Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits (2020)

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.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 280: Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits Edward Samanns Phillip Baigas WSP USA, Inc. Morristown, NJ Robert Ament Marcel P. Huijser Western Transportation Institute Montana State University Bozeman, MT Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 117 Submitted January 2020 NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed, and implementable research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing state departments of transportation (DOTs) administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local or regional interest and can best be studied by state DOTs individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 initiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), United States Department of Transportation, under Agreement No. 693JJ31950003. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FTA, GHSA, NHTSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; the FHWA; or the program sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This material has not been edited by TRB.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation improvements and innovation through trusted, timely, impartial, and evidence-based information exchange, research, and advice regarding all modes of transportation. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 8,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP Web-Only Document 280 Christoper J. Hedges, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Lori L. Sundstrom, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Ann M. Hartell, Senior Program Officer Jarrel McAfee, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Associate Director of Publications Jennifer Correro, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 25-25/Task 117 PANEL AREA OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING—HUMAN AND NATURAL ENVIRONMENT Alexander Levy, VHB, Atlanta, GA (Chair) Bridget M. Donaldson, Virginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia DOT, Charlottesville, VA Kristiana M. Hansen, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY Carin Loy, California DOT, Sacramento, CA Charles T. Nichols, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, MD Christopher Staron, Ohio DOT, Columbus, OH Dan Buford, FHWA Liaison Melissa A. Savage, AASHTO Liaison ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This study was conducted for the American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Committee on Environment and Sustainability, with funding provided through the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25, Task 117, “Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credit.” NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from state departments of transportation (DOTs). Project 25-25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Sustainability. The report was prepared by Edward Samanns and Phillip Baigas of Louis Berger US, Inc., a WSP Company, and Robert Ament and Marcel Huijser of the Western Transportation Institute‒Montana State University. The work was guided by a technical working group that included: • Alexander Levy, VHB (Chair) • Bridget Donaldson, Virginia DOT • Kristiana Hansen, University of Wyoming • Carin Loy, California DOT • Charles Nichols, Maryland DOT • Christopher Staron, Ohio DOT • Melissa Savage, AASHTO Liaison • Dan Buford, FHWA Liaison

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS AADT average annual daily traffic ALIVE A Landscape-Level Inventory of Valued Ecosystem Components Caltrans California Department of Transportation CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDOT Colorado Departments of Transportation CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations DOT Department of Transportation ESA Endangered Species Act FAST Act Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act of 2015 FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOT Florida DOT FHWA Federal Highway Administration GIS geographical information systems GPS global positioning system HCP habitat conservation plan IEF Integrated Ecological Framework Laurel Curve Project Laurel Curve Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Project MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act of 2012 MCA mitigation credit agreement NDOT Nevada Department of Transportation NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NGO non-governmental organization P.L. Public Law RCIS Regional Conservation Investment Strategy RIBITS Regulatory In-lieu Fee and Bank Tracking System SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users SHOPP State Highway Operation and Protection Program SHRP 2 second Strategic Highway Research Program

SR State Road UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services WCC Wildlife Crossing Committee WVCs wildlife-vehicle collisions

Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits iv TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................ES-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW, SURVEY, AND PRACTITIONER INTERVIEW FINDINGS ............................................................................................................. 2 2.1 Literature Review ................................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1 Legal, Planning, and Policy Considerations ............................................................... 2 2.1.2 Potential Valuation Metrics for Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation Credits ................ 7 2.1.3 Monetary Valuation of Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation Credits ........................... 15 2.2 Online Survey ...................................................................................................................... 18 2.2.1 State DOT Experience with Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation ................................ 18 2.2.2 Examples of Crediting Approaches to Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation ................ 19 2.3 Practioner Interviews ........................................................................................................... 20 2.3.1 Legal, Planning, and Policy Framework Considerations .......................................... 20 2.3.2 Potential Valuation Metrics for Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation Credits .............. 22 3.0 POTENTIAL VALUATION METRICS FOR WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY MITIGATION CREDITS ........................................................................................................... 27 4.0 CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A PROGRAM FOR ADVANCE MITIGATION AND CREDITING FOR WILDLIFE CONNECTIVITY........................................................ 35 4.1 Coordinated, Regional Wildlife Connectivity Planning as a Prerequisite ........................... 35 4.2 Interagency Working Group Formation and Roles .............................................................. 35 4.3 Potential Mitigation Measures that Could be Credited for Wildlife Connectivity............... 36 4.4 Definition of Geographic Areas for Credit Application (Service Areas) ............................. 37 4.5 Credit Management and Debiting ........................................................................................ 37 4.6 Post-Construction Monitoring .............................................................................................. 38 4.7 Long-Term Commitments .................................................................................................... 39 5.0 CASE STUDIES ........................................................................................................................... 40 5.1 Case Study #1—Caltrans Advance Mitigation Program and the Laurel Curve Pilot Project ............................................................................................................................... 40 5.1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 40 5.1.2 Mitigation Crediting ................................................................................................. 40 5.1.3 Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 43 5.2 Case Study #2—Florida Panther Crossing Projects ............................................................. 44 5.2.1 Background............................................................................................................... 44 5.2.2 Mitigation Crediting ................................................................................................. 44 5.2.3 Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 45 5.3 Case Study #3—FDOT State Route 40 Wildlife Connectivity Mitigation .......................... 45 5.3.1 Background............................................................................................................... 45 5.3.2 Mitigation Crediting ................................................................................................. 45 5.3.3 Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 47 5.4 Case Study #4—CDOT West Slope Wildlife Crossing Prioritization ................................. 47 5.4.1 Background............................................................................................................... 47 5.4.2 Mitigation Crediting ................................................................................................. 48 5.4.3 Lessons Learned ....................................................................................................... 48

Valuing Wildlife Crossings and Enhancements for Mitigation Credits v 6.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 49 APPENDIX Appendix A—Online Survey and Practitioner Interview Report ...................................................... A-1 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Possible performance goals and outcomes that could be used to value wildlife connectivity mitigationa ............................................................................................................ 10 Table 2. Potential metrics to value wildlife connectivity mitigation, their potential units of measurement, and notes regarding their applicability ............................................................... 28 Table 3. Debiting guidelines for future transportation projects using credits generated from the Laurel Curve Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Project ................................................................ 41