Practitioner’s Guide to the Integrated Ecological Framework (2013)

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.

6Information on conservation and restoration priorities is a desirable input to the trans- portation planning process; metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), state DOTs, and local governments are likely to use it if they have it. If information on conservation and restoration priorities is lacking, the required transportation planning process pro- ceeds anyway, without the consideration of environmental factors and opportunities such information would enable. DOTs and MPOs must develop and approve 20-year plans and shorter-term budgets, the latter including transportation projects chosen through established selection processes. The Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) aims to get the conservation and restoration planning done and accepted by regula- tory agencies for use in decision making for CWA permitting and ESA interagency consultation. Thus, avoidance and investment/mitigation decisions can be identifi ed early, and agency resources can be employed to achieve the greatest environmental benefi t possible. The IEF process addresses several long-recognized needs: (1) the need to proac- tively consider ecological values early in infrastructure and land use planning processes and preferably at a regional scale; (2) the need for spatially explicit and suffi ciently precise cumulative effects assessment throughout a region to provide useful informa- tion to guide alternatives development and mitigation planning; (3) the need for a col- laborative structure for technical information development and maintenance to serve multiple planning purposes dynamically over time; and (4) the desire to obtain better ecological outcomes from mitigation investments while meeting planning objectives. Specifi cally, the IEF process guides an ecological assessment that (1) evaluates direct and cumulative effects on resources from any potential planning alternative or project, (2) assists in the identifi cation or creation of alternatives, and (3) identifi es the best mitigation and enhancement opportunities. The IEF supports a collaborative and scientifi cally rigorous process for avoiding and minimizing confl ict and also identifi es 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

7PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK mitigation and enhancement opportunities. In the process, it addresses several key questions in the transportation and conservation planning and project development process: • What areas and resources will be directly affected by transportation development? • How will those resources be affected cumulatively throughout the affected region? • What areas can be used for mitigation? Which areas would maximize benefits for multiple resources? How would conservation or mitigation sites collectively work to achieve resource goals (species and/or ecosystem retention goals, water- shed recovery)? • How can anticipated, long-range, regional mitigation needs be aggregated for maximum ecological benefit? BENEFITS OF THE FRAMEWORK The nine-step IEF process is designed to bring about efficient, integrated consultation on natural resource issues and provides the nexus for most DOT investment in the natural environment. The IEF brings together a variety of well-tested methods, data, and tools in a cohesive ecological assessment framework for use in planning. The in- tent is to achieve better environmental outcomes for agencies’ time and on-the-ground stewardship, enhancement, conservation, and mitigation investments. Many benefits are attainable through early coordination, environmental analysis, and associated de- cision making by resource agencies, in the planning stages. These benefits include the following: • Development of a single statewide and/or regional plan to protect water quality, quantity, biodiversity, and the like with mapped priority locations. Such a plan and map outline goals shared by multiple agencies and provide incentives for state DOTs to avoid and minimize impacts and to invest in conservation. Local govern- ments have additional knowledge and incentive to develop programs and funding to conserve and restore these priority areas. • Much better avoidance and minimization of impacts on the state, regional, and local levels. • Coordination among agencies working to achieve environmental goals, while creating a more efficient and predictable consultation and development process through early identification of needs and solutions. • Integration of CWA authorities under Sections 401, 402, and 404 and marshaling of resources to address water quality concerns (e.g., addressing issues highlighted in Section 305(b) reports and ultimately helping restore Section 303(d)–listed streams in the course of Section 404 permitting). • Better consideration of landscape-level insights, watershed goals and potential for restoration, and recovery needs and priorities results, when the possibility for ef- fective action and new development patterns is greatest. INTRODUCTION TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK

8PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK • More timely conservation investments that can make a difference for species, eco- systems, and watershed restoration. • Identification of potential CWA Section 404 compensatory mitigation sites on a watershed basis and according to watershed goals/needs and other ecological con- siderations, in compliance with the 2008 compensatory mitigation rule (see box on page 70). The rule provides for preservation, restoration, enhancement, and creation of aquatic resources based on Section 404 mitigation requirements while enhancing environmental outcomes. • Increased regulatory process and permitting efficiencies as well as the opportunity for reinforced and improved environmental outcomes, with investments that ad- dress multiple resource needs at once. • Better site identification for mitigation banks and in-lieu fee projects to restore, create, enhance, and/or preserve aquatic resources in rapidly developing water- sheds. Mitigation sites can be identified that are consistent with the site needs identified in state wildlife action plans, greenway and green infrastructure plans, species recovery plans, ecoregional conservation strategies, and city or regional open space plans. • Timely planning and set-asides of funding for environmental solutions, integrating with and/or leveraging the investment of other programs. • Improved likelihood of permit streamlining, insurance, and other incentives for developers to purchase credits from the best places for ecologically viable, multi- credit conservation banks—once those areas are identified. • Creation of a crediting mechanism and simple, consistent, transparent approach to quantifying ecosystem services—separately and together—allowing voluntary or regulated buyers to invest in ecosystem services associated with specific goals and resources. • Restructuring of existing government conservation incentive programs, making them more strategic and better able to deliver measurable ecological outcomes and address and prioritize unregulated resources. For the public, for transportation and regulatory agencies, and for the resources of concern, this framework can create a path to compliance with environmental regula- tions that is more ecologically productive, easier, and more efficient than traditional approaches. This approach also benefits from being science-based and using state- of-the-art data, systems, and tools. It seeks to ensure that all important conservation and restoration planning information and data are considered in the process of decid- ing what actions, areas, and projects should be priorities for ecological investment, whether in the course of state DOT mitigation, investments by other agencies and levels of governments, or even the private sector. This process also facilitates broad- scale monitoring frameworks to track overall impacts and improvements in ecosystem services, management and synthesis of data, and reporting of results.

9PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK FINDINGS FROM PILOT TESTING THE FRAMEWORK The IEF process was pilot tested in three states: Colorado, Michigan, and Oregon. This testing, reported in the SHRP 2 C06 Report Volume 2, uncovered the following benefits: • Better outcomes—lower impacts and mitigation sites with more ecological benefits. Use of the framework process, including the recommended cumulative effects al- ternative assessment, leads to the selection of mitigation sites with more ecological benefits. Furthermore, the framework assessment process produces more accurate and comprehensive assessments of the impacts of transportation scenarios and can identify corridors with fewer direct and cumulative impacts. • Modest data investments, leading to vastly improved planning, evaluation, and opportunities. The pilot projects found that a relatively modest investment in pro- cess changes and data development up front creates more accurate indications of potential impacts and mitigation opportunities early in the decision-making processes, vastly improving planning, corridor evaluation, and consideration of mitigation opportunities. • Enhanced scientific credibility. Decisions have more credibility because the framework steps ensure the use of a more standardized, scientifically based, peer- reviewed process that uses the best available suite of methods, data, and tools. • Savings of time and resources. Testing indicated that the framework approach saves time and resources by reducing impacts and, therefore, mitigation require- ments. Species distribution models enable better targeting of needed field studies. • More targeted and productive conservation, enhancement, and mitigation invest- ments. The framework also supports more refined targeting of environmental con- servation and mitigation investments, resulting in better environmental outcomes. • Standard data management practices. DOTs are beginning to require consultants to submit data in standard ways for reuse by the agency as part of larger GIS sys- tems. These additional data layers, which often include field surveys, can be used to generate better impact assessments and alternative analyses when available and thus increase agencies’ ability to make decisions based on existing GIS data and previously conducted surveys. COMPATIBILITY WITH ECO-LOGICAL, WATERSHED AND LANDSCAPE APPROACHES, AND STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION The IEF is designed to be compatible with Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Develop ing Infrastructure Projects (Eco-Logical), signed by eight federal agen- cies in 2006 (4). That concept and its “permission document” encouraged federal, state, tribal, and local partners involved in infrastructure planning, design, review, and construction to use the flexibility in their regulatory processes to achieve greater environmental benefits. Specifically, Eco-Logical lays the conceptual groundwork for

10 PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK integrating plans across agency boundaries and endorses ecosystem-based mitigation. This broader ecosystem approach addresses highest-priority needs for watershed res- toration, species viability and recovery, and sustainability of ecological communities— considering multiple resources in each mitigation investment decision. The EPA and Army Corps of Engineers watershed approach and the USFWS and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Strategic Habitat Conservation approach and Landscape Conservation Cooperatives are complementary. The Integrated Ecological Framework presented in this guide provides more detail and how-to information than some of these other complementary frameworks. In some cases, the IEF involves further scientific analysis. Most important, the IEF provides frontline practitioners with easily applicable and adaptable steps on how to conduct integrated conservation planning and enable earlier environmental decisions in planning—both of which matter in CWA Section 404 permitting and when ESA Section 7 biological assessments (BAs) and biological opinions (BOs) are finalized. The IEF helps practitioners bring the right expertise, data, methods, and tools to the right stage of the transportation planning and project delivery decision-making pro- cess. The result is better environmental outcomes, achieved through reduced impacts, identification of high-quality mitigation and enhancement opportunities, and acceler- ated permitting. All this is achieved by proactively including resource considerations, watershed restoration, and species recovery needs and priority actions/opportunities early in the process. USING THE FRAMEWORK The steps presented in this guide provide a multiagency coordination and communica- tion framework for implementing an ecosystem approach that addresses the impacts of development and initiates environmental decision making in long-range transporta- tion planning. It provides more detail on how Eco-Logical, watershed, and Strategic Habitat Conservation approaches can be implemented. Using the latest geospatially explicit conservation planning methods, transportation agencies and resource agencies can develop a shared conservation and restoration vision for areas likely to be affected by new transportation projects. Their subsequent analysis is expressed in the Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF). The essential components and steps of the REF are straightforward and can be summarized as follows: 1. Gather and integrate data on the areas and resources of conservation interest to represent a REF. 2. Gather information to represent current and future development scenarios for infra structure, land use, and other disturbances. 3. Intersect the REF with the scenarios to quantify impacts in terms of what areas or resources would be affected, how much, where the impacts would occur, and what would cause the impacts. The REF can then be used to assess and guide transpor- tation decision making at all stages of transportation planning and development

11 PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK and allow impacts to be assessed and quantified early in the transportation plan- ning and project delivery process. 4. Use this information to create better transportation alternatives, noting where im- pacts may be unavoidable or where impacts need to be avoided at all costs. Also use the information to create land use and transportation plans that avoid impacts and/or target mitigation to address ecological priorities and achieve better eco- system outcomes. Using the steps in the IEF, state DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies work together during long-range planning to identify transportation program needs, potential envi- ronmental conflicts, and strategic conservation and restoration priorities in the state, ecoregion, or watershed. Suitability analyses identify optimal locations for the protec- tion and restoration of natural resources, both aquatic and terrestrial. On the basis of identified priorities, interagency agreement, and exploration of what the partners can accomplish toward those ends, programmatic approaches can be developed that increase regulatory predictability during project development and help achieve regional conservation, restoration, and recovery goals. The framework is highly scalable to the time, resources, data, and expertise available and can be used at the regional, corridor, or project level. The approach provides for quantification of impacts to facilitate early conservation and restoration investments through the use of advance mitigation. IEF analyses draw on data layers, which all states have, addressing Section 303(d)– listed streams; wetlands and/or soils; and endangered, threatened, and rare species. The IEF particularly seeks to use and meld the data set regulators use in making deci- sions in consultations and on permits. Bringing them together in one place fosters greater transparency, new efficiencies, and opportunities for collaboration, as well as improved resource planning and effectiveness in achieving desired environmental out- comes. Major outputs include the following: • Unified map of transportation, land use, conservation, and restoration priorities; • Maps of each potential transportation scenario (set of alternatives) that show an assessment of direct and cumulative effects at a landscape level with supporting data; • Identification of affected resources and the quantification of the cumulative effects for each transportation scenario being considered; and • Identification and evaluation of potential mitigation and enhancement areas within a region, providing and maintaining dynamic reporting of resource goal achievement or gaps. Within the overall IEF and cumulative effects assessment process, two strategies are critical. First, transportation planners and project managers address regulatory requirements, ideally as early in the transportation planning and development process as possible. Second, environmental accounting strategies can be used to reach agree- ment with regulatory agencies on project impacts and mitigation requirements. The nine steps of the Integrated Ecological Framework and the purpose of each are sum- marized in Table 2.1.

12 PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE TO THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK TABLE 2.1. STEPS OF THE INTEGRATED ECOLOGICAL 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 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 (long-range transportation plans [LRTPs], state transportation improvement program [STIP], and transportation improvement plan [TIP]) to create a 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 conservation 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 memoranda of understanding (MOUs), agreements, programmatic Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits, or Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultations for transportation projects in a way that documents the goals and priorities identified in Steps 5 and 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 identified 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 ecosystem 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, conservation, and restoration in light of new disturbances that may affect the practicality and utility of proceeding with previous priorities. Identify new priorities if warranted. Forty-two tools useful for transportation planning, information about them, and their linkages to the IEF are at the website for TCAPP (www. transportationforcommunities .com), soon to be known as PlanWorks.