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.
11 C h a p t e r 2 Introduction The advantages of an ecosystem approach to sustaining and restoring ecological systems and their functions have long been recognized (Brown 2006; U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1995). Transportation agencies and the FHWA have worked with resource agencies throughout the last 2 decades to use this approach in planning and delivery of new trans- portation facilities. Unfortunately, it has not been as broadly adopted as it should be, given its benefits for project stream- lining and environmental outcomes. The FHWA Report Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects (Eco-Logical) provides the basic framework for using an ecosystem approach in transpor- tation planning and project delivery across individual agency jurisdictions and encourages an outcome-based approach to conservation (Brown 2006). However, Eco-Logical does not provide the tools needed to implement these principles. This project fills that gap by providing the tools needed for the ecological approach. Volume 1 identifies existing barriers to adopting the integrated ecosystem approach and opportuni- ties for future implementation, as summarized in Table 2.1. Volume 1 identifies three key scientific and technical barriers to using the Eco-Logical approach: ⢠Lack of integrated and agreed-upon conservation priori- ties across agencies; ⢠Lack of accepted data standards and geospatial data and lack of access to environmental data and plans; and ⢠Lack of agreed-upon methods to quantify the impacts of transportation projects on ecosystem functions. The research addresses these barriers by developing a new Framework supported by enhanced information about regulated resources and improved ecological accounting methods. Vision for an Integrated System The vision underpinning this research was to develop a scien- tifically supported, outcome-based approach that would facili- tate efficient and effective transportation planning, regulatory decision making, and capacity development while maximizing opportunities for the long-term conservation and enhance- ment of ecosystem functions at multiple scales. The team envisioned an ecological assessment and credit- ing approach that would: (1) Provide transportation agencies the toolkit they need to collaborate with resource agencies, local governments, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and others to simultaneously meet conservation and trans- portation goals and priorities during the decision-making process; (2) Provide the data and tools needed to develop environmental regulatory assurances that resource and regu- latory agencies and transportation agencies can use to make earlier decisions and investments in the transportation plan- ning and project delivery process; and (3) Integrate regula- tory compliance within and across agencies. The team envisioned a specific, yet flexible, approach that could be customized and embraced by transportation and resource agencies and would result in sustained institutional change that encourages transportation agencies to adopt environmental stewardship policies enhancing ecosystem and hydrologic functions and maximizing the benefits of their investments. The approach focused on regional ecological priorities, multiresource ecosystem measurement and accounting sys- tems, and achieving improved, measurable environmental outcomes. It is linked to the key decision points in TCAPPâs Decision Guide through guidance relevant to environmental regulatory compliance processes that identify policy ques- tions; data development and management needs; analytic tools; case studies and best practices; and references. It is scalable, flexible, regionalized, and compelling to agencies, The Ecological Assessment Process in Transportation Planning
12 New transportation facilities must also meet the require- ments of dozens of other federal, state, and local environ- mental and land use regulatory requirements (Bearden and Luther 2003; Dale et al. 2000; Phelan and Phelan 2007). Two key issues developed as transportation agencies implemented these regulatory requirements for new capacity projects: (1) determining when in the transportation planning and project development process to prepare required environ- mental analyses and apply for permits; and (2) determining how to avoid duplication of effort and inconsistent require- ments under different laws and regulations. Traditionally, environmental resource and permitting agencies have little involvement in the transportation plan- ning process when alternatives are developed and compared; instead, such agencies wait until a specific project solution has been selected before becoming involved. As a result, plan- ning decisions are often questioned and revisited in the NEPA process and in project permitting, which delays delivery and adds cost. This problem was recognized as early as 1975 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) (Manheim et al. 1975). The 1975 NCHRP report also recog- nized the disconnection between the level of data analysis and impact predictions at the systems-level planning stage versus the project development stage. At the heart of the suggested reforms is the idea that an environmental review process that runs concurrently with or at least overlaps with transportation agency planning processes regardless of their experience with environmental manage- ment systems. Finally, it is designed to maximize the likeli- hood of beneficial environmental outcomes from all stages of transportation planning and project development. The teamâs approach strives for expedited transportation development, cross-agency understanding, and incorpora- tion of conservation goals and priorities early in the trans- portation decision-making process, reduced legal challenges and costs, and sustainable and systematic ecosystem restora- tion and mitigation outcomes. the Need for Integrated Conservation and transportation planning The key objective of this research is to develop a workable ecological assessment method that can and will be used by transportation planners working in diverse physical environ- ments with varying existing data availability. Although there is a large body of research on all of the themes, this project focuses on the integration between the existing models, tools, and processes needed to use them effectively in transportation decision making from long-range planning through project permitting. Since passage of the NEPA in 1969, transportation agencies developing projects with federal funds have been required to consider the impacts of their projects on the environment. Table 2.1. Barriers and Opportunities Barriers Opportunities Inability to access other agency and nongovernmental organization (NGO) environmental data and plans New tools for publishing data and harvesting data from other agencies and organizations. Lack of integrated and agreed-upon conservation priorities across agencies New methods for integrating conservation priorities in the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, the Willamette Valley, Oregon, Virginia, and Colorado. Lack of local, regional, and national geospatial data for environmental data and plans Potential for new standards and funding to develop regional and national environmental data. Inability of transportation and regulatory agencies to agree on the scientific validity and adequacy of planning level analysis in providing regulatory predictability at the permitting stage New models for predicting the locations of listed threatened and endangered species with capacity to expand these nationwide. New spatial data, tools, and knowledge to map wetlands and identify wetland priorities. New models for identifying potential water quality implications for road development projects very early in the planning process. Ability to quantify the anticipated impacts of transportation projects New decisions support tools to look at cumulative impacts of developing in watersheds or ecoregions. Lack of agreed-upon measures to quantify ecosystem functions important to transportation planning and development Environmental Protection Agency Ecosystem Services Partnership, USDA Office of Ecosystem Services and Markets, and programs such as the Natural Capitol Project, the Bay Bank, and the Willamette Partnership interested in developing measures. Scientific interest in developing pilot models and algorithms for attributing areas with these values. Lack of transparent and integrated scientific peer review of metrics, methods, and protocols Ecosystem Commons peer review process drawing upon university and agency research capacity.
13 focusing on software for spatial modeling and assessment that can be used to streamline the application of the steps in a GIS. The CEAA steps are described in the Framework (see Chap- ter 3) and further described in the online database (see Chap- ter 5). A brief description of the key processes and products of the CEAA is provided below along with a discussion of challenges and suggestions for successful implementation. CEAA Goal and Products The goal of the CEAA is to support all types of transportation and land use planning by conducting thorough ecological cumulative effects assessment and development of alternatives that reduce resource impacts and assist in achieving regional conservation goals. The key products for achieving these objectives are: 1. Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF) consisting of: a. A database of viability requirements and responses to a variety of land uses, transportation features, and other disturbances as well as conservation practices for each resource or priority conservation area, and b. A map that synthesizes existing achieved conservation areas and identified, but not yet achieved, conservation priority areas from accepted sources. The map can be supplemented as needed with individual resource dis- tribution maps to provide complete coverage of the list of resources. 2. Transportation alternatives assessment and refinement con- sisting of: a. Quantitative assessment of the impacts of alternatives individually and cumulatively with other land use and conservation actions and b. Support for developing alternatives that meet both trans- portation and conservation objectives. 3. Mitigation support consisting of: a. Quantification of resource impacts for all alternatives and b. Identification of compensation sites that can provide for the required mitigation and provide the greatest contribution to regional ecosystem objectives. 4. Adaptive planning and management consisting of: a. A partnership structure for dynamic information shar- ing and b. A technical approach for integrating new resource infor- mation and status with project development decisions for dynamic updating of the status of conservation objectives. Intended Applicability of the CEAA Process Recent advances in data quality and decision support systems and computing power enable NEPA-level assessment at all would increase efficiency and provide better information for planning and less litigation as a result of greater opportuni- ties for public participation (Tripp and Alley 2003). The for- mer head of the Council on Environmental Quality, James L. Connaughton, strongly supported this approach, noting the need to share documentation and maintain databases of infor- mation from prior environmental reviews (Connaughton 2003). Such an integrated approach is expected to move beyond traditional approaches of avoiding, minimizing, and miti- gating impacts of transportation projects to use ecosystem approaches to provide environmental benefits and promote ecosystem sustainability (Brown 2006). Amekudzi and Meyer (2005), in NCHRP Report 541, sur- veyed state transportation agencies and metropolitan planning agencies to assess how they consider environmental factors in their system planning. Survey respondents indicated that only some of the data types needed for considering environmental factors in transportation planning were available. Respon- dents also noted a lack of appropriate planning analysis tools. Reviewing the various types of tools (geospatial databases, remote sensing, impact modeling, decision analysis, and sim- ulations), the authors concluded that new tools should be able to provide more and better information to decision makers at the planning level to protect environmentally sensitive areas. They developed a conceptual framework of transportation systems planning and project development to show where environmental factors could be incorporated to improve the process, overcoming the past disconnection between the plan- ning and project development stage. The study showed that environmental considerations can be included throughout system planning and project development. Eco-Logical (Brown 2006), builds on the earlier 1995 inter- agency Memorandum of Understanding on ecosystem man- agement (U.S. Council on Environmental Quality 1995). Eco-Logical presents an integrated planning framework that incorporates an ecosystem approach to environmental mitiga- tion agreements and adaptive management through perfor- mance measures. The teamâs research builds from Eco-Logical to provide the scientific and technical procedures and methods needed to support use of the new integrated Framework. Cumulative effects assessment and alternatives The CEAA process is tightly coupled with and fully integrated into nearly all steps of the Framework. The CEAA provides a hierarchy of steps for implementing relevant components of the Framework. They are further supported by: (1) literature citations providing references to peer reviewed and other works for additional reading on the steps; (2) case studies and examples from real-world applications of the concepts to illustrate how they have been accomplished; and (3) tools,
14 products from the spatial analyses should be consistent with the level of precision of the data inputs. In other words, expectations/needs for precision of results should be lower for larger regions compared with smaller corridor/MPO analyses. However, the advent of species distribution model- ing, as described in Appendix B, and robust desktop compu- tation capability are reducing the extent/precision effect and creating data that are applicable at multiple scales across broad extents. This does not eliminate the need for on-the- ground observation for project permitting but should narrow the scope of site surveys to the resources that have reasonable probability of occurring on the site. Partnership Coordination Because an REF by definition is a synthesis of the work of many contributors, many organizations should be involved in deciding how to create it. However, it is unlikely that the REF will be created and maintained without strong central coor- dination. The role of the coordinator is to identify the key sources of information and science needed to build and main- tain the REF and to engage the responsible organizations in the REF partnership. Because the REF is developed initially for the transportation planning process (to be useful in many applications), it may be appropriate for an MPO or DOT to take the lead role. However, it may be more appropriate for a resource agency, such as the state wildlife action plan (SWAP) coordinator, to assume the lead role because of the REF focus on natural resources. Leadership and partner roles in conduct- ing the CEAA, especially the creation and maintenance of the REF, generated considerable discussion at the C06 Sympo- sium. Several participants suggested that larger MPOs would have the strongest motivation and coordination capability. Regional Ecosystem Framework Guidance This component of the CEAA process was drawn directly from Eco-Logical. It was described there as: âAn REF consists of an overlay of maps of agenciesâ individual plans, accom- panied by descriptions of conservation goals in the defined regionâ (Brown 2006). This definition could result in an incongruous product, by trying to combine both conserva- tion and development plans and goals. For clarity, the REF is defined here as a spatial and nonspatial database of resources and scenarios with planning objectives and conservation cri- teria. The REF contains the spatial distribution of informa- tion that characterizes: 1. Current actual development, established conservation area, and their attributes. 2. The conservation priority areas of the resource partners (e.g., resource agencies and NGOs) with attributes that stages of the transportation planning and design process when transportation improvements can be characterized spatially (whether coarsely or at fine scales). This process should be applicable to long-range transportation plans (LRTPs), cor- ridor plans, and project design. The teamâs emphasis and intended application is LRTP in keeping with study objectives for moving resource consideration and mitigation planning to the long-range planning phase, as opposed to putting it off until project design. The team thinks this technical guidance is applicable for all DOTs and their MPO partners, but acknowl- edges that many agencies, especially many smaller MPOs and many state resource agencies, currently lack the capacity to implement the template in its ideal form. Relationship to NEPA This technical guidance will provide support for creating environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements (EISs) consistent with guidance for a tiered EIS process developed by the FHWA through their Legal Guid- ance on Integration of Planning and NEPA Processes (U.S. Department of Transportation and FHWA 2005). The teamâs process seeks to move analysis traditionally conducted at the project phase of the transportation development process to the planning phase to streamline project delivery by identify- ing and mitigating expected impacts much sooner. This CEAA process provides several outputs useful for NEPA processes and products. First, it identifies environmental resources and environmentally sensitive areas, existing natural resource con- servation areas, and the outputs of natural resource planning efforts. It also explicitly and quantitatively conducts cumula- tive effects assessments for plan alternatives by incorporating all reasonably foreseeable actions in the area, such as regional and local growth and development plans and projections and other cumulative effects factors. The guidance assumes that analyses of environmental effects at the planning stage will not be sufficiently current or detailed for NEPA, but fully imple- menting the CEAA steps can produce sufficient analyses if desired. The CEAA process also supports decisions and docu- mentation for eliminating alternatives and generating plan alternatives to avoid impacts as much as practicable. It enables assessment results and comments to be used to create a pre- ferred alternative, quantify impacts, and if necessary, mitigate resource impacts. Scale This process is meant to be applied at any scale ranging from states and ecoregions to municipalities and corridors. Differ- ences in scale suggest differences in information sources and levels of precision (e.g., data covering large regions is often coarser). Therefore, expectations for the level of precision of
15 such as work by large national or regional conservation NGOs and some natural heritage programs. When no conservation priority area plans exist at the needed level of resolution, the partnership should decide if it will be more efficient to downscale existing coarse-scale plans or create an interim product from existing data on individual resources. The SWAP and other partnersâ plans can still provide important guidance on the resources to be considered, resource pri- orities, general areas of conservation importance, and per- haps even resource retention goals. To create a more resolved spatial-priorities map, an alternative is to identify natural vegetation areas containing important resources by using existing high-resolution, natural landcover and habitat maps, such as those produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Gap Analysis Program (U.S. Geological Survey 2012), with other natural resource data, such as the natural heritage pro- gram occurrences of imperiled species and ecological com- munities and state resource agency maps of important game species habitat. Conservation priority areas do not cover some important resources and maps, for such resources often are based on incomplete observation points, in part because many SWAPs do not address plant species and many species distribution maps exist only as point observations. Techniques described here that address the omission of resources in conservation priority maps can also address this problem. Predictive distri- bution models can be used when there is a lack of complete geographic distribution maps for individual resources. The USGS Gap Analysis Projects produced moderate confidence models for most terrestrial and aquatic vertebrate species and some developed models for other species. Other projects in states or regions may have produced other higher confidence models for particular species. The REF program/partners may also be able to use contemporary tools and methods to create the necessary models that are achievable with much less effort than in the past, as discussed later. Science and Subject Matter Experts As with data, science is imperfect and incomplete. Few species have been studied sufficiently to provide empirical values for viability (e.g., retention goals, minimum required occurrence sizes), which form the basis in the CEAA for determining cumulative impacts. Thus, the teamâs process must rely on SME judgment. This reliance on expert judgment can present defensibility issues in the planning process even though it is fre- quently accepted in other resource planning processes subject to NEPA. SMEs need to be accepted by the partnership. They often are found in government agencies, academia, and NGOs and other organizations outside those providing plan inputs to the REF. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NEPA guidance describes cooperating agency roles related to their specify the individual resource (e.g., species) contained in those priority areas, individual resource distributions, and their conservation goals and requirements. 3. The development plans for action agencies (transportation and other infrastructure and land use agencies). These tend to be less certain and more dynamic given shifting agency and societal objectives and available implementa- tion funding. Resources the partnership considers important to represent in the REF may need to be represented by individual resource distribution maps, rather than encompassed in priority area maps. The resources component of the REF should be as objec- tive as possible, based on quality mapping and robust scien- tific processes involving subject matter experts (SMEs) for the required resources. The REF process the team has developed keeps the three components (current situation, conservation priorities, and planned development) separate and intersects them when a cumulative effects assessment is needed to sup- port decision making. Limitations and Challenges in Using the CEAA Process As with most innovations and activities requiring broad partner ships, the key challenges to adoption tend to be insti- tutional, political, and financial rather than technical. Those issues are addressed in Volume 1. This volume focuses on the technical and scientific limitations and challenges of the CEAA and provides suggestions for overcoming them. Data Availability and Quality Lack of quality data is becoming less and less of an excuse for not doing good resource assessment. Although perfect data will never be achieved, more and better data are available every year. However, the perfect should not be the enemy of the good. The REF partnership process focuses on making the best use of available data while it develops the strategy and funding mechanisms to obtain better data. Frequently, the data from conservation NGOs is overlooked, but it may rep- resent some of the best available information. Two specific data content and quality challenges are: (1) the scale and spa- tial specificity of SWAPs and (2) the lack of coverage for some important resources in conservation plans. The teamâs sug- gested solutions to these challenges follow. The SWAP should be a key component of the REF. Some- times SWAPs are nonspatial or too coarse to support transpor- tation planning. As of this writing, most states seem dedicated to mapping priority areas for their SWAP and increasing the spatial resolution to support implementation. Other plans may exist to fill this role wholly or partially in the interim,
16 is not legally protected, but the action would prevent achiev- ing the resource retention goal. Identification of the spe- cific resource and the amount of area affected can then help identify possible on-site or off-site mitigation options that could be pursued with interested REF partners. ⢠Integrating and maintaining information from distributed sources: This can be a particular challenge for obtaining, integrating, and managing expert input on the resources. Such experts usually are distributed among many organiza- tions and over wide geographic areas. Creation of a simple online location where their information can be entered and accessed can ease the burden on everyone for information collection and management. Using this approach makes everyoneâs information reusable for multiple applications. ⢠Integrating dynamic processes and information: Dynamic data can include data that are updated frequently or repre- sent dynamic phenomena. Climate change study and mod- eling are increasing and beginning to produce large amounts of such data, which can affect the REF (species/ecosystem change and migration) and assessment of additional impor- tant resource stressors. The REF partnership should explic- itly address what information should be included and how it should be used in updates to the REF and assessment. Suggestions for Low-Capacity Agencies Ideally, transportation planning processes will build the neces- sary partnerships and funding needed to conduct the CEAA process, ongoing updates, and adaptive management. If the transportation agency and REF partners lack capacity to imple- ment the process, it is possible to use a significantly scaled back approach that can rely on SME involvement or be automated through a statewide system (existing or under development in a growing number of states). However, for the long term, scaled back processes ultimately may require more staff time if impor- tant elements are missed initially and may produce less reliable or defensible results. This approach also loses the opportunity to gather expert knowledge in a reusable database to apply to other plans and projects in the region. An alternative process to that described in the CEAA process in its most minimal form entails overlaying (graphically with hard copies or through a GIS) proposed LRTP alternatives with the SWAP and or other spatial conservation priority maps for the resources of interest. Areas of potential conflict would be identified graphically, and SMEs would identify resources that might be affected and make an expert judgment about the sig- nificance of the impact and options for mitigation. This approach currently is common in project assessments, and such functionality is supported through tools such as Floridaâs Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) online system for project evaluation (Florida Department of expertise in the environmental issues being addressed (U.S. EPA, 2012b). The team followed this accepted approach but moved it forward into the spatial analytical age by includ- ing quantitative values for viability assessment. The NGO conservation community has been using this approach for many years. Sources for additional guidance are found in the CEAA online resource links. Although a fair amount of uncertainty around quantitative values exists and should be documented, the team thinks this approach provides more rigor and defensibility than typical approaches for conduct- ing assessments at the planning level and likely also for proj- ect level assessments. In the near term, the REF partnership needs to agree on the degree of scientific rigor acceptable for the REF applications. It may be reasonable to conclude that the bar for planning should be lower than for project assessment (full NEPA process), for which the number of considerations is fewer and more precise information can be collected and more rigorously analyzed. The objective is to provide a far better and more precise assess- ment at the planning phase than has been done in the past while not hamstringing it with impracticable requirements. Education of partners and stakeholders in the use and value of SME judgment will be needed to achieve the objectives of streamlining project delivery by moving considerations to the planning phase. Uncertainty in scientific knowledge also should contribute to agreements about triggers for additional analyses at the project phase. The partnership should agree on acceptable sources of scientific information and develop mid- term and long-term scientific research needs assessments and strategies to fill critical gaps. Technical Many of the technical challenges and limitations of the past have been overcome with improved computing power and creation of decision support tools to automate a consider- able amount of the CEAA process. But technical challenges remain. Three are addressed here. ⢠Creating robust analyses understandable to decision makers and stakeholders: With the availability of more and bet- ter data and robust spatial analyses techniques and tools, analyses and products are becoming highly complex and more difficult to describe and explain. The team suggests a hierarchical form to the CEAA process products that starts with the binary presentation of âproblem/not a problemâ and then allows users to drill down through the information to additional detail, as needed. For example, a result from a cumulative effects assessment may indicate an incompat- ibility between a resource and a proposed action (there is a problem). Additional investigation may reveal the resource
17 tory assurances throughout the transportation planning and project delivery process. Improving Wetlands Data Section 404 of the CWA is the key national regulatory mecha- nism to assure wetlands are not lost. The program is also the primary mechanism used to replace lost aquatic functions. In a 2007 report, the Environmental Law Institute (ELI) esti- mated that private and public expenditures for compensatory mitigation under Section 404 of the CWA is about $2.9 bil- lion annually (ELI 2007). These funds represent more than three quarters of all natural resources mitigation expendi- tures nationally and constitute the primary source of funds for restoring wetlands and watersheds across the nation. Some progress has been made in restoring and compensat- ing for the loss of aquatic functions, but to date much of the implemented mitigation has not led to the creation, restora- tion, or conservation of important wetland habitats, resulting in a system that does not completely avoid losses and that is largely unable to be proactive (Gardner et al. 2009). The cur- rent system also lacks sufficient emphasis on avoiding or minimizing project impacts. Some of these inefficiencies stem from a lack of practically accessible data, which regula- tors would consider sufficient for the proactive analysis and early commitments that could maximize DOT investments in conservation or restoration of significant areas, to help achieve watershed goals. Later decision making and suboptimal miti- gation outcomes result when resource agencies can most effectively consider the resources in question since early in the process key information may be absent. Major concerns of wetland regulators include: ⢠Assuring the most significant or vulnerable wetlands are protected. ⢠Being confident that the locations of most significant wet- lands are known in advance so that they can be avoided if possible; and impacts are minimized if unavoidable. ⢠Assuring that high-quality and appropriate wetlands infor- mation is used in assessment tools. ⢠Having methods for addressing prioritization of sites for mitigation. ⢠Assuring that mitigation results in high-quality wetlands creation and/or measurable enhancement equivalent to habitat lost. To address wetlands regulatorsâ concerns, the team con- sulted 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 for pur- poses of avoidance, impact minimization, and mitigation Transportation 2011). States could replicate this capability to assist low-capacity transportation organizations by provid- ing a system that would contain all of the necessary resource layers and the capability to overlay maps. The only technical requirement for the transportation agency would be to provide their LRTP to the state system for assessment. This alternative approach would accomplish the rudimentary need for com- paring the LRTP to the resources, but it falls far short of the suggested process in terms of ability to quantify cumulative effects and support a full cycle of LRTP option development, assessment, selection, mitigation, and implementation. The lack of resource agency capacity can be mitigated some- what by involving science-based NGOs, but in the long run, more capacity for resource agencies to routinely engage with transportation planning activities will be required for inte- grated conservation and transportation planning to succeed. This will require internal capacity building and training in methods and tools. regulatory assurances Addressing regulatorsâ needs is an essential part of the decision- making process for all transportation projects. Although obtaining complete regulatory assurances may be impossible, the team focused on identifying the aspects of current deci- sion making that provided the greatest concern for regulators at the national, regional, state, and local levels and then devel- oping tools or information to address these concerns. Based on the research, the team thinks that, particularly for wet- lands and endangered species, regulatory conflicts and delays result primarily from transportation planners and regulators having insufficient, incomplete, or poor-quality data. Trans- portation practitioners seek methods for identifying potential impacts to regulated resources as early as possible in the plan- ning process so that impacts can be avoided or minimized. They also share the desire of regulatory agencies to assure that any mitigation required because of unavoidable impacts pro- vides effective, measurable, and high-quality environmental outcomes for the affected resources. The keys to success identified and addressed in Volume 1 are to: (1) Use the best data that can be obtained or col- lected early in the planning process; (2) Stay in touch with regulatorsâcontact them early and often throughout plan- ning and implementation; (3) Take advantage of existing conservation planning work completed by federal agencies, state agencies, universities, and conservation organizations; and (4) Link conservation planning with regulatory protec- tion work but understand that regulators must focus on their specific resource of interest. The team developed new strate- gies for data integration and modeling that can be used in the CEAA process to improve the likelihood of obtaining regula-
18 Protection Agency 2007). Any major data improvements pro- vide the opportunity to assure that the new FGDC national wetlands mapping standard is applied to these data. Currently, the national information for wetlands is main- tained in the USFWS NWI. The NWI represents a major invest- ment of the U.S. government, yet it remains incomplete and underfunded. Figure 2.1 shows the status of national wetlands data in the United States from the NWI annual status report. According to the NWI, approximately 80% of the United States has digital wetlands data available. In addition to 20% of the country having no digital data, much of the existing digital data are based on wetlands that were mapped from imagery obtained in the 1980s. This means the data may be significantly out of date. Whether or not the data are out of date is largely immaterial because the perception that the data are neither comprehensive nor reliable prevents transportation agencies from obtaining any type of assurances that by using these data early in the planning process they are actually avoiding and minimizing potential impacts. A major barrier to improving these data is the cost to digi- tize the remaining paper maps, incorporate scanned maps, update the NWI using current standard methodologies, and develop new digital data in areas such as Utah, southern Montana, and Alaska, where no old paper NWI maps exist. results. The status of wetlands information is quite variable across the country, so the team diagramed a workflow with data and tools for inclusion in the Framework that integrates the USFWSâs nationally available NWI database with the pro- cess for refining and augmenting that information to assure the digital data are complete enough to improve avoidance, minimization, and mitigation outcomes (see Appendix A). Improving Wetlands Data for Avoidance and Planning The primary need is to improve the quality of wetlands data by improving its spatial accuracy, currency, and content for avoidance and planning. The team studied how to develop wetlands data in states without high-quality wetlands digital data and developed a practical and efficient process for refin- ing and augmenting USFWS NWI and other national data- bases to express wetland type, status, ecological integrity, and biodiversity value. Specifically, the team developed methods to accelerate digitizing wetland maps and create wetland mitiga- tion and restoration catalogs. In July 2009, the Federal Geo- graphic Data Committee (FGDC) endorsed a new wetlands mapping standard for the United States, which provided stan- dard mapping protocols for wetlands (U.S. Environmental Figure 2.1. Status of digital wetlands data for the United States in 2010 in the NWI.
19 now are available digitally. Figure 2.3 shows the current sta- tus of the state. This case study is included because having the wetlands digi- tal data is such a critical component of the proposed methodol- ogy, and it demonstrates that obtaining these data can be developed quickly and somewhat affordably. Providing the data digitally allows transportation agencies to use the data in long- term planning and supports creation of wetland mitigation and restoration catalogs. If transportation planners do not know where the wetlands are, the wetlands cannot be avoided and impacts cannot be mitigated. Michigan case study: Wetland Functions A consortium of partners led by Ducks Unlimited has been working to update the Michigan NWI data, which were state- wide but somewhat out of date and limited to basic NWI data. The consortiumâs methodology involves using spatial data, modeling, and some imagery analysis to attempt to develop functional attributes for all of the wetlands in the state. The functional data provide valuable information that can assist in identifying the importance of the wetland and the value of the wetlands for mitigation and restoration. The data were used in the Michigan St. Joseph Watershed Pilot to test the overall transportation planning methodology proposed in the teamâs research (see Appendix C, Michigan Pilot Project Report). The EPA has been working in Montana, Colorado, Oregon, and California, through state wetlands program development grants, to improve this information. However, the current estimates to update and complete these maps by the state wet- land regulatory agencies average between $1.5 and 2 mil- lion per state. The team developed methods for producing integrated wetlands maps for less money that can be used by transportation agencies working with wetland regulators. Oregon provides a helpful example of what can be done. Until 2005, only about 20% of the state data were available digi- tally. Figure 2.2 shows the distribution of digital data in Oregon as of 2006 in red, with the red along the border with California, Washington, Nevada, and Idaho coming from the adjacent states. Although the overall costs to complete digitizing and updating were estimated at $1.5 million, a partnership of agen- cies, including the Oregon Geospatial Enterprise Office in the Department of Administrative Services, the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, and Oregon State University, decided that digital wetlands coverage was essential and took on the task of scanning and updating the available data. After an investment of approximately $300,000, includ- ing $170,000 provided to the GIS Mapping Center at the Oregon Prison Industries, and $130,000 to the Oregon Nat- ural Heritage Information Center through a grant from EPA and the Murdock Charitable Trust, data of the entire state Figure 2.2. Status of digital wetlands data in Oregon in 2006.
20 NGO, or program from another state may need to complete the mapping. Once digital data are available nationally, the country has the potential to identify mitigation priority sites or create a mitigation and restoration catalog for all states, with sites located in each watershed. This would significantly improve the integration of conservation and transportation planning across the nation. Improving Mitigation Implementation and Outcomes The inability to implement mitigation for unavoidable wet- land losses is probably the greatest obstacle to transportation project development in the many wetland-rich areas of the country. The teamâs research indicates the best way to over- come this obstacle is to identify a relatively comprehensive set of mitigation priority sites, a mitigation and restoration cata- log. These priority catalogs need to be completed for all areas where transportation development is likely and include at least one and, if possible, a few sites located in each watershed. Some states are working to develop comprehensive catalogs, and these pilot methodologies are described here. If transpor- tation and resource agencies can reach agreement in advance on watershed specific mitigation sites, it should accelerate per- mitting for projects in that watershed. This approach helps address the need for statewide and comprehensive functional wetlands data. Wetlands functions are difficult to measure, but if regulators can agree on accept- able information and it can be obtained, it can improve the quality of the wetlands data and the ability to compare changes to wetlands over time, and potentially can improve mitiga- tion implementation by addressing wetland mitigation ratios. Developing this type of data is more expensive (costing approx- imately $2 million to complete the state) than the simpler methods already described for Oregon or those described in this work for Virginia. Based on the current national status map in Figure 2.1, most of the wetlands mapping remaining is needed for the western states, primarily Utah, Colorado, Montana, Texas, Idaho, Arizona, and New Mexico. The blank areas in Wiscon- sin represent an area where the stateâs maps differ from the USFWS NWI, but high-quality digital data are available. The Natural Heritage Programs in Colorado, New Mexico, and Montana are working to complete the mapping and digitiza- tion of wetlands in these states using wetlands program devel- opment grants from EPA but are 4â6 years from completion. Idaho Heritage worked at this for a while but has stopped. There are no ongoing efforts to complete the mapping in Utah, Texas, or Arizona, and in these states, a federal agency, Figure 2.3. Status of digital wetlands data in Oregon in 2010.
21 2004; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 2006; The Wetlands Conservancy 2005). This effort did not involve set- ting conservation goals or gathering new information. It was relatively straightforward and inexpensive, although assuring that all the parties were willing to accept the resulting map took more than 6 months. The wetlands mitigation catalog in Figure 2.4 was created from this synthesis map by Oregon Heritage Program and Wetlands Conservancy staff selecting the areas in the footprint with potential for wetlands: sites with wetland soils in areas oregon Pilot Wetlands Mitigation catalog A pilot effort to create a wetlands catalog in the Willamette Valley recently was done quickly and cooperatively with lim- ited public funds. Oregon Heritage worked with The Wetlands Conservancy, a local NGO, to develop a set of priority wet- lands based on an integrated REF created by an interagency cooperative effort. Partners worked together to integrate the results of five assessments covering the Willamette Basin, and a series of recovery plans and assessments focused on federally listed species (Baker et al. 2004; Bauer 1980; Floberg et al. Figure 2.4. Willamette Basin wetlands mitigation and restoration catalog.
22 fact that the wetlands restoration or enhancement offers poten- tial (secondary) improvement to water quality in water bodies exceeding water quality standards. Water quality impacts caused by roadway runoff, decreased shading of streams, and increased deposition of nitrogen or phosphorus appear to have data or tools available that could be incorporated into the overall CEAA process. Initial exploratory work was done with the Natural Capi- tal Project hydrology staff and researchers from the EPAâs Western Ecology Division to identify tools and data available to characterize 303(d) attributes spatially. Initially, the proj- ect team was unsure if it would be possible to use the Water Quality module of InVEST (the Integrated Valuation of Eco- system Services and Tradeoffs, a suite of models and software tools under development by the Natural Capital Project, http:// www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html), but a trial was done as part of this project. EPA is also testing methods that may allow for more rapid assessment and approval of needed mitigation. The initial focus of the Virginia Wetlands Catalog research had been to directly incorporate water quality data to expand the catalog and evaluate the effectiveness of the various iden- tified sites at addressing identified water quality limitations. Virginia was able to use water quality data to prioritize the catalog but not as a method for selecting priority mitigation sites. In Oregon, the team explored using TMDL and water quality limitations in prioritizing the restoration and mitiga- tion catalog in the Willamette Valley of Oregon. However, in both Oregon and Virginia, the water quality evaluation was completed independently from the wetland catalog develop- ment. A potential future area of research is to test methods of developing a catalog of restoration and mitigation opportu- nities that simultaneously evaluate wetland and water quality attributes. The Watershed Approach and Other State Efforts The watershed approach is a method identified in wetlands mitigation rules developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers (USACE) in cooperation with the EPA (ELI 2007; USEPA 2008). Although these rules are relatively general, a number of organizations and localities have undertaken efforts to demonstrate the watershed approach. EPA and USACE staff have tested the approach in central Maryland and believe they can implement it throughout the state. The approach has also been used in watersheds in Delaware, Minnesota, Tennessee, and Montana. The approach is similar to the overall approach developed by the project team, involving collecting spatial data, identifying priorities, and working with partners to determine the most important areas for restoration and conservation. that were farmed, weedy, or otherwise needing restoration; areas with existing wetlands that had become separated by some type of disturbance; or areas with historic wetland losses. Wetlands priority areas were identified in every 8-digit water- shed to assure there would be mitigation sites close enough to be considered on-site to any likely development. The resulting map was presented to the state and federal wetland regulators in a meeting as a draft and was modified slightly based on their recommendations. This case represents the quickest and sim- plest method identified for setting wetland mitigation and conservation priorities and was rapidly accepted by wetland regulators and the conservation community. Because it was accepted so quickly, additional assistance from an EPA Wet- lands Program Develop Grant has been obtained to help com- plete the catalog for the rest of Oregon. Virginia Pilot Mitigation catalog The team was unable to work with the Virginia Department of Transportation on a pilot study site, but was able to test the concept of creating a mitigation catalog to integrate wetland, conservation, and water quality objectives. The Virginia Nat- ural Heritage Program, in the Virginia Department of Con- servation and Recreation, had an existing wetland restoration catalog they had developed based on internal conservation priorities. This catalog was limited enough that many water- sheds lacked any priority mitigation areas, and the catalog was not used frequently by Virginia DOT or Virginia DEQ. As part of their research, they tested a method to develop wet- land priority sites that represented the best places for wetland conservation and the best sites to meet overall water quality restoration needs; they used only spatial data that are most likely available across the country. Their work was tested in an 11-subwatershed pilot area covering the Lower Pamunkey River basin in central Virginia. Data were used to expand exist- ing NWI data to assure that as many existing and historic wet- lands as possible were included in the analysis, based on an array of data sets. Details of this methodology are included in Appendix C, Methodology for Developing a Parcel-based Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Conservation Catalog: A Virginia Pilot Project. Priority sites were identified with landowner ship parcels included so that the catalog could be displayed by priority wetland and priority land parcels. The resulting sites were ranked based on their importance for con- servation, ability to address water quality needs, adjacency to existing mitigation banks, and restoration potential. Including Clean Water Act Sections 301, 303, and TMDLs in Catalog Planning The project team also evaluated other aspects of the CWA com- pliance, particularly those related to water quality, including nonpoint sources, runoff, and TMDLs. The focus was on the
23 Developing Inductive Species Maps for Federally Listed Species Most information on listed species locations currently exists in the form of observations, instead of habitat type and pre- dicted distributions. Species occurrence is highly sensitive information and, as a result, is not readily shared with trans- portation agencies or the public. In addition, observation data are almost always shown and distributed with buffers that reflect the accuracy or certainty of the individual occurrence. As a result, the older, less accurate data show up as large buf- fers covering large areas, whereas more recent and more accu- rate data are smaller, with limited buffers. Figure 2.5 shows the federally listed species occurrences from northwestern Ore- gon and how large the uncertainty buffers are for some older records. The system was designed for project review by regula- tors but works poorly with electronic decision support tools. The project team tested the possibility of transforming these highly sensitive maps showing precise known locations of federally listed species into slightly more generalized, pub- lic domain maps showing places where these species are likely to occur or where their habitat needs to be protected. This built on the ongoing work in Oregon, New York, Florida, and elsewhere in the Natural Heritage network to develop high- resolution, predictive species maps that do not have the sen- sitivity of observation data. The project team met with USFWS Endangered Species staff in Florida, Oregon, and Virginia. Presentations were made on the previously developed models in Florida and Oregon. Models were used to create detailed maps of poten- tially occupied habitat that would add known occurrences and legally designated critical habitat to create data that could be used in decision support tools and the overall Framework. These new data are called species distribution maps. The work to date has focused on: (1) working with regulators to determine how to assure the data would achieve the project goals; (2) defining methodology, steps, and costs for developing the data across the country; and (3) addressing issues related to standards, linking the data to the Framework, data security, and data distribution and maintenance. The difference between the traditional incidence and occurrence approach and species dis- tribution maps is illustrated in Figure 2.6. Using the data from the Natural Heritage networkâs biotics species observations database and new software for modeling species predictive distributions (DOMAIN, Random Forest, Maximum Entropy), predictive distribution maps of listed threatened and endangered species were developed that bet- ter represent where species might be for use in planning new projects. They also can significantly reduce the size of areas requiring potential inventory for endangered species. The models can be used not only to define potentially occupied habitat, but also, most significantly, through probability The watershed approach has focused on assuring that part- nerships are developed with a myriad of local organizations, governments, and the public, which makes this approach rela- tively easy to implement but more time consuming and expen- sive to develop. To date, most demonstrations of the watershed approach have been developed locally, with a local government or NGO as the driver of the analysis and implementation. Assuring comprehensive and readily acceptable mitigation sites are identified and, if possible, preapproved by the regula- tory community in any state is a key to gaining early regula- tory assurances. Any of the methods tested will meet the goals of the transportation and regulatory community provided they involve an analysis of a relatively comprehensive wet- lands data set; some analysis of overall conservation priori- ties, preferably in an REF; and an identification of mitigation opportunities. There would be advantages to creating standards for the development of statewide wetland mitigation catalogs, but wetland standards can be difficult, and this would not be critical to obtaining regulatory approval of mitigation banks and priority restoration sites. The fastest and most straight- forward method would involve building on existing efforts in the states where these are ongoing and identifying a straight- forward method for rapidly creating a statewide catalog in other states based on the Virginia, Oregon, or Maryland work. Regardless of what method is chosen, moving from exist- ing wetland banks to a system based on priorities is not going to be simple. Grandfathering in existing sites is likely essen- tial. Similarly, methods that rely on wetland functionality to further identify mitigation needs and opportunities will have to be addressed, and permits will still need to be obtained for specific projects based on site-specific impact analysis. The clear obstacle to better transportation and conservation out- comes is the lack of a reasonable and comprehensive set of preapproved mitigation sites that can be used once project- level impacts are agreed upon. As is the case with all issues related to planning and information, the lack of perfect data should not be allowed to stop progress, which is especially important in developing methods and tools used in a regula- tory framework. Improving ESA Data Most of the uncertainty transportation planners and endan- gered species regulators face is caused by lack of information on the probable distribution and habitat of these protected species. Although good information exists for known popu- lations, the fear of losing an unknown but potentially impor- tant site for a species is a major barrier to many permits. The probable or potential distribution is the most important data to adequately assess impacts and plan for species protection and recovery.
24 Figure 2.5. Map of federally listed species occurrences in Northwest Oregon. Note: Maps showing traditional (left) and species (right) distributions of the bog turtle in New York. Red dots indicate occurrences and the green on the left map are the ecological subsections in which they occur. (Courtesy of NY Natural Heritage Program.) Figure 2.6. Comparison of traditional and new distribution maps for the Bog Turtle.
25 oped by New York and Oregon. Wyoming and Montana have expanded their capacity to create high-resolution maps of species distributions, whereas work is beginning in Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and elsewhere. USFWS has been using similar, but simpler, models to derive critical habitat for use in listing species under the ESA or recovery plans. As a result, regulators are familiar with them and understand their potential utility. In addition, USFWS is developing a Section 7 decision support tool that focuses on analyzing impacts based on spatially mapping threats identi- fied in listing and recovery documents and integrating the rec- ommended recovery actions. The current USFWS tool requires distribution information and would be significantly improved by using inductive models. In the transportation planning framework, planners could use inductive models to avoid probable distributions of endangered species and target other (improbable) areas for potential transportation development. Endangered Species Mitigation Although ESA mitigation may not be as prevalent as wetland mitigation in transportation implementation, it remains a analyses, areas that are not potential habitat for any listed species. The combination of new data types, such as LiDAR, and increased availability of high-resolution imagery types, such as SPOT and digital color infrared air photographs, along with new image processing types have increased the accuracy and confidence of these models. Figure 2.7 shows a detail of the bog turtle map, showing how the probability of occurrence can be identified and used to create maps for both Section 7 review and recovery plan- ning. The research team developed a series of detailed method- ology questions related to data development and a list of answers from researchers at institutions that have devel- oped these models. New York made the greatest effort to build at-risk species models using inductive modeling methods, with more than 250 species mapped in the state. Oregon also has done exten- sive research on inductive models; however, Oregon has completed only 8 species models for listed species and has 15 remaining. Florida is the only state in the United States that has completed models for all listed species, although Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) would like to update their models to use the new techniques and standards devel- Figure 2.7. Map showing inductive distribution probability for suitable habitat of the threatened bog turtle in New York.
26 team will tailor this ongoing effort to meet the needs of trans- portation planners and support the CEAA process. ecological accounting Ecosystem Services and Transportation Planning The need to better understand societyâs dependence on natu- ral services and goods has led to the increased study of eco- system services and the opportunity for ecosystem services to structure new management tools. The ecosystem services lit- erature in the United States dates to Aldo Leopold and con- servation biology writers in the early and mid-20th century. Ecosystem services are the goods and services that human communities depend upon for health, safety, and economic prosperity. These goods and services often are grouped into the general categories of provisioning, regulating, cultural, or supporting services (Daily et al. 2009). Provisioning ser- vices include more common conceptions of goods from the natural world, such as food, fiber, and fuels. Regulating ser- vices include the natural features and functions that protect communities from flood, fires, and storms. Other services that provide us aesthetic, cultural, and recreational values are just as important but often hard to capture. This classifi- cation system is opposed by those arguing for a more inte- grated view of how services interrelate and combine naturally (Fisher et al. 2009). The use of methods for estimating ecosystem services has been the subject of some debate. One concern is that ecosys- tem services fail to ensure protection of biodiversity by focus- ing environmental policy attention on services whose values to humans are more widely understood (Kremen and Ostfeld 2005; Vira and Adams 2009). The concern stems from the way services are defined. Because their value is tied to human use and consumption, it is feared that some natural functions necessary to support biodiversity but lacking a human con- sumer will be lost or undervalued. Through much of the eco- system service literature, there is an underlying assumption that if ecosystem services are preserved, biodiversity will be protected. Research on the correlation between services and biodiversity has begun only recently. Some early results sug- gest that the correlation between ecosystem service provi- sioning and biodiversity is positive, but it may not be strong in many cases (Benayas et al. 2009; Chan et al. 2006). A second concern is that many valuations based only on ecosystem services are based on large area analyses that do not directly support local decision making or implementa- tion (Nelson et al. 2009). Some valuation systems rely on large area economic analyses that allow for both a broad scope and set of services to be considered but which are major focus. A programmatic approach to project planning and implementation is a major goal for ESA implementation by both the USFWS and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries. Comprehensive species distribution maps based on inductive models will assist in developing and creating priorities for the development of programmatic approaches and avoidance. A completed REF, with information on identified threats and recovery needs for all known or predicted federally listed and proposed species clearly identified, is essential. Integrated wetlands and ESA mitigation catalogs have been developed for vernal pond species in the central valley of California, in southwestern Oregon, and in south Florida. These examples primarily focused on the needs of listed spe- cies that occur in wetland habitats. A number of programmatic efforts focusing on listed fish also have been developed by both NOAA and USFWS. All of these efforts require an analysis of recovery needs and critical habitat. These data currently are not readily available and are another critical information need. Although only NOAA and USFWS can develop these data, integrating available maps and including critical habitat and recovery goals digitally in planning criteria for the REF and transportation plans can be done by state and local agencies. Including this information in the inductive species distribu- tion maps provides the best opportunities for avoidance and agreement on mitigation requirements. Assuring Planning Data Are Up to Date and Meet Regulatory Requirements Addressing data distribution infrastructure needs and how the data can best be incorporated into the Framework has yet to be done. The Framework needs to be better developed for this to be done efficiently. The project team will evaluate the Biodiversity Exchange Network, based on EPAâs successful Water Quality Exchange Network, as a potential tool for data distribution. To date, the new network is unable to share spa- tial data. The Utah Natural Heritage Program was funded to develop a functional node with a geo-database. Utah contin- ues to believe they will have a usable methodology. One of the goals of this research is to assure internal data sharing of newly developed models within the Natural Heri- tage network and the regulatory agencies and to assure that the models provide regulatory certainty. Another goal remains to assure protocols and software exist to allow programs to provide their data through web services to transportation agencies and other partners. The advantage to providing data through web services is that the primary data manager is elec- tronically and automatically publishing the data for websites to harvest. Data security can be built in, but applications using web services receive constantly updated data. The project
27 unemployment, poverty, and educational attainment. In transportation, the numbers of daily trips and levels of ser- vices are assessed. However, in the environmental realm, it is much more dif- ficult to evaluate how much of a resource or habitat needs to be protected and how well it is being protected. In transporta- tion, we are also challenged to communicate this to the public and elected decision makers. Often we do not know whether our choices have been good until too late. We struggle to mea- sure, communicate, and assess our progress toward conserva- tion and restoration and prove compliance with environmental goals. Even within the regulatory structures, we lack a mean- ingful way to connect restoration or recovery goals to choices made at a site level. The best the transportation community has been able to do is track a patchwork of resource-specific performance measures but without understanding how they connect to programs, regulations, or budgets. A new set of measures could accomplish the following goals: ⢠Provide status and trend information; ⢠Allow us to link budgets to choices to understand efficiencies and progress; ⢠Translate high-level planning and regulatory goals to site- level decisions; and ⢠Communicate effectively with stakeholders, decision makers, and each other. The federal government has wrestled with concerns about environmental metrics since the 1970s. A 2005 Government Accountability Office report tracks this history and the efforts on a national level to measure and communicate environmen- tal conditions and trends. Starting in the 1970s, the National Academy of Sciences identified that the highest priority for managing the environment is to create a centralized federal monitoring program. Since then, 16 bills or resolutions have passed Congress calling for this or attempting to solve the problem, but none have effectively done so (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2005). Progress on tracking the environment has focused largely on single-resource questions. This can be pollutant- or species- based or based on acres affected (e.g., areas burned), or it can be resource-based in terms of tons of fish caught or board feet harvested. Today the federal government spends at least $600 million every year on monitoring the conditions and trends in the environment (U.S. Government Accountability Office 2004). State and local governments spend an additional unknown amount to track the environment. The challenge is that none of these measures has remained consistent or been integrated longitudinally to provide a basis for developing new management strategies, theories, or comprehensive assess- ments. Databases often do not provide information that can difficult to disaggregate to a local level (Costanza et al. 1997). A related argument against ecosystem services providing an economic valuation system is that although they provide an important policy analysis tool, use of these valuations for projects or sites fails to be sensitive enough to measure the difference between small areas of environmental benefit such as one would find in the design of highway infrastructure. Much of the related literature focuses on valuation methods based on a monetary value. These valuations include replace- ment value, avoided costs, and contingency or willingness to pay methods (Apogee Research 1996; Kolstad 2000; Wilson and Carpenter 1999). All of these economic methods result in a valuation of services and goods. Framing environmental decision making with this economic-based valuation of eco- system services allows for decisions to be assessed in the com- mon unit of monetary value. The resulting values also allow for comparison with other nonenvironmental program activi- ties, allowing for a cost comparison between environmental and other expenditures. The challenge for this methodology is that often the economic valuations depend on external eco- nomic factors. For example, the value of a natural feature, such as a floodplain, requires a measurement of costs of rebuilding a structure for the floodplain itself to be valued. This scenario leads to a floodplain deep in a wilderness having no value because its ability to protect homes is nonexistent without the presence of human development. The third challenge to ecosystem service valuation is that species- or service-specific measures lack integration across both the number of services and the areas studied (Nelson et al. 2009). These valuation studies often select a critical ser- vice and limit study to a specific area or watershed. Although these studies provide local level data and policy implications, they are limited in how they assess other values in the larger watershed or ecosystem context. The results leave policy mak- ers with no new way to understand trade-offs across the envi- ronmental values and across a landscape. The Problem of Consistent Measures Conservation planning and regulatory efforts strive to protect communities and the environment from choices that may damage them, intentionally or unintentionally. At the same time, these choices are expected to be limited to as much as is neededâand no more. These goals are classically in conflict in public efforts. Transportation is charged with providing a certain level of infrastructure while safeguarding environ- mental resources. Outside of the environmental management world, planners and administrators rely on many common measures to gauge progress toward goals and objectives and make new decisions. Job gains and losses are tracked, as are the income of households, the gross domestic product (GDP),
28 narrow focus on a single resource frequently comes at the expense of other resources. This challenge has led to calls for a common set of units that can be measured with a bundled or stacked credit system. Stacking efforts have focused on attempts to identify com- mon sets of functions and indicators to allow for relation- ships between regulated resources to be understood (Oregon Department of Transportation 2007). To date these efforts have been limited to the ecological features included within a regulatory system. However, other biodiversity and natural features are important to consider in assessing human impacts on the natural environment, and include the role the environ- ment plays in protecting and providing for human communi- ties. For example, properly functioning floodplains protect against flooding and improve water quality. Environmental measures include tools or methodologies for assessing specific impacts or benefits from actions on the landscape. Environmental accounting measures are also needed to evaluate alternatives, assess impacts at project sites, and evaluate benefits from conservation or restoration actions. Accounting includes both the positive credits from beneficial actions and debits from impacts that harm the environment and must be consistent whether used for mea- suring impacts or benefits. The primary goal for any account- ing system is to capture the environmental impacts or benefits in a common unit that bridges different activities, times, and geographies as appropriate. To address the ecosystem services valuation and measure- ment issues, the project team developed an ecosystem service accounting methodology for any DOT or MPO to self- diagnose the need for a system, identify existing crediting options, and if needed select a method for developing a custom accounting system. These measurements may be used to provide the basis for credits or debits in a compen- satory mitigation context, or to evaluate design alternatives that best avoid or minimize impacts. be shared or used to inform decision making. The inability of ESA recovery plans to provide help in developing Sec- tion 7 or 10 consultations is just one example of the result- ing dysfunction. Measurement systems for assessing and quantifying the environment historically have been developed to meet regu- latory requirements, with various goals in mind. The metrics that have emerged from the CWA illustrate the multiplicity of measurements and requirements. The CWA includes pollut- ant measurement systems developed to track individual pol- lutants, including chemical and physical pollutants. Along with its state analogs, it also generated a measurement system for wetland units based on acres, popularly known as âno net loss.â To assess progress in remediating pollution of water bodies, the CWA also fostered the development of indices of biological integrity. Thus, three unique, unrelated, and spe- cialized measurements have been developed, all with the same goal of returning water bodies to a healthy state. In addition, other regulatory drivers working toward improving the health of the environment and ecosystems include the ESA, Clean Air Act, Natural Resource Damage Act, and many state laws that require their own measurements. The multiplicity of regu- latory requirements continues to be a challenge for trans- portation project delivery. In many contexts, the measurement systems and regulations overlap biologically, but the overlap is not reflected in the policy and regulatory realms. Even if the science suggests that managed resources should coexist, their regulation rarely coexists. For example, a wetland adjacent to a stream with ESA-protected fish may come into a regulatory conflict as mitigation or restoration required by regulations may not be allowed to serve both resources. In all such measurement sys- tems, metrics have been based on single resources or species as a key to capturing the health of the entire system. Popula- tion numbers, pollutant loads, or acres of habitat have driven most regulatory systems. The recurrent problem is that the
