|
Coming Up Next: ICOET 2009 in Minnesota!
Abstracts: Integrating Transportation & Conservation Planning
Watershed Approaches to Compensatory Mitigation: Using Comprehensive Mitigation Planning to Achieve More Effective Mitigation for Transportation Projects
- Jan Cassin, Senior Scientist, Parametrix, Inc., Bellevue, WA, Phone: 425-458-6204.
This research project deals with development of tools and approaches for implementing more effective environmental mitigation for transportation projects. We evaluate the availability of tools, methods, and data necessary for implementing comprehensive, watershed-based planning for mitigation for transportation projects, and we present lessons learned from innovative approaches being implemented in the Pacific Northwest. It has long been recognized that project-specific, on-site mitigation projects have high rates of failure, frequently do not achieve the desired environmental benefits, and are very expensive. The emphasis for on-site and in-kind compensatory wetland mitigation makes it difficult to design wetland mitigation projects that are not small, isolated, of limited functional value, and difficult and/or costly to maintain in the long-term. Designing and planning mitigation projects within a watershed or landscape context has long been recognized as necessary for ensuring sustainable, successful mitigation. Transportation projects epitomize these challenges, but also provide some of the best opportunities to create better mitigation alternatives through implementation of watershed approaches. In addition, regulatory agencies are recognizing the importance of watershed approaches. The proposed EPA/COE joint rules for compensatory mitigation explicitly incorporate the need for watershed approaches. How prepared are we, however, to implement watershed approaches in mitigation planning and design? States in the Pacific Northwest have been conducting watershed and basin planning for at least the past 10 years under a number of state and local mandates; this region arguably possesses some of the most complete watershed information available in the United States. To determine the availability of the data necessary for implementing a watershed approach, we:
- Evaluated more than 50 watershed and/or basin plans to determine how many plans incorporate key elements of a watershed or landscape approach: spatially explicit, process and function based, both biotic and abiotic processes, multi-species focus; and
- Determined the overlap between locations of transportation projects and watershed data. The majority of watershed plans lack one or more of these key elements. We assess the feasibility of implementing watershed approaches for transportation projects using existing information.
Using this analysis, we then discuss the development of innovative tools and databases that are being used for planning for watershed-based mitigation at regional restoration sites. For local, state and federal transportation planning purposes, this allows systematic evaluation of the type and amount of mitigation that is or will be needed in the future for the region or a particular watershed, the existing functional condition of the watershed, and where in the watershed restoration is most needed and will have the greatest benefit.
Integrating Wildlife Crossings into Transportation Plans in Projects in North America
- Patricia Cramer, USGS Cooperative Unit, Utah State University, Logan, UT, Phone: 435-797-1289.
- John A. Bissonette, USGS Utah Cooperative Research Unit, Utah State University, College of Natural Resources, Logan, UT Phone: 435-797-2511.
Results are presented of a North American survey designed to learn how transportation departments mitigate transportation corridors for wildlife and give examples of how wildlife mitigation measures can be incorporated into long range plans and in routine everyday actions. The objective is to promote greater understanding of the potential for incorporating wildlife movement needs into transportation programs and projects. Research results presented include data from a continent-wide telephone survey conducted over a two year period (2004-2006) to learn of accomplishments in wildlife passage and how wildlife and ecosystem needs have been incorporated into the transportation planning process. Telephone interviews were conducted with 410 transportation and ecology professionals in every state and province. Based on research data and the mandates of the SAFETEA-LU legislation the case is made that greater efforts in long term transportation plans and everyday retrofits are necessary to provide for wildlife and ecosystems needs. Some efforts have already been accomplished and can be adapted continent-wide. There are greater than 580 terrestrial and 10,000 aquatic wildlife and fish passages in North America that were specifically built as wildlife and fish crossings, and millions of other bridges and culverts constructed for other purposes but which could be used by wildlife. Placement of these structures has grown so rapidly that over 500 new terrestrial passages are projected to be built in the next 10 years. The almost exponential increase in passage construction each decade is an indication of the growing awareness of the need to mitigate new and existing transportation infrastructure for wildlife permeability. There is also a greater awareness that early planning for wildlife and ecosystems is critical to accomplish these mitigation activities. The inclusion of wildlife and ecosystem needs early in the development of long range transportation plans has not been the traditional paradigm as was learned over the course of the survey. The majority of transportation planners who participated in the survey indicated their state’s consideration of wildlife and ecosystems, in the form of consultations with natural resource professionals and referencing Geographic Information Systems (GIS) maps and other data, did not occur until the project development stage. This late consideration does not typically allow adequate time to avoid important wildlife corridors and to install mitigation measures. The majority of those working with transportation and ecological concerns recognized the need to incorporate wildlife mitigation needs early in the programming, planning, and design processes, as learned from the web-based priorities survey. The survey revealed that early planning for wildlife and ecosystem needs was the number one priority in dealing with roads and wildlife. This early level planning has also been mandated in the U. S. SAFETEA-LU Transportation Act of 2005. Examples are presented of instances where long range planning included wildlife and ecosystems needs, and suggest how this can be accomplished on a state and province-wide basis. We also present how everyday opportunities can be used to facilitate wildlife movement over and under roads and railways. Knowledge of successful accomplishments can help build upon opportunities in the movement toward a more proactive transportation planning paradigm.
Conserving the Connections: A Nationwide Inventory of State-Based Habitat Connectivity Analysis
- Jesse Feinberg, Conservation Policy Assistant, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-682-9400.
Habitat fragmentation is among the most serious threats to species and biological diversity. Highways can divide wildlife habitat into smaller patches, reducing or prohibiting necessary wildlife movement between core habitat areas for foraging, mating, and other life functions.
Defenders of Wildlife reviewed all 50 states to identify those that are working to address habitat connectivity in the context of transportation planning. The goal of these plans is to facilitate interagency cooperation in order to enhance wildlife connectivity while continuing to expand and improve transportation infrastructure. We found that eleven states have completed, or are currently completing, a statewide habitat connectivity analysis, which will allow them to incorporate wildlife habitat and linkage needs into highway project planning. An additional eight other states are working on connectivity issues but on a regional scale or without a direct link to transportation planning.
This analysis provides a snapshot of the status of connectivity planning across the nation. By comparing lessons learned and successful methods, states considering connectivity planning can draw from the experience of others, while states with existing plans can use this information to improve as plans are updated.
Top of page
Application of Ecological Assessments to Regional and Statewide Transportation Planning
- Joseph Burns, National Transportation Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA, Phone: 703-358-1712.
The application of ecological assessments can facilitate transportation project planning and delivery that can avoid or minimize impacts to the environment and minimize disruptions of critical ecological processes.
This presentation considers the value of ecological assessments designed to integrate regional conservation planning with environmental regulatory compliance that support ecologically appropriate transportation planning and project delivery. Recent transportation legislation (SAFETEA-LU) requires transportation agencies to consider environmental considerations in their regional and state-wide transportation plans. Earlier transportation required Federal agencies to coordinate environmental reviews to address multiple regulatory compliance simultaneously rather sequentially whenever possible. This requirement has been retained in the in SAFETEA-LU.
Ecological assessments have been developed to address a variety of objectives. This presentation will review a subset of assessments and discuss components of those assessments which may offer the greatest value to transportation planners. The presentation will offer a template for developing a rapid assessment that offer a menu of assessment components that state and local transportation planners may consider to facilitate compliance with the new planning regulations that result in streamlined planning and project delivery.
After the passage of SAFETEA-LU, the National Academy of Sciences hosted a workshop to discuss the information needs necessary to support the new provisions such as these new environmental within the recent legislation. The presentation will offer a list of data needs that facilitate the coordination and integration of multiple agency considerations and regulatory requirements.
Follow-up work could include an analysis of the rapid assessment process and how it can be continually improved.
Developing the "Integrated Transportation and Ecological Enhancements for Montana" (ITEEM) Process: Applying the Eco-Logical Approach
- Ted Burch, Program Development Engineer, FHWA-Montana Division, Helena, MT, Phone: 406-449-5302.
- Scott Jackson, Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, MT, Phone: 406-449-5225.
- Deborah Wombach, Montana Department of Transportation, Bozeman, MT.
- Amanda Hardy, Research Ecologist & Project Coordinator, Western Transportation Institute, College of Engineering, Montana State University, Phone: 406-994-6114.
- Carl James, FHWA-Montana Division.
- The Montana Interagency Review Team Working Group
Construction and maintenance of transportation systems can result in direct, indirect and cumulative effects on ecosystems. Typically, mitigation of unavoidable adverse impacts occurs on a project-by-project basis and commonly attempts to restore the same affected resource as close to the site where the impact occurs. This piecemeal approach may fulfill regulatory requirements but greater mitigation value may be achieved for a similar investment by evaluating and prioritizing off-site mitigation opportunities in the context of the entire ecosystem. Additionally, project-by-project environmental permitting practices involve repetitious procedures that sometimes unpredictably delay project delivery. Recently-released federal guidance encourages agencies to collaboratively and strategically plan infrastructure projects and related mitigation with goals of conserving and connecting important habitats, while increasing predictability and transparency of planning and regulatory permitting processes. This guide, entitled, “Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects,” was used by an interagency group in Montana to create the “Integrated Transportation and Ecosystem Enhancements for Montana” (ITEEM) process. As the first effort to “pilot” Eco-Logical’s guidance, cooperating agencies gained insights that may help others follow Eco-Logical’s framework. This report summarizes Montana’s efforts to adapt Eco-Logical to create the ITEEM process and offers insights for other interagency efforts working to increase the efficiency of transportation project delivery while mitigating adverse impacts where the conservation efforts are most needed.
Justifying Environmental Stewardship: Oregon Department of Transportation’s Wildlife Collision Prevention Plan Case Study
- Melinda Trask, Environmental Project Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo-Environmental Section, Salem, OR, Phone: 503-986-3504.
Although there is widespread knowledge of the effects of roads on wildlife populations and driver safety, many transportation departments are reluctant to expend state or federal funds to research and address wildlife movement problems on their highways. For many years, Oregon lacked direction on this issue from natural resource, regulatory, and highway agencies. All groups were at the proverbial standstill for years: the natural resources and regulatory agencies urged ODOT to address the problem of highways as wildlife movement barriers, and ODOT sought guidance from natural resources and regulatory agencies to define the scope of the problem. Additionally, ODOT faced internal resistance to collecting baseline information because of the perception that it was another unfunded environmental mandate. Before the ODOT Geo-Environmental Section proposed a statewide mitigation program for wildlife movement and transportation conflicts, it was necessary to obtain direct support from external natural resources agencies. The Oregon Wildlife Movement Strategy was formed in 2006, as an interagency partnership to address wildlife movement issues in Oregon. Once external support was obtained and documented, Geo-Environmental pursued internal support, particularly from units involved in maintenance, planning, traffic, safety, and the regional technical centers. However, we are continuing to communicate with external and internal stakeholders throughout development of a Wildlife Collision Prevention program for our Agency. The program will provide guidance to ODOT stakeholders for scoping of wildlife passage during project planning and development, funding alternatives, and design considerations for key species.
Habitat Linkage within a Transportation Network
- Sherri Swanson, Environmental Scientist, HDR Engineering, Inc., Sarasota, FL, Phone: 941-342-2707.
- Wendy Hershfeld, Project Scientist, Sarasota County Government, Sarasota, FL, Phone: 941-861-0767.
Sarasota County is a growing Florida gulf coast community with a strong environmental ethic. As a community, Sarasota has strived to balance growth with habitat protection through a variety of avenues including funding the acquisition of ecologically valuable lands, promoting regional mitigation projects, and encouraging the protection of habitat corridors. Roadways remain one of the greatest threats to the areas protected by these measures, and fragmentation of lands into isolated patches threatens the inherent biodiversity of the landscape. To assess the extent of the problem, Sarasota County Road Program funded several ecological evaluations along local highway corridors. The objective was to identify valuable ecological resources impacted by roadway corridors and develop an integrated approach to reduce the impacts caused by fragmentation. Although these evaluations have been largely observational, when supported by more empirical studies, they have helped provide a framework for developing an objective land acquisition and management process and for formulating local policy. Information obtained through these evaluations has improved project efficiency and in certain instances, allowed for a smoother permitting process. Another significant outcome of the ecological evaluations has been the establishment of a Regional Offsite Mitigation Area program (ROMA) to facilitate the acquisition and restoration of native habitats, many of which “bridge the gap” between established county conservation lands. These land acquisitions and ROMA's, provide compensation for unavoidable environmental impacts associated with infrastructure projects, including wetland mitigation and restoration of Florida scrub-jay and gopher tortoise habitats. Four ROMA sites, ranging from estuarine to scrubby flatwoods restorations, now exist in varying stages of development. Establishment of the ROMA program has not been without permitting hurdles. Differences between state and federal policy, subjectivity in Florida’s Unified Mitigation Assessment Methodology (UMAM), and lack of incentives for preserving upland habitat and creating artificial wildlife passages, have been some of the challenges faced by the program.
Top of page
Green Infrastructure, Environmental Mitigation and Transportation Planning in Kansas City
- Tom Jacobs, Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), Kansas City, MO, Phone: 816-474-4240.
This project creates a planning and policy foundation to integrate transportation and environmental planning in the metro Kansas City area.
The Mid-America Regional Council (MARC), the metropolitan planning organization for the Kansas City region, is in the process of advancing a series of initiatives to help promote and incorporate broadened environmental consideration as a part of its regional transportation planning processes. This presentation will describe several interconnected strategies designed to accomplish the agency's long range transportation plan goals related to access, mobility, safety and the natural environment.
In 2004, MARC completed a comprehensive, geographic information system (GIS)-based regional natural resources inventory (NRI). This effort compiled all existing and relevant GIS data pertaining to the Kansas City metropolitan area to facilitate more integrated and proactive environmental planning in a variety of arenas. Data described the distribution, quality and extent of natural habitat types throughout the eight county region. The data serve to facilitate and spatially integrate planning efforts related to transportation, land use, air and water quality and greenways.
Subsequently, NRI data has been used to help prioritize and focus greenway planning, design and acquisition efforts. Beginning with the highly regarded regional greenway plan known as MetroGreen, new natural resource data has been used to prioritize open space conservation needs and opportunities. All analysis has been conducted within an integrated, multiple purpose framework, in pursuit of air and water quality protection, habitat restoration, reduction in flood risk, recreation and alternative transportation.
Planning for prioritized greenways and natural areas will adopt a green infrastructure framework, seeing to maximize connect key areas on a landscape scale to maximize ecological values and ecosystem services. Importantly, the final regional green infrastructure plan will be presented as a draft regional environmental mitigation plan in compliance with new SAFETEA-LU requirements. Mitigation in this venue is broadly construed, though intended to complement other state and federal mitigation requirements as well.
Development and final adoption of the plan will be accomplished through rigorous public participation efforts, including key natural resource management organizations and agencies. Ultimately the objective is to formally articulate via our transportation plan policy how this valuable environmental data can and should be used in helping to prioritize and define the region's investment in the transportation system. All data, planning, design and implementation efforts will be incorporated into MARC's next long range transportation plan, which is slated for formal kickoff in 2007.
Impacts of Different Growth Scenarios in the San Joaquin Valley, CA
- Karen Beardsley, Information Center for the Environment, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Davis, CA, Phone: 530-752-5678.
- Nathaniel E. Roth and Michael C. McCoy: Information Center for the Environment, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, Davis, CA.
In the next 40 years, the eight counties of the San Joaquin Valley are projected to double in population from 3.3 million to more than 7 million (Great Valley Center 2006). The region faces many challenges with respect to its capacity to accommodate this dramatic increase in population while maintaining its environmental infrastructure and preserving its diminishing natural resources.
In response to these growing pressures, Governor Schwarzenegger announced in June 2005 the formation of the California Partnership for the San Joaquin Valley (Partnership) to "…improve the economic well-being of the Valley and the quality of life of its residents" (Department of Business Housing and Transportation 2006a). This 26-member Partnership, led by the Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency, is composed of eight state government members (primarily cabinet level appointees), eight local government members (primarily members of county boards of supervisor), eight private sector members (representing leadership in various business sectors), and two deputy chairs. The Partnership region includes San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties.
The Information Center for the Environment (ICE) at UC Davis supported the Partnership by providing geographic information system (GIS) data and growth allocation build-out scenarios. Based on input from the Partnership and the Great Valley Center, ICE developed and produced seven urban growth scenarios for the region that project population to year 2050 using UPlan, a rule-based GIS urban growth model (Johnston et al. 2006). These scenarios were developed based on different goals (such as Compact—within current spheres of influence; Farmland Protection—prime farmland masked; Great Cities—create "mega-cities" in concentrated regions) and produced vastly different outcomes.
This paper discusses the seven growth scenarios and the implications of mapped future urban growth in the San Joaquin under those scenarios on a collection of biologically significant factors. A team of federal, state, and non-government organization biological experts selected 14 key biological layers crucial for protecting high value open space in the San Joaquin Valley. ICE combined the modeled urban growth output for the seven growth scenarios with the 14 biologically significant GIS layers. The growth scenarios reflect seven different policy directions that the region’s leaders may choose when planning for growth in the upcoming several decades. Results showed that depending on the scenario chosen (and hence the policy emphasis), the magnitude of biological resources likely to be lost varies significantly. The scenario with the least overall ecological impact is the Compact Growth Scenario (Scenario 3), with Scenarios 6 (New Cities) and 7 (Great Cities) also fairly low in relative impact. Scenario 4 (Prime Farmland Protection) resulted in the largest decline in the acreage of the 14 key biological data layers we examined. Scenarios 5 (I-5 to Highway 99 Exclusion), 2 (East/West Road Improvement) and 1 (Status Quo) also showed relatively high negative impacts.
Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and Regional Transportation Planning: A Case Study in Challenges for Protecting and Restoring Wildlife Connectivity in Urbanized Areas
- Carolyn Campbell, Executive Director, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, Tucson, AZ, Phone: 520-388-9925.
This project demonstrates full integration of habitat conservation, transportation, and land use planning on a local and multi-jurisdictional level, utilizing best available science and best practices. This abstract outlines the steps taken to protect and re-create wildife linkages utilizing transportation projects through local planning and cooperative creative partnerships.
The Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, an alliance of 38 conservation and community groups, formed in 1998 to protect biodiversity in the Sonoran Desert through Pima County's multi-species habitat conservation planning effort, which brought together scientists from state and federal agencies, advocates from NGOs, and local county and municipal officials.
Methodology in the broad context of protecting biodiversity included a 4-year development, by a science technical team, of a county-wide map identifying and prioritizing biologically important lands. Methodology to design, implement and construct wildlife connectivity through transportation barriers has been multi-faceted and complex. The Coalition was able to bring attention to the importance of the issue to local officials, adopt the linkages in local public documents, successfully advocate for the adoption of environmentally-sensitive roadway design guidelines, successfully pass voter-approved Open Space Bonds of $174.3 million which includes acquisition of lands within mapped linkages adjacent to roads, and education and cooperation of other road-building agencies. As well, the Coalition Director was involved with state legislation that created a county-wide Regional Transportation Authority to which she was appointed. Through that committee, the Coalition was able to successfully advocate for adoption of a program category for Critical Landscape Linkages that includes $45 million to be expended for wildlife structures. This plan and funding was adopted by county voters in May 2006 as part of a 20-year, $2.1 billion transportation package.
Both the 2004 Open Space Bond acquisitions and the Critical Landscape Linkages funding for wildlife crossing structures are currently being implemented. There is a huge opportunity in future research, which needs to include intensive monitoring of the linkages and their contribution to protection and restoring biodiversity in the Sonoran Desert. Although this process, begun in 1998, was a direct response to endangered species liability issues county-wide, the scientific and community response has gone far beyond the regulatory compliance in successfully integrating transportation and conservation planning.
Limitations to Wildlife Habitat Connectivity in Urban Areas
- Melinda Trask, Environmental Project Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation, Geo- Environmental Section, Salem, OR, Phone: 503-986-3504.
The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) conducted an evaluation of existing wildlife habitat and movement corridors within southeast Portland, where a new section of highway (the Sunrise Corridor) is proposed. The purpose was to develop a comprehensive strategy to preserve and enhance connections for wildlife passage potentially impacted by the Sunrise Corridor project. The evaluation illustrates limitations to urban wildlife protection that are not typically considered. The proposed alignment and alternatives for Sunrise Corridor project are located in an area that is rapidly growing with urban development but still retains some relatively large natural habitat areas. According to local naturalists, wildlife use of both areas is still fairly high within the context of the urban surroundings. We identified key wildlife movement corridors between the remaining large habitat patches as well as existing and potential barriers to wildlife passage. Larger mammals (e.g., coyote and deer) and migratory song birds were the focal species. We found that approximately 50% of existing wildlife habitat and movement corridors is vulnerable to future planned and potential development as a result of current zoning and land use ordinances. Existing commercial and residential development already constricts the main wildlife corridor, and wildlife access between the remaining habitat patches in the area will be severed if further zoned development occurs.
Comprehensive Plans for many urban areas have provisions for preservation of large tracts of open space, greenways, and parks, with an interest in maintaining habitat for birds and urban wildlife. However, few Plans identify the need for connections between the habitat patches for wildlife movement, an important component of population fitness. Although ODOT’s proposed highway project is being designed to avoid blocking wildlife passage, wildlife movement corridors will continue to be threatened by urban development unless organizations or individuals outside of ODOT protect key parcels from future development. As the Sunrise Corridor wildlife evaluation demonstrates, if wildlife on the urban interface are to be protected, early identification and conservation of movement corridors are as essential as conservation of habitat patches.
Top of page
Linking Transportation and Conservation: How the State Wildlife Action Plans can help protect wildlife from road development.
- Patricia White, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-682-9400, ext. 236.
- Julia Michalak, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-682-9400, ext. 147.
- Jeff Lerner, Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-682-9400, ext. 291.
We reviewed all 51 State Wildlife Action Plans to glean a set of cross-cutting recommendations for future collaboration between wildlife and transportation agencies.
As of October 1, 2005, every state wildlife agency, in conjunction with numerous partners, completed a comprehensive state wildlife action plan. Each plan is unique, but all plans were required to identify:
- Declining species
- Key habitats
- Threats to those species and habitats and
- Actions to prevent further species decline.
We reviewed the plans from all 50 states and the District of Columbia to determine the extent to which the plans identify and address transportation planning and development impacts. To do this we searched every plan for references to roads, transportation, transportation agencies, vehicles, and highways. From these searches we created a compilation of threat and action references and categorized each reference to identify common issues and strategies among the plans.
We found that all 51 plans identified transportation infrastructure as a conservation issue. Specifically, the plans related the following general impacts to transportation planning and construction:
- Habitat loss and fragmentation
- Spread of invasive species
- Road kill mortality
- Altered hydrologic regimes
- Modified population migrations and dynamics
We searched for actions tied directly to transportation issues and found that the states included a wide range of actions relating to transportation. Forty states recognized the need to work with transportation agencies by including one or more of the following actions:
- Improve coordination between wildlife and transportation agencies
- Enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with transportation agencies
- Provide data and technical assistance to transportation planners
- Get more involved in transportation planning and permitting
In addition to promoting coordination, the wildlife plans can provide transportation agencies with information about priority species and habitats and, in many cases, maps of priority conservation areas. The final section of our report presents a set of recommendations, based on information gleaned from the plans, for improving coordination and reducing transportation impacts on wildlife.
The State Wildlife Action Plans are an opportunity for wildlife agencies and transportation planners to begin a dialogue about this issue and foster improved collaboration in the future. Future research should put these plans into action by overlaying GIS layers of transportation plans with maps of conservation opportunity areas, priority habitats, and locations and ranges for species of concern. Further analysis of the plans by transportation planners to identify useful features and information gaps in the plans could help wildlife agencies improve their plans in the future.
State Wildlife Action Plans: State Wildlife Agencies and Transportation Agencies Working Together to Prevent Wildlife from Becoming Endangered
- David Chadwick, Senior Program Association, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC, Phone: 202-624-7890.
As a requirement of the federal Wildlife Conservation and Restoration Program and State Wildlife Grants program, each state fish and wildlife agency has developed a wildlife action plan, known technically as a "comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy." The wildlife action plans identify the actions that are needed to prevent wildlife from becoming endangered in each state, including habitat conservation, management, restoration, and research and monitoring. Every state has completed an action plan, presenting an historic opportunity to improve the conservation of at-risk wildlife across the nation.
Since the wildlife action plans draw together the best scientific data, input from a broad array of experts and stakeholders, and recommendations from prior planning efforts, they present the most comprehensive assessment of what needs to be done in each state to conserve declining and imperiled wildlife. The wildlife action plans complement existing fish and wildlife management activities focused on recreationally harvested game and sportfish species. Because the action plans are focused on preventing wildlife from becoming endangered, they can be a powerful platform for a range of collaborative, preventive conservation planning and restoration activities.
Using Tools to Support Decision-Making for Multiple Benefits in Transportation and Conservation
- Shara Howie, Sector Relations Manager, NatureServe, Boulder, CO, Phone: 703-797-4811.
- Kimberly Majerus, Natural Resource and GIS Analyst, FHWA-Resource Center, Illinois, Phone: 708-283-4346.
- Shari Schaftlein, Team Leader, FHWA Project Development and Environmental Review Office, Phone: 202-366-5570.
One of the challenges faced by transportation and environmental practitioners is to keep pace with policy and technology advancements and capitalize upon new tools and methods as they become available. Several existing efforts and new initiatives are underway to improve practices in the use of tools within transportation program delivery. For example, the FHWA Headquarters Project Development and Environmental Review Office, FHWA Division Offices, state departments of transportation, NatureServe, and Defenders of Wildlife hosted workshops in Arizona, Arkansas, and Colorado to bring together transportation and environmental practitioners to discuss ways to link efforts for conservation and transportation planning. One result from the workshops is an expanded awareness of available information, data, and tools that can support the integration of conservation and transportation efforts and transportation program and project delivery. Another result from the workshops is evidence of the importance of face-to-face interactions between professionals in transportation and environmental and resource agencies. This paper includes a discussion of the approaches used in the workshops and successes and lessons learned. Several other existing efforts and new advancements that are moving forward to expand the use of data and tools in transportation decision-making are also discussed. The purpose of this paper is to highlight examples of specific types of expertise, data, and tools that can immediately be used to assist transportation and environmental practitioners achieve their goals and meet their requirements.
Multi-scale and Context-Sensitive Statewide Environmental Mitigation Planning Tool for Transportation Projects in California
The University of California Information Center for the Environment (ICE) and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) are developing a GIS-based analytical framework to improve the effectiveness of biological mitigation throughout California. Goals include incorporating the best available sets of mapped natural resource data into the early project planning and preliminary environmental assessments for single and multiple projects. Incorporation of these data will facilitate early and more strategic identification of mitigation requirements and opportunities, for both single-project and regional mitigation efforts.
The cost of delays and over-runs due to late and fragmented project-by-project environmental planning and mitigation in California is estimated at $75 million per year. Developing systematic GIS-based decision-support tools to identify important species and habitats, both those impacted directly by Caltrans activities and those that might contribute to effective mitigation in the same locale or watershed will permit Caltrans, counties, and environmental regulators to incorporate the results of biological impact assessments earlier in the planning process, and identify opportunities mitigating the combined biological impacts of many projects in a given area. By building upon previous efforts and using tools known to be effective for integrated analyses, this project will help Caltrans improve planning results, decrease costs, improve project delivery schedules and provide greater environmental protection in the long-term.
To accomplish these goals, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) analysis and conservation planning principles are being applied to develop multi-scale long-range (10-year) mitigation need forecasts for each Caltrans district, county, and watershed in the State of California. These will be used to determine the cumulative mitigation needs for early biological mitigation planning of multiple projects in a given area. Available statewide biological data have been integrated into a database that can be queried by Caltrans district, county, or any of six levels of watershed classification. For a queried geographic area, the database returns the biological resources expected to exist in the area based on the available data, as well as the potential impacts to these resources from Caltrans projects that are currently funded to be constructed in the area over the next 10 years. The type of project programmed to occur was then used to estimate the impact zone of each project (e.g. road repaving, road widening, new road, etc.). Then, by querying the database for a given geographic region, the area, habitats and species potentially affected by cumulative biological impacts from all programmed highway projects in that region can be estimated. From this, estimates of area and types of lands that would need to be acquired for mitigation can be determined.
This project provides a framework for analyzing and estimating biological mitigation needs that could be generalized for use in transportation planning in other geographic areas, as well as for other types of planning. The database schema developed here could easily be adapted to analyze the potential impacts and mitigation needs for urban growth planning efforts, and other development projects with biological impacts that require biological mitigation planning. Overall, by integrating available data into a useful database format, this project has developed a system for assessing long-term biological mitigation needs that will assist in the implementation of early biological mitigation planning.
Top of page
California’s Integrated Approach to Collaborative Conservation in Transportation Planning
- Gregg Erickson, Chief – Biological Studies and Technical Assistance Office, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Sacramento, CA, Phone: 916-654-6296.
California's unique biodiversity in the context of strong growth pressures, limited resources and disseminated land use authority creates a unique challenge. That challenge is to integrate conservation planning into complex transportation decisions as necessary to effectively participate in the preservation and recovery of the state’s 309 federally listed species, rare habitats, anadromous fisheries, fragmented wildlife and related natural resources while delivering a multi-billion dollar transportation improvement program.
This challenging environment also creates a strong desire and opportunity to learn about the roles of integrated planning, tool development and partnerships in creating a common thread to successfully address regional and national issues. Good decision-making and planning efforts are predicated on the rigor of science, sound engineering and good policy, using innovations such as predictive modeling tools for analyzing such large-scale issues. These show great promise to effectively integrate conservation planning and transportation decisions.
The Department’s anadromous fish passage, animal vehicle collision reduction and advanced mitigation planning efforts illustrate challenges, approaches, tradeoffs and lessons learned as programs are developed and implemented. The role of partnerships with stakeholders, universities and resource agency partners provides a foundation for transitioning from accommodation to true stewardship. This collaboration results in better transportation decisions, resource conservation, and common advancement of science as illustrated by related presentations at the 2007 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (ICOET) and this unifying presentation of integrated approaches.
Linking Statewide Connectivity to Highway Mitigation: Taking the Next Step in Linking Colorado’s Landscapes
- Julia Kintsch, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project Denver, CO, Phone: 303-454-3344.
Statewide connectivity planning represents an important first step for informing the transportation planning process at the statewide and regional levels. However, without finer scale assessment, such broad-scale planning does not provide sufficient information for integration into project-level designs. The Linking Colorado’s Landscapes project – designated as a 2006 Exemplary Ecosystem Initiative by the Federal Highway Administration – was initiated in 2003 to identify, prioritize, and assess wildlife movement linkages throughout Colorado. The project developed as a collaborative effort between the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP). Under this unique partnership, a FHWA grant enabled CDOT to contract with SREP for the development of a connectivity assessment in Colorado. This arrangement has facilitated CDOT’s consideration of landscape-scale permeability for wildlife while addressing the state’s transportation needs and environmental stewardship objectives.
Linking Colorado's Landscapes consisted of two phases: a statewide assessment of broad-scale wildlife linkages, and an in-depth assessment of twelve of the highest priority linkages. Now complete, the challenge for the project partners lies in integrating both the vision for a connected landscape and the more detailed recommendations into all levels of transportation development – from long range transportation plans to on-the-ground transportation projects. This paper describes the methods and opportunities for implementing the vision as well as the site-specific recommendations provided in Linking Colorado’s Landscapes.
Wildlife Connectivity Across Utah’s Highways
- Paul West, Wildlife Program Manager, Utah DOT, Salt Lake City, UT, Phone: 801-965-4672.
The Utah Department of Transportation sponsored a workshop to identify major sections of Utah's highways that disrupt wildlife connectivity. This workshop was attended by representatives from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR), U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and several private consulting and conservation groups.
During the workshop, and subsequently in some of the UDWR offices, 64 separate connectivity zones were identified. These were prioritized based on professional opinions and experience of biologists who were familiar with the linkage areas. From this, it was estimated that 222 miles of Utah's roads and freeways cross through critically important connectivity zones, 287 miles of roads cross through highly important zones, and 754 miles cross through moderate priority areas.
Patch Occupancy Models and Black Bear Management in the Southeastern Coastal Plain: A Potential Tool?
- Jay Clark, Department of Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries, Univ. of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, Phone: 931-308-7570.
- Frank van Manen, U.S. Geological Survey, Southern Appalachian Field Branch, Knoxville, TN.
- Joseph Clark, U.S. Geological Survey, Southern Appalachian Field Branch, Knoxville, TN.
Habitat fragmentation in the southeastern Coastal Plain is widely regarded as a central issue in the management of black bear (Ursus americanus) populations. Further habitat loss and fragmentation, and increases in human density, may influence the persistence of black bears throughout this region. Therefore, tools to evaluate these impacts are needed to encourage and allow for an integrated, regional-scale approach to management. Stochastic patch occupancy models (SPOMs) represent a group of metapopulation models that are based only on the occupancy status and size and distribution (i.e., connectivity) of habitat patches. Application of such models may provide wildlife managers and landscape planners with useful tools to evaluate the potential impacts of future land-use changes (e.g., construction of new highways) on the persistence of wildlife populations at a regional scale and to determine how those impacts may be mitigated (e.g., establishing corridors). We developed a SPOM for the area encompassing the entire range of the Florida black bear (U. a. floridanus) and applied the model to quantify colonization and extinction rates of habitat patches across the network. We adjusted interpatch distances using least-cost distance analyses to account for characteristics of the landscape (i.e., roads and land-cover types) and their potential effects on dispersal among patches. The best-fitting model incorporated effects of land-cover type and roads, including type of road. Using the parameter estimates of the best model, we performed a 25-year simulation of patch incidence to assess the potential for natural recolonization of unoccupied patches and to identify patches that may become extinct over the 25-year period. The simulation predicted only limited population expansion but also predicted low potential for extinction, thus occupancy patterns exhibited high stability. To demonstrate the potential utility of our model to managers and landscape planners, we applied our models to hypothetical management scenarios. We demonstrated how our model could be used to guide restoration efforts by identifying those patches within an assemblage that, if restocked, would maximize recolonization potential for surrounding patches. We also demonstrated how our model could be used to assess impacts on connectivity among existing bear populations resulting from changes in landscape structure and composition (e.g., highway upgrades). Additionally, we applied the parameter estimates of the best model, tested the validity of its application, and performed simulations for the area encompassing the entire range of the federally threatened Louisiana black bear (U. a. luteolus) and populations of the American black bear (U. a. americanus) in Arkansas. Although SPOMs may prove to be a valuable tool for regional-scale management of black bears in the southeastern Coastal Plain, we caution that the methodology used to develop our model has not been attempted for large carnivores and the reliability of our predictions has not been thoroughly tested. Thus, we emphasize that our model should be used in conjunction with other available information and not provide the sole basis for making management decisions.
Top of page
The Use of Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) for Evaluating Impacts to, and Assessing Mitigation for, Terrestrial Wildlife Habitat for Transportation Projects
- Rick Black, Senior Environmental Scientist, HDR Engineering, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT, Phone: 801-743-7831.
Habitat Suitability Indices were used to evaluate terrestrial wildlife habitat impacts for a newly proposed 35-mile highway that runs through five different habitat types.
Typically for transportation projects, detailed impact analysis of terrestrial wildlife is limited to federally listed Threatened and Endangered species, or even State sensitive species. Terrestrial wildlife habitats are usually addressed by acreage of impacts, at best, but often only qualitatively. The quality of the habitat or the importance of the habitat is often not addressed. However, if mitigation is required for the identified impacts to these habitats, it is often difficult to quantify appropriate mitigation measures for ambiguous impacts.
For the Mountain View Corridor EIS, Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs) were used to help quantify and qualify the terrestrial wildlife habitat the proposed 35-mile highway might impact. Utah State Division of Wildlife Resource Agency personnel and United States Fish and Wildlife Agency personnel were consulted with at the onset of the analysis to properly identify analytical methods. Together with environmental scientists, habitat types and species to represent these habitat types were identified and agreed upon.
The model provided a quick and efficient means of data collection, leading to an index of wildlife habitat quality within the project corridor. Output results were then used by the NEPA team (including agency personnel) to help shape alternatives and select alternatives to be carried through the NEPA analysis process.
If through the NEPA process, mitigation for non-federally-listed terrestrial wildlife habitat is proposed or required, this model will help establish the proper mitigation for the impacts.
Is Strategic Environmental Assessment an Effective Tool to Conserve Biodiversity Against Transport Infrastructure Development?
- Csaba Varga, Land Stewardship Advisory Service of BirdLife Hungary, Budapest, Hungary, Phone: 00-36-30-238-5646.
The European Union is at the threshold of a new development period. Hungary as a Member State of the EU was given an opportunity to frame its comprehensive development programs for the next seven years (2007-2013). One of these programs is the Transport Operative Program, which focuses on large-scale, large-volume national transport infrastructure developments including road, air, inland water, rail, and combined transport. The Program covers a defined period, however, it will assign the direction of developments for a longer time and foreshadow the vision of the whole transport system in future.
Under the related EU legislation, a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) must be accomplished for these kinds of programs. SEA is a specific procedure to identify and control environmentally harmful processes at the earliest and highest level of planning. SEA covers all fields of environmental issues including wildlife conservation and biodiversity maintenance.
In the course of the present research we examined the opportunities the SEA's institutionalized framework (regulations as well as measures) offers or might offer to mitigate the direct and indirect impacts of transportation via the nascent Hungarian Transport Operative Program.
The half-year-long study conducted between June and December, 2006 primarily aimed at exploring opportunities lying in strategic-level assessment to conserve biodiversity at national and regional level and to treat habitat fragmentation. Our study focused on identifying the main issues that can be handled by the SEA and which ecological conflicts can be – at least partly - resolved at this level.
During the course of the research, we used experience gathered by older EU Member States like the UK, Italy and Spain that have been formulated in the form of guidelines. The significance of our research is strengthened by the fact that the overwhelming majority of one out of the nine European eco-regions (called Pannonian Biogeographical Region) can be found in Hungary. It is a great challenge for the country to meet Europe's controversial expectations: how to conserve this valuable area but at the same time carry out a large transport infrastructural development.
The results gained suggest that SEA is a satisfactory tool to indicate large-scale harmful processes; however, it does not guarantee certain and sizable mitigation of effects unless its methodology is developed further and integrated more efficiently into the implementation process of future transportation strategies.
Effects of Configuration of Road Networks on Landscape Connectivity
- Jochen Jaeger, Research Associate, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, Ecosystem Management, Zurich, Switzerland, Phone: 41-44-632-0826; and Visiting Scholar at the Road Ecology Center April-June 2007, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA, Phone: 530-752-3608.
Wildlife biologists, traffic planners, and decision makers are increasingly concerned about the effects of landscape fragmentation caused by transportation infrastructure. Data on the degree of landscape fragmentation are urgently needed for monitoring environmental change, identification of trends, and as a basis for investigating the effects of fragmentation on larger scales. The method of effective mesh size is currently used in several countries for national environmental reporting, e.g., as one of 24 core indicators in Germany. The objectives of this paper are to develop a new method for the quantification of landscape connectivity that incorporates variable barrier strengths into the effective mesh size, and to apply it to the question of how the configuration of transportation networks affects landscape connectivity, using empirical data on ungulates and amphibians. The paper also addresses the question of how crossing structures can enhance landscape connectivity most efficiently depending on their placement and spatial arrangement.
The outcomes include the following principles:
- The more crossing structures were implemented, the higher the resulting landscape connectivity.
- The higher the traffic volume, the larger the difference between the configuration with and without crossing structures, and the more pronounced the differences among the various configurations with crossing structures.
- The more patches can be accessed from any patch by few road crossings (i.e., high number of nearest neighbours and next nearest neighbours), the higher the degree of landscape connectivity.
- The closer to each other the roads are (i.e., the more bundled the roads are), the higher the degree landscape connectivity.
- However, putting all traffic on one road can be better or worse for landscape connectivity, depending on how quickly crossing success decreases with increasing traffic volume.
- The number and quality of crossing structures are highly relevant.
Wildlife passages that are not satisfactorily functional provide little benefit to landscape connectivity. (7) Large patches should be connected first. Only once the large patches are well enough connected does the additional connection with smaller patches provide higher additional connectivity than an improvement of the connectivity between the large patches.
The results demonstrate that the topology-sensitive effective mesh size is a suitable tool to study the effects of road network configuration and wildlife passage location on landscape connectivity. Because traffic volume may vary over time, landscape connectivity can vary over a day, week, or year. This new method will probably be applied widely in the future as the current lack of quantitative empirical data on the barrier strength as a function of road type, traffic volume, and animal species is currently addressed more and more systematically by wildlife biologists.
Integrating Habitat Fragmentation Analysis Into Transportation Planning Using the Effective Mesh Size Landscape Metric
- Evan Girvetz, Road Ecology Center and Graduate Group in Ecology, and Information Center for the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA, Phone: 530-752-0225.
- Jochen Jaeger, Road Ecology Center, University of California, Davis, CA, and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, Institute for Terrestrial Ecosystems, Group of Ecosystem Management, Zurich, Switzerland.
- Alison Berry, Road Ecology Center, University of California, Davis, CA.
- James Thorne, Information Center for the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA.
Habitat fragmentation due to transport infrastructure and other human development poses a threat to many wildlife species. This threat may differ depending on the species and types of fragmenting elements. There is a need to quantify the level of habitat fragmentation and the impact of habitat fragmentation on different wildlife species for use in transportation planning. Such measures would be useful in assessing the cumulative impacts of multiple road projects on wildlife connectivity and habitat suitability, for long-range wildlife impact mitigation planning for transportation projects, and as an indicator for the environmental monitoring of habitat fragmentation due to roads.
Effective mesh size (meff) is a biologically relevant landscape metric that quantifies the degree of landscape fragmentation. The definition of the effective mesh size is based on the probability that two randomly chosen points in a region will be located in the same non-fragmented area of land. We calculated effective mesh size to assess the level of landscape fragmentation in the State of California, USA, based on four fragmentation geometries defined by a combination of highways, minor roads, urbanized areas, agricultural areas, and natural fragmenting features (e.g., rivers, lakes, and alpine areas). The effective mesh size for these four fragmenting geometries were calculated for the entire State of California using eight sets of planning units: 1) transportation planning districts, 2) municipal county boundaries, and 3) six levels of watersheds. To demonstrate the methodology, we examined how effective mesh size may impact two species important to transportation planning in California: mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and mountain lion (Puma concolor). The calculated effective mesh sizes were compared with the home range sizes and daily movement distances of the selected focal species to determine the potential impacts of habitat fragmentation and to identify areas where transportation projects will potentially impact these focal species.
Based on the results of this analysis, we suggest that integrating an effective mesh size-based tool into transportation planning frameworks would be valuable to improve identification of potential landscape level impacts early in the planning process. The calculation of effective mesh size will give transportation planners a way to analyze the cumulative impacts of roads in districts, counties, and watersheds and can be used as an environmental indicator for ecological assessment of transportation system impacts.
Top of page
|
