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.
1Executive Summary The nine-step Integrated Ecological Framework (the Framework or IEF) is designed to support and promote integrated transportation and conservation planning while expediting transporta- tion project delivery. The report addresses the scientific and technical processes needed for this integrated approach. A step-by-step cumulative effects assessment and alternatives (CEAA) pro- cess provides the foundation. New regulatory assurance, environmental accounting, and credit- ing methods were developed that can be applied within the CEAA process. The entire CEAA process and supporting tools, methods, and case studies needed to use it will be available to transportation planners and resource agencies through the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) website, developed by the SHRP 2 C01 proj- ect (ICF International and USR Corporation forthcoming). The teamâs research results are also incorporated in An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Vol- ume 1 (Marie Venner Consulting and URS Corporation forthcoming). The vision underpinning this research was to develop a scientifically supported, outcome-based approach that would facilitate efficient and effective transportation planning, regulatory decision making, and capacity development while maximizing opportunities for the long-term conserva- tion and enhancement of ecosystem functions at multiple scales. New methods were researched to prepare up-to-date wetlands maps and create inductive models to predict where sensitive species are most likely to be located and where they are unlikely to occur. These new tools will allow trans- portation planners to more easily avoid such problems early in the planning process and be more confident of citing projects where impacts will be minimized. If impacts are unavoidable, the use of new environmental accounting tools, such as ecosystem credits, from planning through the site- level project delivery can improve conservation outcomes and speed permitting decisions. The tight budgets faced by government at all levels make it vital that every dollar spent on environmental mitigation and restoration in transportation project development is well spent. The hope is that this new Framework and the supporting scientific and technical tools will foster agreement between transportation and resource agencies on conservation priorities and mitiga- tion requirements where new transportation projects are planned, improving transportation project delivery and conservation results. The Framework Using the steps in the Framework (Table ES.1), state transportation agencies (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and resource agencies work together during long-range planning to identify strategic transportation program needs and their potential environmental impacts and conservation opportunities. The Framework allows programmatic tools to be used to increase regulatory predictability during project development while furthering regional conservation goals. The Framework is a comprehensive, dynamic process designed to promote the integration of regu- latory and nonregulatory authorities and better environmental outcomes.
2Table ES.1. Steps of the Ecological Assessment Framework Step Purpose Step 1: Build and strengthen collaborative partnerships, vision Build support among a group of stakeholders to achieve a statewide or regional planning process that integrates conservation and transportation planning. Step 2: Characterize resource status; integrate conservation, natural resource, watershed, and species recovery and state wildlife action plans Develop an overall conservation strategy that integrates conservation priorities, data, and plans, with input from and adoption by all conservation and natural resource stakeholders identified in Step 1 that addresses all species, all habitats, and all relevant environmental issues. Step 3: Create regional ecosystem framework (conservation strategy + transportation plan) Integrate the conservation and restoration strategy (data and plans) prepared in Step 2 with transportation and land use data and plans (long-range transportation plans [LRTP], statewide transportation improvement program [STIP], and transportation improvement program [TIP]) to create the Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF). Step 4: Assess land use and transportation effects on resource conservation objectives identified in the REF Identify preferred alternatives that meet both trans- portation and conservation goals by analyzing trans- portation and/or other land use scenarios in relation to resource conservation objectives and priorities using the REF and models of priority resources. Step 5: Establish and prioritize ecological actions Establish mitigation and conservation priorities and rank action opportunities using assessment results from Steps 3 and 4. Step 6: Develop crediting strategy Develop a consistent strategy and metrics to measure ecological impacts, restoration benefits, and long- term performance, with the goal of having the analyses be in the same language throughout the life of the project. Step 7: Develop programmatic consultation, biological opinion or permit Develop memoranda of understandings (MOUs), agreements, programmatic 404 permits, or Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations for transportation projects in a way that documents the goals and priorities identified in Step 6 and the parameters for achieving these goals. Step 8: Implement agreements and adaptive management; deliver conservation and transportation projects Design transportation projects in accordance with ecological objectives and goals identified in previous steps (i.e., keeping planning decisions linked to project decisions), incorporating as appropriate programmatic agreements, performance measures, and ecological metric tools to improve the project. Step 9: Update regional integrated plan/ ecosystem framework Update the effects assessment to determine if resource goal achievement is still on track. If goal achievement gaps are found, reassess priorities for mitigation, conservation, and restoration in light of new disturbances that may affect the practicality and utility of proceeding with previous priorities. Identify new priorities if warranted. Cumulative Effects Assessment and Alternatives Process The CEAA process is based on and supports the Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Develop- ing Infrastructure Projects (Eco-Logical) approach to infrastructure development (Brown 2006). The CEAA provides technical guidance to transportation and natural resource practitionersâ helping them bring the right expertise, data, methods, and tools to the right stage of the trans- portation planning and project delivery decision-making process. The result should be better
3environmental outcomes through reduced impacts, identification of high-quality mitigation and enhancement opportunities, and accelerated permitting through proactive inclusion of resource considerations early in the process. Rather than a radical new approach, the CEAA process brings together a variety of well-tested methods, data, and tools into a cohesive ecological assessment framework. It addresses several long-recognized needs: (1) the need to proactively consider ecological values early in planning processes for infrastructure and land use and preferably at a regional scale; (2) the need for spa- tially explicit and sufficiently precise cumulative effects assessment throughout a region to pro- vide useful information to guide alternative development and mitigation planning; (3) the need for a collaborative structure for technical information development and maintenance to serve multiple planning purposes dynamically over time; and (4) the desire to obtain better ecological outcomes from mitigation investments while meeting planning objectives. Specifically, the CEAA process guides a scientifically rigorous ecological assessment process that: (1) evaluates direct and cumulative effects on resources from any potential planning alter- native or project; (2) assists in the identification or creation of alternatives; and (3) identifies the best mitigation and enhancement opportunities. It addresses several key questions in transporta- tion and conservation planning and project development: ⢠What areas and resources will be directly affected by transportation development? ⢠How will those resources be affected cumulatively through the affected region? ⢠What areas could be used for mitigation? ⢠How can anticipated long-range regional mitigation needs be aggregated for maximum eco- logical benefit? The CEAA is intended to be highly scalable to the time, resources, data, and expertise available and can be used at the regional, corridor, or project level. Undertaking a CEAA requires trans- portation and resource agencies and other stakeholders to work collaboratively to agree on tar- gets and goals for an area of interest. This ensures that relevant expertise, data, tools, and methods are considered in the development of a Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF). The REF can then be used to assess and guide transportation decision making at all stages of transportation plan- ning and development and allow impacts to be assessed and quantified early in the transporta- tion planning and project delivery process. Within this process, it is possible to begin at any transportation decision point and use the CEAA to help identify and incorporate the necessary questions, data, and analysis needed to support bet- ter environmental and transportation decision making. The online version includes references that provide in-depth reading on the concepts and case studies that illustrate real-life applications, as well as useful technical tools and data sources to support its use and implementation. The major outputs of the CEAA are: ⢠Unified map of transportation, land use, conservation, and restoration priorities. ⢠Maps of each potential transportation scenario that show an assessment of direct and cumu- lative effects at a landscape level with supporting data. ⢠Identification of affected resources and the quantification of the cumulative effects for each transportation scenario being considered. ⢠Identification and evaluation of potential mitigation and enhancement areas within a region. Regulatory Assurances and Ecological Accounting Strategies Within the overall Framework and the CEAA process, two strategies are critical. First, transpor- tation planners and project managers must address regulatory requirements, ideally as early in the transportation planning and development process as possible. Second, environmental accounting strategies can be used to reach agreement with regulatory agencies on project impacts
4and mitigation requirements. This project explored new approaches to regulatory assurances and environmental accounting and how they could be used within the overall Framework if transportation and resource agencies choose to do so. Regulatory Assurances Addressing regulatory requirements is an essential part of the decision-making process for all transportation projects. Obtaining complete regulatory assurances may be impossible; however, this report and the online database provide guidance on the information, tools, and processes that can lead to faster decisions with improved environmental outcomes. The teamâs focus was on regulations under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Clean Water Act (CWA). The team identified the aspects of current decision making that raise the greatest concerns for regula- tors at the national, regional, state, and local levels, and developed tools and information to address them. Improved outcomes depend, first, on developing tools planners can use to identify potential impacts to regulated resources very early in the planning processâallowing them to avoid or minimize impacts as much as possible. Second, any mitigation that must occur due to unavoidable impacts must provide effective, measurable, and high-quality environmental out- comes for the affected resources. The team found that, particularly for wetlands and endangered species compliance, regulatory conflicts and delays result primarily from transportation planners and regulators having insuf- ficient, incomplete, or poor-quality data. Problems under Section 7 of the ESA, which requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service when federal actions may affect species listed under the ESA, result both from the lack of cer- tainty about the probability and degree that a project may affect a listed species and the lack of certainty as to how to design meaningful mitigation measures. The team hypothesized that, if done correctly, specific improvements in threatened and endangered species data can improve transportation planning and species recovery efforts. Through research, the team found new methods of developing inductive species distribution models showing probable distribution of listed species, as opposed to traditional maps that show only known populations or highly gen- eralized range for a species. The team found that developing inductive distribution models is feasible for all listed species and has the potential to radically improve regulator and planner interactions. Species distribution models using inductive modeling methods can create reliable maps that can be used by transportation planners early in the planning process, before significant invest- ments have been made toward road design. The maps are also useful in identifying mitigation opportunities and assisting in recovery planning. The nature of the inductive maps makes updat- ing them with new information relatively straightforward and can allow regulators, if they choose, to easily modify the maps to make them more conservative if needed for Section 7 con- sultations for a particular species. Natural Heritage Programs have created these maps for many endangered and at risk-species in New York, Oregon, Florida, Wyoming, and Virginia and have been working with NatureServe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to develop a strategy for creating these data for all listed species in the United States. Improved information appears to be equally as important for improving transportation and conservation outcomes related to wetlands, streams, rivers, and other resources regulated under the CWA. Most transportation agency interactions with regulators were on Section 404 compli- ance, which protects wetlands, so the team focused on information needs for wetlands. In many areas of the country, data currently are lacking for avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands and for assessing wetland mitigation options. For avoidance, transportation planners need access to digital wetland maps covering the entire United States. The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) is the baseline database for the country designed for this purpose but covers only approximately 80% of the country digitally, and much of the NWI is based on imagery that is almost 30 years old (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2012a).
5USFWS has been working to obtain the funding to complete this data set, but with current pro- tocols and funding levels, it will be decades before the country has digital wetlands data suffi- ciently updated to be used by transportation planners and accepted by regulators as meaningful attempts at avoidance and minimization. The teamâs research looked at case studies to create digital data lacking from Oregon and to improve data from Michigan and Virginia. Methods, including collaboration between state agencies, a mix of funding from federal, state, and non- profit sources, imagery analysis, and modeling, were used in these states to dramatically increase digital wetlands coverage, at times for much less than the estimated cost of $1.5 to 2 million per state. These proven strategies could be used to create wetlands data for avoidance for the entire country within 2 or 3 years. The primary data need for wetlands mitigation is the identification of priority wetland areas requiring restoration, often called a wetlands restoration and mitigation catalog. To be effec- tive, these catalogs need to identify mitigation needs for all watersheds and be preapproved by wetland regulators. The teamâs research identified methods for developing wetland catalogs based on an REF, piloted in Oregon and Virginia, focusing on methods that can be imple- mented widely in the near future. Building on existing data and developing partnerships between public agencies, universities, and nonprofit agencies can create results quickly and inexpensively. Similar efforts have been undertaken as a local watershed approach in many areas of the country, such as Marylandâs effort to develop statewide priorities. Many methods appear to be promising, although ways to integrate wetland priorities with other water quality needs are only beginning to be explored. The development of a wetlands mitigation catalog can significantly improve conservation outcomes and dramatically improve transportation project implementation. Developing standards for implementing this approach nationally is a critical need. Ecological Accounting Strategies There are many ongoing efforts to improve ecological metrics and decision-support tools. How- ever, adoption of these approaches in transportation decision making has been slow. As a result, the transportation industry has not taken full advantage of the opportunities that better ecologi- cal metrics and decision-support tools can provide. Transportation planning and permitting decisions require a clear measurement of impacts to understand available choices, but agreement on measurements to assess impacts and mitigation options can be difficult to reach. In addition, as decisions are made in resource-specific processes, silos are created around each natural or ecological resource being managed. The teamâs research addressed measurements needed to meet existing regulatory concerns and measures that take advantage of emerging requirements and stakeholder concerns developing around the concept of ecosystem services. The Framework and CEAA process provide the ability to link and correlate ecological measurements at a landscape scale with measurements of similar resource issues at a site level. Applied in a transportation context, that means being able to broadly understand and plan around a resource at a regional scale, identify goals and desired outcomes for that resource, and measure specific outcomes for that resource at a site level that allow assessment of a projectâs effect on the resource. In practice, linking the measurement scales provides the following outcomes: ⢠A better ability to maintain continuity between early transportation planning and project- specific planning, ⢠Improved regional goal setting and a better ability to track the effect of specific projects on the progress toward those goals, ⢠A framework for understanding and presenting cumulative effects analyses, ⢠An improved understanding of the opportunity and need for using programmatic approaches in project planning and an improved ability to develop them.
6This approach to ecosystem metrics from the landscape scale to the site level, from alternatives analysis to outcome-based mitigation for specific projects, is addressed throughout the CEAA process. A separate step addressing the use of crediting systems is included in the Framework, providing specific guidance for transportation agencies on how to develop and use ecosystem crediting systems and markets. Pilot Projects The team tested the CEAA process and supporting strategies in three pilot projects in Oregon, Michigan, and Colorado. The objective was to see if the new approach would result in different decisions and outcomes or time and cost savings compared with the traditional transportation planning and project delivery system. The team also sought to test the usability of the new pro- cesses and found that the methodology produced results similar to those of traditional approaches in the evaluation and mitigation of direct impacts. The teamâs approach provided better results than the traditional approach for cumulative impact analysis and selection of mitigation options. Dissemination The Framework, including the detailed CEAA process and the supporting strategies for achiev- ing regulatory assurances and using ecological accounting systems and credits, will be included in the TCAPP website. The team developed an interactive database to support transportation and resource agencies. It will be integrated into the TCAPP website, which includes a step-by- step guide with supporting documentation in the form of case studies, tools, data, expertise, and other resources to assist practitioners in using all or part of the proposed new approach.
