An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 (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.

72 A p p e n d i x C Approach to Testing C06B Technical Guidance Overview The Integrated Ecological Framework (hereafter Framework) will be tested with associated templates in three states: Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon. The research team’s general approach is to conduct the pilot tests as described here, but the analyses in each state will vary slightly based on the nature of the project, the data available in each state, and the tools used by the states for conservation and transportation planning. For example, in Colorado the team is doing the analyses on an entire metro- politan planning organization (MPO) region that involves multiple projects, which allows testing of the cumulative effects methodology in a large landscape context taking into account multiple potential impacts in an area. In Oregon, an ecological project has funded the development of predic- tive species range maps for listed species, and an U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) project has resulted in the development of priority mitigation sites, so the team will analyze how these data affect the decision outcomes. In Michigan, the team will test how using the Framework will affect the outcomes in an area where conservation priorities were not identified previously. In all three states, the team will be comparing data and out- comes from the original projects with outcomes using new and updated data and the methods outlined in the Framework. In this comparison, the team primarily will be looking at: • Direct impacts identified based on original data and methods versus the data and methods identified in the Framework. • Mitigation effectiveness based on the sites selected in the original project versus mitigation sites identified using data and methods identified in the Framework, and pre- dicted ecological outcomes at the different sites. • Cumulative impacts estimated from the original data and method versus the data and methods identified in the Framework for at least the resources targeted in the selected pilot site. The C06B Technical Guidance is broken up into nine dis- tinct steps with many substeps. Each pilot project tested the steps and substeps that were relevant to the project. The nine steps are • Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision; • Step 2: Characterize resource status; integrate conserva- tion, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans; • Step 3: Create regional ecosystem framework (conserva- tion strategy + transportation plan); • Step 4: Assess land use and transportation effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the REF; • Step 5: Establish and prioritize ecological actions; • Step 6: Develop crediting strategy; • Step 7: Develop programmatic consultation, biological opinion or permit; • Step 8: Implement agreements and adaptive management; deliver conservation and transportation projects; and • Step 9: Update regional integrated plan/ecosystem framework. General Approach to Testing the Framework Introduce Project to Natural Resource and Transportation Agencies Meet with state transportation agencies (DOTs), MPOs, and key state and federal agencies in the selected pilot states (Colo- rado, Michigan, and Oregon) to introduce the project and get initial input on areas in the state that meet the pilot project selection criteria (see Pilot Project Criteria and Requirements). Pilot Project Reports

73 2. Collecting, incorporating, or developing current ecologi- cal data for the area being evaluated, while if possible, including or developing predictive species distribution data and priority wetland data. When new data are used, evaluate their acceptance (via interviews or meetings) by the relevant regulatory agencies. 3. Reviewing previous analysis or analyzing data to deter- mine the terrestrial and aquatic elements and areas that will be included in the analyses. 4. Identifying and integrating land use and transportation planning information available spatially. 5. Considering the information in Appendix B, the Lists and Sources for Plans and Data for Regional Ecological Frame- works, when building REF. AnAlyze the ReF The REF will proceed through workflow templates beginning with the REF source inputs detailed above. A GIS decision support system (DSS) will provide the analytical functions to produce the outputs used for the following step (c). The templates used for the pilot projects provide a relatively sim- ple but highly robust and flexible approach to conducting regional cumulative impact assessment and the consequent development of alternatives and mitigations. The workflow is modeled on some of the core concepts of systematic conser- vation planning (Margules & Pressey 2000) and the use of GIS tools that automate a great deal of the technical GIS work necessary to carry it out (Sarkar et al. 2006). An important component of the GIS DSS approach to be used in the pilot projects is the application of suggested goal levels and indica- tors based on expert or stakeholder input. The templates developed by the C06B team depict the flow of information from source inputs to outputs used in decision making. It is important to emphasize that the workflow and supporting toolkit are decision support systems, not decision making systems, so the results require review and judgment in terms of how they should affect decision making. The Colo- rado and Michigan pilot projects will use the NatureServe Vista DSS, a free extension of ArcGIS 9.3. The Oregon pilot project will use ArcGIS 9.3 without NatureServe Vista. A cumulative scenario analysis focuses on land uses but can include management practices, natural disturbances, and so forth. Land use change is then analyzed using multiple scenarios: 1. A current or baseline scenario will describe current actual land use based on the best available data. The pilot proj- ects will attempt to identify land use conditions at the time the original project was started. 2. The original project scenario will include the long-range transportation plan or corridor plans associated with the original project. Select Site for Pilot Test Follow up with each pilot state to get more information about data available for the areas proposed in which to conduct pilot tests. Then an area can be selected in each state based on how well the area meets the pilot project selection criteria (see below), whether or not a sufficient amount of the spatial data from the original project are available digitally (in geographic information system [GIS], CAD, or similar format). Data Collection Collect all data used in the original evaluation of the project selected, including the original infrastructure footprint, final project footprint, biological data or other conservation data sets, environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA), record of decision (ROD), and other public concerns (noise, air quality, water quality, historic/cultural sites). The data available will vary among the pilot areas according to the concerns and capacity of each project. Run Pilot Test Choose An eCologiCAlly BAsed geogRAphiC BoundARy FoR the AnAlyses An ecologically based area considers the full extent that a spe- cies or habitat could be affected or considered for mitigation. The following are the steps to considering the full extent: 1. Identify the resources that intersect the project area. 2. For aquatic resources, include the watershed that is expected to be inclusive of stream reaches, wetlands, and other water bodies that could contain the connected populations of species involved. 3. Nest the watershed within an ecoregionally defined unit. The unit may be an aggregation of subdivisions of the EcoMAP or similar accepted ecoregion-based geographic map. In a manner similar to that used for the aquatic unit, the subdivisions to be included would incorporate the resources intersecting the project area and including the priority conservation areas from the regional ecological framework (REF) that contain those same resources and likely could serve as mitigation-receiving areas for affected resources. Adopt oR develop An ReF Follow the cumulative effects assessment and alternatives (CEAA) template methods for developing an REF or accepting a previously developed plan of conservation priority areas. This includes: 1. Identifying ecological resources to be considered in analyses and goals related to protection of those resources. Using ecological data layers and conservation plans.

74 2. Analysis of credit markets: The team will review DOT and non-DOT based markets for credits when such infor- mation is available; this will include §404 or Endangered Species Act (ESA) banking. 3. Recommendation based on future needs: The interviews with DOT staff will indicate upcoming regulated and non- regulated needs that crediting potentially could address. Tools and methods will be recommended to address these needs. Follow-up Meeting with Natural Resource and Transportation Agencies in Pilot States Set up webinar with the team’s transportation and natural resource partners from each state to review and discuss results of analyses and comparison with original project outcomes. Finalize Templates Make adjustments to template based on input from federal and state agencies in pilot states. Pilot Project Criteria and Requirements Scope and Scale • Capacity project with unavoidable ecological impacts—a measurable footprint change (required criteria); • Project includes preproject decision-making process (i.e., corridor or other planning level process took place before project was selected) (required criteria); and • Project has been completed within the past 5 years (highly desirable). Challenging Ecological Issues • Multiple types of habitats, ideally including wetlands and/ or streams in addition to other upland habitat types; habitats can be regulated or nonregulated; • Multiple types of species potentially affected by project; • Other key ecological or other water quality concerns; and • In-kind, on-site mitigation was not ecologically preferable but was required by regulatory agencies. Background Data • Ecological data and ecological goals for region (e.g., recov- ery documents); • Project design footprint information and mapping (required information); • Baseline environmental documents (NEPA documents, biological assessments, mitigation plans and permits, best management practices (BMPs) (required information); 3. An alternative scenario will incorporate REF data and be processed according to the proposed C06B framework templates. evAluAte Results oF test With oRiginAl pRojeCt outComes Compare the results of the analyses in Step 4b with the data and outcomes from the original project with a focus on direct and cumulative impacts and selection of mitigation sites. 1. Direct impact comparison: The C06B project team will evaluate whether using the Framework in evaluating the project area identified differences in the number, aerial extent, or types of natural resources, or more accurately identified the severity of the impact within the project area(s) than did the original project review under National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 2. Cumulative impact comparison: This aspect of the analy- ses includes looking at the project within a regional land- scape context or looking at the current and historic extent of habitats for potentially affected species and seeing how that compares with the results of the original project or planning in the area, such as more severe impacts or impacts to resources located in areas surrounding the project. 3. Mitigation evaluation: This aspect of the analyses will illustrate whether the Framework approach uncovered: a) more viable sites for mitigation (based on landscape context), b) sites with multiple conservation resource values, or c) sites that would provide greater contributions to other resources (i.e., water quality, priority nonregulated species) 4. Savings in time or resources: The C06B team will try to show how using the Framework would result in a more streamlined decision-making process. This analysis likely will require direct input from the natural resource and transportation agency staff of each pilot state. AnAlyze peRmitting, mitigAtion, And otheR CRediting oppoRtunities Step 4c will use compiled information from interviewees in DOT and with data collected in Steps 4a and 4b to evaluate the available crediting methodologies that may have sup- ported the project better. 1. Analysis of regulated resource crediting: The project team will review the measurement challenges in the per- mitting stages to understand other mitigation actions in the region that generate mitigation demand both within the agency and among other permittees. A key component is to understand where measures are a barrier for consul- tation or permitting.

75 ments or alternative routes considered; the corridor largely expanded existing infrastructure. The project’s EIS took 3 years to complete, and the final EIS was released in 2001. Two years later, the ROD was revised and signed (U.S. Department of Transportation et al. 2001). The project had affected designated critical habitat for the threatened Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM, Figure C.1) (Zapus hudsonius preblei), state pri- ority habitats, and wildlife linkages (U.S. Department of Trans- portation et al. 2001). The PMJM is a small mammal, approximately 9 inches in length, with large hind feet adapted for jumping, a long bicolored tail (which accounts for 60% of its length), and a distinct dark stripe down the back. CDOT, FHWA, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) negoti- ated an agreement in 2003 to restore and preserve approxi- mately 25 acres of PMJM habitat affected by the highway project. This acreage established the first conservation bank for the species, and habitat was restored to improve conditions for PMJM (Colorado Department of Transportation et al. 2003). Testing the Ecological Assessment Framework The Colorado pilot project tested only steps 1–5 and certain associated substeps of the C06B Technical Guidance. Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision 1a. Identify planning region The pilot project is located at the western edge of the Cen- tral Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregion (Neely et al. 2006). Before settlement by Anglo-Americans, the pilot project area was characterized largely by rolling plains and tablelands of short- grass prairie. Most of the region is now largely urbanized by the Denver metropolitan region. Conversion of the prairie to urban development and cultivated cropland has completely • Site photographs before construction (highly desirable information); • Orthorectified air photos of project area, ideally before and after the project (highly desirable information); and • Details of mitigation performed for the project (highly desirable information). Specific Challenges Experienced During Design and Permitting • Concerns related to project delivery, certainty (highly desirable information); • Agency and public concerns regarding assurances (highly desirable information); and • Budget and rough schedule for amount spent (time and money) on environmental analysis and compliance efforts (highly desirable information). Colorado pilot project Report Pilot Test Area Introduction A workshop was held on December 15, 2009, in Golden, Colo- rado, with attendees from the Colorado Department of Trans- portation (CDOT), Colorado Department of Natural Resources, EPA, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Bureau of Land Management, Pikes Peak Council of Governments (PPACG), and Pueblo Area Council of Governments (PACOG). Potential pilot project areas were discussed, and five different project areas were proposed by participants. These were quickly nar- rowed to three based on CDOT’s preferences and the availabil- ity of data on the project area: • Combined transportation projects in El Paso County (PPACG); • State Highway 9 Frisco to Breckenridge; and • South I-25 Corridor (combined improvements to I-25 and US-85). Application of the pilot project criteria and discussion with CDOT lead the team to choose the South I-25 Corridor, which is located between Colorado’s two major metropolitan areas, Denver and Colorado Springs. The project is situated in western Douglas County, part of the Denver MPO region. Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) facilitates coordi- nation and planning among the region’s governments and creates comprehensive land use/landcover data for the MPO region, an important component for a cumulative effects assess- ment. The project encompasses multiple transportation improvements: lane widening on both I-25 and US-85, con- struction of a frontage road, reconstruction or improvements to eight interchanges and overpasses, and the replacement of a railroad overpass on I-25. There were no significant realign- Photo courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Figure C.1. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei).

76 prairie, Rocky Mountain Gambel oak-mixed montane shrub- land, Southern Rocky Mountains ponderosa pine woodland, and Western Great Plains foothill and piedmont grassland. Dominant grass species include blue grama (Bouteloua graci- lis), western wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii), and buffalo grass (Buchloe dactyloides), whereas Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), juniper (Juniperus monosperma), and Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) are the most common tree species (Neely et al. 2006). Along streams, plains cottonwood (Popu- lus deltoides), thinleaf alder (Alnus incana), and willows (Salix spp.) are the common components of the Western Great Plains riparian community. The entire pilot area (Figure C.2) drains into the South Platte River, part of the Missouri River watershed. The river and its tributaries compose the bulk of the riparian and wet- changed the landscape of the pilot region. Most sensitive wild- life species have vanished from the landscape (e.g., sharp-tailed grouse), whereas others maintain a tenuous presence (e.g., elk, PMJM, and pocket gopher). The PMJM was formally listed as threatened under the ESA in 1998. Its decline has been largely attributed to loss and degradation of its habitat: well-established riparian areas and nearby prairie uplands (U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service 2003). Urban development, water development, flood-control activities, and agriculture are the major sources of habitat loss. The pilot project boundary encompasses a highly transformed and fragmented landscape. Much of the area in the South I-25 Corridor project is a foothills transition zone between the Shortgrass Prairie and the Southern Rocky Mountains. Dominant upland ecological community types are the Western Great Plains shortgrass Figure C.2. Location of the pilot project area boundary (red) and I-25 Corridor (purple).

77 County prompted the state and county to expand its infra- structure to accommodate the influx of residents, many of whom will need to commute into the metro regions of Den- ver and Colorado Springs for work. This growth significantly drives the land use and landcover of the project area, shown in Figure C.3. The I-25 Corridor plan does not include new or expanded roads planned by county or municipal authorities, and it does not examine the cumulative impacts of urban growth or other infrastructure improvements such as an expanded rail network. The research team used NatureServe Vista on an ESRI ArcGIS 9.3.1 platform. NatureServe Vista is a decision- support tool for incorporating resource information, espe- cially biodiversity, to define systematic conservation goals and alternate scenarios (NatureServe 2012). Step 2: Characterize Resource Status; Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans 2a. Identify the spatial data needed to create understanding of current conditions. 2b. Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the regional ecosystem framework. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of natural resource data and supporting priorities. Key dAtA sets And souRCes Although the South I-25 Corridor project affected only an area of western Douglas County, the projected wanted to put the project into a regional context that included the Denver lands areas in the ecoregion. Although riparian areas and wetlands represent just a fraction of the total area, they host a disproportionate number of flora and fauna. The I-25 Corridor area straddles the watersheds of Plum and Cherry Creeks. Both are particularly important as refuge for native species. Water from both streams is used for irrigation and drinking water for the communities of the pilot region. In contrast to many areas in the West, federal lands are a small component of the protected areas in the pilot region. This is the typical landownership pattern of Colorado’s Front Range, an area stretching from Colorado Springs north to the Wyoming state line. Areas under conservation easement, especially ranchland, provide habitat for many Shortgrass Prairie species when sound management practices are applied. The Cherokee Ranch, a historic ranch in the South I-25 Cor- ridor, is one of the largest conservation easement proper- ties in the region. The makeup of the protected area network reflects local citizens’ commitment to invest in protected areas and open space. The Colorado pilot project region encompasses the east- ern half of the DRCOG service area. DRCOG is the regional government entity charged with fostering cooperation among county and municipal governments in the Denver metro- politan area. The transportation projects included in CDOT’s South I-25 Corridor are almost entirely within western Douglas County, a rapidly urbanizing region. Located between Colo- rado’s two largest metropolitan areas, Denver and Colorado Springs, Douglas County has experienced tremendous urban growth. During the 1990s it was the fastest growing county in Colorado and one of the fastest growing counties in the nation, its population almost tripling from 60,000 to 176,000 people. Such extensive population growth in and around Douglas Figure C.3. Simplified landcover and land use classification for pilot region (in acres).

78 2. What were the results (address direct and cumulative impacts, selection of mitigation sites, and other results)? The spatial data needed to create understanding of current or baseline conditions were obtained from existing sources. The research team relied on previous studies and research from local, state, and federal authorities to inform its under- standing of the landscape. The data needed would reflect the current land use, future land use, and biological or ecological priority areas. Land use data were obtained from DRCOG and CDOT. Natural resource data (See Table C.1) were obtained from a variety of sources described in the next substep. CDOT requires the 20-year transportation plan include expected environmental, social, and economic impacts of the recommended transportation network, including an objective evaluation of a full range of alternatives to balance transportation needs and environmental needs in a safe and metropolitan region. The DRCOG MPO boundary spans two very different ecoregions: to the west are the forested, moun- tainous areas of the Southern Rockies, whereas to the east are the major urban areas and remaining fragments of the Short- grass Prairie. These ecological differences plus the opportu- nity to examine the South I-25 Corridor within the context of the MPO region shaped the decision to clip the project bound- ary to the Shortgrass Prairie portion of the MPO project area. This gave the team the distinct advantage of accessing the data produced by DRCOG, which allowed not only the capture of changes in transportation impact on species and ecological functions at a landscape scale but also those regarding urban growth and other planned infrastructure. 1. How was this step addressed (which sections of this step were addressed, did the team follow the guidance as written or make adjustments because of data gaps or other factors)? Table C.1. Natural Resource Spatial Data Incorporated into the South I-25 Corridor Project Name Alternate Name Element Occurrences (19 elements) American yellow lady’s slipper Cypripedium calceolus ssp parviflorum Ottoe skipper Hesperia ottoe Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapillus Plains sharp-tailed grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus jarnesi Prairie goldenrod Unamia alba Prairie violet Viola pedatifida Preble’s meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius preblei Richardson alum root Heuchera richardsonii Rocky Mountain sedge Carex saximontana Bells twinpod Physaria bellii Black-tailed prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus Colorado butterfly plant Oenothera coloradensis ssp. coloradensis New Mexico cliff fern Woodsia neomexicana Northern pocket gopher Thomomys talpoides cacrotis Northern redbelly dace Phoxinus eos Moss elfin Callophrys mossii schryveri Mottled dusky wing Erynnis martialis Hops feeding azure Celastrina humulus Fork-tip three-awn Aristida basiramea Natural Community (24 elements) Foothills Ponderosa pine savanna Pinus ponderosa, Muhlenberghia montana woodland Foothills ponderosa pine scrub 2 Pinus ponderosa, Quercus gambelii woodland Foothills ponderosa pine scrub woodlands Pinus ponderosa, Cercocarpus montanum (continued on next page)

79 Coyote willow mesic graminoid Salix exigua, mesic graminoids shrubland Freshwater emergent wetland Freshwater emergent wetland Freshwater forested shrub wetland Freshwater forested shrub wetland Freshwater pond Freshwater pond Great Plains mixed grass prairie Hesperostipa comata, Colorado front range herb vegetation Lake wetland Lake and pond wetlands Mixed foothill shrublands Danthonia parryi herbaceous grasslands Mixed mountain shrubland Quercus gambelli-Cercocarpus montanum/Carex geyeri Montane grassland Danthonia parryi herbaceous vegetation Montane riparian willow carr Salix monticola mesic forb shrubland Montane wet meadow Carex pellita herbaceous vegetation Mountain Muhly herbaceous vegetation Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation Narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forests Populus angustifolia,-Salix exigua woodland Other wetland type Other Peachleaf willow alliance Salix amygdaloides woodland Plains cottonwood riparian woodland Populus angustifolia/Symphoricarpos occidentalis Riverine wetland Riverine wetlands Strapleaf willow, coyote willow Salix exigua, Salix ligulifolia shrubland Thinleaf alder forb riparian shrub Alnus incana mesic forb shrubland Xeric tallgrass prairie Andropogon gerardii, Spirobolus heterolepis Xeric tallgrass prairie 2 Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium scoparium Priority Areas (16 elements) Priority Conservation Area (PCA)a all other PCAs Other Colorado Natural Heritage Program (CNHP) priority conservation area PCA Newlin Gulch Newlin Gulch priority conservation area PCA Plum Creek at Louviers Plum Creek at Louviers priority conservation area PCA South Platte River South Platte River priority conservation area PCA Wolhurst North Wolhurst North priority conservation area DoCo Chatfield proposed corridor Douglas County Chatfield Reservoir Proposed Wildlife Corridor DoCo Overland connection area Douglas County wildlife movement corridor DoCo riparian conservation area (RCZ) Douglas County designated priority riparian areas, prime PMJM habitat DoCo wildlife conservation areas Douglas County designated wildlife conservation areas DoCo wildlife corridors Douglas County designated wildlife corridors DoCo wildlife crossings Douglas County designated wildlife crossing areas DoCo wildlife high-value habitat Douglas County designated areas of high value for wildlife DOW ponderosa pine key habitat area Division of Wildlife Ponderosa pine key habitat area DOW sand dune shrubland key habitat area Division of Wildlife sand dune shrubland key habitat area DOW shortgrass prairie key habitat area Division of Wildlife shortgrass prairie key habitat area DOW shrub-dominated wetlands key habitat area Division of Wildlife ponderosa shrub-dominated wetland key habitat area aPotential Conservation Areas (PCAs) are developed by the Colorado Natural Heritage Program using data and expertise to delineate areas around occurrence(s) of rare species and/or plant community(ies) that include the minimum geographic area needed to support the habitat and ecological processes upon which the species and community(ies) depend for their continued existence. PCA’s have no legal status; they are intended for conservation planning purposes only. Table C.1. Natural Resource Spatial Data Incorporated into the South I-25 Corridor Project (continued) Name Alternate Name

80 Table C.2. Scenarios Created to Support Pilot Analysis Preconstruction Scenario Postconstruction Scenario South I-25 Corridor Digitized the South I-25 Corridor area of impact, the road plus the rights-of-way on either side, using Google Earth’s imagery from 2003 Used EIS descriptions with CDOT Roadway Design Guide to estimate width of new lanes and right-of-way. Used 2008 imagery to digitize completed interchanges. Regional Land Use DRCOG’s 2008 regional land use map DRCOG’s 2035 metro vision road network and build-out to urban growth boundary efficient manner (as stated in Colorado Revised Code section 43-1-1103[1][d]). Key sources for the natural resources included in the pilot project included: • Colorado Division of Wildlife Key Wildlife Areas; • Colorado Natural Heritage Program Element Occurrences (EOs), Natural Communities and Priority Conservation Areas; • Douglas County environmental and conservation layers: Riparian Conservation Area (RCA), wildlife habitat areas, wildlife corridors and highway crossing areas; and • U.S Geological Survey (USGS) National Wetlands Inventory. The research team was unable to obtain digital data of the South I-25 Corridor improvements from CDOT directly. Although the data existed in a digital CAD format, the data were in the possession of the original planning consultant. According to the planning consultant, the data were stored in various places and formats, requiring multiple days of staff time to assemble and copy. However, the project EIS and ROD were available online. The necessary supporting technical documents were loaned to us by CDOT. To spatially represent the source, type, and magnitude of current and anticipated future transportation impacts associ- ated with the South I-25 Corridor, the team assembled two scenarios, shown in Table C.2. The preconstruction scenario depicts the I-25 Corridor before CDOT began construction and the land use from DRCOG’s 2008 regional land use map (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2008). The EIS provided descriptions of all planned changes under the preferred alternative. The planned changes, primarily the addition of new lanes, were estimated using the suggested minimum right-of-way (ROW) width from the geometric design standards outlined in the CDOT Roadway Design Guide (Colorado Department of Transportation 2005). Improvements to the South I-25 Corri- dor are ongoing, thus Google Earth’s most current imagery (2008) was sufficient to digitize constructed interchanges. The research team thought that this adequately represented the postproject scenario, given the lack of available data and the level of detail used in long-term transportation plans or in the early planning stages at the transportation corridor level. Current land use was taken from the DRCOG 2008 land use map and transportation network maps (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2008). Trends, including historic, current, and anticipated future changes, in land use practices were represented by two layers obtained from DRCOG: 2035 transportation network and the 2035 urban growth bound- ary (Denver Regional Council of Governments 2005). See Figures C.4 and C.5 for examples of the preconstruction and postconstruction scenarios. dAtA souRCes Consulted In the South I-25 Corridor pilot project, the team decided that a missing resource that needed to be addressed was a finer scale map of natural area cores and their connecting corridors. The idea of protecting cores and corridors to protect wildlife habitat has been established, but the idea that it represents an important part of a community or region’s infrastructure has been best described as green infrastructure (Benedict & McMahon 2006). In 2006, Chatfield Basin Conservation Net- work, a local conservation group in partnership with Douglas County, published a green infrastructure study aimed at continuing to implement the Network’s vision of “Conserving Connections for Nature and People” through protecting and interconnected system of green infrastructure (Chatfield Basin Conservation Network 2006). Although this was not incorporated because of the lack of digital data, this would be a useful component of the REF. Three other sources were reviewed but were excluded from the pilot project because they lacked spatially available data or were too coarse to incorporate in the pilot project. The Nature Conservancy’s Central Shortgrass Ecoregional Assess- ment includes portfolio areas of highest conservation value. Of 43 terrestrial portfolio sites, there are 6 terrestrial port- folio sites in the pilot area. Three of these intersect the South I-25 Corridor: Cherokee, Cherry Creek and Plum Creek. Five aquatic portfolio areas occur in the pilot project site,

81 pRioRitizing And CReAting spAtiAl oveRlAys The preproject scenario was created using the best available land use data to represent the pilot area before the South I-25 Corridor project (see Figure C.6). The research team used NatureServe Vista to combine all layers representing land use and reclassify these in simplified categories that better depict the level of impact the land use has on the ecosystem. For example, DRCOG tracks a range of land use types that are important to city planners: schools and city/county facilities. The next step in the analysis required reorganizing the data into three broad categories: • Species (element) occurrences: These are the spatial repre- sentation of a species or ecological community at a specific location. An element occurrence generally delineates a two of which intersect the South I-25 Corridor: the Upper South Platte River and Plum Creek. The largest of the Audubon Society’s Important Bird Areas in the pilot area is the Chatfield Basin Conservation Network, which encompasses much of the Plum Creek watershed. The Audubon Society has documented more than 320 bird species in the area (Audubon Colorado 2012). In Linking Colorado’s Landscapes (Kintsch 2005), the South- ern Rockies Ecosystem Project (now part of the Center for Native Ecosystems) conducted research that identified several priority wildlife linkages in the pilot area: the Denver West Foot- hills and Douglas County Front (Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project 2005). The latter intersects the South I-25 Corridor and identifies black bear, mountain lion, and elk as species that likely would use region to disperse or migrate seasonally. Figure C.4. The preconstruction land use scenario zoomed in on the South I-25 Corridor.

82 Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework 3a. Overlay the geospatially mapped long-range transportation plan 3b. Identify and show: areas and resources potentially affected by transportation improvements and potential opportunities for joint action. 3c. Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities and opportunities for achieving them. Figure C.7 shows a close-up of the geospatially mapped South I-25 Corridor overlaid with conservation priorities. This highlights the importance of an area along Plum Creek as a location with multiple element occurrences, natural communities, and priority areas. US-85 intersects more areas of importance than does I-25, especially federally protected species population or ecological community stand and represents the geo-referenced biological feature that is of conservation or management interest. Examples include black-tailed prairie dog, northern pocket gopher, and Bell’s twinpod. • Natural Communities: These are defined as a distinct and recurring assemblage of populations of plants naturally associated with each other and their physical environment. Examples include Great Plains mixed grass prairie, fresh- water forested/shrub wetland, and foothills ponderosa pine savanna. • Priority conservation areas: These are areas that have been established as a priority for protection through a scientific- or stakeholder-based process. The research team included priority conservation areas from local and state organizations. Figure C.5. The postconstruction land use scenario zoomed in on the South I-25 Corridor.

83 Plum Creek Dark areas indicate where higher concentrations of biodiversity and priority areas are located. Figure C.6. Biodiversity and priority areas in the area of the South I-25 Corridor. Plum Creek Figure C.7. South I-25 Corridor improvements overlaid on a map of biodiversity and priority areas.

84 urban and transportation land uses will not support the long-term survival of most species occurrences, natural communities, and priority areas. The large extensions of ranchland in the pilot assessment area often harbor these areas but they easily transition to other land uses (namely urban uses), so the team decided to classify that as incom- patible. Ranchland that had been permanently protected (such as with a conservation easement) was included in the protected areas and considered compatible with natural resources. In a real-life situation, assumptions about com- patibility may be different and would take into account more detailed spatial information and expert/stakeholder opinion. The intersection of the preproject scenario (current land use plus the South I-25 Corridor before improvements) will show many resources are incompatible with current land use. This may seem unintuitive: how do natural resources occur simultaneously with land uses that are incompatible, such as roads and urban development? Some land uses (e.g., low- density urban development) often harbor important natural resources, but it is assumed that the condition of a sensitive resource in a fragmented and developed setting is poor enough that long-term survival is unlikely. Whitetail deer will thrive in low-density urban areas; sharp-tailed grouse will not. In other cases, natural resources are mapped in such a way that they encompass many types of land use, not just natural areas. Pri- ority areas and some species occurrences are examples of this. Understanding how current land use affects resources informs us about the current status of resources and the relative impact that a change in land use will create (as with the South I-25 Corridor). Tables C.3 and C.4 illustrate the direct impacts of all land uses on the resources in the entire pilot assessment region. • Total area represents the total amount of a resource found in the entire pilot analysis region; • ROW area is the amount of resource found within a cor- ridor approximately 300 feet on either side of the planned transportation improvements; • Preconstruction incompatible area is the amount of resource already affected by the South I-25 Corridor trans- portation infrastructure before construction; • Postconstruction incompatible area is the amount of resource affected after the transportation improvements are constructed; and • Total corridor direct impact is the increase in impact created by the planned improvements (e.g., the amount of natural resources that the I-25 Corridor potentially will affect). wetlands and PMJM critical habitat. The riparian areas along Plum Creek illustrate how the REF inputs show areas where multiple important natural resources coincide. This area is designated critical habitat for PMJM, and the area has con- firmed locations of PMJM. For the South I-25 Corridor, the research team intersected land use and transportation layers with the established natu- ral resources. Using NatureServe Vista, the team evaluated each of the scenarios described: preproject and the post- project scenario (NatureServe 2012). Scenario evaluation is the process of comparing resources to the scenarios and view- ing the results against the sets of predetermined resource retention goals. In the case of the Colorado pilot project, the team’s goals were set at 100%. This simply reflects the need to know how much of any given conservation resource was affected. Depending on the preferences of the REF, the reten- tion goals can vary widely. They can be derived from stake- holder preferences, an estimated amount of habitat needed to maintain a healthy population, or a legal threshold. Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects on Resource Conservation Objectives Stated in the REF 4a. Weight the relative importance of resource types. 4b. Identify and rate how priority conservation areas and indi- vidual resources respond to different land uses and types of transportation improvements. 4c. Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment sce- narios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing development and disturbances, other features and disturbances with impact, and existing secured conserva- tion areas. 4d. Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects scenarios to identify which priority areas or resources would be affected; identify the nature of the effect and quantify the effect. 4e. Compare plan alternatives and select one that optimizes transportation objectives and minimizes adverse environ- mental impacts. 4f. Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoidable. diReCt And CumulAtive impACt Assessments In the pilot project, the research team decided that wetlands, riparian areas, and known locations of PMJM were to take pri- ority for protection. Wetlands and PMJM are protected by 404 and section 7 requirements, respectively. In Douglas County, the USFWS has accepted the county’s designated riparian conservation areas (RCZ) as PMJM-critical habitat (Douglas County et al. 2005). The land use and landcover maps developed for the assess- ment presented a total of nine classifications. In general,

85 Intersecting the REF with the cumulative effects scenario identifies which natural resources have been most affected by the combined land uses that are considered incompatible with the long-term survival of natural resources. The products of a NatureServe Vista scenario evaluation are a report and several visualization layers that can be used in the REF process. The report summarizes, in total and by category, the performance of the scenario in terms of the number of acres and percentage of resources that met conservation goals. The report also includes amount and percentage of the original distribution, which remained unaffected by a change in land use (from rural to urban for example). The raster layers generated by the scenario evaluation identify areas in the planning region where conflicts exist: locations where natural resources intersect with land uses that do not support the health or survival of the natural resources. Vista creates a raster for all natural resource/land use conflicts and one for each individual resource. Table C.5 illustrates the cumulative impacts of all land uses on the resources in the entire pilot assessment region. Figure C.8 is a spatial representation of the impacts listed in Table C.5. Table C.3. Inventory of Resources Directly Affected by South I-25 Corridor Improvements Resource Total Area (acres) ROW Area (acres) Preconstruction Incompatible Area (acres) Postconstruction Incompatible Area (acres) Total Corridor Direct Impact (acres) Douglas County (DoCo) wildlife crossings 422 136 10 34 24 DoCo wildlife high-value habitat 182,510 364 54 106 52 Colorado butterfly plant 2,055 166 15 41 26 DoCo wildlife conservation areas 87,425 454 44 103 59 DoCo riparian conservation area 18,300 56 1 3 2 Division of Wildlife (DOW) shrub-dominated wetlands key habitat area 52,701 210 136 136 0 DOW shortgrass prairie key habitat area 88,200 81 69 69 0 DOW ponderosa pine key habitat area 50,868 62 41 41 0 Riverine 2,630 19 2 3 1 Freshwater emergent wetland 3,449 1 0 0 0 Freshwater pond 2,424 1 0 0 0 Freshwater forested shrub wetland 2,337 13 2 3 1 PCA South Platte River 45,098 121 30 34 4 PCA Newlin Gulch 12,373 45 0 12 12 Plains sharp-tailed grouse 25,132 288 29 74 45 DoCo overland connection area 30,527 293 26 71 45 Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) 1,598 40 10 14 4 DoCo wildlife corridors 36,331 187 23 48 25 Table C.4. Inventory of Ecological Systems and Agricultural Area Directly Affected by South I-25 Corridor Improvements Ecological System Total Corridor Direct Impact (acres) Agriculture: cultivated crops and irrigated agriculture 48 Southern Rocky Mountain ponderosa pine woodland 10 Rocky Mountain Gambel oak-mixed montane shrubland 24 Intermountain basins semidesert shrub steppe 7 Western Great Plains foothill and Piedmont grassland 74 Western Great Plains shortgrass prairie 14 Introduced upland vegetation-perennial grassland and forbland 77 Intermountain basins greasewood flat 2 Western Great Plains riparian 13

86 Table C.5. Inventory of Cumulative Impacts to Resources Name Total Resource Distribution Area (acres) Preconstruction Compatible Area (acres) Preconstruction Percentage of 100% Goal Post construction Compatible Area (acres) Post construction Percentage of 100% Goal Natural Community (23 resources) Riverine wetland 2,630 2,124 80.76 1,975 75.10 Thinleaf alder forb riparian shrub 1,104 938 84.96 933 84.51 Mountain muhly herbaceous vegetation 86 86 100 86 100 Strap-leaf willow, coyote willow 888 786 88.51 779 87.73 Lake wetland 5,916 5,856 98.99 5,817 98.33 Freshwater emergent wetland 3,449 2,952 85.59 2,924 84.78 Freshwater pond 2,424 1,877 77.43 1,859 76.69 Freshwater forested shrub wetland 2,337 1,870 81.29 1,853 80.35 Other wetland type 427 301 65.93 295 64.04 Peachleaf willow alliance 207 49 23.67 49 23.67 Montane riparian willow carr 64 64 100 64 100 Plains cottonwood riparian woodland 6 5 83.33 5 83.33 Mixed foothill shrublands 243 243 100 243 100 Montane grassland 112 112 100 112 100 Mixed mountain shrubland 140 140 100 140 100 Narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forests 30 26 86.67 26 86.67 Foothills ponderosa pine savanna 40 40 100 40 100 Xeric tallgrass prairie 5,160 3,554 68.88 3,553 68.86 Foothills ponderosa pine scrub woodlands 6,254 3,978 63.61 3,978 63.61 Montane wet meadow 207 49 23.67 49 23.67 Xeric tallgrass prairie 2 3,974 3,794 95.47 3,607 90.76 Coyote willow mesic graminoid 1,364 1,036 75.95 1,030 75.51 Great Plains mixed grass prairie 2,628 2,600 98.93 2,596 98.78 Element Occurrence (19 resources) New Mexico cliff fern 1,999 1,922 96.15 1,912 95.65 Bells twinpod 2,420 2,150 88.84 2,150 88.84 Hops feeding azure 3,293 0 0 0 0 American yellow lady’s slipper 2,004 444 22.16 440 21.96 Prairie violet 6,927 3,092 44.64 3,036 43.83 Prairie goldenrod 4,005 666 16.63 662 16.53 Rocky Mountain sedge 15 15 100 8 53.33 Colorado butterfly plant 2,055 1,810 88.08 1,792 87.20 Richardson alum root 4,007 2,944 73.47 2,821 70.40 Black-tailed prairie dog 4,608 4,560 98.96 4,538 98.48 Moss elfin 10,154 3,429 33.77 3,428 33.76 (continued on next page)

87 Step 5 of the template deals with the process of identifying and creating off-site mitigation. It is important to note that the South I-25 Corridor project, as carried out by CDOT, chose to use a mitigation bank to address concerns about PMJM. This approach is recommended as part of the REF process because it allows an expert entity to consolidate multiple, perhaps dis- parate, projects and create a more effective solution. The I-25 Corridor impacts to wetlands and PMJM-critical habitat were mitigated through a habitat enhancement project on East Plum Creek that enhanced 25 acres of habitat. The habitat Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions; Establish Mitigation and Conservation Priorities and Rank Action Opportunities 5a. Identify areas in the REF planning region that can provide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mit- igation opportunities. 5b. Select potential mitigation areas according to the ranking protocols. Ovenbird 11 10 90.91 10 90.91 Fork-tip three-awn grass 46 34 73.91 34 73.91 Ottoe skipper 1,999 0 0 0 0 Mottled dusky wing 6,502 477 7.34 477 7.34 Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM) 1,597 1,336 83.66 1,301 81.47 Plains sharp-tailed grouse 25,104 18,971 75.57 18,918 75.36 Northern pocket gopher 4,041 2,817 69.71 2,812 69.59 Northern redbelly dace 50 49 98 49 98 Priority Areas (16 resources) Douglas County (DoCo) wildlife conservation areas 87,425 84,127 96.23 83,855 95.92 DoCo riparian conservation area 18,287 16,647 91.03 16,489 90.17 PCA all other PCAs 51,077 47,272 92.55 46,784 91.60 Department of Wildlife (DOW) shrub- dominated wetlands key habitat area 19,655 13,950 70.97 13,426 68.31 DOW sand dune shrubland key habitat area 491 442 90.02 442 90.02 DOW shortgrass prairie key habitat area 67,043 60,092 89.63 55,672 83.04 DOW ponderosa pine key habitat area 40,329 27,943 69.29 27,771 68.86 PCA South Platte River 45,098 30,736 68.15 30,296 67.18 PCA Plum Creek at Louviers 230 198 86.09 198 86.09 PCA Newlin Gulch 12,373 10,792 87.22 6,970 56.33 PCA Wolhurst North 27 26 96.30 0 0 DoCo Chatfield proposed corridor 132 132 100 132 100 DoCo overland connection area 30,527 26,921 88.19 26,756 87.65 DoCo wildlife corridors 36,331 32,161 88.52 31,954 87.95 DoCo wildlife crossings 422 331 78.44 312 73.93 DoCo wildlife high-value habitat 182,510 149,824 82.09 148,423 81.32 Table C.5. Inventory of Cumulative Impacts to Resources (continued) Name Total Resource Distribution Area (acres) Preconstruction Compatible Area (acres) Preconstruction Percentage of 100% Goal Post construction Compatible Area (acres) Post construction Percentage of 100% Goal

88 feasible or desired at CDOT’s implementation site, the REF identified several other areas in addition to the wetlands and PMJM habitat. Figure C.9 shows the impact and mitigation site and the two alternative mitigation sites considered by the REF. The research team used NatureServe Vista’s Site Explorer to explore the effects of alternative land uses and policies on a site or set of sites. The tool allows the user to identify the natural resources that contribute to the REF of a particular site or set of sites. Sites can be landownership parcels or any unit that breaks up the analysis area into smaller subsections. In the case of the I-25 Corridor pilot project, landownership data were unavailable, so the team used a 10-acre grid to iden- tify affected and potential offsite mitigation areas. In addition, Vista’s Site Explorer allows the user to identify land use and the elements’ responses to those land uses and policies. The override menus at the bottom allow the user to specify alternative land uses and policies for the site that bet- ter meet their conservation objectives. The Vista Site Explorer produces a site report that assists in determining how well the site is performing in meeting its enhancement project raised the water table enough to main- tain the riparian vegetation necessary for quality PMJM habi- tat. In addition, CDOT and FHWA restored nearly 1 mile of East Plum Creek as part of a bridge construction project. Today, this restored habitat is part of a PMJM habitat conser- vation bank. In return for its mitigation work, CDOT received credits for future projects to occur in a defined service area. The research team’s proposed mitigation approach assumes that these options did not exist and proposes a mitigation option that builds on existing state and local priorities. Most impacts to wetlands and PMJM occurred in an area within and north of the community of Castle Rock. Other affected sites consisted of small wetland areas draining the uplands saddled between US-85 and I-25. CDOT and the USFWS decided to focus their mitigation efforts on an area near the affected site on East Plum Creek, in an area heavily degraded by urban stormwater runoff (Bakeman n.d.). Bakeman’s monitoring of the site revealed that PMJM populations ben- efited from the improved habitat conditions. However, the REF approach identified other nearby areas where other pri- ority resources exist in greater number. If mitigation was not Figure C.8. Map of cumulative impacts to resources. Red represents areas where resources are affected (darker red indicates where multiple resources are affected). Tan represents areas where resources are not affected.

89 alternate off-site mitigation scenarios that meet the goals and can be shared with stakeholders and decision makers for additional input. With Vista Site Explorer, the research team identified two areas with potential for mitigation. Figure C.10 shows an identified area north of Louviers on the main stem of Plum Creek that has wetlands and critical PMJM habitat, as well as an important Douglas County-designated wildlife crossing area. Figure C.11 shows an identified area on West Plum Creek, resource retention goals and, if those goals are not being met, to give a relative sense of the importance of the site for miti- gation to better meet the goals with changes to the scenario factors. Specifically in this case, Vista Site Explorer provided an inventory of natural resources, the number and percent- age of occurrences that are compatible, and the achievement of resource retention goals within the site and across the planning region. This provided a critical feedback loop for transportation planners, allowing them to develop multiple Figure C.9. The primary impact and CDOT mitigation sites are located within the town of Castle Rock. The two alternative mitigation sites are north and west of Castle Rock.

90 with air photo analyses, very fine scale analyses carried out to evaluate wetlands, species, and several wildlife connectivity studies. A biological assessment was done for PMJM; other species of concern also were addressed. As the project consisted largely of lane widening, expand- ing interchanges, and small realignments, it had relatively small impacts to the environment. CDOT’s action’s sought to improve hydrological connectivity and increase the size and quality of wildlife crossings along I-85. It is not the aim of this pilot study to criticize the approach or protocol taken by CDOT. All the research and work com- pleted was done in compliance with Clean Water Act section 404 and ESA section 7. In addition, the studies CDOT over- saw took place in 1998, long before much of the data used in the current study were developed. Table C.6 summarizes the environmental impacts estimated by the EIS process. CDOT’s 2035 environmental technical report is the closest in comparison to the range and scope of the current docu- ment. CDOT’s approach is not unlike the REF: the environ- mental technical report summarizes relevant state and federal statutes and compares existing and proposed transportation (primarily the state highway system) facilities against known just south of Sedalia, that in addition to the legally required features contains state-identified key ecological communities (thinleaf alder forb riparian shrub, coyote willow mesic graminoid) and other state and local priorities. The Vista Site Explorer override function allowed the research team to change the land use to one that is more compatible for natural resources. By identifying these areas, the team illustrates an approach to off-site mitigation that seeks to improve areas that have been strategically selected for conservation within the regional context. RevieW And CompARison oF Cdot enviRonmentAl RevieW The primary documents used to review the process include the project EIS (FHWA and CDOT 2001) and relevant sec- tions of the 2035 long-range transportation plan, such as the 2035 environmental technical report. CDOT also provided the research team with three techni- cal reports comparing the REF approach to the environmen- tal review process that is described in the project technical reports; this was challenging because the review took place after construction plans had largely been finalized. The proj- ect technical reports rely heavily on field studies supplanted Figure C.10. Potential mitigation site north of Louviers.

91 The environmental technical report does not identify spe- cific projects, project locations, or designs. It also lacks spatial detail and a more comprehensive examination of affected resources than that provided by the REF. The REF approach used in the pilot study uses basic assumptions about the extent and location of planned high- way improvements. It intersects these changes with priority resources that are also spatially explicit. Although the REF did not include historic resources, hazardous material locations, or fully address water quality, these resources could be added and addressed in the framework. CDOT’s decision to use the East Plum Creek PMJM Bank as a tool for mitigation is in line with the recommendations of the REF. The PMJM banks proved to be an effective way for mitigation to occur, as opposed to the ad-hoc mitiga- tion often used by DOTs. The two alternative mitigation sites that the project team identified are further from the site of impact but harbor additional state and priority resources identified by the REF. This would allow for a more strategic mitigation in terms of developing a miti- gation scenario that benefits multiple key resources. The team’s recommendations for mitigation illustrate a process inventories of natural and historic resources. Natural resource impacts focused on four priority resources: water quality, wetlands, migratory birds, and historic resources. The inven- tories were developed in consultation with state and federal agencies, and a list of known and potentially present resources within each corridor was developed. Mitigation strategies were developed for priority resources, although CDOT clari- fies that most environmental mitigation is developed during the environmental review process at the project level. An exception to this are areas of proactive environmental mitiga- tion, defined as “areas where there is the potential for a num- ber of projects to impact a particular resource” and where it may be appropriate to identify and compensate for future impacts to a resource before project impacts occur. These proactive environmental mitigation programs include several that are relevant to the South I-25 Corridor: the East Plum Creek PMJM Bank and the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative. The latter received an Exemplary Ecosystem Initiative award from FHWA in 2002. Environmental forums were held around the state; the DRCOG corridor forum had many of the organiza- tions present that would conceivably comprise the stakehold- ers in an REF process. Figure C.11. Alternative mitigation site number 2.

92 Table C.6. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts Estimated by the EIS and the REF Pilot Project Resource I-25 Corridor US-85 Corridor REF Pilot Results (combined I-25 & US-85) Neighborhood None None Not evaluated Environmental justice None None Not evaluated Relocation None Nine relocations Not evaluated Right-of-way (ROW) 10.1 ha (25.0 acre) 49.4 ha (122 acre) 1,927 acre Recreational resources None Centennial Trail: 2 m (6.5 ft) High Line Canal Trail: 124 m (410 ft) Spring Gulch: 0.2 ha (0.6 acre) Not evaluated Land use Changes to higher-density use Changes to higher-density use Similar findings Air quality None None Not evaluated Water quality and quantity Minimal impacts to water quality Impervious area: 1,048,801 m2 (11,285,096 ft2) Potential improvements to water quality Impervious area: 711,452 m2 (7,655,223 ft2) Impervious area added: 1,885,835 m2 Vegetation 73.6 ha (182 acre) 68 ha (169 acre) See Figure C.5 Wetlands 0.10 ha (0.25 acre) wetlands 0.19 ha (0.48 acre) other waters of United States 0.10 ha (0.25 acre) wetlands 0.46 ha (1.14 acre) other waters of the United States 2 acres Geology None None Not evaluated Wildlife 67.5 ha (166.8 acre) loss of habitat 61.0 ha (151 acre) loss of habitat 52 acres of high-value wildlife habitat Wild and scenic rivers None None Not evaluated Floodplains Happy Canyon Creek nos. 1 and 2, Tributary A, Tributary D, Hangman’s Gulch, and East Plum Creek nos. 1 and 2 are expected to be directly affected Marcy Gulch, No Name no. 1, No Name no. 2, No Name no. 3, Indian Creek, Tributary A, Tributary B, and Tributary C are expected to be directly affected 13 acres of riparian area (flood- plain ecological system) Threatened, endangered, and other special-status species Black-tailed prairie dog: 0.10 ha (0.24 acre) PMJM: 1.76 ha (4.36 acre) Black-tailed prairie dog: 2.47 ha (6.1 acre) 4 acres of PMJM species occur- rence area; 2 acres of desig- nated critical habitat Historic resources Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad (D&RGW RR): 870 m (2,850 ft) Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) Railway: 4.3 m (14 ft) Cherokee Ranch: 5.1 ha (12.5 acre) Not evaluated Section 4(f) properties D&RGW RR: 870 m (2,850 ft) High Line Canal Trail: 124 m (410 ft) Spring Gulch: 0.2 ha (0.6 acre) ATSF Railway: 4.3 m (14 ft) Cherokee Ranch: 5.1 ha (12.5 acre) Cherokee Ranch conservation easement: 6.5 ha (15.9 acre) Not evaluated Archaeological resources Potential impacts to two sites Potential impacts to one site Not evaluated Paleontological resources Potential impacts to one site Potential impacts to one site Not evaluated Prime and unique farmland No Prime and unique farmland impacts 1.34 ha (3.3 acre) of High-potential dry cropland No prime and unique farmland impacts 17.4 ha (43.0 acre) of high-potential dry cropland 48 acres of cropland Noise 25 receivers 7 receivers Not evaluated Visual character Change in visual character Change in visual character Not evaluated Hazardous waste sites Additional investigation needed Additional investigation needed Not evaluated

93 of being developed (circa 1800 and 2005 functional wetland assessment). The original corridor study considered several realignments, and a bypass around the city of Constantine that required a significant river crossing was being considered at the project level. Finally, St. Joseph County was considered to be representative of many rural counties in the Midwest: scattered natural resources, predominantly agricultural land, and projected low growth. The US-131 Corridor is located in a rural region of the southwest Lower Peninsula of Michigan within the St. Joseph River watershed (Figure C.12). The existing US-131 highway is a statewide principal arterial extending 270 miles from the Indiana state line north to the city of Petoskey. According to a public hearing report developed by MDOT, the high vol- ume of trucks using US-131 disrupts community activities and creates traffic mix problems. Truck volumes represented 14% of the average daily volume, which is double the typical commercial volume along rural routes that are not freeways. This high volume of trucks also causes vibrations and noise when the trucks travel through Schoolcraft, downtown Con- stantine, and its registered historic district. The Corridor Location Study Report was designed to present recommen- dations for the general location of an improved or relocated trunkline highway and the type of cross-section design that will best satisfy the MDOT’s responsibility. The most commonly voiced public comments about the corridor study dealt with the following issues: • Maximum use of the existing ROW; • Increase safety, and reduce congestion, noise and vibration levels in the central business districts; • Minimize negative impacts to environmentally sensitive areas; • Increase the efficiency of travel by separating US-131 traf- fic from local traffic; and that might have been followed in the absence of a mitiga- tion bank. Michigan pilot project Report Pilot Project Introduction The goals of the Michigan pilot study were to: • Evaluate efficacy of the Framework when applied to an alternative corridor assessment; • Evaluate efficacy of NatureServe Vista for building an REF without a spatially based local, regional, or statewide conservation plan in place; and • Evaluate efficacy of using several wetland data sets for mitigation. Pilot Test Area Introduction First, the project team set up meetings with key state and fed- eral agency staff from the transportation and natural resource communities in Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon to intro- duce the team’s results. Using the team’s selection criteria and input from the meeting participants, a project in each state was selected for conducting the testing. In Michigan, a series of sites were evaluated after a Novem- ber 10, 2009, workshop that included Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) and environmental agency staff. Potential pilot project areas discussed were • Detroit-to-Chicago high-speed railroad corridor; • I-94 corridor capacity enhancements; • I-75 corridor improvement opportunities; • Traverse City bypass; • Petoskey bypass; • M-6 (Grand Rapids South beltway); • US-23; • US-131 Corridor (St. Joseph County); • M-5/Hagerty Road; • M-31 at Grand Haven; and • US-31 Blue Creek fen. Michigan Pilot Project Chosen The US-131 Corridor in St. Joseph County was chosen as the pilot project in Michigan. This transportation project was chosen based on several criteria. The US-131 project had to address several environmental concerns, including wetlands, floodplains, and federal- and state-listed species. One of the key aspects that made this project particularly attractive for analysis was the wealth of geospatial wetland data already available and additional wetland data that were in the process Figure C.12. Location of the pilot region.

94 prairie and oak savannas. Tallgrass prairie areas as large as 20 square miles and nearly 50 prairies were known to occur in the subsection covering 29,549 acres (Table C.7). Over- all, approximately 35% of the landscape supported fire- dependent natural communities. Poorly drained sections of the outwash supported swamp forest, and wet prairies, marshes, and extensive wet meadows were found along the rivers and streams. Isolated pockets of sandy end moraine or ground moraine often supported various types of oak savan- nas (Albert 1995) (Figure C.14). • Address the potential economic impact on the villages of Schoolcraft and Vicksburg. The principal planning objectives that needed to be addressed by the corridor study included: • Maximize trunkline services and efficiency; • Minimize impacts to farmland and environmentally sensi- tive areas; • Contain future costs of construction; and • Recognize local and regional development plans. There were five alternative corridors (plus one no-build alternative) studied in 1997 that started at the southern St. Joseph County border and ended approximately 3 miles north of Schoolcraft in Kalamazoo County, just north of U Avenue. The length of the corridor study area stretched approximately 27 miles. Each study corridor was 1 mile in width (Figure C.13). Environmentally, the US-131 corridor location project involved wetlands, several river systems, and potential habitat for several federal- and numerous state-listed species. Pilot Ecological Background Information The pilot project site is located within the Battle Creek Out- wash Plain subsection. This subsection is located in the south- western region of the Lower Peninsula and is best described as a broad flat outwash plain containing numerous small lakes and wetlands and small ridges of ground moraine. More than 80% of the outwash plain is sandy soil in the 0–6% slope class. Several major rivers flow through this relatively flat plain, including the St. Joseph River. Well-drained soils (sand) on the outwash historically sup- ported fire-dependent natural communities, such as tallgrass Figure C.13. Five alternative corridors and 2005 landcover. Table C.7. Circa 1800 Vegetation Summary Cover Type Acres Percentage Beech-sugar maple forest 81,422 14.59 Black oak barren 37,060 6.64 Grassland 29,549 5.29 Mixed oak savanna 128,927 23.10 Mixed oak forest 27,840 4.99 Oak-hickory forest 141,976 25.44 Mixed conifer swamp 20,298 3.64 Mixed hardwood swamp 19,892 3.56 Black ash swamp 951 0.17 Bog 297 0.05 Shrub swamp/emergent forest 49,418 8.85 Wet prairie 3,511 0.63 Lake/river 16,977 3.04 Total 558,118 100.00 Green = mixed conifer swamp; light blue = emergent marsh; light yellow = mixed oak savanna; pink = oak dominated forest; red/brown = sugar maple forest; tan = black oak barren; yellow = prairie. Figure C.14. Circa 1800 vegetation map.

95 • Minimal disruption to residential development; • Minimal impact to prime farmland; • Less disruption to future development between School- craft and Vicksburg; and • Maximum trunkline service and effectiveness. Testing the Ecological Assessment Framework The Michigan pilot project tested only steps 1–5 (below) of the C06B Technical Guidance and certain associated substeps. Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision 1a. Identify planning region The US-131 transportation corridor project was chosen as the pilot study because of its potential realignment and con- sequently its potential impact on wetlands, river systems, and a small number of state- or federal-listed species in the region. One of the reasons Michigan was chosen as a state in which to conduct a pilot project to test parts of the newly proposed transportation framework was, at least in part, because of Current Land Use According to the 1997 St. Joseph County Master Plan, more than 234,823 acres are in agriculture use (64% of all land within the county). Most agricultural land is used for crops, pasture, and hay. Residential uses within St. Joseph County comprise only 3% of the area, open land 5%, water 3%, forest- land 17%, and other 8%. Land use along the existing US-131 highway is primarily agricultural, with scattered sin- gle-family homes, multifamily homes, community facilities, and farmsteads in or surrounding the village of Constantine and the city of Three Rivers. Light industrial and commercial development is found along US-131, primarily at intersec- tions with M-60, US-12, and within the Village of Constan- tine and city of Three Rivers (Figure C.15). Of the project area, 63% is in agricultural use (Table C.8). Today, most of the uplands and large areas of wetlands have been converted to agriculture, and numerous wetlands, especially riparian wet- lands, are used for pasture. Population Background As mentioned, this project is located in a rural region of Mich- igan with a sparse population. According to the 2000 census, only 23,862 people resided within the six municipalities (three townships, Constantine, Three Rivers, and White Pigeon) or in the intersecting project area. However, these six munici- palities are expected to grow approximately 19.14% to 28,429 by 2025 (final EIS). The 1997 MDOT corridor study recommended corridor A based on: • Eliminating the need for multiple bridges east of School- craft and Constantine; Dark blue = water; green = upland forest; light blue = nonforested wetlands; pur- ple = wetland forest; red = urban; tan = agriculture. Figure C.15. 2005 Land use and landcover in the pilot area. Table C.8. 2005 Pilot Area Land Use and Landcover Land Use and Landcover Acres Percentage Developed, high intensity 1,258 0.23 Developed, medium intensity 2,976 0.53 Developed, low intensity 21,081 3.78 Developed, open space 6,371 1.14 Cultivated crops 293,138 52.52 Pasture/hay 57,181 10.25 Grassland/herbaceous 4,069 0.73 Deciduous forest 68,981 12.36 Evergreen forest 2,544 0.46 Mixed forest 2,957 0.53 Scrub/shrub 5,105 0.91 Palustrine forested wetland 50,442 9.04 Palustrine scrub/shrub wetland 16,345 2.93 Palustrine emergent wetland 5,176 0.93 Unconsolidated shore 473 0.08 Bare land 1,496 0.27 Open water 18,439 3.30 Palustrine aquatic bed 83 0.01 Total 558,116 100.00

96 data contained in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Biotics database. The NatureServe Biotics system is a customized database system developed by NatureServe for use by its member programs. It is an advanced GIS-based software tool for managing biodiversity information. Biotics is intended to promote interoperability throughout the NatureServe net- work of member programs, ensuring that data collected in each state and province can be compared, exchanged, and combined. Potential inventories could: • Mine data from known sources of information, such as museums and universities; • Address element occurrence backlog; • Develop an inferred extent data layer for all known animal occurrences and historic plant records; and • Develop predictive distribution models for all listed species (starting with the most significant). nAtuRAl ResouRCe oveRlAy Results All of these data layers were imported into NatureServe Vista as individual conservation elements. Depending on the end user’s interests, conservation elements can be cat- egorized or weighted, and filters also can be used. For our purposes, a simple overlay of the eight conservation elements mentioned was created without weights. A map showing areas of varying conservation significance within the pilot region appears below (Figure C.16). The results clearly show that conservation values differ significantly from place to place within the pilot region, and that most natural resources are highly fragmented and scattered across the landscape. In general, areas with high conservation values are located along the floodplains of the major river sys- tems, particularly in the northern half of the pilot region. Other places with high conservation value include areas in and around the Three Rivers and Gourdneck State Game Areas, as well as The Nature Conservancy’s Tamarack Swamp preserve. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework 3a. Overlay the geospatially mapped long-range transportation plan 3b. Identify and show areas and resources potentially affected by transportation improvements and potential opportunities for joint action. 3c. Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities and opportunities for achieving them. For this project, the project used the 1997 alternative cor- ridor study as their transportation plan to determine which alternative corridor would have the least amount of impact to the region’s natural resources. The 1997 corridor study (1) the relatively large percentage of wetlands remaining in the state, (2) the existence of a circa 1800 vegetation data layer, (3) ongoing 2005 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) update and enhanced database, and (4) the development of a wet- land functional assessment database for select watersheds in the Southern Lower Peninsula. Ten subwatersheds were identified at the 12-digit hydrologic unit code (HUC) level that intersected with the existing US-131 highway located in St. Joseph County. A watershed approach was taken to define the planning region for this study primarily because this was the framework being used to develop the wet- land functional assessment database. Many of the conservation elements incorporated into this study have statewide coverage; however, the wetland functional assessment has been com- pleted in only select watersheds. Because the larger St. Joseph River watershed was already a priority, the former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff was willing to allo- cate some of their time to attribute the subwatersheds that intersected the US-131 highway. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status; Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans 2a. Identify the spatial data needed to create understanding of current conditions. 2b. Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the regional ecosystem framework. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of natural resource data and supporting priorities (natural resource spatial data used for analysis). After the spatial characteristics of the spatial data available in the pilot study area were reviewed (Table C.9), several data lay- ers were removed for various reasons. Spatial data used for iden- tifying conservation priorities in the region were: (1) federal- and state-listed species, (2) rare or exemplary natural communities, (3) large contiguous natural landscapes, (4) potential high- quality natural vegetation patches, (5) potential unique, (6) high- quality lakes, (7) potential unique stream segments, (8)potential high-quality stream segments, and (9) existing wetland func- tions (13 total). dAtA oveRvieW The biggest data weakness within the US-131 study area is lack of systematic surveys in the planning region for listed species and rare/exemplary natural communities. As a result, the Natural Heritage Database consists of incomplete data, with last observed dates ranging from the late 1800s to 2009. Short of conducting systematic biological inventories, three actions would help address some of the shortcomings of the

97 Table C.9. Natural Resource Spatial Data Considered in the Pilot Study Data Layer Source Coverage Brief Description Data to Include MNFI heritage data- base MNFI Statewide Documentation of known rare animal, plant, exemplary natural community, and other unique natural feature occurrences. Data is incomplete for the state. All known EO’s except general records Updated and enhanced NWI wet- lands DU Intent is statewide in scope. Currently completed 40 counties. All wetland polygons are delineated based on 2005 aerial photos, and attributed by wet- land type and hydrogeomorphic descriptors. All wetlands Reference streams IFR Statewide High quality stream segments identified based on a series of hydrologically based data. Reference streams, no impact streams Functional sub-water- sheds MNFI Statewide All sub-watersheds at the 12 digit HUC scale were evaluated based on a habitat, frag- mentation, and pollution criteria. Only scores < or = 3 Potential unique stream segments MNFI Lake Michigan Ecological Drainage Unit Stream segments designated as potentially unique within the Lake Michigan EDU using a 5% rule. All vsecs in shapefile Potential high quality lakes MNFI Lake Michigan Ecological Drainage Unit Lakes designated as potentially high quality based on land cover data. All lakes in shapefile Potential unique lakes MNFI Lake Michigan Ecological Drainage Unit Lakes designated as potentially unique within the Lake Michigan EDU using a 5% rule. All lakes in shapefile Core natural vegetation areas of the SLP MNFI Southern Lower Peninsula ecoregion Patches of natural vegetation >500 acres dissected by major roads with no buffer within the Southern Lower Peninsula ecoregion. All patches in shapefile TNC important bird areas of MI TNC Statewide Large areas important to rare, declining and other significant bird species for breeding, foraging, and/or migrating. All polygons in shapefile TNC ecoregional pri- ority areas TNC Statewide Important areas for biodiversity as determined by the TNC ecoregional planning process. All polygons in shapefile MNFI patch analysis MNFI Statewide All natural patches of vegetation are evaluated based on several spatial criteria by vegeta- tion type. Only patches rated as high quality 2005 functional wet- land assessment Formerly MDEQ; currently DNRE Intent is statewide in scope. Currently completed about 10 watersheds. Include all wetlands and functions Circa 1800 functional wetland assessment Formerly MDEQ; currently DNRE Intent is statewide in scope. Currently completed about 10 watersheds. Include all wetlands and functions evaluated five alternatives, each beginning at the southern border of St. Joseph County along the existing US-131 high- way, and ending approximately 3 miles north of the village of Schoolcraft. Each alternative corridor is approximately 1 mile in width (Figure C.17). Because of the unavailability of GIS shape files from the original corridor study, the approximate centerline of each of the five corridors had to be digitized from a hard copy map of the study area and buffered 1 mile to complete this analysis. Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects on Resource Conservation Objectives Stated in the REF (Integrated Conservation/Restoration Priority and Transportation Plan) 4a. Weight the relative importance of resource types. 4b. Identify/rate how priority conservation areas and individ- ual resources respond to different land uses and types of transportation improvements.

98 (2) rare or exemplary natural communities (13); (3) large con- tiguous natural landscapes; (4) potential high-quality natural vegetation patches; (5) potentially unique lakes; (6) poten- tially high-quality lakes; (7) potentially unique stream seg- ments; (8) potentially high-quality stream segments; and (9) existing wetland functions (13). For this project, all five 1-mile-wide corridors were incor- porated into NatureServe Vista as five different scenarios. Each corridor, or scenario, was then evaluated to measure its impact on each of the 9 resource types listed. AlteRnAtive CoRRidoR sCenARio impACt Results Several tables provided here summarize the impacts of each corridor by resource type (Tables C.10–C.14). Impacts are summarized by acres, occurrences, or both. Table C.10 shows that corridors A and B had the least amount of impact on 4c. Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment scenarios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing development and disturbances, other features and disturbances having an impact, and existing secured conservation areas. 4d. Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects scenarios to identify which priority areas or resources would be affected; identify the nature of the effect and quantify the effect. 4e. Compare plan alternatives and select one that optimizes transportation objectives and minimizes adverse environ- mental impacts. 4f. Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoidable. 4g. Establish a preferred transportation plan and quantify mit- igation needs. For the purposes of the pilot study, all resource types used in the analysis were equally weighted. Resource types used in the analysis included: (1) federal- and state-listed species (79); Darker colors indicate higher conservation value. Red lines indicate major roads. Figure C.16. Conservation value summary map of pilot area. Figure C.17. Alternative US-131 corridors overlaid on conservation priority areas. Table C.10. Summary of Aquatic and Terrestrial Element Impacts Aquatic Elements Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Acres Lost Unique Lakes 0.00 0.00 9.50 4.75 4.75 Unique stream segments 21.25 21.75 21.25 71.25 71.00 High quality lakes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 High quality stream segments 89.00 89.75 136.00 105.00 86.75 Total 110.25 111.50 166.75 181.00 162.50 Terrestrial Elements High quality natural patches 499.75 503.75 344.75 638.25 624.50 Large natural landscapes 1,945.75 1,963.50 2,097.25 1,889.00 2,215.75 Total 2,445.50 2,467.25 2,442.00 2,527.25 2,840.25

99 Table C.11. Summary of Wetland Function Impacts 2005 Wetland Function Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Rare imperiled wetlands 78 78 73 73 0 0 169 169 72 72 Amphibian habitat 974 818 902 758 779 654 930 781 968 813 Waterfowl waterbird habitat 1,063 786 1,022 756 1,143 846 1,181 874 1,097 811 Streamflow maintenance 1,018 865 1,041 885 1,219 1,036 1,281 1,101 1,137 978 Stream shading 345 314 355 323 214 195 463 422 348 316 Stream shading 43 38 48 42 165 145 185 162 42 37 Shorebird habitat 686 364 642 340 561 297 736 390 776 411 Sediment particulate retention 1,238 965 1,146 894 1,170 913 1,284 1,002 1,311 1,023 Nutrient transformation 1,288 1,198 1,219 1,133 1,277 1,188 1,353 1,258 1,364 1,268 Interior forest bird habitat 726 486 742 497 808 549 749 502 671 450 Ground water influence 1,507 859 1,443 823 1,497 853 1,382 788 1,502 856 Flood water storage 1,104 949 1,001 861 985 847 1,181 1,016 1,174 1,009 Fish habitat 1,098 944 1,091 938 1,211 1,041 1,277 1,098 1,190 1,023 Total 11,166 8,664 10,724 8,323 11,028 8,564 12,170 9,562 11,651 9,068

100 Table C.12. Summary of Natural Community Impacts Name Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Emergent Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry-mesic Southern Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coastal Plain Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hardwood-Conifer Swamp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesic Southern Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rich Tamarack Swamp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Wet Meadow 159.3 1 159.3 1 0 0 159 1 159.3 1 Prairie Fen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry-mesic Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Submergent Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intermittent Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesic Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bog 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.13. Summary of Federal- and State-Listed Species Impacts by Category Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Name Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Acres Lost EO’s impacted Mammals 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Birds 8.0 1 8.0 1 8.0 1 218.3 2 218.3 2 Insects 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Fish 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 Mussels 1.3 1 1.3 1 1.3 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Reptiles 0.0 0 0.0 0 1,364.5 1 0.0 0 0.0 0 Amphibians 15.0 2 15.0 2 15.0 2 15.0 2 22.5 3 Plants 12,674.8 17 12,970.0 15 13,160.0 16 10,212.8 14 13,015.0 19 Total 12,699.0 21 12,994.3 19 14,548.8 21 10,446.0 18 13,255.8 24 Table C.14. Summary of Overall Ecological Impacts Name Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Wetland Functions 3 1 2 5 4 River systems 1 1 2 2 3 Lake systems 1 1 2 4 3 High Quality patches 2 3 1 5 4 Large Landscapes 2 3 4 1 5 Natural Communities 2 2 1 2 2 Species 2 3 5 1 4 Total 13 14 17 20 25

101 aquatic elements, and corridors A, B, and C had the least impact on terrestrial elements. Table C.11 shows that corridors B and D had the least impact on wetland functions. Table C.12 shows that corridor C was the only corridor not to affect a known natural community. Based on the results of the GIS analysis using the NatureServe Vista software tool, both corridors A and B appear to have the least amount of negative impact overall on the priority conservation areas in the pilot region (Table C.14). Corridor A was also the corridor chosen by MDOT and its partners. The exercise confirms that MDOT and its partners chose one of the corridors that had the least amount of impact to natural resources for the US-131 project. The Vista tool and the accompanying geospatial natural resource data allowed the team to complete the corridor analysis rela- tively quickly. The team thinks that if the Vista tool and accompanying geospatial natural resource data were avail- able for the original US-131 corridor study, environmental concerns could have been addressed more easily and earlier in the decision-making process. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions; Establish Mitigation and Conservation Priorities and Rank Action Opportunities 5a. Identify areas in the REF planning region that can provide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address the effects assessment, and develop protocols for ranking mitigation opportunities. 5b. Select potential mitigation areas according to the ranking protocols. For this project, wetlands were the only conservation ele- ment the research team attempted to address for ecological crediting or mitigation. One of the unique aspects of this pilot project was the availability of functional wetland data for the pilot region. The 2005 wetlands functional assessment, 2005 Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) landcover, and the circa 1800 wetlands functional assessment data layers were used to identify restorable wetlands in the pilot project area. All historical wetlands in the region that were converted to other land uses were identified. This was done by eliminating all existing wetlands from the circa 1800 functional assess- ment data layer, as well as any historical wetlands that cur- rently are classified as urban land use (the team assumed that these are unrestorable sites) (see Figure C.18). Once this was done, the team used new and existing wet- land data layers to test the efficacy of a new tool available through NatureServe Vista, called the Mitigation Query Tool (MQT). The MQT was developed to identify places in a proj- ect area that have similar characteristics or values to the con- servation element occurrences negatively affected by the proposed scenario. Again, for this project wetlands were the only conservation element used to test the efficacy of this tool for assisting mitigation actions. For the purpose of this study, the research team identified three wetland polygons representing three different wetland types (riverine, forested, scrub-shrub, and emergent) within Corridor A (the corridor chosen by MDOT and its partners) that might be affected by the preferred road alignment. The team’s goal was to identify as many wetland polygons outside corridor A that matched the wetland type and functions of each of the identified wetland polygons. One other attribute, proximity to existing wetlands, also was included in the query to further identify the best set of alternative wetland polygons for restoration. The MQT not only identifies the polygons that best match the query but also prioritizes each polygon. Values of each wetland function of the chosen existing wet- land polygons were identified and entered into the index window of the MQT. In addition, a value was entered into the proximity-to-protected-area box, which in this case represented proximity to existing wetlands. Values had to add to a sum of 1. Once this was calculated, the site window was populated. The site identification (ID) of the existing wetland being affected was entered. The only other value entered was the number of hectares for the type of wetland (because of the small amount [1.5 acres] of wetlands determined to be affected by the pre- ferred alternative, all values entered were 1 hectare). Wetland Mitigation Results The MQT delivered at least a few potential sites for wetland restoration mitigation for each of the three existing wetland polygons within Corridor A chosen for this exercise. A simi- larity index is created by the MQT that measures the similarity between the affected existing wetland polygon (along with the selected weights) and the restorable wetland sites within the Restorable wetlands are shown in red. Historical wetlands converted to urban areas and existing wetlands are shown in blue. Figure C.18. Restorable wetlands.

102 regulatory process. Finally, these new wetland data were evalu- ated for their application to wetland mitigation. The REF approach used in the pilot project intersected each of the five alternative corridors with spatially explicit priority natural resources within the study boundary. Although the REF did not include historic resources, hazardous material locations, or fully address water quality, these resources could be added and addressed in the framework. The REF developed as part of the project did not incorporate future conditions. Instead, the REF focused on prioritizing the conservation of existing natural resource areas and features. This pilot project demonstrates that NatureServe Vista can be used to develop an REF even in the absence of conservation plans at any scale. However, it is important to note that Vista was not designed to develop a conservation vision or determine the future desired condition for a given geographic area. That type of endeavor requires conservation planning and scientific expertise. As part of developing the REF for this study region, a novel approach to characterizing wetlands, called wetland functional assessment, was introduced. The wetland functional assess- ment data were designed to assess wetland function at the watershed or subwatershed scale. This type of information is useful for understanding wetland functions lost over time, measuring the cumulative impacts to wetland functions of a proposed large-scale transportation project, and comparing the potential impacts of alternative transportation corridors. In 1998, MDOT and its partners selected Corridor A for the new route for that stretch of US-131. In 2010, assessing not only the number of acres of wetlands that would be lost with each alternative, but also the functional capacity at risk— based on both the area it covers and the level at which a given wetland functions—MNFI’s analysis based on NatureServe Vista outputs indicates that Corridor B would have had the least environmental impact of the alternatives available. This result also held true when considering several additional natural resources: (1) federal and state listed species, (2) rare or exemplary natural communities, (3) large contiguous natu- ral landscapes, (4) potential high-quality natural vegetation patches, (5) potentially unique lakes, (6) potentially high- quality lakes, (7) potentially unique or (8) high-quality stream segments. (It turned out that MDOT approved development of only half of the proposed route. Fortunately, for the portion that was approved, Corridors A and B were identical). With regard to wetland regulatory assurances, the jury is still out. Regulatory assurances of any kind are based on high- quality data, and nothing can take the place of recent field surveys. For the US-131 final EIS, MDOT biologists, from 2000 to 2002 conducted wetland field surveys for the full length of the five practical alternative routes stretching from the Indiana border north. During that time frame, routine on-site wetland determinations were conducted, and a total of 31 wetland sites were located. Although the wetland functional project area. The similarity index results demonstrate that for some of the wetland types, the MQT identified restorable wet- land sites similar to those identified by MDOT. This is particu- larly true for the shrub-scrub wetland type. For others, such as riverine and forested wetlands, the MQT identified a different set of wetland sites. For the riverine wetland chosen from Corridor A (parcel ID 67), the MQT similarity index scores of restorable wetlands ranged from 0 to 1,999.8. A total of 18 restorable riverine wet- land polygons with scores greater than 0 were identified, total- ing 58.4 hectares (Figure C.19). For the forested wetland chosen from Corridor A (parcel ID 144), the MQT similarity index scores of restorable wetlands ranged from 0 to 1,999.8. A total of 514 restorable forested wetland polygons with scores greater than 0 were identified, totaling 3,962 hectares (Figure C.19). For the scrub-shrub wetland chosen from Corridor A (parcel ID 54), the MQT similarity index scores of restorable wetlands ranged from 0 to 307,465,375.5. A total of 7 restorable scrub- shrub wetland polygons with scores greater than 0 were identi- fied, totaling 377 hectares (Figure C.19). Review and Comparison of MDOT Environmental Review MDOT’s 1997 US-131 Alternative Corridor Study is the closest in comparison to the range and scope of this report. That study identified Corridor A as the best alternative for US-131. The purpose of this pilot project was to test several components of a newly developed ecological assessment process and credits system for enhancements to highway capacity. For this pilot project, the team attempted to create an REF for a 10-water- shed region surrounding the 27-mile US-131 highway alterna- tive corridors and evaluate each of the five corridors based on the REF. As part of that analysis, a new wetland data were intro- duced to evaluate their efficacy for expediting the wetland High priority = blue; low priority = pink; moderate priority = green. Figure C.19. Priority restorable wetlands.

103 sidered early in the planning phase, lead to a better decision—a decision that not only potentially has better environmental outcomes and reduced costs as a result of selecting a corridor that requires less mitigation, but also one that can be reached more easily and earlier in the planning process. Description of Wetland Data for Michigan Pilot Study Wetland Data Summary nAtionAl WetlAnds inventoRy updAte Ducks Unlimited (DU) is being funded to update the 1980 NWI data for the entire state of Michigan. The update includes a review of the 1980 NWI and an updated NWI using spring color infrared aerial photographs from 1998 and summer nat- ural color aerial photographs from 2005. Additional data used in the update include hydric soils, existing wetland restoration projects, and digital USGS topographic maps. A portion of the wetlands will be sampled in the field for quality control and assurance. To date, DU has completed the NWI update for 28 counties in the Lower Peninsula. DU just received funding to complete the remaining 40 counties in the Southern Lower Peninsula through the Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restora- tion Act Program. At the time this was written, the target date for completion was October 2011. enhAnCed WetlAnd ClAssiFiCAtion The NWI database was expanded to include descriptors for landscape position, landform, water flow path, and water body types (LLWW descriptors) (Tiner 2005). The enhanced classi- fication was applied to both wetlands circa 1800 and 2005. pReliminARy Assessment oF WetlAnd FunCtions The former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality currently is in the process of conducting a functional wetland assessment for the entire state. The process uses a landscape- level wetland assessment approach called “watershed-based preliminary assessment of wetland functions” (W-PAWF). W-PAWF applied general knowledge about wetlands and their functions to produce a watershed profile highlighting wetlands of potential significance for numerous functions (Tiner 2005). W-PAWF is based on the updated NWI and the enhanced wet- land classification. To date, the former Michigan Department of Environmental Quality staff has completed the assessment for 10 small watersheds in the Southern Lower Peninsula. The 13 wetland functions assessed as part of this study include: 1. Floodwater storage: Important for reducing downstream flooding and lowering flood heights, both of which aid in minimizing property damage and personal injury. assessment and enhanced NWI data provide wetland regula- tors with additional information, it does not appear that these data layers can replace data collected during field investiga- tions. For example, neither the wetland functional assessment data nor the enhanced NWI data attempt to evaluate the qual- ity of a given wetland or its landscape context. However, these additional wetlands data have the potential to be useful for facilitating better mitigation. According to MDOT, most environmental mitigation is developed during the environmental review process at the project level. Because corridors do not affect natural resources, but rather new or expanded road alignments and their associ- ated ROWs, the research team used the wetlands that were going to be affected by the practical road alignment for miti- gation analysis. The team compared the actual wetland resto- ration sites identified in the final EIS to the wetland polygons identified by the MQT. For the most part, the MQT identified different and broader sets of wetland restoration sites than did MDOT as part of the final EIS. Interestingly, MDOT’s top ranking wetland mitigation site was also the top-ranked wet- land mitigation site for the selected scrub-shrub wetland. The MQT is a new tool and is still in the early stages of develop- ment. This pilot project demonstrates that the MQT does appear to have potential for identifying priority wetland miti- gation sites. In the end, MDOT ultimately decided to use a portion of a fen purchased for mitigating the 1.5 acres of wet- land, instead of restoring historic wetlands. In the future, the research team would like to use the MQT to identify existing wetlands for mitigation from a conservation perspective and compare the results to the Cass County fen complex. Based on the Michigan pilot project, it appears that the new ecological assessment process developed by the SHRP 2 C06B team has the potential for facilitating better transportation planning. The proposed new process for transportation plan- ning demonstrated that more and better data can improve the transportation planning process. This is especially true at the corridor planning phase of the project. In reviewing the final EIS for the US-131 highway project, it is apparent that once the corridor was chosen, MDOT did a tremendous job of gather- ing and analyzing ecological data for each of the five preferred alternative routes, particularly for wetlands and threatened and endangered species. It is also apparent that MDOT selected the route for US-131 with the least amount of environmental impact. The Michigan pilot project demonstrates that the regional ecosystem framework does help determine how much and what types of resources are located within a corridor, and thus what level of conflict might be encountered within each alter- native corridor; of course, working at the corridor scale, the ecosystem framework cannot definitively say how much impact a particular route will have once a given corridor is cho- sen. Still, the results are conclusive: more and better data, con-

104 rated for this function are important for maintaining stream flows and temperature control in water bodies. Functional Capacity The function wetland analysis also allows a basic assessment of lost wetland functions at the landscape or watershed level by comparing circa 1800 wetland data (based on hydric soils and circa 1800 vegetation) with 2005 NWI data. Assessing the impact of the cumulative loss of wetlands on specific functions can be accomplished by examining the change in area of functionally significant wetlands between the two time periods. Oregon pilot project Report Introduce Project to Natural Resource and Transportation Agencies A series of sites were evaluated after a November 3, 2009, workshop including Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and environmental agency staff. The workshop involved presentations on the Volume 1 project and method- ology and introduced the pilot project. Discussion resulted in an initial list of more than 10 projects, which was narrowed by the group to 4 projects that for additional evaluation: • South Medford Interchange; • Pioneer Mountain–Eddyville; • Kitsan Ridge; and • North Fork Siuslaw Bridge. Select Site for Pilot Test 1. Follow-up with each pilot state to get more information about data available for the areas proposed to conduct pilot projects. 2. Select an area in each state based on how well the area meets the pilot project selection criteria, whether or not a suffi- cient amount of the spatial data from the original project are available digitally (in GIS, CAD, or similar format). The Pioneer Mountain–Eddyville project was chosen based on the criteria identified in the pilot project criteria docu- ment. It represented the largest and most complex project, it was completed recently enough that spatial data were likely to be available in a digital form, perhaps even in a GIS, and it included wetlands and endangered species habitat. The only other site seriously considered was Kitsan Ridge, but in the end, because the Kitsan Ridge project was older and spatial data from its EIS or planning did not exist, Pioneer Mountain–Eddyville was chosen. 2. Streamflow maintenance: Wetlands that are sources of groundwater discharge that sustain streamflow in the watershed. Such wetlands are critically important for sup- porting aquatic life, such as mussels and invertebrates, in streams. 3. Nutrient transformation: Wetlands that have a fluctuat- ing water table are best able to recycle nutrients. Natural wetlands performing this function help improve the local water quality of streams and other water courses. 4. Sediment and other particulate retention: This func- tion supports water quality maintenance by capturing sediments with bonded nutrients or heavy metals. Vege- tated wetlands will perform this function at higher levels than those of nonvegetated wetlands. 5. Shoreline stabilization: Vegetated wetlands along all water bodies (lakes, ponds, streams, rivers) provide this function. Vegetation stabilizes the soil or substrate and diminishes the impact of wave action. 6. Provision of fish habitat: Wetlands that are considered essential to at least one part of the fish life cycle and have been identified as important for reproduction or foraging. 7. Stream shading: Palustrine forested or scrub-shrub wet- lands that perform water temperature control because of their close proximity to streams and waterways. 8. Provision of waterfowl and waterbird habitat: Palustrine forested or scrub-shrub wetlands that perform water tem- perature control because of their proximity to streams and waterways. 9. Provision of shorebird habitat: Wetlands that provide important foraging habitat for shorebirds during breed- ing and migration. To provide the necessary conditions, these wetlands typically are not intermittently exposed or permanently flooded. 10. Provision of interior forest bird habitat: Wetlands that frequently are flooded for long periods of time often are used for nesting, reproduction, or foraging by interior forest bird species. 11. Provision of amphibian habitat: Wetland types that typically are fish free because of the high susceptibility of amphibians to fish predation. 12. Conservation of rare and imperiled wetlands: Wetlands that are considered rare either globally or at the state level by the MNFI. These wetlands are also likely to contain a diversity of flora and fauna, as well as threatened, endan- gered, or special concern species. 13. Groundwater influence: Areas that receive some or all of their hydrologic input from groundwater reflected at the surface. The DARCY model was the data source used to determine this wetland/groundwater connection, which is based upon soil transmissivity and topography. Wetlands

105 second-growth commercial forest lands, with many fewer impacts. Figure C.20 shows the routes evaluated in planning for the project. Alternative D, or the southern-most route, was the one chosen to be built. Testing the Ecological Assessment Framework The Oregon pilot project tested only steps 1–6 (below) of the C06B Technical Guidance and certain associated substeps. Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision 1a. Identify planning region deFining pRojeCt AReA The first step in the analysis of direct impacts and cumulative impacts is to define the overall area for the analysis. The pilot area was located in Lincoln County in the Oregon Coast The Pioneer Mountain–Eddyville project EIS provides a succinct background description of the project: US-20, the Corvallis to Newport Highway, is a major route connecting the Willamette Valley with the central Oregon coast. It is an important commercial and recreational travel cor- ridor. Commercial truckers and tourists heavily use the high- way, and it provides local access for residents of rural Lincoln County. The wood products industries rely on the highway to bring their products from forest to mill to market. The section of US-20 between Pioneer Mountain and Eddyville is the last significant unimproved section of US-20 between Corvallis and Newport. The existing highway followed the Yaquina River, a valuable fishery providing habitat for three federally listed species of salmon (the Coho, Chinook, and steelhead), and was adjacent to important, old forests providing habitat to two federally listed species (marbled murrelet and spotted owl). The pro- posed new route was away from the river, through young, Figure C.20. Alternative routes considered and the built route.

106 HUCs) subwatersheds: 1710020401, 1710020402, and 1710020403. Because the project area was relatively small and occupied a forested landscape in a single large watershed, the Yaquina Watershed was selected for analysis. In some sites, local or potential impacts affect species over a broad range, so the anal- ysis must include a larger area. For this project, the most sig- nificant impacts were local, so the smaller analysis area allowed for a more complete look at the species, habitats, and impacts. A description of the Yaquina Basin can be found at the North Coast Explorer portal (Oregon State University 2012). The basin is composed of 10 subwatersheds (sixth-field, 12-digit HUCs). The map showing these 10 subwatersheds and the overall site can be seen in Figure C.21. Range and was entirely within the Yaquina River watershed. The potential project areas included: 1. The North Coast Basin, composed of seven, fourth-field watersheds located along the northwest coast of Oregon, as identified by the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board; 2. The Oregon Coast Range Ecoregion, which includes the coastal area in Oregon, as identified in the Oregon Conser- vation Strategy (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006) and the Oregon Natural Heritage Plan (Oregon Natu- ral Heritage Program 2003); 3. The Siletz-Yaquina Watershed, a fourth-field (eight-digit HUC 17100204) watershed identified by EPA; and 4. The Yaquina Watershed, the actual watershed of the Yaquina River, composed of three fifth-field (10-digit State highways = purple; alternative routes = black dashed lines. Figure C.21. Project area, the Yaquina Watershed, with subwatersheds (sixth-field, 12-digit HUCs) identified.

107 and indeed had never received the data. ODOT received only the maps and documentation necessary for the production of the PDF. This meant that none of the biological, social, geo- logical, or other data collected by the consultants on the proj- ect were available to the department for any other uses. It was also a shock to learn this is typical practice for projects across the country. This practice leads to a significant probability of important information being lost. Because the project was under way for such a long time (a situation that will be explained here), there were two different consultants involved in the project. One, CH2M HILL, has staff on the research team, so the team was able to get access to the analysts who had developed and stored the data. How- ever, none of the data were available in a GIS format, aside from (1) recently developed, detailed landform maps devel- oped to attempt to predict landslide risk, and (2) maps show- ing wetlands from the project area (see Figure C.22). The maps of the alternative routes were available only in PDF for- mat, and the at-risk species information considered in the analysis was summarized only at the sixth-field (12-digit) watershed. The pilot team was unable to obtain any data at all from the second consultant, David Evans and Associates. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status; Integrate Conservation, Natural Resource, Watershed, and Species Recovery and State Wildlife Action Plans 2a. Identify the spatial data needed to create understanding of current conditions. 2b. Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the regional ecosystem framework. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of natural resource data and supporting priorities. dAtA ColleCtion The goal of this is to collect all data used in the original evalu- ation of the project selected, including the original infrastruc- ture footprint, final project footprint, biological data, or other conservation data sets, EIS or EA, ROD, and other public con- cerns (noise, air quality, water quality, historic/cultural sites). The first and one of the most difficult parts of the effort was to obtain the spatial data used for the development of the project EIS. The research team was surprised to learn ODOT did not have access to any of these data, in any digital format, Figure C.22. Landcover and project area in EIS.

108 3b. Identify and show areas and resources potentially affected by transportation improvements, and potential opportunities for joint action. 3c. Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities, and opportunities for achieving them. Adopt oR develop RegionAl eCologiCAl FRAmeWoRK Follow the CEAA template methods for developing an REF or accepting a previously developed plan of conservation prior- ity areas. This includes: 1. Identifying ecological resources to be considered in anal- yses and goals related to protection of those resources; using ecological data layers and conservation plans. Data were collected for at-risk species, habitats, and vegeta- tion from files at the Oregon Biodiversity Information Center (ORBIC), which is the Oregon member of NatureServe and is part of the Institute for Natural Resources. Thus, agreements were not necessary to access this information. Data also were available at ORBIC or online from the two regional and one watershed assessments described in the regional framework section. The specific data used in the analysis are included as Table C.15. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework 3a. Overlay the geospatially mapped long-range transportation plan. Table C.15. Data Sources Used in Analysis Data Layer Source Coverage Brief Description Data to Include ORBIC BIOTICS database ORBIC Statewide Documentation of known rare animal and plant occurrences; data are incomplete for the state All known EOs except general records Listed species mod- eled distributions ORBIC/Institute for Natu- ral Resources (INR)/ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis- tration (NOAA) Terrestrial taxa; models developed by NOAA fisheries were used Modeled species distributions using inductive and deduc- tive species models Coho, Chinook, spotted owl, marbled murrelet Updated and enhanced NWI wetlands INR Statewide All wetland polygons are delin- eated based on 1984–2005 aerial photos and attributed by wetland type All wetlands Draft wetland miti- gation catalog INR/The Wetlands Con- servancy (TWC) Willamette, North Coast basins; set to be com- pleted for the remainder of the state by Septem- ber 1, 2011 Proposed wetland mitigation catalog, representing priority wetlands conservation and restoration sites within each basin Boundaries of areas and conservation targets within each Streams with intrin- sic potential Oregon State University (OSU)/Pacific North- west (PNW)/Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS) CLAMS area (coast range) Intrinsic capability for good quality anadromous salmo- nid habitat and links between the channel and terrestrial environment High-quality stream segments GNN forest struc- ture attributes OSU/PNW/Landscape Ecology, Modeling, Mapping & Analysis (LEMMA) Statewide (forests) Structure attributes of forests attributed to each pixel, based on Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA), Current Vegetation Survey (CVS), and state plot data Multiple 30-meter pixel rasters for each forest attribute Land development change OSU/PNW/CLAMS CLAMS area (coast range) Change in land use, building density, and development Change from 1994 to present The Nature Conser- vancy (TNC) ecoregional priority areas TNC Statewide Important areas for biodiversity as determined by the TNC ecoregional planning process All polygons in shapefile

109 2. Collecting, incorporating, or developing current ecologi- cal data for area being evaluated. If possible, including or developing predictive species distribution data and prior- ity wetland data. When new data are used, evaluating their acceptance (via interviews or meetings) by the relevant regulatory agencies. 3. Reviewing previous analysis or analyzing data to deter- mine the terrestrial and aquatic elements and areas that will be included in the analyses. 4. Identifying and integrating land use and transportation planning information available spatially. For the Oregon pilot project, the ecological resources to be considered in the analysis were adopted from the three analy- ses covering the project area, each of which are described below: (1) Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study (CLAMS), (2) The Nature Conservancy’s (TNC’s) Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment, and (3) The Mid- Coast Watershed Council’s Watershed Assessment for the Yaquina basin. The first two of these were comprehensive, regional conservation analysis involving extensive research and assessment. The first of this was the CLAMS (Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study 2012), a multidisciplinary research effort sponsored cooperatively through Oregon State University’s (OSU’s) College of Forestry, the US For- est Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station, and the Oregon Department of Forestry. Their main goal was to analyze the aggregate ecological, economic, and social con- sequences of forest policies of different landowners in the Coast Range. Because the coast range and the entire project area represent a forested landscape, these policies were the primary drivers of economic and ecological factors within the project area (Cohen et al. 2005). The CLAMS project looked at future biological and economic outputs for the region based on current plans, and selected species targets of various types. The second study was TNC’s Ecoregional Analysis for the Oregon Coast Range (Vander Schaaf et al. 2006). Although the plan was completed in 2006, TNC was able to provide a 2010 update of the information based on a new assessment developed to assist the Oregon Department of Forestry in the development of their 2010 Forestry Assessment (Cathcart 2010). TNC provided updated 2010 conservation targets, which were identified by sixth-field (12-digit) watershed. For the pilot study, all of the conservation targets (and the amounts of each target) were aggregated to the entire Yaquina Watershed project area. In addition to the two conservation assessments, the Mid- Coast Watersheds Council has developed a watershed assess- ment that evaluates the impacts to the river and the fish species using it, with a strong focus on salmon and steelhead and cutthroat trout (Garono and Brophy 2001). Based on dis- solved oxygen, with organic enrichment/oxygen depletion, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has found only one stream-reach along the Yaquina River, at the upper watershed, that was impaired (OR1240830446097_ 26.8_53.9 in the Young’s Creek–Yaquina River HUC). A few other streams in the watershed were limited by sediment and temperature, both indications of nonsuitable habitat for the listed, endangered fish, particularly those in the project area. Modeled species distribution data were available for the federally listed terrestrial species, the northern spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, from ORBIC. All of the federally listed aquatic species present in the site are salmon, managed by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. NOAA fisheries has developed internal models of fish habitat presence and importance (which sometimes can be obtained from NOAA) that usually are available in recovery plans. In the Oregon pilot study, the team used the NOAA data and the known distribution of the listed species as mapped by ORBIC’s BIOTICS database (see Figure C.23). Step 4: Assess Transportation Effects on Resource Conservation Objectives Stated in the REF (Integrated Conservation/Restoration Priority and Transportation Plan) 4a. Weight the relative importance of resource types. 4b. Identify/rate how priority conservation areas and individ- ual resources respond to different land uses and types of transportation improvements. 4c. Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment sce- narios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing development and disturbances, other features and disturbances having an impact, and existing secured conser- vation areas. 4d. Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects scenarios to identify which priority areas or resources would be affected; identify the nature of the effect and quantify the effect. 4e. Compare plan alternatives and select one that optimizes transportation objectives and minimizes adverse environ- mental impacts. 4f. Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoidable. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions; Establish Mitigation and Conservation Priorities and Rank Action Opportunities 5a. Identify areas in the REF planning region that can provide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address

110 the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mit- igation opportunities. 5b. Select potential mitigation areas according to the ranking protocols. Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy 6a. Diagnose the measurement need. 6b. Evaluate ecosystem and landscape needs and context to identify measurement options. 6c. Select or develop units and rules for crediting 6d. Test applicability of units and rules in local conditions. AnAlyze the ReF And CumulAtive impACts The workflow templates were reviewed, beginning with the REF source inputs detailed above. A GIS DSS will provide the analytical functions to produce the outputs used for the fol- lowing step. For the Oregon pilot project, ArcGIS (version 9.3) GIS and the Envision (version 5) DSS tools were used. ArcGIS is a widespread, commercially available product. Envision (formerly called Evoland) is a free, open-source decision support software tool relying on ArcGIS, available from Oregon State University’s (OSU’s) Department of Bio- logical and Ecological Engineering. Envision is a GIS-based tool for scenario-based community and regional planning and environmental assessments. Envision combines a spa- tially explicit polygon-based representation of a landscape, a set of application-defined policies (decision rules) defining alternative scenario strategies, landscape change models, and models of ecological, social, and economic services to simu- late land use change and provide decision makers, planners, Blue = wetlands and riparian habitats; green = native conifer forests; orange = hardwood forests; pink = clearcuts and recently planted forests; red = agriculture and developed areas. Figure C.23. Existing vegetation.

111 was identified in the analysis as being the most important species. Findings regarding imperiled species were that most of the basin was historically dominated by mature conifer forests and is in private ownership, managed as industrial forest lands. As a result, the three coastal assessments evaluating areas of conservation significance for at-risk forest wildlife had conservation focused on other watersheds in the north- ern part of the Oregon Coast Range, specifically in areas where larger holdings of public forest lands allowed for viable forested conservation areas. The few remaining small tracts of older forest in the water- shed were located just north of the old route of Highway 20. As a result, the movement of the highway out of the Yaquina River Watershed, into young upland forest that had been clearcut recently, actually achieved as much conservation ben- efit as would be possible with a highway project in the basin. Because almost all of the habitats lost represented indus- trial forest lands, most of the long-term impacts were poten- tially economic, representing a loss of potential timberlands, rather than ecological. As a result, a cumulative impacts anal- ysis for species and habitats is not relevant for this project. Because the pilot study was to test all of the steps, this was the process in which the Envision program was used. The anal- ysis was limited to the top 10 species identified in the assess- ments, the priority habitats identified in the assessments, and all wetlands and at-risk start here species from the BIOTIC database at ORBIC. The BIOTIC database is the Oregon com- prehensive location for biodiversity information. The software was developed by NatureServe, and it includes specific occur- rence information for all at-risk species in the state. It was found that there were no viable alternative scenar- ios identified that could increase the biological outcomes in the basin. AnAlyze peRmitting, mitigAtion, And otheR CRediting oppoRtunities The last step in the analysis and scenario development was to evaluate the mitigation proposed and implemented, as com- pared with the mitigation identified by the alternative planning process. The mitigation proposed in the EIS for the project was an on-site mitigation project. The map of the proposal is included as Figure C.24. Wetland mitigation analyses found that the proposal creates a 3.8-acre wetland adjacent to the project area and probably does a fairly good job of representing the wetland types that were to be affected during the project. However, the wetland type that was proposed to be restored was not high-priority wetlands, and this restoration proposal does not make a signifi- cant contribution toward the major conservation goals estab- lished by the resource agencies and the watershed council for the basin. and the public with information about resulting effects on indices of valued products of the landscape. An important component of the GIS DSS approach to be used in the pilot projects is the application of suggested goal levels and indicators based on expert or stakeholder input. For this project, the targets and goals were adopted from the most recent assessment, completed in April 2010 by TNC and the Oregon Department of Forestry. Targets were also identi- fied in the CLAMS project, although not conservation goals. Because the ecological targets located within the transporta- tion project area (not the overall pilot planning area) were limited, the focus of the analysis was on the changes in the particular species and habitats based on the project area foot- print. The analysis indicated that there are four species that are especially significant in the watershed, primarily because the Yaquina Basin is important for their existence. These are shown in Table C.16, listed in the order of importance for conservation, based on a Marxan run, with the percentage of their coast range habitat present in the watershed shown. The conservation assessment identified three habitats as being most significant in the region: (1) upland prairie and savanna, (2) coastal Sitka spruce forest, and (3) dry Douglas- fir forest. Because the specific project area did not affect any of the miniscule amounts of the upland prairie and savanna remaining in the watershed, they were not considered in the analysis. Only the two conservation assessment forested types listed above, plus a third habitat, coastal western red cedar- western hemlock forests, for which 17.5% of the remaining coastal habitat occurs in this basin were considered in the analysis, since all three of these conifer forests were found in the project area. The actual project impacts for the highway modifications were almost entirely through young, second- and third-growth conifer forests, so none of the priority habitats were affected. In addition, the former highway route was much closer to impor- tant fish, riparian, and old-growth conifer forests and was immediately adjacent to the largest habitat blocks in the water- shed for the marbled murrelet, a federally listed species that Table C.16. Significant Species in the Yaquina Watershed Identified in the Impacts Analysis Species Name Percent Habitat/ Occurrences Present Conservation Importance Marbled murrelet 16.39 2.32 Purple martin 14.28 3.20 Bald eagle 5.30 3.50 Mountain quail 14.29 5.10 Northern red-legged frog 1.47 2.20

112 stages to understand other mitigation actions in the region that generate mitigation demand both within the agency and among other permittees. A key component is under- standing where measures are a barrier for consultation or permitting. Also critical was the availability of uplift in the priority mitigation areas. 2. Analysis of credit markets: The team will review DOT and non-DOT–based markets, when available, for credits; this include §404 or ESA banking. 3. Recommendation based on future needs: The inter- views with DOT staff will indicate upcoming regulated and nonregulated needs that crediting potentially could address. Tools and methods will be recommended to address these needs. Follow-up Meeting with Natural Resource and Transportation Agencies in Pilot States The initial plan was to set up webinar with the team’s trans- portation and natural resource partners to review and discuss results of analyses and comparison with original project out- comes. Given that the outcome of the Oregon pilot project indicated that the proposed alignment was optimal from a conservation standpoint, the team sent the results to all the partners who attended the initial meeting, along with a sum- Using the research team’s proposed methodology, the team reviewed the wetland priority catalog for the Yaquina water- shed, which currently is in draft status, meaning it has not had final reviews by the regulatory agencies. There are only three priority wetland restoration and mitigation sites identi- fied in the basin, shown in Figure C.25. These sites are close enough to the wetlands in location and type that they could serve as suitable mitigation for the losses. They were selected using the data and methods of this project as high priority wetlands because of the size and overall importance to the at-risk fish in the watershed. To evaluate the available crediting methodologies that may have supported the project better, the team used existing tools to evaluate the potential credits from two of these three poten- tial mitigation sites. Parametrix staff visited the sites and iden- tified the potential uplift on the conservation lands and the adjacent private lands. They determined that the lands already in conservation ownership had little priority for restoration, whereas the private lands in these sites had significant poten- tial, with even a small piece of any of the three easily meeting the mitigation needs of this project. The crediting analyses implemented included: 1. Analysis of regulated resource crediting: The project team reviewed the measurement challenges in the permitting Figure C.24. Proposed wetlands mitigation plan from EIS.

113 Finally, the difficulty in obtaining state-funded data in this project was a major finding. It is strongly recommended that consultants be required to provide DOTs with a copy of all spatial data, databases, and analysis completed as part of proj- ect planning or EISs in their native electronic format. This would allow the information to be reviewed and provided to other agencies, and would help to build an overall improved natural resources information baseline. Methodology for developing a parcel-based Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Conservation Catalog: A Virginia pilot project Background and Introduction The Virginia Wetland Restoration Catalog (WRC) initially was developed in 2006 as a joint project between the Virginia mary of the overall project conclusions. A separate meeting was set up with the ODOT Mitigation Coordinator to discuss the mitigation findings and ways to implement these meth- ods for identifying mitigation opportunities in the future. Conclusions The project was an excellent example of a department of trans- portation improving both transportation and conservation outcomes simultaneously. The only difference between the proposed or implemented project and a project designed by the methodology outlined here would be the wetland mitiga- tion site selection and implementation. There is an assumption that using this methodology with preselected and approved mitigation sites and up-front assur- ances that the transportation project was going to improve, rather than degrade species habitats, would have sped the process of obtaining approvals and thereby reduced the costs; however, this is difficult to actually measure. Figure C.25. Priority mitigation areas in Yaquina Basin.

114 This base layer was then prioritized, to assign all areas with a rank of their mitigation value. This rank is based on the likelihood of an identified area being wetland and additional contributions that an area would make to biodiversity con- servation or water quality. Data sets used for this prioritiza- tion included Natural Heritage conservation sites, critical habitat for species of greatest conservation need from the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan, Natural Heritage Stream Con- servation Units, community level aquatic biological data, and 303d Impaired Waters. This methodology results in a map-based summary of mitigation opportunities ranked from 1 to 5 to clearly indi- cate their relative value as mitigation sites. To make this cata- log more pragmatic for mitigation decisions, all opportunities on the landscape are tied to subwatershed and tax parcel ID. Although this methodology uses nationally available geo- spatial data sets and some Virginia-specific data, the research team is confident that other states have analogous data sets to augment national data and can follow this straight- forward methodology for identifying and prioritizing mitiga- tion opportunities. Descriptions of Available Wetland Data Layers The NWI is a product of the USFWS that was developed and has been updated by interpretation of aerial imagery to delin- eate the areal extent of wetlands, surface waters, and deepwater habitats and define them in terms of their type and function. Each wetland mapped by NWI is classified in the Cowardin et al. (1979) system, which includes special modifiers to iden- tify wetlands that have been converted to farmland or modified to change water occurrence, distribution, and movement. Wet- lands may be excluded from the data set because of the limita- tions of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands; thus additional wetland data sources will be used to supplement NWI in development of the catalog. The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), a product of the USGS, is a comprehensive set of digital spatial data represent- ing the surface water of the United States using common fea- tures such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, canals, and oceans. NHD contains a flow direction network that traces water downstream or upstream, enabling detailed analysis of hydrog- raphy. Although NWI has mapped obvious surface waters with accuracy, narrow streams in heavily forested areas often are missing from the data set. The highest resolution (i.e., 24,000 scale) NHD product representing streams was used to supple- ment NWI in development of the catalog. The Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Database, a product of the Federal Emergency Management Agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, shows 100- and Department of Conservation and Recreation–Natural Her- itage Program (VNHP) and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT sought a series of maps identifying possible mitigation sites. An initial pilot project was conducted for VDOT in one district to develop a sites list and corresponding maps, including natural resources information. A follow-on pilot project, extending the WRC throughout Virginia, was funded in part by the Virginia Coastal Program at the Virginia Department of Environmen- tal Quality (DEQ). The WRC focused on wetlands adjacent to, overlapping, and/or functionally associated with Natural Heritage Conser- vation sites to guide mitigation activities to areas known to have biodiversity conservation and water quality values. The largest sites with greatest biodiversity significance were selected for inclusion in the WRC. Methods entailed the review of selected conservation sites against 2002 Virginia basemap aer- ial photography, NWI wetland coverage, and other GIS data sets. All areas that appeared to be converted wetlands and had a high potential for restoration were delineated in an ArcView shapefile. A total of 122 wetland restoration opportunity sites were identified (15 B1 sites, 32 B2, and 75 B3), ranging in size from 1 to 2,482 acres. Although Virginia Division of Natural Heritage (DNH) consulted with DEQ on the development of the WRC, to find the most useful and practical organization of it final output for their clients, the WRC has not been used extensively by DEQ. In addition, although the initial pilot project was sup- ported by VDOT, the output was not used in selecting mitiga- tion opportunities. In this project, Virginia DNH sought a methodology to improve and expand on the WRC, which could be used to develop a wetland and stream mitigation catalog in any state. In Virginia, this methodology would identify more opportuni- ties for wetland and stream mitigation, and guide selection of wetland mitigation opportunities, via a site ranking multiple data sets. This methodology was developed to apply statewide and was tested in an 11-subwatershed pilot area in the Lower Pamunkey River of Virginia. This methodology first enables the development of a poten- tial mitigation base layer to build on the wetlands identified in the USFWS’ NWI, the most comprehensive data set of wet- lands in the United States, which often is used to identify miti- gation opportunities. Aside from the NWI, input data include National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) streams data, 303d Impaired Waters, 100-year floodplain data, and an analysis of USGS soils data (SSURGO) to tease out soils in partially hydric groups that display properties of hydric soil types. An analysis of these inputs led to a basemap that identified more options for wetland and stream mitigation from watershed to watershed.

115 Conservation Units (SCU) from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Threatened and Endangered Waters (T&E Waters) from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Confirmed Reaches from the Virginia Wildlife Action Plan, and Healthy Waters Reaches from the Center for Environmental Studies (CES) at Virginia Common- wealth University (VCU). GIS Development of Wetland-based and Parcel-based Catalogs As described elsewhere in this document, the steps in devel- oping the catalog are as follows: 1. Extract wetland-related information from the following spatial data sources: USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), USGS high-resolution National Hydrography Dataset (NDH), U.S. Department of Homeland Security- Federal Emergency Management Agency Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) Database, USDA-NRCS Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database, VDCR- DNH Stream Conservation Units (SCU), Virginia Depart- ment of Game and Inland Fisheries Threatened and Endangered Waters (T&E Waters), Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, VCU-CES Healthy Waters, USACE Regional Internet Bank Information Tracking Sys- tem (RIBITS), and EPA Listed Impaired Waters (303d). 2. Buffer all line feature classes by 2.5 meters to convert stream features to polygons that are 5 meters wide, a width derived by averaging the widths of lines representing streams on 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic quadrangles. 3. For each wetland source layer, create a text field named WSID (wetland source ID) and attribute polygons with codes that uniquely identify the wetland source layer and the individual polygons it contains. For example, the code NWI245 would identify the 245th record of the NWI wet- land source layer. Unique identifiers from the source layer may be used for the numeric part of this code or unique numbers may be generated from the FID (shapefiles) or OBJECTID (geodatabases) fields of the feature layers while adding one to each value because these feature identifiers start at zero. 4. To prepare wetland source layers for union overlay, add an integer field named WS1 or WS2 or WSn, for which n indicates the number of wetland source layers, and pop- ulate every record with either the numbers 1 or 0, depend- ing on whether it is being added to predict wetlands or counteract possible misalignments among wetland and priority source features. Thus, populate NWI, NHD, DFIRM, and SSURGO source layers with the number 1 and populate SCU, T&E Waters, Confirmed Reaches, 500-year floodplains with different zone designations. The data are primarily for insurance rating purposes, but the zone dif- ferentiation can be helpful for other floodplain management purposes. Although not entirely wetland, floodplains do con- tain wetlands and can be excellent choices for mitigation because of the ecosystem services they provide in terms of flood and erosion control and retention of sediments. The 100-year floodplain, also referred to as the base floodplain, was used to supplement NWI in development of the catalog. The Soil Survey Geographic (SSURGO) Database, a prod- uct of the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is the most detailed level of soil mapping done by NRCS and duplicates the origi- nal, paper soil survey maps. SSURGO data are available for selected counties and areas throughout the United States and its territories. SSURGO is designed for use by landowners, townships, and county natural resource planning and man- agement by those knowledgeable of soils data and their characteristics. Look-up tables are available that provide information about soils in the database. Using these addi- tional tables, hydric and various degrees of flooded soils will be used to supplement NWI in development of the catalog. The Regional Internet Bank Information Tracking System (RIBITS), developed by the USACE, is an Internet-based track- ing system for wetland mitigation banking. Mitigation banking is the restoration, creation, enhancement, or preservation of wetlands to compensate for unavoidable wetland losses in advance of development actions. Banking typically involves the consolidation of small, fragmented wetland mitigation proj- ects into one large contiguous site. Units of restored, created, enhanced, or preserved wetlands are expressed as “credits,” which subsequently may be withdrawn to offset “debits” incurred at a project development site. This layer was added to the catalog because it represents actual sites identified for wet- land mitigation. The Impaired Waters of Virginia layer, developed by the Virginia DEQ as required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, portrays waters that are too polluted or otherwise degraded to meet water quality standards. Impaired waters are prioritized for restoration and are attributed with the maximum amount of a pollutant the waters can receive and still safely meet these standards. This calculation is called the total maximum daily load (TMDL). Impaired waters can benefit from wetlands that filter nutrients; thus, this layer was included in the catalog. GIS data do not always align properly because of different source information, scales, qualities, and development pro- cesses. To make certain important aquatic resources are not missed because of misalignments and thus not represented in the final product, additional stream-based layers were included in the catalog. Specifically, these were Natural Heritage Stream

116 need to scan. These images can be brought into a GIS if enough control points exist for geographical referencing. Once georeferenced, the ArcScan extension for ArcGIS can be used to vectorize and clean scanned parcel maps. When all parcel layers have been assembled, attribute polygons with codes that uniquely identify the locality and the individual parcel it contains. For example, using federal information processing standards (FIPS) codes for localities, the code 085-113 would identify the 113th record of the Hanover County (FIPS 085) parcel layer. Merge all parcel layers into a single layer and dissolve by the unique codes assigned in the previous step. The par- cel layer is now be ready for the union overlay. 7. Acquire watershed boundary data in the finest resolution available for the entire study area. Reduce the attribute fields to those desired in the final product, making cer- tain to retain a field that uniquely identifies the water- shed. A layer of sixth-order subwatersheds was used for the Virginia pilot study. These subwatersheds range in size from 10,000 to 40,000 acres, in contrast to fifth-order watersheds that can be as large as 250,000 acres. 8. Assemble layers that will be used to prioritize wetland mitigation sites. These priority source layers should cover topics that include plant and animal biodiversity; significant natural communities; natural lands that provide ecosystem services; natural corridors that buf- fer streams and connect large patches of natural land; existing mitigation banks; waters identified as impaired and in need of restoration; and farmed wetlands that can be converted to their natural state. Table C.17 shows the priority sources and weights used in Virgin- ia’s pilot Wetland Catalog (WC). Some priority data sources already include weights determined in the cor- responding models, whereas single-value weights were assigned for this project using expert judgment. Each Healthy Waters, RIBITS, and Impaired Waters source lay- ers with the number 0. After the union overlap, the WSn fields attribute originating from each wetland source layer will be summed, with higher totals identifying wet- lands indicated from multiple sources and where mitiga- tion could provide multiple benefits, including ecosystem services such as natural flood control. 5. Erase developed areas from each wetland source layer using the most-current and highest-resolution landcover data available. The purpose of this process is to remove significant areas of commercial and residential develop- ment from the catalog. Individual buildings in otherwise undeveloped settings will be retained. Landcovers change over time, so wetland source layers might not represent current conditions at a particular location. For example, areas that were forested at the time NWI data were devel- oped or last updated may have since been converted to residential development. Because developed landcovers make less functional and thus less desirable wetland mit- igation sites, one might decide to erase developed areas from each wetland source layer using the most-current and highest-resolution landcover data available for the entire area of interest. For most large areas of the United States, the best available landcover data will come from the latest version of National Land Cover Data (NLCD). For coastal regions, NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Pro- gram data might be more current, which was the case at the time of Virginia’s pilot WRC. Create a simplified polygonal layer from the four classes representing devel- opment in the NOAA C-CAP (or NLCD) layer, including the least developed class, Developed Open Space, because it is usually associated with residential development. A possibly undesirable consequence of including Devel- oped Open Space is that golf courses and similar open, nonagriculture areas may be excluded from the WRC. Calculate the area of simplified polygons resulting from squares of four pixels; from the landcover layer, select every polygon equal to this size or smaller. Switch the selection to select the larger developed areas. Then add to this selection those smaller polygons that are within 16 meters (a little more than one-half the width of a pixel). Export the selection to a new shapefile and use it to erase developed areas from each wetland source layer. 6. Acquire GIS parcel data, preferably as polygons, covering the entire area of interest, which likely will involve mul- tiple data sets because parcel data usually are maintained by localities. Some localities make GIS parcel data avail- able through web services, whereas others require that you contact their GIS managers to request data. Some localities do not have parcels available as GIS layers; instead, they might have only scanned images of tax maps or, worse, only paper tax maps that the analyst will Table C.17. Priority Source Layers and Weights Used in Virginia’s WC Priority Source Weights Natural Heritage Priority Conservation Sites 1–5 Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment Ecological Cores 1–5 Virginia Natural Landscape Assessment Landscape Corridors 1 Regional Internet Bank Information Tracking System 3 Impaired Waters (303d) 3 Healthy Waters 3 Farmed Wetlands 3

117 Wetland Overlap and Mitigation Priority fields. Finally, add another integer field named Reclass and reclassify scores from the previous field into five classes. The Jenks Natural Breaks classification method available in ArcGIS was used for the Virginia pilot study and seemed to work well. Table C.18 shows the first eight records of an exam- ple table. Notice that parcels that intersect only one com- bination of wetland and priority sources are represented by only one record, whereas parcels that intersect more than one combination, such as parcel 085-4, are repre- sented by multiple records. These multiple records will be consolidated in the next step to create a table needed for the second spatial product of this analysis. 11. Open the attribute table of the first spatial product in ArcGIS and summarize the parcel ID field while selecting “first” for the Watershed ID field and “maximum” for all other fields. An example of the resulting table is shown in Table C.19. Comparing Tables C.18 and C.19, notice that this process did not change values for parcels that inter- sected only one combination of wetland and priority sources (i.e., the records with a value of 1 in the Freq field in Table C.19), but did summarize values for parcels that intersected multiple combinations (i.e., records with val- ues greater than 1 in the Freq field in Table C.19). The four records for parcel 085-4 in Table C.18 have been consolidated into one record showing the maximum val- ues of each integer field. Table C.19 is an example sum- mary table created by summarizing Table C.18 by parcel ID while selecting “first” for Watershed ID and the “max- imum” for the remaining fields. The Max Wetland Over- lap and Max Mitigation Priority fields show only the maximum values from multiple-combination intersec- tions and thus may not equal the sums of the maximum priority source layer must have an attribute indicating the weight of the features it represents to be ready for the union overlay. For the Virginia pilot WC, each priority source layer had these weights stored in fields named PS1, PS2, or PSn, where n indicates the total number or prior- ity source layers. SCUs, Confirmed Reaches, and T&E Waters were not used directly as priority sources in the Virginia pilot WC because their biodiversity values were already incorporated in the PCS. 9. As a single process, perform a union overlay of the merged parcel layer with the watershed layer, all the wetland source layers, and all the priority source layers. Open the attribute table of the resulting layer and create an integer field named Wetland Overlap, and calculate it to be the sum of the WS1 to WSn fields from the wetland source layers. A high value in this field indicates concordance among the wetland source layers and signifies the level of confidence that a particular area is wetland based upon the various input layers. To simplify the layer and retain only those par- cels that intersect wetlands, start by selecting blanks in the parcel ID field, which will select polygons where no parcel data overlapped wetland data, and then switch the selec- tion so only records with parcel IDs will be selected. From the current selection, select values from the Wet- land Overlap field greater than 0, which represent parcels with wetland intersections. Export the selected records to a new shapefile that, after processing in the next step, will be the first spatial product of this analysis. 10. To the attribute table of the product from Step 9, add an integer field named Mitigation Priority and calcu- late it equal to the sum of the weights from the priority source layers. Create another integer field named Com- posite Prioritization and calculate it to be the sum of the Table C.18. Example of Attribute Table from First Spatial Product Parcel ID Watershed ID WS1 WS2 WSn Wetland Overlap (SWSi = WS1 + WS2 + . . . + WSn) PS1 PS2 PSn Mitigation Priority (SPSi = PS1 + PS2 + . . . + PSn) Composite Prioritization (SWSi + SPSi) Reclass 085-1 YO28 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 4 1 085-2 YO28 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 15 18 5 085-3 YO28 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 085-4 YO28 1 0 1 2 5 3 5 13 15 4 085-4 YO28 1 1 0 2 1 4 2 7 9 3 085-4 YO28 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 085-4 YO28 1 0 1 2 0 5 0 5 7 2 085-5 YO29 1 0 1 2 3 2 5 10 12 3 Notes: PS = priority source—populated with weights (see Table C.17) in which parcels intersect priority layers; WS = wetland source—populated with ones in which parcels intersect wetland source layers. Unique identifier fields from wetland and priority source layers are not shown in this table because of space limitations.

118 portation needs than environmental needs. For example, greater emphasis would be placed on engineering required to straighten a curve than on the project’s overall environmental impacts. STIP criteria are being modified to incorporate more environmental values and linkage to NEPA; however, better inclusion of environmental values is still not happen- ing in the planning process, which is at the political rather than the project level. Opportunities may arise from legisla- tive requests, such as in the Oregon Highway Plan. STIP also needs high-level performance standards, such as increasing the percentage of impervious areas treated. Regulators also need a role in the STIP process, particularly one that occurs much earlier collaboration, and the STIP process also needs to include state wildlife action plan and Oregon Conservancy Strategy (OCS) documents. STIP is also the level to evaluate programmatic or trade-off decisions across resources; new regulatory concerns should first be evaluated at the STIP level to prevent surprises. The following themes and issues emerged from the interview: 1. Better environmental information is needed on the front end of the project delivery process. ODOT is developing a GIS environmental management tool for regulatory teams. The tool, developed with best available data, is close to being usable, although it is not yet complete. Additional data from other sources, coupled with greater coordina- tion, would be very helpful. Under the current process, ODOT pulls data from wher- ever it can find it and then goes out onto the proposed site to more fully assess environmental impacts and constraints. The general lack of data causes problems with project design, especially in ways that could better accommodate discover- ies when undertaking site analysis. Coordinating CAD files/ engineering priorities with GIS/environmental/mitigation divisions between data sets will go a long way toward improving the project design process. wetland and priority source fields, respectively. Similarly, the Max Composite Prioritization may not equal the sum of the Max Wetland Overlap and Max Mitigation Priority fields. Using the Parcel ID field as the common field, join the summary table created in Step 11 to the merged parcels layer used in the union overlay, thus allowing parcels to be symbol- ized by any of the attributes from the summary table. This is the second spatial product of this analysis. Most users will want to symbolize on the Max Reclass field to make a map in which all parcels are ranked one through five, with five indi- cating highest priority for wetland mitigation. incorporating environmental information in project delivery: Oregon, Michigan, and Colorado dOTs The Task 4c team explained to DOT staff interviewees that the objective is to create guidelines for developing an adapt- able process that states can use to support local processes for incorporating environmental needs earlier in the project delivery process. Oregon Department of Transportation Based on preliminary discussion with ODOT staff, changes need to occur in the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP; Oregon Department of Transportation 2012). Oregon’s STIP is a 4-year transportation capital improve- ment program that identifies funding and scheduling of trans- portation projects and programs across multiple government entities. It is in need of a more efficient time and step in the process for connecting environmental issues and the proj- ect delivery process. Environmental information is still not well accounted for in the STIP, which is more about trans- Table C.19. Example Summary Table Parcel ID Watershed ID Freq Max WS1 Max WS2 Max WSn Max Wetland Overlap Max PS1 Max PS2 Max PSn Max Mitigation Priority Max Composite Prioritization Max Reclass 085-1 YO28 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 3 4 1 085-2 YO28 1 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 15 18 5 085-3 YO28 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 2 1 085-4 YO28 4 1 1 1 3 5 5 5 13 15 4 085-5 YO29 1 1 0 1 2 3 2 5 10 12 3 Notes: For parcels that intersect multiple combinations of wetland and priority sources, the maximum values in this table do not necessarily sum to Max Wetland Overlap, Max Mitigation Priority, or Max Composite Prioritization, as explained in the text. Freq = frequency of records for a particular Parcel ID before the table was summarized (i.e., the number of records that were consolidated for that parcel ID).

119 agencies have inappropriately defined what needs to be done offsite as well as onsite with respect to wetlands mitigation. FHWA also sees collaboration or coopera- tion as ODOT being too permissive with regulatory agencies. Remember the FHWA portion of the equa- tion. Regulatory agencies also have a tendency to try to reach back to impacts that predate regulation and address them. d. Issues coming down the line. There is always a need to be planning ahead for such issues as the Clean Drinking Water Act, greenhouse gas emissions. 3. ODOT is using a business case to change how it does business, but this approach is not well understood either externally or internally. The business case can help ODOT be more proactive and consistent with respect to environmental needs. Regulatory partners do not seem to appreciate how business “works” with entities such as ODOT. However, they are not alone with respect to this lack of understanding the business aspect of project deliv- ery: it is also an issue with various departments within ODOT. The need to remember state level laws, such as the Jobs and Transportation Act §18, is a good example. The law has reporting and benchmarking requirements. 4. Collaboratively developing appropriate decision pro- cesses or tools will greatly enhance outcomes. Potential areas of focus include: a. A tool that could identify regional priorities. There appears to be a good sense of regional priorities; how- ever, the current process of determining those priori- ties is ad hoc. For instance, ODOT has done a good job of assessing priorities with respect to vernal pools, but it would be useful to be able to apply a consistent pro- cess to other resources. It is beneficial to be plugged in at the STIP level. b. A tool that could evaluate trade-offs. For example, agen- cies are often uncertain regarding what needs to be done offsite versus onsite regarding wetlands mitiga- tion. Actions often are defined by best available tech- nology or what is feasible, which is insufficient to meet environmental goals. Because the future of natural resources is active management, rather than taking a hands-off approach, understanding trade-offs is important to project decision making. Trade-offs can- not be made strictly at the project level; they must be strategized and occur at a higher level. c. Partner agency agreement on the developed tools. If the agencies do not clearly acknowledge and accept the tools, ODOT will wind up back at square one with respect to having to go through approval on a project- by-project basis. 5. Project follow-up is constrained in multiple ways. Until there is clearer direction on responsibility and the value of 2. Coordination with, and changing expectations from, cooperating agencies is a continuing challenge. Projects typically require cooperation among a range of state and federal agencies, which creates numerous blockages: a. One of the big challenges is midcourse or “11th-hour” changes in agencies’ requirements and expectations. There needs to be a punctuated equilibrium approach, rather than a continual change approach. The best available sci- ence creates dynamic data sets; there should be some agreement among cooperating agencies that new stan- dards will be applied to subsequent projects while allow- ing agreed-to performance standards for current projects to stand. Basic definitions can be lacking; expectation to treat 100% of stormwater on new facilities is an example. Does 100% mean all of the new surfaces or all of the exist- ing and new surfaces? If it indicates 100% of existing and new surfaces, can the facility use a trade at another facility to meet this requirement? Risk aversion is a big driver for regulatory agencies’ behaviors. They are consistently concerned about setting precedents with respect to agreed-upon standards and subsequently being perceived as not administering regu- lations as required. Although they have the legal power to require changes whenever they feel it is necessary, doing so while a project is under way creates significant delivery problems. Having clear, durable agreements among partners regarding mitigation requirements, pri- orities, and tools to be used would provide a much- needed level of certainty regarding project delivery obligations. b. Regulatory agencies distrust ODOT based on historic environmental performance that influences current per- ceptions. There is a general perception that ODOT is not doing as much as it can for the environment. ODOT is actively improving its environmental practices; how- ever, although it may do well on 50 projects, it’s the one in which ODOT doesn’t perform to expectations that the agencies remember and tend to regard as the mea- sure of ODOT’s overall performance. c. Scope creep, based on a lack of explicit rules and responsi- bilities, creates problems. ODOT works with at least two intergovernmental coordinating entities: the Collabora- tive Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining (CETAS) and the Bridge Delivery Pro- gram’s Programmatic Agreement Reporting and Inte- gration Team (PARIT). When there is not enough other business to take care of, partner agencies have a ten- dency to become involved over and above what is called for. This stems from lack of specific rules and clear understanding among agencies regarding the limita- tions of their authorities. Agencies sometimes go look- ing for new issues to call their own. As an example, some

120 6. Links to local land use planning are weak. When asked about how land use planning factors into design consider- ations, the response was that issues are mostly political, which can lead to directions that indicate little understand- ing or consideration of environmental impacts. An explicit example was an interchange design that did not maximize design opportunities on adjacent property according to the developer/stakeholder. The issue was elevated politically beyond ODOT’s staff control or oversight, and directions were given to redesign the interchange. The redesign wound up creating greater environmental impacts. ODOT has cre- ated a process to get local land use entities to become more engaged in project design for intersections and inter- changes, but that process does not currently incorporate environmental considerations. Pursuant to the Jobs and Transportation Act §18, ODOT is charged with developing rules that account for using envi- ronmental performance measures in project design. It is also responsible for developing measures for four project objec- tives: saving money, saving time, protecting the environment, and reducing the state’s dependence on foreign oil. The inter- views indicated that having measurement tools would help ODOT meet these obligations. Michigan Department of Transportation The nature of MDOT’s business has changed significantly in the last 5 years. Their major capacity projects are at border crossings with Canada, which involves some major natural resources, such as the Detroit River between Detroit and Windsor. For financial reasons, there has been a moratorium on developing new capacity projects. MDOT has been successful at avoiding impacts, so they have not had as many projects recently as they used to, when they had hundreds of acres of impacts on floodplains and wetlands habitat. Two of their recent border projects were in urban areas and thus involved impacts on fewer natural resources, and they did not have to deal with permits for nat- ural resource management. Quality of Agency Relations on Natural Resource Management CooRdinAtion With CoopeRAting AgenCies Coordination has become a very smooth process—the Depart- ment has had little conflict in the past 5–6 years with resource agencies and has been a partner-oriented organization; the Department has been working with other agencies from a pro- gram standpoint. Every year the Department has a natural resource agency meeting, which is very successful at attract- ing resource agency staff and driving mutual learning. Every- thing is not rosy but definitely is improving. tracking ecosystem service provision, post-project activi- ties will remain outside ODOT’s purview. a. There is no federal nexus for maintenance activities. This creates conditions for ODOT in which the maintenance and operation shop practices are different from those of construction. Spraying of chemicals not allowed in con- struction is not regulated in maintenance cases. The use of herbicides in riparian areas is another example; in this case the 4(d) rule does not apply. Thus, ODOT faces uncertainty over how to design or proceed with mainte- nance projects. b. Monitoring is controversial in terms of investment and outcome. The agency uses habitat as a surrogate for environmental quality. ODOT has been pushed by agencies to invest in more monitoring, but ODOT has pushed back on the demand because, if species do not reappear where they should, there is little ODOT can do about the situation. Because monitoring informa- tion currently is seen to be of limited use for ODOT’s purposes, the Department sees little point in making the investment. Agencies often require monitoring in ways that do not make sense to ODOT. In these instances, having correct monitoring demonstrated and having the partner agencies provide guidance—what the agency needs to know, how to go about providing it, and providing feedback to improve monitoring— would increase efficiency. What guidance has been provided has been too ad hoc or appears to be a one- size-fits-all approach. It would improve efficiency to be able to use a single methodology that all agencies could agree to. c. Tracking annual mitigation/compliance costs is not precise. Such costs are not separated as a part of doing business. As a result, those costs have low accuracy. It was not clear from the interviews whether or not this is a significant issue for either ODOT or cooperating agencies. d. Because ODOT is a small “frequent filler,” it doesn’t make sense to invest in a mitigation bank, but it complicates design and delivery. Because the agency is a frequent filler, it has to respond to constant demands and requirements from regulatory agencies. The best solution for the agency would be to have an eastside Cascades/westside Cascades bank to do advanced mitigation, but that is unlikely. A conservation registry might be one way to better meet ODOT’s needs. e. Terrestrial species are not typically considered. Although ODOT is trying to do a better job of incorporating their requirements, there is no regulatory hook to include them in project design; and it is regulation that forces such inclusion. In the absence of regulations, if the state has a governor who does not support inclusion of ter- restrial species, it will not happen.

121 mit laws and most of the federal laws. The thought is “We pay for these people out of our budget, so they are highly motivated to work with us.” impRoving RelAtions With FedeRAl AgenCies New things coming down the line: the Department now wor- ries more about regulatory changes than about new resources. There is not a lot of listed T&E. The current economy means there are massive shifts of population out of the state, which means there may be more habitat than ever. The Department does not have a lot of requests for on-stream mitigation but is hoping lessons learned about process and business prac- tices from issues with wetlands will be useful. Interactions with USACE on Sn 10 are increasingly success- ful, with improved communication. The USACE has an annual meeting in March to discuss current issues, which helps gener- ate very rapid follow-up regarding problems. The assumption agreement with EPA says it will have review and account for authority to review 404 assumptions. The Department has encountered some problems when not directly in contact with NEPA staff, but that has been an inter- nal relations issue. Verbalizing the problems has helped. impRoving RelAtions With engineeRing stAFF One project on the Grand River involved a large bridge cross- ing and illustrates changes that have occurred: “Ten years ago we would talk to engineers about spanning the floodplain and they would laugh. This does not happen anymore . . . [now there is] no question that they would span the floodplain.” Having internal staff consistently working on changing attitudes has helped educate the engineers. In addition, staff turnover has changed the entire organization; in govern- ment, hiring periods are cyclical, so a great number of work- ers retired 5–8 years ago, which brought younger workers who are much more accepting of environmental laws. Much of the improvement in attitudes about the environment have had to do with society and educational changes. “We just don’t have the fights we used to have.” The 404 merger process and concurrence point were really helpful in developing this approach: “Having a stepwise pro- cess has really helped, and we have applied it to a lot of differ- ent areas here. Negotiation is a high priority.” Emerging and Local Contextual Issues Tourism is the number 2 industry, and water resources are essential to tourism. From a transportation standpoint, stream and fish resources will become more of an issue. The Department has matured to a level of confidence in handling wetland mitigation and does not want to have to repeat past mistakes when working on stream mitigation. The Department needs to lean on the partnerships built RelAtionship-Building With ResouRCe AgenCies The Department focused on having communication building events with other agencies to build trust and fairness, asking: What is it that you’re looking for out of this project? MDOT has been very sensitive to conflict resolution, collaboration throughout the process, and trying to get right input at the right time to avoid having to rework or quit a project. Several years ago, there was an issue with T&E with regard to a but- terfly. The situation showed that such issues must be taken seriously and provided a wake-up call. use oF diFFeRent stAFF teAms FoR BAnKing And mitigAtion issues MDOT was working on the banking system until the finan- cial crisis. Six banking projects are up and running or in the works. Having multiple wetland banks available now allows them to be used for any wetland impacts. The process is now streamlined, very unlike the former 2-year process; the credits are assigned, approval is given, and the project can proceed. Use of Business Case to Change How Agency Operates Costs have gone from $200,000/acre to $30,000/acre. Previously, the Department had to buy and overly design parcels to get a wetland on one. The Department used to do a great deal of earth moving, but construction and acquisition costs are both down. The Department has been working hard to institute tracking, with the result that it can now produce reporting on results. The Department has had a fair amount of failure and thought a more process-based analysis of failures was needed: “How were we going to track results?” This is essential to start figuring out the Department’s overall progress. Money always helps. The team developed partnerships with other agencies in which they funded GIS projects, which is part of relationship building. The team is working with public money and owes it to the public to figure out how to spend money smartly and get the best results possible, the feeling being that “If we’re going to have experiments, let’s have real ones, and let’s prioritize them, through dialogue.” Collaborative Development of Appropriate Decision Processes and Tools The new approach is explicit. The Department conveys the fol- lowing: “While we are going through this process you’re going to be with us, rather than bringing you in at the end, where you express your conflict.” One-stop shopping for most natural resource concerns is the norm, with one agency designated to work with state per-

122 program for the Colorado River across the divide in the western portion of the state. 3. Have a liaison at USFWS just for section 7 issues who is always available for consultation when looking at all spe- cies on the list provided by USFWS and checking the impacts for a specific project. The same checks should be done with the Forest Service list and state-listed species. The ideal liaison would be amenable to working together and doing it well. 4. Banking is a growing option, with support given by regu- lators and CDOT. Habitat data are primarily from the uni- versity and the Natural Heritage Program. Emerging Issues and Concerns 1. Canada lynx: The most difficult species to deal with; barrier effects and migration patterns are being studied; also being considered is how much effect there is on cross- ing the roads? To date, CDOT has tried to get the region to mitigate by reducing the barrier effect, taking out cement for the guard rail or guard rails for cable rails, and work- ing closely with the Division of Wildlife, looking for places to put gaps in barriers. Progress is wavering because of a lack of hard numbers on effects. If the population of lynx continues to grow, conflicts will arise—especially along I-70. 2. Cutthroat trout: For this species it is best to clean runoff. 3. Conflicting regulatory drivers: Loveland Pass is an exam- ple of a stormwater detention and treatment facility that is needed, but these facilities block Canadian lynx passage. 4. Mitigation costs are not tracked: The shortgrass prairie initiative was paid for in full at purchase, and costs are not accounted for in projects when the credits are used. Other species, such as the southwest willow flycatcher, are avoided through scheduling. 5. Coordination efforts: The existence of multiple work- ing groups on resource issues can make coordination challenging. 6. Prairie dog: There are several species at risk, but the black- tailed prairie dog is the primary concern in the east. There is local opposition to moving the animals but a potential for listing in the longer term. Currently, the primary action is euthanizing the animals. 7. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (PMJM): This species will affect growth in the Denver/Colorado Springs area. 8. Migratory birds: These birds need better options; exclu- sion practices are hard, and timing is an issue. Most species of concern, such as sagebrush grouse, moun- tain plover, boreal toad, are in remote areas, where transpor- tation projects are not needed. The boreal toad is a particular challenge, because it is affected by salting, sediments, and (e.g., with fishery agencies) because they generate tremendous benefits to both regulatory and transportation departments for a results-oriented approach. Currently, stream work is mostly upgrading facilities, cor- recting scour, building bigger bridges, culvert sizing, best practices for fish passage, and sometimes stream relocation. Not having a watershed-based approach to streams is a problem. The Department needs to ask, “What is the overall plan?” The Department needs to concentrate on an approach that sees the plan as a system and not just think about a little piece of that plan. The Department continues to experience conflict with regard to airports. Airports usually are on cheap land, which usually is wet; if a runway needs extension, problems can occur. Because there is not a stepwise process to the problem solving, the answer often is “we will not do that mitigation.” The Department needs to share its experiences with miti- gation. One problem encountered with wetland mitigation sites has been performance measures that are highly unreal- istic for sites, with no scientific grounding for requirements. Colorado Department of Transportation CDOT’s process is that as projects come off the STIP to regions, regional environmental staff review and decide if statewide program help is needed. The staff is tasked to ensure CDOT is meeting federal and state wildlife laws; ensure state- wide consistency; identify ways to streamline or find mitiga- tion and banking/programmatic projects that are helpful; and try to coordinate across region. It also manages section 7 consultation and state and federal wildlife processes. Programmatic Tools in Place 1. Shortgrass prairie, 58,000 acres acquired in natural state: a. Deeded to TNC to manage to cover up to 20 years of maintenance activities along highways (primarily used for plowing, signs, intersection improvements, rest stops). b. Debits are recorded in acres, and CDOT keeps a run- ning tab of disturbed acres; must track both temporary and permanent impacts and can reuse temporary acres if they hit the limit. Impacts are measured only through design. Consultation is now done with just a letter. c. The department will reconsult with USFWS when the acreage is used up or when 20 years elapses. d. Everything east of the Shortgrass line is considered shortgrass habitat and can be mitigated by the program. 2. The South Platte Water Related Activities Program (SPWRAP) adjusts depletions to the Platte River. The state put money into the fund to buy water rights and restore habitat for species mostly in Nebraska; there is a similar

123 Garono, R., and L. Brophy. 2001. Sixth Field Watershed Assessment. Mid- Coast Watersheds Council. www.midcoastwatershedscouncil.org/ Assessments/MCWC_Assessment.pdf. Accessed March 23, 2012. Kintsch, J. 2005. Linking Colorado’s landscapes. IN: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation, Eds. Irwin C. L., P. Garrett, and K. P. McDermott. Center for Transporta- tion and the Environment, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC: pp. 138–142. Margules, C. R., and R. L. Pressey. 2000. Systematic Conservation Plan- ning. Nature, Vol. 405, pp. 242–253. NatureServe. 2012. Products and Services, NatureServe Vista: Decision Support for Better Planning. www.natureserve.org/prodServices/ vista/overview.jsp. Accessed May 15, 2012. Neely, B., S. Kettler, J. Horsman, C. Pague, R. Rondeau, R. Smith, L. Grunau, P. Comer, G. Belew, F. Pusateri, B. Rosenlund, D. Runner, K. Sochi, J. Sovell, D. Anderson, T. Jackson and M. Klavetter. 2006. Central Shortgrass Prairie Ecoregional Assessment and Partnership Initiative. The Nature Conservancy of Colorado and the Shortgrass Prairie Partnership. http://palmerlandtrust.org/node/126. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2006. Oregon Conservation Strategy. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Salem, OR. Oregon Department of Transportation. 2012. Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ STIP/. Accessed March 28, 2012. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 2003. Oregon Natural Heritage Plan. Natural Heritage Advisory Council to the State Land Board, Department of State Lands, Salem, OR. Oregon State University. 2012. North Coast Explorer. http://oregon explorer.info/northcoast/. Accessed March 23, 2012. Sarkar, S., R. L. Pressey, D. P. Faith, C. R. Margules, T. Fuller, D. M. Stoms, A. Moffett, K. A. Wilson, K. J. Williams, P. H. Williams, and S. Andelman. 2006. Biodiversity Conservation Planning Tools: Pres- ent Status and Challenges for the Future. Annual Review of Environ- ment and Resources, Vol. 31, pp. 123–159. http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/ ~consbio/Cons/ARER06.pdf. Tiner, R. W. 2005. Assessing Cumulative Loss of Wetland Functions in the Nanticoke River Watershed using Enhanced National Wetlands Inventory Data. Wetlands, Vol. 25, No. 2. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and Colorado Department of Transportation. 2001. Project IM 0252- 17 South I-25 Corridor and US 85 Corridor: Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(F) Evaluation. www.coloradodot.info/ library/studies/southi25us85-feis-rod/final-environmental-impact- statement-feis/Chapter1.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Draft Recovery Plan Preble’s Meadow Jumping Mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei). U.S. Department of the Interior. www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/preble/ Nov2003DraftRecoveryPlan.pdf. Accessed May 18, 2012. Vander Schaaf, D., G. Wilhere, Z. Ferdaña, K. Popper, M. Schindel, P. Skidmore, D. Rolph, P. Iachetti, G. Kittel, R. Crawford, D. Pickering, and J. Christy. 2006. Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment. The Nature Conservancy, Portland, Ore. http://ir.library.oregon state.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/1957/4638/PNWCoast_Final_ Main_Report_Aug21.pdf?sequence=1. stormwater. There is no real way to avoid such problems when they are an issue. References Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional Landscape Ecosystems of Michigan, Min- nesota, and Wisconsin: A Working Map and Classification. A report submitted to the U.S. Forest Service. St. Paul, MN. Audubon Colorado. 2012. Colorado Important Bird Areas: Chatfield State Park. http://co.audubon.org/iba36_ChatfieldStatePark.html. Accessed June 7. Bakeman, M. n.d. Preble’s meadow jumping mouse abundance and sur- vival at the East Plum Creek conservation bank, Douglas County, Colorado. Unpublished. Colorado Department of Transportation. Benedict, M. A., and E. T. McMahon. 2006. Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Cathcart, J. 2010. Oregon Department of Forestry, Forest Assessment for Oregon. Draft materials. Oregon Department of Forestry, Salem, OR. Chatfield Basin Conservation Network. 2006. Chatfield Basin Conserva- tion Network Green Infrastructure System: Conserving Connections for Nature and People. Chatfield Basin Conservation Network and Douglas County Colorado. www.douglas.co.us/planning/documents/ ChatfieldSec1-6.pdf. Coastal Landscape Analysis and Modeling Study. 2012. www.fsl.orst .edu/clams/. Accessed March 23, 2012. Cohen, W. A., T. A. Spies, and M. Fiorella. 2005. Estimating the Age and Structure of Forests in a Multi-ownership Landscape of Western Oregon, U.S.A. Remote Sensing, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 721–746. Colorado Department of Transportation. 2005. CDOT Roadway Design Guide. Colorado Department of Transportation. www.coloradodot .info/business/designsupport/bulletins_manuals/roadway-design- guide. Accessed March 28, 2012. Colorado Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administra- tion, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. East Plum Creek Conser- vation Bank Agreement. www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/ mammals/preble/OTHER_ACTIONS/EastPlumCreekConserva tionBankAgreement.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2012. Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifica- tion of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, FWS/OBS-79/31. Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2005. Metro Vision: 2035 Plan. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Authority, and Federal Highway Administration. www.drcog.org/index .cfm?page=MetroVision. Accessed May 18, 2012. Denver Regional Council of Governments. 2008. Regional Data and Maps. www.drcog.org/index.cfm?page=LandUse. Accessed March 28, 2012. Douglas County, Town of Castle Rock, Town of Parker, ERO Resources Corporation, and B. Fox. 2005. Habitat Conservation Plan and Envi- ronmental Assessment for Douglas County and the Towns of Castle Rock and Parker. Douglas County, Col. www.douglas.co.us/documents/ DraftHCPandEA_FullDocument.pdf. Federal Highway Information and Colorado Department of Transpor- tation. 2001. Final Environmental Impact Statement Section 4(f) Evaluation. www.southi25.com/Proj8/Documents.htm.