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.

7C h a p t e r 1 relationship to the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework and Volume 1 The SHRP 2 Capacity program is charged to develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, eco- nomic, and community requirements into the analysis, plan- ning, and design of new highway capacity. The foundation of this approach is the SHRP 2 C01 report, A Framework for Col- laborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity (ICF International and USR Corporation, forthcoming). The Framework builds on the Eco-Logical framework (Brown 2006), allowing it to be integrated into that of TCAPP to pro- vide the process and tools needed by resource agency staff, transportation planners, and transportation agency environ- mental specialists to integrate transportation and conserva- tion planning. C06 project report Volume 1, elaborates on decision points in the TCAPP Decision Guide that involve regulated and nonregulated environmental impacts, such as wetlands, water quality, endangered species, wildlife, habitats, and cultural resources, building on the Eco-Logical framework. The Vol- ume 1 report also addresses the problem of getting regulatory agencies to accept transportation agency investments in envi- ronmental mitigation or restoration. Both Volume 1 and this report reflect the need for a close partnership between regula- tory and transportation agencies in addressing the challenges of integrating transportation and conservation planning. This coordination between agencies should assure that the scientific and technical processes and strategies developed to support an ecological approach fit within existing and future institu- tional systems and address barriers to its wider adoption. approach The team began work by developing a vision for integrated transportation and conservation planning (see Chapter 2). The team reviewed the literature and did detailed reviews and evaluations of existing ecological assessment tools and envi- ronmental accounting tools. The results of this work were included in the interim report and are included in the inter- active database developed for inclusion in TCAPP. The CEAA process was developed and integrated into the overall Frame- work. State and federal regulators were interviewed to iden- tify and address technical issues associated with obtaining regulatory assurances early in the transportation planning and project delivery process. State and local transportation agencies were interviewed to help develop step-by-step strat- egies for improving use of outcome-based environmental accounting and crediting systems. Once the CEAA technical guidance and supporting regulatory assurance strategy were developed, they were tested in three pilot states. The team’s approach integrated well-vetted and tested concepts from the disciplines of systematic conservation planning (Groves 2003), cumulative effects assessment, and mitigation hierarchy (avoidance, minimization, mitigation, compensation). While integrating scientific concepts from these disciplines, the team developed technical guidance drawn from spatial analyses and decision-support practices. The intent was to develop a detailed hierarchy of integrated steps and steps to guide practitioners through the CEAA process that was flexible enough to be used with specific geographic information system (GIS) platforms, available capacity, and financial resources. Development of the Framework The Framework was developed in collaboration with the team developing Volume 1. It was developed to closely follow the Eco-Logical framework and make this framework easier to implement by providing additional detail. These additional details were described in a hierarchical fashion with detailed technical levels to include the CEAA component. The team revised the Framework several times based on review by The Project Approach

8cumulative effects assessment; therefore, the team developed a toolkit that combines multiple tools to support an informa- tion workflow through all levels of transportation planning and project delivery. The following assessment criteria and questions were developed against which potential tools were assessed for their utility at various stages of the transporta- tion planning and project development process: 1. Was sufficient information available to correctly characterize a tool? For some tools, adequate information could not be obtained to describe it adequately. 2. Is the tool documented? Documentation can take many forms, but it should be clear and readily accessible. It should clearly state who cre- ated the tool (the originator), what the tool was designed to do, whether it was created for a particular focal eco- system, what information or inputs the tool needs, and how the tool creates useful outputs for the user(s). 3. Was the tool developed by a credible source? Most tools encountered online come from well-known governmental, private, or nonprofit institutions. The existence of a user community for a tool adds to its credibility. 4. Is the tool maintained? Too often tools are created and released but not main- tained over time. Because technology and methodologies change, tools can quickly become obsolete. Some of the documented methods were older but applied more gener- ally to well-established planning processes (such as the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA]). 5. Has the tool been used in the field? Ideally, all tools have been used in a planning process and contributed to a successful outcome. However, some tools lack any type of field testing, so the outputs of these tools are unknown. In some cases, there was no information on how particular tools have been used. 6. Is the tool useful for integrated conservation/transportation planning? If the tool did not appear to add value to an integrated ecological assessment method in the transportation con- text, it was eliminated. If the tool did not meet all criteria, it was eliminated from the database. Forty-two tools are included in the database of a total of approximately 70 tools surveyed (see the TCAPP for the list of the tools). In the final evaluation stage, the team defined and cross-walked information about the tools using key steps in the overall Framework. practitioners and experience conducting the pilot projects. The CEAA built on work done on another TRB research project (Paulsen et al. 2010) on regional cumulative effects assessment. The original work was modified to fit the Framework and provide further detail in the components of mitigation and alternatives development and ongoing adaptive management. ecological assessments tool Survey and Utility analysis Scientists have developed many methods for assessing eco- system function over various geographic scales and time- frames. The challenge is to identify the methods that are most useful at various stages of the transportation planning and project delivery process to know what resources and functions are important, how impacts to them can be avoided and minimized, and if impacts are unavoidable, how they can be mitigated most effectively. To identify methods appropriate for use at key decision points in transportation planning and development, the team developed a tool survey protocol. The tool survey protocol included the methods for search- ing for tools, evaluating tools for their relevance and utility, and characterizing tools in a database suitable for long-term use in an interactive database. The survey built on consider- able existing knowledge regarding tools available to conduct ecological assessments, including cumulative effects analyses. It also drew on tool surveys by the Ecosystem Based Manage- ment (EBM) Tools Network. The EBM Tools Network sup- plied the team with characterizations of 171 tools that were already integrated into an online database (NatureServe 2012), some of which were included in the team’s survey. The team’s database was built by reviewing the tools documented in the EBM Tools Network, reviewing the tools that were ref- erenced in many of the articles and research cited in the lit- erature review, and by using the team’s knowledge to evaluate the tools. The tool evaluation database consists of decision- support tools, ecological- and conceptual-modeling tools, transportation-sector–specific tools that have broad appli- cability, and state-specific ecological and conservation data query tools. Some tools listed are best described as methods to organize information or integrate certain steps into a larger planning process. Each tool in the database was evaluated within the con- text of the overall Framework and the process tasks and key decisions included that support the Framework. There is no ecological assessment supertool capable of conducting all computerized analyses necessary for regional ecological and

9locations of federally listed species into slightly more general- ized, public domain maps showing places where these species are likely to occur or where their habitat needs to be protected using inductive modeling methods. ecosystem Services accounting and Crediting More than 120 methods of accounting for and valuing eco- system services were reviewed in terms of principles and cri- teria developed for transportation and conservation planning. No single method emerged as a readily available option for use in transportation planning and project delivery given the wide variety of resource types and ecosystems. To respond to this lack of a single tool, the project developed a step-by-step process for use by any transportation agency to self-diagnose needs, identify candidate tools, and develop custom tools if needed. The accounting strategy, and a first iteration of credit design, was tested with the pilot study agencies through a series of interviews in which participants were led through a focused discussion of the assumptions and structure of the proposed credit design. The accounting methods are included in the Framework, and the methods are included in the TCAPP website. pilot projects The team tested the technical guidance to see if using this new approach to assessing an area for project development would result in different decisions and outcomes, signifi- cant savings in time or funding, or additional refinement of process when compared with traditional methods. The team’s pilots focused on testing the technical aspects of an integrated planning process, not on the collaboration build- ing aspects of planning process. The team decided that testing the technical guidance on a transportation project, rather than a transportation plan, would yield a more quan- titative and accurate comparison of these methods because a transportation project generally is more detailed and spa- tially explicit than a plan. But in two of the pilot states (Michigan and Colorado), it was critical to compare the pilot test results with the original results of planning efforts in the area to adequately test the guidance geared toward improving planning-level decisions. In preparation for conducting the pilot tests, the team developed and documented the approach (see Appendix C) that would be used by all three teams in testing the technical guidance. This document also included the criteria used for selecting the projects or areas where the team would con- duct the three pilot tests. In the proposal, the team suggested doing pilot testing in Florida, Oregon, and Virginia, but the regulatory assurances and Data Quality Transportation practitioners seek methods for identifying potential impacts to regulated resources as early as possible in the planning process so that impacts can be avoided or mini- mized. They also share the desire of regulatory agencies to assure that any mitigation required because of unavoidable impacts provides effective, measurable, and high-quality envi- ronmental outcomes for the impacted resources. Through the planning and project development process, transportation planners seek to avoid conflicts and delays caused by disagree- ments with regulatory agencies about project impacts and mitigation requirements. For wetlands and endangered spe- cies regulation, the literature and the work described in Vol- ume 1 show that insufficient, incomplete, or poor quality data usually are at the root of the problem. Data Quality Issues: The Clean Water Act To address wetlands regulators’ concerns, the team consulted with state and federal wetland managers to determine what types of regulatory certainty can be provided in states with widely differing quality of wetlands digital data. The team diagramed a workflow with data and tools that integrate the USFWS’s nationally available NWI database with a process for refining and augmenting that information to assure the digital data are complete enough for regulators to feel confident that transportation planners can avoid all important wetlands (see Appendix A). The result of this work was to develop a method for iden- tifying Wetland Mitigation Priority Areas, or a Wetland Res- toration and Mitigation Catalog. Such a catalog can then help direct the locations of mitigation banks and allow transportation agencies to expedite approval of mitigation options. The team also evaluated other aspects of the CWA, par- ticularly those related to water quality, including nonpoint sources, runoff, and total maximum daily loads (TMDLs); however, the team’s work in this area was limited to potential (secondary) improvements to water quality from wetlands res- toration and enhancement. Data Quality Issues: The Endangered Species Act Most information on listed species locations currently exists in the form of observations, rather than habitat or predicted distributions. Rare species occurrences are highly sensitive and, as a result, not readily shared with transportation agen- cies or the public. The project tested the possibility of trans- forming these highly sensitive maps showing precise known

10 Symposium The SHRP 2 C06 Capacity project teams held an invitational symposium on September 15–16, 2010, in Boulder, Colorado. The results of the team’s research were presented to a group of 55 local, state, and federal transportation agency and resource agency officials experienced in integrated transportation and conservation planning. Resource agency officials also pre- sented new approaches that they are using to integrate conser- vation planning and permitting and reflected on lessons they have learned in reference to the Framework. Breakout sessions provided feedback on the Framework and suggestions for implementation actions. These discussions informed the final report, especially the conclusions. Florida and Virginia DOTs could not participate in the proj- ect because of budget constraints. Oregon, Colorado, and Michigan were then selected because the team included staff from these states’ agencies and the DOTs were interested in the research. Initially the team met with key state and federal agency staff from the transportation and natural resource communi- ties in Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon to introduce the ini- tial research results. Using the team’s selection criteria and input from the agency participants, the team selected a proj- ect in each state to test. The three projects that were selected were the I-25/US-85 project in Colorado, the St. Joseph County section of US-131 project in Michigan, and the Pio- neer Mountain—Eddyville project in Oregon.