An Ecological Approach to Integrating Conservation and Highway Planning, Volume 2 (2012)

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.

55 C h a p t e r 4 Background of pilot tests This chapter summarizes the results of testing the CEAA process, including the wetlands and ESA regulatory assur- ance approaches, in three states. Appendix C includes a detailed report of each pilot test addressing how and why the project was selected; the original project and project area; detailed results of the testing comparing original outcomes to outcomes using the CEAA process; and conclusions and lessons learned. Summary of pilot test results In the pilot tests, the project team compared the approach and outcomes of the original project and planning efforts in each state with the approach and outcomes using the CEAA process. The comparison focused on decisions and outcomes related to direct impacts, cumulative impacts, and mitigation effectiveness. Overall, in the three pilot areas, the team found that transportation agency staff accurately understood and accounted for direct impacts to natural resources. The transportation agencies used existing data in combination with environmental studies to support the evaluation and selection of the transportation alternatives that typically looked at direct impacts. Using the CEAA process, the pilot assessments achieved results similar to the original project assessment. Thus, in the realm of direct impacts, the team’s approach produced results similar to traditional methods used by transportation agencies. It is important to note that the CEAA testing process did not include any field studies, yet very similar potential impacts were found at a much lower cost and likely in much less time. Because of the limitations of data accuracy and resolution, the need for on-the-ground evaluation of a project site may remain, but the CEAA process could target field studies and thereby reduce overall assessment costs. For cumulative impacts, the traditional approach is to look at the impacts to a species or resource based on the existing condition of the landscape or habitats. The team’s pilots included information that indicated how the habitats looked historically to show how the habitats had been affected over time, and thus provided a truer picture of the cumulative effect that additional impacts would cause. Data that show how the landscape looked historically often are not used because they are not readily available, but in most cases there are other sources of data often available through state or fed- eral agencies that can be used as a proxy for historical data (such as hydric soil data). When the team assessed cumulative impacts and the selec- tion of mitigation options, the pilot test teams observed more significant differences using the CEAA process, especially when compared with long-range and corridor planning efforts. These differences were attributable mostly to these factors: • The team’s process suggests that for species within a project area or corridor, cumulative effects and mitigation options should be evaluated within a larger, more ecologically based area than is typically used. • Some of the original planning efforts in the pilot states included less comprehensive or no ecological information. • Different or more comprehensive data (e.g., historical landscape, wetland priorities, and predictive species distri- bution maps) were utilized in the team’s assessment of the project area. Through this comparison, the team came to a better under- standing of issues related to the use of data to assess impacts to natural resources, evaluate mitigation options, and recom- mend the development of key data sets to improve the assess- ment of ecological resources. For example, the pilot tests illustrated how the accuracy and resolution of data influence what types of data are most useful for planning level decision Pilot Projects

56 information on the advantages of using NatureServe Vista ver- sus a GIS without the Vista ArcGIS extension. The efficacy of decision support tools has been demonstrated in many publi- cations. These tools allow the practitioners to automate the process of running new transportation alternative scenarios as information or priorities change, something that cannot be done as efficiently using only GIS (Hamilton and Baker 2003). An unexpected and unfortunate finding of the pilot tests was that in all three states, the data that were used for original assessment of the project area were not readily available and were not available in a GIS layer suitable for use with a decision support tool. Thus, even data collected from costly field studies were not captured in a way that could be used for future assess- ments. Encouraging collection and maintenance of GIS data and developing data management standards that can be adopted by both transportation agencies and natural resources agencies will lead to increased data accessibility, allowing data from single projects or agencies to be applied to future projects or regional studies. For example, if field studies for a listed spe- cies were completed and that information provided to a data- base on the status of imperiled species in that state (such as those maintained by state Natural Heritage offices), that infor- mation could contribute to rangewide assessments of those species by USFWS and other natural resource practitioners for conservation planning purposes. Not only can sharing data across projects and agencies increase the transparency and completeness of future projects, it can reduce costs by cutting down on the staff time needed to gather all necessary data for the project planning process. Conclusions Overall, the pilot tests were essential in demonstrating the practical value of using the CEAA process to streamline and improve decision making in transportation planning and project development. Clearly, the CEAA could be effective in creating more accurate “sign posts” early in any transporta- tion decision-making process that could alert practitioners to potential impacts and mitigation opportunities. Some key findings and conclusions from the testing of the CEAA process included: • Better Outcomes. The most significant changes were in the areas of mitigation site selection, evaluation of multiple cor- ridors, and development of transportation plans. The pilot test results led to the selection of mitigation sites with more ecological benefits and provided more accurate and com- prehensive scenario assessments that identified corridors with the least number of direct and cumulative impacts. • Benefits of Modest Investments in Data. The usefulness of the CEAA for planning and project development are depen- dent on the accuracy and resolution of available data. A making versus project level decision-making. Therefore, one key component of the CEAA guidance is a suggested list of data sources that support each step of the guidance. The CEAA also provides suggestions on other high-priority data sets, such as high-quality data on wetlands and endangered species that generally are not available across the country but, if they were available, would streamline the assessment of landscapes for planning and project development. The team then documents how these data sets could be created for areas where they are not yet available. The project team also looked at the time and cost of plan- ning and project development for the pilot test areas and documented ideas on how the use of the CEAA could have streamlined transportation planning and project development decision making, likely saving time and money. The Michigan pilot illustrated that the evaluation of corridors using the CEAA process would result in a more accurate assessment of potential impacts and support the selection of corridors with the lowest mitigation-related costs. The most significant differences found from each pilot test state when comparing the outcomes of the original assessment versus the outcomes of the CEAA were as follows: 1. South I-25 Corridor (Colorado): CEAA assessment pro- moted a more accurate assessment of cumulative impacts (therefore effecting the ratio of mitigation requirements) by including spatially explicit analyses using data not included in the original assessment, and by defining a larger, ecologically based assessment area. 2. US-131 Corridor (Michigan): CEAA assessment resulted in the selection of a different alternative that had the least number of impacts and therefore would have reduced mit- igation requirements. The results differed because the C06 pilot team used more detailed ecological data than was used in the original corridor assessment, including histori- cal wetland data and data from a 2005 wetland functional assessment, and used a decision support tool allowing a very precise and quantitative impact assessment for each resource. 3. Pioneer Mountain to Eddyville Project (Oregon): CEAA assessment recommended mitigation in larger priority wetland areas in the watershed that would have provided opportunities for creation or enhancement of salmon (coho, chinook, and steelhead) habitat. It is worth noting that the project team used two different decision support tools to conduct the CEAA pilot tests. NatureServe Vista (NatureServe 2009) was used in Colorado and Michigan, and Envision (Guzy et al. 2008) was used in Oregon. Although the focus of these pilots was not to dem- onstrate the efficacy of decision support tools, the detailed pilot test report for Michigan (found in Appendix C) includes

57 • Savings in Time and Resources. The CEAA approach likely would save time and resources by reducing impacts and therefore mitigation requirements, as well as supporting more targeted field studies for assessment of alternatives. • Standard Data Management Practices. Better data man- agement and data sharing practices would contribute to better application and accessibility of data collected during transportation alternative assessments for future decision making not only by transportation agencies but also by natural resource agencies. relatively modest investment in process changes and data development upfront would create more accurate sign posts early in the decision-making processes of potential impacts and mitigation opportunities, vastly improving planning, corridor evaluation, and consideration of mitigation opportunities. • Increased Scientific Credibility. Decisions have more cred- ibility because the CEAA process ensures the use of a stan- dardized, scientifically based, peer reviewed process that uses the best available suite of methods, data, and tools.