Use of Survey Results in Developing the Decision Support Tool

The information and tools presented in this document were developed, in part, based on the results of an on-line survey and subsequent phone interviews. Eight state transportation agencies were interviewed with regards to minimization practices and 7 state transportation agencies were interviewed on avoidance and compensation practices. The survey methods and results are presented in Section II.

Several insights obtained through the survey and interviews of transportation agencies influenced the content of this document and are highlighted below.

• Mitigation for habitat fragmentation is being performed for a variety of highway improvements including new construction, reconstruction, and rehabilitation types of projects.
• Of the 8 states interviewed for avoidance measures, only two states, Texas and Maryland, reported having defined procedures for conducting landscape level habitat fragmentation analysis during the project planning stage. Subsequent research indicated that only five additional states appear to have similar programs.
• Compliance with the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act (404 program) appear to be the main drivers for mitigating habitat fragmentation. Improving highway safety by reducing the potential for wildlife-vehicle collisions was another reason provided by some transportation agencies for adopting mitigation solutions.
• Through the interviews, transportation agencies indicated that specific costs for mitigation measures, including long term maintenance, are generally not tracked separately or are not readily available.
• Transportation agencies interviewed indicated that they generally did not implement long term or detailed monitoring programs to determine the effectiveness of mitigation actions.

The survey and interviews revealed several methods that transportation agencies are currently using to address habitat fragmentation. Only a few states were found to have developed a process to assess habitat fragmentation at a landscape level. A general framework is needed during project planning and alternative analysis when avoidance and minimization of impacts are most achievable.

There are many different approaches and scales for which a habitat fragmentation analysis can be performed and each practitioner needs to define the parameters of the adopted method to suit their specific needs. To consider mitigation solutions for any project type requires identifying impacts at the landscape and target species or species group in order to select appropriate mitigation solutions; therefore, this document includes a framework for assessing habitat fragmentation that is applicable and scalable to any project type.