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

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

59 C h a p t e r 6 At a symposium held in September 2010, the SHRP 2 Capac- ity Project 6 research was presented to transportation and resource agency participants. The project team’s work was presented after each step of the Framework for integrated conservation, restoration, and transportation planning. The results of the pilot projects were summarized. This chapter summarizes the feedback received from participants, with a focus on the technical and scientific work done by the project. Feedback and discussion started by asking participants to write down what they see as the greatest opportunities for implementing the integrated planning approach and what they think is needed to make it practical for users. One com- ment summarized much of the discussion, “There is an emerging paradigm where transportation can be an ally, and not an enemy, in the conservation process that is starting to take hold.” The written answers to the introductory questions were combined with discussions captured from facilitated breakout groups to summarize the principle themes raised at the symposium. approaches and Frameworks Transportation agencies now are considering what the right project is and factoring in ecosystem approaches and water- shed frameworks, rather than doing business as usual where these factors may have been ignored. The new approach encourages better information sharing and allows informa- tion to be used and improved on an ongoing basis. New approaches such as ecosystem services markets are aligning interests of development entities, conservation groups, land- owners, and investors. Development of these markets not only could provide on-the-ground conservation, but also could drive data collection and information generation to minimize investment risk. Working together Resource agencies are collaborating and providing a basis for broader regional collaboration. Trust is growing, and inter- agency relationships are starting to build, which leads to more consensus on areas of ecological importance, improves con- servation outcomes, and promotes leveraging funds for enhanced ecological success. As one participant said, “Agen- cies and organizations are coming together more and sharing initiatives, ideas, and priorities, realizing we are all going in the similar direction and making changes to work together (and not staying in our bubbles).” Transportation and resource agencies are talking, learning, and sharing more at all levels. The conversations are moving beyond technical matters and legal requirements to recogni- tion of the need for trust to make progress. Collaboration such as this is needed at all levels, including with interest groups and stakeholders. It is critical to develop a better understanding of terms being used (e.g., mitigation, avoidance, assurances, restoration, con- servation) and systems being developed (e.g., Eco-Logical, REF) to avoid confusion and ensure clear communication. This is vital in terms of building on all the work currently under way. The discussion suggested that transportation and resource agencies may use terms such as avoidance, mitigation, and restoration differently. There was not time to sort out the differ- ences at the symposium. Awareness and Recognition There is increasing recognition that all agencies can inte- grate conservation within their missions and work together toward shared goals. Recognition of the need to protect natural areas, functions, and services across jurisdictional and ownership boundaries is also growing. There is wide- spread recognition that the current process is failing us and Symposium

60 Funding Transportation agencies have perhaps the largest source of dedicated public funding for restoration and conservation, and they have been willing to fund projects that do not neces- sarily benefit the transportation systems directly. Local agen- cies have also been willing to fund advanced mitigation. Flexible funding is needed for holistic solutions that address pre-existing deficiencies and enhancements. regional ecosystem Frameworks The biggest issue raised regarding REF preparation was the need for some entity to own it and assure that it is implemented. Answering this question is critical to selling the approach. The second issue raised was who pays for it? One participant said that the Framework underplays the amount of time, money, and effort needed to do it. It needs to be able to explain how much these processes cost and what a DOT needs to do to make this approach happen. The third issue was the audience. The audience needs to be tar- geted in the write-up of the Framework. An opportunity exists to use REFs for projects other than transportation projects. For example, the REF could be useful in helping to figure out the best way to replace aging infrastruc- ture overall. Energy companies and other utilities should become partners in integrated planning efforts. The REF could support improved stormwater management, asset manage- ment, and climate change responses. The approach could be sold on the basis of these benefits. Inevitably, in states where there are more listed species and wetlands, such as California and Florida, there is a demand and urgency for innovative solutions that does not exist in states without those species and wetlands. One participant also noted that transportation agencies are doing fewer new capacity proj- ects. Most of the transportation projects in this state are cate- gorically excluded from NEPA, so there is little reason for a transportation agency to participate in the REF work because the projects are so small they have little cumulative effect. Data, Tools, Scientific Information, and Decision Support Advances in remote sensing and species and habitat inventories improve information on population distributions, whereas new decision support tools support the Eco-Logical approach and improve conservation outcomes. Landscape scale and project-specific scale data are different, but this hierarchy can be flattened now given greater computing power and modeling methods. The new information and tools are more accessible and usable by nonspecialists, allowing agencies to share data, failing ecosystems. This has led to an emerging push to bal- ance mobility needs with the need to preserve and restore ecosystem health. Institutional Change The participants identified several forces driving the need to shift to an integrated conservation and transportation planning system and several needs that must be met if these opportuni- ties are to be realized. The upcoming transportation reauthori- zation bill and climate change both create a sense of urgency. It will be vital to build partnerships with other development and land use agencies beyond transportation agencies, particularly land use decision makers, for the value of the approach to be fully realized. High-level officials now recognize that the comprehen- sive ecological approach is good for the environment and the economy, and new state legislation is being enacted to develop integrated ecosystem market places. The Obama Administration initiatives, such as Sustainable Communi- ties (see U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2012a), complement the Eco-Logical approach and should be built on. In contrast, the Administration’s National Infrastruc- ture Initiative does not include natural resources or green infrastructure, and it should. Many organizations now seek to work with EPA and USACE to apply the watershed approach. There are now more mitigation banking systems, landscape level approaches to project mitigation, statewide connectiv- ity plans, and other examples of integrated transportation and conservation planning for regulated and nonregulated resources. These developments represent a major cultural shift for transportation and resource agencies from a single project (project by project) to a landscape approach focused on eco- system results at a larger scale. The landscape approach allows more flexibility and requires more stakeholders. Ultimately, it is critical that all agencies look at ecosystems in their entirety, not just regulated resources. Regular face-to-face meetings at the regional level are needed to develop trust and maintain continuity for inte- grated planning. This approach also requires staff with specific responsibilities to support this integrated planning process in local government, state transportation, and resource agencies. For the Framework to be implemented, champions need to be recruited at all levels of transportation and resource agen- cies. The symposium participants said that resource agency staff do not know what Eco-Logical is, even if their agencies signed the agreement. Even in states or regions where the integrated approach has been embraced, staff changes and continuity pose major problems.

61 and resource agencies need to think about whether the right project for the context is being proposed. Participants also noted that for all planning and projects, there is a “sweet spot” at which money for the transportation project is available at the same time the mitigation or conserva- tion opportunity exists. Mitigation is likely to be more effective for long-term conservation, and advance mitiga- tion is more likely to occur when funds line up with oppor- tunity in this way. Participants emphasized that buying land and doing a mitigation or conservation project is not enough. Long-term land management is essential to assure that the environmen- tal outcomes are both achieved and maintained. Implementation activities Specific suggestions were made to the TRB on how to imple- ment the results of the C06 research projects. • Share the research results with key public officials. Engage AASHTO regarding streamlining project delivery and groups such as Environmental Council of the States (ECOS), Asso- ciation of Fish and Wildlife (AFWA), Western Governor’s Association (WGA), and National Governor’s Association (NGA). • Document the benefits of the approach—sell it. The docu- mentation should include the business case (return on investment of time and money) and address time savings (especially if they made it possible to reallocate agency resources), cost savings, triple bottom line (people, planet, profit) co-benefits and quality of life benefits, and improved conservation outcomes. Examples of success should be included. Opportunities for streamlining processes or programs should be demonstrated. • Require implementation. One participant suggested requir- ing it in legislation. • Fund more pilot projects. More pilot projects are needed to illustrate how to implement the approach, including regional forums for engaging local, state, and federal agencies. • Interagency training. Regional seminars and interagency training are needed to implement the approach beyond the Ecological grants and customary technology transfer. Inter- agency training is especially useful if it is related to specific projects or permits so that it can be used as a demonstration. • Guidebook and website. Prepare a guide with chapters for each step and examples and provide an accessible and searchable website. tools, and analysis. A wish was expressed for a database of potential mitigation and restoration projects that could meet multiple federal and state requirements and the goals of non- government entities. Data needs and opportunities were discussed in some detail. The participants repeatedly noted the need for improved geo- spatially explicit data sets in digital form that capture historic, as well as current, information. Data set development needs should be prioritized for investment. The data need to be col- lected and maintained to provide ready access for multiple users and applications and to incorporate data from all levels and projects. This will require data for multiple functions, not just transportation. The data need to be live to allow users to create their own data mashups. These data are needed to populate decision support systems such as the USFWS’s online Information, Planning and Conservation System (2012b). Tools need to be developed to use the data in implementing the Framework, and the tools should have a common interface. There needs to be a primary funding source for gathering and managing these regional, state, and nationwide data sets. Participants confirmed what the project team found in their research. Most DOTs and MPOs do not have protocols for data collection and management, and they do not require consul- tants to integrate data they collect into an accessible central system. For an integrated planning system to work, consistent protocols are needed describing what type of data is to be col- lected, how data will be evaluated, and what data should be retained and managed. The overall system must be designed to assure that data are updated regularly because natural events (fire, disease, flood, climate change) and development can alter resources of concern. A long-term commitment to gathering, managing, and sharing data also is required. Crediting and Advance Mitigation There are challenges with crediting that the Framework cannot address, such as market development, double-dipping, and the sophisticated operations and management and accounting systems needed to assure a market delivers results. Resource agency staff often are leery of crediting and concerned that mitigation done for one project not count for another. There is a tendency for regulatory agencies and transportation agencies to focus only on the project site. In terms of both crediting and advance mitigation, metrics from the planning process need to carry through to project delivery and monitoring. At the planning level, transportation