Application of Geospatial Ecological Tools and Data in the Planning and Programming Phases of Delivering New Highway Capacity: Proof of Concept—US-101, California (2014)

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.

CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendations Review and Enhancements of RAMP Obstacles of RAMP Transportation Project Data Inventories and Consistency There were a number of obstacles to developing and maintaining an inventory of transportation projects for use in the advance impact scoping phase of advance mitigation planning. One obstacle was the lack of consistency of transportation project data collected from the different Caltrans districts. Although each district has GIS data of transportation projects along with similar fields relating to each project (such as a project description, county, unique project number, and so forth), the geographies of the data were often in different formats, in varying degrees of accuracy to the road, or only represented along one side of the road. In addition, some projects were represented as points and others as line segments. To resolve this problem, most of the transportation project data received from the districts were overlaid with a transportation road network and satellite imagery to adjust the GIS representations of each project. A second obstacle was the timing of transportation project implementation; that is, there was difficulty discerning which transportation projects should be included in the analysis. Some of the projects listed in the district-provided data sets are so far in the future that they are not depicted accurately in the GIS or are likely to change before construction begins. Other projects had already begun construction and were thus likely to already have mitigation impacts estimated, and should be excluded. And unfortunately, using only the data provided by the districts, it is difficult to distinguish at what stage each project is in its timeline. This problem suggests a possible need for better tracking of projects by transportation districts, which represents an investment in time and resources. A third obstacle was a lack of standardization among project descriptions. It was difficult to estimate the footprints of transportation projects because there seemed to be few standards regarding the size of impacts by transportation project type. For example, constructing a new interchange may have a different-sized impact on the land depending on the size of the adjacent highway, the number of lanes, and other existing features on the land such as other roadways, buildings, or natural features. Often the description accompanying the transportation project was not very informative beyond the very basic nature of the project. To compensate for this lack of standardization, the estimated footprints developed as part of CTIS (Table 2.1) were used for this project as a tool for classifying the project types and standardizing the footprint areas. Caltrans staff were also consulted at times to see if more information about a specific project could be used to 26

guide the footprint estimate; however, for estimating projects at a regional level, this type of discussion can be time consuming. Related to the question of whether standardized footprints for different types of projects can be developed, and how accurate those footprints might be, is the issue that the same type of project may have a different-sized footprint depending on the context of the surrounding landscape. For example, adding lanes to a highway in mountainous regions may require more cut and fill than the same- sized project on a flat surface. A fourth obstacle has to do with the history of ongoing projects that have been subject to delay. In some cases projects that appeared to have already passed through the mitigation requirements and satisfaction phase were actually still under development or had been greatly delayed due (in some cases) to environmental concerns. Although these projects may fall outside the purview of an advance planning framework, they constitute a class of projects that need to be avoided and for which the framework under consideration here may be of some use. Biological and Landscape Data For biological data, one obstacle was that some areas had land cover data sets of higher resolution or more accurate data than other areas. The quality of land cover data sets was not consistent throughout the three regions along US-101, resulting in the development of a piecemeal data set that combined using the best layers available for the area. This is particularly an issue for areas with high biodiversity, such as California. Many national- scale mapping classifications, such as the National Land Cover Database (http://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2001.php) or the U.S. Geological Survey GAP Analysis Program’s maps (http://gapanalysis.usgs.gov/), lack the biological detail to identify land cover types that contain endemic species. For this reason, state-level and regional maps were assembled to portray what was thought to be the most accurate representation of general land cover and habitats. The Bay Area district has the highest number of high- resolution land cover maps, which gives the greatest confidence level in the accuracy of the data for that area. The central coast district is next in terms of land cover accuracy. The north coast district has few high-resolution land cover data sets and may have the greatest level of omissions of critical land cover types and habitats. Species occurrence data were also variable, with some species having high- quality species distribution models or habitat ranges developed by researchers focused on those specific species. For other species, CNDDB, a statewide locality database that can be uneven with regard to the accuracy of some species or is not up to date, was the best available data source. To address this issue, species occurrence points were given 2- and 4-mile buffers to capture a range of possible impacts to a given species. In addition, the use of suitable habitat to limit the species occurrence area also created a more accurate picture of species distribution on the landscape. 27

Aquatic Impacts The methods described above for estimating impacts to anadromous fish (salmonids) have several limitations. First, it is often difficult to discern the actual open water channel by using aerial imagery, especially if there is dense riparian vegetation. This difficulty leads to a lack of precision in estimating the actual impact area a transportation project is likely to create. Second, it is difficult to systematize the process for estimating impacts. Each crossing of aquatic habitat by a planned project can have a unique width and hence area of impact. This bottleneck could possibly be reduced by using a regionally derived general waterway width associated with stream order. If stream order data do not exist, they can be derived using GIS techniques. Third, this method assumes that all salmonid habitats within the project footprint will be affected. This assumption does not allow for avoidance measures and thus could lead to overestimation of project impacts. Improvements to RAMP Several observations and modifications were made as a result of this project’s internal Task 4 report and analysis, which was the evaluation of methods used. First, the importance of selecting which transportation projects to include in the study cannot be underestimated. The inclusion of each additional project can result in a substantial change in the impact accounting. Unfortunately, there is no simple process for determining which projects to include. The best method is to be able to communicate with the Caltrans district planners and biologists, who have the local knowledge of which projects are likely to proceed and which project types will require mitigation. One change to the existing methodology was to isolate only the new footprint area beyond the existing road. Once the initial results were calculated, it became apparent that the biological and ecological impacts were an overestimation, because the underlying biological and ecological data continue where existing roads are present (Figure 4.1). By excluding the existing roads in the analysis, only the new potential impacts from project construction are captured. This correction represented on average a 33% decrease in impacts for the 2-mile buffer area and a 23% decrease for the 4-mile buffer area (Table 4.1). However, it should be recognized that the area already paved is not suitable for wildlife, and that before paving it likely had attributes that may or may not have been mitigated. 28

Table 4.1. Total Impacts for All Districts, With and Without Existing Road 2-Mile Buffer 4-Mile Buffer With Road Without Road With Road Without Road Total for All Districts 470.27 316.35 1046.10 803.10 Decrease (%) 32.73% 23.23% Figure 4.1. The image shows the modification in the transportation project footprints as a result of this study. The initial impact results were overestimated due to the inclusion of the existing road (a) and (b). Some projects included the construction of a new road [see (a) and (c), east–west portion]. For these projects, the footprint remained the same. (a) (b) (c) (d) 29

Transferability of Methods The RAMP approach is data driven, and thus transferability is predicated on the availability of similar data sets regardless of location. Although some of the data used in the analysis comprise standardized, national data, other data critical to the process are specific to California (although there may be analogues in other states). The CNDDB data set, maintained by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife, is an example of data specific to California. This statewide clearinghouse for known occurrences of rare species is relatively large (approximately 75,000 records and increasing) and, although not comprehensive for 160,000-square-mile California, it provides very useful information, especially in some particularly well-studied regions. The CNDDB data set is a frequently updated data layer that requires a subscription to maintain adequate funds for upkeep. Therefore, this analysis could output slightly different results each time it is performed, but with the assumption that the most-recent data are the best available. It should be noted that not only are new sightings recorded that add new points to the data, but older sightings that have not been verified within a certain time frame also change their “presence” status, which would effectively remove those points from the subset once the queries were applied. Equivalent data sets are not necessarily readily available in other states, thereby posing potential limitations if RAMP were to be exported from California. Even within California, differing levels of accuracy in impact assessment due to varying quality in input data can be expected. This is not only true for CNDDB data, but land cover, as well. Some regions within the state have been the subject of intensive efforts to develop fine-scale (taxonomic and spatial) land cover data sets (e.g., the VEGCAMP effort by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife), but many places have not. Therefore, even within a single transportation district, there may be qualitative differences in inputs used in the assessment process. This variation would likely be compounded when transferring the approach outside the state. The use of CNDDB data in a full public-access national tool would therefore need to identify how the CNDDB could be maintained, given that the incentive to pay for subscriptions could be compromised by access to the same data through a national portal. This comment also applies to state agency data from other states that may require subscription. The impact estimation for anadromous fish (salmon and steelhead) is generally transferrable within the United States. Both National Marine Fisheries Service fish distribution data and National Hydrography waterway data are available and applicable throughout the country. National Agricultural Inventory Program aerial imagery or other imagery is also available nationwide. Transportation project data are also a vital component of the analyses; their accuracy plays a large role in the assessment outcome. For this project, each Caltrans district was contacted to explain the project and to coordinate which data would be 30

attainable and how they would be used. CTIS, which is the source of the footprint estimates for transportation projects based on project type that were used in this project, also contains a list of and GIS data for programmed transportation projects in California over the next 20 years. The projects from the CTIS database were compared with the lists received from the individual Caltrans districts to see if using the CTIS database could be a viable alternative to asking individual Caltrans districts for their data. The results from this comparison showed that although there is considerable overlap between the two data sources, receiving data from the Caltrans districts directly was the preferable method due to the benefits of local knowledge. However, the CTIS database returned an exhaustive list of projects, which could prove useful for preliminary scoping of impacts if obtaining projects from Caltrans districts directly was not feasible. It should be noted that the CTIS database download requires that users obtain a password from Caltrans. Review of National-Level Tools Using a sample data set from the analyses, the capabilities of the existing national environmental online scoping tools were tested to see if the results were similar to the RAMP methodology. NEPAssist NEPAssist is an online tool created by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency intended to facilitate environmental review project planning through visualizing multiple biological, health, and demographic data, which will promote collaboration and identify important environmental issues in the early stages of the project. The background data available in the NEPAssist map include water features, soil surveys, wetlands, and land cover, which are also included in the RAMP analyses. However, there are no threatened or endangered species included on the map. To define the project area, the user is given a detailed base map and tools to draw the boundary, but there is no place to upload existing GIS files. Users familiar with the project area can use the tools to draw a generalized view of the project. Drawing an area could potentially give the user a set of impacts for the habitat types listed above. ESA Webtool ESA Webtool is an online tool developed by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration to streamline the preparation of biological assessments (BAs) and the consultation process required under the Federal Endangered Species Act. This tool allows a user to create a profile in which different milestones can be added and saved. As documents are developed, they can be put in a single place (referred to on the website as a File Cabinet) and organized into folders. Other users can be allowed access as needed. There is also a checklist on which the progress toward BA development and 31

submittal can be tracked. There is a national BA template, as well as region-specific information. This tool is useful for tracking the progress of documents required during transportation project timelines. The website is an excellent source of information for many types of impacts, not just biological, that may require mitigation, such as historic structures and archaeological and agricultural impacts. However, there is no mapping function that allows projects to be overlaid with species occurrences or habitats that might require mitigation. IPaC The IPaC Initial Project Scoping tool was developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to provide an official list of threatened and endangered species that should be considered when evaluating the potential impacts of a transportation project. Map layers that are available for overlay with transportation projects include LEAP (Landscape-scale Energy Action Plan) species, potentially restorable wetlands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife ecoregions and bird conservation areas, landscape conservation cooperatives, NWI wetlands, proposed and final critical habitat areas, land protection and land ownership status, national conservation easements, and a hydrography layer. To define the project area, the user can either upload GIS files or draw the area on the map. This function did not seem to work properly, despite several attempts using different files and different projections and attempting to upload only the essential files of a shapefile. The online program could not detect a projection file, despite there being a .prj file included, and it was not able to correctly display the file using the program’s on- the-fly feature. It also appeared that only one project or area can be uploaded at a time, and each area is analyzed separately. However, once a transportation project was drawn on the map using the tools provided by IPaC, the output report was well-organized and informative. For Project 230531, a lane construction project in Santa Clara, IPaC reported that the area intersected with steelhead critical habitat, as well as seven types of wetlands, along with reported acres. It is unclear what area the approximate area represents, however, because the report suggested there were more acres of estuarine and marine wetland than the entire footprint of the project. The report also indicates if there are U.S. Fish and Wildlife migratory birds or Endangered Species Act species in the defined area. For the construction project in Santa Clara, the report indicated that no online information was available for migratory birds or Endangered Species Act species. However, it was suggested the user request a preliminary or official species list from the U.S. FWS Sacramento office, and the address and phone number were provided. Finally, the last step of the scoping tool, Conservation Measures, was still under development and being tested by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and was unavailable for the Santa Clara project. 32

This tool seemed the most promising of the online scoping tools tested. The main drawbacks were not being able to upload GIS files and only being able to look at one project at a time. For use with advance mitigation, having multiple projects examined together, with acreage amounts for each species and project, would be extremely useful. The results on impacts to wetlands seemed to be overestimates, but because the transportation project boundary was drawn instead of uploaded, it could be the result of the boundaries being different. Eco-Plan Testing Throughout this project, the C40B groups and ICF International, the C40A group, communicated through planned group meetings, web conferences, and individual sessions about the content, function, and appearance of the new web tool, Eco-Plan. Once the Eco-Plan website was ready for testing, the C40B teams were asked to review the website and comment on different aspects of the tool. Specific tests were provided in the form of step-by-step instructions to reviewers on the different components of the web tool. The teams’ comments were incorporated into the final design. The test scripts asked reviewers to examine two functions of the web tool: Eco- Plan and Eco-Plan Advanced. Eco-Plan The Eco-Plan test component was targeted toward transportation and conservation planners with limited GIS capabilities and for those who are doing preliminary scoping at a general level. A variety of theme maps had already been assembled by ICF to show different groupings of relevant data around a theme, such as critical habitat and at-risk species, or development potential in unprotected areas. There is also a mapping interface on the website that can be used to locate and zoom in on a specific area of interest and examine the different data sets preloaded by ICF. Three members of the research team completed the tests provided by ICF to evaluate the Eco-Plan website. Overall, Eco-Plan was easy to use and allowed users with little or no GIS experience a way to explore many types of data and relevant data sets in a specific geographic area. Other capabilities, such as a function to upload or draw transportation layers, were not yet available for review on the website during the testing phase, but have since been added to the website. The ability to view the different data layers along with a visibly defined project area is a great enhancement to the tool. A further improvement would be some limited geoprocessing capabilities, such as the ability to intersect multiple layers or calculate the area of overlapping layers. 33

Eco-Plan Advanced Another part of the C40B beta testing component was to compare the RAMP method for calculating initial impact to threatened and endangered species and other habitats from proposed transportation projects with the capabilities of the Eco-Plan web tool. Specifically, the ArcGIS Online (AGO) module of Eco-Plan, called Eco-Plan Advanced, was examined for the ability to scope impact assessments. Before this testing, UC Davis received login information and AGO training over several phone calls with ICF International. Instructions were provided on how to navigate the AGO portion of Eco-Plan, upload data, and use the data already uploaded by ICF International, as well as how to use the data available through Esri, save maps, and use geoprocessing and analysis tools. The objectives for testing the AGO portion of Eco-Plan were to answer the following questions: • Did the tools in AGO function so that analysis could be performed on the project study area and results could be displayed? • Could multiple projects be added at a time? • Would the national-level and state-level data within the AGO platform be both relevant and comprehensive to meet the needs of this project? • How did the results obtained through the Eco-Plan website compare with the results from the UC Davis RAMP approach, which used more localized data sets? The basic steps included (1) adding the research team’s transportation project inventory maps to AGO; (2) selecting a variety of natural resource layers, including some that the team had previously assembled portraying habitats from the study area, as well as ICF preloaded Eco-Plan and Esri data layers; (3) using the geoprocessing tools within AGO to intersect and see what possible impacts the U.S. Highway 101 transportation projects might cause; and (4) comparing results from impact assessments via the Eco- Plan AGO and from the team’s local analysis. There were no difficulties adding transportation projects and species habitat maps to AGO for analysis. Adding shapefiles containing multiple projects at the same time was also possible. Similarly, adding preloaded layers from the Eco-Plan or Esri was easy and straightforward. There was mixed success running the intersect tool on the different layers (Figure 4.2). For the species habitat layers from the projects added, the intersect tool worked, either successfully running or returning an error message if there were no intersecting areas. For some of the Eco-Plan or Esri layers, an error message revealed that the overlay layers failed to be used for the analysis. 34

Figure 4.2. Eco-Plan map showing a successful intersection process of California red-legged frog with the uploaded District 4 planned transportation projects. For all intersections that worked, an output table could be created to show the sum of all intersecting areas. The output tables were created and compared with the tables created using individual ArcGIS desktop tools at UC Davis (Table 4.2). Table 4.2. Species and Habitat Impact Results Using AGO in Eco-Plan and RAMP Analysis Using ArcGIS Desktop Species Area Overlap Using AGO (km2) Area Overlap Using Local ArcGIS Desktop (km2) Difference (km2) Tricolored blackbird 1.731 1.616 0.115 Santa Cruz long-toed salamander 0.705 0.630 0.075 Tiburon mariposa lily 0.000 0.000 0.000 Burke's goldfields 0.000 0.000 0.000 California black rail 0.024 0.023 0.001 Salt marsh harvest mouse 0.007 0.007 0.000 California red-legged frog 0.552 0.485 0.067 Habitat Wetlands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 0.037 0.015 0.022 Wetlands (USA) Error 0.015 NA Riparian (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) 9.654 0.022 9.632 35

Generally, the areas resulting from the intersect tool in AGO were slightly larger than the analysis using ArcGIS Desktop, especially for individual species. For scoping projects, this is a better result than underestimating impacts or not identifying them outright. For habitat impacts, the results were mixed. The wetlands impacts for the ArcGIS Desktop analysis and within AGO using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service data were almost identical. For the national wetlands data set (NWI), results using the AGO tool were not obtainable, and an error message was produced. For riparian habitat, the ArcGIS Desktop analysis resulted in a much lower estimate of impacts. This is most likely due to the different layers having different definitions or inclusions of certain land cover types within the riparian category. The overall impression of the AGO function of the Eco-Plan tool was positive, especially compared with the other national-level tools reviewed (Error! Reference source not found.). If planners or researchers wish to assess impacts and have specific data layers or wish to do a preliminary assessment using preloaded layers from Esri or Eco-Plan, this tool can accomplish those tasks. Further observations of the tool are as follows. • The UC Davis–uploaded habitat area layers in AGO were identical to the layers used in the ArcGIS Desktop analysis, yet the outputs of the intersect tool were not identical. For the most part, however, the areas are very close to the research team’s analysis, and species not present in one are also not present in the other. • The more general habitat layers (wetlands, riparian) were harder to compare, as they derive from different sources. Some national layers, like grasslands, showed something very different from a native grassland layer that would be expected within California, because over 90% of all California grasslands have been converted to nonnative types. • It is difficult to discern in AGO from the Contents page which layers have features that can be used in geoprocessing analyses like intersecting and which are only for visual purposes. For other layers, like EnviroAtlas, there are features that can be used for geoprocessing, but they are difficult to display. This makes it difficult to determine whether to use the layer in an analysis. • While using the geoprocessing tools, such as the intersect tool, the names of the layers changed from the labels given on the Contents page to a more general layer name. For example, there are two wetland layers, with names on the Contents page that differentiate them (i.e., USFWS Wetlands and USA Wetlands). However, when selecting a layer to intersect, the layers have different names, such as “Wetlands” and “Wetlands layer,” making it difficult to know which layer is being selected. One possible way to distinguish the layers occurred after a successful intersect, when opening the attribute table and comparing the table with those on the Contents page. 36

Table 4.3. Overview of National-Level Tools Reviewed for This Project Capabilities Present NEPAssist ESA Webtool IPaC Eco-Plan Import Layers X (did not work for UC Davis testing) X Draw Layers X X X Provided Layers X (but no threatened and endangered species) X X Geoprocessing X X Save/Export Map or Features X (Save list of impacts only) X (Save map and features) Additional Features Health and demographic data available BA checklist Conservation measures tool under development ArcGIS Online Opportunities and Next Steps This project demonstrated the transferability of impact assessment methods developed under the RAMP framework in California from one region to another. Using the inventory from the statewide database (CTIS) and updates using the three districts’ information, 68 projects were identified to be included in an analysis of impacts. Further work included assisting ICF International in the development of a national tool. During the project, a number of bottlenecks and opportunities (Table 4.4) were identified that can be broken into three categories: transportation, geospatial tools, and biological. For transportation, a challenge is the standardization of terminology and the geospatial portrayal of projects. Caltrans has 12 districts, each of which is responsible for the development and delivery of transportation projects. How the projects are described, how the inventory of projects is kept as the projects progress from conception to planning to implementation, and how projects are portrayed in GIS are all elements of Caltrans’ business that vary from region to region. Efforts to standardize have been made, with the CTIS database as a good example, but variations inevitably occur because of the specifics that arise with each project, differences among staff, and the long timelines that are involved. Therefore opportunities for making repeated advance analyses of impacts using a rotating set of pending projects include efforts to develop more standardized descriptions. Efforts could also potentially be made to further map the entire project development phase with regard to identifying the points at which regional early assessment of impacts could contribute to improving environmental practice overall. 37

Geospatial issues include the practice in California of relaying much of the planning phase of projects in post miles. Transitioning these values to most GIS systems requires Caltrans staff. In addition, many early project renderings are either line segments that approximate the location of a road or points on the transportation network. For the RAMP methods to be applied, these lines must accurately reflect the centerline of single roads and the centerlines of lanes going in different directions for divided roads. This potentially represents a “low-hanging fruit,” in that developing a single, highly accurate GIS of the road network that contains the capacity to directly transition between post miles and other GIS values would allow the entire agency to more efficiently transition projects in early phases to GIS for environmental scoping. It was beyond the scope of this project to determine how far this approach has already been developed at Caltrans, but there are at least some GIS centers in the agency that already have some capacity in this regard. In addition, the assembly of geospatial data that portray biological, land cover, and ecosystem attributes and that are used by regulatory agencies in their evaluation of mitigation requirements for projects is needed. These data are publicly accessible data that have been developed by agencies at the federal and state levels of government, by university studies, or through citizen science efforts (e.g., ebird). For this California- based study, publicly available data from state and federal surveys (e.g., NWI and the CNDDB) were primarily used, but also included were some regional data (e.g., the CLN map for Bay Area land cover types) for the impact assessments. The SHRP 2 C40A project website compiled an impressive amount of data for national-level scoping, but a fully integrative tool that covers the needs of all states still requires further data sources, particularly from states’ inventories, to be added. Once developed, the tool would also need to have the capacity to be updated, probably at several levels such as county, state, and federal, as new and updated information and new data types (such as LIDAR) are rendered to geospatial databases. The geospatial considerations listed above intersect with biological and ecological opportunities in a manner similar to the considerations needed for transportation: the inventory, georeferencing, and upkeep of landscape-level information that can be used in a GIS to assess the impacts from planned and programmed projects. As recognition of additional areas of environmental health arise (such as landscape connectivity and expected levels of stress associated with climate change), they will need to be incorporated into the overall “biological backbone” of a national or statewide system. 38

Table 4.4. Overview of Bottlenecks and Opportunities Encountered During This Project Type Data Category Issue Bottleneck Transportation Standardization of how to portray projects in a GIS for ease of regional assessment Bottleneck Transportation Developing and maintaining current inventories of transportation projects Bottleneck Transportation Standardizing descriptions of project types Bottleneck Transportation Identifying project delays proactively Bottleneck Biological Quality and accuracy of land cover maps Bottleneck Biological Quality and accuracy of listed species data Bottleneck Biological Assessment of risk of fish kills from stream crossings of various types Opportunity Geospatial tools Ability to track mitigation requirements to better predict future requirements Opportunity Geospatial tools Access to a regional greenprint Opportunity Geospatial tools Using a standardized tool like Marxan to identify suitable mitigation parcels In sum, the methods for impact assessment, which are the first part of an overall drive to achieve Eco-Logical goals of early and regional environmental mitigation, appear to function acceptably well, either via desktop analyses or through the use of a GIS-enabled web interface. The tasks of preparing the data on both the transportation and environmental sides for their accurate analysis using the tools available are areas that represent next steps in the development of a tool that can be widely used and trusted by transportation agencies, their regulatory counterpart agencies, and the public. 39