Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology Evaluation Final Report: Eco-Logical

508 Captions

Figure 1. Eco-Logical evaluation logic model. This illustration highlights the Eco-Logical evaluation logic model. There are six columns labeled "Inputs," "Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Activities," "FHWA Outputs," "State/metropolitan planning organization (MPO) Activities," "State/MPO Outcomes," and "Impacts." Within each column, there are boxes of text. Inputs include legislation, regulation, and policy; FHWA Research and Technology (R&T) funding; signatory agencies; prior ecosystems research; and Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) funding. Inputs affect FHWA activities. FHWA activities include signatory agency engagement; FHWA Eco-Logical research, outreach, and technical assistance; and SHRP2 implementing Eco-Logical research and outreach. FHWA activities affect FHWA outputs. FHWA outputs include Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, Evaluating Montana's ITEEM: Successes and Lessons for Eco-Logical; grants program, benefits assessment, outreach, SHRP2 CO6A and CO6B, SHRP2 C40A and C40B, and SHRP2 implementation assistance. FHWA outputs affect State transportation departments and MPO activities. State and MPO activities include partner with other organizations, integrate natural resource plans and data, create regional ecosystem framework (REF), assess effects on resource conservation objectives, establish and prioritize ecological actions, develop crediting strategy, develop programmatic agreement or permit, implement agreements and deliver projects, and update REF. State and MPO activities affect State and MPO outcomes. State and MPO outcomes include agencies have better transparency, predictability, and relationships; agencies avoid or minimize potential environmental impacts through integrated planning; and agencies rectify, reduce, or compensate for environmental impacts of projects. State and MPO outcomes affect impacts. Impacts include improved environmental mitigation and improved project delivery process.

Figure 2. Illustration. Impacts of improved environmental mitigation and project delivery process. This figure shows two text boxes depicting the impacts of improved environmental mitigation and the impacts of improved project delivery process, respectively. The first box shows the impacts of improved environmental mitigation, which include avoid or minimize impacts at a planning level and rectify, reduce, or compensate for impacts at an ecosystem scale. The second box is for the impacts of improved project delivery process, which include save time and save money.

Figure 3. Illustration. Eco-Logical Program profile. This figure shows an infographic that summarizes the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) inputs and activities related to the Eco-Logical Program. Text boxes at the top indicate that in the 2007 Eco-Logical Grant Program, FHWA provided $1,518,330 to seven metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), one State transportation department, and seven other agencies. In the 2013 Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) Implementation Assistance Program (IAP), FHWA provided $1,866,989 to seven lead adopters (of which four were MPOs and three were State transportation departments) and seven user incentives (of which three were MPOs and four were State transportation departments). In total, FHWA provided 29 funding opportunities totaling $3,385,319. Additional text in the middle of the infographic indicates that FHWA has supported 43 outreach activities under the Eco-Logical Program since 2009, including 31 webinars, 8 peer exchanges, and 4 technical assistance workshops. A pie chart of participating organization shows that the Eco-Logical approach has reached at least 94 unique organizations across 37 States. The organizations include 27 State transportation departments, 20 MPOs, 16 Federal agencies, 16 other groups, 8 other State agencies, and 7 universities, with geographic diversity across the United States. A map of the United States showcases which States received Eco-Logical grants. States are marked by color-coded dots, where the dots correspond to the type of agency that received the grant. There are three categories: funding for State transportation departments, funding for MPOs, and funding for other organizations. States that received grants for their transportation departments are Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. For the next category, funding for MPOs, some States had one MPO funded, including Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Utah. Some States had multiple MPOs funded, including California with three MPOs, Texas with four MPOs, Colorado with two MPOs, and Virginia with two MPOs. Additionally, some MPOs serve multiple States. An MPO serving Missouri and Kansas received a grant, an MPO serving Ohio and Michigan received a grant, an MPO serving Ohio and Kentucky received a grant, and an MPO serving Missouri and Kansas received a grant. Finally, some States had other organizations within their States receiving grants. Arizona had one other organization, California had two other organizations, Illinois had one other organization, Maryland had one other organization, Massachusetts had one other organization, Montana had one other organization, New York had one other organization, New Hampshire had one other organization, North Carolina had one other organization, Oregon had three other organizations, Texas had one other organization, Utah had one other organization, Vermont had one other organization, and Virginia had two other organizations.

Figure 4. Graph. Number of recipient comments on benefits, challenges, and recommendations organized by evaluation theme and category. This bar graph depicts the number of recipient comments received on certain issues. There are three bars, which represent comments on benefits, comments on challenges, and comments on recommendations. The X-axis shows how many comments were received and ranges from 0 to 100 comments. The Y-axis divides the comments into four evaluation themes and then subdivides by categories. The first evaluation theme is communication, which is subdivided into two categories: knowledge and outreach. Knowledge had 15 benefit comments, 19 challenge comments, and 73 recommendation comments. Outreach had 8 benefit comments, 9 challenge comments, and 11 recommendation comments. The second evaluation theme is resources, which is subdivided into three categories: funding, grant program, and staff. Funding had 10 benefit comments, 33 challenge comments, and 20 recommendation comments. Grant program had 27 benefit comments, 20 challenge comments, and 21 recommendation comments. Staff had 1 benefit comment, 29 challenge comments, and 5 recommendation comments. The third evaluation theme is relationships, which is subdivided into four categories: credence, data sharing, external stakeholders, and internal stakeholders. Credence had 12 benefit comments, no challenge comments, and no recommendation comments. Data sharing had 9 benefit comments, 13 challenge comments, and 4 recommendation comments. External stakeholders had 79 benefit comments, 85 challenge comments, and 33 recommendation comments. Internal stakeholders had 5 benefit comments, 15 challenge comments, and 1 recommendation comment. The fourth and final evaluation theme is operations, which is subdivided into seven categories: champion/leader, data use, environmental impact, external factors, process impacts, process or process change, and staff turnover. Champion/leader had no benefit comments, 10 challenge comments, and 1 recommendation comment. Data use had 13 benefit comments, 34 challenge comments, and 1 recommendation comment. Environmental impact had 14 benefit comments, 1 challenge comment, and no recommendation comments. External factors had no benefit comments, six challenge comments, and no recommendation comments. Process impacts had 15 benefit comments, 1 challenge comment, and no recommendation comments. Process or process change had 43 benefit comments, 38 challenge comments, and 13 recommendation comments. Staff turnover had no benefit comments, 19 challenge comments, and no recommendation comments.