AASHTO PH16-2016 PRACTITIONER S HANDBOOK IMPLEMENTING ECO-LOGICAL INTEGRATING TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND ECOLOGICAL DECISION MAKING (Revision 1).pdf

1、Implementing Eco-Logical: Integrating Transportation Planning and Ecological Decision Making 1 AASHTO PRACTITIONERS HANDBOOK This Handbook has been produced through a cooperative agree- ment between the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the Federal Highw

2、ay Administration (FHWA) as part of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). The Center for Environmental Excel- lence by AASHTO endorses this Handbook. The Centers Hand- books provide practical advice on a range of environmental issues that arise during the planning, development, and

3、operations of transportation projects. Each Handbook is developed in cooperation with an advisory group that includes representatives for the Federal Highway Ad- ministration (FHWA), state departments of transportation, and oth- er agencies as appropriate. The Handbooks are primarily intended for us

4、e by project managers and other who are responsible for coordinating compliance with a wide range of regulatory requirements. With their needs in mind, each Handbook includes: key issues to consider; a background briefing; practical tips for achieving compliance; and a list of reference materials. I

5、n addition, key regulations, guidance materials, and sample documents for each Handbook are posted on the Centers web site at http:/environment.transportation.org. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 16 October 2016 IMPLEMENTING ECO-LOGICAL: INTEGRATING TRANSPORTATION

6、PLANNING AND ECOLOGICAL DECISION MAKING This handbook is intended to introduce transportation practitioners to a method of integrating ecological interests into transportation planning to address natural resource conservation and restoration priorities at a regional scale, and to establish a more re

7、liable and efficient delivery program for projects with partner agencies. Issues covered in this Handbook include: Engaging resource and regulatory agencies as planning partners Adopting an ecological framework for planning Prioritizing resources for conservation and restoration Developing a future

8、transportation program in partnership with agencies and stakeholders to minimize impacts and direct mitigation efforts Establishing programmatic agreements for project review, permitting, and mitigation crediting Maintaining the framework and the partnershipCopyright 2016, American Association of St

9、ate Highway and Transportation Officials. All Rights Reserved. This book, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. This material is based upon work supported by the Federal Highway Administration under C

10、ooperative Agreement No. DTFH61- 10-H-00008. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the Author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the view of the Federal Highway Administration. 2016 by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. A

11、ll rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Implementing Eco-Logical: Integrating Transportation Planning and Ecological Decision Making 1 This Handbook assists transportation agencies in defining a path and realistic goals for implementing the Eco-Logical process for their prog

12、rams. In 2006, a team of representatives from eight Federal agencies, including the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), published Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects 1to present a vision of early collaboration among transportation, natural resource, and regula

13、tory agencies when planning infrastructure projects and programs. In that vision, the interagency collaboration during system-wide planning provides an opportunity for sustaining or restoring ecological systems and their functions and values on an ecosystem scale, while also identifying more context

14、 sensitive solutions for the transportation plan, and improving environmental compliance and documentation. The goals of Eco-Logical are to: Help state and local transportation agencies improve decisionmaking; Minimize the time and costs associated with planning, environmental reviews, and permittin

15、g; Provide for more effective environmental mitigation; Capitalize on environmental enhancement opportunities; and Improve public perception of the transportation project delivery processes. Many state departments of transportation (DOTs) and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) have used some

16、 of the methods that make up the Eco-Logical approach. Eco-Logical broadens the scope of interagency cooperation with an overarching methodology to guide both transportation agencies (state DOTs and MPOs) and resource agencies in addressing natural resource issues system-wide. The Eco-Logical concep

17、ts for addressing natural resource avoidance, minimization, and mitigation on a broad scale have been organized into a systematic, step-wise process. Background Briefing There is a growing emphasis on resource conservation and planning at the regional level rather than the localized, project level.

18、Recent studies recognize that consolidated, regional-level mitigation provides ecological economies of scale by lowering the cost per acre of restoration, improving the restoration success rate, and increasing the protection to resident species with larger, unfragmented habitats (Murcia 1995, Schwar

19、tz 1999, Drechsler and Watzold 2009). 2,3,4 Federal initiatives toward regional infrastructure planning include: 1. Since the late 1980s, there has been a trend toward watershed-level planning to address water quality in accordance with Sections 303 (impaired waters) and 402 (National Pollutant Disc

20、harge Elimination System) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) 1 Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-06-01, FHWA-HEP-06-011 (April 2006). https:/www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp. 2 Murcia, C. 1995. “Edge effects in fragmented forests:

21、 implications for conservation.” Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 10(2): 58-62. https:/ 3 Schwartz, M.W. 1999. “Choosing the appropriate scale of reserves for conservation.” Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 30:83-108. https:/ 4 Drechsler, M. and F. Watzold. 2009. “Applying tradable permits

22、to biodiversity conservation: Effects of space-dependent conservation benefits and cost heterogeneity on habitat allocation.” Ecological Economics. 68(4): 1083-1092. https:/ Applying_Tradable_Permits_to_Biodiversity_Conservation_Effects_of_Space-Dependent_Conservation_Benefits_and_Cost_Heterogeneity

23、_ on_Habitat_Allocation. Overview 2016 by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.2 Implementing Eco-Logical: Integrating Transportation Planning and Ecological Decision Making at Federal, state, and local levels. Over the

24、years, a number of Federal and state watershed management guidance documents have been published, such as the comprehensive Handbook for Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (USEPA, 2008). 5 2. In 2002, Executive Order 13274, “Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infr

25、astructure Project Reviews,” provided further direction for interagency coordination among Federal, state, tribal, and local governments. The order directs Federal agencies that conduct environmental reviews for transportation projects to implement administrative, policy, and procedural mechanisms t

26、hat ensure completion of such reviews in a timely manner and advance environmental stewardship. The order created an interagency Transportation Infrastructure Streamlining Task Force, chaired by the U.S. DOT and including seven other Federal departments and agencies, to monitor and assist agencies i

27、n their efforts to expedite reviews of transportation infrastructure projects and issue permits, and to identify and promote policies to streamline the review and approval of transportation projects. 3. In 2005, FHWA issued guidance on linking the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process wit

28、h long-range transportation planning. In 2008, FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) amended the transportation planning regulations to allow the adoption of transportation planning decisions and analyses for use in the NEPA process. 6 4. In August 2005, Section 6001 of the Safe, Account

29、able, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) amended 23 USC 134 and 135 to require every state and MPO to consult with state, tribal, and local resource agencies when developing long-range plans, and require this consultation to involve a “comparison of transp

30、ortation plans with state and tribal conservation plans or maps, if available,” and a “comparison of transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources, if available.” Under Section 6001, statewide and metropolitan long- range plans must now include a discussion of “potential envir

31、onmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan.” This discussion must be developed “in consultation with Federal, state, and tribal wi

32、ldlife, land management, and regulatory agencies.” The Eco-Logical regional approach to mitigation provides a mechanism for agencies to meet the SAFETEA-LU Section 6001 requirement related to identifying “activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental funct

33、ions.” 5. In 2008, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency issued regulations clarifying the standards used for determining compensatory mitigation for impacts to waters of the United States. 7The regulations “establish performance standards and criteria for the use

34、 of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation, mitigation banks, and in-lieu programs to improve the quality and success of compensatory mitigation projects for activities authorized by Department of the Army permits”. 6. In 2011, FHWA published the FHWA Scenario Planning Guidebook. 8FHWA establ

35、ished its scenario planning program in 2004 to promote scenario planning as a technique to help citizens and stakeholders in the public and private sectors understand how demographic and land-use changes could potentially impact transportation networks in a state, community, region, or study area. I

36、t identifies land use, demographic, economic, political, and environmental factors as variables that affect transportation networks and operations. Scenario planning is a key element in regional transportation system planning. 7. In 2012, Section 1310 of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century

37、 Act (MAP-21) established 23 USC 168, which provides an additional framework (independent of the existing process in 23 CFR 450) for linking the transportation planning process and the NEPA process. MAP-21 included a new provision that identifies scenario planning as an optional part of the metropol

38、itan planning process. 8. In 2012, MAP-21 Section 1311 (23 USC 169) provided for the development of programmatic mitigation plans as part of the statewide or metropolitan transportation planning process. Programmatic mitigation plans may be developed on a 5 U.S. EPA Report 841-B-08-002, Handbook for

39、 Developing Watershed Plans to Restore and Protect Our Waters (March 2008). https:/www.epa.gov/polluted-runoff-nonpoint-source-pollution/handbook-developing-watershed-plans-restore-and-protect. 6 See 23 CFR 450.212 and 450.318, and 23 CFR Part 450 Appendix A; see also AASHTOs Practitioners Handbook

40、10, Using the Transportation Planning Process to Support the NEPA Process (2008). 7 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final Compensatory Mitigation Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 19670, Apr. 10, 2008 (codified in 33 CFR Part 332). 8 FHWA Report FHWA-HEP-11-004. FHWA Scenario

41、 Planning Guidebook (2011). https:/www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning/scenario_planning_guidebook/. 2016 by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. All rights reserved. Duplication is a violation of applicable law.Implementing Eco-Logical: Integrating T

42、ransportation Planning and Ecological Decision Making 3 regional, ecosystem, watershed, or statewide scale and address one or more resources, as decided by the transportation agency in consultation with the resource agencies. 9. In 2012, Executive Order 13604, “Improving Performance of Federal Permi

43、tting and Review of Infrastructure Projects,” reinforced that Federal permitting and review processes be conducted with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, ensuring the health, safety, and security of communities and the environment while supporting vital economic growth. The Executive Order also

44、directs that these processes must be transparent, consistent, and predictable, and that agencies should set and adhere to timelines and schedules for completing reviews, as well as set and track progress against performance goals. 10. In 2016, Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act (FAST ACT) Se

45、ction 1305 (23 USC 168) “Integration of Planning and Environmental Review” assert that agencies may adopt or incorporate by reference and use a planning product or decision in proceedings relating to any class of action in the environmental review process of the project. The Eco-Logical process is c

46、losely linked to FHWAs Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL) initiative. The PEL is a collaborative and integrated approach to transportation decision making that 1) considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process, and 2) uses the information, an

47、alysis, and products developed during planning to inform the environmental review process. PEL is applicable to any sensitive natural or man-made resource. Eco-Logical Technical Guide. In 2011, the Transportation Research Boards (TRB) Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2), in cooperation

48、 with FHWA and AASHTO, funded the additional development of the Managers Guide to the Integrated Ecological Framework, 9a step-by-step technical guide to implement the concepts laid out in Eco-Logical (Table 1). The Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) is a nine-step technical framework that supports transportation/infrastructure planners and resource specialists in the use of a standardized, science-based approach to identify and integrate ecological priorities into transportation and infrastructure decision making. 10 The IEF applies individual project planning protocols at the