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.
72 Site-specific ecological and socioeconomic factors contribute to the provision and value of ecosystem services, respectively. This appendix summarizes common factors for co-benefits related to wetland restoration and creation (Table C.1), forest restoration and creation (Table C.2), stream restoration and improvement (Table C.3), uplands restoration (Table C.4), and agricul- tural practices modification (Table C.5). A P P E N D I X C Site-Specific Factors Related to Co-Benefits Co- benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Improved drinking water quality ⢠Baseline water quality (where water quality is already high, the water purification properties of wetlands may be less valuable) ⢠Wetland plant type and vegetation management, which can affect potential and extent of reduction in pollutants in surface and groundwater ⢠Size of wetland mitigation ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved human health and welfare ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co- benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Level and type of wetland vegetation that may filter air pollutants (e.g., forested wetlands would have a relatively high potential for air quality benefits) ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co- benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Proximity of mitigation site to areas where people live, work, and gather ⢠Size of population in airshed Increased or improved recreational opportunities ⢠Number and type of fish and wildlife benefiting (survival, reproduction, and population persistence for recreationally important species) ⢠Size and quality of wetland generated ⢠Size and quality of adjacent green/open space ⢠Potential change in flow or cleanliness of downstream waterways with recreation potential ⢠Accessibility of site to users by type (e.g., fishing, hunting, wildlife viewing, hiking) ⢠Number of users or trips for recreation ⢠Geographic extent of recreational opportunities improved (e.g., acres or stream miles) Improved landscape aesthetics ⢠Potential change in water transparency or color in waterways visible to the public ⢠Anticipated vegetation mix in wetland ⢠Potential change in sediment levels ⢠Potential change in trophic status (biological productivity) ⢠Size and quality of wetland and adjacent green/open space generated relative to what landscape is replaced ⢠Number and type of properties within view of mitigation site ⢠Number of baseline users benefiting from higher quality trips; number of new users attracted to a site for aesthetic reasons Table C.1. Site-specific factors for wetland restoration and creation mitigation.
Site-Specific Factors Related to Co-Benefits 73  Climate stabilization ⢠Newly created freshwater wetlands may serve as a net source of carbon due to methane emissions, or a net benefit by reducing carbon emissions by restoring disturbed or degraded wetlands ⢠Newly created and restored saltwater wetlands can provide a net carbon benefit (reduced carbon emissions) ⢠Carbon sequestration potential of wetland and timeframe anticipated (available biomass, soil carbon, standing dead carbon) ⢠Baseline level of wetland disturbance that could have contributed to greenhouse gas emissions (wetland type, exposure of soil carbon to oxygen) ⢠Size of wetland (area available for sequestration) ⢠Not applicable Climate resiliency ⢠Relative vulnerability of the ecosystem and environmental conditions to the effects of climate change (e.g., sensitivity of native plants and animals to storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures); sites that are more vulnerable may benefit more from mitigation that improves the ability of the ecosystem to withstand these effects ⢠Relative vulnerability of infrastructure and human populations to the effects of climate change (e.g., risks associated with storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures) Non-use and cultural values ⢠Ability of wetland to improve fish and wildlife habitat or biodiversity for species that are protected [e.g., Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed species] or enjoy historical or cultural significance (i.e., via provision of vegetation as a food source and more clean water) ⢠Location of mitigation relative to human- made hazards (e.g., traffic and the potential for vehicle collisions), mitigation located farther from hazards reduce wildlife fatalities ⢠Proximity of populations that have cultural values for species benefiting Co- benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Commercial fishing (resource harvesting) ⢠Ability of wetland to improve fish habitat or biodiversity (i.e., via provision of vegetation as a food source and more clean water) ⢠Connectivity of wetland to streams and other waterways (i.e., no impediments to fish passage) ⢠Maintenance of stream flows and improved water quality ⢠Connectivity of waterways with increased fish stocks to commercial fishing catchments ⢠Number of commercial fishing operations with demand for increased fish catch Increased property values ⢠Wetland type and visibility ⢠Number of residential properties with a view of or in proximity to the wetland Water supply maintenance ⢠Soil type and wetland design, which can affect the wetlandâs ability to absorb precipitation and flows, maintain baseflows in adjacent streams, or promote infiltration and replenish alluvial aquifers ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water or irrigation water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Baseline variability in water supply levels ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Table C.1. (Continued).
74 Watershed Approach to Mitigating Hydrologic Impacts of Transportation Projects: Guide Table C.2. Site-specific factors for forest restoration and creation mitigation. Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Increased or improved recreational opportunities ⢠Number and type of fish and wildlife benefiting (survival, reproduction, and population persistence for recreationally important species) ⢠Number of acres of forest generated ⢠Presence/absence of adjacent or connected forested tracts ⢠Potential change in flow or cleanliness of downstream waterways with recreation potential ⢠Some recreational benefits associated with more mature forests (e.g., hiking, wildlife viewing) may be long-term benefit that increases as the forest matures, but may not be substantial in the short-term ⢠Anticipated or potential recreational uses of created forest ⢠Proximity of mitigation site to users ⢠Access/use restrictions ⢠Presence of similar substitutes ⢠Length of walkable trails available ⢠Acres of forest available for recreational activities (e.g., hunting, hiking) ⢠Number of users or trips for recreation Improved landscape aesthetics ⢠Number of trees planted, and acres of forest established relative to the baseline land cover ⢠Tree species mix and density ⢠Length of time until stand maturity (aesthetic improvements may be long- term benefits as the forest matures but not relevant in the short-term) ⢠Potential change in flow or water clarity of downstream waterways visible to the public ⢠Number and type of properties within view of mitigation site ⢠Number of baseline users benefiting from higher quality trips; number of new users attracted to the site due to aesthetics Improved drinking water quality ⢠Baseline water quality (where water quality is already high, the water purification properties of forests may be less valuable) ⢠Size of forest mitigation ⢠Potential for decreased sedimentation and pollutant transport into waterways (e.g., via riparian buffers, where width and type of vegetation, waterlogging and organic content of soils, hydraulic conductivity, soil nutrient content regulate nutrient flow, slope, soil type, proximity of forest to waterway) ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved human health and welfare ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Potential of chosen tree species to absorb air pollutants (sulfur dioxide, ozone, nitrogen oxides, particulates) ⢠Potential for tree canopy to decrease local air temperatures ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Proximity of mitigation site to areas where people live, work, and gather ⢠Size of population in airshed
Site-Specific Factors Related to Co-Benefits 75  Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Timber and forest product harvest benefits (resource harvesting) ⢠Specific mix of tree species ⢠Connectivity of forest to larger forested tracts ⢠Potential for targeted resources to grow/live in forest ⢠Some resource harvesting benefits associated with more mature forests may be long-term benefits that increase as the forest matures but may not be substantial in the short-term ⢠Potential for resource harvesting (i.e., hunting) to conflict with other land uses ⢠Proximity to roads/potential for site access Climate stabilization ⢠Carbon sequestration potential of tree species planted, baseline soil carbon level, and adjacent available biomass (climate stabilization may be a long-term benefit as carbon sequestration rates increase with tree biomass but may not be substantial in the short-term) ⢠Not applicable Climate resilience ⢠Relative vulnerability of the ecosystem and environmental conditions to the effects of climate change (e.g., sensitivity of native plants and animals to storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures, including localized temperature); sites that are more vulnerable may benefit more from mitigation that improves the ability of the ecosystem to withstand these effects ⢠Relative vulnerability of infrastructure and human populations to the effects of climate change (e.g., risks associated with storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures) Increased property values ⢠See âimproved landscape aestheticsâ co- benefit ⢠Visibility of clear-cut from timber harvest ⢠Number and type of properties within view of forest mitigation site Non-use and cultural values ⢠Ability of forest to improve wildlife habitat or biodiversity for species that are protected or enjoy historical or cultural significance (i.e., via provision of vegetation as a food source, more clean water, habitat space) ⢠Location of mitigation relative to human- made hazards (e.g., traffic and the potential for vehicle collisions); mitigation located farther from hazards reduces wildlife fatalities ⢠Proximity of populations that have cultural values for species benefiting Table C.2. (Continued).
76 Watershed Approach to Mitigating Hydrologic Impacts of Transportation Projects: Guide Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Improved drinking water quality ⢠Baseline water quality: existing upstream or downstream water quality impairments (where water quality is already high, further improvements may be less likely or less valuable) ⢠Extent of streambank stabilization and erosion prevention elements of the mitigation (e.g., nature and extent of riparian planting) ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved human health and welfare ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water Water supply maintenance ⢠Interconnectivity of surface water with alluvial groundwater ⢠Baseline variability in water supply levels ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Increased or improved recreational opportunities ⢠Number and type of fish and wildlife benefiting (survival, reproduction, and population persistence for recreationally important species) ⢠Overall size of restored stream ⢠Potential change in flow or cleanliness of downstream waterways with recreation potential ⢠Ability of stream to attract and maintain fish populations (e.g., food sources, shelter) ⢠Length of streams impacted and available for recreation ⢠Designated use of the stream ⢠Type(s) of recreation possible given the size of the stream ⢠Accessibility of site to users ⢠Number of users or trips for recreation Commercial fishing (resource harvesting) ⢠Number and type of fish benefiting (survival, reproduction, and population persistence of commercially valuable fish and shellfish) ⢠Ability of stream to attract and maintain fish populations (e.g., food sources, shelter) ⢠Accessibility of stream to other fish habitat ⢠Fishing rights context (e.g., who can fish and where, collection limits, etc.) ⢠Demand for harvest and use of fish and shellfish among local population ⢠Number of commercial fishing entities benefiting Non-use and cultural values ⢠Ability of mitigation to improve habitat for and therefore populations of protected or culturally important fish species ⢠Presence of other larger species with protections or cultural significance that prey on the directly benefiting fish species ⢠Changes in the quality or status of a stream where local populations hold cultural values ⢠Location of mitigation relative to human-made hazards (e.g., traffic and the potential for vehicle collisions); mitigation located farther from hazards reduces wildlife fatalities ⢠Proximity of populations that have cultural values for species benefiting Climate stabilization ⢠Carbon sequestration potential of stream and timeframe anticipated (available biomass, carbon in stream bed, turbulence, and flow) ⢠Baseline level of stream disturbance that could have contributed to greenhouse gas emissions (stream type and size, stream flow rates, amount and type of vegetation) ⢠Size of stream and adjacent stream beds (area available for sequestration) ⢠Not applicable Climate resilience ⢠Relative vulnerability of the ecosystem and environmental conditions to the effects of climate change (e.g., sensitivity of native plants and animals to storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures); sites that are more vulnerable may benefit more from mitigation that improves the ability of the ecosystem to withstand these effects ⢠Relative vulnerability of infrastructure and human populations to the effects of climate change (e.g., risks associated with storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures) Table C.3. Site-specific factors for stream restoration and improvement mitigation.
Site-Specific Factors Related to Co-Benefits 77  Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Water supply maintenance ⢠Ability of landscape to transport clean water toward drinking water catchments or promote infiltration relative to pre- restoration land cover ⢠Ability of landscape to enhance base flow and aquifer recharge ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources or irrigation water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Baseline variability in water supply levels ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved drinking water quality ⢠Flood reduction, soil stabilization, and filtration by vegetation and soil ⢠Baseline water quality (where water quality is already high, the water purification properties of uplands may be less valuable) ⢠Plant type and vegetation management, which can affect potential and extent of reduction in pollutants in surface and groundwater ⢠Size of uplands mitigation ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved human health and welfare ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water Increased or improved recreational opportunities ⢠Overall size of restored uplands area ⢠Vegetation type ⢠Length of time until maturity of new plant species ⢠Number and type of fish and wildlife species benefiting from wildlife viewing potential ⢠Inclusion of trails as part of uplands restoration ⢠Proximity to population centers ⢠Land-use/ownership considerations ⢠Number of users who may increase their use of the mitigation site or experience an improved trip Improved landscape aesthetics ⢠Number and type of new plant species introduced ⢠Length of time until maturity of new plant species (aesthetic improvements may be long-term benefits but not relevant in the short-term) ⢠Number of acres of natural landscape restored ⢠Number and value of properties within view of restored landscape ⢠Number of baseline users benefiting from higher quality trips; number of new users attracted to the site due to aesthetics Table C.4. Site-specific factors for uplands restoration mitigation. (continued on next page)
78 Watershed Approach to Mitigating Hydrologic Impacts of Transportation Projects: Guide Table C.4. (Continued). Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Increased property values ⢠See âimproved landscape aestheticsâ co- benefit for factors associated with viewshed ⢠Number of residential properties with a view of new, natural landscapes Climate stabilization ⢠Carbon sequestration potential of vegetation planted, baseline soil carbon level, and adjacent available biomass (climate stabilization may be a long-term benefit as vegetative biomass matures but may be less substantive in the short- term) ⢠Not applicable Climate resiliency ⢠Relative vulnerability of the ecosystem and environmental conditions to the effects of climate change (e.g., sensitivity of native plants and animals to storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures); sites that are more vulnerable may benefit more from mitigation that improves the ability of the ecosystem to withstand these effects ⢠Relative vulnerability of infrastructure and human populations to the effects of climate change (e.g., risks associated with storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures) Non-use and cultural values ⢠Ability of mitigation to improve habitat for populations of protected or culturally important wildlife species ⢠Changes in the quality or status of a landscape that has cultural value for local populations ⢠Location of mitigation relative to human- made hazards (e.g., traffic and the potential for vehicle collisions); mitigation located farther from hazards reduces wildlife fatalities ⢠Proximity of populations that have cultural values for species benefiting
Site-Specific Factors Related to Co-Benefits 79  Co-benefit Site-specific ecological factors that contribute to the provision of ecosystem services Site-specific socioeconomic factors that contribute to the value of ecosystem services Water supply maintenance ⢠Potential of modified agricultural practices to reduce demand for external sources of irrigation (e.g., diverted flows, groundwater, etc.) ⢠Potential of modified agricultural practices to result in reduced overland flows, increased infiltration of precipitation, and more consistent flows of water for drinking water purposes ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Baseline variability in water supply levels ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply ⢠Number of farms or volume of crops (e.g., acres or values) benefiting Improved drinking water quality ⢠Potential for modified agricultural practices to result in improved water quality (e.g., reduced fertilizer use, reduced pesticide or fertilizer runoff due to cover crops, reduced sedimentation) ⢠Designated use of hydrologically connected water bodies (e.g., connection to existing or potential drinking water sources) ⢠Availability of substitute water sources (value is increased where substitutes are scarce) ⢠Size of population served by interconnected water supply Improved human health and welfare ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Potential for modified agricultural practices to result in more nutritious selection and composition of crops ⢠See âimproved drinking water qualityâ co-benefit for factors associated with drinking water ⢠Size of consumer base for agricultural products from mitigation site Increased agricultural yields (resource harvesting) ⢠Potential for improved agricultural practices to result in increased crop or livestock yields (note that in some cases, changes in agricultural management practices may reduce crop yields, e.g., no-till and cover crops) ⢠Number of farmers benefiting ⢠Number of farms or volume of crops (e.g., acres or values) benefiting Increased wildlife hunting/harvesting (resource harvesting) ⢠Potential for modified agricultural practices to result in increased wildlife presence, which could lead to increased wildlife hunting/harvesting ⢠Hunting rights context ⢠Numbers of harvesters benefiting Climate stabilization ⢠Potential for improved agricultural practices to reduce carbon emissions (machinery, agrochemical use, soil disturbance) ⢠Potential for improved agricultural practices to increase ability of soil to store carbon ⢠Not applicable Climate resiliency ⢠Relative vulnerability of the ecosystem and environmental conditions to the effects of climate change (e.g., sensitivity of native plants and animals to storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures); sites that are more vulnerable may benefit more from mitigation that improves the ability of the ecosystem to withstand these effects ⢠Relative vulnerability of infrastructure and human populations to the effects of climate change (e.g., risks associated with storms, flood, drought, or increased temperatures) Table C.5. Site-specific factors for agricultural practices modification mitigation.
Abbreviations and acronyms used without de nitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACIâNA Airports Council InternationalâNorth America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration GHSA Governors Highway Safety Association HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation
ISBN 978-0-309-68731-7 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 6 8 7 3 1 7 9 0 0 0 0 Transportation Research Board 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED
