Assessing and Comparing Environmental Performance of Major Transit Investments (2012)

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.

J-1 Appendix J – Indicators of Ecological Impacts of Land Development This section discusses how land development – whether occurring in response to a transit project or highway investment or other factors – can lead to various environmental and ecological consequences. Table J.1 provides examples of the range of ecological/ environmental factors affected by various land development activities. The section then discusses how various land development patterns may have different effects on ecological impacts. For example, how would the impacts of a transit project that encouraged infill and redevelopment of existing built-up areas compare with the impacts of projects that encouraged low-density development on greenfields sites? Following that is a discussion of the extent to which an assessment of ecosystem protection plans can substitute for an analysis of impacts. Finally, a list of references is provided. While some environmental impacts of land development can be generalized (e.g., amount of land lost due to x units of development at y units per acre), in most cases, the environ- mental impacts of land development tend to be site and design specific. For example, it is impossible to say that 40 acres of suburban single-family development produces a partic- ular impact on water quality or habitat fragmentation. One needs to know both the details of the design of the development and the natural characteristics of the area in which it is located. This poses a fundamental challenge to assessing the environmental performance of transit investments (or any transportation investment), since it is difficult to know the specific nature of any land use changes that occur in response to the project.

J-2 Table J.1 Environmental and Ecological Impacts Related to Land Development Performance Category Key Measures Data Needed to Measure Impact Specific Metrics Related to Measure Ecosystem, Biodiversity, and Habitat Loss of Habitat • Species of concern (e.g., statewide listed endangered or threatened species); • Habitat areas used by species of concern throughout their life cycle; • Functional value of each identified habitat area for each species; • Size of habitat areas; • Location of habitat areas; and • Project location data. • Acres of fragmented or threatened habitat in the state or region; • Change in number of acres of a specific habitat; • Change in composition and structure of habitat; • Change in the amount of habitat edge; • Change in the acreage of interior habitat; • Distance of habitat fragments from each other; • Preservation of high-quality wildlife habitat (wetlands, old-growth forest, etc.); • Number of projects that protect sensitive species or restores habitat; • Number of acres of priority conservation areas acres protected annually; • Sustained population ecology (increased size and density of species, balanced age and sex structure, reduced mortality, new growth, etc.); and • Population size of indicator species. Loss of Native Plants • Area of native plant communities; • Acres of predicted disturbance; and • Native vegetation appropriate to the context. • Change in health and diversity of native plan community; • Change in acres of native plants relative to nonnative plants; • Change in acres of invasive plants within highway corridor right- of-way; • Percent of native vegetation preserved; • Number of acres with newly planted native plants; • Acres sprayed with herbicide; • Total square feet of noxious weed infestation, per 0.10-mile section; and • Total square feet of nuisance vegetation, per 0.10-mile section.

J-3 Table J.1 Environmental and Ecological Impacts Related to Land Development (continued) Performance Category Key Measures Data Needed to Measure Impact Specific Metrics Related to Measure Water Quality Water Quality Protection Areas • Groundwater protection areas; • Source water protection areas; • Areas draining into water bodies with Total Maximum Discharge Limits (TMDL) or appearing on the 303d impaired water bodies list; • Areas identified for protection in watershed and water resource management plans; and • Location of receiving water bodies; pollutant load coefficient. • Degree of intrusion of transportation infrastructure into water quality protection area; • Proximity of transportation projects to receiving waters; • Proximity of transportation projects to water bodies with established TMDLs; • Change in pollutant loadings for nutrients; • Expected pollutant emissions from construction and operation of new transportation infrastructure; and • Percent of water samples collected that meet state quality standards for clarity when working in water. Hydromo- dification • Preproject physical/hydrological characterization of receiving water body and associated riparian areas; and • Coefficients for estimated pollutant load due to anticipated hydromodification from the project. • Extent of modification of a water body as a result of new capacity investment (significant, minor, none); • Change in sediment load (predicted or observed); • Change in nutrient load (predicted or observed); • Change in temperature (predicted or observed); • Change in velocity on receiving water body (predicted or observed); • Degree of stream bank and shoreline erosion (predicted or observed); and • Number of culverts retrofitted for fish passage, number of barriers removed at major construction projects.

J-4 Table J.1 Environmental and Ecological Impacts Related to Land Development (continued) Performance Category Key Measures Data Needed to Measure Impact Specific Metrics Related to Measure Loss of Riparian and Floodplain Areas (continued) • Area, quality, and functioning of riparian area affected by project; and • Coefficients for estimated pollutant load due to proposed changes. • Change in acres of riparian areas; • Acres of riparian areas disturbed or degraded; • Acres of riparian areas improved; • Change in ecological function of riparian areas impacted by a capac- ity investment; • Amount of watershed improvement achieved after five or more years through appropriate measures; and • Acres of open space land protected from development. Water Quality Standards Compliance • Identification of receiving waters; • 303(d) list of impaired waters; • TMDLs for receiving waters; and • Coefficients for predicted pollutant loading. • Project TMDLs and water quality standards for specific water bodies; • Available pollutant loads prior to exceeding allowable thresholds; and • Average pollutant concentrations of various metals, suspended solids, and toxic organics in road runoff. Impervious Surface • Impervious surface or land use GIS data layer; and • Estimates of induced growth. • Increase in impervious surfaces due to direct facility construction; and • Increase in impervious surfaces due to development induced by facility construction. Wetlands Ratio of Wetland Acres Taken and Replaced • Section 404 permit field surveys or other sources of wetland data. • Annual acreage of wetlands destroyed versus wetlands created. Loss of High-Quality Wetlands • Federal, state, or local natural resource agency databases of wet- land quality or primary research. • Change in acreage of high-quality wetlands; • Expected change in ecological function of wetlands as a result of mitigation for capacity investments; and • Ecological value of wetlands impacted by a capacity investment.

J-5  J.1 Relative Ecological Impacts of Different Land Use Patterns There are many variables to consider as components of land use, including population density, types of uses (residential, commercial, transportation, mixed), patterns and distri- bution of uses (e.g., sprawl versus cluster), and site-specific activities (low impact). A basic breakdown of land use characteristics is as follows: • Density (population and development): − High versus low. • Spatial Pattern: − Sprawl versus compact (e.g., cluster); and − Infill (e.g., within existing urban context). • Design: − Low-impact development techniques (e.g., water management); − Mixed use development; and − Greenfields preservation. These are obviously not mutually exclusive and the interactions have varying environmental/ecologic impacts. Additionally, some of the direct ecological impacts of the above depend on a number of site-specific factors (e.g., climate, land form topography, biologic conditions). Varying land use characteristics affect habitat characteristics and quality, hydrology, soils, vegetation, species distribution, biodiversity, air quality, water quality, and human health. Some of these receive significant attention (e.g., endangered species under the Endangered Species Act), while others are less obvious and/or more difficult to assess. These impacts also are not easy to assess individually or indepen- dently. Table J.2, taken from Litman (2009), shows one approach to considering benefits (versus impacts) of various land uses.

J-6 Table J.2 Environmental Benefits by Land Use Category Land Use Category Air Quality Water Quality Ecologica Flood Control Recreationb Aesthetic Culturalc Economicd Wetlands High High High High High High High High Pristine Wildlands High High High Varies High High High Varies (e) Urban Greenspace High High Medium Medium High High High Varies (e) Second Growth Forest High High Medium High High Varies Medium Medium Farmland Medium Medium Low Medium Low Varies Medium Varies Pasture/ Range Low Medium Low Low Low Varies Medium Low Mixed Urban Low Low Low Low Varies Varies Varies High Highway Buffer Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low Pavement None None None None None None None Varies Source: Bein (1997), as cited in Litman (2009). a Includes wildlife habitat, species preservation, and support for ecological systems. b Includes hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing, hiking, horse riding, bicycling, etc. c Includes preservation of culturally significant sites and traditional activities such as harvesting resources. d Includes economic benefits to people who do not own the land, such as tourism, fishing, and hunting. e Reflected in tourism and recreational expenditures, increased adjacent property values, water resources quality and availability, and fisheries. The discussion below describes in more detail some of the land uses and their environmental/ecological effects. Sprawl and Cluster Development Sprawl is characterized by low-density development at the edges of cities and in rural areas. Cluster development is a form of (relatively) high-density development where buildings and structures are grouped together on a small portion of a site, leaving remaining land areas for open space, conservation, agriculture, recreation/parklands, and public and semipublic uses. Clustering avoids the impacts commonly associated with sprawl by reducing individual lot sizes and shortening road and thus sewer infrastructure

J-7 lengths. Cluster development aims to concentrate development in areas already served by sewers and roads helping to reduce ecological impacts (Burchell, 1998). The Urban Land Institute (ULI) identifies the following “dysfunctions” of sprawl: • Indiscriminate and incremental use of open land; • Low-density residential “tract” subdivisions; • Land-consumptive strip commercial development; • Lack of connectivity among residential and commercial development projects; • Transportation systems that are exclusively auto-dependent; • Social homogeneity; and • Economic segregation. The literature recognizes that because sprawl spreads low-density urban development over a wider area than more compact or cluster land use patterns, more land is consumed, generally causing fragmentation of contiguous greenspace and wildlife corridors; loss of natural habitats (i.e., riparian corridors and wetlands); and increased prevalence of non- native, invasive plant and animal species (Heimlich, 2001). Analyses of development impacts on ecologically sensitive lands have found that planned (potentially cluster/ compact) versus unplanned (sprawl) development would reduce the consumption of these lands by almost one fifth (U.S. EPA, 2001). The impervious surface area of a clustered development site is often 10 to 15 percent less than that of more dispersed development and can – in some cases – result in 30 to 80 per- cent less disturbance of an entire greenfield site, without reducing the number of lots on a site (U.S. EPA, 2001). In a study comparing sprawl and clustered development on a tract of land in rural Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation concluded that cluster devel- opment would convert 75 percent less land, create 42 percent less impervious surface, and produce 41 percent less stormwater runoff (U.S. EPA, 2006). Compared with compact development, sprawl often results in a greater conversion of vegetation and permeable soils to concrete, asphalt, or residential/commercial structures with impervious surfaces. Sprawl can produce approximately 50 percent more storm runoff than compact development (Schueler, 1995). Urban fringe and rural areas often lack the infrastructure necessary to capture and treat runoff generated from impervious surfaces, which can lead to increased pollutant loads in rivers, lakes, and streams and degrade drinking water quality. A study in South Carolina found that low-density sprawl development generated approximately 40 percent more runoff, four times more sediment, almost four times as much nitrogen, and three times the phosphorous as compared to more compact development (U.S. EPA, 2006).

J-8 Infill Development As succinctly stated in the U.S. EPA’s Our Built and Natural Environment, “infill develop- ment occurs in locations where some development already has taken place and infra- structure already is in place.” Compared with other land use patterns, infill directs growth to urban cores by filling undeveloped or underutilized parcels of land. Although per acre impacts tend to increase with density, impacts per capita tend to decline (Arnold and Gibbons, 1996). The literature reports that compared to greenfield development, infill utilizes existing infrastructure (roads and parking lots), which helps to reduce impervious surfaces and associated runoff (U.S. EPA, 2006). Roads and parking facilities have hydro- logic impacts, concentrating stormwater (potentially leading to increased flooding, scouring, and siltation) and reducing surface and groundwater recharge (lowering dry season water flow and potentially creating fish blockages) (Litman, 2009). Paved surfaces also create heat island effects, causing potential increases in ambient summer temperatures, increasing energy demand and levels of air pollutants, while contributing to potential health effects from heat waves (Litman, 2009). A study completed by George Washington University indicates that one acre of infill development will conserve 4.5 acres of greenfields development (George Washington University, 2001). Brownfields redevelopment is an unique form of infill development, utilizing abandoned, idled, or underused industrial and commercial facilities complicated by real or perceived environmental hazards or consequences (U.S. EPA, 2006). Brownfields redevelopment, because it tends to be higher density, also tends to improve water quality. Brownfields sites tend to be redeveloped with urban densities, which are associated with lower runoff. Mixed-Use Development Mixed-use development locates land uses with complementary functions close together. Complementary uses may include housing, shopping, offices, restaurants, and movie theaters – any destinations that people travel to on a regular basis. Mixing land uses can prevent habitat loss and runoff by reducing impervious surfaces associated with new parking lots and transportation infrastructure. As a type of mixed-use development, tran- sit-oriented development (TOD) provides a mix of land uses (i.e., residential, commercial, and retail space) in the immediate vicinity of transit stops. TODs can benefit regional water quality by concentrating development and reusing previously developed land – thereby reducing development pressure on open space. Reuse of previously developed land often means accommodating new development without any increase in impervious surface or runoff (U.S. EPA, 2010).

J-9 Greenfields Greenfields, greenspace, or open space is characterized as having ecological attributes or being ecologically active and frequently includes wetlands, forests, farms, and parks. These lands can provide external benefits such as wildlife habitat, air and water quality, and beauty. These areas, when preserved in close proximity to urban/densely populated areas can provide the following social and ecological amenities (Litman, 2009): • Protect groundwater; • Protect wildlife habitat; • Preserve natural places; • Provide local food; • Sustain farming as a way of life; • Preserve rural character; • Preserve scenic quality; • Slow development; and • Provide public access. Relative Ecological Impacts of Land Use Patterns The following table attempts to summarize the relative ecological impacts of previously discussed land use patterns. The circles in Table J.3 indicate a ranking of ecological impact from the identified land use pattern and range from low (○) to high (●). Table J.3 Ecological Impact by Development Pattern Ecological Impact Development Patterns Sprawl Cluster Infill Mixed Use Habitat and Ecosystem Impacts • Imperilment of native and endangered species; • Degradation of natural habitat and biodiversity (i.e., native plant species, riparian corridors, and wetlands); and • Fragmentation of contiguous open space and wildlife corridors

J-10 Table J.3 Ecological Impact by Development Pattern (continued) Ecological Impact Development Patterns Sprawl Cluster Infill Mixed Use Water Quality Impacts • Alteration of natural flows from increased impervious surfaces; • Changes in hydrology and reduced groundwater recharge; and • Increased water pollution and nutrients (i.e., increased sedimentation and pollutant levels).  J.2 Assessing Ecosystem Protection Plans An alternative to assessing the ecological impacts of transit projects directly might be to assess the quality and strength of plans directed at protecting ecosystems. Plans also may be used for the purpose of identifying potential impacts related to transit projects and associated land development. There are many plans that have been developed for diverse purposes at a multitude of scales to address large area and site-specific ecosystem concerns. Most of these plans address needs of specific species and their habitat requirements, rather than broader eco- logical conditions. One primary challenge in using ecosystem protection plans is the level of resolution and availability of detailed spatial information about potential ecological resources. In many cases plans are accompanied by maps delineating conditions, gener- ally at relatively small scales. Some plans developed for purposes of wildlife manage- ment, watershed protection, and species recovery may be helpful for considering potential broad-scale transit impacts, but they are unlikely to eliminate the need to conduct site assessments for impacts. Some states have developed specific guidelines to help address concerns of biodiversity and ecological conditions in the face of increasing development (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009). Washington also recognizes the significant range of plans that may be available for assessing conditions – see Table J.4.

J-11 Table J.4 Key Washington State Natural Resource Agency Guidance Documents for Local Planning Agency Document Primary Focus Washington Department of Ecology Wetlands in Washington State, Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands (Granger et al. 2005) Wetlands Washington Department of Ecology Protecting Aquatic Ecosystems: A Guide for Puget Sound Planners to Understand Watershed Processes (Stanley et al. 2005) Watershed processes Washington Department of Transportation Enhancing Transportation Project Delivery Through Watershed Characteristics (Gersib et al. 2004) Watershed Processes and transportation mitigation Washington Department of Commerce Technical Guidance Document for Clearing and Grading in Western Washington (CTED 2005) Clearing and grading Washington Department of Commerce Critical Areas Assistance Handbooks (CTED 2003) Critical areas ordinance development and implementation Puget Sound Action Team Low-Impact Development – Technical Guidance Manual for Puget Sound (Hinman 2005) Maintaining hydrologic function Washington Biodiversity Council Washington Biodiversity Conservation Strategy (Washington Biodiversity Council 2007) Biodiversity conservation Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group Protecting Nearshore Habitat Functions in Puget Sound: An Interim Guide (Envirovision, Herrera, and AHG 2007) Nearshore develop- ment and habitat protection Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat Guidelines Working Group Land Use Planning for Salmon, Steelhead, and Trout. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (Knight, K. 2009) Consideration of sal- mon and trout in land use planning Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species Management Recommendations (various) Management recom- mendations for specific species and habitats Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Wildlife in Developing Areas (WDFW 2009) Wildlife in developing landscapes Source: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (2009). Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/ publications/00023/wdfw00023.pdf.

J-12 All states have had requirements, set by Congress, to develop State Wildlife Action plans to be eligible to receive funds through the Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and the State Wildlife Grants Program (Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies). These are considered comprehensive wildlife conservation strategies that assess the health of wildlife and habitats, identify challenges, and outline potential actions for conservation. In some cases, the level of detail included in these documents may be helpful to provide a preliminary understanding of potential ecological impacts based on changing land use patterns as may be affected by transit development. In some instances, agencies are organizing significant volumes of information, generally available digitally as part of agency GIS databases, including knowledge derived from plans. See for example, the Local Habitat Assessment (LHA) in Washington (Carelton and Jacobson, 2009). LHA uses four basic data layers, including Ecoregional Assessments, the Department of Fish and Wildlife Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) data, land use/land cover data, and a road network coverage, to develop scores that depict where valuable habitat exists, where natural vegetation is intact, where vulnerable concentrations of wild- life exist, where population pressures are significant, etc. Results of this analysis can be shown as a color-coded map to indicate wildlife habitat values across the landscape. Plans are developed for many purposes, with varying relevance to concepts of ecological conditions. Detailed inventories and accompanying spatial data bases that might be included in plans to address flora, fauna, endangered species, habitat requirements, dis- tribution, threats, and opportunities would all be helpful. Land use plans that have considered all species and ecosystem services and identified potential areas for develop- ment given these considerations would also be of use. But this type of planning is costly and seldom undertaken.  J.3 References Arnold, C. and James Gibbons (1996), Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key Environmental Indicator, American Planning Association Journal, Volume 62, Number 2, Spring 1996, pages 243-258. Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (accessed August 19, 2010). State Wildlife Action Plans. http://www.wildlifeactionplans.org/. Bein, Peter (1997). Monetization of Environmental Impacts of Roads. B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Highways. Brown, J. (2006). Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. Publication FHWA-HEP-06-011. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 96 pages at: http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp.

J-13 Carelton, John and John Jacobson (June 2009), Local Habitat Assessment: Habitat Analysis Techniques for Counties, Watersheds, and Other Planning Areas. http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/ publications/00734/wdfw00734.pdf. Doyle, K., J. Kostyack, B. McNitt, G. Sugameli, C. Whitaker, K. Whitcomb-Blaylock, J. Byrd, G. Stull, and B. Czech (2001). Paving Paradise: Sprawl’s Impact on Wildlife and Wild Places in California, Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation. Ewing, R., J. Kostyack, D. Chen, B. Stein, and M. Ernst, (2005). Endangered by Sprawl: How Runaway Development Threatens America’s Wildlife. National Wildlife Federation, Smart Growth America, and NatureServe. Washington, D.C., http://www.nwf.org/News-and- Magazines/Media-Center/Reports/Archive/2005/~/media/PDFs/Wildlife/Endangered BySprawl.ashx. Galster, George (2001). Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept. Housing Policy Debate 12.4: 681- 717, Fannie Mae Foundation. http://content.knowledgeplex.org/kp2/programs/pdf/proc_fairgrowth_galster.pdf. George Washington University (2001). Public Policies and Private Decisions Affecting the Redevelopment of Brownfields: An Analysis of Critical Factors, Relative Weights and Areal Differentials. http://www.gwu.edu/~eem/Brownfields/. Heimlich, R.E. and Anderson, W.D., 2001: Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 803, Washington, D.C., http:// www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer803/aer803.pdf. Litman, T. (2009). Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, Considering the Impacts, Benefits and Costs of Different Land Use Development Patterns. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Litman, T., (2008). Sustainable Transportation Indicators. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); http://www.vtpi.org/sustain/sti.pdf. Litman, T., (1995). Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts. Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); at www.vtpi.org/landuse.pdf.; originally published in World Transport Policy and Practice, Volume 1, No. 4, pages 9-16; http://www.eco- logica.co.uk/worldtransport.html. Northeast-Midwest Institute (2008). The Environmental and Economic Impacts of Brownfields Redevelopment, http://actrees.org/files/Research/nmi_brownfields.pdf. Robert Burchell, et al. (2002), The Costs of Sprawl – 2000. TCRP Report 74, TRB (www.trb.org); at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-a.pdf; http://onlinepubs. trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-b.pdf; and http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/ tcrp/tcrp_rpt_74-c.pdf. Robert W. Burchell, Naveed A. Shad, David Listokin, Hilary Phillips, Anthony Downs, Samuel Seskin, Judy S. Davis, Terry Moore, David Helton, and Michelle Gall. The Costs of

J-14 Sprawl – Revisited (Transit Cooperative Research Program Report 39, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council 1998), hereinafter The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_39-b.pdf. Schueler, Tom. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Center for Watershed Protection, Silver Spring, Maryland: 1995. State of Delaware, Department of Natural Resources. Air Quality and Sprawl, presentation by DNREC’s Air Quality Management Section, http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/ landuse/Documents/Air%20Quality%20and%20Sprawl.pdf. Stone, B. Jr., (2007), Urban Sprawl and Air Quality in Large U.S. Cities. Journal of Environmental Management, http://www.coa.gatech.edu/~stone/Publications%20folder/ Urbansprawlandairqualityinlargecities.pdf. U.S. EPA, (1999). The Transportation and Environmental Impacts of Infill Versus Greenfield Development: A Comparative Case Study Analysis. EPA 231-R-99-005, http://www.epa.gov/ smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_higher_density.pdf. U.S. EPA, (1999). Indicators of the Environmental Impacts of Transportation. Center for Transportation and the Environment; http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6300/6333/indicall.pdf. U.S. EPA, (2006). Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development. EPA publi- cation 231-R-06-001, http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/protect_water_ higher_density.pdf. U.S. EPA, Development, Community, and Environment Division, (2001). Our Built and Natural Environment: A Technical Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. Washington, D.C., http://www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/built.pdf. U.S. EPA, Low-Impact Development Center, (2000). Low-Impact Development (LID) Literature Review. EPA-841-B-00-005, EPA, Office of Water: Washington, D.C., October 2000), http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/lid/lid.pdf. U.S. EPA. Using SGI to Evaluate Transit-Oriented Development: Wilmington Area Metropolitan Planning. http://www.epa.gov/dced/topics/tod_case_study1-ES.htm (accessed April 15, 2010). Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2009. Landscape Planning for Washington’s Wildlife: Managing for Biodiversity in Developing Areas. Olympia, Washington. http:// www.wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00023/wdfw00023.pdf. Wildlife Policy Committee. 2005. Sprawl and Wildlife. Issues Paper, http:// www.fishwildlife.org/pdfs/Sprawl-Wildlife_05.pdf.