for successfully pursuing this collaboration, PSRC also employed the TCAPP Stakeholders Collaborative Assessment Tool as a means to gauge readiness to work through differences to achieve consensus and progress. PSRC staff administered the assessment tool to the Regional Staff Committee (RSC) at the beginning of the prioritization update process and after the process was completed. In addition to using TCAPP to demonstrate that an open and transparent process would be used, the PSRC project used the tools contained within Long-Range Planning Key Decision 3 (LRP-3) to facilitate enhanced collaboration among members of PSRC advisory and elected committees in policy making, establishing goals, values and performance measures, and implementation (Figure 2.2). Pilot testing the TCAPP frame- work presented an opportunity to broaden stakeholder involve- ment during this process. Outcomes and Lessons Learned One important and enduring achievement of the Transporta- tion 2040 Prioritization Process pilot study was facilitating the stakeholders’ understanding that the process did not have a predetermined approach and that the MPO staff was making an honest and transparent effort to engage with stakeholders, incorporate their feedback and, if needed, change direction on the basis of their input. In addition, the collaboration assess- ment tool helped PSRC staff, as well as the RSC, achieve a greater understanding of the necessary underpinnings of an effective collaboration process. Use of the tool helped set a tone and atmosphere within which stakeholders felt comfort- able in providing frank and useful input and feedback during the course of the prioritization process update. TCAPP Pilot Project: Pike’s Peak Area Council of Governments Project Summary The Pike’s Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG), which serves a metropolitan region of more than 600,000 people, is noted for its traditionally conservative views, which have heavily influenced transportation planning considerations. As the designated MPO for the Colorado Springs Urbanized Area, PPACG applied for this pilot study with the objective of testing the applicability of the TCAPP process in the development of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and integrating sev- eral tools to provide rigorous, defensible analyses to broaden the plan inputs to include other considerations, such as envi- ronmental context and land use. Pilot-Tested Elements Self-assessment tools were central to the PPACG pilot test. Par- ticipants in the process took the collaboration self-assessment before beginning plan development. PPACG put considerable effort into recruiting nontrans- portation agency stakeholders. This recruitment included writ- ing formal invitation letters to the agencies to help support Figure 2.2. TCAPP Decision Guide elements tested by PSRC (LRP-3).

7and justify their participation within their agency. Every- one interviewed for this evaluation commented that the IEF/ Eco-Logical concept helped bring the environmental staff into the process. For instance, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) participated in the PPACG planning process this year for the first time ever. That kind of participation by natu- ral resource agencies was the first that one USFWS employee had seen in his 30-year career. Similarly, the PPACG team tested the capability for inter- agency collaboration in transportation planning within the MPO. During the course of the project, some agencies revealed that they were involved not only in doing a “test” of the TCAPP website but also in some TCAPP-sponsored “collaboration training.” The project team then tested Decision Guide elements for long-range planning, including development of a timeline that embedded within it all the TCAPP Decision Guide steps that were used to monitor progress and evaluate success (Figure 2.3). In addition, PPACG used the IEF to assist in a general way with integration of ecological considerations into the PPACG trans- portation planning effort. Outcomes and Lessons Learned Since PPACG’s transportation planning process is trying to better account for the needs and desires of agencies that affect, or are affected by, transportation investments, PPACG formally requested and received participation in the TCAPP-supported process from local, state, and federal agencies that have not tra- ditionally participated in regional transportation planning. It is hoped that this will create a paradigm shift because the process used to plan for transportation has traditionally been driven by limited perspectives derived exclusively from within the transportation industry. However, the self-assessment tools were not as helpful as PPACG staff had hoped. It was difficult for the planning team to analyze the results of this assessment as it required fairly difficult processing by interviewees. It also became apparent during the self-assessment that the decision-making authority and role identified for local municipalities were problematic. While the staff is generally covered under the MPO role, most of the local staff in the PPACG region felt some level of insult at not having a differentiated role. They pointed out that there is no way that the MPO board would force a project on the staff that they have not asked for. From the initial use of the stakeholder self-assessment tools, there was difficulty getting local entities engaged and inter- ested in collaboration. Local planning staff communicated that they are significant decision makers in the transportation planning process and did not believe that this fact was reflected on the website descriptions. A general consensus of people involved in the project was that the TCAPP “materials were good” and that it was a “very good process” but that “some people are obviously not ready for it yet.” These comments came in response to stakeholder feedback and refusal to fol- low some of the steps suggested, preferring instead to follow the traditional approach that let local municipalities set the transportation project priorities. TCAPP Pilot Project: Minnesota DOT Project Summary The Minnesota DOT pilot project used TCAPP to guide col- laborative planning activities in the development of a Com- plete Streets plan for the city of Grand Rapids, Minnesota. The objective of the planning process was stakeholder consensus on the plan outcomes and financial feasibility. The goals of the project were to plan for a more balanced transportation sys- tem that integrates all modes (i.e., transit, freight, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian); to address the specific needs of sys- tem users of all types, ages, and abilities; and to promote broad public benefits, including physical activity, environmental quality, and quality of life for citizens and visitors. TCAPP identifies partners as those parties with a decision- making role at one or more points in the transportation plan- ning process. These decisions are fiscal or legal, or both, in nature. Partners for the Complete Streets planning process were the city of Grand Rapids, Itasca County, the Minnesota DOT, and the Federal Highway Administration. The Minnesota DOT pilot project was helped by the fact that partners shared many of the same values and a common Figure 2.3. TCAPP Decision Guide elements tested by PPACG (LRP-2–LRP-8).

8vision of their city. The project team was confident that an innovative application of the TCAPP planning process would ultimately result in an agreed-upon plan. This starting point of shared vision allowed the team to focus primarily on the value and effectiveness of TCAPP in a context in which participants have different specific interests, but mostly are inclined to want to work together to achieve a common objective. Pilot-Tested Elements The self-assessment tools were used by the Minnesota DOT pilot project, specifically two applications of the TCAPP Collaboration Assessment. The pilot project more broadly focused on the Decision Guide, including eight “key decision files” of the TCAPP deci- sion tool, mostly from the corridor planning (COR) phase, but also from the long-range planning (LRP) phase, as detailed in Figure 2.4. Outcomes and Lessons Learned The greatest and most lasting outcome from applying the TCAPP model is the creation of a venue for continued dialogue and collaboration, which revealed new and creative solutions to the partners and stakeholders in the project. The TCAPP tools provided valuable guidance on effective collaboration techniques with the community that was instrumental in developing alternatives beyond traditional highway improve- ments. Applying the TCAPP tools helped identify multimodal options, additional enhancement features, and innovative solutions that were critical to developing a successful Complete Streets plan for the city of Grand Rapids. One of the more enlightening and unanticipated insights that the team discovered by using the TCAPP model was the recognition that collaboration and partnerships are not only needed among organizations, but within them as well. The large, decentralized nature of the Minnesota DOT, which led to decision-making authority being placed in multiple offices at multiple locations, created a new opportunity for the project team to apply steps from the Decision Guide to intradepartmental decisions. IEF Pilot Project: Colorado State University Project Summary The Colorado DOT has been proactive in the development and adoption of innovative strategies to bring together natural resource preservation and transportation infrastructure devel- opment. However, as currently implemented, environmental considerations are not included directly in regional planning and are only starting to be considered at the corridor level. The Colorado State University (CSU) pilot project used the IEF to advance the practice of integrated planning by bringing ecological considerations into focus earlier in the planning process. The objectives of this project were to • Evaluate the operational feasibility of implementing these framework steps; • Deliver a set of products that can be used to support landscape-scale analysis of priority natural resources and mitigation options; and • Provide value-added data that Region 1 personnel can put to immediate use in project evaluations and other work. The Colorado DOT, supported by CSU, set out to answer the following questions with respect to the IEF: • How do we integrate these practices into current transpor- tation planning? • How can these practices lead to a better range of outcomes and mitigation options? • How can areas be identified that represent the optimal pri- orities for conservation and mitigation? • How can we use species models and improved wetland map resources to get better conservation outcomes? Figure 2.4. TCAPP Decision Guide elements tested by the Minnesota DOT (LRP and COR).

9• How might credit markets be employed to achieve conser- vation objectives? • How do travelers within project areas perceive natural resource values, credit markets, mitigation opportunities, and ecosystem services? • What is the operational feasibility of this process? For the study area, the project team selected the western por- tion of the Colorado DOT Region 1, encompassing the major- ity of Park County, west of Denver and Colorado Springs. This part of the state is home to highly traveled roadways, popular tourist and recreation destinations, and areas that are experi- encing rapid development pressures. The area also has a num- ber of environmentally sensitive areas, including irreplaceable wetland resources, federally listed threatened and endangered species, and key wildlife corridors. It contains many areas that have been identified as having high conservation values by the Nature Conservancy, Colorado Parks and Wildlife, Colorado Natural Heritage Program, Keep it Colorado, and others. The majority of transportation improvement proj- ects planned and scheduled for the study area fall under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) categori- cal exclusion process. The initial intent of the pilot was to use the data to evaluate programmed projects in the study area. However, the project team found that there were limited projects that were suitable for consideration in the study area. Instead, the team focused on looking for mitigation opportunities that could be used by the Colorado DOT as it proceeds with its transportation planning and project development. Pilot-Tested Elements This research was designed to test selected elements of the IEF Steps 2 through 6 (Figure 2.5). IEF Step 2: Characterize Resources The resource characterization focused on collecting and summarizing available spatial data pertaining to natural resources in the study area. The focus of this effort was on the development of new data, with the intention to greatly expand the level of distribution of species data. The final product is a composite map that highlights the highest pri- ority locations. IEF Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework The project team began creating the Regional Ecosystem Framework by constructing a biological Conservation Value Summary (CVS) using the species distribution models and wetland map created in Step 2. The CVS presents resource values and provides a summary of priority conservation opportunities. The project team then overlaid the infrastruc- ture information to view the current conditions. IEF Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects on Conservation Objectives In Step 4, the project team developed methods to evaluate the impacts of various types of land use (including trans- portation effects) on resource conservation objectives iden- tified in the CVS. This work involved the construction of a landscape integrity map representing cumulative impacts to the natural landscape resulting from anthropogenic activi- ties. This model also served as one of two alternative cost layer inputs for the optimization analysis discussed under IEF Step 5. IEF Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Options for Offsetting Impacts For Step 5, the project team considered three methods for conducting the analysis: 1. The Colorado DOT Shortgrass Prairie Initiative approach; 2. An alternative scenario analysis based on State Transpor- tation Improvement Program (STIP) project areas; and 3. A conservation network optimization model. The optimization model proved to be the most robust analysis, with the greatest potential for meeting project goals. Therefore, CSU decided to use the software tool Marxan (version 2.43) to create a conservation network optimiza- tion model. Through this analysis, CSU identified trade-offs between resource conservation and transportation objec- tives and displayed results with the least amount of land value and landscape degradation cost. Figure 2.5. IEF steps tested by Colorado State University (Steps 2 through 6).

10 IEF Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategies To develop a crediting strategy for conservation targets and address Framework Step 6, CSU first conducted an ecosystem services assessment to answer descriptively the following three questions: 1. Which ecosystem services of interest are most likely to be impacted, positively or negatively, by transportation projects? 2. Do wetland mitigation banks, conservation banks, or other markets already exist for ecosystem services likely to be affected? 3. In cases where markets for affected ecosystem services do not exist, what approaches are available from projects in other regions that could inform the development of mar- kets to serve the needs of the Colorado DOT Region 1? In consultation with the Colorado DOT personnel, it was determined that the project would apply the IEF steps in the context of current and projected future projects, but not to one specific project. As such, CSU was able to identify the general types of ecosystem services that would be affected by projects in this region, though an individual project may only affect a subset of these services. This step was challeng- ing, since there were not enough tangible projects to use as test cases for the credit strategies. Outcomes and Lessons Learned CSU faced a number of challenges in the completion of this project, including • Difficulty collaborating with the regulatory agencies, which are often focused solely on permitting; • Maintaining relationships and institutional knowledge with partner agencies as people move on; • Planning fatigue among partner agencies; and • Identifying appropriate partners. The project team identified the following challenges and needs specific to the IEF: • A simple way to explain the IEF is lacking. • There is a need for a standard agreement guide on how to implement the process. • Without one main project to evaluate, the IEF was limited in application. Smaller projects are the bulk of the Colorado DOT’s work these days, so this application is important. • Success is dependent on the data, and good data are not always available. • The high-level analyses that the IEF provides are useful, but will never provide the detail needed for permitting purposes. • The IEF is well suited for higher-level planning exercises, but to be fully integrated it also must work well at all lev- els of the Colorado DOT activities. The natural resource agencies will have to shift their focus away from solely per- mitting. More information about how to do this would be welcome. Despite these challenges, the project team felt that the out- comes of this process do add tremendous value for their state. The following were identified as possible next steps for the Colorado DOT, building on the work completed: • Completing a similar project on a larger scale to realize an even greater value-to-effort ratio; • Clarifying the relationship between the IEF and other Col- orado DOT agency initiatives; • Straightforward application of the IEF in a Colorado DOT corridor-planning context; and • Addressing the obstacles to collaboration among partner agencies (e.g., different geographic boundaries and plan- ning schedules). IeF pilot project: rogue Valley Council of Governments Project Summary The Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG) engaged in the C21 pilot project with the goal of improving the envi- ronmental and ecological data available to inform long-range transportation planning in the Rogue Valley, Oregon. The intent was to employ these data in the early stages of transportation project planning, as well as other related planning efforts (such as urban growth boundary reserve planning). The Oregon DOT is working to integrate environmental considerations more effectively into planning. With this proj- ect, the Oregon DOT is looking beyond environmental regu- lations and is taking a proactive approach to natural resource consideration and protection. The project study area included the Rogue Valley MPO, the Bear Creek Watershed, and the 2-mile buffer around the water- shed boundary. This region is a floodplain valley surrounded by the Cascade Range plateau to the north and east, and the Siskiyou Mountains to the south and west. The environmen- tally sensitive areas have been fragmented by uncoordinated transportation and land use planning. More than 200,000 peo- ple call this area home, and the area is expected to increase its population by 30% over the next 30 years. Efforts to use biological and ecological data are challenged by the fact that local agencies are short on resources, but con- tinue to handle their own data libraries and geographic infor- mation system (GIS) departments. Each department uses a

11 different platform and map projections, making it impossible to create a “big picture of the area.” To guide the work, the project team established four objectives: 1. Gather and integrate all extant ecological and archeological data and create a data library available to all; 2. Analyze said ecological data to determine ecologically important areas (nodes) and link these nodes within and outside the valley; 3. Create a repeatable process; and 4. Evaluate SHRP 2 program tools. The project was guided by a stakeholder committee repre­ senting diverse interests and a technical committee of local resource experts. The final maps were created by using a sim­ ple raster calculator approach from Corridor Design. All data layers were weighted evenly, providing an output of cells that indicates the relative ecological importance of that area. Link­ ages between the areas of particular ecological importance were added. The existing transportation network and planned projects were overlaid to identify areas of potential conflict or concern. An original concern by the project team that the methodology would be too simple to be useful proved to be unfounded. Stakeholders have responded enthusiastically and have noted that the methodology provides a great value, while still being understandable to the public. The project deliverables included the data library of GIS shape files, the final report, maps, and a website. Pilot-Tested Elements The RVCOG team tested the first three steps of the IEF (Figure 2.6). Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Create the Vision The project team revised this step because many within the stakeholder group already had relationships from working on other projects, a situation that lent itself to the success of this project. In addition, the team noted that this process needs to happen naturally, through working together on something (and should not be set apart as a separate step). Finally, the memo­ randum of understanding step seemed to come too early in the process, before the partners were comfortable with the scope of the project. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status, Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans During the course of this step, the project team reordered the substeps a bit to fit their needs. This step also involved more data organization than was originally anticipated, requiring extensive stakeholder involvement and collaboration. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework During this step, the project team used the data layer to locate sensitive areas (e.g., archeology, historic preservation, eco­ logical), and this data layer was incorporated into a transpor­ tation plan. Having this data tool together already is helping agencies pair projects (e.g., new road construction with wild­ life crossings) and bring all stakeholder agencies with dis­ parate missions to see the bigger picture as they relate to goals and objectives. In addition, the project team reviewed TCAPP and its self­ assessment tools in a general way. The team noted that while the TCAPP website included much information, it also con­ tained a great deal of jargon with which resource agency staff members are not necessarily familiar. The self­assessment tools were helpful. The project team administered the stakeholder survey at both the beginning and end of the study period. The survey was not directly applicable to this particular stakeholder group, so some of the questions were not answered. However, the survey findings revealed that throughout the process the stakeholders became more comfortable with their role and with the level of communications. The results also indicated that stakeholders were finding value in the TCAPP website. Outcomes and Lessons Learned The RVCOG project team provided the following insights based on their experience: • Integration of this tool into the Oregon DOT practices was relatively simple due to the fact that the agency already is doing many related aspects. Assessing this situation before beginning a project is helpful in managing expectations and assigning resources. Adopting a completely new tool or process will always be met with a great deal of resistance. Figure 2.6. IEF steps tested by Rogue Valley COG (Steps 1 through 3).

12 • It is best to keep things simple. The original concern that the tool would not be sophisticated enough was alleviated because it is especially useful and a wide audience can understand it. • Flexibility is important. Each project is going to be differ- ent, so it is critical that the tools can apply across a range of applications. Potential users need to know this to under- stand that there are many possible uses for the IEF and TCAPP. • Data maintenance and ownership are ongoing issues, and guidelines for how to deal with these issues would be valuable. Personal relationships can go a long way in facil- itating successful access to data. IeF pilot project: University of California, Davis, road ecology Center Project Summary This project tested the IEF in the context of an environmen- tally sensitive corridor. The effort was completed through a partnership between the California Department of Transpor- tation (Caltrans), academics, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and resource conservation districts. The study area was defined as the Highway 37 Corridor, which traverses Sonoma County, between Solano and Marin Counties in Northern California. The corridor links the East and West San Francisco Bay regions and is heavily traveled by commuters, tourists, and truckers. The road passes through cities, areas with endangered species habitats, marshlands, and farmland. Flooding is a critical concern, particularly in the context of increasing sea-level rise. Caltrans is interested in working with partners to create a vision for this corridor that considers • Endangered species and their habitats; • Agriculture; • Increasing traffic; • Sea-level rise; • Increased transportation choices; and • Enhanced public access. To date, planning for this corridor has prioritized capac- ity expansion. The focus of this project was to broaden this thinking by the development and use of the IEF. The proj- ect team renamed the IEF the “Route 37 Corridor Context,” with the intent of including data inclusive of environmen- tal, transportation, agricultural, community, and economic considerations. The purpose of the Corridor Context is to foster among stakeholders a common understanding of and way of shar- ing the data regarding the complex issues in the region. The Corridor Context will include data on current conditions and on likely or desired future conditions. While there are no current projects proposed for this corridor, it seemed pertinent to begin understanding the complex set of issues now to be able to select the best alternatives during the proj- ect development and programming stages. The study was guided by input from a core team of partners. This group included members from several Caltrans offices (system planning, environmental, and maintenance), the Napa County Conservation District, the Southern Sonoma County Conservation District, the Sonoma Land Trust, and the Sonoma Ecology Center. This group was established through a formal, structured partnering agreement. Throughout the duration of the project, this core team engaged and received input from more than 100 individuals and organizations. To support this engagement, the core team created a project website to house project-related resources and other news. Pilot-Tested Elements Throughout the course of this pilot project, the team tested Steps 1 through 6 of the IEF (which the team renamed the “Corridor Context”) and general aspects of the TCAPP cor- ridor framework (Figure 2.7). Step 1: Build Relationships The project team found that this step served as an effective way of bringing partners together and having them voice their perspectives. The step brought this important group together and established the fact that there is a shared view that sea-level rise threatens the corridor. And, as the project team noted, this activity in reality continued well beyond this step and through- out the entire process. The greatest hurdle in pulling the stakeholders together was a difference regarding the time frame of projects. While trans- portation planners are used to thinking on a 30-year project horizon, other partners were concerned that if actions are not taken within the next 10 years, that there could be serious consequences. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status The project team used this step to consolidate the existing data and educate stakeholders about what is available. Data gaps (e.g., plans for sustaining local agriculture) were identified. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework Through the course of this step, the project team adopted the term “Corridor Context.” This concept values consideration

13 of community, transportation, environmental, and economic systems. The project team noted that the IEF as established is lim- ited in the topics that can be considered. For example, farm- land sustainability is of critical concern in this corridor, but is not part of the IEF. Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects Through this step, the project team worked with stakeholders to identify a range of possible scenarios to support objectives. The process identified the trade-offs of each scenario, both positive and negative (e.g., noise). It was challenging to have this conversation in the absence of any real project proposals, but was instructive for the transpor- tation planners to listen to the issues about which stakeholders are concerned. Regulatory agencies had a difficult time engaging in this dialogue, as they are only able to provide feedback in the con- text of a regulatory review. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions The project team looked at the combined ecological effects with transportation benefits and did determine that an elevated causeway would be the environmentally preferred alternative. However, in the absence of a real planning process, it was dif- ficult to define an alternative. It is hoped that these findings can provide a blueprint for stakeholders when the time comes to select a project alternative. Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy A similar strategy that had been previously developed by the University of California, Davis, was adapted to measure eco- logical benefits. Outcomes and Lessons Learned The following provides an overview of the insight gained by this project team through their experience with this pilot. • This effort provided funds to bring many partners together, including NGOs and resource conservation districts (who were compensated for their time). Without this funding, it is unclear whether these partners would have been willing to come to the table (as is typical with the Caltrans planning processes), thus compromising the collaboration and losing out on opportunities that were discovered. • District environmental and regulatory agencies are project- focused, so it was difficult to engage these partners when they were not looking at a specific project. • The pilot project provided the partners the time they needed to look at big-picture planning issues in more depth, with a greater range of stakeholders. Hopefully, this in-depth look will set the partners up well for better planning processes in the future, but it will be a challenge to repeat this level of effort due to lack of funding. • TCAPP provided a great planning resource, but was diffi- cult to use for those who were new to it and trying to under- stand it quickly. • In the case of this project, the time frame was quite far out in the future. There was no discussion in the tools about how to handle this time frame. IEF Pilot Project: West Virginia University Research Corporation Project Summary The West Virginia Department of Highways (DOH) is respon- sible for the maintenance and construction of more than 36,000 miles of roadway, which includes more than 6,000 bridges Figure 2.7. IEF steps tested by the University of California, Davis, Road Ecology Center (Steps 1 through 6).

14 and culverts. The associated water resources are an integral part of the state’s ecology and need to be considered appropri- ately in route selection. Traditionally, water resource impacts have been identified and dealt with after route selection and have not played a part in alternatives analysis. This pilot project is designed to assist with the West Virginia DOH’s desire to create a systematic approach to waterway mit- igation, one that will lead to compensatory mitigation projects while meeting the needs of the regulatory agencies and their planning and permitting processes. The pilot project followed the guidelines established in the IEF to analyze these existing methodologies and to develop new ones as necessary. The project objectives were to • Assess the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these tools as feasible proactive mitigation, conservation, and planning steps; • Work with the mitigation Interagency Review Team (IRT) and partners to modify and adopt tools suited for West Vir- ginia and implement a plan to incorporate these tools into new streamlined regulatory guidance; and • Provide detailed guidance and review, so that other states can efficiently adopt appropriate SHRP 2 tools. As study areas, the project team selected two highways cur- rently planned and under construction: the Coalfields Express- way (CFX) and King Coal Highway (KCH). They both traverse challenging topography and will replace state roadways. The alignment for both roadways already has been selected, but the project team used alternatives identified in the EIS doc- uments to backcast and test their tool to determine whether, if used, the tool would have led to a more informed roadway selection. In the process of testing the planning tools, the project team realized that the West Virginia DOH does, in fact, have some advanced planning tools. However, the DOH lacks the ability to aggregate and analyze uniform information to frame a watershed approach. For example, impacts on a poor quality stream should logically lead to a lower mitigation cost (and, therefore, be prioritized over streams with higher quality). But until now, the agency has not evaluated stream quality. The final output of the project is a regulatory-approved “recipe” that will allow the West Virginia DOH to forecast eco- logical impacts, avoid and minimize the most sensitive envi- ronmental resources, and achieve meaningful ecological lift in its required compensatory mitigation activities. Pilot-Tested Elements Through the course of the pilot project, the project team con- sidered both the IEF and the TCAPP website for use in assist- ing the team in their process. However, perhaps the most valuable outcome was that this pilot-project funding brought together stakeholders with different resource expertise (e.g., wetlands, endangered species, watershed mitigation). This allowed the West Virginia DOH to weave together the exist- ing tools to create a multilayered approach that works across disciplines. Integrated Ecological Framework The project team used the first five steps of the IEF to frame the approach to watershed mitigation (Figure 2.8). While the project team found the steps to be clearly defined and well organized, the team found that when engaging with stake- holders, it was very challenging to adopt a new and unfamil- iar process. In addition, it was determined that the other SHRP 2 research tools were not a good fit for the effort; it made more sense to adopt tools that had been developed locally for the specific geographic region, or to work with the existing data platforms. Therefore, the team provided no commentary on the specific work they conducted in Steps 1 through 5 of the IEF. Outcomes and Lessons Learned The process undertaken by this pilot-project team led to the conclusion that while the IEF steps began to define a process, this was not the best course of action to follow. For the West Virginia DOH, it made more sense to work within existing channels and use existing tools to arrive at a solution to the established problem. However, through this process, the proj- ect team did identify ways in which the TCAPP website could better support agencies with this particular need: as a reposi- tory for preferred regional tools. Figure 2.8. IEF steps tested by West Virginia University Research Corporation (Steps 1 through 5).

15 The following is a list of lessons learned related to these findings: • In many instances, it is critical to work within existing chan- nels and to leverage that knowledge and processing. This approach can be more effective and can lead to a higher probability of acceptance and success than trying to bring a new process and achieve multiagency buy-in (even if the process is an improvement). Just saying “we have a new tool” can make people run the other way. • Leveraging agency cooperation is the best way forward. For example, the West Virginia DOH has an existing memorandum of understanding with USFWS to share the state’s natural resource agency data. This partnership has saved both agencies significant money. • Working with a neutral agency (in this case, a university) provided a good forum for bringing the DOH and the natu- ral resource agencies together. • There is a need for 44 Regional tools; 44 Consistent data sources; 44 Consistent best management practices; and 44 Consistent environmental training for contractors and employees.