Making Connections for Wildlife
Aligning Transportation Projects with State Wildlife Action Plans:  A Step-by-Step Guide for Integrated Conservation Planning

Step Three: Develop Process for Early-Identification of Potential Wildlife Conflicts and Apply ‘Matchmaking’ System to Ensure that Mitigation is Placed Effectively

There is no one size fits all solution – every state DOT, and even different regions within the same state, undergo different processes in the development of a transportation project, and an early-warning flagging system must be designed within the context of that state’s project planning process. At this stage in the process, the team must determine the practical and technical aspects of integrating data layers on wildlife linkages into the project planning database and developing a system to alert planners and project managers to potential wildlife conflicts. This step requires the intensive participation of the Partnership Team, particularly those members that are engaged in various parts of the transportation planning and design process (i.e., planner, project manager, GIS staff, environmental clearance staff and a regional biologist).

Regardless of this variance in the planning processes, all states should consider the following points in determining an appropriate structure for an early-warning system:

• Is the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), which outlines near-term (typically 3-5 years) project priorities and funding, available as a spatial data layer?
• What is the framework for overlaying the STIP with wildlife linkages and other environmental data to identify potential conflict areas? Who is responsible for identifying these conflict areas and conveying wildlife needs to project designers at the outset of project development?
• Once a transportation project has been flagged as intersecting with a wildlife core habitat or linkage area, what follow-up steps will be needed to develop and implement specific avoidance and mitigation measures to obtain the most functional and cost-effective solution for the diversity of species present in the project area?

Knowing where there are potential conflicts with wildlife habitat and movement areas is half the battle. The other half rests in developing effective mitigation measures and locating them in the best places. The FHWA-developed Eco-Logical approach proposes ecosystem-based mitigation as a means for “restoring and preserving habitat and other ecosystem feature in conjunction with or in advance of projects in areas where environmental needs and the potential environmental contributions are the greatest” (Brown 2006).

Links:

Eco-Logical – An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects (FHWA)

The matchmaking system is based on an assessment of the overlap between the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP) of funded projects for the next five years and the mapped wildlife habitat and linkage areas. The purpose of this step is to provide a landscape-scale perspective in the evaluation of possible avoidance and mitigation measures to ensure that these measures are effective and compatible at the ecosystem level. This should include looking beyond the boundaries of a given transportation project to find the most effective mitigation sites. The matchmaking system provides a framework for proactively linking conservation priorities with mitigation needs to develop functional and cost-effective solutions.

In addition, project-level site assessments and collaboration with local wildlife agency staff further advances the consultation requirement as stipulated by Section 6001 in the 2005 Federal Highway Bill while advancing the goals of the State Wildlife Action Plan to minimize the threat of habitat fragmentation and restore connectivity.

Matchmaking: Considerations to Ensure Effective Placement of Mitigation

The following considerations should be evaluated to ensure that mitigation is placed in the most appropriate location. Conducting this assessment, as needed, early in the project planning process allows transportation agencies to meet mitigation requirements up-front, when they are both cheaper and easier to accomplish.

1)      Identify the full suite of species impacted and their associated habitat types,

2)      Assess the degree of conservation threat to the species of interest,

3)      Identify adjacent land ownership and protection status,

4)      Conduct a roadway engineering assessment to determine the feasibility of potential mitigations,

5)      Identify partners for collaboration on linkage protection and assess conservation opportunities,

6)      Assess the cost effectiveness of potential mitigations.

Colorado Case Study

The Colorado Partnership Team reviewed the planning process to determine where early consideration of these data would be most effective and appropriate. During these discussions, members of the team expressed concern about potential misinterpretation of the wildlife linkage data by non-biologists. In response, the Partnership Team agreed that within the DOT, the regional biologists would be the keepers of these data, and would be responsible for overlaying the linkage data with the STIP to highlight areas of overlap between planned transportation projects and wildlife movement zones (Fig 7). The biologists, in turn, would report areas with potential wildlife conflicts to planners, engineers and other participants involved in project design. The biologists would also use these data to focus their in-the-field assessments to identify specific mitigation measures. In this example, we found that in bypassing the larger database structure, we also bypassed numerous technical complications, ultimately facilitating the biologists’ consideration of wildlife linkage data early in the planning process.

In Colorado, the wildlife linkage data is a new line item of the checklist of environmental considerations that are reviewed when new transportation projects are being planned.

Figure 7: This overlay of a linkage model with the current STIP indicates that an upcoming transportation project across this entire linkage area.

Prior to this project, wildlife connectivity needs were considered on an ad-hoc basis, depending on the awareness level of the individual CDOT biologist conducting the review, and their knowledge of wildlife movement areas for the array of species. This project removes the burden for each biologist to possess exhaustive knowledge of wildlife movement areas across the state, instead providing a comprehensive database of this information to complement their knowledge and expertise. These data cannot take the place of on-the-ground field surveys in the identification and placement of specific mitigation measures, but the linkage models will help to focus and guide these efforts, ultimately streamlining the process to improve landscape permeability for wildlife.

Links:

Colorado’s 2007-2009 Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP)

Colorado’s Wildlife Habitat and Linkage Planning Maps

Questions to Ask

• What is the process for updating the STIP and how frequently is it updated? How can the parties responsible for reviewing the overlap between the STIP and wildlife habitat and linkage areas be sure that they are reviewing the most up-to-date version of the STIP?
• How do statewide transportation planners interact with regional planners?
• Who at the transportation agency is best situated and has a satisfactory understanding of the data to be able to interpret them appropriately for planning and project design purposes to ensure that the best mitigation occurs in the best places?

Key to Success

• Take the time to learn the steps involved in the transportation planning process, form long-range planning through project development – who is engaged at which stage, and who has access to which data. In Colorado, we found that there are a number of restrictions across departments in which data may be accessed and how it may be viewed. A clear understanding of these nuances is needed to ensure that wildlife linkage data can be made accessible to the right people at the right time.
• While the modeled linkages are ‘spatially explicit’, we need to ensure that users do not assume that the boundaries are hard and fast, and that there is no wildlife movement over the roadway beyond these boundaries.
• Be willing to adjust pre-conceived notions about what an early-warning system looks like to create a system that is best equipped to achieve the desired outcomes.