An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 72-123
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 72... ...
72 A p p e n d i x C Approach to Testing C06B Technical Guidance Overview The Integrated Ecological Framework (hereafter Framework) will be tested with associated templates in three states: Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon.
|
From page 73... ...
73 2. Collecting, incorporating, or developing current ecological data for the area being evaluated, while if possible, including or developing predictive species distribution data and priority wetland data.
|
From page 74... ...
74 2. Analysis of credit markets: The team will review DOT and non-DOT based markets for credits when such information is available; this will include §404 or Endangered Species Act (ESA)
|
From page 75... ...
75 ments or alternative routes considered; the corridor largely expanded existing infrastructure. The project's EIS took 3 years to complete, and the final EIS was released in 2001.
|
From page 76... ...
76 prairie, Rocky Mountain Gambel oak-mixed montane shrubland, Southern Rocky Mountains ponderosa pine woodland, and Western Great Plains foothill and piedmont grassland. Dominant grass species include blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis)
|
From page 77... ...
77 County prompted the state and county to expand its infrastructure to accommodate the influx of residents, many of whom will need to commute into the metro regions of Denver and Colorado Springs for work. This growth significantly drives the land use and landcover of the project area, shown in Figure C.3.
|
From page 78... ...
78 2. What were the results (address direct and cumulative impacts, selection of mitigation sites, and other results)
|
From page 79... ...
79 Coyote willow mesic graminoid Salix exigua, mesic graminoids shrubland Freshwater emergent wetland Freshwater emergent wetland Freshwater forested shrub wetland Freshwater forested shrub wetland Freshwater pond Freshwater pond Great Plains mixed grass prairie Hesperostipa comata, Colorado front range herb vegetation Lake wetland Lake and pond wetlands Mixed foothill shrublands Danthonia parryi herbaceous grasslands Mixed mountain shrubland Quercus gambelli-Cercocarpus montanum/Carex geyeri Montane grassland Danthonia parryi herbaceous vegetation Montane riparian willow carr Salix monticola mesic forb shrubland Montane wet meadow Carex pellita herbaceous vegetation Mountain Muhly herbaceous vegetation Muhlenbergia montana herbaceous vegetation Narrowleaf cottonwood riparian forests Populus angustifolia,-Salix exigua woodland Other wetland type Other Peachleaf willow alliance Salix amygdaloides woodland Plains cottonwood riparian woodland Populus angustifolia/Symphoricarpos occidentalis Riverine wetland Riverine wetlands Strapleaf willow, coyote willow Salix exigua, Salix ligulifolia shrubland Thinleaf alder forb riparian shrub Alnus incana mesic forb shrubland Xeric tallgrass prairie Andropogon gerardii, Spirobolus heterolepis Xeric tallgrass prairie 2 Andropogon gerardii, Schizachyrium scoparium Priority Areas (16 elements) Priority Conservation Area (PCA)
|
From page 80... ...
80 Table C.2. Scenarios Created to Support Pilot Analysis Preconstruction Scenario Postconstruction Scenario South I-25 Corridor Digitized the South I-25 Corridor area of impact, the road plus the rights-of-way on either side, using Google Earth's imagery from 2003 Used EIS descriptions with CDOT Roadway Design Guide to estimate width of new lanes and right-of-way.
|
From page 81... ...
81 pRioRitizing And CReAting spAtiAl oveRlAys The preproject scenario was created using the best available land use data to represent the pilot area before the South I-25 Corridor project (see Figure C.6)
|
From page 82... ...
82 Step 3: Create Regional Ecosystem Framework 3a. Overlay the geospatially mapped long-range transportation plan 3b.
|
From page 83... ...
83 Plum Creek Dark areas indicate where higher concentrations of biodiversity and priority areas are located. Figure C.6.
|
From page 84... ...
84 urban and transportation land uses will not support the long-term survival of most species occurrences, natural communities, and priority areas. The large extensions of ranchland in the pilot assessment area often harbor these areas but they easily transition to other land uses (namely urban uses)
|
From page 85... ...
85 Intersecting the REF with the cumulative effects scenario identifies which natural resources have been most affected by the combined land uses that are considered incompatible with the long-term survival of natural resources. The products of a NatureServe Vista scenario evaluation are a report and several visualization layers that can be used in the REF process.
|
From page 86... ...
86 Table C.5. Inventory of Cumulative Impacts to Resources Name Total Resource Distribution Area (acres)
|
From page 87... ...
87 Step 5 of the template deals with the process of identifying and creating off-site mitigation. It is important to note that the South I-25 Corridor project, as carried out by CDOT, chose to use a mitigation bank to address concerns about PMJM.
|
From page 88... ...
88 feasible or desired at CDOT's implementation site, the REF identified several other areas in addition to the wetlands and PMJM habitat. Figure C.9 shows the impact and mitigation site and the two alternative mitigation sites considered by the REF.
|
From page 89... ...
89 alternate off-site mitigation scenarios that meet the goals and can be shared with stakeholders and decision makers for additional input. With Vista Site Explorer, the research team identified two areas with potential for mitigation.
|
From page 90... ...
90 with air photo analyses, very fine scale analyses carried out to evaluate wetlands, species, and several wildlife connectivity studies. A biological assessment was done for PMJM; other species of concern also were addressed.
|
From page 91... ...
91 The environmental technical report does not identify specific projects, project locations, or designs. It also lacks spatial detail and a more comprehensive examination of affected resources than that provided by the REF.
|
From page 92... ...
92 Table C.6. Comparison of the Environmental Impacts Estimated by the EIS and the REF Pilot Project Resource I-25 Corridor US-85 Corridor REF Pilot Results (combined I-25 & US-85)
|
From page 93... ...
93 of being developed (circa 1800 and 2005 functional wetland assessment)
|
From page 94... ...
94 prairie and oak savannas. Tallgrass prairie areas as large as 20 square miles and nearly 50 prairies were known to occur in the subsection covering 29,549 acres (Table C.7)
|
From page 95... ...
95 • Minimal disruption to residential development; • Minimal impact to prime farmland; • Less disruption to future development between Schoolcraft and Vicksburg; and • Maximum trunkline service and effectiveness. Testing the Ecological Assessment Framework The Michigan pilot project tested only steps 1–5 (below)
|
From page 96... ...
96 data contained in the Michigan Natural Features Inventory (MNFI) Biotics database.
|
From page 97... ...
97 Table C.9. Natural Resource Spatial Data Considered in the Pilot Study Data Layer Source Coverage Brief Description Data to Include MNFI heritage database MNFI Statewide Documentation of known rare animal, plant, exemplary natural community, and other unique natural feature occurrences.
|
From page 98... ...
98 (2) rare or exemplary natural communities (13)
|
From page 99... ...
99 Table C.11. Summary of Wetland Function Impacts 2005 Wetland Function Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Acres Lost Functional Capacity Lost Rare imperiled wetlands 78 78 73 73 0 0 169 169 72 72 Amphibian habitat 974 818 902 758 779 654 930 781 968 813 Waterfowl waterbird habitat 1,063 786 1,022 756 1,143 846 1,181 874 1,097 811 Streamflow maintenance 1,018 865 1,041 885 1,219 1,036 1,281 1,101 1,137 978 Stream shading 345 314 355 323 214 195 463 422 348 316 Stream shading 43 38 48 42 165 145 185 162 42 37 Shorebird habitat 686 364 642 340 561 297 736 390 776 411 Sediment particulate retention 1,238 965 1,146 894 1,170 913 1,284 1,002 1,311 1,023 Nutrient transformation 1,288 1,198 1,219 1,133 1,277 1,188 1,353 1,258 1,364 1,268 Interior forest bird habitat 726 486 742 497 808 549 749 502 671 450 Ground water influence 1,507 859 1,443 823 1,497 853 1,382 788 1,502 856 Flood water storage 1,104 949 1,001 861 985 847 1,181 1,016 1,174 1,009 Fish habitat 1,098 944 1,091 938 1,211 1,041 1,277 1,098 1,190 1,023 Total 11,166 8,664 10,724 8,323 11,028 8,564 12,170 9,562 11,651 9,068
|
From page 100... ...
100 Table C.12. Summary of Natural Community Impacts Name Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D Corridor E Acres Lost EO's impacted Acres Lost EO's impacted Acres Lost EO's impacted Acres Lost EO's impacted Acres Lost EO's impacted Emergent Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry-mesic Southern Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Coastal Plain Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hardwood-Conifer Swamp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesic Southern Forest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rich Tamarack Swamp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Southern Wet Meadow 159.3 1 159.3 1 0 0 159 1 159.3 1 Prairie Fen 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Dry-mesic Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Submergent Marsh 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Intermittent Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mesic Prairie 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bog 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Table C.13.
|
From page 101... ...
101 aquatic elements, and corridors A, B, and C had the least impact on terrestrial elements. Table C.11 shows that corridors B and D had the least impact on wetland functions.
|
From page 102... ...
102 regulatory process. Finally, these new wetland data were evaluated for their application to wetland mitigation.
|
From page 103... ...
103 sidered early in the planning phase, lead to a better decision -- a decision that not only potentially has better environmental outcomes and reduced costs as a result of selecting a corridor that requires less mitigation, but also one that can be reached more easily and earlier in the planning process. Description of Wetland Data for Michigan Pilot Study Wetland Data Summary nAtionAl WetlAnds inventoRy updAte Ducks Unlimited (DU)
|
From page 104... ...
104 rated for this function are important for maintaining stream flows and temperature control in water bodies. Functional Capacity The function wetland analysis also allows a basic assessment of lost wetland functions at the landscape or watershed level by comparing circa 1800 wetland data (based on hydric soils and circa 1800 vegetation)
|
From page 105... ...
105 second-growth commercial forest lands, with many fewer impacts. Figure C.20 shows the routes evaluated in planning for the project.
|
From page 106... ...
106 HUCs) subwatersheds: 1710020401, 1710020402, and 1710020403.
|
From page 107... ...
107 and indeed had never received the data. ODOT received only the maps and documentation necessary for the production of the PDF.
|
From page 108... ...
108 3b. Identify and show areas and resources potentially affected by transportation improvements, and potential opportunities for joint action.
|
From page 109... ...
109 2. Collecting, incorporating, or developing current ecological data for area being evaluated.
|
From page 110... ...
110 the effects assessment and develop protocols for ranking mitigation opportunities.
|
From page 111... ...
111 was identified in the analysis as being the most important species. Findings regarding imperiled species were that most of the basin was historically dominated by mature conifer forests and is in private ownership, managed as industrial forest lands.
|
From page 112... ...
112 stages to understand other mitigation actions in the region that generate mitigation demand both within the agency and among other permittees. A key component is understanding where measures are a barrier for consultation or permitting.
|
From page 113... ...
113 Finally, the difficulty in obtaining state-funded data in this project was a major finding. It is strongly recommended that consultants be required to provide DOTs with a copy of all spatial data, databases, and analysis completed as part of project planning or EISs in their native electronic format.
|
From page 114... ...
114 This base layer was then prioritized, to assign all areas with a rank of their mitigation value. This rank is based on the likelihood of an identified area being wetland and additional contributions that an area would make to biodiversity conservation or water quality.
|
From page 115... ...
115 Conservation Units (SCU) from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, Threatened and Endangered Waters (T&E Waters)
|
From page 116... ...
116 need to scan. These images can be brought into a GIS if enough control points exist for geographical referencing.
|
From page 117... ...
117 Wetland Overlap and Mitigation Priority fields. Finally, add another integer field named Reclass and reclassify scores from the previous field into five classes.
|
From page 118... ...
118 portation needs than environmental needs. For example, greater emphasis would be placed on engineering required to straighten a curve than on the project's overall environmental impacts.
|
From page 119... ...
119 agencies have inappropriately defined what needs to be done offsite as well as onsite with respect to wetlands mitigation. FHWA also sees collaboration or cooperation as ODOT being too permissive with regulatory agencies.
|
From page 120... ...
120 6. Links to local land use planning are weak.
|
From page 121... ...
121 mit laws and most of the federal laws. The thought is "We pay for these people out of our budget, so they are highly motivated to work with us." impRoving RelAtions With FedeRAl AgenCies New things coming down the line: the Department now worries more about regulatory changes than about new resources.
|
From page 122... ...
122 program for the Colorado River across the divide in the western portion of the state.
|
From page 123... ...
123 Garono, R., and L Brophy.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.