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.
6C h a p t e r 2 Project work was divided into the following phases: ⢠Phase 1: Understand barriers to and opportunities for inte- grating transportation and ecological planning, and create a framework for integrating conservation planning, highway planning, and permitting. ⢠Phase 2: Identify implementation mechanisms to reduce uncertainties and help resolve the problem of assurances. ⢠Phase 3: Develop business cases for lead agencies and iden- tify transition needs. ⢠Phase 4: Host an interagency invitational symposium. ⢠Phase 5: Submit a final report and guide. The issues addressed by each phase, along with the pur- pose, approach, and primary products, are summarized in this chapter. phase 1 Purpose The purposes of Phase 1 were to identify ⢠The agencies or stakeholder groups involved in or affected by the process of adopting ecosystem approaches; ⢠Existing agency initiatives compatible with ecosystem approaches and agency leaders of such initiatives; ⢠Levels of awareness and support for ecosystem approaches across agencies; ⢠Barriers to implementing ecosystem approaches; and ⢠Relationships of ecosystem approaches to agenciesâ interests. Approach and Product Data were collected through research, interviews, and sur- veys. An extensive list of potential contacts was developed for the following groups: ⢠Resource/regulatory agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrationâs National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), other federal resource agencies, and state resource agencies. Transportation liaisons at each of these agencies helped identify con- tacts, who tended to be frontline staff dealing with proj- ect permitting and consultation. ⢠Transportation agencies and planning organizations: FHWA, state transportation agencies and state departments of trans- portation (DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and regional planning councils. ⢠Nongovernmental organizations: Environmental Defense Fund, the Southern Environmental Law Center, The Con- servation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, and others. Literature review, early conversations with stakeholders, and consultation with the partnerâproject team were used to create an initial set of interview questions. Using information from initial interviews, more detailed interview questions and a set of survey questions were developed. In an effort to streamline the interview and survey process and encourage high response rates, short surveys were created with questions tailored specifically to each stakeholder group identified. Although many questions differed between these separate surveys, there was a high degree of overlap to allow comparison of responses across agencies. Each draft survey was vetted through representatives from the relevant stakeholder group, and an interagency team was assembled. This team functioned as a resource for this project and as liaisons to their respective agencies. For example, DOT and MPO representatives reviewed the DOT and MPO sur- veys, the USFWS representative reviewed the USFWS survey, and so forth. Their input was used to create a final set of sur- vey questions. A small number of select expert practitioners participated in in-depth, multihour interviews, providing Research Approach
7detailed qualitative information about their experiences related to ecosystem approaches. The majority of in-depth interviews and surveys were con- ducted between December 2008 and June 2009. Over this research period, the team reached more than 140 respondents across all stakeholder groups. Further discussions and inter- views were held at the July 2009 summer TRB meeting. A sum- mary of the outreach strategy used to reach each stakeholder group follows: ⢠USFWS and NOAA Fisheries: USFWS staff involved in Sec- tion 7 consultations for transportation were contacted, with assistance from the FHWA-USFWS transportation liaison. ⢠USACE: USACE staff were contacted with assistance from the FHWA-USACE transportation liaison. Contacts included all division program managers, regulatory chiefs in the dis- tricts, DOT-funded positions, and other USACE frontline staff who work on transportation issues. ⢠EPA: EPA contacts took place by phone and in person at the TRB summer meeting in West Virginia in July 2009. These interviews focused on implementation of a water- shed approach in the Section 404 process, as well as general barriers, interests, incentives, and solutions. ⢠FHWA: FHWA headquarters staff assisted with distribut- ing the survey to all FHWA division environmental con- tacts around the country. The project team also performed interviews with several FHWA staff in late 2008, again at TRB in 2009, and at various later times. ⢠State DOTs: In-depth interviews were conducted with DOTs active in the field of advance mitigation and programmatic approaches. To reach all DOT environmental directors and natural resource staff, the project team followed the survey guidance of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on the Environment and worked through environmental directors in each state, asking them to involve their resource specialists and managers. In addition, all DOT planning directors were sent an online survey tailored to their work. ⢠MPOs: The project team contacted MPOs likely to have experience in ecosystem approaches. The Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations invited all MPOs to participate by taking an online survey. ⢠NGOs: The team contacted a diverse set of NGOs, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Southern Environ- mental Law Center, The Conservation Fund, The Nature Conservancy, NatureServe, and others. The team conducted in-depth interviews with several of these groups. Others responded to a survey. Input and perspectives from agencies, organizations, and sectors that were not the primary targets of this research were also assembled because they sometimes play a role in the process and have valuable input. These organizations included state resource agencies, the U.S. Forest Service, and local governments and regional resource agencies. Perspectives of agricultural and business interests are also considered and discussed, but these were not the primary targets of the outreach effort. Interviewees and survey respondents who sometimes volunteered information in these areas from their perspectives are the sources of data in these sections. The results from the surveys and in-depth interviews are summarized in Chapter 3. phase 2 Purpose Phase 2 addressed the uncertainty or risks associated with using an ecosystem approach to conservation in transporta- tion decision making by attempting to answer the following questions: ⢠How can transportation agencies that invest in ecosystem- level analysis to minimize or mitigate impacts be assured that they will get credit for their actions from regulatory agencies and the public? ⢠If they approve ecosystem-level mitigation strategies, how can regulatory agencies be assured that promised actions will be taken and will satisfy regulations? ⢠To ensure cooperation at all levels, what incentives are there for local governments to enforce the land management decisions made by transportation, regulatory, and resource management agencies? Various mechanisms are available to help provide these assurances and incentives. Phase 2 attempted to determine how each of these mechanisms provides assurances to both the agencies implementing avoidance, minimization, con- servation, and mitigation actions, and the federal agencies reviewing and approving transportation improvements and associated actions. Approach and Product Available methods to address ecosystem-scale minimiza- tion and mitigation of impacts on the environment, and the assurances that these mechanisms can offer, were col- lected, reviewed, and assessed using several approaches: ⢠Existing methods to provide mitigation credit assurances. The first task was to analyze existing methods of providing assur- ance of credit for collective, off-site, or advance mitigation. Off-site mitigation is mitigation at a location not bordering the impact site; advance mitigation is established prior to project impacts; and collective mitigation addresses com- pensatory mitigation needs for multiple actions. An inven- tory of the methods that can provide assurances over time and space and a description of the essential features of each
8were developed. Thoughts, ideas, and professional opin- ions on the relative merits, shortcomings, and adaptability of each tool or method were collected through discussions and correspondence with contacts from resource and transportation agencies. The USACE and EPA joint regula- tions on compensatory mitigation in the Section 404 pro- gram framed the discussion. This information was then compiled into an inventory of tools and methods in use, along with an overview describing the essential features and applicability of each tool. ⢠Use of existing assurance methods at an ecosystem scale. The common elements of success of existing methods for regulatory permitting or consultation processes at an eco- system scale were identified, along with how these methods assure that ecosystem-scale approaches will be credited. Using the summary of tools and methods developed in the previous task, team experience, and information col- lected from participating liaisons, the components of each tool and method and their commonalities were assessed. The strengths, weaknesses, and limits of applying each tool at different ecosystem scales were determined, and the ways in which this application could be enhanced were considered. Finally, how each tool succeeds in assuring transportation and permitting agencies that appropriate impact assessment and mitigation has been developed was determined. Programmatic agreements for ESA Section 7 and CWA Section 404 compliance were assembled and reviewed, using past research conducted for state DOTs and AASHTO as a starting point. Programmatic agreements addressing natu- ral and cultural resources that take ecosystem approaches broadly compatible with An Ecological Approach to Integrat- ing Conservation and Highway Planning and the USFWS strategic habitat conservation initiative were identified. This review was performed by comparing the approach and content of each programmatic agreement and mem- orandum of understanding (MOU) with the guidelines and recommendations contained in the USFWS and FHWA Department of Transportation Programmatic Con- sultation Guidance (2000), ongoing changes and evolu- tion to that guidance, and the Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2008). Information from practitioners regarding their experiences during the programmatic agreement/ MOU process was collected in the course of extensive surveys and interviews, primarily conducted in the spring of 2009. ⢠Gaps in implementation methods. Gaps between the ecosys- tem approach and the available methods for gaining regu- latory assurances were identified. Approaches to fill these gaps within the current regulatory environment were pro- posed, noting where both changes to regulations and non- regulatory tools would be helpful. The following findings are summarized in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6: ⢠An inventory of existing methods available to provide assurances that collective, off-site, or advance mitigations are credited to a transportation agency; ⢠An examination of the use of these existing methods for providing assurances at an ecosystem scale, common ele- ments for their success, and gaps that cannot be addressed by existing methods; and ⢠Identification of approaches to address the gaps. phases 3, 4, and 5 Purpose Phase 3 was to develop methods to aid transition from the cur- rent way of doing business to the ecological way by addressing the development of a common vision, conflict resolution, train- ing and cross training and by drawing on existing agency initia- tives, guidance, and good examples. The purpose of Phases 3 and 4 was to develop and solicit review of resources for imple- mentation. The purpose of Phase 5 was to summarize the proj- ect work in this final report. Approach and Products Phase 3, 4, and 5 products were based on the information gathered in Phases 1 and 2. In addition, practitioners at each agency or agency type were consulted and served as reviewers in a highly iterative production process. The primary products of the final phases of this project were as follows: ⢠Practitionerâs Guide to the Integrated Ecological Framework, which also addresses 44 How planning activities might be funded and how they relate to DOT and MPO programming cycles; 44 Outcomes and products developed at each stage, as well as needed inputs; 44 Benefits of the approach, especially when it goes beyond mitigation required by law; 44 Potential cost savings compared with current approaches; 44 How the various parties can be assured that their con- cerns will be addressed; and 44 Development of the necessary background data to imple- ment landscape-level, ecosystem- or watershed-based approaches using programmatic agreements, conserva- tion banking, mitigation banking, or a credits system.
9⢠Programmatic approaches to CWA 404 permitting and ESA Section 7 consultation. Programmatic templates were pro- vided for a watershed approach to planning and permitting under CWA Section 404 (wetland avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) and also for programmatic consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. ⢠Outreach and review (through e-mail and meetings), includ- ing webinars and an interagency invitational symposium. The project culminated with an interagency invitational sympo- sium in Boulder, Colorado, on September 14â15, 2010, with more than 50 attendees. The purpose of the symposium was to present findings and results, share information from compatible initiatives in a number of agencies, and solicit input on future directions and needs. ⢠This final project report, in which key findings across all phases are summarized.
