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.
62 C h a p t e r 8 This project is intended to support the integration of trans- portation and ecological planning. Although there is strong support for integrated transportation and ecological planning in theory, the research indicates that there is room for progress in implementation. Surveys and interviews of staff in trans- portation and resource agencies indicate that the main incen- tives for integrating transportation and ecological planning are related to efficient decision making, fiscal benefits, and improved outcomes for the natural environment: ⢠Efficient decision making: By investing time and money upfront, transportation plans can better avoid critical resources; costly re-do loops and delays in project devel- opment can be eliminated or minimized; and advance mitigation on an ecosystem scale can be established. ⢠Fiscal benefits: Monetary savings are expected to result from both efficiencies in the decision-making process and the ability to purchase land for mitigation early, thereby avoiding rising land costs and the declining availability of high-quality conservation areas. ⢠Improved outcomes: Focusing on the ecosystem as a whole, rather than considering resources separately according to individual agenciesâ jurisdictions, results in better identify- ing and prioritizing of critical areas to conserve and pro- tect. Making this information available and using it during transportation planning will result in better protection of critical natural resources. Despite the widespread support for the integration of transportation and ecological planning, surveys and inter- views identified a number of barriers or challenges to its implementation: ⢠Lack of resources, especially time and staff, and to a lesser extent, training and the need for champions; ⢠Lack of data, information, and tools necessary to imple- ment ecosystem-based approaches; ⢠Lack of data and agreement around the most important resources, sensitive areas, or conservation opportunities; ⢠Lack of understanding of how to implement ecosystem approaches; ⢠Issues around coordination, communication, and col- laboration; ⢠Differences in missions or scope of missions; ⢠Restrictions or assumed restrictions in regulations and guidance; and ⢠Lack of assurances that mitigation can be paid for today and count for impacts of future projects. The need for assurances was identified as a major barrier. Transportation agencies need assurance that investments in mitigation in advance of project development will be counted when it is time to apply for a project permit. They also need assurance that they will have achieved compliance with regu- lations, specifically CWA Section 404 and ESA Section 7, and that the conditions under which a decision would be reopened or revisited are minimized. Resource agencies need assurance that the requirements of the CWA and ESA will be met. In addition, they need assurance that priority resources are avoided and that mitigation will be carried out according to design and maintained in the long term. This understanding of incentives and barriers provides direction for targeting support. Chapters 5 and 6 describe existing methods for providing assurances. Examples are pro- grammatic agreements and commitment tracking systems and their application at ecosystem scales. This analysis showed that there are many methods available, and in some cases, already being used successfully, to provide assurances that support integrated transportation and ecological plan- ning and advance mitigation. The barriers and incentives identified, along with solu- tions recommended through surveys and interviews, also led to the identification of essential features of any ecosystem approach and the development of the IEF. The IEF, which is Conclusions
63 a key product of this effort, is a step-by-step process guiding the integration of transportation and ecological planning. It is available through Transportation for Communitiesâ Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) at trans portationforcommunities.com. The IEF is also described in detail in volume 2 of this report and in the Practitionerâs Guide. The nine steps of the IEF are described in Figure 4.1. Important steps remain to continue the integration of transportation and ecological planning. Two additional sig- nificant barriers are lack of data on priority conservation areas and lack of resources to implement an ecosystem-based approach. Much progress is being made to address these needs in efforts subsequent to this research. For example, the SHRP 2 Capacity program is sponsoring several and pilot projects that will culminate in a web-based GIS tool that brings together national ecological data sets in a one-stop shop that can be accessed and used by transportation plan- ners. The tool will be tested through multiple pilot applica- tions. Both the tool and the examples of its application in practice will be made publicly available. In addition, SHRP 2, FHWA, and AASHTO are working together to provide trans- portation and resource agencies with funding to support implementing the IEF. Given the scientific complexity and uncertainty of eco- system processes, the lack of well-organized and accessible data, and the single-resource approach to mitigation, the development of a true ecosystem-based regulatory frame- work is challenging. Although a regulatory framework that provides some level of federal authority over ecosystems may be unlikely, that does not preclude resource and regulatory agencies and DOTs from using ecosystem science and theory to advance their individual regulatory missions and conser- vation goals within the existing regulatory framework. Despite the challenges of integrating these complex pro- cesses, the increasing number of successful examples from practice, the development of supporting geospatial tools and implementation approaches, and institutional support through funding and leadership will foster the integration of trans- portation and ecological planning as it becomes a common practice.
