Using GIS-based Systematic Conservation Planning Tools to Inform Caltrans Environmental

Mitigation Planning Efforts

Evan Girvetz, Jim Thorne, Jim Quinn, Mary Madison, Michael McCoy

Information Center for the EnvironmentUniversity of California, Davis

Information CenterInformation Center

for the for the EnvironmentEnvironment

Elkhorn Slough Pilot Project

• Caltrans Headquarters Division of Environmental Analysis

• Goal is to implement early and regional biological mitigation planning at the watershed scale

• Pilot project in Elkhorn Slough Watershed– Collaboration with Caltrans District 5 and Elkhorn

Slough Foundation

Elkhorn Slough Pilot Project

• Traditional Mitigation Assessment has been on a ‘project-by-project’ basis

• The US Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act (SAFETEA – LU 2005) directs agency planners to use regional planning

• Regional planning will enable earlier mitigation needs assessments, better mitigation practices, and save time and money

• Agencies with long planning horizons may be able to more effectively implement projects if they can predict mitigation needs effectively.

Elkhorn Slough Pilot ProjectRegional Planning

• Permits assessment of cumulative impactsa. From multiple projects (GAP analysis over multiple projects): How much of a landcover type is there? What T&E species are associated with that type?b. Over time – delayed effectc. Road and urban impacts combine on environment

• Permits inclusion of regional phenomena, connectivity, ecosystem processes

• Permits development of regional conservation designs that multiple groups may be able to use in the their mitigation and

conservation actions.

Elkhorn Slough Pilot Project

Early Planning

• Improves efficiency of projects by reducing delays

• Cost savings by reducing delays

• Opportunity costs- price of or availability of mitigation sites change

• Advanced mitigation may also permit the acquisition of lands that would become too expensive, or vegetation types that simply are no longer available to acquire.

Elkhorn Slough

Watershed

• Located in the center of the Monterey Bay of California

• Multiple scales of environmental planning

Elkhorn Slough Watershed

Elkhorn Slough Watershed

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

1984

2002

Fine Scale Land Cover

Protected Areas

Vegetation Representation Goals

Land Cover Type Total Acres % Protected Target % Target AreaDune Scrub 132 82% 95% 125Mudflat 1,199 86% 95% 1,139Saltmarsh 1,136 72% 95% 1,080Saltwater 596 71% 90% 537Freshwater 194 19% 75% 145Freshwater Wetlands 607 30% 75% 455Maritime Chaparral 2,349 24% 75% 1,762Riparian 835 14% 65% 543Conifer 100 6% 25% 25Eucalyptus 1,985 7% 30% 595Grassland 17,313 8% 45% 7,791Oak Woodland 12,132 10% 50% 6,066Sage Scrub 899 13% 50% 449Rock 3 0% 10% 0Disturbed 11,543 8% 0% 0

Caltrans Transportation Projects

Transportation Project Impacts

Base on estimates from Caltrans biologist environmental reports, including a 3:1 mitigation ratio

(63.4 acres wetland; 186 acres Oak woodland; 39.8 acres maritime chaparral)

Habitat TypeHectares Impacted by Road Projects

Saltwater 0

Mudflat 0

Saltmarsh 0

Freshwater 0.6

Freshwater Wetland 25.2

Riparian 0

Rock 0

Grassland 0

Dune Scrub 0

Sage Scrub 0

Maritime Chaparral 16.1

Oak Woodland 75.3

Conifer 0

Eucalyptus 0

Disturbed 0

Systematic Conservation Planning

• Meet mitigation area requirements

– Insure that all habitat types necessary for mitigation are included in assessment

• Minimize financial cost of parcels

• Minimize the boundary length

– Parcels adjacent to other protected parcels are prioritized

Computing Reserve Design

• Computer software that delivers decision support for reserve system design

• Identifies a collection of sites that meet a suite of mitigation targets

• Minimizes cost to purchase the parcels and the total boundary length while meeting the mitigation targets

Key Question

– How are the mitigation portfolios suggested by project level analysis, watershed level analysis and district level analysis related?

Transportation Project Impacts

Base on estimates from Caltrans biologist environmental reports, including a 3:1 mitigation ratio

(63.4 acres wetland; 186 acres Oak woodland; 39.8 acres maritime chaparral)

Habitat TypeHectares Impacted by Road Projects

Saltwater 0

Mudflat 0

Saltmarsh 0

Freshwater 0.6

Freshwater Wetland 25.2

Riparian 0

Rock 0

Grassland 0

Dune Scrub 0

Sage Scrub 0

Maritime Chaparral 16.1

Oak Woodland 75.3

Conifer 0

Eucalyptus 0

Disturbed 0

Biological Mitigation Needs

Biological Mitigation Needs

Vegetation Representation Goals

Land Cover Type Total Acres % Protected Target % Target AreaDune Scrub 132 82% 95% 125Mudflat 1,199 86% 95% 1,139Saltmarsh 1,136 72% 95% 1,080Saltwater 596 71% 90% 537Freshwater 194 19% 75% 145Freshwater Wetlands 607 30% 75% 455Maritime Chaparral 2,349 24% 75% 1,762Riparian 835 14% 65% 543Conifer 100 6% 25% 25Eucalyptus 1,985 7% 30% 595Grassland 17,313 8% 45% 7,791Oak Woodland 12,132 10% 50% 6,066Sage Scrub 899 13% 50% 449Rock 3 0% 10% 0Disturbed 11,543 8% 0% 0

Boundary Modifier 0

Boundary Modifier 500

Boundary Modifier 1000

Boundary Modifier 2000

Boundary Modifier 5000

Boundary Modifier 10,000

Best trade-off between boundary length and total cost

Boundary Modifier 1000

Boundary Modifier 2000

Boundary Modifier 5000

Transportation Project Impacts

Transportation Project Impacts

Base on estimates from Caltrans biologist environmental reports, including a 3:1 mitigation ratio

Habitat TypeHectares Impacted by Road Projects

Saltwater 0

Mudflat 0

Saltmarsh 0

Freshwater 0.6

Freshwater Wetland 25.2

Riparian 0

Rock 0

Grassland 0

Dune Scrub 0

Sage Scrub 0

Maritime Chaparral 16.1

Oak Woodland 75.3

Conifer 0

Eucalyptus 0

Disturbed 0

Acknowledgements:

Caltrans Headquarters Division of Environmental Analysis for providing funding for this project

Gregg Erickson, Amy Pettler, Gary Ruggerone, Nancy Siepel, Veda Lewis