An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 1 (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.

1Executive Summary Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Project C06, Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, and Environmental Permitting Using an Outcome-Based Ecosystem Approach, is intended to support the integration of transportation and ecological planning. This project addresses the questions of how to (1) achieve interagency agreement on ecological solutions, (2) identify and leverage existing ways to increase predictability and assurance that credit will be allowed for address- ing agency conservation and restoration priorities early in planning, (3) identify and leverage exist- ing tools to increase resource agency confidence that mitigation commitments will be kept, and (4) make decisions last over time and across jurisdictions. This project is built on the groundwork laid in the development of Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service strategic habitat conservation approach, and other relevant ecosystem-based approaches (Brown 2006). The research approach and major findings of the project are summarized in this report. This is the first report of a three-volume series. An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conserva- tion and Highway Planning, Volume 2, summarizes the approach and outcomes of a partner project, Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, and Environmental Permitting Through Devel- opment of an Outcome-Based Ecosystem-Scale Approach and Corresponding Credit System. The Practitioner’s Guide to the Integrated Ecological Framework is a guide to using one of the main products of these efforts, the Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF). The research, conducted primarily between 2008 and 2010, suggests that although there is strong support for integrated transportation and ecological planning, there is room for progress in its implementation. Surveys and interviews of staff in transportation and resource agencies indicate that the main incentives 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 up front, transportation plans can better avoid critical resources; costly re-do loops and delays in project development 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 agencies’ jurisdictions, results in better identifying and prioritizing critical areas to conserve and protect. Making this information available and using it during transportation planning will result in better protection of critical natural resources.

2Despite the widespread support for the integration of transportation and ecological planning, surveys and interviews identified several 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 implement ecosystem-based approaches; • Lack of data and agreement around the most important resources, sensitive areas, or conser- vation opportunities; • Lack of understanding regarding how to implement ecosystem approaches; • Issues around coordination, communication, and collaboration; • 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 a major barrier addressed in this study. 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 regulations, specifically Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), 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. Chap- ters 5 and 6 are dedicated to describing existing methods for providing assurances. Examples are programmatic agreements and commitment tracking systems and how they can be applied at ecosystem scales. This analysis showed that many methods are available, some of which are already being used successfully, to provide assurances that support integrated transportation and ecological planning and advance mitigation. The barriers and incentives identified, along with solutions 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 is a step-by-step process guiding the integration of trans- portation and ecological planning. It is available through Transportation for Communities— Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) at transportationforcommunities.com. The IEF is also described in detail in volume 2 of the report and in the Practitioner’s Guide. The nine steps of the IEF are described in Figure ES.1. Important steps remain to continue the integration of transportation and ecological planning. Two additional significant 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 subsequent efforts. For example, the SHRP 2 Capacity program is sponsoring several projects that will culminate in a web-based geographic information system tool that brings together national ecological data sets in a one-stop shop that can be accessed and used by transportation planners. The tool will be tested through multiple pilot applications. Both the tool and the pilot examples will be made publicly available. In addition, SHRP 2, the Federal Highway Administration, and the American Association of Highway and Transportation Offi- cials are working together to provide transportation agencies with funding to support imple- menting the IEF. Given the scientific complexity and uncertainty of ecosystem processes, the lack of well-organized and accessible data, and the single-resource approach to mitigation, the development of a true ecosystem-based regulatory framework 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 departments of transportation from using ecosystem science

3and theory to advance their individual regulatory missions and conservation goals within the existing regulatory framework. Despite the challenges of integrating these complex processes, the increasing number of suc- cessful examples, the development of geospatial tools and implementation approaches, and increased funding and leadership foster the integration of transportation and ecological plan- ning toward becoming a common practice. The Steps of the IEF Step 1: Build a strong collaborative partnership of transportation and natural resource specialists. Create a shared vision representing the environmental and transportation goals for the planning region. Develop the collaborative framework necessary for cooperative decision making, data development and management, analyses, planning, and implementation. Step 2: Gather data, expertise, and other inputs about the natural and built environment. Represent all high priority conservation and restoration areas and goals (regional ecosystem framework [REF]). Represent an initial plan to meet transportation goals. Step 3: Integrate the conservation and transportation information and goals into a regional ecosystem and infrastructure development framework (REIDF). Step 4: Characterize scenarios of transportation and other land use. Assess the effects of transportation scenarios on conservation objectives, create a preferred scenario, and create an ecosystem-based mitigation strategy to address remaining impacts. Steps 5–8: Carry out innovative, ecosystem-based crediting strategies, interagency agreements, mitigation plans, programmatic consultations, and permitting to support transportation plans and conservation objectives. Step 9: Continue to develop and maintain dynamic information on environmental and transportation needs and goals, access to cutting-edge conservation and assessment methods, and mitigation monitoring results in order to support both a viable partnership vision and future planning at the local, watershed, ecoregional, or state level. Figure ES.1. Steps of the Integrated Ecological Framework.