Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portal
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Collaborating in Transportation Decision Making – Information for Resource Specialists
TCAPP provides knowledge and tools to support collaboration among all partners including resource specialists and transportation agencies.
The goal is streamlined transportation decisions with better outcomes for the natural environment.
The approach is straightforward: identify conservation and restoration priorities at ecosystem scales and step up the level of collaboration to: (1) avoid impacts to priority conservation areas; (2) locate mitigation for the greatest benefit to multiple resources and (3) better achieve the goals of resource protection laws.
There are two main tools for resource specialists in TCAPP.
- The Decision Guide represents the key decisions in transportation and the data required to support collaboration. The Decision Guide can help resource specialists understand what information is being collected, how that information is being used and how they can have an impact.
- The Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) is a nine step process designed to bring about efficient, integrated consultation on natural resources to inform transportation and mitigation decisions.
Data, analysis and decisions from the IEF inform the key decisions described in the Decision Guide. The Decision Guide and IEF can be entered at any point in the transportation or ecological decision making processes.
Explore the tabs below to learn more about the Decision Guide, the IEF and how they work together.
- Helps to better avoid and minimize impacts to important natural resources through early and ongoing collaboration.
- Can result in more predictable, streamlined and transparent permitting.
- Assures resource agencies that mitigation investments will be implemented and transportation agencies that they will be counted.
- Focuses time and money on the protection of critical natural resources.
- Facilitates assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts.
- Helps establish monitoring and performance measures.
Has TCAPP benefited you? Visit TCAPP Connect and tell others.
TCAPP Connect: A community of interest about collaboration in transportation.
Library: A growing collection of research about collaboration in transportation and the environment.
Practical Applications: How TCAPP approaches specific topics of interest including ecological cumulative effects assessment and linking planning & NEPA.
Transportation Decision Guide
The TCAPP approach to transportation decision making is inclusive, transparent, and collaborative. The Decision Guide is the foundation of TCAPP. It consists of all of the key decisions in four phases of transportation (long range planning, programming, corridor planning and environmental review). For each key decision TCAPP provides:
- The purpose and outcome
- Connections between transportation decision making and other processes like ecological planning
- Connections between the phases of transportation decision making
- Data inputs
- Technology and tools
- Questions that decision makers ask
The Decision Guide recognizes four partners in transportation decision making. Understanding the role and interests of each partner is essential to collaboration.
Explore the graphic below to learn more about the roles of resource agencies.
Select any key decision to access all of the supporting data.
Decision Maker
The agency (or agencies) that acts as the lead for the key decision or has a requirement to take legal action as part of the decision-making process. This partner has the ability to stop the process if the interests of the agency are not being adequately met at this key decision.
Advisor
A decision-making partner that provides input and feedback at the key decision, including indications of support or opposition to the decision and any particular issues of concern. While this partner cannot stop the process at this key decision, their feedback and support may be critical to avoid revisiting issues or decisions in future key decisions where the advising agency is the decision maker.
Observer
A decision-making partner with limited involvement in a key decision. An observer is invited to participate in the process and kept updated for informational purposes, but does not provide substantive input or direction at the key decision.
No Role
A decision-making partner has no interest in the key decision because the resulting action is outside the role/involvement of its agency.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Advisor
Agree to collaborate in long range planning and ensure appropriate information is brought forward and used, including a planning region, goals and priorities from ecological planning.
Advisor
Support a vision and goals that protect the natural and human environment. Advise that ecological goals are considered and provide input on the priority conservation and restoration needs in the planning area and where partners may be able to work together to make a difference across multiple resources of concern.
Advisor
Support the use of evaluation criteria, methods and measures that incorporate ecological planning. Support the use of an agreed upon ecological crediting strategy.
No Role
The deficiencies only represent transportation needs.
Advisor
Advise that data on funding and long-term management options and cost data associated with ecological crediting is considered. Advise if conservation and mitigation spending is planned for in the LRTP and STIP.
Advisor
Support strategies that are sufficiently broad to consider indirect and cumulative impacts, avoidance and minimization of impacts to resources and are supportive of vision and goals developed with input from partners and stakeholders.
Advisor
Advise partners about potential impacts to protected resources or conservation and restoration priorities associated with transportation plan scenarios.
Advisor
Advise the selection of a preferred scenario that is consistent with resource agencies goals. Advise the selection of a preferred scenario that is consistent with a joint vision for conservation/restoration action. Provide input to transportation agency partners about preferred mitigation strategies.
Advisor
US EPA participates in air quality conformity partnership. Other resource agencies have no role.
Advisor
Advise partners in the development of a conservation and mitigation strategy for the preferred transportation scenario. Approve a MOU, agreement or programmatic permit and performance monitoring strategy for mitigation sites.
Decision Maker
USEPA approves the conformity analysis for the LRTP. Other resource agencies have no role.
PROGRAMMING
Observer
Observe the project cost and revenue allocation development.
Observer
Observe the project list drawn from the adopted plan scenario to inform conservation planning of future potential projects.
Advisor
Advise decision makers so that any prioritized mitigation projects and costs from ecological planning inform the prioritization of projects in the TIP.
Observer
Observe the release of the Draft TIP and inform ecological planning based on funding included for mitigation strategies.
Observer
Observe the release of the adopted TIP and inform ecological planning.
No Role
No action on TIP incorporation in STIP.
Decision Maker
USEPA approves STIP with respect to air quality conformity. Other agencies have no role.
CORRIDOR PLANNING
Advisor
Agree to collaborate in the corridor planning process and ensure appropriate information is brought forward and used. Bring forward a planning region, goals and priorities from ecological planning or ensure information carried forward from LRP is up-to-date.
Advisor
Advise that problem statements and opportunities are sufficiently broad to incorporate ecological considerations, opportunities and priorities.
Advisor
Advise that ecological goals are considered in the development of the goals for the corridor. Provide input on the most important ecological needs in the planning area and where partners may be able to work together to make a difference across multiple resources of concern.
Decision Maker
Agree to a scope that provides a clear understanding of what will be needed in and relevant to the environmental review phase.
Advisor
Support the identification and use of evaluation criteria, methods and measures that reflect visions, goals and priorities from ecological planning and incorporate environmental metrics.
Advisor
Support the use of a combined map of conservation priorities, land uses and solutions sets. Support solution sets that avoid conservation, restoration and enhancement priority areas.
Advisor
Support the selection of a preferred solution set that is consistent with ecological priorities in the region. Inform transportation partners about potential mitigation options, cumulative effects and preferred solutions from an ecological perspective. Advise appropriate documentation of all decisions for transfer to the environmental review process.
Advisor
Provide information to support prioritization of solutions as needed, including sharing evaluation criteria, methods and performance measures from ecological planning, documentation of prioritization process.
Advisor
Approve a MOU, agreement or programmatic permit and performance monitoring strategy for mitigation sites. Provide information about prioritized opportunities from ecological planning and methods for prioritizing.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING
Decision Maker
Reach consensus on a scope that is sufficiently broad to consider all options. Identify and support the use of a planning region, goals and conservation priorities from ecological planning. Agree to work with transportation partners. USEPA has an advisory role designated under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.
Decision Maker
USACE approves a purpose and need that can be used for Section 404 requirements. Other resource agencies are advisors, supporting a purpose and need that represents the true need for the project and can be supported by all partners.
Decision Maker
Reach consensus on an initial study area that is sufficiently broad to include all transportation options and consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts. Support the consideration of an ecological planning region(s) in the development of the study area.
Advisor
Support the identification and use of evaluation criteria, methods and measures that reflect resource agencies' vision, goals and priorities and are informed by ecological planning.
Decision Maker
The USACE is a decision-maker, approving a full range of alternatives that meets NEPA, permitting, and consultation requirements. Other resource agencies are advisors, supporting a full range of alternatives that consider their agencies' goals.
Decision Maker
The USACE is a decision-maker approving Alternatives to be Carried Forward that meet NEPA, permitting and consultation requirements and that include/have not eliminated a potential LEDPA. Other resource agencies are advisors, supporting alternatives to be carried forward that have been informed by resource planning.
Decision Maker
USACE is a decision maker – approving the DEIS and validating the sufficiency of any early mitigation strategy. USEPA advises this key decision (pursuant to Section 309 of the CAA). Other resource agencies inform transportation partners about potential direct and cumulative effects.
Decision Maker
USACE is a decision maker, approving a public notice that is consistent with 33 CFR Part 325.3
Decision Maker
USACE approves a preferred alternative that is also the LEDPA, meeting preferences regarding avoidance, minimization, potential conservation and restoration investments and mitigation needs.
Decision Maker
USACE is a decision maker, approving the jurisdictional determination. EPA has veto authority, but it is rarely exercised.
Decision Maker
USACE is a decision maker, approving the avoidance and minimization measures. This is also an important key decision to collaborate with State permitting agencies.
Decision Maker
USACE approves Final EIS that satisfies the regulatory process in order to issue a Section 404 permit. Other resource agencies advise the approval of a Final EIS. Pursuant to Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, USEPA reviews Final EIS if required.
Advisor
Advise that the ROD contain all environmental commitments as appropriate.
Decision Maker
Approve a permit that contains all mitigation agreements as appropriate.
Integrated Ecological Framework(IEF)
- Access the draft Guidelines for Implementing the Integrated Ecological Framework.
- Find out how the IEF and Decision Guide approach ecological cumulative effects assessment.
The IEF is a step-by-step, peer-reviewed, and science-based process that guides transportation and resource specialists in the integration of transportation and ecological decision making.
The IEF responds to two critical needs:
- Identify potential impacts to regulated resources very early in the planning process – so they can be avoided or minimized.
- Assure that any mitigation that must occur will provide effective, measurable, and high quality environmental outcomes.
The IEF process addresses key questions:
- What areas and resources will be directly impacted by transportation?
- How will those resources be impacted cumulatively?
- What areas could be used for mitigation? Which areas would maximize benefits for multiple resources?
- Compared with project by project mitigation, can anticipated long-range mitigation needs for a region be combined to maximize ecological benefits?
The nine steps in the IEF are depicted below. Roll-over each step to
discover the purpose. Click on a step to access detailed information
about implementation, including: anticipated outcomes; sub-steps;
technical guidance; and supporting tools, decision-making questions,
data and case studies.
Build and Strenghten Collaborative Partnerships and Vision
Build a vision of what is most needed for natural resources in the region.
Characterize Resource Status and Integrate Natural Environment Plans
Develop an overall conservation/restoration strategy that integrates conservation/restoration priorities, data, and plans.
Create Regional Ecosystem Framework (Conservation Strategy + Transportation Plan)
Integrate the conservation and restoration strategy with transportation and land use data and plans to create the Regional Ecosystem Framework (REF).
Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives
Identify preferred alternatives that meet both transportation and conservation goals using the regional ecosystem framework.
Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions
Establish mitigation and conservation priorities and rank action opportunities.
Develop Crediting Strategy
Develop a consistent strategy and metrics to measure ecological impacts, restoration benefits, and long-term performance.
Develop Programatic Consultation, Biological Opinion or Permit
Develop memoranda of understanding, agreements, programmatic 404 permits or ESA Section 7 consultations for transportation projects.
Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management and Deliver Projects
Design transportation projects in accordance with ecological objectives and goals, incorporating as appropriate the programmatic agreements, performance measures and ecological metrics to improve project outcomes.
Update Regional Ecosystem Framework and Plan
Update the effects assessment to determine if resource goal achievement is still on track.
If you like the IEF, you might also like:
- Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects drafted and signed by eight federal agencies in 2006, put forth a conceptual groundwork for integrating transportation and conservation plans and endorsed ecosystem-based mitigation.
- Strategic Habitat Conservation is a science-based framework that aids in management decision-making on conservation priorities and projects at a landscape scale.
- Google's Earth Engine provides daily updates of ground conditions using the images taken from USGS satellites. These images are available on the web, and are accessible to anyone to view and analyze environmental conditions and change.
Linking the IEF and Decision Guide
The IEF describes the technical process taking place between the key decisions identified in the Decision Guide and providing data and analysis to inform them.
The IEF is intended to be scalable to the time, resources, data, and expertise available. Ideally, the IEF process is conducted in conjunction with long range planning; however, it can be used to inform long range planning, corridor planning, programming or environmental review. Within this process, it is possible to begin at any key decision and use the IEF to help identify and incorporate the necessary questions, data, and analysis needed to support better environmental and transportation decision making.
IEF steps and key decisions in the Decision Guide are linked through the two-way flow of data,
analysis and decisions. Explore the graphics below to learn about those links:
- Hover over any IEF step or key decision to see summary information about how they are linked.
- Click on the button that appears (
) to see which IEF steps and key decisions are linked. Note, you will have to scroll to see all linkages. - Click on any key decision for detailed information about how it is linked to the IEF steps.
- Click on any IEF step to access full details about that step.
A printable summary, Linking the IEF and Transportation Decision Guide , is available in the TCAPP Library.
Build and Strenghten Collaborative Partnerships and Vision
Relationships formed through IEF Step 1 and decisions about an ecological study area; high-level goals and funding for conservation, restoration, or mitigation projects inform the transportation process.
Characterize Resource Status and Integrate Natural Environment Plans
The combined map of natural resource data and plans from IEF Step 2 informs transportation decisions as early as possible so that transportation scenarios/strategies/alternatives can avoid priority areas for conservation and restoration.
Create Regional Ecosystem Framework (Conservation Strategy + Transportation Plan)
This is a key link between transportation decision making and ecological planning through which the map of natural resource data is combined with transportation scenarios, strategies or alternatives being considered.
Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives
Information is exchanged between IEF Step 4 and transportation key decisions in order to inform evaluation criteria, methods and measures used for transportation decision making and to evaluate the potential direct and cumulative impacts of different scenarios, strategies or alternatives on conservation and restoration priorities.
Establish and Prioritize Ecological Actions
Preferred transportation scenarios, strategies or alternatives inform this IEF step in order to compare conservation, restoration or mitigation options. Information about the cost of mitigation is also generated and informs programming.
Develop Crediting Strategy
Information generated through IEF Step 6 about a specific crediting strategy for mitigation, along with data that can be used to determine the cost and value of mitigation, informs transportation key decisions. This information can be used to measure ecological impacts and estimate the cost of mitigation.
Develop Programatic Consultation, Biological Opinion or Permit
MOUs and programmatic agreements are put in place to document agreed-upon relationships and strategies in order to guide subsequent decision making.
Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management and Deliver Projects
If an ecological planning process has been completed, IEF Step 8 is an implementation step where data, decisions, agreements and strategies inform transportation decision making.
Update Regional Ecosystem Framework and Plan
Changes in transportation and ecological data, relationships and decisions are used to update the regional ecosystem framework, which in turn informs subsequent transportation decisions.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
Available data, goals and relationships from ecological planning are gathered. Resource and transportation specialists decide to work together and determine a supporting process.
Identified goals and priorities from ecological planning are considered and a shared transportation and ecological vision is approved.
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures identified in ecological planning, including associated with a crediting strategy, inform this key decision.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
Funding strategies and mitigation costs identified through ecological planning inform this key decision.
Priority areas for conservation and restoration identified through the IEF support the avoidance of transportation strategies that would impact these areas.
Transportation plan scenarios and ecological data are mapped together to identify potential impacts and opportunities for joint action on conservation and restoration priorities.
A preferred scenario from an ecological perspective is identified. Analysis and information about potential direct and cumulative effects and mitigation needs inform the adoption of a preferred scenario.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
A joint decision is made about a conservation and mitigation strategy for the preferred scenario. Agreements are put in place.
PROGRAMMING
Both the IEF and key decision consider how advance mitigation would be funded.
The IEF provides information about the cost and value of mitigation and conservation.
The project list should inform any updates to the ecological plan.
Prioritized mitigation projects from the IEF inform this key decision.
A decision is made about the funding plan for the mitigation strategy.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
CORRIDOR PLANNING
Available data, goals and relationships from ecological planning are gathered. Resource and transportation specialists decide to work together and determine a supporting process.
Opportunities to enhance the natural environment identified through ecological planning that are relevant in the corridor are considered.
Identified goals and priorities from ecological planning are considered and a shared transportation and ecological vision is approved.
Analysis takes place to determine the availability of data from the ecological plan to support the scope of environmental review and analysis.
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures identified in ecological planning, including those associated with a crediting strategy, inform this key decision.
Priority areas for conservation and restoration identified through the IEF support the avoidance of transportation solution sets that would impact these areas.
A preferred solution set from an ecological perspective is identified. Analysis and information about potential direct and cumulative effects and mitigation needs inform the adoption of a preferred solution set. A joint decision is made about a conservation and mitigation strategy for the preferred solution set.
Input on the evaluation criteria, methods and measures from ecological planning inform priority ecological actions that could be tackled in the context of the preferred solution set.
Prioritized ecological actions inform this key decision. Agreements are put in place.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING
Available data, goals and relationships from ecological planning are gathered. Resource and transportation specialists decide to work together and determine a supporting process and/or decide to implement earlier agreements.
Ecological goals and priorities are analyzed to inform a compatible and/or complementary project purpose and need.
The ecological planning region and IEF inform the study area for environmental review.
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures identified in ecological planning, including those associated with a crediting strategy, inform this key decision.
Priority areas for conservation and restoration identified through the IEF support the avoidance of transportation strategies that would impact these areas.
Through joint analysis, determine the amount and relative degree of potential impacts of alternatives in relation to resource conservation priorities.
Ecological impacts and mitigation needs for alternatives carried forward for detailed study and validation of any advance mitigation strategies implemented according to early agreements.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
This key decision is not associated with any IEF steps.
The REF should be updated using the data from the jurisdictional determination.
Avoidance and minimization should be consistent with the conservation priorities identified in the ecological plan.
Final decisions from the environmental review process should be used to update the ecological plan.
Update the ecological plan and ensure any early agreements are reflected in permit conditions.