1. Putting Nature on the Map Through Landscape Level Mitigation Greenprints to RAMP: A Multiple Benefit Approach Liz O’Donoghue The Nature Conservancy California Chapter October 24, 2014

4. The Problem Population increase – Infrastructure development – Increased impact on natural and agricultural resources – Increased demand for natural resources and food resources Climate change – Stress on ecosystems Land use and infrastructure planning focuses primarily on the built environment without sufficient regard for natural and agricultural resources

5. Goal and Hypothesis Goal: to avoid impacts on California’s precious ecosystems from infrastructure development and to develop funding streams for conservation By: integrating conservation early in infrastructure planning and development and land use decisions Through: A regional and strategic approach to mitigation

6. What and Why Mitigation? Infrastructure projects must compensate for unavoidable impacts to species, habitat and waters - Mitigation hierarchy: Avoid – Minimize – Offset Typically 5-35% of the cost of the project Opportunity: integrate plans into conservation greenprints provide infrastructure agencies with habitat

7. Traditional or Unplanned Mitigation Approaches and Ineffective Trend: Landscape Scale, In Advance

8. Traditional or Unplanned Mitigation Approaches Ineffective Infrastructure: – Inefficient project-by-project analysis – Costly and difficult to manage mitigation sites – Delayed project delivery Environment: – Isolated islands of habitat – Lost opportunities due to conversion – Inconsistent success rate

9. “Both/And” Ecological benefits Promotes avoidance and minimization More effective conservation Contributes to climate goals Leverages other sources of funds Reduced Risk Infrastructure benefits Fosters coordination among agencies and with public Better project predictability Faster project delivery More cost effective Reduced Risk

10. AASHTO 2005

11. FHWA 2006

12. Traditional = Project by project Midway = Some sort of evaluation of landscape setting, single function assessment Progressive = robust ecosystem analysis, multispecies, mitigation to contribute to the conservation priorities TRB 2011

13. Integrated Ecological Framework TRB 2010 Practitioner’s Guide July 2014 Grants to states for implementation

14. Sec. Jewell’s Mitigation Order and Strategy 1. Landscape-Scale 2. Full Hierarchy 3. Promote Certainty 4. Advance Mitigation Planning 5. Science and Tools 6. Foster Resilience 7. Durability 8. Transparency 9. Collaboration 10. Monitoring

15. Common elements Early integration of conservation data into infrastructure project planning Drive mitigation to implement a scientifically developed conservation greenprint Mitigation in advance of impacts

16. Regional Conservation Greenprint A necessary component of Regional and Strategic Mitigation Planning A mechanism for broader impact

17. Streams, grasslands, T&E species forests, estuaries, wetlands, etc. Farmlands Grazing lands Timberlands Local parks State Parks Regional Trails Federal parks and lands Healthy residents Green infrastructure Carbon storage Groundwater storage Nature’s Goods and Services: Water filtration Flood risk reduction Habitat Working lands Complete Communities Parks and open space Wildlife viewing, fishing, hunting Recreation, Refuge, Exercise Fresh, healthy food Market for goods Wild pollinators Irrigation water Pest control Wildlife connectivity

18. Institutionalize conservation in infrastructure agency and government plans, policies and projects, resulting in an affinity for and protection of the natural and agricultural resources in a region: – Developing and encouraging adoption of a regional conservation greenprint representing natural habitat, agricultural land, recreation and water – Revealing the many benefits of these values to local and regional communities – Promoting the greenprint in local and regional land use and infrastructure policies. 18 Regional Greenprint Goal: Imbed conservation in agency actions

19. A “Need to Have…” A regional greenprint: – Integrates conservation with other community values and plans – Demonstrates the value of nature to communities – Provides a baseline of information for regional land use and infrastructure development decisions – Provides a roadmap for conservation investment – Guides mitigation decisions

21. Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority

22. Maryland’s “Smart, Green and Growing” GreenPrint AgPrint GrowthPrint

23. Shelby County TN Regional Greenprint

24. Implementation Opportunities County General Plans Regional Transportation Plans Infrastructure Mitigation: – Regional Advance Mitigation Planning

25. Regional Advance Mitigation Planning Goal: align mitigation hierarchy and conservation priorities to avoid impacts, achieve meaningful conservation outcomes and expedite project delivery “Regional:” consider multiple projects and cumulative impacts, align with regional conservation priorities “Advance:” integrate conservation in planning and project design and mitigate potential project impacts before they occur

27. A B CD RAMP Methodology A.Map planned infrastructure projects B.Map resources that may need mitigation C.Map conservation priorities D.Identify mitigation sites that fall within the greenprint

28. Essential Elements Agencies’ cooperation and support Funding: robust, available early Institutional and political support Sufficient information for analyses Agreed upon science and planning methodologies

29. RAMP Fundamental Challenges Funding Policies Available information Agency capacity, practices and culture

30. Infrastructure/Habitat Funding NCCP’s: 2 million acres conserved in California San Diego County: $850m Orange County: $247m Renewable energy pilot: $10m To come: – High Speed Rail Authority – San Francisco Bay Area – More NCCP’s

31. Federal Policy Advancements Federal Transportation bill (2012) Water Resources Development Act (2014)

32. Questions? Liz O’Donoghue Director, Infrastructure and Land Use The Nature Conservancy – California Chapter eodonoghue@tnc.org