National Academies Press: OpenBook

An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework

« Previous: Chapter 2 - The Ecological Assessment Process in Transportation Planning
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22804.
×
Page 54

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.

29 C h a p t e r 3 Introduction The Integrated Eco-Logical Framework (the Framework) is designed to provide technical support for implementing Eco- Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects (Eco-Logical), a guide and “permission document” signed by eight federal agencies in 2006 to encourage federal, state, tribal, and local partners involved in infrastructure planning, design, review, and construction to use flexibility in regulatory processes to achieve greater environmental benefits. The Framework provides more detailed technical guidance for practitioners to use in implementing this ecosystem approach to decision making that considers multiple resources. The Framework addresses and integrates the cumulative effects assessment and alternatives (CEAA) process with partnership development, regulatory assurances, and ecosystem services crediting strategies. • Cumulative effects assessment and alternatives (CEAA) process is the starting point for conducting ecological assessment by evaluating the cumulative effects on resources of one or more plan or project scenarios, allowing and sup- porting conflict identification and creation of alternatives. It also provides the ability to quantify impacts, which is needed for further steps in the regulatory processes and mitigation actions. The CEAA process can also integrate proposed mitigation actions to provide and maintain a dynamic reporting of regional resource goal achievement or gaps. • Regulatory assurances strategies integrate with the CEAA process by adding information on data standards (what data are needed by regulatory agencies) and new predictive modeling methods for species and habitats that are accept- able to regulatory agencies. The purpose of having regula- tory assurances strategies is to allow a practitioner to move from regional scale analysis to the level of information and analysis needed by the permitting agencies. • Ecological accounting strategies help direct transportation- related mitigation and other transportation-related deci- sion making to support high-priority conservation goals. Tools are provided to address impacts at the project level, while tying avoidance and mitigation actions to broader con- servation plans. These steps can be used within the Frame- work or as a stand-alone process/strategy. • Partnership development strategies developed in Volume 1 are included throughout the Framework. These four components of the Framework have been inte- grated into a nine-step process (see Table 3.1 for an overview and the following sections for details). The steps of the Frame- work are aimed at guiding DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies in working together to identify strategic transportation pro- gram needs and potential environmental conflicts or conserva- tion opportunities in the state, ecoregion, or watershed. The Framework supports the development of programmatic approaches to increase regulatory predictability during project development while furthering achievement of regional conser- vation goals. the Nine Steps of the Framework A summarized version of each step of the Framework is pro- vided in the text, followed by a narrative that focuses on the application of the technical components contained in each step. Steps of the Framework that focus on the collaborative building components of the Framework are not addressed in the narrative because they are not the focus of the team’s research. The complete Framework and supporting database are being integrated into TCAPP. The Integrated Ecological Planning Framework

30 Table 3.1. 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 (SWAPs) 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 (LRTP, STIP, and 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 transportation and conservation goals by analyzing transportation and/or other land use scenarios in relation to resource con- servation 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 MOUs, agreements, programmatic 404 permits or 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 iden- tified 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/eco- system 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, conser- vation, and restoration in light of new disturbances that may affect the practicality/ utility of proceeding with previous priorities. Identify new priorities if warranted. Step 1: Build and Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships, Vision Purpose Build support among a group of stakeholders to achieve a statewide or regional planning process that integrates conser- vation and transportation planning. Outcomes • Developing a shared vision through mutual understand- ing, appreciation, and documentation of transportation agencies’ and resource agencies’ overall goals, priorities, processes and major areas of concern within a specified planning region (i.e., state, watershed, or other ecologically based region). • Creating mutual understanding of significant land use issues that may affect agency goals and mitigation needs. • Establishing or reinforcing partnerships through formal agreements on roles, responsibilities, processes, and timelines. • Identifying opportunities and criteria for using program- matic consultation approaches to better address transporta- tion and conservation planning needs. Implementation Steps 1a. Identify the preliminary planning region (e.g., water- sheds, ecoregions, political boundaries). Drivers may be environmental factors, such as water quality needs, or 303(d) listings, species’ needs, watershed restoration needs, or rare wetlands. 1b. Identify counterparts and build relationships among agencies, including local government and conservation NGOs (stakeholders). 1c. Convene a team of stakeholders, share aspirations, and define and develop commonalities. Build an understand- ing of the benefits of a watershed/ecosystem/recovery planning approach and develop a shared vision of regional goals for transportation, restoration, recovery, and con- servation.

31 regional partners to assist in identifying appropriate data and expertise. Select the most precise boundary that can be repre- sented with spatial data to reduce inaccuracies and confusion when intersecting it with fine scale data. EcosystEm Accounting AspEcts Step 6b includes a review of institutional and organizational issues and concerns to include at this stage of the overall pro- cess. Reviewing the participant’s perspective on new environ- mental measures and management choices begins at this step. Efforts may involve assessing the history of interactions, impacts, or mitigation and setting a new vision based on bet- ter performance goals. Defining the physical, natural, and policy boundaries of the measurement system is critical, and it also occurs in this step. Step 2: Characterize Resource Status Purpose Develop an overall conservation strategy that integrates con- servation priorities, data, and plans that address all species, habitats, and relevant environmental issues, with input from and adoption by all conservation and natural resource stake- holders identified in Step 1. Outcomes • Compiling existing data and plans into a refined map that identifies areas for conservation and restoration action to use as the basis for an REF and cumulative effects analysis. • Developing an understanding of historic and long-term trends, priorities, and concerns related to aquatic and ter- restrial species and habitats in the region. • Identifying any gaps in data or plans that may need to be addressed separately and identifying modeling or assump- tions to be used to address these gaps. • Obtaining commitments and schedule for delivery of data and modeling to fill gaps. Implementation Steps 2a. Identify the spatial data needed to create understanding of current (baseline) conditions that are a by-product of past actions and understand potential effects from future actions. 2b. Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the REF or other assessment and planning. 2c. Develop necessary agreements from agencies and NGOs to provide plans and data that agencies use in their own decision-making processes. Agreements should allow 1d. Record ideas and develop MOU on potential new pro- cesses for increasing conservation, efficiency, and predict- ability. 1e. Initially explore funding and long-term management options to support conservation and restoration actions and long-term management. Technical Considerations • Integrated Approach: Decide on high-level approach to implement an integrated planning process that most effec- tively captures transportation effects on species and eco- logical functions at the landscape scale. • Types of Resources: What are the types of natural resources to include? Consider federal, state, and local regulated and nonregulated resources (connectivity needs, migratory and declining species). • Boundaries: Considering ecological as well as political boundaries, select the area for evaluation of direct and cumu- lative impacts, restoration opportunities, and selection of mitigation sites (i.e., area evaluated for mitigation may be larger than area evaluated for direct impacts). • Streamlining: What are the repetitive and relatively standard- ized project activities conducted by the DOT or MPO that could be addressed through programmatic approaches? Technical Implementation of Step 1 Step 1a Identify the preliminary planning region. A boundary is needed to identify the region in which resource and development considerations will be analyzed. There are several considerations in establishing the region boundary. There is no perfect assessment region, but selecting planning boundaries consistent with regional or MPO boundaries can be suitable. For ecosystem assessment the main considerations are: the ability to recognize patterns for ecosystems and biodiversity related to their distribution, regional connectivity, and natural disturbance; opportunities for off-site mitigation; and technical limitations in terms of data precision and choice of tools (addressed in greater detail in this work). Consulting data that significantly extend beyond the MPO can still allow for these considerations while limiting the extent of spatial analyses to the jurisdictional boundary. For example, NatureServe’s Global Rank of Imperilment assigned to most species considers the global extent and threats to spe- cies (Faber-Langendoen et al. 2009). This information can be used to select and prioritize species for consideration and establish important criteria and objectives without requiring spatial analyses throughout the species range. Once a plan- ning region boundary is selected, it should be shared with

32 • What are the limiting factors associated with TMDLs and 403d limited streams? Technical Implementation of Step 2 Step 2b Prioritize the specific list of ecological resources and issues that should be further addressed in the REF or other assessment and planning. First, one must establish the resource list; this can be done through a variety of methods, but the team suggests a system- atic approach: a. Begin with federal and state legally protected resources. b. Add resources that are determined to be at risk by the resource collaboration group or scientists. c. Use ranking systems such as NatureServe’s Global Rank of Imperilment (G1-3 status) and the State Natural Heritage Program S-ranks (S1-S3). d. Apply the coarse/fine filter approach for biodiversity conservation planning (which seeks to conserve the full range of biodiversity). e. Add trust species (those in addition to legally protected species that agencies are required to manage). f. Add other resources of interest and value to stakeholders. Next, it is highly useful to set quantitative retention goals for each resource (e.g., 90% of the distribution of habitat A or 100 occurrences of species B within the planning region) and document the source(s) of information used. Goals typically are set in the systematic conservation planning process using experts in those resources to apply their judgment relative to historic versus current distribution and viability/sustainability requirements such as species population structure and natu- ral disturbance regimes. Although it may be required or desirable to estimate actual historic distribution and loss, this is difficult and expensive for most resources. Some states have created historic vegetation distribution maps, and approaches exist for mapping historic wetland distribution. Individual plant and animal species historic distribution maps are rare and would have high uncertainty. Another approach is to apply NatureServe global ranks of imperilment; the Ecosys- tem Based Management tool incorporates these global ranks expert judgment on historic loss (NatureServe 2012). For non- legally protected resources, goal setting can be difficult and controversial, but it forms the basis for assessing the signifi- cance of impacts in later stages and facilitating mitigation and trade off planning. It is critical to clearly characterize the objectives for legally protected resources, including all goals identified in recovery plans, adopted watershed plans, and programmatic agreements. The typical alternative to goal setting is weighting the relative importance/priority of resources/features on some categorical data to be used to avoid, minimize, and advance mitiga- tion, especially for CWA Section 404 and ESA Section 7. 2d. Identify data gaps and how they will be addressed in the combined conservation and restoration plan. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling any remain- ing gaps. 2e. Produce geospatial overlays of data and plans outlined, as well as supporting priorities, to guide the development of an overall conservation strategy for the planning region that identifies conservation priorities and opportunities and evaluates stressors and opportunities for mitigation and restoration. 2f. Convene a team of stakeholders to review the geospatial overlay and associated goals/priorities and identify actions to support them. 2g. Record methods, concurrence, and rationales of this step based on stakeholder input (e.g., how the identified areas address the conservation, preservation, or restoration needs and goals identified for the area). 2h. Distribute the combined map of conservation and resto- ration priorities to stakeholders for review and adoption. Technical Considerations • What are the quantitative retention goals for each resource to ensure preservation of an agreed upon portion of the priority resources? • What is the conservation status of identified priority spe- cies and habitats (including wetlands)? How accurately does the team know where priority species and habitats (including wetlands) occur or could occur? Are the viabil- ity needs of priority species and habitats (i.e., minimum habitat size required for particular species) understood? • What is the condition of the existing data (e.g., complete- ness, age, resolution)? • What expertise and resources are needed to fill any identi- fied data gaps? • Are conservation priorities and actions represented accu- rately in the REF, including ones that are not spatially explicit? • Is there disagreement in the conservation priority areas and goals identified by different conservation plans devel- oped in the planning region? How will this be resolved? • What regulated resources are most common in the area and are most likely to be affected or are the most sensitive to disturbance? • What ecosystem services of interest are most likely to be affected by transportation projects? • Do mitigation banks, habitat conservation banks, or other markets exist for ecosystem services likely to be affected? • What landscape scale measurements exist, if any, for quan- tifying ecosystem services and impacts?

33 goals through expert input are available from NatureServe as part of their Vista conservation assessment tool (NatureServe 2009). Step 2d Identify data gaps and how they will be addressed in the com- bined conservation/restoration plan. Reach consensus on an efficient process for filling any remaining gaps. Begin this step by reviewing plan(s) and documents to determine fit of scale, precision, purpose, source, etc., and which resources are included. Determine the value of plans for target resources and gaps in resource coverage by plans. If gaps appear to exist, conduct further investigation of resource coverage and decide how the team will address these. Creators of the plans will be the most knowledgeable about informing whether their plans can suit the REF purpose and with what limitations. It will also be useful to have resource SMEs review the plans to determine if they can adequately represent indi- vidual resources. Next, determine which plans or resource maps to include in the REF and which resources each plan can represent. Each resource should be represented primarily by only one plan, but important conservation areas that include multiple resources may represent an acceptable overlap. For example, a particular conservation priority plan may be deemed acceptable for repre- senting bird conservation generally, but an individual bird spe- cies priority map may be added to the REF that better represents that individual resource. Although there is some overlap, both input maps will be useful for the REF. To understand how well existing plans represent specific resources, the team suggests creating a matrix that cross- references resources to named plan products. If specific resource content is not documented in existing plans (e.g., locations identified only as habitat conservation areas), inter- view plan developers to determine resource content. If no additional information can be obtained and the plan is to be included in the REF, conduct the following steps: a. Identify and obtain existing resource distribution maps that the resource SMEs think appropriately represent the resource. b. Intersect plan priority/management areas with indi- vidual resource maps to determine resource content. c. Identify the resources not covered or not adequately covered by any existing plan and decide how or whether they should be represented in the REF. d. Document how well existing priority maps include each resource. Consider coding the relationship according to the strength of resource treatment in the plan (e.g., on a 1–3 scale from low to high) and document the strength of the treatment. Strength of treatment may refer to the scale (e.g., 1–5, low to high). Weighting resource importance can be used as an initial step to help inform the magnitude of potential impacts while quantitative goal setting is being con- ducted (which often is a lengthier process), and weighting often is an easier value to extract from stakeholders than are quantita- tive goals. However, the use of weights alone limits the useful- ness of information generated from the impact assessment conducted later in this process because weights do not result in conclusions about resource viability impacts or the amount of mitigation that may be needed other than for resources for which any impact must be mitigated. Weighting values pro- vided by stakeholders can inform the expert judgment process in terms of gauging the amount of representation of a resource relative to science-based judgment about sustainability (e.g., it may not require much area to continue representing a particu- lar resource in sustainable numbers in a planning area, but stakeholder values may suggest they would like to see it become widespread). If choosing to use quantitative goals, decide if a single goal or a goal range is desired. For legally protected resources, a single goal likely is needed (often 100%). Goals also can be set as minimum and preferred levels (e.g., 50% and 75%, respec- tively) or high-medium-low as an expression of risk of future loss (e.g., 10%, 30%, 50%, respectively). Set resource goals and document the source(s) of information used. A considerable amount of spatial and nonspatial informa- tion will be collected and generated through application of this framework. Creating a database for resource information is critical to document the name of the resource (and taxon- omy if applicable), reason for selection, champion (meaning which partner[s] hold the resource in trust or otherwise advocate for it and can provide key information about it), and sources of spatial and expert information. This database will also be used to record the retention goals and other key information necessary for effects assessment and retention planning/mitigation described in Step 4a. The process of populating this database can take some time and can proceed in parallel with other tasks, but the sooner it is started, the more likely the information will be in place when needed (in particular for Steps 3 and later). Populating the database essentially involves having subject matter experts (SMEs) for each resource use extant data, their knowledge and judgment, and that of other colleagues to develop the required attributes. Resource expertise is distrib- uted among many institutions and individuals, and guidance exists for obtaining such information in useful and effective ways, such as the use of workshops (Groves 2003). Experts often are located outside the planning region or otherwise are not available to attend workshops, or funds for such work- shops are not available. In those cases, a data collection form can be sent via e-mail. Sample guidelines and forms for assessing and documenting species viability and retention

34 are or are not under some ownership/agreement to manage them in perpetuity for the resources to be sustained). Alter- natively, all secured areas can be moved to a protected area database (PAD), and remaining areas from this step are all unsecured priority areas that should be mitigated or may pro- vide off-site mitigation. Secured areas also inform avoidance in planning and, as priority areas become secured, their availabil- ity to offer mitigation is removed. It may be especially useful to attribute areas that contain legally regulated resources. Prioritizing areas requires a rating system that can high- light areas based on attributes of content (e.g., legally pro- tected or especially rare/imperiled resources or those values integrated in weightings described earlier) and threat from conversion. The REF partnership should come to agreement on the creation of an acceptable rating system. A more rigor- ous approach uses a key concept from systematic conser- vation planning called irreplaceability, which informs how many options exist in the assessment/planning region to meet resource retention goals. For example, an area that con- tains a rare resource with a 100% retention goal (retention of existing distribution) would be 100% irreplaceable. Applying irreplaceability requires the setting of quantitative goals. EcosystEm Accounting AspEcts The first step in using ecosystem accounting and crediting is to analyze the need and roles of crediting. This may include a scan of regulatory, conservation, and market needs. The regulatory scan starts with a review of the permitting and compliance requirements in the study area. This can include a historic review of agency permitting obligations and costs or reviewing the agency records for permitting. Conservation scans require examining both regulation-based and voluntary-based conser- vation efforts that may identify species, habitats, or systems that require attention. Market scans include reviewing the regional mitigation need and banking if used. Ecosystem crediting decision-making begins with agree- ments on objectives for crediting and the basic rules for their use in transportation planning. The key questions are what existing measurement systems are in use, such as ones associ- ated with ESA recovery efforts, pollutant measures for TMDL management, and wetland measures. Early coordination with other planning efforts identifies both opportunities and chal- lenges that need to be resolved. Steps 6a and 6b coordinate with this step to include context information about the project area. Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework Purpose Integrate the conservation and restoration strategy (data and plans) prepared in Step 2 with transportation and land use data and plans (LRTP, STIP, and TIP) to create the REF. quality of the data used (e.g., recorded observations or range maps vs. accuracy assessed predictive distribution models) and the robustness of analyses (e.g., simple dis- tribution area vs. population dynamics). e. Determine if enough information exists to include the resources in the process and if so whether they will have separate treatment as individual element layers in the REF or be integrated into an update of an existing plan product by the owner of that plan (e.g., add to SWAP). f. Document how each resource will be treated and by whom. g. Fill gaps in conservation plans if feasible and otherwise note deficiencies and how those should be addressed during later phases of long-range planning or project planning. h. Document priority areas and individual resource distri- bution maps with the amount of resource area and occur- rences. as well as confidence in resource presence in each occurrence. These data will be important for quantifying and evaluating impacts and mitigation needs and oppor- tunities. Confidence information also will be useful for determining reopening clauses (see Step 7). i. Document priority maps or specific priority areas for any of this information that could not be determined and plans for filling information gaps. j. Identify any individual resources for which adequate distribution information was not available and plans for filling information gaps. Step 2e Produce geospatial overlays of data and the plans outlined, as well as supporting priorities, to guide the development of an overall conservation strategy for the planning region that iden- tifies conservation priorities and opportunities and evaluates stressors and opportunities for mitigation and restoration. When overlaying the various accepted plans (including individual resource maps), be sure to follow procedures for retaining all relevant attributes as available in those plans. The intent of this step is to create a robust spatial database, not a presentation map because it is not feasible to visually represent all of the inherent information in one map. How- ever, the database will provide the attributes needed to create such visual presentations of particular themes of interest. Suggested attributes include: a. Source or owner of the input map b. Type or purpose of individual areas c. Resource content of individual areas d. Metadata for methods used to map areas Areas within these plans need to be distinguished by their conservation status as either secured or unsecured (i.e., areas

35 suggests segregating land use data into actual current land use, allowable or planned land use (e.g., from local govern- ment comprehensive plans/zoning or public land manage- ment plans), predicted/forecast land use (e.g., from urban growth models), and proposed land use that falls outside of existing plans (e.g., a large planned unit development). Include existing conservation lands as a land use to assess the achieve- ment of resource goals under current conditions. The various development plans undoubtedly will use differ- ent names and identifiers for the different development types represented in the plans. It will be highly useful to create a single classification of all of the development types acceptable to the partners. Then land uses can be assigned/cross-walked into a common classification that resource SMEs can efficiently use to assign response of resources to land uses/disturbances (Step 4). It is important that the classification be stratified enough for SMEs to distinguish differences in how resources respond to land uses but not so detailed that it unnecessarily increases the burden on the SMEs to attribute the responses. For example, local governments may have dozens of different named land uses, but most of those will be urban uses that have the same effect on resources. On the other hand, agricul- ture can mean many different types of practices that have very different resource implications. The use of a hierarchical classification can lump uses together to reduce the classifica- tion complexity when warranted. A good example is the clas- sification of direct threats and conservation actions adopted by the Conservation Measures Partnership and International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Conservation Measures Partnership 2012). IUCN standards have also been adopted by USFWS for use in their International Personnel Assessment Council (IPAC) online assessment tool. Once a common classification is established, you can then incorporate the spatial data. The database can depict the dis- tribution of regulated resources to assure the analysis can identify impacts to individual regulated resources along with overall conservation objectives and trade-offs. In particular, these would include species distribution maps for listed spe- cies showing areas where listed species are likely to occur and an updated NWI map for the area. Finally, the REF can be intersected with the LRTP to sup- port Step 3b. Step 3b Identify and show (1) areas and resources potentially affected by transportation projects and (2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities that could count for 404 and Section 7 regulatory requirements. In this step, output maps and quantitative reports are generated from the intersection in Step 3a to identify which priority areas and resources would be affected, the amount Outcomes • Producing the REF, an integrated map of resource conser- vation and restoration priorities, transportation long-range plans and other land use, infrastructure information, and socioeconomic information. • Reviewing and verifying REF and data sources used with all participating agencies and stakeholders. • Identifying areas in which planned transportation projects intersect with management/conservation priorities, includ- ing existing conservation areas. Implementation Steps 3a. Overlay the geospatially mapped LRTP (or TIP/STIP) with conservation priorities and other land uses. 3b. Identify and show (1) areas and resources potentially affected by transportation projects and (2) potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restora- tion priorities that could count for 404 and Section 7 regu- latory requirements. 3c. Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities and opportunities for achieving them relative to the trans- portation plan and other land uses/plans. 3d. Review and verify REF with stakeholders. Technical Considerations • What areas will be directly affected by transportation development? • How severe are the likely impacts in combination with other land uses and/or cumulative impacts? • What and where are the affected natural resources? • How many of these natural resources are statutorily regu- lated, and how many are imperiled but not legally protected? • What areas could be targeted for mitigation? Would these areas contribute to meeting REF objectives? • What areas should be targeted to avoid impacts caused by the presence of irreplaceable resources (i.e., endemic spe- cies or habitats)? Technical Implementation of Step 3 Step 3a Overlay the geospatially mapped LRTP with conservation pri- orities and other land uses. In this step, the goal is to understand how development plans are likely to affect resource conservation priorities. First, transportation and other development plans must be obtained and integrated. Land use data are an important component of these plans, but existing development and future development must be distinguished. The project team

36 other land use scenarios in relation to resource conservation objectives and priorities using the REF and models of priority resources. Outcomes • Developing program level cumulative effects scenarios associated with transportation development and other future land uses. • Identifying preferences regarding avoidance, minimiza- tion, potential conservation, and restoration investments to support selection of the best transportation plan alter- natives. • Identifying and quantifying mitigation needs. Implementation Steps 4a. Work collaboratively with stakeholders to weight the relative importance of resource types (including con- sideration of resource retention) when needed to help establish the significance of impacts and importance for mitigating action. 4b. Establish individual resource conservation requirements, such as their response to different land uses and types of transportation improvements (and other stressors), minimum viable occurrence sizes, and connectivity requirements. 4c. Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment scenarios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing development and disturbances, other fea- tures and disturbances causing impacts, and existing secured conservation areas. Include climate change threats to better understand what resources and areas may no lon- ger be viable or what new resources may become conser- vation priorities in the planning region during the planning horizon. 4d. Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects assessment scenarios to identify which priority areas or resources would be affected and the nature of the effect (e.g., negative, neutral, beneficial) and to quantify the effect, noting the level of precision based on the precision of the map inputs. 4e. Compare plan alternatives and select the one that opti- mizes transportation objectives and minimizes adverse environmental impacts (the least damaging alternative). 4f. Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoid- able and that may require minimization through project design/implementation/maintenance, and that may require off-site mitigation. For impacts that do not appear practicable to mitigate in kind, review with appropriate resource agency partners the desirability of mitigating out of kind (e.g., by helping secure a very high of area/resource distribution affected, and the location of impacts. Note that if Step 4 is not yet accomplished, this simple intersection assumes conflict between all development and all resources/priority conservation areas. This is a reasonable assumption at this stage to understand potential conflicts and needs. Step 4 will add information for more precise results suit- able for more detailed planning. However, it is still important at this initial stage to apply a consistent format to these results to facilitate ready comparison between alternative transporta- tion scenarios. Note that to get a truly cumulative effects assess- ment it is important to combine with the LRTP the existing land uses and other proposed/planned/forecast land use and other infrastructure as described in Step 3a. The quantitative results from this step are used to evaluate impacts. At this stage, the objective is to identify the resources/ areas being affected and the projects/uses causing the impacts. This can lead to identification of opportunities for focused joint action on creation of better alternatives through avoid- ance or design mitigation and early scoping of compensation opportunities should they be necessary. Step 3c Identify the high-level conservation goals and priorities and opportunities for achieving them relative to the transportation plan and other land uses and plans. The outputs of Step 3b allow us to develop the list and map of affected resources and areas that will be the focus of further assessment and mitigation under the analyzed scenarios. From there, the team can list and map the opportunity areas for miti- gation and identify the key players that need to be engaged in the process. EcosystEm Accounting AspEcts A key consideration for ecosystem accounting at this step is the ability for landscape level measures to connect to site level ones. Landscape level conservation or transportation decisions must translate to a project level through metrics that aggregate appro- priately to track progress or support monitoring. The success of Steps 6f and 6g depend on this connection. Landscape goals often can be too general to provide the basis for site level deci- sions. Detailed landscape measures help to remove ambiguity once the site level is being considered. For example, a conserva- tion level goal may identify the protection of habitat associated with a particular species life stage, but if this is left in general terms, it is impossible to implement at a site level. Step 4: Assess Land Use and Transportation Effects Purpose Identify preferred alternatives that meet both transportation and conservation goals by analyzing transportation and/or

37 Technical Implementation of Step 4 Step 4a Work collaboratively with stakeholders to weight the relative importance of resource types (including consideration of resource retention) when needed to help establish the significance of impacts and importance for mitigating action. A first step is to set individual resource/priority area impor- tance weights. Weights in this sense do not replace quantitative goal setting but instead inform a trade off process when not all resource retention goals can be addressed in an iteration of the scenario assessment/mitigation process. The partnership should establish how the weighting system will be used and how the weights will be set (e.g., SMEs, committees, stake- holder involvement). Next, establish the weighting system and criteria (e.g., 1–5 highest to lowest) and set the weights and document source of information/process. Step 4b Establish individual resource conservation requirements such as their response to different land uses and types of transportation improvements (and other stressors), minimum viable occur- rence sizes, and connectivity requirements. In this step, information is added to increase the precision of the cumulative effects assessment. In addition to the quan- titative retention goal established earlier, expert knowledge is obtained to specify other suggested and optional parameters and input to the resource database, such as: a. The minimum required area for a patch or occurrence of the area/resource (suggested). b. Ecological condition thresholds. Ecological condition is a function of the criteria used to assess the quality of the resource compared with viable reference conditions and usually takes into account (besides the minimum required area above) the presence of pollutants, exotic species, age class and vegetation structure, and off-site effects (optional). c. Responses of REF priority areas and individual resources (if used) to the plan components of the transportation plan (and any other plans or disturbances to cumula- tively assess). This component recognizes that not all resources respond equally to different land use and infrastructure types. Responses can be put on a numeri- cal or categorical scale, such as negative, neutral, or ben- eficial (suggested). The CEAA process does not explicitly call for calculating multiplicative effects of disturbances (i.e., that the sum level of disturbance to a resource from multiple resources is greater than the sum of their indi- vidual disturbances) because there is little science to support quantitative assessment of this effect and it priority conservation area supporting other resource objectives). Technical Considerations • What areas have the highest degree of potential impacts? What impacts should be avoided? • What areas have opportunities for mitigation or restora- tion that best benefit target resources (imperiled species, watershed/aquatic resource needs)? Considerations in assessing mitigation: • Which impacts should be mitigated on-site or off-site? Including consideration of off-site conservation priority areas? • What are the specific criteria for determining when off-site conservation actions are appropriate or inappropriate? • What unprotected conservation priorities can be protected through project mitigation? • What markets for ecosystem services are available in the area that could be used to meet mitigation requirements? • Are there opportunities for conservation bank develop- ment? • What rules or methods will be used for weighing resources and transportation objectives when tradeoffs are required? Considerations in assessing climate change: • What are the predicted climate change threats to identified resources? • Which of the priority species and habitats in the planning region are most vulnerable to climate change? How is vul- nerability assessed? • What resources might not continue to be viable and what resources might become priorities in the planning area? • How does climate change influence the selection of mitiga- tion sites? • For species in the planning area, what are their needs related to movement and habitat connectivity? What obstacles exist to habitat connectivity? How will species movement needs and possible transportation and land use impacts influence scenario evaluations? • What are the opportunities for using performance mea- sures to develop standardized conservation outcomes that can be easily incorporated in Section 7 or programmatic Section 7 consultations? For example, for species in the planning area, identify opportunities to conserve or restore their habitats using recovery or habitat conservation plans, and determine if these opportunities can be tied into con- servation objectives for other listed species occurring in the area.

38 map for urbanization based on current local govern- ment plans and zoning. c. A trend scenario that predicts likely urbanization, for example based on demand, suitability, and market con- ditions, but also may include trends such a climate- change effects. d. Alternative futures scenarios. There are often several of these that represent alternatives to preferred future sce- narios that may be based on models, proposals, civic engagement, etc. Examples might include traditional long-range plans assuming automotive travel vs. a transit- oriented development scenario. Once the desired scenarios are described, conduct an inven- tory of data sources that can represent the scenario content (uses, infrastructure, management practices, disturbances) for evaluation, such as: a. Current scenario: 1. Actual land use mapped with aerial photography or satellite imagery. 2. Actual land use or management records that specify existing or ongoing activities; this is especially useful for land uses and management that are not easily dis- tinguished through remote sensing, such as working landscape uses/management. 3. Infrastructure 4. Protected conservation areas. 5. Known hazard areas that can threaten both develop- ment and resources. b. Policy and trend scenario: 1. Land use or management based on existing plans, such as zoning or public land management plans. Note that in cases in which multiple uses are allowed in an area, it may be appropriate to attribute the most intensive allowable use under the precautionary principle. 2. Urban growth model output for the transportation planning horizon. These are often developed by local and regional governments and other entities. They are not just population projections but often predict types of urban uses for areas expected to be developed. Pro- jections stated as housing unit or human population density can be converted to land use types. 3. Pest and disease spread. For example, pine bark bee- tle infestation in the Rocky Mountain region poses a significant cumulative threat to ecosystems and indi- vidual resources. c. Alternative future scenario 1. Proposed transportation plans and projects and their alternatives. 2. Proposed land use and management plans and their alternatives. Resource partners also may collaborate on inclusion of predicted climate change threats to better understand what would likely add considerable complexity. However, if such assessment is desired, it could be conducted as part of this step. d. Landscape ecological parameters or characteristics such as patch interior area, edge-interior ratios, con- nectivity, etc. Use parameters that are meaningful for the resource and tractable using available data and tools (optional). e. Viable species population size and characteristics when these can be reasonably established. Assessment of these characteristics can be difficult and expensive and more likely gathered during field assessment, but recording them during the expert knowledge gathering phase will be most efficient. Because this information is expensive and difficult to determine, it is most often addressed for legally protected species, for which very high certainty of cumulative effects assessment is required (optional). This information provides assessment that is much more precise by taking into account some important consider- ations, such as: a. Not every resource responds negatively to every land use and development activity. Some species will have a neu- tral response, and some will benefit, although most inten- sive development will negatively affect most resources. b. Size and configuration matter: the area of a habitat patch, its shape, context, and connectivity to other habitats are very important in determining its suitability and viabil- ity for many species. c. Condition of habitats is not only very important to suitability for species but also important from a policy perspective for suitability to receive compensatory mitigation. Step 4c Develop programmatic cumulative effects assessment scenarios that combine transportation plan scenarios with existing devel- opment and disturbances, other affected features and distur- bances, and existing secured conservation areas. Include climate change threats to better understand what resources/areas may no longer be viable or what new resources may become conservation priorities in the planning region during the planning horizon. First, the partnership should decide what scenarios will be defined and evaluated. This step builds on those in Step 3 by conducting a more complete mapping of stressors in the sce- narios (existing land use, management, and infrastructure combined with planned future land use and other infrastruc- ture, and climate change effects is possible). Typically, the scenarios to be evaluated include: a. Current baseline of actual land use and management. b. A policy baseline of allowable land use/management not yet realized. This is also often know as a build out

39 For all areas/resources, a report should be generated that quantifies the current distribution and the expected future distribution to quantify impacts. Maps of locations of expected area/resource loss can identify where impacts would occur and what scenario areas (land use, infrastructure, and man- agement) are responsible for the impacts. Step 4e Compare plan alternatives and select the one that optimizes transportation objectives and minimizes adverse environ- mental impacts (the least environmentally damaging practi- cable alternative assuring regulated resources are sufficiently addressed). Having generated spatial and quantitative results in Step 4d, one can readily compare the ecosystem performance of the plan alternatives. Performance is based on meeting area/ resource retention goals. The likely rare and easiest case will compare equally acceptable transportation scenarios and readily identify the one with the least impact. In cases that are more common, there will be trade-offs between trans- portation scenarios and resource impacts. An initial evalua- tion likely will reveal opportunities to minimize impacts by creating new transportation plan alternatives (e.g., hybrids of plan alternatives or mitigating conflicts in a preferred plan through avoidance on a site-by-site basis where impacts would occur). If opportunities for plan improvement are identified, then iterations of transportation/land use plan adjustments can be conducted that lead to identification of a preferred scenario in terms of meeting transportation and land use objectives and least impact on resource goals. The map and quantitative outputs of the assessment will prove highly valuable for guid- ing these adjustments by identifying locations, resources, and development activities that conflict. The database of resource responses to the classification of development activities also will be highly useful for determining compatible uses at pri- ority sites. Step 4f Identify mitigation needs for impacts that are unavoidable, those that may require minimization through project design/ implementation/maintenance, and those that may require off- site mitigation. For impacts that do not appear practicable to mitigate in kind, review with appropriate resource agency part- ners the desirability of mitigating out of kind (e.g., by helping secure a very high priority conservation area supporting other resource objectives). The outputs from Step 4d will provide the quantitative information required to understand what resources are affected and the quantity of the impact (e.g., acres or populations resources may not be viable or what new resources may become conservation priorities in the planning region during the planning horizon. Direct threats modeled from climate change such as sea level rise maps can be incorporated in trend scenarios. In more sophisticated climate change analy- ses, other indirect resource threats can be modeled, such as spe- cies range shifts and regional condition impacts on resources such as temperature and soil moisture. The data can then be integrated into a single map contain- ing the different scenario components. You may encounter instances in which one map input trumps others that overlap it. For example, many counties will zone public lands in the event that land is swapped that puts that land into private hands (thus it will be appropriately prezoned). However, the project team wants to evaluate public land management, not the theoretical private land zoned use, so use rules for com- bining the data to recognize when multiple uses actually are or can co-occur and when one should trump others must be considered. Step 4d Intersect the REF with one or more cumulative effects assess- ment scenarios to identify which priority areas or resources would be affected, to identify the nature of the effect (e.g., nega- tive, neutral, beneficial), and to quantify the effect noting the level of precision based on the precision of the map inputs. Once the scenarios are constructed in the GIS database per Step 4c, the spatial analyses can be conducted. The intersec- tion of the REF and scenarios will first determine the location and amount of each area or resource in each land use type in a scenario by intersecting the spatial data. Next the process will compare the responses of the areas and resources (e.g., negative, neutral, beneficial) to the land use types. Area and resource distributions with acceptable responses (e.g., neutral or positive) will be compared with other spatial requirements (e.g., minimum viable patch/occurrence size). Areas meeting response and viability requirements will be considered retained under the scenario. Remaining accept- able areas will then be summed and compared with the regional retention goals to determine if a scenario can meet area/resource retention goals. For assessing impacts on priority areas from the REF (completed in Step 5a), it is most useful to have quantities of individual resources found within those areas to quan- tify the type and amount of impact. However, without precise resource location information the results have con- siderable uncertainty if a portion of the priority area is affected versus all of it being affected. When such informa- tion is not available, it may be necessary to work with the owner of the plan for these areas to determine the nature of the impacts.

40 The strategy and priorities should be iterative, and it is important for the stakeholders to identify a process that supports updates to be incorporated. • The preferred conservation and mitigation actions to achieve the priorities. • Strategies and actions that consider regulatory require- ments and programmatic implementation opportunities, including seeking regulatory buy-in for mitigation solu- tions or establishing a mechanism by which resource agen- cies can convey their acceptance/approval of investments in vetted conservation or restoration priority areas. • Crediting opportunities (see Step 6 for details). • The lead agency or agencies for each strategy and the method for achieving each strategy. Implementation Steps 5a. Identify areas in the REF planning region that can pro- vide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mitigation opportunities. Ranking should be based on the site’s ability to meet mitigation targets, along with: anticipated contributions to cumulative effects; the presence in priority conservation/restoration areas of the REF; ability to contribute to long-term eco- logical goals; the likelihood of viability in the landscape context; cost; and other criteria determined by the stake- holders. 5b. Select potential mitigation areas according to the rank- ing protocols described. 5c. To increase confidence in the mitigation component of the plan, field validate the presence and condition of tar- get resources for attention at mitigation sites and reassess the ability of sites to provide necessary mitigation. Revise the mitigation assessment as needed to identify a vali- dated set of locations to provide mitigation. Compare feasibility/cost of conservation and restoration opportu- nities with ranking score and context of conservation actions of other federal, state, local, and NGO programs to determine overall benefit and effectiveness. Predictive species modeling can target areas for the field validation process. 5d. Develop or refine a regional conservation and mitigation strategy to achieve ecoregional conservation and restora- tion goals and advance infrastructure projects. 5e. Decide on and create a map of areas to conserve, manage, protect, or restore, including documentation of the resources and their quantities to be retained and restored in each area, and the agency and mechanisms for con- ducting the mitigation. 5f. Obtain agreement on ecological actions from stakeholders. affected). Combined with policy information, such as miti- gation ratios (number of acres needed to replace each acre lost), the mitigation strategy needed for each resource can be described. This step does not identify the specifics for imple- mentation but describes if the mitigation will be met through minimization or restoration (e.g., through project design stip- ulations), or through off-site or out-of-kind mitigation when options exist. For impacts that do not appear practical to mitigate with on-site/in-kind options or when on-site options are not eco- logically viable, review with appropriate resource partners the desirability and permissibility for mitigating with off-site/out- of-kind options (e.g., by helping to secure a high-priority con- servation area supporting other resource objectives of equal or higher priority). For legally protected resources (wetlands and endangered/threatened species), it may not be permissible to mitigate with out-of-kind options, but for other resources it should be explored whether mitigation can and should be directed to high-priority conservation sites of the REF to sup- port higher conservation values (see Step 6 for more informa- tion about value trade-offs). This will support implementation of Step 6 and may require partially completing that step in advance. EcosystEm Accounting AspEcts Steps 6a, 6e, and 6f connect to this step. Step 6a includes a diagnosis of the environmental, regulatory, and stakeholder issues and creating linkages between these various values to assess trade-offs. The market assessment and implementa- tion decision in Steps 6e and 6f also connect here. These por- tions of Step 6 define a set of possible options for resolving environmental measurement problems and for finding more effective conservation and mitigation. These two steps con- nect in Step 4 through the analysis of alternatives and mini- mization decisions. Step 5: Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions Purpose Establish mitigation and conservation priorities and rank action opportunities using assessment results from Steps 3 and 4. Outcomes Developing and agreeing on: • A regional mitigation (conservation, recovery, restoration) strategy and conservation and restoration priorities with quantitative and qualitative valuation of mitigation sites.

41 When required mitigation cannot be found within an REF priority area, other areas can be identified and investigated. Failure to find any in-kind mitigation opportunities may trig- ger discussions for out-of-kind mitigation opportunities. For wetlands, endangered species, and other regulated resources, identify, adopt, or if there is sufficient development likely to occur in the area, develop programmatic approaches to mitigation catalogs or portfolios. Developing these is espe- cially useful if mitigation banking occurs in the area because this can improve both the ease of project implementation and the environmental outcomes for mitigation. Steps for devel- oping a wetlands mitigation catalog are identified in the fol- lowing section. proposEd procEss for crEAting thE priority WEtlAnds mAp for mitigAtion And rEstorAtion A comprehensive digital map of current and historic wet- lands needs to be available for successful planning and miti- gation. The goal is to ensure that all wetlands larger than 5 acres are represented. If available, comprehensive maps of wetland soils and historical wetlands can greatly improve the quality of the map. The NatureServe national ecological systems map includes the current distribution of wetlands, linked to NWI, NatureServe, and National Vegetation Clas- sification. Biophysical settings maps from the inter-agency LANDFIRE effort depict historical wetland distributions (U.S. Forest Service 2012). Both of these maps are at 30-m pixel resolutions (approximately 1:100 K scale). These may be compared and combined with NWI, wetland soils maps, terrain models, or augmented with additional image interpretation. There are important benefits to developing wetland maps that are linked to these several standard ecological classifica- tion schemes. For example, NatureServe ecological classifi- cation units are categorized by conservation status. Using knowledge of relative rarity, trends in extent, and remaining habitat quality, each type is categorized along a scale from critically imperiled to secure. These conservation status mea- sures feed directly into prioritizing sites for wetland conser- vation. In addition, most wetland types in the NatureServe ecological systems classification (typically, 10–20 types per state) have been reviewed and attributed as habitat for at-risk and focal species, so this information becomes accessible to users for project scoring and selection. At a minimum, all available wetlands data (national, state, regional, county, and local site information) need to be inte- grated. In addition, states must assure that all the digital NWI data for significant wetlands are brought up to date using the most recent imagery and air photography that exists for each state. In the case study, Virginia incorporated additional spatial data to assure that farmed and partially developed wetlands were included (see Appendix C, Methodology for Developing Technical Considerations • What areas within REF priority areas meet the mitigation criteria? • If required mitigation cannot be found within an REF pri- ority area, what other mitigation opportunities exist that will further the agreed-upon regional restoration plan goals and objectives? • What other conservation actions are occurring in the area? • Who owns or manages the identified priority areas? • What site level measures are needed to verify progress at mitigation sites? • What are the protocols for ranking mitigation opportunities? • What is the most effective way to direct and conduct field validation of identified mitigation areas? How can field data be captured and provided to natural resource data maintainers/providers so that it can be used in future assessments? Technical Implementation of Step 5 Step 5a Identify areas in the REF planning region that can provide the quantities and quality of mitigation needed to address the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mitigation oppor- tunities. Ranking should be based on the site’s ability to meet mitigation targets, along with: anticipated contributions to cumulative effects; the presence in priority conservation or res- toration areas of the REF; ability to contribute to long-term eco- logical goals; the likelihood of viability in the landscape context; cost; and other criteria determined by the stakeholders. For mitigation of impacts to individual resources, it will be necessary to have either high confidence distribution maps of the individual resources or attributes of quantities of resources in potential off-site receiving areas. Quantities will need to be verified prior to putting agreements in place, but the initial information can be used for planning purposes. However, securing approval and funding for such mitiga- tion may require additional investigation and verification of the resources that would be affected and the value of the pro- posed mitigation (see Step 5c). For out-of-kind mitigation, Step 6 must be addressed to determine equivalency of values that can be provided by other areas or resources as compared with those directly affected. Step 5b Select potential mitigation areas according to the ranking pro- tocols described. When searching for mitigation areas, spatial queries can be conducted against REF attributes to identify those areas meet- ing mitigation criteria and occurring in REF priority areas.

42 Assure that at least one to five priority wetland conserva- tion sites exist in every watershed. Work with regulators to determine that mitigation occurring in the same eight-digit HUC (fourth field watersheds with an eight-digit hydrologic unit code) could be considered to be in place (assuming the types present are similar enough to be considered in kind). When desired, a 10-digit HUC (fifth field watershed) can be used because these are smaller and provide regulators more assurances of mitigation being in kind and in place. In almost every major basin in the country, one or more watersheds will contain no synthesis, portfolio, catalog, or other priority area. In these watersheds, catalog sites need to be developed using any of the original assessments that had wetland components or by looking for concentrations of natural wetlands. Across the nation, conditions will vary considerably across eight-digit HUCs. In those in which no potential mitigation sites are already identified, use local plans, known locations of at-risk biodiversity, NatureServe conservation status of wetlands (i.e., imperiled-to-secure), and the documented quality and condition of wetlands to identify priority sites for review by local regulators and practitioners. Create priorities for the wetlands catalog. Developing priori- ties can make decision making easier for transportation plan- ners. A simple method is to prioritize or rank the set of priority wetlands within each fourth field watershed. The basic concept is that any restoration, mitigation, or conservation occurring within a priority wetland area should increase wetlands func- tions and restore important habitats. This may help transpor- tation agencies to demonstrate that all decisions they made were based on regulators’ or priority criteria, not theirs, which is why ranking the priority wetlands within each watershed can be useful. Specific criteria for ranking the catalog are not sug- gested here, although clearly the overall significance to conser- vation in the REF for each site should be considered. Vet the priority map with regulators. The priority map must be vetted with regulators. A good first step is to vet the priority map with conservation partners, if they are available in the area. Then leads should meet with regulators, making sure to include the Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), SFWS, any state agencies that regulate wetlands, state fish and wildlife agencies, and state DEQ if they are not the primary wetland regulator. Promote the wetlands priority products and facilitate their use by federal, state, and local planners. Once the wetland priority maps and resources have been developed, it is impera- tive to identify further steps that are needed nationally and in respective states, Corps Districts, and EPA or USFWS regions and field offices to facilitate use of the maps and resources in decision making for 404 permitting and as appropriate in ESA Section 7 consultations and other regulatory matters. The best methods for doing this will be different in each state and jurisdiction. a Parcel-based Wetland Restoration, Mitigation, and Conser- vation Catalog: A Virginia Pilot Project). Develop a synthesis of spatially explicit representations of all conservation and restoration priority sites. This is dis- cussed in steps 2 and 3. The Eco-Logical guidance signed by eight federal agencies calls this a “Regional Ecosystem Frame- work.” Having an acceptable REF or accepted overall conser- vation priorities is an essential step in identifying a potential mitigation catalog. If a state or a watershed in a state has developed a watershed approach to define wetland restoration and mitigation priori- ties, such as the EPA–Army Corps of Engineers approach developed in Maryland, this approach and the catalog devel- oped should be used, and the remaining steps can be skipped. Extract existing and historic wetlands from the synthesis portfolio. To do this correctly, a fairly comprehensive digital map of wetlands needs to be available for the state. Access to a fairly comprehensive map of either wetland soils or histori- cal wetlands (or if possible, both) can greatly improve the quality of the map. Modify the extracted wetlands coverage into a set of prior- ity wetland polygons. The use of high-resolution digital imag- ery, such as that provided by the National Agriculture Imagery Program (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2011), to refine the boundaries is an important step for large or poorly mapped areas. By refining the boundaries of these areas and identify- ing priority sites, the modified coverage will make sense to wetland regulators, as well as to those working on conserva- tion and watershed restoration. It is important to make sure that wetland mitigation prior- ity areas make sense to project partners. In some of the test areas, the team was forced to eliminate portions of some areas because of criteria associated with wetland conservation (e.g., proximity to transportation infrastructure). For instance, in the Oregon wetlands priority pilot, an airport was included in The Nature Conservancy’s synthesis portfolio because of the presence of some rare plants on wetland soils. These showed up on the first draft of the priority map in an area with a number of high-priority sites. Wetlands regulators had us remove this area because they did not want to promote wetland mitiga- tion so close to an airport. If it had been a critically important site, or the only priority wetland in the watershed, the team might have left it in. This is not very time consuming but an important task. An alternative method, especially useful in areas where there are extensive wetlands, would be the approach used in Vir- ginia, in which all wetlands, historic and existing, were ana- lyzed to determine their conservation significance and ranked accordingly. The highest ranked areas became the wetland priority areas. This is a bit more expensive but could be useful in areas in which an overall synthesis of conservation priori- ties cannot be developed.

43 Assure the mitigation catalog and mitigation actions are updated based on restoration activities, lost opportunities, and areas conserved. EcosystEm Accounting AspEcts This step will specify many of the necessary parameters for an ecosystem credit. Step 6b connects to this step to inform deci- sion makers on the various measurement systems available to meet the goals and outcomes of this step. Step 6 provides the tools for implementing these priorities. Similar to earlier goal setting concerns in Step 3, the definition of resources and pri- orities must provide a level of detail to be used at the implemen- tation steps. Priorities must consider the spatial, functional, habitat, and population issues defined in Step 6b. Step 6: Develop Crediting Strategy Purpose Develop a consistent strategy and metrics to measure ecologi- cal impacts, restoration benefits, and long-term performance at the project level, with the goal of having the same analyses language throughout the life of the project. Outcomes • Improving and integrating the mitigation sequence at a site level through avoidance and minimization, after which outcome-based performance standards can set the stage for compensation. • Accelerating implementation and improving mitigation results. • Supporting implementation tools, such as advance mitiga- tion, banks, programmatic permitting, and ESA Section 7 consultation. • Supporting use of off-site mitigation and out-of-kind mit- igation, where appropriate, because equivalency of value can be determined across locations and resources. • Informing adaptive management and updates of the cumu- lative effects analyses. • Balancing gains and losses of ecological functions, benefits and values associated with categories of transportation improvements, or specific project-related impacts. • Providing the means of tracking progress toward regional ecosystem goals and objectives (assumes site level ecologi- cal metrics are correlated to the landscape level tools used to define the REF). Implementation Steps 6a. Diagnose the measurement need. Define which ecosys- tem services need to be measured. Examine the ecological setting (including regulated resources and frameworks, It is essential that the information be made available to the public as soon as it has been vetted because otherwise wet- land bankers who do not have access to the data will have a persuasive argument for protection of nonpriority areas. This information should be made available as soon as possible to local governments and all who develop or approve develop- ment applications on the local level because considerable avoidance is anticipated on a voluntary or preregulatory level. Step 5c To increase confidence in the mitigation component of the plan, field validate the presence and condition of target resources for attention at mitigation sites and reassess the ability of sites to provide necessary mitigation. Revise the mitigation assess- ment as needed to identify a validated set of locations to pro- vide mitigation. Compare feasibility and cost of conservation and restoration opportunities with ranking score and context of conservation actions of other federal, state, local, and NGO programs to determine overall benefit and effectiveness. Pre- dictive species modeling can target areas for the field valida- tion process. It is critical to integrate any field validation information into the REF. This can include adjustments to resource distri- butions or priority area configurations and resource condi- tion and viability information. By instituting an agreed-upon, standardized approach to input any field work done by or on behalf of the REF partners (and others) into the REF data- base, the database gradually will improve in its precision and utility. State natural heritage programs (such as NatureServe) conduct surveys for rare and imperiled species and commu- nities and integrate others’ survey work (if it meets heritage standards) and thus can serve as a critical partner for both contributing and maintaining such data. Data security and privacy issues may preclude integrating the most spatially precise data directly into the REF database, so data use agree- ments must be established. Step 5d Develop and refine a regional conservation and mitigation strategy to achieve ecoregional conservation/restoration goals and advance infrastructure projects. The outcome of the previous steps is development of the conservation and mitigation component of the REF that identi- fies, in a particular analytical cycle, what areas will be con- served and restored to meet partner objectives. This must include documentation of which resources and their quanti- ties are to be retained or restored in each mitigation area and the implementation agency and mechanism for conducting the mitigation. This could be incorporated in or used to update the REF.

44 through existing markets, conservation initiatives, or other innovative solutions. Through this diagnosis, an agency can assess the ecological, social, and economic needs for tracking their environmental impacts in both the regulated and non- regulated arenas. ExAmining thE EcologicAl sEtting A key challenge in any environmental planning effort is to understand the scope of what may be affected. Impacts range across types, scales, and time based on a variety of factors, and they occur in a context of other impacts from existing and new actions, as well as other recovery or conservation actions and priorities in a region. Understanding this ecological setting is key to identifying the correct strategy for measuring the environment. This step overlaps with the process for developing an REF, as described in Eco-Logical. The REF and the resources it is based on ultimately become the basis for setting regional eco- logical goals. Accordingly, to be able to track how projects affect progress toward those goals, the same scan for resources and identification of data needs for the REF will also inform the decision on the type of credit or debit tool used. Different resource types and habitats each lend themselves to different measurement needs. Highly diverse ecosystems with complex biophysical processes require more detailed measurement systems. Simpler or more homogenous ecosys- tems can allow for more basic measurement systems. The interaction of ecosystem functions also informs the measure- ment system selection. In ecosystems with competing pro- cesses, the analysis is complicated with a need to either mimic the tension in the natural system or develop a series of tools to weigh trade-offs in implementation that may favor one resource. An example of this can be found when habitat enhancements for an anadromous species may occur at the expense of a native warm water fish species. In this case, a policy decision is made to favor one over the other in a system that may have increasing pressures for both. Resources to examine can be roughly categorized into three categories based on the resource connection to the DOT/MPO business model. Recognizing that not all DOTs/MPOs have the same levels of authority or support for addressing some resources, these categories can differ from state to state. How- ever, they are based primarily on the existence of drivers to force an issue into consideration in the planning process (Mander et al. 2005). • Regulated Resources and Frameworks: Working through resource agencies, identify species and habitats covered by the ESA or state or local protections. Data may include species distribution data, such as probabilistic data or recorded occurrence data. Water quality regulations will identify aquatic resources to consider in measurement, nonregulated resources, and ecosystem services); exam- ine the regulatory and social setting and identify addi- tional opportunities. 6b. Evaluate ecosystem and landscape needs and context to identify measurement options. 6c. Select or develop units and rules for crediting (e.g., rules for field measurement of ecological functions, approved mitigation/conservation banking, outcome-based per- formance standards using credit system). 6d. Test applicability of units and rules in local conditions. 6e. Evaluate local market opportunities for ecosystem ser- vices. 6f. Negotiate regulatory assurance for credit (sacking credits and double-dipping). 6g. Program implementation. Technical Considerations • How will debits and credits be calculated? Is credit stacking allowed? • What is the permissible service area for a bank, off-site mitigation? • Who may participate in the crediting system? • How will credits be registered and tracked? • How long will regulatory decisions on a given project be binding? • How will values be calculated across locations and resources? • What long-term monitoring is needed? The ecosystem service accounting methodology follows a seven-step process for a transportation agency to self- diagnose the need for a system, identify existing crediting options, and if needed select a method for developing a cus- tom crediting system. These measurements may be used to provide the basis for credits or debits in a compensatory miti- gation context or to evaluate design alternatives that best avoid or minimize impacts. Step 6a Diagnosis of the measurement need. Diagnosing the resource measurement needs with a DOT/ MPO requires examining the resources, constraints, and opportunities that affect the choice of a methodology. The first components are the natural environment and resources in the area, either in the entire jurisdiction or within the areas of anticipated transportation improvements. The second component is the evaluation of regulatory requirements and nonregulatory expectations for the agency in managing the environment. The final component is to examine the oppor- tunities for meeting the environmental management needs

45 press and stakeholder communications in a more passive approach to assessing public concern (Costanza and Folke 1997). Often the public has not had the opportunity to fully study environmental issues, so clear and consistent prefer- ences are not established. The team experiences these first hand in environmental processes in which stakeholder posi- tions shift greatly over the life of a project as they learn more about the issues. This calls for a more active approach to developing public input, in which the public becomes not just an input during the process, but also is allowed to develop public judgment (Yankelovich 1991). In this process, stakeholders are engaged to become experts of their own in the issues. Integration of transportation plan- ning with conservation planning furthers this effort as con- servation, transportation, and other stakeholders can build better understanding of issues through the crafting of the REF. This process is critical because preferences and values for natural resources often are difficult to capture at a per- sonal or site level. To assure fairness and equity in environ- mental planning, transportation and conservation planning need to share information with the public about the func- tions and role of natural systems and allow preferences to be expressed or formed (Costanza and Folke 1997). idEntifying AdditionAl opportunitiEs Additional components to assess are ongoing compliance efforts or conservation programs that can provide oppor- tunities for off-site mitigation actions that may provide improved environmental performance (Bean et al. 2008). These same programs have provided better transportation cost efficiencies and have ensured that costs are controlled and specific in project delivery (Oregon Department of Transportation 2008). Traditionally, these opportunities have focused on exam- ining existing banking or mitigation programs the DOT/ MPO can take part in (ELI 2007). As mitigation banking has evolved, more innovative solutions are emerging from other biodiversity-based drivers derived from state or local laws (Carroll et al. 2008). However, new policy research has called for opening up innovative DOT/MPO-sponsored environ- mental mitigation and conservation programs to private enti- ties to increase private environmental compliance and support DOT/MPO environmental programs (BenDor and Doyle 2010). BenDor and Doyle examined the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) and identified the difference in compliance efforts by public versus private permittees. They suggest that the public-based system can be a smart extension to support local land use compliance requirements in private developments. Nonmitigation-based opportunities can include examining the greenspace, open space, or other public land needs of neigh- boring jurisdictions, including state or county parks or local along with other data sets, such as local or national wet- land inventories. • Nonregulated Resources: In addition to species or resources with specific protections, resources or habitats may exist that require consideration for community or regional interests. These resources may include species of local or state concern that are not afforded protections but are recognized by the public or NGOs as important. Examples are recreational, fishing and hunting, or subsistence resources. Native foods or resources may also need to be included. • Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem services should be selected for inclusion in analysis or in a measurement system. Depending on the classification system used, ecosystem ser- vices can be divided into many categories, often too numer- ous for implementation in a transportation context. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment provides a broad set of definitions for ecosystem services that can help identify ecosystem services to include in analysis (Millennium Eco- system Assessment 2003). ExAmining thE rEgulAtory And sociAl sEtting Regulatory and social conditions can be evaluated through a historical review of DOT/MPO experiences and a forward- looking one that evaluates potential new regulations or social expectations from projects. A review of the historical experi- ences should include compiling permitting documents from previous projects over the past 5 years. This creates a baseline level of impacts that provide important planning information. First, this baseline helps understand the trends in resource impacts. Ideally, it includes cost assessments for compliance to understand the organizational costs. This baseline must be understood in the context of the statewide or metropolitan transportation improvement program (STIP/MTIP) priori- ties over the past planning period and compared with current priorities. Planning and project delivery often come in cycles of periods of greater and lesser construction intensity. Look- ing at the decisions made by policy makers about what is included in the LRTP or the STIP/MTIP can forecast the regu- latory needs for existing regulations. Additional forecasting is needed to assess future potential regulation. In interviews with transportation planners, the project team uncovered a concern about the expansion of listings under the ESA, the growing applicability of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the role of climate change regulation in transportation planning. These are examples of a need to analyze the potential chal- lenges for transportation permitting and delivery assump- tions in the early stages of planning. The social setting captures the concerns, usually outside the formal regulatory system, that the public expects the DOT/MPO to address. These concerns often are identified via scoping or the development of environmental documents. These concerns can also be captured in a review of ongoing

46 response. Often these measures rely on concepts similar to condition-based ones or try to replicate a condition-based measure with models. The third form of environmental measures is function-based ones. These measures focus on habitats, structures, and pro- cesses as the basis for measuring the environment. Function- based systems are not species specific and are used when rare or unique resources need measures that are not easily measured with one species. Model-based measurements can start to com- bine elements of a function-based measure and a condition- based system, in which the model relies on habitat or field data to estimate habitat use and densities. To truly get at a measurement for use in transportation projects, the results need to tie the natural impacts back to specific actions at a site. This is needed for the full suite of mitigation decisions: avoidance, minimization, and compen- sation. These concerns need to guide the selection or devel- opment of a measure. In the following sections, the various existing measures used in environmental management set- tings are presented. This is followed by a guide for the devel- opment of custom measurements. Condition-based measures are structured to collect data on the physical, chemical, and biological attributes of a sys- tem. These measures can be as simple as a plant and animal survey to measure the occurrence of a set of species. More complex measures provide the basis for long-term monitor- ing and management of a region. Condition-based measures can be applicable in certain cases for transportation projects, although they present important challenges that must be considered before their use is agreed to in permitting or restoration. For transportation projects in remote and undeveloped areas with no other anthropocen- tric inputs to affect environmental quality, condition mea- sures may be able to evaluate an action’s level of impact. Condition-based measures also may be important in regula- tory settings, where they are a common tool for management, such as under the CWA or Safe Drinking Water Act. An exam- ple of such a use is a river crossing with potential impact on surface drinking water sources. Disturbances to surrounding upland areas potentially may create erosion and sediment inputs that place the water body over limits for turbidity in a municipal water system. Two primary forms of condition-based measures are indi- ces of environmental quality or integrity and observation- based systems: indices and observation. Indices-based measures for environmental measures are based on identifying a set of field-based measures that can provide a comprehensive index for health. Early implementa- tion of the CWA was supported with the development of indices of biotic integrity (Karr 1981). These methods reflect an understanding that biological organisms better capture the health of a system than do strictly chemical or physical parks districts. These approaches can align with regional open space or green infrastructure programs, including “greenprint” or green infrastructure programs (Benedict and McMahon 2006). Although these programs may not be available legally for compensatory mitigation under federal law, they may provide an opportunity to meet with state, local, or nonregulatory expectations for projects, especially urban capacity projects. Step 6b Evaluate ecosystem and landscape needs and context to identify measurement options. The initial step of diagnosing the needs for a measurement system identified the important boundaries for managing the resources. The subsequent step is to evaluate the necessary scale and units for management and identify linkages to land- scape tools such as the REF or other selected tools. The starting point for evaluating the need for an environ- mental measure is to define the service area boundary that the measure will be used within and the relevant resources and actors present. A service area is defined by the spatial limits that include resources with ecological connections and provide a definition for where off-site actions might be under- taken. For aquatic resources, service areas often are hydro- logic. For faunal species, the service area may be a particular range or habitat. Air resources, especially carbon, can have large service areas. If an REF is being developed for the area, this is the proper starting point for identifying the appropri- ate boundary. However, additional refinement may be needed to assess the measurement options available if multiple resources are being combined. In addition to the ecological boundaries, it is important to be aware of traditional regula- tory or political boundaries, such as ones created by federal or state law and local conservation regulations or land use requirements. It may be necessary to identify multiple bound- aries initially, and once crediting is decided upon, the bound- aries can be reevaluated for integrity. crEditing dEfinitions And considErAtions Environmental measures can be divided into three classes of systems. First are condition-based measurements. Measure- ments in this category focus on quantifying changes in the status of the regulated resource. For instance, species of con- cern would be measured through population surveys. These systems also include pollutant load measurements, which are normally defined by quantifying specific amounts of criteria pollutants added or removed from the system (e.g., pounds of nitrogen or percent increase in turbidity). Condition- based examples include fish return counts, water quality measurements, and indices of biological integrity. The second form of environmental measures is model-based measures that rely on data to estimate species or ecosystem

47 2008). Models are best applied in complex environments where complete baseline data are not easily available and individual actions or impacts need to be understood in a con- text of many human actions that are difficult to attribute. Function-based systems combine elements of condition- based systems and model-based systems. A function-based measurement identifies attributes that capture the habitat structures, elements, and other biophysical features. A func- tion can be both abiotic and biotic. Abiotic measures tend to be more common because they are relatively static and easily observed. Biotic measures are also used but are more com- plex, relying often on multiple subfunctions to assemble to a properly functioning measure. Functional measures often are performed with field-based observation and investigation. Attributes are empirical, observed data that include such measures as percent cover of vegetation, substrate types, slopes, species mixes, and so forth. The attributes are then evaluated based on scoring protocols built on existing literature, models, or peer review processes. These attributes then combine to provide a measure of per- formance for that function. The final unit of measure is a combined multifunction level of performance by area. This provides a functional areal measure that can be compared with other sites. Although reference sites are not necessary for functional measures, they can be used to test outcomes and calibrate scoring of credits. In this manner, they are based on site level evaluations with values based on best available science. This approach provides a common unit of measurement for biological, chemical, and physical processes that can be linked readily to economic decision making (Groot 1987). Functions also provide a robust common unit for analyzing multiple resources or ecosystem services because functions provide a bridge between the biophysical and the final out- comes for which resources are managed (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007; Brown et al. 2007). Environmental economists have recommended making a shift toward function-based mea- sures because they also allow for analysis of the services before clear pricing or valuation is developed. The structures and functions of a natural system must be understood before any value system can be placed on top of it (Limburg et al. 2002). Several implementation benefits are available with the use of function-based systems. First, because the natural environ- ment and ecosystem services are measured through constitu- ent functions, multiple resources can be captured in a single measure. Second, the empirical basis of observed attributes of functions allows for easier inclusion of functional measures in contracts or permit terms and conditions. They are objec- tive and enforceable elements that can be requested of an agency or contractor. Alternative analysis and scenario-based planning also can be implemented with function-based mea- sures. The future scenarios specify the assumed attributes to measures. This places a focus on a selection of species that are understood to represent the health of a system, such as macro- invertebrates or fish species. These measures provide a rela- tive measure of health based on the comparison of reference sites and other randomly selected sites that are considered comparable for analysis. This process develops measures of deviation and allows for long-term monitoring. Data col- lected in this process are based on sampling surveys. Data can include species abundance, diversity, size classes, species com- position, observations of health, and other biological measures. Data can be in absolute terms, such as abundance, or in qualita- tive terms, such as health (Hughes et al. 1982). Observation-based measures are rarely used in accounting applications because of challenges in attributing causation to the observed data. A reasonable use is for relatively closed systems in which the DOT/MPO actions are clearly the only source of undesired impacts. Observation-based systems also apply in situations with species or resources that are relatively static, such as with floristic species. Observed measures also may be a component of monitoring sites after restoration or disturbance. Permit conditions also can be based on observed data. Examples of this include water quality monitoring in sys- tems in which the contributors to turbidity are easily under- stood and any observed increase of the expected levels can be assigned to the construction activities in the watershed. This method has been used in limited cases and depends heavily on well-understood watershed processes that the permittee and regulator both agree on and trust. Probability-based distribution mapping tools may replace traditional inventories of observed points, as described in Chapter 2. These probability-based tools are best suited for project planning to incorporate avoidance and minimization measure, and support the identification of sites for compen- sation. In general, observed data are not recommended for use in developing environmental measures unless a trusted and continuous base of data is available to provide reference conditions for comparison. Model-based systems rely on an agreed-upon set of rules and conditions that are expected to result in an environmental out- come. Model-based systems are similar to condition-based measurement systems but usually are used for planning pur- poses. Unlike condition-based systems that focus on sample- based data, models focus on the elements of the ecosystem that can be affected by human action. Examples of this are found in biological and chemical applications. Salmonid modeling, such as with the Ecosystem Diagnosis Tool, identifies the restoration actions or ecosys- tem components that contribute to species health (Lestelle et al. 1996; Mobrand et al. 1995). In a similar manner, the emerging carbon protocols for climate change accounting are agreed-upon models that represent the carbon benefits or detriments of specific actions (Voluntary Carbon Standard

48 and document a change. In practice, this is problematic. The baseline and variation analysis present the main barri- ers to implementation, which does not rule out the use of condition-based systems: they can provide information in design about resources that are considered vulnerable and thus required to avoid. However, the need to compare actual affected conditions to a reference site makes these measures best applied after construction of a project. This makes esti- mating credits in the planning stages challenging. The mea- sures do not lend themselves to reliable forecasting of change because of the level of assumptions required. Condition- based systems can also provide a support for long-term mon- itoring after construction of a highway project or a restoration project. Recognizing that each region, agency, and regulatory set- ting requires a unique response, these general classes of mea- surement are presented to help decide on the best system to use. In areas with lower levels of biodiversity, or with only one or two resources of concern, condition-based measures can assist transportation project delivery. In this context, the condition-based measure is tiered off of the REF, conserva- tion plan, or recovery documents to provide priorities. For more complex environmental settings or when forecasting impacts are more critical because of the sensitivity of resources, models and functional measures excel. Finally, if multiple resources need to be tracked, forecasted, and cred- ited, functional measures excel. sElEcting thE right mEAsurE This project has identified a number of tools at the landscape and planning level that address the need for integrated resource management with transportation development. These inte- grated programs provide guidance in planning to the project level. The crediting system documented here addresses the con- nection needed between planning level analysis and site level analysis. To fully implement the planning tools, a functional measurement system is needed to reconcile multiple resources at a site level. One of the key challenges in site measures for multiple resources is the stacking of various credit types. Because many of the crediting programs will need to connect back to both regulatory and nonregulatory processes, it is necessary to document that no single credit is satisfying multiple regula- tions. In other words, credits must be shown not to “double dip” or count twice for a liability. One strength of functional measures is that credits are created with constituent func- tions that can be assigned to specific regulations or goals and mathematically isolated to prevent double dipping. It is important to note that this challenge is not an environmental one. Stacking in the environment is common because multi- ple resources can benefit from a single feature. For example, a riparian forest provides shading to cool adjacent waters, be found on a site and can then be scored and credits or debits estimated. Scenarios in this context can include alternative vegetation management programs, stream restoration, forest management, as well as impact scenarios based on highway development. The alternatives can then each be evaluated based on the number and type of credits generated or diminished by the proposed actions. Another benefit for functional measurement systems is that they provide a basis for ecosystem service measurements (Farber et al. 2002; Limburg et al. 2002). Adding the oppor- tunity to also provide a field-based measurement provides the best approach to an empirical measurement for ecosys- tem services. Currently, function-based approaches are devel- oped regionally with methods used based on the local scientists. Developing standards may be difficult but could improve the adoption of these methods. summAry of chAllEngEs These three forms of measure can be understood based on the type and nature of data required and the temporal frame within which these measures work. Data included in these systems can be primary or secondary. In general, condition- and function-based systems focus on primary data collected specifically for the measure, although secondary data can be used. Modeled data processes existing data and does not rely on field-based data sets necessarily. The temporal frame is the usability of the measurement system to track changes versus the ability to forecast change. Functional and model systems are able to forecast change based on proposed actions or change in the environment. Condition-based systems rely on historic data and are challenged when they attempt to forecast future changes in condition. This temporal frame is critical in a reg- ulatory or crediting scenario because proposed impacts and proposed restoration actions need some certainty in mea- surement before they are implemented. A common applica- tion of credits is in the terms and conditions of permits: these credits must be easily defined based on proposed restoration actions that may be written into a construction contract or similar agreement. Condition- and model-based systems center on species and their responses to impacts on the environment. These mea- surements are most commonly used in monitoring species health and for responding to impaired landscapes, such as in restoring water quality. These measurement systems are suited for comprehensive management for a given resource. The challenge they present for impact and conservation actions is they do not provide a methodology to attribute the benefits or impacts of a given action. For example, a protocol for condition-based measures may include random sampling for macroinvertebrates. Ideally, longitudinal data collection has occurred to provide the baseline and level of variation. After construction of a project, the monitoring can continue

49 will occur. Using the example of the water quality and aquatic species above, both will rely on functions performed by stream- side vegetation that shades water bodies or reduces sediment and pollutant transport into water bodies. This overlap is a criti- cal feature of the multiresource functional measurement sys- tem. It allows for the multiple resources to have a relationship that can inform site and design choices. dEvElop functions And AttributEs to mEAsurE sErvicEs The basic spatial unit of a functional system is the map unit, a relatively homogenous and contiguous landcover type. Within these map units, attributes are collected that indicate the level of functional performance. Functions must be developed understanding this structure. Functions can be divided into the abiotic and biotic ones or functions that address biophys- ical processes versus species-specific processes. The measure- ments are based on attributes that can be easily collected by a field crew without extensive field instrumentation or long- term monitoring. An overall functional performance score for the map unit is derived equally from the contributions of the abiotic and biotic functions. The respective biotic and abiotic functional performance scores are combined to provide a total biotic and total abiotic functional performance score for the map unit. The abiotic functional performance score and the biotic functional performance score are then combined and multi- plied by area and habitat type to obtain the overall measure of functional performance for the particular map unit. These scores are summed to provide the functional performance score for the entire site. A conceptual diagram is the first step in the development of a biotic or abiotic function. This aids in all aspects of the development of the function but most importantly in terms of the application of the measurement system. The conceptual diagram considers pre-existing conditions or current condi- tions to describe what the function requires at a site level. In general terms, this creates the logic of how and when to score a map unit for a particular function. The system itself turns functions on and off within the equations based on the trig- gering conditions identified in the conceptual diagram. With the functional diagram completed, the attributes and scoring must be generated. Through a survey of literature, available science, outreach to experts, and other tools, the list of field-based data needed is developed for the function. In addition to identifying these attributes, their role in contribut- ing to the performance of the function is evaluated. For all functions, there is a 100% level at which the natural system is performing the function at its highest possible level. It is help- ful to consider this in evaluating the type and amount of attri- butes needed. Similarly, at 0% function, it is useful to think of what attributes, if missing, would limit the function fully. It is important to remember that at this level, other functions may carbon sequestration through growth, and song bird habitat. These resources evolved to maximize the use of these benefits. However, the regulatory system requires that mitigation ben- efits be counted only for the debit to which they are assigned. This is technically accomplished with functions, but this dis- tinction is important to remember that although the envi- ronmental benefits of stacking are clearly beneficial, they are seen as undesirable in the regulatory system. The technical details of stacking are discussed in the next step. Step 6c Select or develop units and rules for crediting. This step provides the basis for developing a custom mea- surement system based on functions for multiresource cre- diting. If an appropriate existing measurement system was identified in the previous step, this step may not be necessary. The following sections detail the considerations and issues that must be addressed for a robust measurement that is also bal- anced with the level of effort needed to implement it. An excel- lent introduction into regional scale measurement requirements for ecosystem services can be found in The Law and Policy of Ecosystem Services (Ruhl et al. 2007). Development of a measurement system must first consider the resources of concern and the size of the areas to be included. Much of this will have been identified in Step 6a, with the assess- ment of the various ecological, regulatory, and social contexts. However, in this step the details of the resources are further developed. idEntify rEsourcE And EcosystEm sErvicEs The first question to ask is what services or resources are of concern. An important starting point is to review the highway or agency-specific concerns and then identify services from there. For example, stormwater treatment may be identified as a concern. From an ecosystem services perspective, the site level need is for more naturally occurring water quality regu- lation. Water quality regulation as a service is provided by functions performed based on the existing vegetation, soil types, site topography, and other such factors. Similarly, a regulatory agency or other stakeholder may identify a resource concern, such as a listed species or species of concern. These are biodiversity services. Functions are then identified that support these specific biotic concerns. For example, concern over aquatic species will require functions that support various life stages of the species, such as foraging and rearing, spawning, and connectivity for migration. These functions can then be defined through specific attributes, such as pool or riffle types, substrate, and adjacent bank characteristics. As the services or resources are compiled and the necessary functions are identified to support them, overlap of functions

50 The application of a functional measure is a three-step pro- cess. Initially, the current pre-implementation (baseline) condi- tion of the site is determined using data collected onsite. The system generates a baseline functional performance score for the site. The second step of the process is to generate one or more design alternative scenarios. For each of these design alter- natives, a set of map units and data for each is generated based on the information in the design plan. This should reflect con- ditions on the site at some pre-determined future date. In gen- eral, a 20-year postimplementation time period is used. Using this set of map units and data, a future conditions functional performance score is generated for each alternative considered. To determine the uplift or impact of a given design, the baseline conditions site score is subtracted from the future conditions site score. If the resultant number is negative, a debit has been generated; if positive, the project results in uplift. The degree of impact or uplift is the number generated. Step 6e Evaluate local market opportunities for ecosystem services. Market opportunities can include existing wetland or con- servation banking systems or more advanced payment for ecosystem service (PES) systems. PES programs are negotiated contracts with landowners to maintain a certain level of envi- ronmental performance to maintain or enhance ecosystem services (Forest Trends and Ecosystem Marketplace 2008). Criticisms of these systems come from a concern that there is no clear way to track the performance. However, this is a tech- nical measurement problem and does not undermine the potential power of PES systems (Redford and Adams 2009). Developing ecosystem metrics and tracking project impacts using those measures can make it easier to access any operating regional ecosystem markets. Step 6a includes consideration of the existence of ecosystem markets as part of the regulatory compliance considerations associated with selecting or devel- oping an ecosystem metric. If these criteria have been properly considered, the DOT’s/MPO’s ecosystem measurement system should be well suited to ecosystem market use. There are a number of reasons why ecosystem markets provide a better solution for DOTs/MPOs, including the following: • Certainty. Purchasing credits from a mitigation bank removes the schedule risk and uncertainty associated with getting approval of mitigation site and design. In addition, there is greater budget certainty because the cost per credit generally is a known quantity, whereas the costs of mitiga- tion design and construction are not (particularly for sites that have difficulty with plant establishment). The costs of mitigation and the liability associated with those costs can extend 5 to 10 years or more. be affected. For example, a function that is highly dependent on canopy cover will not co-exist with a function that is dependent on exposed ground or grasslands. As attributes are identified, their relative contribution to the function will start to emerge, but the next step is to score all attributes for the function. For example, in a function that is evaluating a map unit’s ability to infiltrate stormwater, the amount of pervious surface needs to be scored. In this case, it may be a logarithmic curve that indicates slight loss of func- tional performance as the initial increments of impervious surface are added to the map unit. However, each additional increment of change to impervious surface will have an increas- ingly rapid impact to the functional score. The scoring curves are drawn for all attributes that contribute to the functional performance. As the functions are developed, the attributes must be checked across all the functions to assure that the data collec- tion protocols remain constant. This is frequently a challenge in which different measurement standards are combined across disciplines. The compilation of the attributes will provide the basis for the creation of a functional measure- ment data sheet that combines all the data requirements for the system into a single instrument for field use. Another benefit of this functional approach is that as new functions are identified, they can be built from existing attributes or with just a few additional attributes needing to be pro- grammed into the system. The final consideration for functional measure develop- ment is temporal factors. To ease implementation, the goal should be for measures to work at any point in time. Water cycles, seasonal fluctuations, and other natural system dynamics can complicate this. For example, substrate obser- vations for stream systems may be influenced by turbidity that limits visual assessment. These considerations need to be addressed because attribute data collection is defined in the field protocols. Other measurement methods may need to be developed or other assumptions may need to be in place to address the limitations. As functions are developed, they are combined based on agreed-upon rules. Depending on the selection of functions to combine, there are often policy considerations that inform the relative importance of functions. For example, storm- water management functions may be prioritized over other functions in a transportation context. In these situations, for- mal weighting factors must be applied to capture these pri- orities. Although other services may still be important, they must be combined at a lower level with the higher priority stormwater management functions. Step 6d Test applicability of units and rules in local conditions.

51 in 2008, a typical mitigation site received only 5 to 10 years of monitoring and then was on its own. Step 6f Negotiate regulatory assurance for credits (sacking credits and double-dipping). Ecosystem functions and services have interconnected rela- tionships that can be complementary, conflicting, or magnify- ing based on their interactions. The ability to measure multiple resources and services at once is a critical feature in functional measures, particularly when used to generate credits that will be bought or sold in a mitigation or ecosystem marketplace context. By working at the most basic level of environmental measurements, functional measures provide a system that can stack or combine multiple credit types or resources and, at the same time, assures that credits are used only as approved and allowed. This stacking function allows for the interactions of the natural elements to be more fully measured. Incentives for investing in conservation and restoration actions that generate a wide variety of ecosystem benefits are currently missing in regulation-driven, acreage-based credit systems. Generally, once a site meets the minimum regula- tory requirements for mitigation of a given resource, all potential additional benefits provided by the site are ignored or forgotten. But with a stacking credit system, the proper incentives for conservation can be introduced as the benefits of an action to all resources become clear. Similarly, in an impact context, stacking allows the effects on resources to be better understood. Stacking requires strict accounting to prevent the use of credits to offset impacts of multiple projects. In a regulatory context, this is critically important. Through the function- based nature of credits, individual functions are assigned to the credit type that must be audited. This ties the constituent com- ponents of the credit together, ensuring that credits are not used repeatedly in different transactions (double-dipping). Step 6g Program implementation. There are a number of ways in which good metrics can inform transportation planning processes and be incorpo- rated into project compliance documentation and regulatory processes. For instance, good metrics can provide a much better means of conducting NEPA alternative analysis. A good metric also can provide the basis for terms and condi- tions, conservation measures, and performance standards. In addition, when combined with an appropriate landscape measurement system, it can be the basis for justifying off-site or out-of-kind mitigation. It is important that project deliv- ery staff be aware of these opportunities. • Transfer of Liability. Many ecosystem markets include a transfer of liability for mitigation success. Wetland mitiga- tion banks pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA and con- servation banks pursuant to the ESA place the liability for restoration/conservation success on the banker. Note that this is not universally the case. Liability under the CWA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program remains with the permittee, even when the permittee is meeting permit conditions through a market transaction. • Better Alignment of Missions. Although many DOTs and MPOs employ highly qualified and experienced biol- ogists and ecologists, the mission of the DOT/MPO is focused on providing and maintaining transportation sys- tems. This means the DOT/MPO project delivery focus is on the road, bridge, or other aspect of transportation infrastructure, not the wetland or native habitat being restored as part of the project’s impact compensation. In this circumstance, it is not uncommon to have the miti- gation lumped into the same contract as the road or bridge construction. This can lead to situations in which the grading and earth work for the mitigation site are done by contractors with experience and expertise in road construction. Restoring a wetland and building a road require different skill sets. It is best when restoration professionals build mitigation sites and road construc- tion contractors build highway infrastructure. • Improved Ecosystem Outcomes. Ecosystem markets pro- vide the opportunity to focus larger and more meaningful restoration projects toward addressing regional ecosystem priorities. In making this shift, the postage stamp mitiga- tion that is the frequent outcome of DOT/MPO projects is eliminated. These small mitigation sites are inefficient and too often not ecologically viable or useful. On the other hand, mitigation bankers have an incentive to focus on ecologically desirable outcomes (because regulators are less likely to approve use of the bank if it is not providing good ecological benefits). In addition, they have an incentive to focus on the site and make it successful because in most bank- ing contexts, credit release is incumbent upon reaching pre- established success criteria. This means that not only is society more likely to realize the ecological benefits, those benefits are in place before the impact occurs. In traditional mitigation, at best the restoration activities are concurrent to the impact activities, but there is inevitably some temporal lag before the mitigation starts to provide ecological benefits. To add to all these benefits, mitigation banks provide in perpetuity protection for the site. Often this means turning the site over to a third party (e.g., land trust or conservation organization) with an endowment to pay for long-term site management. In contrast, until new regulations were adopted

52 those used for impact assessment, site selection, and credit development. 7e. Develop programmatic ESA Section 7 consultation, Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), Section 404 Regional General Permits (RGPs), or other program- matic agreements to advance conservation action in line with CWA Section 404 and ESA program objectives/ requirements and with maximum assurance that conservation/restoration investments by DOTs count or will count. 7f. Set up periodic meetings to identify what is working well and what could be improved. Technical Considerations • Who will lead in development of needed agreements? • Under what conditions would the agreement be revisited? • Set up periodic (at least annual) meetings to identify what is working well and what could be improved. The use of the integrated planning method described in this report provides the ideal basis for programmatic agree- ment implementation. Programmatic agreements (program- matics) can include agreements for compliance under a number of regulations or statutes. Common programmatic agreements include biological opinions (BOs), Section 404 permits, and local permits. In general, programmatic agree- ments require more time and effort initially as the details and terms are developed. Because of this, the usual application of programmatic agreements is in settings in which a project or series of projects will require numerous permits or consulta- tions and each will be similar to the others. In this case, a traditional review process would drain staff and agency resources through repetitive reviews that do not add value. The level of resource and transportation information developed in the REF and transportation plan documents provide a strong foundation for identifying programmatic implementation opportunities. Through an analysis of the common impact types developed in Step 6, a set of pro- grammatic permits can be developed to help speed project delivery. Programmatic agreements within the REF must describe the resources covered, the types of impacts or activi- ties covered, and clear instructions on avoidance, minimiza- tion, and mitigation in program delivery. The programmatic also must include tools to assist in monitoring and man- agement of the programmatic to assure the sum of the actions included is meeting the expectations of the signa- tories and participants. Advantages for using programmatic agreements or per- mits rest primarily on the streamlining allowed once the agreement is in place. Once the agreement is in place, use of a programmatic agreement or permit can be as simple as There are a few basic thing DOTs can do to encourage these improvements. For instance, it is important to provide ongo- ing training and support for staff to help them understand the potential opportunities for process improvements. An easy way to affect this type of support is to use a community of practice approach so that relevant staff have a mechanism to share concepts and ideas and impart lessons learned about what worked and what did not work. Another useful step for program implementation is to develop a data sheet that stan- dardizes the metric application. Ideally, the data sheet will become an integrated part of project data collection and will be used to make that process more efficient and effective. Step 7: Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion, or Permit Purpose Develop MOUs, agreements, programmatic 404 permits, or 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. Outcomes • Agreeing on resource management roles and methods. • Incorporation of outcome-based performance standards into programmatic agreements to improve project avoid- ance and minimization, as well as aiding effective monitor- ing and adaptive management actions. • Establishing Programmatic ESA Section 7 consultation, SAMP, RGP, or agreements enabling agencies to proceed with conservation action in line with CWA Section 404 and ESA program objectives/requirements and with maximum assur- ance that investments count and will be sufficient. Implementation Steps 7a. Ensure agreements are documented relating to CWA Sec- tion 404 permitting, avoidance and minimization, ESA Section 7 consultation, roles and responsibilities, landown- ership and management, and conservation measures. 7b. Plan for long-term management and make arrangements with land management agencies and organizations (e.g., land trusts or bankers) for permanent protection of con- servation and restoration parcels. Notify and coordinate with local governments for supportive action. 7c. Design performance measures for transportation proj- ects that will be practical for long-term adaptive man- agement and include these in the 404 permit and/or Section 7 BA/BO. 7d. Choose a monitoring strategy for mitigation sites, based on practical measures, ideally using the same metrics as

53 Outcomes • Maintaining continuity from early planning processes into the project implementation phase, including: 44 Use of regional ecological goals and objectives in project planning and decision making 44 Use of REF map to guide project avoidance and mitiga- tion decisions 44 Incorporation of performance standards and program- matic agreements as appropriate into permitting and consultation documents 44 Integration of programmatic cumulative effects analysis into project NEPA, Section 404 and Section 7 analysis • Incorporating tools and approaches into a monitoring and adaptive management strategy to ensure positive project outcomes. • Accurate record keeping and tracking of all commitments by transportation agency in project delivery. • Updating information from construction and operation into REF. • Measuring performance success in project delivery. Implementation Steps 8a. Design and implement methods to complete transpor- tation project(s) consistent with REF, conservation and restoration strategy, and agreements. 8b. Identify how advance mitigation and conservation will be funded, if this has not been done already. 8c. As needed, develop additional project-specific, outcome- based performance standards related to impact avoid- ance and minimization. 8d. Design transportation projects and integrate perfor- mance measures to minimize impacts to resources. 8e. Use adaptive management to ensure compliance with requirements and intent of performance measures. 44 Develop and track ecoregional biodiversity, indicators of viability, and integrity. 44 Develop and track conservation status, protected and managed area status, and management effectiveness. 44 Identify remedial actions and needed plan adjustments. 44 Adjust the planning process and management processes and/or management of individual conservation areas. 44 Incorporate outputs into future cumulative effects analyses for the region. Technical Considerations • What tools are available that could help document goals and priorities identified in the REF that need to be consid- ered in project delivery? • What tools and methods can be used to track how projects contributed to and/or improved the REF priorities and goals? a one- or two-page letter that outlines the action and the affected resource information and certifies that the impacts of the project are documented and within the agreed-upon thresholds. Programmatic agreements allow resource agency time to be more efficiently used and the agreements to focus on monitoring or tracking of projects. These agreements can also cover multiple regulations or resources, and in the REF setting should in fact do this. This multi- resource programmatic approach can integrate permitting decisions to avoid conflicts between regulated resources, such as listed species and Section 404 requirements. This multiresource approach also may rely on on-the-ground ecosystem credits, as identified in Step 6. These multi- resource credits encourage comprehensive mitigation with conservation priorities included. Challenges for a programmatic tend to rest on the complex- ity of the resources and the diversity of impacts included. An- other important component of programmatic agreements is the level of trust and history of collaboration among all involved agencies. These agreements may require high-level support and an ongoing collaborative staff relationship. If these two compo- nents are not in place, programmatic agreements are difficult to create and maintain. This may also include stakeholder buy-in. Conservation groups or other advocacy groups can play a key role in challenging these agreements or supporting their imple- mentation. Thus, the relationships identified in Step 1 and maintained throughout the planning process will be instru- mental to successful implementation. Volume 1 documents the benefits and challenges in imple- menting programmatic agreements, includes guides for devel- oping these agreements, and provides sample documents based on agency and resource. Even in cases in which the diversity of resources, impacts, or stakeholders makes programmatic agreements difficult or impossible, the data and values from the REF can provide a key path to individual permit decisions. The REF and eco- logical priorities allow for analysis of alternatives, permit per- formance standards, and other important decisions to be reached without having to perform the analysis for each per- mit. This savings alone can speed project delivery greatly and reduce costs from delays. Step 8: Implement Agreements and Adaptive Management Purpose 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 the programmatic agreements, performance measures, and ecological metric tools to improve the project.

54 9e. Conduct regular review of progress, including effective- ness at meeting goals and objectives, current take totals, and likelihood of exceeding programmatic take allowance. Technical Considerations • Has the status of species or habitats changed? How does this affect REF goals? • Do areas on the landscape critical to meeting goals identified in REF need additional protection or restoration action? • How often should the REF be revised to incorporate new conservation data or plans? • How often should the cumulative effects analysis be updated? • Are indicators used to track conservation progress captur- ing the correct trends? • Are transportation project delivery indicators improving (e.g., streamlined decision making and/or better conserva- tion outcomes)? • How can modifications be moved forward to alter mitiga- tion and restoration priorities previously identified but not yet implemented? Technical Implementation of Step 9 Step 9d Update the cumulative effects analysis with new developments, new disturbances, proposals and trends (e.g., ecosystem-altering wildfire, new policies, plans, proposals, and trends such as new sea level rise inundation models). The Framework implementation as described is explicitly designed to support adaptive planning and management. A key aspect of this process then is to re-analyze the cumulative effects when there is a significant change in potential stressors to the ecosystem. Each assessment iteration should entail the following: a. Update the effects assessment to determine if resource goal achievement is still on track. b. If goal achievement gaps are indicated, reassess priori- ties for mitigation in light of new disturbances that may affect the practicality or utility of proceeding with pre- vious priorities. c. Identify new priorities if warranted. Ecosystem Accounting Aspects: As changes occur in the REF or new information is included in the decision-making, the crediting system also will need to adapt. This may be due to new resource concerns, emerging regulations, or public concern that is critical but not yet regulatory. Peri- odically re-evaluating Step 6 will assure that the crediting system is current and in alignment with environmental, social, and regulatory concerns. Ecosystem Accounting Aspects: An important aspect of any crediting system is to include an adaptive management or pol- icy feedback loop that allows for new discoveries to inform better crediting. Credits should be monitored and measured against other measurement systems. This is an important step, and one that may change standards from one version of the crediting to the next. This is an acceptable change if justified by new science or policy priorities. However, it is important to set these changes in the context of previous decisions so as to not create new barriers for crediting in future projects. Adaptive management relies less on the idea of precedents and more on the notion of new discoveries and decisions: the process cannot become overly tied to past decisions if new information is available. Step 9: Update Regional Integrated Plan and Ecosystem Framework Purpose 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/ utility of proceeding with previous priorities. Identify new priorities if warranted. Outcomes • Updating REF and cumulative effects analysis. • Updating conservation and restoration priorities. Implementation Steps 9a. Integrate any revised conservation plans into the regional integrated plan and ecosystem framework and, where appropriate, update individual resource spatial information. 9b. Update the area and resource conservation requirements, responses, and indicators in collaboration with stakehold- ers (e.g., assess regional goals, update to minimum required area for species and/or habitat, review confidence thresh- old for achieving goals, review weighting values of resources in REF, evaluate responses to land use and infrastructure). 9c. Update the implementation status of mitigation areas in the REF to review areas that are contributing to REF goals and priorities and determine if additional conservation/ protection action is required. 9d. Update the cumulative effects analysis with new develop- ments, new disturbances, proposals, and trends (e.g., ecosystem-altering wildfire, new policies, plans, proposals, and trends such as new sea level rise inundation models).

Next: Chapter 4 - Pilot Projects »
An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program 2 (SHRP 2) Report S2-C06-RW-2: An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 is designed to help transportation and environmental professionals apply ecological principles early in the planning and programming process of highway capacity improvements to inform later environmental reviews and permitting. Ecological principles consider cumulative landscape, water resources, and habitat impacts of planned infrastructure actions, as well as the localized impacts.

The report introduces the Integrated Ecological Framework, a nine-step process for use in early stages of highway planning when there are greater opportunities for avoiding or minimizing potential environmental impacts and for planning future mitigation strategies.

The report is part two of a four-volume set. The other volumes in the set are:

A supplemental report, Integrated Ecological Framework Outreach Project, documents the techniques used to disseminate the project's results into practitioner communities and provides technical assistance and guidance to those agencies piloting the products.

The primary product of these complementary efforts is the Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF). The IEF is a step-by-step process guiding the integration of transportation and ecological planning. Each step of the IEF is supported by a database of case studies, data, methods, and tools. The IEF is available through the Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) website. TCAPP is now known as PlanWorks.

This publication is only available in electronic format.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!