skip navigation
print icon Print

Project Delivery

View Handout: At the Intersection of Project Delivery and the Environment

by Environmental Topic

Check box(es) to view articles associated with topic.

= Why this environmental topic is important to Project Delivery


 
Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation

Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation covers two complex, and distinct sub-topics: Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Infrastructure Resilience.

Climate Change Mitigation/Adaptation
 
Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Strategies to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are key considerations in the environmental review process for transportation projects. The Council on Environmental Quality has provided guidance regarding consideration of GHG emissions and impacts from climate change in the NEPA process.

Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions
 
Infrastructure Resilience

Transportation agencies consider potential impacts to changing climate conditions and extreme weather impacts as a consideration in the project development and review process. The Council on Environmental Quality has provided guidance regarding consideration of GHG emissions and impacts from climate change in the NEPA process.

Infrastructure Resilience
 
Context Sensitive Solutions

Context Sensitive Solutions is a collaborative, interdisciplinary, holistic approach to the development of transportation projects. It involves careful consideration of community values, environmental features, land use, transportation function and available budget. CSS can be incorporated into all phases of project delivery.

Context Sensitive Solutions
 
Environmental Justice

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and environmental justice principles apply to all U.S. DOT programs, policies, and activities. Evaluation of human impacts should be given continuous attention throughout planning, project development, implementation, operation, construction, and maintenance to identify and avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate disproportionately high or adverse effects on low income and/or minority communities.

Environmental Justice
 
Environmental Management Systems

An environmental management system is the organizational structure and associated processes for integrating environmental considerations into the decision-making processes and operations of an organization. An EMS can help ensure environmental considerations are taken into account in all aspects of project delivery.

Environmental Management Systems
 
FAST Act/MAP-21

This topic covers project delivery and environmental provisions of the both the FAST Act and the MAP-21 surface transportation funding and policy legislation. The legislation may affect all aspects of transportation projects including planning, design, construction, and maintenance and operations.

FAST Act/MAP-21
 
Geographic Information Systems

GIS is used to enhance the transportation project development and planning processes as well as project design. GIS is being applied to support transportation and land use decisions at regional and local levels, improving analytical capabilities as well as helping to understand the impacts of various alternatives.

Geographic Information Systems
 
Historic Preservation/Cultural Resources

Transportation agencies must address historic preservation and cultural resource issues during the transportation project planning and development processes under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act.

Historic Preservation/Cultural Resources
 
Indirect Effects/Cumulative Impacts

Transportation agencies analyze indirect effects and cumulative impacts as part of the NEPA environmental review process. These analyses include consultation with stakeholders and the public, identification of important trends and issues, and analysis of the potential for land use change and related environmental impacts on valued and vulnerable resources.

Indirect Effects/Cumulative Impacts
 
NEPA Process

The NEPA review process must be completed prior to project delivery. For transportation projects, NEPA requires the FHWA and other transportation agencies to consider potential impacts to the social and natural environment. In addition, FHWA must take into account the transportation needs of the public in reaching a decision that is in the best overall public interest.

NEPA Process
 
Noise

FHWA requires consideration of mitigation for highway traffic noise in the planning and design of Federally aided highways. These regulations establish standards for abating highway traffic noise. Compliance with the noise regulations is a prerequisite for the granting of Federal-aid highway funds for construction or reconstruction of a highway.

Noise
 
Planning & Environment Linkages

Streamlined project delivery can be achieved through efforts to link transportation planning and the NEPA process. Agencies can achieve streamlined project delivery by incorporating environmental and community values into transportation decisions early in planning and carrying these considerations through project development and delivery.

Planning & Environment Linkages
 
Project Delivery/Streamlining

Project delivery may be expedited through a range of efforts, including involving a broad range of stakeholders early in the planning and design process and by using decisions made during the planning process in project design. Understanding project impacts early on can be helpful.

Project Delivery/Streamlining
 
Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)

Transportation projects must meet requirements under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act established the requirement for consideration of park and recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites in transportation project development. DOTs must conduct all possible planning to minimize a project’s harm to a Section 4(f) resource. Agencies also must meet requirements under Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act regarding conversion of land to non-recreational use.

Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)
 
Sustainability

Sustainability refers to taking into account social, environmental and economic considerations in transportation. These principles are important in all aspects of transportation, including long-range planning and can then be carried through to short-range planning and program/project development, and operations.

Sustainability
 
Water Quality/Wetlands

Protecting water quality is an ongoing environmental concern for transportation agencies, including requirements for stormwater runoff and mitigation of impacts to wetlands and water resources. Potential impacts to water quality, including advance mitigation and stormwater management, must be addressed prior to project delivery.

Water Quality/Wetlands
 
Wildlife & Ecosystems

Potential impacts on wildlife and ecosystems must be taken into account during the environmental review process prior to transportation project delivery.

Wildlife & Ecosystems

 

Air Quality

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Highlights Air Quality and Sustainability News

The Federal Highway Administration has published the February/March 2017 newsletter highlighting air quality and sustainability news. The newsletter includes information concerning the Executive Order on energy independence and economic growth, Q&A on emergency relief program and resilience and the Atlanta peer exchange on climate resilience. The newsletter also includes information regarding new resilience elements in the transportation planning rule and project development assessment of climate change and lists upcoming meetings, conferences, workshops, and training opportunities. For more information, link to the newsletter. (4-17-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Smart Growth America Highlights Complete Streets Success Under FAST Act

Successful implementation of complete streets provisions under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is addressed in a report from Smart Growth America. Under the provisions, National Highway System road designs are required to incorporate access for all modes of transportation and local governments are permitted to use their own design guide to creating complete streets projects. Examples of success include the development of projects along I-40 in Oklahoma City to expand bikesharing and in Atlanta where the city is devoting $109 million to complete streets improvements over the next five years. An emphasis on project planning, design and implementation is what has made the complete streets approach so fruitful. For more information, link to the announcement. (4-6-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Transportation Conformity Guide for States, Local Areas Released

The Federal Highway Administration has released a guide for state and local officials addressing determinations of whether transportation improvements conform to the air quality objectives in state implementation plans. The guide describes a conformity determination and addresses the responsibility for making those determinations. The guide includes the elements of a conformity determination, such as interagency consultation and regional emissions analysis, and highlights options for metropolitan planning organizations to reduce emissions. The guide also addresses project-level conformity and hot-spot analysis required for federal highway and transit projects. For more information, link to the guide. (February 2017)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Highlights Air Quality and Climate Change News

The Federal Highway Administration has published the October/November 2016 newsletter highlighting air quality and climate change news. The newsletter includes information on the updated interim guidance on mobile source air toxics analysis in NEPA documents, the designation of alternative fuel corridors, the updated greenhouse gas emission reduction policy analysis tool, INVEST case studies, recordings and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program emission reductions calculator. The newsletter also lists upcoming meetings, conferences, workshops, training opportunities and deadlines. For more information, link to the newsletter. (11-29-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Issues Guidance for Quantitative Mobile Source Air Toxics Analyses

The Federal Highway Administration has issued recommendations for conducting quantitative analyses of mobile source air toxics emissions under the National Environmental Policy Act. The guidance, which follows a recently issued interim guidance update, includes the scope of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model, and information concerning gathering input data and post-processing results. The document also specifies how to define the affected environment for calculating changes in emissions and provides templates for MSAT RunSpec and MSAT county data manager. For more information, link to the guidance. (11-1-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Updates Guidance for Mobile Source Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents

The Federal Highway Administration has issued an updated interim guidance for mobile source air toxic (MSAT) analysis in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. The FHWA is updating the 2012 interim guidance by incorporating new analysis conducted using the Environmental Protection Agency’s latest update of the Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) vehicle emissions model, MOVES2014a. Based on the use of MOVES2014a, diesel particulate matter remains the dominant MSAT of concern for highway projects. The FHWA also has released the revised status of scientific research on air toxics. For more information, link to the updated interim guidance. (10-27-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Highlights Air Quality and Climate Change News

The Federal Highway Administration has published the August/September 2016 newsletter highlighting air quality and climate change news. The newsletter includes information on the release of the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s final guidance for federal agencies on how to consider climate change in environmental reviews, the final report on the climate resilience pilot program, proposed and final rules being released, and the release of the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program emissions reductions calculator. The newsletter also lists upcoming meetings, conferences, workshops, and deadlines. For more information, link to the newsletter. (9-30-16)

[back to top]

Energy/Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Recent Developments: Final Programmatic Assessment of GHG Emissions from Transit Projects Issued

The Federal Transit Administration has released a final programmatic assessment for greenhouse gas emissions from transit projects. The assessment reports on whether certain types of proposed transit projects merit detailed analysis of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the project level and provides a source of data and analysis for incorporation by reference in future environmental documents for projects. The assessment found that bus rapid transit and streetcar projects generally generate low levels of GHG emissions and that light rail projects and commuter rail projects with certain characteristics can reduce GHG emissions. For more information, link to the assessment. (11-17-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Highlights Air Quality and Climate Change News

The Federal Highway Administration has published the October/November 2016 newsletter highlighting air quality and climate change news. The newsletter includes information on the updated interim guidance on mobile source air toxics analysis in NEPA documents, the designation of alternative fuel corridors, the updated greenhouse gas emission reduction policy analysis tool, INVEST case studies, recordings and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program emission reductions calculator. The newsletter also lists upcoming meetings, conferences, workshops, training opportunities and deadlines. For more information, link to the newsletter. (11-29-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FTA Releases Programmatic Assessment of GHG Emissions from Transit Projects

The Federal Transit Administration has released the Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transit Projects: Programmatic Assessment. The assessment reports on whether certain types of proposed transit projects merit detailed analysis of their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at the project level and provides a source of data and analysis for reference in future environmental documents for projects. The assessment found that bus rapid transit and streetcar projects generally generate low levels of GHG emissions and that light rail projects and commuter rail projects with certain characteristics can result in a reduction in GHG emissions. For more information, link to the assessment. (11-17-16)

[back to top]

Infrastructure Resilience

Recent Developments: FHWA Case Study Highlights NEPA Climate Change Analysis in Florida

The Federal Highway Administration has released a case study regarding the inclusion of climate change considerations in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process for the Florida Department of Transportation’s First Coast Expressway Project. The case study discusses how FDOT evaluated the project, which includes a new bridge, for climate change impacts related to sea level rise and storm surges. FDOT and the FHWA combined historical sea level data with projected global sea level rise projections, global hurricane projections, and localized storm surge modeling to assess whether each proposed alternative could be affected by future coastal flooding. For more information, link to the case study. (9-30-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Case Studies Highlight NEPA Climate Change Analysis in Two States

The Federal Highway Administration has released two case studies regarding the inclusion of climate change considerations in the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. The Massachusetts case study examined how MassDOT evaluated climate change considerations for the South Cost Rail Project, intended to restore commuter rail service between Boston the Massachusetts South Coast. The environmental impact statement included climate analysis for sea level rise impacts on track, stations and layover facilities, as well as cumulative impact analysis of climate on salt marshes, fisheries and vernal pools. The New York case study examined the NEPA analysis for the reconstructed Tappan Zee Bridge. The study gives an overview of how NYSDOT evaluated the projected sea level rise and its conclusions that the new bridge is not vulnerable to current or future flooding. For more information, link to the case studies for Massachusetts and New York. (9-27-16)

[back to top]

Context Sensitive Solutions

Case Studies: AASHTO Best Practice Award Winners

Case Studies: AASHTO Best Practice Award Winners - AASHTO Best Practices in Context Sensitive Solutions Competitions

Environmental Justice

Recent Developments: Q and A Guidance on Title VI Complaints Updated by FHWA

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has updated question-and-answer guidance concerning handling of alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The document addresses complaint-filing procedures, complaint processing and potential outcomes. The document also addresses investigation timeframes and how agencies gather information. FHWA regulations direct state departments of transportation to develop procedures for processing Title VI complaints filed with state DOTs against their federal-aid highway subrecipients. For more information link to the document. (3-27-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Report Details Environmental Justice Strategies for Rural, Small Communities

The Federal Highway Administration has released a report to help transportation agencies develop effective, replicable strategies for public involvement in planning and programming in small communities and rural areas. The report specifically focuses on engaging environmental justice (EJ) communities to co-create strategies to mitigate or avoid prospective EJ issues. The report found that effective practices required as diverse a set of strategies in smaller metropolitan areas as in those with larger populations, but that smaller areas’ planning agencies have correspondingly smaller staffs and must be selective. For more information, link to the report. (1-5-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: AASHTO Issues Roadmap to Advance EJ State of Practice

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has issued the Environmental Justice Roadmap, intended to be a single point of reference on environmental justice efforts in transportation planning and project development. The guide, which is for state and federal partners as they seek to improve the EJ state of the practice in all phases of transportation decision making, includes eight key focus areas. For each focus area, the Roadmap identifies the current state of practice, strategies for moving the practice forward, and further considerations for state and federal partners. For more information, view the Environmental Justice Roadmap. (11-4-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Releases Report on EJ and Regional Models of Cooperation

The Federal Highway Administration has released a report on a peer exchange workshop held in Ohio concerning the incorporation of environmental justice considerations in transportation planning. The peer exchange focused on regional models of cooperation, a program of the FHWA’s Everyday Counts Initiative that provides enhanced cooperation between state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations and other stakeholders to support common goals in transportation. The workshop discussed methods of effectively incorporating environmental justice and civil rights concerns in transportation projects that cross jurisdictional boundaries. For more information, link to the report. (10-3-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Ohio DOT - Ohio DOT Provides Step-by-Step Guidance for Environmental Justice Analysis

As environmental justice in infrastructure planning and construction continues to be promoted at the federal level, state transportation agencies are finding ways to make the process more defined for staff and consultants.

At the Ohio Department of Transportation, recent revisions to the agency’s environmental justice guidelines update the agency’s procedures with a focus on clarifying the extent of analysis needed for projects and environmental reviews in the state.

Public outreach is an important aspect of environmental justice compliance. This public meeting was held during the planning phase for the Opportunity Corridor project in Cleveland. Photo: Ohio DOT

The ODOT Environmental Justice Guidance uses a step-by-step format to explain what practitioners must do to comply with state and federal environmental justice requirements.

The steps include identifying environmental justice populations within the study area using a mapping tool, answering a series of questions to determine whether a full-scale environmental justice analysis report is required, and if required, conducting the analysis and report as outlined in the guidance.

EJ Process in Ohio

Environmental justice has been a part of the conversation with regard to transportation projects for at least two decades.

Environmental justice populations—specifically minority and low-income groups—can be disproportionately impacted by transportation projects, and these impacts can vary depending on a project’s scale, scope and location, according to Erica Schneider, Assistant Administrator with ODOT’s Office of Environmental Services.

Like all state transportation agencies, ODOT developed its environmental justice program in response to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, Presidential Executive Order 12898, Department of Transportation Order 5610.2, and FHWA Order 6640.23A.

ODOT’s environmental justice procedures resulted from many months of work with the Federal Highway Administration’s Ohio Division, Schneider said. “It was a collaborative process that took several months of discussions and a fair amount of compromise,” Schneider said. Once the division office was comfortable with it, ODOT worked with FHWA headquarters and Resource Center, she added.

Identifying EJ Populations

ODOT’s guidance uses a tiered method to evaluate environmental justice considerations. The first step relies on the Environmental Protection Agency’s EJScreen web-based tool, which places U.S. Census population data on a map at the block and block group levels. Block groups are clusters of blocks within the same census tract, generally defined to contain between 600 and 3,000 people, used to present statistical data and control block numbering.

According to the guidance, the individual performing the analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) uses EJView to locate the project or study area and, using the data filters, identifies the percent of minority or low income residents.

“Project [area] limits are identified by earlier studies (traffic, safety, etc.) that define the purpose of the project,” Schneider said. “Those limits in turn help identify the block groups that could be impacted by a project and by the activities associated with the project.”

The key threshold for environmental justice populations is 40 percent, according to the guidance. “If all of the block groups within your proposed project area indicate Environmental Justice populations below 40%, then no additional Environmental Justice analysis or coordination is required,” the guidance said.

However, if either the minority or the low-income populations are at 40 percent or above, the practitioner is required to answer a set of questions to determine potential impacts.

Determining Potential Impacts

The questions in the guidance make a decision tree that leads the practitioner to draw conclusions about whether the project will have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on the target populations.

“Our guidance is, in many ways, a screening tool to screen out projects with little to no potential to impact EJ communities,” Schneider said.

“The questions in the guidance are specifically geared toward identifying potential impacts,” Schneider said.

For example, the questions address the following issues:

  • Are there any relocations?
  • Will there be any changes to access?
  • Were any environmental justice issues that could result in a disproportionately high and adverse effect raised during public involvement?
  • Are there any other unique factors of the proposed project that could pose a disproportionately high and adverse impact on an environmental justice population?

Depending on the resulting answers, a full Environmental Justice Analysis Report may be required.

Conducting Full Analysis, Report

When a full analysis is required, a report is prepared “to determine whether or not your project will have a disproportionately high and adverse impact to an Environmental Justice population and to document any avoidance and mitigation measures,” the guidance said.

The guidance provides a general outline of what information should be included in the report. The seven basic elements include:

  1. Project description;
  2. Summary of purpose and need statement;
  3. Discussion of environmental justice populations;
  4. Discussion of impacts to environmental justice populations;
  5. Public involvement summary;
  6. Discussion of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures; and
  7. A summary, including justification for the determination.

For projects that require in-depth analyses, the guidance urges users to work with ODOT’s Office of Environmental Services, Policy and Cultural Resources Section for more direction and project-specific assistance on determining how to address potential impacts.

Guidance Applies to NEPA Process

The ODOT guidance must be followed for all environmental assessments, environmental impact statements, and most categorical exclusion levels under ODOT’s 2015 Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Agreement.

Although the guidance is built into ODOT’s Online Categorical Exclusion System, the environmental justice process is essentially the same for more complex environmental documents, according to Schneider, except that “the documentation part is a little different.”

Projects requiring an environmental assessment or environmental impacts statement “often have a higher potential for impacts, but not necessarily,” Schneider added.

Schneider said that less than 1 percent of projects per year require a full Environmental Justice Analysis Report. But for those projects that may impact environmental justice populations, the guidance encourages staff to coordinate with ODOT’s Office of Environmental Services “as early as possible.”

Lessons Learned

Schneider noted several lessons learned in developing the process.

“We strongly emphasize a common sense approach to looking at projects,” Schneider said. “If it makes sense to look farther out [from the project boundaries], we would do so.” Regarding the decision to rely on the EJView tool, it was the result of a lot of work with FHWA division staff and EPA staff, according to Schneider. “We didn’t find a better tool to use,” Schneider said. She recommends use of EJView to other departments of transportation, unless and until something better is developed.

Additionally, Schneider emphasized the importance of making sure the analysis is meaningful.

“We constantly remind our staff and consultants that you can’t just go through the motions,” Schneider said. “Simply having less than 40 percent EJ populations or answering ‘no’ to all of the questions doesn’t mean consideration of EJ populations ends there. We still expect practitioners to use common sense. If there are EJ populations that may require specific public outreach efforts, then that needs to be done. If EJ issues are raised during public involvement activities or there are other project-related circumstances that could cause an impact to EJ populations, those need to be taken into account and addressed.”

Schneider said the guidance has been well received both by consultants and ODOT staff. “It has streamlined our processes by helping screen out projects that don't require further work,” and to “target what we need to focus on,” she said.

For more information, link to ODOT’s Environmental Justice Guidance and ODOT's environmental justice program or contact ODOT’s Erica Schneider at Erica.Schneider@dot.state.oh.us.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Pennsylvania DOT - Pennsylvania DOT Develops Separate EJ Guidance for Planning, Project Levels

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) is successfully integrating input from minority and low-income populations (environmental justice [EJ] populations) and consistently documenting its EJ analyses and findings through use of planning- and project-level guidance developed by the agency.

Executive Order 12898 (1994), Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, directs federal actions to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects, including socioeconomic, on EJ populations. However, Executive Order 12898 did not provide guidance on how to identify EJ populations, or how to determine if impacts are disproportionately high and adverse.

EJ Guidance at PennDOT

Pennsylvania Department of Transportation’s (PennDOT) approach to implementing Executive Order 12898 (1994)—as well as subsequent Memorandum of Understanding on EJ signed by heads of federal agencies (2011) and DOT’s Final EJ Order 5610.2(a) (2012)—uses guidance documents that are distributed to districts for implementation. In addition to guidance it developed for regional planning-level EJ analyses, PennDOT, also has developed project-level guidance to promote consistency in EJ analyses conducted for relatively minor-impact projects across the state.

Two notable factors influencing PennDOT’s EJ approach include: 1) the agency is decentralized, with projects held at the district-level, and 2) around 99 percent of current PennDOT projects are Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Pennsylvania develops planning level guidance, Every Voice Counts. Photo: PennDOT

Planning-Level Guidance

Initially, PennDOT developed an EJ guidance for statewide planning and programming processes, Every Voice Counts (2004, updated 2012). PennDOT drew from best practices and existing resources proven to work in practice to develop its EJ guidance. Every Voice Counts describes PennDOT’s regional planning-level EJ responsibilities as: 1) identifying EJ population presence within planning areas; 2) engaging EJ populations in public involvement and subsequent documentation of that engagement; 3) assessing the effects of transportation policies, investments, and programs on EJ populations; and 4) avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse effects.

According to PennDOT’s Transportation Planning Manager Brian Wall, despite the initial Every Voice Counts guidance there were dramatic differences in how EJ efforts were being conducted and documented throughout the state due to the agency’s decentralized operational structure and the number of metropolitan and rural planning organizations and the various staffing levels at those organizations. Therefore, in 2012, as a result of a strengths/weaknesses assessment, PennDOT expanded its EJ guidance and provided clear examples of how to conduct an EJ analysis at the planning level.

Project-Level Guidance

After implementing its planning-level EJ guidance for nearly a decade, PennDOT developed its Project Level Environmental Justice Guidance in 2013. The guidance provides a step-by-step EJ analysis framework to ensure requirements of Executive Order 12898 are appropriately identified, considered, and documented at the project level. Because PennDOT is decentralized, the project-level guidance provides consistency across DOT districts in their approach to EJ analyses.

Additionally, with nearly all PennDOT projects falling under CEs with minimal impacts, PennDOT Environmental Planning Manager Drew Ames said that it can be tough to document EJ efforts. The project-level guidance addresses the issue of determining the presence of EJ populations, appropriate level of documentation, and determining disproportionate adverse impacts. The guidance explains what needs to be done after a project is on the Transportation Improvement Program and preliminary engineering begins, and includes criteria that would qualify a project as exempt from a detailed EJ analysis.

PennDOT provides and documents consideration of potential impacts to EJ populations for categorically excluded projects in the on-line Categorical Exclusion Expert System. For CEs falling under 23 CFR 771.117(d), that are not otherwise covered by a programmatic agreement, the system prompts preparers to answer a series of questions regarding EJ that are based on the analysis described in the guidance document.

In addition, the project-level guidance includes several real-world case studies that describe how project teams reached out to and engaged EJ populations, what data were gathered and analyzed to determine if EJ populations are located in the study area, and what project impacts and benefits were evaluated to determine if the project caused disproportionate and adverse impacts to EJ populations. Moreover, the case studies include helpful “lessons learned” so that other EJ analyses are informed by past experiences. Examples of lessons cited in the guidance include the following:

  • While review of demographic data helps to identify the presence of EJ populations, field views and discussions with local stakeholders can provide valuable insights that cannot be drawn from review of demographic data alone.
  • Enlisting EJ community representatives on community advisory committees can help gain the EJ community’s trust and support for a project.
  • The study area size and shape may require information to be collected from a variety of census data geographies, and may impact the level of effort and resources needed for data collection.
  • Project teams should always check their assumptions about adverse impacts by discussing impacts with EJ populations. What might be considered an adverse impact by project engineers and planners may or may not be interpreted as adverse by the community.

Key Takeaways

PennDOT has realized the following key points and lessons learned in implementing the agency’s planning- and project-level EJ guidance:

  • Documentation: Regardless of a project’s size, it is important to state clearly what types of information or data were considered to identify the presence of EJ populations (e.g. Census data), how EJ populations were engaged in project scoping and the development of project alternatives and any mitigation measures, and how project design may have changed as a result of input from EJ populations.
  • Balance: An EJ analysis is never a “one size fits all” analysis. It is location, community and context-driven, based on the project’s direct, indirect and cumulative impacts and how those impacts are experienced by EJ populations, both positively and negatively.
  • Process efficiencies: Providing a unified guidance for application across jurisdictions helps streamline the state’s EJ analyses and documentation. For example, the process outlined in Every Voice Counts has led to better “benefits and burdens” analysis in long range transportation planning, particularly through the use of GIS.
  • Consolidation: The guidance is intended to consolidate the wealth of information into a document that is easy to access and use for replication across the state—and for other state DOTs.
  • Context: Familiarity with a project area and its residents is irreplaceable. Taking the extra step—such as proactively speaking directly with a community—creates opportunity for more meaningful engagement, a better informed EJ analysis and proactive issue resolution promoting a more collaborative decision-making process.

Overall, PennDOT’s implementation of both its planning-level and project-level EJ guidance documents has enhanced the agency’s ability to integrate meaningful input from EJ populations into its plans, programs, and projects, and has allowed the agency to consistently document its EJ analyses and findings.

For more information on PennDOT’s planning-level EJ guidance, contact Planning-Level EJ Guidance Brian Wall, PennDOT Transportation Planning Manager at bwall@pa.gov. For information on the project-level guidance, contact Drew Ames, PennDOT Environmental Planning Manager, at johname@pa.gov.

[back to top]

Environmental Management Systems
FAST Act/MAP-21

Recent Developments: FHWA Report Examines Use of GIS in Performance Management

The Federal Highway Administration has released a report that includes four case studies regarding transportation agencies’ use of geographic information systems in transportation performance management (TPM). The report discusses how departments of transportation in Maryland, Ohio, South Carolina and Vermont approach TPM programs and determine how best to use GIS to visualize the effects of performance-based operations and planning. The report found that most states remain in the developmental stage of implementing a TPM program, which is required under MAP-21 and the FAST Act. The report also found that states are investing in the use of GIS tools to better integrate data and to centralize data storage. For more information, link to the report. (2-17-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: AASHTO Updates FAST Act/MAP-21 Implementation Plan, Rule Tracker

The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials has updated its implementation plan for the FAST Act and MAP-21 and its surface transportation rulemaking tracker. The plan updates the status of provisions regarding revenue and planning, freight, program and project delivery, planning, performance management and asset management. The tracker keeps tabs on rules related to surface transportation as they work their way through the regulatory process. The updated tracker adds a request for comments concerning commercial activities in rest areas. For more information, link to the plan and tracker. (12-1-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Releases Final Rule on Risk-Based Asset Management Plans for NHS

The Federal Highway Administration has released a final rule to address new requirements for states to develop and implement risk-based asset management plans under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). In addition to requirements for developing such plans, the final rule addresses the scope and timing of the evaluations state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) must perform to determine whether there are reasonable alternatives to roads, highways, and bridges that have required repair and reconstruction activities on two or more occasions due to emergency events. The final rule reduces asset management plan requirements for assets other than National Highway System pavements and bridges if state DOTs include other assets in their plans. It also specifies the criteria for determining whether a state DOT has developed and implemented its asset management plan. For more information, link to the final rule. (10-21-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Issues Final Rule on Real Estate Early Acquisition Projects

The Federal Highway Administration has issued a final rule to implement early real estate acquisition provisions under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). The rule implements Section 1302 of MAP-21, which established new flexibilities for state departments of transportation regarding real property acquisitions that may be carried out prior to completion of National Environmental Policy Act review. The rule addresses the use of federal funds for projects that are for the acquisition of property that subsequently will be used for a transportation project, and establishes the criteria for such use of funds. The rule allows for certain activities to occur prior to a NEPA decision. The rule also makes additional changes to clarify and streamline the agency’s real estate regulations. For more information, link to the final rule. (8-23-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Texas - TxDOT Accrues Multiple Benefits from NEPA Assignment Responsibilities

The Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) assumption of authority for the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) responsibilities for environmental review and approval is providing multiple streamlining benefits, saving time and money in the review process while still protecting the state’s natural resources.

TxDOT is the second state transportation agency in the nation to assume full environmental review authority from FHWA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was the first to take on the role under a pilot program launched under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Then, under MAP-21, the program was expanded and made permanent. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) became the third state in December 2015. Four other state transportation agencies are in the process of applying for NEPA assignment: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, and Utah. In addition, Utah and Alaska have Categorical Exclusion-level assignment under the pilot program.

In late 2015, TxDOT marked its one year anniversary in the program and has been “pleased with the results so far,” said Carlos Swonke, Director of the agency’s Environmental Affairs Division.

Texas DOT employees receive NEPA assignment training. Photo: TxDOT

For Texas, the new authority brings the following benefits:

  • provides time and cost savings;
  • eliminates a layer of review;
  • involves no reduction in environmental considerations;
  • allows direct consultation between TxDOT and federal regulatory agencies;
  • enables quick turnaround time for project decisions; and
  • allows for more control of project planning and scheduling.

Contents of the MOU

Details on the new authority are spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the two agencies developed and signed in 2014. The MOU sets forth how TxDOT will implement the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (sometimes referred to as the NEPA Assignment Program) under MAP-21. The MAP-21 provisions enable all state transportation agencies to apply to be assigned federal environmental review authority from the FHWA under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws. TxDOT requested, and was granted, the full authority under the program with the exception of three projects that remained with FHWA as the lead agency.

TxDOT’s NEPA review responsibilities include determining, for individual projects, whether potential impacts merit an environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a categorical exclusion. For Texas, determinations for categorical exclusion-level projects are done at the district (regional) level. Projects involving environmental impact statements or environmental assessments are coordinated, reviewed, and approved at the division (central) office level.

Besides these NEPA review responsibilities, TxDOT also has taken on some of FHWA's responsibilities for highway projects under other environmental laws. The laws include the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Historic Preservation Act. Notably, MAP-21 precludes states from taking on federal responsibility for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes or for conformity determinations under the Clean Air Act. In addition, under the MOU, FHWA retains responsibility for projects that cross state lines and international boundaries.

Four performance measures are identified in the MOU: (1) compliance with NEPA and other Federal environmental statutes and regulations; (2) quality control and quality assurance for NEPA decisions; (3) relationships with agencies and the general public; and (4) increased efficiency and timeliness and completion of the NEPA process.

Swonke said that his agency’s MOU generally followed the Caltrans format. And now that it is in place, it appears that FHWA will be using it as something of a template for other states coming into the program.

Preparing for NEPA Assignment

To prepare TxDOT staff for the new role, he continued, the agency has established a more rigorous process for project review and documentation. It also has created time for training on topics such as documentation and records management, and has updated its NEPA-related manuals. In addition, the agency has instituted a robust quality assurance/quality control process. TxDOT also maintains close communication with its district offices on changes in laws or executive orders that may affect the new responsibilities. Finally, it intends to communicate regularly about its assignment activities to stakeholder organizations.

FHWA, for its part, has assumed the role of program oversight and review and issues progress reports to Congress. It also has taken on training and technical assistance. Under MAP-21, FHWA must carry out two audits annually during the first two years that a state DOT assumes NEPA assignment and once in the third and fourth year. The audits include identification of successful practices as well as opportunities for improvement. Thus far, TxDOT has conducted environmental approvals on more than 1,600 projects, with the majority of these being categorical exclusion determinations.

Application Process, Pluses and Minuses

TxDOT began to consider applying for the program in 2012 when there was talk about extending the pilot program but before MAP-21 was passed. When MAP-21 passed, TxDOT leadership gave the green light to take the first steps.

The formal process began with securing a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that the state legislature passed in the spring of 2013, said Swonke. Under the waiver, TxDOT NEPA actions and decisions could be subject to federal court jurisdiction.

Next, the agency wrote a letter to FHWA expressing its interest in taking on NEPA assignment. It circulated its draft application for assignment for public comment as well as its draft MOU. After considering feedback on both documents, the MOU was finalized and signed by TxDOT and FHWA on December 16, 2014, and TxDOT began to take on its new responsibilities.

Benefits and Advice

As a result of taking on NEPA Assignment, Swonke said, TxDOT has made its review and approval process much more systematic, which provides greater consistency. In addition, the requirement for the state agency to have a self-assessment program has yielded a wide range of insightful information that is used to measure and improve the program.

He had one major suggestion for other state DOTS contemplating seeking NEPA assignment: early on, take an inventory of your technical expertise and the tools in hand that will guide your process. Both need to be up to the challenge of making decisions independently.

Just after the one-year point, Swonke said TxDOT’s program was still adapting to the change. “I am hoping the majority of our evolution will be complete a year from now,” he said.

For more information, contact Carlos Swonke, Director, TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division, at Carlos.Swonke@txdot.gov or go to http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/nepa-assignment.html.

In addition, see materials from AASHTO’s 2015 Peer Exchange on NEPA assumption.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Washington State - WSDOT Reports Significant Time Savings by Issuing Combined EIS, Record of Decision

Provisions of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) that allow environmental impact statements and record of decision documents to be combined for transportation projects have achieved significant time savings for Washington State DOT, according to the agency.

The authority to issue one combined document have saved approximately 60 days to 90 days for the first two projects for which the agency used it, state officials report.

The authority was enacted as a streamlining provision under Section 1319 of MAP-21. In addition, the law authorized use of errata pages rather than a separate standalone final EIS if only minor comments are received on a draft EIS.

The provisions of MAP-21 were aimed at cutting the time required to process environmental documents for transportation projects.

WSDOT has published two combined FEIS/RODs under the new law: a Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision for the I-90 Snoqualmie Pass East project, and a Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision for the SR 167 Puyallup River Bridge project, according to WSDOT Policy Branch Manager Carol Lee Roalkvam.

For both projects, the combined EIS/ROD eliminated one round of document circulation and streamlined the cooperating agency and legal review. Each project saved approximately two to three months’ time, she said.

Additionally, the I-90 project team used the related streamlining measure which allows for a Draft EIS and errata page to suffice for a final EIS.

The I-90 team noted that the new processes used together took less time that it would have taken to prepare an Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant, according to Roalkvam. In one year, the team went from notice of intent, to Draft Supplemental EIS, to Final EIS/ROD.

“Many state DOTs are searching for examples of quality environmental documents,” Roalkvam said. “While every project is unique, I encourage state DOTs to look at the way the I-90 team applied the MAP-21 streamlining provision and the abbreviated FEIS format to prepare a concise, complete and readable document.”

Washington State DOT combines final EIS, Record of Decision for I-90 Project. Photo: WSDOT

Combined FEIS and ROD

Prior to MAP-21, FHWA and FTA were required by their own regulations and Council on Environmental Quality regulations to provide a waiting period of at least 30 days between publication of the FEIS and issuance of the ROD.

Section 1319(b) of MAP-21 overrode that requirement. It directs the lead agency to issue the FEIS and ROD as a single document “to the maximum extent practicable,” unless one of the following conditions is met:

  • the FEIS makes “substantial changes to the proposed action that are relevant to environmental or safety concerns” or
  • “there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and that bear on the proposed action or the impacts of the proposed action.”

FHWA and FTA issued interim guidance implementing Section 1319 on Jan. 14, 2013. The interim guidance calls for a case-by-case determination as to whether it is “practicable” to issue a combined FEIS and ROD. The guidance also directs FHWA Division Offices and FTA Regional Offices to consult with headquarters before issuing a combined FEIS/ROD.

‘Errata Pages’ Format for FEIS

MAP 21 also clarified that the lead agency can issue an FEIS that consists of “errata pages” -- rather than a complete, stand-alone document -- if the agency received only “minor comments” on the Draft EIS.

This flexibility existed under the CEQ regulations even before the enactment of MAP-21. Section 1319(a) confirms that this format is acceptable.

It also requires that errata pages “(1) cite the sources, authorities, or reasons that support the position of the agency” and “(2) if appropriate, indicate the circumstances that would trigger agency reappraisal or further response.”

In the Jan. 14 guidance, FHWA and FTA described the information that should be included in errata pages, and confirmed that this documentation must undergo the legal sufficiency review required for an FEIS under 23 CFR 771.125.

For more information, link to the I-90 project documents on the WSDOT website at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/I90/SnoqualmiePassEast/I90FinalSEISandROD.

The Puyallup River Bridge documents are available at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR167/PuyallupRiverBridge/Environmental.htm.

Additional information is available from Carol Lee Roalkvam, Policy Branch Manager, WSDOT, at RoalkvC@wsdot.wa.gov.

[back to top]

Geographic Information Systems

Recent Developments: NCHRP Report Says Statewide GISs Could Improve Section 106 Work

State departments of transportation could provide more efficient project delivery with regard to Section 106 compliance if each state could develop and implement a single, statewide cultural resources geographic information system in a centralized location, according to a report issued under the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP 25-25/Task 90). The study examined the costs and benefits of having, using and maintaining a cultural resources GIS and its effects on transportation planning, project delivery, and compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act as well as Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The study found that DOTs support the creation of a single, statewide cultural resources GIS. For more information, link to Application of Geographic Information Systems for Historic Properties. (11-12-15)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Virginia - Virginia DOT's Environmental Data and Reporting System Improves Communication, Accountability

The Virginia Department of Transportation’s (VDOT) evolution to an environmental data management system started with more than 73 decentralized spreadsheets and personal databases. In 2001, VDOT developed its GIS Integrator, an internal geographic information systems (GIS)-based tool to support the agency’s efforts to improve early project development and environmental review by capturing a spatial inventory of project shapes used to identify existing environmental resources with the potential for project impact through spatial analysis.

In 2003, VDOT expanded their data management solution by consolidating all non-spatial data sources into an environmental data repository called the Comprehensive Environmental Data and Reporting system (CEDAR). This internal web based application provides a single user interface for capturing all VDOT’s environmental business data, including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), permitting, and environmental contracts. The CEDAR application synchronizes nightly with the agency’s project pool and active directory databases for improved management of project data and user accounts. It also links to the agency’s GIS Integrator, which allows for streamlined project reviews.

“The CEDAR system provides VDOT staff with an invaluable comprehensive environmental data management tool that has successfully improved communication and accountability, said Geraldine Jones, VDOT CEDAR Administrator. “Since its deployment in 2003 CEDAR has been the backbone of VDOT’s environmental operations. CEDAR’s success, usability, and permanence can be attributed to its user championed platform and staff dedicated to maintain and enhance an application subject to dynamic regulations and processes,” she said.

The GIS Integrator allows users to buffer project shapes to determine potential resource issues. In this case, the project shape was buffered 2 miles for conservations lands. Source: VDOT

The integrated CEDAR system centralizes where staff enter and retrieve data for all VDOT’s environmental activities on a project-by-project basis, allowing for restricted viewing and editing based on roles and permissions. It captures project history, handles all project types – including construction and maintenance – tracks project status through the life of the project and generates system alerts.

The system also:

  • stores, manages and distributes documents;
  • contains a task assignment function;
  • tracks commitments;
  • documents project details such as meetings and phone calls using the journal feature;
  • contains links for environmental permit tracking and houses regulatory agency correspondence;
  • links to VDOT’s Integrated Project Manager (IPM) system, which contains project pool information;
  • links to the GIS Integrator, which allows for digitizing project shapes and spatial analysis functionality to identify environmental impacts in a project area;
  • includes both standard and ad-hoc project reporting such as new projects, tasks schedule, and advertisement schedule; and
  • provides access to project contract and other administrative information.

Benefits of the system include increased project accountability, satisfaction of mandates, and interagency coordination. It also provides documentation for decisions, and offers a tool for communication of commitments, project status, accuracy of project estimates, and efficiency of projects.

Current Efforts and Key Take-aways

Today, VDOT’s CEDAR and GIS Integrator applications are positioned for upgrades. A user advisory committee has been formed to identify functional requirements. The upgrade is expected to come with an updated user interface and be launched within the foreseeable future.

Key motivators for an integrated environmental data management system as exhibited by VDOT’s CEDAR and Integrator include the following:

  • Economic savings: Compared to “pre-CEDAR” 2003, VDOT environmental projects in 2011 experienced notable time savings. For example, the labor hours required to complete tasks associated with a project categorical exclusion (such as a biological assessment, state environmental review, or field survey for endangered species) decreased between 33 and 50 percent.
  • Process efficiencies: CEDAR consolidates applications (project management, GIS, data storage) and makes it easier to document environmental decisions and communicate environmental commitments and project status.
  • Quality control improvements: CEDAR provides standardized spatial data and pre-approved data schemes. It provides a basis for program management and trend analysis.
  • Interagency coordination and relationship building: CEDAR helps streamline interagency coordination by supporting compliance with mandates, reducing the time required for advancing projects through regulatory approvals, compiling all external agency communication, providing transparency of environmental data from all participating entities, and increasing the visibility of project.

Transferability

VDOT is not alone in its development of an environmental data management system. Though many state DOTs still use spreadsheets, databases, paper maps, and shapefiles as data management tools, many others have developed standalone systems or contemplated environmental data management systems of their own. In August 2015, numerous state DOTs gathered in Oregon and online to discuss data management approaches in their agencies in an effort to share information and experiences across agencies.

VDOT’s advice to other DOTs interested in their own data management systems includes supporting an IT staff dedicated to application maintenance, and involving users from the beginning to confirm requirements and increase staff adoption of the system.

For more information on VDOT’s CEDAR, please contact Geraldine Jones, CEDAR Administrator, VDOT Environmental Division, at Geraldine.Jones@VDOT.viriginia.gov.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Compilations of Case Studies - FHWA

GIS in Transportation – This website is maintained by FHWA’s Office of Planning, Environment and Realty to highlight noteworthy practices and innovative uses of GIS applications in transportation planning by state and local transportation agencies. This site includes examples of GIS applications listed by State.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Compilations of Case Studies - AASHTO

GIS for Transportation Symposium – This website includes proceedings for AASHTO’s GIS-T Symposium, including a variety of effective practices. Copies of the actual presentations made at each topic session are available on-line.

[back to top]

Historic Preservation/Cultural Resources

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Addresses Compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA

The January 2017 edition of the Federal Highway Administration’s Successes in Stewardship newsletter addresses the four basic steps an agency may take to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The process ensures that agencies comply with Section 106 regulations from a project’s outset and helps to avoid time and cost overruns. The steps are initiating the Section 106 process, identifying historic properties, assessing adverse effects, and resolving adverse effects. For more information, link to the newsletter. (1-26-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FRA, FTA Seek Input on Draft Section 106 Exemption for Rail ROW

The Federal Railroad Administration and Federal Transit Administration are gathering input on a draft exemption for railroad rights-of-way from review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Development of the exemption was required under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. The exemption is being drafted by FRA and FTA and will be submitted to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which will publish it in the Federal Register for comment prior to finalizing it. A summary of the proposed approach was provided in a series of recent webinars and is available here. The agencies are seeking input on their proposed approach via e-mail at FRA.106Exemption@dot.gov. (12-20-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Highlights Louisiana’s Efforts to Identify, Preserve Historic Bridges

The Federal Highway Administration has published the November edition of the Successes in Stewardship Newsletter, which highlights the efforts of the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development to identify, preserve and manage historically significant bridges built before 1971. The LADOTD, along with the Louisiana State Historic Preservation Office and the FHWA, signed a programmatic agreement and completed a statewide management plan which shortened the project delivery process for historic bridge projects. Historic bridges are no longer processed individually for review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and bridge designers know in advance which bridges are committed for long-term preservation. For more information, link to the newsletter. (11-20-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: National Trust Announces 2016 List of America's Most Endangered Places

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has released its annual list of America’s Most Endangered Historic Places, which seeks to highlight architectural, cultural, and historic sites that are at risk of being damaged or lost. This year's list of 11 historic places includes the San Francisco Embarcadero, which is threatened by sea level rise; downtown Flemington, N.J., a large historic district with 19th-century architecture; and the Sunshine Mile, a two-mile commercial corridor on Tucson, Ariz. that is threatened by a proposed boulevard widening project. For more information, link to the press release. (10-5-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Case Study Compilations - FHWA Issues Case Studies on Historic Preservation in Planning, Early Project Development

A report and set of case studies showcasing transportation agency programs that consider historic preservation in planning and early project development have been issued by the Federal Highway Administration. The report documents 17 case studies organized by program type, including Section 106 programmatic agreements, historic property databases for State DOT rights-of-way, statewide management of historic bridges, and staff liaison programs with State Historic Preservation Offices. The report, which also provides analysis on the effectiveness and benefits of the programs, was prepared in support of FHWA’s Every Day Counts Initiative.

The report contains the following case studies:

For more information, link to the report, Planning And Environmental Linkages For Historic Preservation, and to FHWA’s Planning and Environment Linkages Historic Preservation webpage.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Case Study Compilations - AASHTO Report Offers Case Studies on Historic Bridge Rehabilitation

Case studies of best practices for historic bridge rehabilitation from across the country are detailed in a report produced by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO’s Historic Bridges Community of Practice. The report provides 16 case studies developed in partnership with state DOTs and local transportation agencies and their contractors. For each case study, the report information on each bridge and its context including significant issues associated with project; project description, including purpose and need; traffic levels, loading needs, and other related issues; Section 106 effects finding (no adverse, adverse); and lessons learned.

The report includes the following case studies:

  • Stone Arch Bridges:
    • Johns Burnt Mill Bridge (Adams County Bridge No. 56), Mount Pleasant and Oxford Townships, Pennsylvania
    • Prairie River Bridge (aka Merrill Bridge or First Street Bridge), Merrill, Wisconsin
  • Concrete Arch Bridges
    • Carrollton Bridge (Carroll County Bridge No. 132), Carroll County, Indiana
    • Robert A. Booth (Winchester) Bridge, Douglas County, Oregon
  • Movable Span Bridges
    • Bridge of Lions, St. Augustine, Florida
  • Metal Truss Bridges
    • Tobias Bridge, Jefferson County, Indiana
    • New Casselman River Bridge, Grantsville, Maryland
    • Walnut Street Bridge, Mazeppa, Minnesota
    • Pine Creek Bridge, or Tiadaghton Bridge, Clinton and Lycoming Counties, Pennsylvania
    • Washington Avenue Bridge, Waco, Texas
    • Lone Wolf Bridge, San Angelo, Texas
    • Goshen Historic Truss Bridge, Goshen, Virginia
    • Hawthorne Street Bridge, Covington, Virginia
    • Ross Booth Memorial Bridge (aka Winfield Toll Bridge), Putman County, West Virginia
  • Metal Arch Bridges
    • Lion Bridges (North and South), Milwaukee, Wisconsin
  • Metal Girder Bridges
    • Hare’s Hill Road Bridge, Chester County, Pennsylvania

For more information, link to the report, Case Studies on Rehabilitation of Historic Bridges and related resources on the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO website.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Arizona - Arizona DOT Uses Adobe Bricks to Help Restore Historic Building in Tombstone

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) has made what it calls an “architecturally challenging” decision to carry out both historic preservation work and transportation safety work in one of the nation’s most significant and infamous towns -- Tombstone.

Tombstone was one of the last frontier boomtowns in the American Old West. In its heyday, it produced millions of dollars of silver bullion and is best known as the site of the Gunfight at the OK Corral. There, ADOT is shoring up water-damaged sections of a local historic landmark called Schieffelin Hall, named for 19th century resident and silver prospector Ed Schieffelin.

Arizona DOT is using adobe bricks to shore up water-damaged sections of a local historic landmark, Schieffelin Hall. Photo: Arizona DOT

“Carrying out preservation work with very unique materials alongside one of our highway projects is not what we do every day,” says ADOT Southeast District Engineer Bill Harmon.

Preservation Work

“But in this case, it was a natural fit. We were part of the scope of work for both projects. They both are being carried out in Tombstone’s Historic District. And ADOT is proud to be helping restore and preserve a treasured National Landmark.”

The unique materials Harmon is referring to are adobe bricks. ADOT is shoring up the Hall using replacement bricks that are being painstakingly produced using 19th century techniques. The fabrication process is taking place at a mine not far away in Cochise County by a crew headed up by a third-generation adobe maker. Precise historic replication will enable the new bricks to tightly weld to the remaining original bricks, thus increasing stability and also helping to fend off more water damage.

To create the bricks, wooden molds are set down and a slurry mixture of sand, silt, clay and grass is poured into the forms. After the mixture sits for a day or two and the bricks have taken shape, the forms are removed and the bricks are stacked in the sun to completely dry, a process that can take several weeks. Once the bricks arrive on site at the Hall, they are put into place and secured with a mud and straw mixture that functions like mortar. Finally, a layer of stucco is added on top to conform to the rest of the building’s façade.

Crews create adobe bricks for restoration of the Schieffelin Hall using historic techniques. Photo: Arizona DOT

Besides replacing some of the bricks, ADOT also will add a porch to the Hall to replace the original one removed in the early 1900s. Its corrugated metal roof will be supported by wooden posts, and a downspout will be incorporated to carry away rainwater.

Funding for the preservation work comes from a FHWA Transportation Enhancement (TE) grant awarded to the City of Tombstone. The TE grant was the culmination of several years of hard work involving numerous groups including ADOT, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Tombstone Restoration Commission, the Federal Highway Administration, and the National Park Service, as well as local government, businesses, and citizens. All work is being carried out according to guidelines from the Department of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, a technique required by the National Historic Preservation Act.

Safety Work

In the same neighborhood as its preservation work, ADOT also is carrying out an associated project to improve motorist and pedestrian safety along the Fremont Street portion of State Route 80 where Schieffelin Hall stands. Funding for the highway safety project comes from FHWA’s Highway Safety Improvement Program under MAP-21 and from state gas-tax dollars.

Key safety features being installed under the ADOT grant, begun in August of this year, include the following:

  • narrowing a portion of Fremont Street from 68 feet to 44 feet to make room for sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements;
  • installing landscaping and constructing sturdy concrete sidewalks that look like weathered wood to deter pedestrians from jaywalking; and
  • providing continuous street lighting throughout the area.

He continues, “Sadly, part of the impetus for installing extra rigorous safety features came from a tragic crash that took place here in Tombstone in 2009 involving two tourists. After that happened, ADOT and the city of Tombstone began to work together even more closely to implement a range of advanced pedestrian safety improvements.”

In 2010, he says, ADOT and the city of Tombstone completed a comprehensive traffic study soon after the accident. Short-term actions that ensued included road striping, parking restrictions, and reduced speed limits. The study also recommended several longer-term improvements.

Besides the key pedestrian safety features, the project also entails repaving the roadway and constructing new curbs with handicap ramps,, removing an obsolete pedestrian bridge, and installing an irrigation system for landscaping. Driveways not needed by property owners will be closed, others will be improved to meet current standards.

“Construction for both projects is moving forward steadily,” Harmon says. “Our schedule calls for completing both in the spring of 2016. The value of the two projects, combined, is right at $1 million.”

Groundwork

According to Harmon, while it’s not uncommon for ADOT to be involved in the preservation of historic properties through the Transportation Enhancement grants program, it is unusual for the agency to play a role in the preservation of a National Historic Landmark, including such an architecturally challenging project. As he puts it: “This project truly is one of a kind.”

Extensive collaboration took place so that both historic preservation and improved safety goals were met, he continues. The two projects were evaluated together under one NEPA categorical exclusion document. ADOT retained historic preservation specialists to help during the design and construction phases. The restoration concepts were reviewed and approved by the State Historic Preservation Officer. Detailed plans were prepared based on old photographs plus an onsite investigation of the soundness of the walls.

To meet the requirements of both Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and Section 4(f) of the Transportation Act, AZDOT incorporated several historic preservation features. For example, to mitigate the porch’s potential impact on the historic adobe material, the design was tweaked so to have the porch be a free-standing structure rather than be attached. And the street lighting that was installed was carefully chosen in conjunction with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) so as to carry forward aspects of period lighting design.

“Other state DOTs could, and may well be, carrying out similar community improvement projects under what has become the Transportation Alternatives program,” says Harmon.

“But in addition to the challenges of coordination across many different groups, there is also the issue of funding, including matching funds. We were very fortunate in this project to have both the funding and a great group of people who were willing to do what it took to make this happen.”

The project’s most memorable moment to date? Easy one, is Harmon’s reply. It was the day some cattle wandered into the brick-making area and trampled over some of the fresh adobe.

“Not a typical delay at a modern construction site,” he says, “but it probably happened more than once a century or so ago. I guess it’s to be expected when, for historic preservation’s sake, we decide to work on the cutting edge of low technology.”

For more information, link to the ADOT blog post and video or contact Dustin Krugel, ADOT Public Information Officer, at Dkrugel@azdot.gov.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Delaware - Archeology Program for US 301 Project Uncovers History

Archeologists are piecing together a new understanding of residents and merchants who traveled through Delaware as far back as the late 1600s as part of the Delaware Department of Transportation’s US 301 construction project.

The 17-mile, $800 million project will provide a new connection from US Route 301 in Maryland to the existing Delaware State Route 1 corridor.

Spurred on by a tight deadline for construction, archeology work on the project is being conducted at lightning speed and is uncovering numerous archeological sites that are changing the understanding of early inhabitants, merchants, and trade practices in the region, according to David Clarke, an archeologist with DelDOT.

Clarke described the unique $12 million archeology program for the US 301 project, both in terms of the history uncovered at the archaeological sites as well as lessons learned by the state DOT. The large-scale archeological effort was conducted in a short timeframe, while maintaining compliance with requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

DelDOT has been able to “front-load” the archeology program with detailed background research and GIS mapping while keeping the project on time and on budget by following a process set forth in a memorandum of agreement among the transportation and resource agencies.

Holistic Approach

Clarke said the MOA for the project – developed and signed by the Federal Highway Administration, DelDOT, and the Delaware State Historic Preservation Office – is a key element in the “holistic approach” to the Route 301 archaeology program. The program includes a GIS-based predictive model, detailed background research that informed the sampling strategy, and intensive archaeological testing to identify archaeology sites.

“Once we got the record of decision we spent a lot of effort and a lot of money doing very detailed background research and historic research and GIS mapping, so when we had to put shovels in the ground we had so much knowledge already that we weren’t looking for needles in a hay stack,” Clarke said.

In addition, while 99 percent of the archeology work on the project is performed by outside contractors, the program is managed by DelDOT archeologists, giving an added level of confidence to resource agencies and the federal government. “It saves us so much time and money by having archeologists manage the archeologists,” Clarke said.

One of the major accomplishments has been the ability of the program to shift the alignment of the planned highway to avoid archeological resources and preserve sites in-place – a savings of about $5 million and a win-win accomplishment for all involved, he said.

These elements combined have allowed the archeology program to be conducted quicker, cheaper, and more effectively, and to get better results, he added.

“The hope is that at the end of this project this will be a kind of new gold standard both for FHWA and the Delaware Department of Transportation on how to manage the Section 106 compliance on a mega-project,” he said.

Rewriting History

Meanwhile, Clarke said archeologists are finding evidence of previously undocumented inhabitants and possible trade routes that may help rewrite the history of the area.

“We have found an amazing number of early historic archeological sites from the late 1600s and throughout the 1700s that we really didn’t expect to be on the landscape and a number of associated cart roads,” Clarke said.

Researchers are finding evidence that merchants likely were using secret trade routes along undocumented cart roads to avoid the more prominent routes that were subject to a tax by the King of England. Trade items from the merchants’ ships – remains of which archeologists are uncovering near the cart roads – were likely used as barter to local farmers and residents who provided access to their land and use of their ox-drawn carts, Clarke explained.

Clarke predicted that these early archeological sites will “completely rewrite and change what we thought we knew about the Delmarva region before the Revolutionary war and at the end of the 1600s and early 1700s – when our previous models told us there weren’t a lot of people living here.”

“We’re finding a lot more evidence of people here and goods trading between the Delaware and Chesapeake Bay – just a lot of it may not have been recorded.”

“Even though we found all of these amazing early archeology sites we are still going to be on-time and on budget, and get through the 106 process, because we set up our program to handle any kind of archeology; no matter what we found we had a way in our memorandum of agreement to work through it.”

Clarke said the new information and data from the U.S. 301 archaeology program will be synthesized and distributed to the public.

In addition to traditional mitigation for project impacts, alternative mitigation will likely include providing a new historic context for the state, journal articles, and possibly an entire book documenting the findings.

Clarke credited the success of the project to the joint effort of the agencies involved.

“We collectively worked very hard to write a memorandum of agreement that allows us the tools to do things differently, but it was also very strict on the roles each agency played, who was in charge, and the decision-making process. Without that legally binding agreement we really couldn’t do the things we’re doing now.”

For more information, link to the DelDOT archeology program website, the U.S. 301 Final EIS, and the Memorandum of Agreement.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Florida - Historic Bridge of Lions Rehabilitation

The Florida Department of Transportation was able to preserve the historically significant architectural features of the Bridge of Lions, the gateway to historic St. Augustine. Accomplished by constructing a “bridge within a bridge,” the improvement project was able to retain key elements of the original bridge while addressing the bridge’s structural problems.

The Bridge of Lions crosses Matanzas Bay (part of the Intracoastal Waterway) and connects the city of St. Augustine with the resort communities of Anastasia Island, St. Johns County, Florida. It is located in an urban setting, with its western approach in the historic district of St. Augustine. Designed by John E. Greiner and constructed in 1927, the bridge has a total length of 1,545 feet. The main span is a 95 foot double-leaf rolling lift bascule. Approach spans are steel arched girder-floor beam spans with cantilevered overhanging sections.

This architectonic bridge is a significant feature of the historic streetscape of St. Augustine and is a gateway to the old city. The bridge was rehabilitated in order to retain its historically significant architectural features, while solving the bridge’s structural problems. This was accomplished by constructing a “bridge within a bridge.” Enough of the old bridge was retained to classify the project as a rehabilitation and not new construction. New construction would have required use of all modern design criteria.

Prior to rehabilitation, the bridge was in fair to poor condition, particularly in terms of the fracture critical girder-floor beam approach spans and the substructure units. At many locations, crutch bents had been previously installed in order to provide additional support.

Rehabilitation Process

As part of the rehabilitation, the bridge’s two fascia girders were retained for visual appearance, while new steel stringers were installed inside the girders. The fascia girders, which were removed, repaired, and then reset in place, were relieved of most of the loads and the new stringers now carry the majority of the dead load and the traffic loads. The stringers are hidden from view and will not distract from the architecturally significant arched girders. In addition, the approach spans were widened in order to improve the roadway geometry.

The bascule piers and associated towers were left in place and repaired. This included replacing the existing concrete piers within the splash zone with new concrete, as the existing concrete contained high levels of chlorides. The bascule piers were strengthened by the addition of drilled shafts, and a new footing was placed below the existing waterline footing in order to provide sufficient strength for a modern design scour event.

Several features original to the bridge, but previously removed or replaced, were replicated. These included the pedestrian railing (with the height increased to meet modern standards), light standards, and rotating traffic gates. The bridge steel was painted to match the original bridge color.

The original bridge was recognized as important for its high artistic merit, rather than its technological significance. This made it possible to focus the rehabilitation on its historic character and appearance. This resulted in Florida DOT making a finding of No Adverse Effect. The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer concurred with this finding.

Lessons Learned

By retaining a sufficient amount of the existing bridge, this project was considered a rehabilitation. New construction would have required use of all modern design criteria, such as widening the navigable channel from the existing 84 foot to the 125 foot width now required for the Intracoastal Waterway.

To maintain the bridge’s historic character, it was extremely important to retain the design of the piers and the arch-shaped fascia beams, in addition to the cantilevered end sections of the girder-floor beam approach spans. The fascia girders were reused on the slightly wider stringer approach spans, supported on substructure units that were rebuilt in-kind to the new geometry. The reused fascia girders support themselves and part of the bridge’s sidewalks.

For more information on the project, contact Roy A. Jackson, State Cultural Resources Coordinator, Florida Department of Transportation, e-mail: roy.jackson@dot.state.fl.us.

Additional case studies of best practices for historic bridge rehabilitation from across the country are detailed in a report produced by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO’s Historic Bridges Community of Practice. Link to Case Studies on Rehabilitation of Historic Bridges.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Pennsylvania - Pennsylvania DOT Uses ‘Story Map’ to Document History, Mitigate Impacts

The Pennsylvania Department of Transportation is using an innovative “Story Map” to share important historical information about an area impacted by a road improvement project on Route 322 in Centre County.

The online interactive map provides locations and details about historically significant sites, people, and events within the area of the Potters Mills Gap Transportation Project. Users can learn about the history of the project area and its inhabitants, including the town’s namesake James Potter, Native American settlements, log structures and historic homes inhabited by early settlers, early roads, farms, industry, cemeteries and other features. This effort to document the area’s history is part of an innovative effort to mitigate project impacts on historic resources in the project area.

The road improvement project along a section of Route 322 required mitigation for adverse impacts on several wooded tracts, historic buildings, and historic farmland areas within the Penns/Brush Valley rural historic district. The district was determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places based on its agricultural patterns, associated landscape features and Vernacular-style architecture established during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The Story Map, titled A Journey to Potters Mills, is the first of its kind to be used by PennDOT to help mitigate adverse impacts to historical resources.

Screenshot of Journey to Potters Mills Story Map. Courtesy: PennDOT

“The intent of the Story Map is to provide the public with insight into how the development of transportation within the Potters Mills Gap has, over time, impacted the Historic District,” said Karen Michael, PennDOT District 2 Executive.

According to a PennDOT summary, the Story Map provides visitors with a visual and geographic history of an important crossroads in the Seven Mountains region of the Commonwealth. The map “allows visitors to change scale and navigate between important historic places along the highway corridor and understand the roles that transportation, natural resources, agriculture and early industries played in the development of modern Centre County.”

The Story Map website provides an interactive map of the area with 33 separate image icons that link users to important locations – along with photos, historic maps and documents and a brief description of each. Together, the map allows users to explore the history of the region, from the time of the Native Americans and earliest settlers through various important historic events and locations.

The team sought images which spanned the development of the area, and included diverse subjects and formats including photos, historic maps, portraits, documents, and other records. Information was uncovered through research at a number of repositories, including local historical societies, universities, libraries, state agencies, and from private individuals.

Origins of Story Map Concept

The Story Map concept was proposed to PennDOT by its project consultant as a possible mitigation measure for adverse impacts identified for the project under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

“The idea actually came from one of the consultant team members who saw a social media post that combined a map, text and images, but lacked the GIS-based interactivity of what became the Story Map,” according to PennDOT’s Steve Fantechi, who managed the project through preliminary design.

The Story Map was one of a number of mitigation measures that included roadside interpretive signage, context-sensitive design measures, the preparation of a “Best Practices” document, and avoidance and protection of some resources. The NEPA document for the project was an Environmental Assessment that concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact.

According to Fantechi, the Section 106 consultation process involved a great deal of consultation and interaction with local historical societies and local governments. “That collaboration contributed substantially to Story Map’s popularity with local residents, the regional press, teachers, and citizens and engendered a substantial amount of local and regional pride in local heritage,” he said. “In our view that’s what a successful Section 106 outcome looks like.”

In addition, he said, the GIS-based Story Map approach also creates an obvious link between landscape, transportation networks, and economic history, which in turn promotes a better understanding of and context for historic events, trends and places.

To the best of PennDOT’s knowledge, this is the first mitigation product of its type used for an American transportation project.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

According to PennDOT District 2 staff, the biggest challenge in developing the Story Map was probably too much of a good thing.

Background research and interaction with the consulting parties produced an enormous number of images and a substantial amount of local history and documents. Paring that down to a relevant and manageable record of local and regional history was a challenge.

Once that work was done, the actual GIS programming required to produce an interactive and useable online product had its own set of challenges, as the product went through a number of iterations leading to the final version.

Another challenge came from requests by some of the consulting partners to add additional information to the Story Map for future projects. Since PennDOT used a consultant to develop the Story Map, its ability to revise the map was limited to the duration and funding of the consultant’s contract. PennDOT doesn’t have the resources to revise the Story Map in-house, so future revisions, which could involve different consultants, could be more difficult, according to PennDOT Project Manager Craig Sattesahn.

Regarding lessons learned, Sattesahn said it would have been useful to establish procedures and parameters up front to facilitate revisions and additional requests.

Advice for Other DOTs

According to PennDOT staff, close and meaningful consultation with local consulting parties and residents is key to local support for the product and can help obtain a great deal of important local input – such as family images, diaries, etc. – that would be impossible to get anywhere else.

It’s also important to balance high-tech and low-tech mitigation measures. Older residents are less technologically savvy than younger ones, and there are still many remote locations where high speed internet conductivity is spotty.

Since the Story Map is a technology-based product, the rapid change and evolution of technology requires attention. Although no funding is available to carry the Potters Mills Gap Story Map further, it’s likely that the next iteration of a Story Map on a different project would probably be a mobile application.

As a final consideration, PennDOT staff said a central online state repository for Story Maps from multiple projects is probably worthwhile and would not be a very expensive effort. Such a site would allow visitors to start a search at the state map level and zoom in to a number of specific project areas that have Story Maps.

The first of three construction sections of the Potters Mills Gap Transportation Project was completed in 2015. A second section began construction in August 2016, and the last section is scheduled to start construction in early 2018. More information about the PMG Transportation Project is available on the project web page.

A Journey to Potters Mills Story Map can be found on PennDOT’s PA Project Path website.

[back to top]

Indirect Effects/Cumulative Impacts

Case Studies: Texas - Texas DOT Offers Simplified Guidance to Assess Projects' Indirect and Cumulative Effects

Challenges associated with assessing the indirect and cumulative effects of transportation projects across Texas have been eased by a revised and simplified set of handbooks and guidance documents developed by the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT).

TxDOT faces a distinctive challenge when assessing the indirect and cumulative effects of its projects across the state: the state lacks a statewide land use management policy and manages its lands at the local level. The lack of a statewide approach to land use creates varying conditions across the state that make a strictly defined indirect and cumulative effects process unfeasible—the same project could have drastically different indirect and/or cumulative effects under contrasting land use conditions created by the various land use policies of different cities.

For example, where one city may employ strict zoning laws, other cities may frequently and broadly grant variances; an interchange project that may reasonably be assumed to have a ½-mile radius Area of Influence (AOI) in the first city may require an AOI with a radius of several miles in the second city because the second city’s less strict zoning creates the possibility of a geographically much larger AOI.

The varying land use climates across the state and extensive use of frontage roads parallel to limited access facilities create an interesting challenge for Texas: how to create guidance that balances streamlining the indirect and cumulative effect analyses with the unique conditions presented by different local approaches to land use regulations.

TxDOT's indirect and cumulative impacts guidance helps streamline implementation of projects such as the FM 2493 Road Widening EA Project in Smith County, Texas. Photo: Texas Department of Transportation

Developing the Guidance

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)’s guidelines for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementation (40 CFR §§1500-1508) established the requirement for federal agencies to consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process. Subsequent guidance and resources provide further direction on considering indirect and cumulative effects under NEPA (e.g., AASHTO Handbook 12, NCHRP Report 466, FHWA Interim Guidance and Q & A, and NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 43).

TxDOT developed its own cumulative impacts guidance in the early 2000s, which was met with positive feedback from around the state and other DOTs. Soon after, the agency began developing a guidance that incorporated both indirect and cumulative impacts. Following the suggestion of FHWA Texas Division, the more comprehensive guidance document pulled from a variety of sources like the NCHRP Report 466—the Transportation Research Board’s Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects—to provide TxDOT project teams with a step-by-step process. Initially implemented in 2009, minor updates to the guidance document in 2010 added keys for success and how to approach small projects through added-capacity Categorical Exclusions.

Implementing the 132-page guidance document proved both successful and challenging. The guide acts as a detailed “how-to” resource of indirect and cumulative impact analysis methods. TxDOT learned, however, that document users found its size cumbersome and struggled with the unfamiliar technical terms (e.g., notable feature, impact-causing). In response, TxDOT split the guidance into two separate guidance documents—one for indirect effects and one for cumulative effects—and simplified them by consolidating the number of steps, removing technical jargon, and splitting out easily convoluted concepts, such as growth-related effects and encroachment effects. TxDOT also added an Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Handbook to provide a high level overview of the steps to conduct a thorough and defensible analyses of indirect and/or cumulative impacts that may occur as a result of a transportation project.

Nicolle Kord, TxDOT’s indirect and cumulative impacts expert, said the agency has “attempted to structure our guidance to be more accessible to a wider audience; in particular for those new to indirect and cumulative impact analysis.” For example, she said, TxDOT “attempted to make these complex ideas easier to understand by breaking them up into their individual parts (indirect encroachment impacts, indirect induced growth impacts, and cumulative impacts) as well as by removing jargon and putting guidance in plain language.”

Key Features of the Guidance Documents

The following table illustrates several key features of TxDOT’s indirect and cumulative effects guidance documents that contribute to their efficacy.

Lessons Learned

From its original cumulative effects guidance through its most recent guidance updates, TxDOT emphasized the following lessons that may be transferable to other state DOTs:

  • Know your state: A blanket approach to indirect and cumulative impacts analysis does not work in Texas. Though other state DOTs may have a more uniform statewide land use climate, it is critical to know your area and understand that indirect and cumulative impacts are complex and often call for a case-by-case approach. Texas uses decision trees (Induced Growth Indirect Impacts Decision Tree and Cumulative Impacts Decision Tree) to help determine which projects need indirect and cumulative impact analyses.
  • Simplify: TxDOT’s simplified approach to indirect and cumulative impact analyses made it more approachable for district environmental staff, who are project and technical experts but not necessarily versed in all aspects of NEPA.
  • Consider process improvements: By emphasizing technical reports and coordination early in the NEPA process, TxDOT was able to shorten their review cycles, save time and money, and produce stronger analysis in its documents.
  • Provide one-on-one coaching: In addition to regular conference calls (“NEPA Chats”) with districts to identify and provide guidance on various NEPA issues, TxDOT found great value in one-on-one coaching with district subject matter experts on individual projects rather than implementing agency-wide theoretical classroom training in how to apply the guidance.

For more information on TxDOT’s approach to Indirect and Cumulative Effects, contact Nicolle Kord, Environmental Specialist, Texas DOT at Nicolle.Kord@txdot.gov.

[back to top]

NEPA Process

Recent Developments: FHWA Describes Need for Quality of Environmental Documentation

The quality of environmental documentation is addressed in the Federal Highway Administration’s April issue of Successes in Stewardship newsletter. Environmental documents are used to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate impacts of agency decisions. This issue includes best practices for creating high quality documentation to reduce time during project review processes. The newsletter addresses the EDC-2 and EDC-3 products under the Every Day Counts initiative, which support quality documentation by improving collaborative processes and providing tools to appropriately document environmental impacts. Resources concerning trainings, workshops and technical assistance are also provided. For more information, link to the newsletter. (April 2017)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: President Issues Executive Order on High Priority Infrastructure Projects

The President has issued Executive Order 13766 to expedite environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects. The order identifies as high priority projects those intended to improve the electric grid and telecommunication systems and those that repair and upgrade critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges and highways. The order allows governors and any executive department or agency to request high priority status and requires the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to decide whether an infrastructure project qualifies as a high priority within 30 days of such requests. The order also allows the CEQ to make determinations on its own initiative, and the council must coordinate with the heads of the relevant agencies to establish expedited procedures and deadlines. For more information link to the executive order. (1-30-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Issues Draft of Revised NEPA Implementing Procedures

The U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary, is requesting comments on a proposed update to the department’s National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) implementing procedures. Last updated in 1985, the revised order, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (DOT Order 5610.1D), is intended to be the overarching procedures for the U.S. DOT and its modal administrations, while recognizing that some administrations have unique NEPA responsibilities and processes. The order addresses the relevant project delivery provisions of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act and updates references to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations. The order also significantly revises provisions regarding planning and coordination, expands discussion of the various classes of environmental action, and will replace Attachment 2 with a Desk Reference providing more specific guidance. In addition, the order updates terminology and substantially renumbers the sections. Comments are due Jan. 10, 2017. For more information, view the Federal Register notice and the proposed Order 5610.1D. (12-20-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FDOT Receives National Environmental Policy Act Responsibilities

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has announced a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Highway Administration to allow the state to assume responsibilities for environmental review of infrastructure projects. The assignment of responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act is expected to save an estimated 25 percent of the processing time and $22 million per year. Florida joins California, Ohio and Texas in assuming NEPA authority. For more information, link to the press release. (12-14-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Caltrans Requests Renewed Participation in NEPA Assignment Program

The Federal Highway Administration has announced the receipt of a renewal package from the California Department of Transportation requesting renewed participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and an associated proposed memorandum of understanding for assignment of National Environmental Policy Act review authority. The FHWA has determined that the renewal package is complete and has developed a draft renewal memorandum of understanding with Caltrans outlining how the state will implement the program with FHWA oversight. For more information, link to the Federal Register notice. (11-16-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Utah DOT Seeks to Assume FHWA NEPA Review Authority

The Federal Highway Administration has announced the receipt of an application from the Utah Department of Transportation requesting participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and an associated proposed memorandum of understanding that outlines how the state will implement the program with oversight from the FHWA. The FHWA specifies that if approved, the state will assume environmental review responsibilities, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, for federally funded highway projects in the state. For more information, link to the Federal Register notice. (11-16-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: AASHTO’s Updated Handbook Series Provides Environmental Compliance Advice

Practical advice on environmental compliance for transportation projects is provided in recently updated Practitioner’s Handbooks published by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. The series includes 15 handbooks, each of which includes key issues to consider; a background briefing; practical tips for achieving compliance; and a list of reference materials. Recently updated handbooks include: Maintaining a Project File and Preparing an Administrative Record for a NEPA Study (Handbook 1); Responding to Comments on an Environmental Impact Statement (Handbook 02); Managing the NEPA Process for Toll Lanes and Toll Roads (Handbook 3); Consulting Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (Handbook 6); Defining the Purpose and Need and Determining the Range of Alternatives for Transportation Projects (Handbook 7); Assessing Indirect Effects and Cumulative Impacts Under NEPA (Handbook 12); and Applying the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines in Transportation Project Decision-Making (Handbook 14). For more information, link to the Practitioner’s Handbooks web page. (9-23-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Ohio - Ohio DOT Launches Expanded Online Environmental Documentation System

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has launched an expanded and renamed version of its online environmental documentation system and is steadily adding time-saving bells and whistles. The system, formerly known as CE Online, has been rebranded ENVIRONET to reflect the comprehensive capabilities of the system and to allow for future planned enhancements.

ENVIRONET facilitates the electronic processing of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents. Categorical exclusions (CEs) can be fully completed online because the forms are built into the system. The associated electronic project file houses supporting documentation. While Environmental Assessments (EAs) and Environmental Impact Statement (EISs) still need to be completed outside the system, both the environmental document and its associated documentation are uploaded to the electronic project file set up for the project.

The electronic project file is a very important part of the system since it allows real-time access to draft and final supporting documents. Subject matter reviewers can check out draft technical reports, make comments, and check them back in. Once the technical report is approved, it can be finalized in the system. This capability allows for version control and the system also tracks when documents were uploaded, when they were modified, and by whom.

EnviroNet System Screenshot, Courtesy Ohio DOT

The system also provides a standardized process for uploading reports, technical studies, agency coordination, and decision-making documents. It allows the user to select appropriate drop-down options to consistently name documentation. The process is capped off with an electronic review and approval function, meaning no printing, signing, scanning and uploading is required. Users have access to particular sections of the system based on their respective roles.

“Rebranding is a reminder that our system offers more than just streamlining CE preparations,” said ODOT Assistant Environmental Administrator Erica Schneider. “One of EnviroNet’s greatest benefits is that it provides all sorts of real-time information to our project team. There’s no longer a need for mailing or e-mailing information back and forth.”

ODOT has continued to save approximately $100,000 per year since its CE Online went live in 2012, Schneider said. Even better, savings could double as additional enhancements are added.

NEPA Assignment a Motivator

In December 2015, ODOT assumed federal authority for NEPA reviews from the Federal Highway Administration, giving the state agency added responsibilities for ensuring environmental compliance. These new responsibilities provided additional motivation to add new capabilities to the system, explained Kevin Davis, Environmental Supervisor with ODOT. For example, the system now includes a Project Details Tab that allows ODOT users to enter dates for specific environmental milestones related to the project, whether it’s a CE (the vast majority), EA, or an EIS.

“We now are required to closely track time savings,” he explained. “Using the project file, we can access completion dates for each stage of a project from start to finish. With these details in hand, we can identify exactly where we are saving time or, in some cases, exactly where we need to find ways to work more efficiently.”

Another recent addition is the FHWA Auditing Tool. During annual audits under the NEPA assignment program, auditors can log in at the home page, select the date range they are seeking, and view all of the documents approved during that time period.

Lessons Learned, Advice to Other DOTs

In planning and developing enhancements to ENVIRONET, ODOT has gathered suggestions from inside the agency and also used information from similar online systems in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Texas. Virginia DOT, for example, has integrated a GIS component into its system, an enhancement ODOT now is considering.

Schneider said developing an effective system that can be built to grow and adapt requires funding, patience, and time. The original system cost about $600,000 to develop and it took just over a year.

She offered the following advice to other DOTs contemplating building similar systems:

  • Gain and maintain strong support from upper management.
  • Develop a front-end detailed communications plan. Processes, roles, and protocols should be clearly spelled out to avoid duplication and misunderstandings.
  • Plan on dedicating a lot of time to working with programmers and subject matter experts as the system is developed.
  • Involve everyday users of the system at the beginning of development. Learn about their needs and solicit their ideas. Before deployment, carry out user acceptance testing and make changes where needed.
  • Provide comprehensive training to all users. Go beyond “train-the-trainer.” Conduct classroom training. Develop a website that provides guidance on tasks such as how to check out a document for review.

Looking Ahead

As of October 2016, more than 6,600 projects were housed in ENVIRONET including approved documents, those in process, and those submitted for review and/or approval. More than 600 people had been granted access to the system, including ODOT staff, regulatory agencies, and consultants. The eventual goal, Schneider said, is for all involved resource agencies to carry out their reviews using ENVIRONET and to make all approved environmental documents available to the public online.

Another planned enhancement will facilitate the completion and coordination of Ecological Survey Reports. Under the current system, regulatory agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service receive as many as 60-70 such reports a month. They are uploaded to an internal local drive and sent out in batches via an extranet site at the end of the month. The new feature, which would incorporate the report into the CE form, is scheduled for incorporation in 2017.

For more information, contact Kevin E. Davis at Kevin.Davis@dot.ohio.gov or Erica Schneider at Erica.Schneider@dot.state.oh.us of the Office of Environmental Services at ODOT or visit the Office of Environmental Services Environmental Documentation web page.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Texas - TxDOT Accrues Multiple Benefits from NEPA Assignment Responsibilities

The Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) assumption of authority for the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) responsibilities for environmental review and approval is providing multiple streamlining benefits, saving time and money in the review process while still protecting the state’s natural resources.

TxDOT is the second state transportation agency in the nation to assume full environmental review authority from FHWA. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) was the first to take on the role under a pilot program launched under the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). Then, under MAP-21, the program was expanded and made permanent. Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) became the third state in December 2015. Four other state transportation agencies are in the process of applying for NEPA assignment: Alaska, Florida, Idaho, and Utah. In addition, Utah and Alaska have Categorical Exclusion-level assignment under the pilot program.

In late 2015, TxDOT marked its one year anniversary in the program and has been “pleased with the results so far,” said Carlos Swonke, Director of the agency’s Environmental Affairs Division.

For Texas, the new authority brings the following benefits:

  • provides time and cost savings;
  • eliminates a layer of review;
  • involves no reduction in environmental considerations;
  • allows direct consultation between TxDOT and federal regulatory agencies;
  • enables quick turnaround time for project decisions; and
  • allows for more control of project planning and scheduling.

Contents of the MOU

Details on the new authority are spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) the two agencies developed and signed in 2014. The MOU sets forth how TxDOT will implement the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program (sometimes referred to as the NEPA Assignment Program) under MAP-21. The MAP-21 provisions enable all state transportation agencies to apply to be assigned federal environmental review authority from the FHWA under the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws. TxDOT requested, and was granted, the full authority under the program with the exception of three projects that remained with FHWA as the lead agency.

TxDOT’s NEPA review responsibilities include determining, for individual projects, whether potential impacts merit an environmental impact statement, an environmental assessment, or a categorical exclusion. For Texas, determinations for categorical exclusion-level projects are done at the district (regional) level. Projects involving environmental impact statements or environmental assessments are coordinated, reviewed, and approved at the division (central) office level.

Besides these NEPA review responsibilities, TxDOT also has taken on some of FHWA's responsibilities for highway projects under other environmental laws. The laws include the Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act and Historic Preservation Act. Notably, MAP-21 precludes states from taking on federal responsibility for government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes or for conformity determinations under the Clean Air Act. In addition, under the MOU, FHWA retains responsibility for projects that cross state lines and international boundaries.

Four performance measures are identified in the MOU: (1) compliance with NEPA and other Federal environmental statutes and regulations; (2) quality control and quality assurance for NEPA decisions; (3) relationships with agencies and the general public; and (4) increased efficiency and timeliness and completion of the NEPA process.

Swonke said that his agency’s MOU generally followed the Caltrans format. And now that it is in place, it appears that FHWA will be using it as something of a template for other states coming into the program.

TxDOT employees receive training to prepare for NEPA assignment. Photo: TxDOT

Preparing for NEPA Assignment

To prepare TxDOT staff for the new role, he continued, the agency has established a more rigorous process for project review and documentation. It also has created time for training on topics such as documentation and records management, and has updated its NEPA-related manuals. In addition, the agency has instituted a robust quality assurance/quality control process. TxDOT also maintains close communication with its district offices on changes in laws or executive orders that may affect the new responsibilities. Finally, it intends to communicate regularly about its assignment activities to stakeholder organizations.

FHWA, for its part, has assumed the role of program oversight and review and issues progress reports to Congress. It also has taken on training and technical assistance. Under MAP-21, FHWA must carry out two audits annually during the first two years that a state DOT assumes NEPA assignment and once in the third and fourth year. The audits include identification of successful practices as well as opportunities for improvement. Thus far, TxDOT has conducted environmental approvals on more than 1,600 projects, with the majority of these being categorical exclusion determinations.

Application Process, Pluses and Minuses

TxDOT began to consider applying for the program in 2012 when there was talk about extending the pilot program but before MAP-21 was passed. When MAP-21 passed, TxDOT leadership gave the green light to take the first steps.

The formal process began with securing a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that the state legislature passed in the spring of 2013, said Swonke. Under the waiver, TxDOT NEPA actions and decisions could be subject to federal court jurisdiction.

Next, the agency wrote a letter to FHWA expressing its interest in taking on NEPA assignment. It circulated its draft application for assignment for public comment as well as its draft MOU. After considering feedback on both documents, the MOU was finalized and signed by TxDOT and FHWA on December 16, 2014, and TxDOT began to take on its new responsibilities.

Benefits and Advice

As a result of taking on NEPA Assignment, Swonke said, TxDOT has made its review and approval process much more systematic, which provides greater consistency. In addition, the requirement for the state agency to have a self-assessment program has yielded a wide range of insightful information that is used to measure and improve the program.

He had one major suggestion for other state DOTS contemplating seeking NEPA assignment: early on, take an inventory of your technical expertise and the tools in hand that will guide your process. Both need to be up to the challenge of making decisions independently.

Just after the one-year point, Swonke said TxDOT’s program was still adapting to the change. “I am hoping the majority of our evolution will be complete a year from now,” he said.

For more information, contact Carlos Swonke, Director, TxDOT Environmental Affairs Division, at Carlos.Swonke@txdot.gov or go to http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/environmental/nepa-assignment.html.

In addition, see materials from AASHTO’s 2015 Peer Exchange on NEPA assumption.

[back to top]

Case Studies: FHWA Compilations

Case Studies: FHWA Compilations - State Practices

Case studies and best practices related to the NEPA Process can be found on FHWA's State Practices Database.

[back to top]

Noise

Recent Developments: FHWA Announces Plans to Issue Traffic Noise Model Version 3.0

The Federal Highway Administration has announced the planned release of version 3.0 of its traffic noise model (TNM 3.0). The new model features a map-based graphical user interface for data entry and analysis, new algorithms and revised interoperability to provide users with improved flexibility and accuracy. The model also contains better visual representations of data for highway traffic noise studies. The new version is expected to be available for download in early 2017. For more information, link to the press release. (11-8-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: California - Caltrans Uses Air Bubble Curtain Technology to Protect Wildlife During Bridge Implosions

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is using cutting-edge technology to remove the marine foundations of the former East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge while protecting area wildlife and reducing project cost and schedule.

The technology controls the blast sequence down to microseconds by using a computer system to precisely detonate hundreds of small individual charges to implode the foundations, thus greatly reducing impacts. At the same time, Caltrans is implementing a blast attenuation system that creates a shield of air bubbles to abate resulting sound waves and pressure.

Cutting edge technology helps protect the environment during implosion of this former bridge pier. (Photo: Caltrans)

“By employing leading edge technology, we have reduced the temporal environmental impact of our demolition work from years to seconds,” said Stefan Galvez-Abadia, Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Environmental Manager. “Simultaneously, we are working more safely and efficiently and saving money.”

The agency’s other option would have been to build a cofferdam, he said, which is an enclosure around each foundation pumped dry to enable loud, heavy machinery to carry out the demolition work. With a limited construction window each year, it could have taken up to four construction years to remove each foundation, a very expensive undertaking. In addition, this approach can result in continuous environmental impacts and safety risks.

“Real-time results have exceeded those anticipated by the model,” Galvez-Abadia said. “Both in-water noise and pressure as well as water quality impacts were significantly less than anticipated. We view this cutting-edge technology as another valuable tool in our toolbox.”

Caltrans’ implosion technology supplements additional steps it routinely takes to protect wildlife. The marine foundations are located in a portion of the San Francisco Bay that contains several fish species protected by the Endangered Species Act as well as marine mammals protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Caltrans avoids impacts to most of these species through seasonal work windows. However some species are present in the Bay year round and the agency has developed specific work windows to avoid impacts to these species to the greatest extent practicable.

History of Project

The reason for removal dates back to 1989, when a segment of the bridge partially collapsed during the Loma Prieta earthquake. Although it reopened later that year after extensive retrofitting, experts decided that the East Span needed to be more earthquake-resistant than would be possible by retrofitting the existing bridge. Construction of a replacement span began in 2002 and was opened to traffic in 2013. After beginning to dismantle the original span’s superstructure in 2013, Caltrans began to remove its foundations as stipulated in the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the replacement span.

The first of the former East Span’s 21 foundations, called Pier E3, was imploded in November 2015. Two more foundations followed suit in 2016, and an additional six to thirteen are slated for demolition in 2017 and 2018, when the project is slated for completion.

Permits, Protections

Caltrans’ engineers and environmental team spent years working closely with a variety of resource agencies to determine how best to minimize potential environmental impacts to area wildlife and habitat.

Before beginning the project, the agency received federal permits from the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). State agencies granting permits included the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. These permits covered the building of the new bridge as well as the removal of the original bridge by mechanical means.

As the implosion work advances, Caltrans will continue to implement its impact avoidance and minimization measures. In addition, marine mammal species in the area will be protected via monitoring of pre-established exclusion zones around each foundation. If marine mammal species such as harbor seal, sea lion, or harbor porpoise, are spotted, the implosion will be delayed until the individual has moved outside the zone. Water quality and air quality monitoring also will continue to be conducted.

Perhaps the most powerful piece of the protection arsenal is Caltran’s air bubble curtain. To activate the system, a compressor pumps air through a manifold of perforated pipes set in a steel frame. Multiple frames contiguously surround the foundation and are activated just before the implosion process begins. The escaping air bubbles create a continuous shield, or wall, that provides a robust acoustic barrier.

Lessons Learned and Advice

Caltrans has tweaked several of its procedures along the way, said Galvez-Abadia. For example, after analyzing the results of the Pier E3 Demonstration Project, then determining that potential impact areas were less than modeled and subsequently consulting with associated resource agencies, the expanse of the wildlife exclusion zone was reduced to reflect the minimized impacts.

He recommends that other state departments of transportation consider adopting a similar approach for their own underwater implosion work provided they adhere to the following guidelines:

  • Allow sufficient time to develop and tailor the technology and time of year to the particular locale and scenario – in Caltrans’ case, it took about two years;

  • Ensure that those carrying out the work possess a high level of expertise and will not cut corners;

  • Identify appropriate work windows when the least number of species may be affected;

  • Reach out early to local environmental stakeholder groups as well as resource agencies, and continue the dialogue throughout the process.

The technology behind the air curtain will be added to Caltrans’ Technical Guidance for Assessment and Mitigation of the Hydroacoustic Effects of Pile Driving on Fish. The current version provides guidance on the environmental permitting of in- and near-water pile driving projects. It includes an extensive collection of data on pile driving under a variety of conditions that can be used as an empirical reference for the permitting process.

For more information on Caltrans’ bridge marine foundation implosion work, contact Stefan Galvez-Abadia, Chief, Office of Environmental Analysis and San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Environmental Manager, at stefan.galvez@dot.ca.gov. Information also is available from Dr. Brian Maroney, SFOBB Project Manager and Chief Engineer, at brian.maroney@dot.ca.gov.

Additional information and videos of the E-3 pier implosion are available at http://www.dot.ca.gov/e3implosion/. A video describing the environmental monitoring efforts is available here.

[back to top]

Planning & Environment Linkages

Recent Developments: Webinar Materials Available on Innovative Mitigation Contracting and Financing

Presentation materials from an Eco-Logical Community of Practice webinar regarding innovative mitigation contracting and financing are now available. The Oct. 5 webinar addresses planning and environment linkages, the Ohio Department of Transportation full delivery process for natural resource mitigation and San Diego’s process for implementing advance mitigation. For more information, link to the presentation materials. (11-7-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Issues Q and A Guidance on Planning Environment Linkages

The Federal Highway Administration has issued question-and-answer guidance on use of the “planning and environmental linkages” approach for transportation projects. Using the PEL approach, agencies consider environmental, social and economic issues early in their planning processes, and use that information to inform environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act. The guidance describes increased emphasis on a number of areas in implementing PEL, including agency coordination, public involvement, as well as compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and with the Americans with Disabilities Act. For more information, link to the guidance. (11-3-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Federal Highway Administration - FHWA's Planning and Environment Linkages Effective Practices

FHWA Planning and Environment Linkages Website tracks Effective Practices including a collection of case studies that summarize the experience of a state or metropolitan area that implemented the PEL approach to transportation decision-making. The case studies document why and how change was achieved, some of the challenges encountered, and a few lessons learned.

For more information, link to the Effective Practices web page.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Federal Highway Administration - FHWA Eco-Logical Case Study Series

Case Studies: Utah - Utah DOT’s Web Mapping Tool Helps Link Planning, Environmental Decisions

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) has developed a powerful interactive planning tool, UPlan , that provides a comprehensive data repository where users from state, local, and federal agencies and the public can share data. With this wealth of information in hand, transportation planners, as one of many user groups, can make more informed, strategic decisions that reflect a broad understanding of the potential impacts each project may have, including its environmental impacts.

“UPlan gets everyone on the same page,” said Becky Hjelm, GIS Manager at UDOT. “It’s a visual tool that connects our users to current, relevant business systems and data sets within UPlan as well as data sets outside it.”

UPlan data takes the form of hundreds of dynamic GIS web maps and apps that incorporate information from multiple datasets. For instance, transportation planners interested in environmental links to a project can simultaneously view the locations of critical environmental attributes such as streams, wetlands, rare plant habitats, and historic sites, along with maps of planned transportation projects scheduled to be carried out in the same geographic area. Users can search for data in a variety of ways.

Diverse Users

Currently, according to Hjelm, there are approximately 100 UPlan users who actively are creating content, And there are hundreds more who come to Uplan for the information they need. Users include representatives from transportation agencies, resource agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, citizen groups, and the public. A very small percentage of the data in UPlan is sensitive. Access is to sensitive data is handled in two ways, 1) by providing secure access via a login; and 2) an MOU with the responsible agency defining acceptable use. One way around the sensitive data concern is to provide what is called a buffer data set, which provides general but not precise locations.

Hjelm said one positive outcome of UDOT’s investment in web GIS development is the Utah Mapping and Information Partnership (UMIP), a coalition of Utah state agencies that includes the Department of Environmental Quality, UDOT, the Department of Public Safety, and other agencies, as well as a handful of Utah counties.

UPlan originated in 2008 when UDOT planners and engineers realized that they were spending inordinate amounts of time looking for data that was in silos and scattered across agencies. They decided that it would be well worth investing time and money to create a single location where relevant data from a wide variety of sources could be gathered and housed for convenient access.

In 2011, UDOT applied to AASHTO’s Technology Implementation Group and UPlan was accepted as a Focus Technology within its Innovation Initiative. Since then, the UPlan model has been piloted in 39 states, and a number of them have developed, or are in the process of developing, their own state-specific version of the repository.

One of the strongest benefits of UPlan, says Hjelm, is that it opens up opportunities for collaboration that did not easily exist in the past. By sharing information with partner agencies and stakeholders early in the planning process, transparency is created that can foster greater trust across agencies. It also creates conditions in which more efficient, effective, and sustainable approaches to projects can be identified.

uPEL Report

One of UPlan’s most useful applications has been its ability to identify potential environmental impacts of projects and generate what is called Utah’s Planning and Environment Linkages Report (PEL) (uPEL report). Each report summarizes all of the environmental and community resources that are intersected by a potential project’s footprint. Resource information on nearly 20 topics can be drawn upon for the analysis, such as floodplains, rare plants, Section 4(f) lands, environmental justice concerns, and historic sites. An accompanying factsheet with each report provides information related to the project needs, forecasts, conditions, and other current and planned work in the area. More information about uPEL can be found in the uPEL User Guide

Utah DOT's uPEL User's Guide helps link planning and environmental decisions. Source: UDOT

Underlying each uPEL report are the collaboration and integration principles that form the basis for FHWA’s Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL) approach to transportation decision-making. Using the approach means 1) considering environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process; and 2) using the information, analysis, and products developed during planning to inform the environmental review process.

Hjelm cited several examples in which uPlan and uPEL have been used to great benefit. The first was the Uinta Basin Rail project in which it was used to screen 26 possible alternatives for laying approximately 4500 miles of track. What normally would have taken a few years of investigation was achieved in a few months.

In another case, uPEL was used to support analysis for a Programmatic Biological Assessment (BA) for the Utah prairie dog. UDOT conducted a GIS analysis to identify locations where Utah prairie dog habitat intersected highways using UPLAN and uPEL. Then, UDOT and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted one single Section 7 consultation that cleared an entire sub-set of projects for a 20-year period. The Programmatic BA enabled UDOT to streamline compliance with the Endangered Species Act while helping to ensure conservation of the Utah prairie dog.

Continuous Improvement

Hjelm said that although uPEL in its current form definitely has proven its worth, UDOT is planning to overhaul the application in several significant ways. First, the format of uPEL reports is being revised so that the information can be dropped more easily into required documentation for National Environmental Policy Act compliance. In addition, changes are being made that reflect changes in the system’s data sets.

In addition, the current online User Guide is being revised to make the information more easily understood and include lessons learned. The guide explains how uPEL works, how reports are generated, and the benefits of using it as a planning tool. It also contains sections on each environmental system included in the repository (e.g., floodplains) and describes how transportation projects can affect that system, repercussions if that is the case, datasets about the system that are included in the repository, and contacts for more information.

Code Available to Other States

Hjelm said the code behind UDOT’s uPEL is being offered free to other state DOTs who are interested in creating their own PEL-type application. Although they will have to invest considerable time modifying the framework and populating it with data to fit their needs, obtaining the code “should provide a starting point.” Several other states have, or are developing, tools that are similar to uPEL, she said. Each state will have its own challenges with data sharing.

Her primary advice to other state DOTs who may be contemplating a PEL-based tool: Be bold in your thinking and be patient with the process. Sharing data and building constructive relationships with other agencies and citizen organizations sometimes can take time. But the time invested, especially at the beginning of the process, is well worth the effort over the longer term.

UPlan and uPEL will continue to evolve to reflect constantly changing circumstances, she adds. One option UDOT is exploring is the possibility of incorporating 3-D maps. The ultimate goal is to have information flow seamlessly across multiple disciplines including engineering, design, construction, operations, maintenance, and environment.

For more information, contact Becky Hjelm, GIS Manager, UDOT, at bhjelm@utah.gov, or visit the UPlan website.

[back to top]

Project Delivery/Streamlining

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Addresses Quality Environmental Documentation

Producing high quality environmental documentation is the subject of the Federal Highway Administration’s April issue of Successes in Stewardship newsletter. Environmental documents are used to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act to evaluate impacts of agency decisions. This issue includes best practices for creating high quality documentation to reduce time during project review processes. The newsletter addresses the EDC-2 and EDC-3 products under the Every Day Counts initiative, which support quality documentation by improving collaborative processes and providing tools to appropriately document environmental impacts. Resources concerning trainings, workshops and technical assistance are also provided. For more information, link to the newsletter. (April 2017)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA 'Successes in Stewardship' Monthly Newsletter

Recent Developments: Newsletter Highlights Use of Federal Permitting Dashboard

Use of the federal permitting dashboard to help accelerate environmental reviews for proposed infrastructure projects under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act is described in te latest issue of the Federal Highway Administration’s Successes in Stewardship newsletter. The dashboard is an online tool managed by the Department of Transportation and Office of Management and Budget that consists of data for more than 150 surface transportation projects under development nationwide. The tool also includes a separate list for legacy projects, which were part of the original dashboard tool, to create a more transparent environmental process. For more information, link to the newsletter. (3-27-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: DOT Inspector General Report Cites Barriers to Accelerated Project Delivery

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Inspector General has issued a report on efforts to accelerate project delivery under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Subtitle C. The report finds that many initiatives had to be postponed due to revisions enacted by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. The IG report also indicates the Federal Highway Administration is lacking sufficient documentation on innovative project delivery methods, a performance assessment of states that assume environmental review responsibilities, and a clearly established a process for required reporting on categorical exclusions. It urges the FHWA to update policies, establish completion dates and finalize plans. For more information, link to the report. (3-6-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: March 23 Webinar Addressed DOT Actions to Expedite Project Delivery

A webinar held March 23 addressed activities agencies can consider to streamline decision making and expedite project delivery. The event was sponsored by AASHTO in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration under the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2 Solutions). Presenters included officials from Ohio DOT; Maricopa Association of Governments, Arizona; AASHTO; and FHWA. For more information, link to the Webinar and presentaton slides. (3-23-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Highlights Integrated NEPA/Permit Streamlining Approach

An integrated approach to National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review and environmental permitting is highlighted in the latest issue of the Federal Highway Administration’s Successes in Stewardship newsletter. The approach provides transportation agencies with integration tools and strategies, such as assistance in developing cooperative agreements with resource agencies that have permitting roles. The approach also addresses the creation of informal and formal agreements, establishing liaisons, and using the online collaboration tool, eNEPA. It also highlights the use of the Red Book: Synchronizing Environmental Reviews for Transportation and Other Infrastructure Projects. That document encourages widespread adoption of concurrent review processes and supports more effective coordination among transportation, resource, and regulatory agencies. The approach is part of the fourth round of FHWA’s Every Day Counts initiative, a state-based effort to shorten the project delivery process. For more information, link to the February 2017 issue of the Successes in Stewardship newsletter. (2-14-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: President Issues Executive Order on High Priority Infrastructure Projects

The President has issued Executive Order 13766 to expedite environmental reviews and approvals for high priority infrastructure projects. The order identifies as high priority projects those intended to improve the electric grid and telecommunication systems and those that repair and upgrade critical port facilities, airports, pipelines, bridges and highways. The order allows governors and any executive department or agency to request high priority status and requires the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to decide whether an infrastructure project qualifies as a high priority within 30 days of such requests. The order also allows the CEQ to make determinations on its own initiative, and the council must coordinate with the heads of the relevant agencies to establish expedited procedures and deadlines. For more information link to the executive order. (1-30-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Report Addresses Steps Taken to Accelerate Project Delivery

The Department of Transportation has released a report to Congress concerning Section 1317 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, which addresses the acceleration of project delivery while improving environmental outcomes under the National Environmental Policy Act. The report addresses the use of technology in environmental reviews, prioritization of programmatic environmental impact statements, methods to encourage agencies to present analysis in a clear manner, and improvements to modernize process implementation. For more information, link to the report. (1-19-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: ARTBA Issues Project Delivery Recommendations for New Administration

The American Road and Transportation Builders Association has released recommendations for the incoming Trump administration concerning transportation project delivery. The group has identified federal regulatory programs under the Transportation Department, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other agencies that in its view impede project delivery. These include the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from transportation projects, the consideration of greenhouse gases in environmental reviews, the Waters of the United States rule, the Social Cost of Carbon rule, the Buy America law, the Disadvantage Business Enterprise Program, geographic-based hiring preferences, project labor agreements, hours of service for motor carrier operators, corporate average fuel economy standards, and critical habitat designations for endangered species. For more information, link to the report. (1-13-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FDOT Receives National Environmental Policy Act Responsibilities

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has announced a memorandum of understanding with the Federal Highway Administration to allow the state to assume responsibilities for environmental review of infrastructure projects. The assignment of responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act is expected to save an estimated 25 percent of the processing time and $22 million per year. Florida joins California, Ohio and Texas in assuming NEPA authority. For more information, link to the press release. (12-14-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Final Rule Authorizes Construction Manager/General Contractor Method

The Federal Highway Administration has issued a final rule authorizing use of the construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) contracting method. The rule, issued pursuant to Section1303 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP–21), allows a contracting agency to use a single procurement to hire a construction contractor early in a project’s design phase to obtain the contractor’s input on constructability issues that may be affected by the project design. It is intended to accelerate project delivery and reduce costs while protecting the integrity of the National Environmental Policy Act review process. For more information, link to the final rule. (12-2-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Caltrans Requests Renewed Participation in NEPA Assignment Program

The Federal Highway Administration has announced the receipt of a renewal package from the California Department of Transportation requesting renewed participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and an associated proposed memorandum of understanding for assignment of National Environmental Policy Act review authority. The FHWA has determined that the renewal package is complete and has developed a draft renewal memorandum of understanding with Caltrans outlining how the state will implement the program with FHWA oversight. For more information, link to the Federal Register notice. (11-16-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Utah DOT Seeks to Assume FHWA NEPA Review Authority

The Federal Highway Administration has announced the receipt of an application from the Utah Department of Transportation requesting participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program and an associated proposed memorandum of understanding that outlines how the state will implement the program with oversight from the FHWA. The FHWA specifies that if approved, the state will assume environmental review responsibilities, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act, for federally funded highway projects in the state. For more information, link to the Federal Register notice. (11-16-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Florida DOT Applies for NEPA Assignment from FHWA

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is accepting public comment on an application and proposed memorandum of understanding from the Florida Department of Transportation requesting participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Program. The MOU outlines how the state will implement the program to assume environmental review responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act for federally funded highway projects in the state. For more information, link to the Federal Register notice. (11-1-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Federal Highway Administration Compilations - FHWA's Successes in Stewardship Newsletter

FHWA's Monthly Successes in Stewardship Newsletter provides profiles of successful practices in environmental stewardship and streamlining.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Federal Highway Administration Compilations - Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining State Practices

Environmental streamlining success stories are catalogued on the FHWA website under State Practices Database.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Federal Highway Administration Compilations - Meeting Environmental Requirements After a Bridge Collapse: Five Cases

A report published by the Federal Highway Administration analyzes the environmental review process in five cases of bridge reconstruction following collapse in Florida, Minnesota, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. The report, which was prepared by the U.S. DOT’s Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, describes how key elements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process were completed comparatively quickly due to a sense of urgency on the part of stakeholders following an emergency. The report also describes several practices that allowed agencies to expedite the environmental review process. For more information, link to Meeting Environmental Requirements After a Bridge Collapse.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Maine - MaineDOT Accelerates Project Delivery, Programmatically Protects Endangered Salmon

The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) has adopted a programmatic approach to ensure vital protections for the endangered Atlantic salmon, while cutting project-approval times for 60 percent of projects that are likely to affect the species.

Photo: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

The Maine Atlantic Salmon Programmatic Consultation is a combined effort of MaineDOT, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA). With the help of a $250,000 FHWA grant, the agencies collaborated to expedite the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process for projects that impact the Atlantic salmon through development of a programmatic biological opinion (PBO) and a related in-lieu fee mitigation program.

The PBO was issued by the USFWS in January 2017 in response to a programmatic biological assessment (PBA) prepared by MaineDOT.

The PBO applies to a range of transportation projects likely to result in unavoidable adverse effects to Atlantic salmon or its critical habitat. A project qualifies for processing under the PBO depending on its location, the quality of habitat, design parameters, and construction methods.

Under the programmatic, MaineDOT agrees to design and carry out a mutually-agreed-upon standard set of procedures, including avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation practices. Given that the actions are standardized, USFWS review time is greatly reduced, also reducing project delivery time and cost by significantly improving predictability for both MaineDOT and USFWS.

Once the project qualifies for programmatic coverage, informal consultations are completed within 14 days and formal consultations are completed within 30 days.

Specific benefits include the following:

  • Approximately 60 percent of MaineDOT projects requiring Section 7 consultation for Atlantic salmon will qualify for expedited processing under the PBO;
  • For those projects that qualify, individual BAs (typically 50 to 100 pages) are replaced by a standard two-page checklist form that reflects the protocols and performance standards of the PBO;
  • The timeframe for informal USFWS consultation and concurrence is reduced from about 8 months to 1 month; and
  • Parties can focus on projects outside the PBO that may have greater impacts on the species.

Addressing a Backlog of BAs

“Back in 2010, we had an annual backlog of about 40 informal and formal Biological Assessments (BAs) for salmon-related projects requiring USFWS review and fewer than 7 were being processed due to extremely heavy workloads and highly detailed information requests,” said Judy Gates, director of MaineDOT’s Environmental Office.

Gates said less than 20 percent of annual consultations for the Atlantic salmon were reaching completion in time to deliver projects during a very constrained construction window.

“USFWS was issuing their decisions months past its target dates and, as a result, we were going way beyond our project delivery deadlines. We all realized we had to do something,” Gates said.

Specifics of the Programmatic Biological Opinion

To help address this backlog, the agencies developed a programmatic consultation, committing to specific design standards that seek to reconnect waters for endangered salmon. The PBO applies to three priority geographic areas within the state designated as Salmon Habitat Recovery Units.

In implementing the PBO, MaineDOT, MTA, FHWA, and the USACE maintain regular communication with USFWS and NMFS on each project’s potential for programmatic coverage. The PBO covers activities such as:

  • culvert and bridge replacement;
  • bridge maintenance;
  • geotechnical drilling; and
  • scour countermeasures and culvert end resets.

The PBO also lists actions that do not fall under programmatic coverage and still require individual consultation, such as solid-fill causeways replaced in potential spawning habitat.

In-Lieu Fee Program Provides Flexibility

To further these efforts, MaineDOT also is collaborating with the USACE to develop an in-lieu fee (ILF) mitigation program for Atlantic salmon. The PBO serves as the primary avenue by which mitigation fees can be directed to Atlantic salmon recovery efforts under the purview of USFWS and NMFS.

The Atlantic salmon ILF will enable public and private applicants for federal environmental permits to direct mitigation dollars to the Atlantic salmon ILF fund instead of performing project-specific mitigation. Funds from the Atlantic salmon ILF will be distributed as determined by an interagency review team comprised of state and federal agencies with jurisdiction over Atlantic salmon management and recovery.

The program is intended to operate as an ecosystem crediting system. Environmental benefits such as preserving a habitat recovery unit will be valued in relation to other environmental benefits and assigned a relative number of credits that, in turn, have an associated dollar equivalent. Permit applicants will pay a specific number of mitigation dollars into the system based upon direct and indirect effects attributed to their project.

An environmental group has been contracted to develop the ILF program’s framework and propose a defensible benefit-cost methodology. The program is based on Maine’s existing wetland in-lieu fee program, the “Maine Natural Resource Conservation Program,” which has successfully funded both state and federally-required mitigation for the last decade. The new ILF is expected to be finalized in the summer of 2017.

Implementation and Cost Considerations

Simply not having to draft a BA for 45 projects each year results in a cost savings of over $150,000. More significantly, this frees technical staff to spend those hours in the field gathering data needed to improve habitat connectivity.

In addition to MaineDOT direct costs, USFWS will benefit as its transportation liaisons focus on more complex projects. MaineDOT has opted to fund two liaisons to USFWS to increase capacity, create an institutional knowledge base, and improve opportunity for interaction between agencies. The cost of the second liaison is easily balanced by the cost savings realized from not having to draft BAs.

On an individual project basis, mitigation fees are anticipated to range from $10,000 to 10 or 20 times that amount.

“MaineDOT has used an estimate that up to $750,000 annually could be directed to mitigation fees under the PBO, similar to level at the inception of Maine’s wetland mitigation program,” Gates said.

If costs of participating in the PBO are likely to exceed benefits for a given project, managers may opt to use individual consultations, as in the past. MaineDOT will be tracking direct and indirect costs and benefits particularly over the first several years of using the Atlantic salmon PBO.

Eco-Logical Grant

The effort to develop a programmatic approach got a large boost when MaineDOT received a $250,000 Eco-Logical Implementation Assistance grant in 2013. FHWA’s Eco-Logical approach encourages state DOTs and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to engage project partners such as USFWS early in the process and to collaborate on integrating both transportation and ecological goals.

The grant allowed MaineDOT and its partner agencies to analyze their environmental screening processes and eliminate duplicative steps. The grant also coincided with MaineDOT’s performance measure to deliver of at least 80 percent of projects within 30 days of the scheduled advertise date.

Challenges and Lessons Learned

“We found that two of the key ingredients for success are to have internal expertise and to have an internal champion,” Gates said. She also recommended the following strategies:

  • Understand and be able to articulate benefits and costs to each agency involved.
  • Maintain flexibility in schedule of tasks to allow for inevitable workload demands.
  • Develop internal executive-level support and an internal project coordination team as soon as possible.
  • Reach out to partner agencies at the outset and maintain close communication throughout the project duration.
  • Should roadblocks crop up, consider involving partner organizations’ regional offices or federal agency officials;
  • Allow for flexibility and changes in approach based on new ideas, unexpected barriers, or shifts in staffing.

Staff from the transportation and environmental agencies expect that the approach will benefit both transportation project delivery and species recovery efforts.

For more information, link to the Maine Atlantic Salmon Programmatic Consultation web page or contact Judy Gates, Director, MaineDOT Environmental Office, at Judy.Gates@maine.gov.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Oregon - Oregon DOT Makes Headway in Streamlining ESA Section 7 Consultations

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have significantly reduced review time and cost for conducting endangered species consultations for their projects through implementation of a unique statewide programmatic consultation that streamlines procedures while ensuring conservation of potentially affected species listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

ODOT’s John Raasch explains that “prior to the Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP) ESA programmatic consultation process, ODOT was spending six to nine months preparing a Biological Assessment and awaiting the Biological Opinion. It was expensive and time consuming. With the FAHP [programmatic ESA consultation], that consultation time is now one to two weeks. Due to the process being so efficient, ODOT can submit documents later in the project planning phase when more specific details regarding project design are available, resulting in fewer revisions and shorter review timelines.”

Oregon DOT's ESA Programmatic Consultation helps streamline projects such as this innovative culvert design. Photo: ODOT

Background

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, numerous west coast salmonid species (Chinook, Chum, Coho, steelhead, Sockeye and Bull Trout) were listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). ODOT, whose road and bridge projects border and cross a high number of salmon-supporting streams, began hiring more biologists and consultants to prepare the numerous and lengthy Biological Assessments (BAs) that were now required and to manage the ESA Section 7 consultation process.

After many years of preparing separate BAs evaluating predictable impacts and implementing similar mitigation measures, and completing separate Section 7 consultations which took on average six to nine months, ODOT and FHWA approached the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) about a programmatic approach to ESA Section 7 consultations for these species. Taking advantage of the collaborative and problem-solving spirit built between ODOT, FHWA, USFWS and NMFS staff biologists over the preceding years, the agencies agreed on a set of procedures and tools for implementing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) statewide programmatic Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation and Magnuson Stevens Act (MSA) consultation with NMFS and USFWS.

The FAHP programmatic consultation for Highway Projects resulted in two biological opinions (BO), one from USFWS and one from NMFS, which provide ESA coverage for the majority of highway construction projects funded by the FAHP and administered by ODOT. To qualify for the FAHP programmatic consultation, the project must:

  • Result in an ESA determination of “may affect” (likely or not likely to adversely affect) for one or more of the specified federally-listed species or designated critical habitat (CH). The FAHP programmatic authorizes “take” for species most likely to be directly impacted by highway projects including all ESA-listed fish species and associated CH in Oregon.
  • Result in a determination of “may affect” fisheries resources governed by the MSA.
  • Result in a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) classification of categorical exclusion or environmental assessment.
  • Not involve specific excluded activities.

Outcome-focused design standards that were agreed upon by ODOT, FHWA, NMFS and USFWS, and that provide benefits to species and their habitats, are a key to the success of the FAHP programmatic. Some examples of these outcome-focused design standards are shown in Table 1.

There are four main phases of project implementation under the FAHP programmatic: early coordination, notification, construction, and post-construction. The details of project implementation are described in the FAHP Programmatic User’s Guide. As the lead agency, FHWA administers the FAHP programmatic, which includes local and state projects within the scope of the program. Projects that require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits can use the FAHP programmatic to meet USACE ESA requirements. The FAHP action area includes all geographic areas in Oregon where transportation projects directly or indirectly affect ESA-listed species covered by the FAHP programmatic.

ODOT has found that conservation, consistency and efficiency are the benefits of the FAHP programmatic:

  • Conservation: the FAHP focuses on the outcome for covered species and their habitat.
  • Consistency: the FAHP provides predictable costs, design standards, outcomes for covered ESA-listed species, and agency review timelines.
  • Efficiency: in addition to predicable FAHP permitting components, an online form consisting of check boxes, drop downs and a few short text fields replaces the 200+ page BAs previously common at ODOT.

The FAHP programmatic consultation would not be possible without the trust built between participating agencies over time. As a result of its success, NMFS and USFWS were able to defer approval responsibility to FHWA for a large portion of projects.

According to ODOT, as of late 2015, 134 projects had been completed under the programmatic since its inception, with 77 completed or in construction. About half of those projects were local agency projects, and just over half of the projects required only FHWA approval with NMFS notification.

Implementation Tools for ESA Consultations

Several tools were developed to meet the reporting requirements of the FAHP programmatic and assist with information sharing and management. These include:

  • Initiation, Notification, Construction Inspection and Completion forms.
  • Webmap – The location and status of all projects implemented using the FAHP are available for stakeholders to track via ODOT’s FAHP Projects Map. Each project is symbolized by its current status and includes a link to the project files. These contain more detailed information ranging from plan sheets to notification forms to construction monitoring reports.
  • Project Tracking – All projects that use the FAHP are documented and tracked in a centralized data management system and coordinated by ODOT. Project impacts, enhancements, and take are all tracked, and quarterly status reports are available to stakeholders.
  • User’s Guide – The FAHP user’s guide is a comprehensive review of the processes used to implement the FAHP. The user’s guide provides design standards, and detailed instructions for how to coordinate, notify, and monitor projects.

For agencies struggling with long and unpredictable ESA consultation processes, ODOT has the following advice if considering a programmatic ESA consultation:

  1. Consult with other states on successful programmatic ESA consultations that have been implemented. Look into the tools they created and data tracking they provide. See if anything can be built upon to meet your needs.
  2. Continue to build relationships with FHWA, NMFS and USFW. Without strong relationships between ODOT, FHWA, NMFS and USFW, this consultation would have been very difficult, if not impossible to obtain.
  3. Be realistic on your time frame for obtaining the programmatic ESA consultation. Ensure that you take the time to collaborate internally and externally to ensure success.

For more information on ODOT’s FAHP programmatic, contact Cash Chesselet, ODOT FAHP Coordinator, at Cash.chesselet@odot.state.or.us, or Cindy L. Callahan, Environmental Specialist/Biologist, FHWA Oregon and Washington Divisions/Resource Center, at Cindy.Callahan@dot.gov.

[back to top]

Section 4(f)/Section 6(f)

Recent Developments: U.S. DOT Agencies Issue Guidance on Fast Act Environmental Provisions

The Federal Transit Administration, in coordination with the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Railroad Administration, have issued guidance on the applicability of certain environmental provisions under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. One guidance document concerns the applicability of the statutory environmental review framework under 23 U.S.C. 139 to rail and other projects. The other guidance document provides information on the applicability of new statutory provisions on environmental requirements for parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. For more information, link to the environmental review guidance and to the Section 4(f) guidance. (4-12-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: FHWA Newsletter Features Resources to Assist with Section 4(f) Compliance

The June 2013 Successes in Stewardship newsletter, published by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides information on Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966. Included in the newsletter are recent Section 4(f) updates and a description of the FHWA’s Interactive Section 4(f) Tutorial, which expands on a previously released training tool. The newsletter also offers examples of Section 4(f) projects. A FHWA-National Highway Institute collaboration on a planned Section 4(f) training course is also highlighted. For more information, link to Interactive Online Tutorial Educates Users about Section 4(f). (6-3-13)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Ohio - Ohio DOT Programmatic Agreement Streamlines LWCF Section 6(f) Requirements

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) is cutting down its paperwork and ramping up its collaboration thanks to a unique Programmatic Agreement (PA) signed last year for compliance with Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCF). So, too, are its partners, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) and the National Park Service (NPS).

The PA lays out a carefully coordinated interagency process for fulfilling requirements when ODOT projects involve land protected under the LWCF. Under Section 6(f) of the law, any property that has received LWCF funding cannot be converted to non-recreational use without replacement of that land, which must be approved by NPS. Converted land must be replaced with land of equal or greater value, location, and usefulness.

Ohio DOT's Section 6(f) programmatic helps streamline requirements for LWCF properties such as Leetonia Trailhead. Photo: Ohio DOT

“We were having a lot of trouble getting projects through the 6(f) process,” explains Erica Schneider, Assistant Environmental Administrator at ODOT. “It hadn’t been much of an issue in the past because we didn’t have many projects with 6(f) impacts. But in recent years, the number definitely started to go up. The process was taking months, even years, to finish. We knew we had to do something.”

The jointly-developed document contains a number of provisions that reduce required paperwork and eliminate unnecessary agency involvement for any project that triggers Section 6(f) compliance while still ensuring that the resource is protected. Projects involving Section 6(f) properties continue to be broken out into three levels: maintenance, temporary non-conforming use, and conversions. But under the PA, the compliance process for each level has been streamlined. For maintenance-type projects, ODOT doesn’t have to coordinate with ODNR or NPS, which saves the agency at least 30 days of review time. Moreover, impacts that constitute a temporary non-conforming use of a Section 6(f) property can be approved by ODNR, and NPS only has to be copied on the decision, again saving at least 30 days of review time.

“As for conversions, they still take considerable time in that they still have to go through ODNR and NPS,” says Schneider. “But, overall, we’re in a much better position.”

For instance, each agency now has a 30-day deadline for review, and it now is acceptable to use ODOT’s (FHWA’s) real estate appraisal process for replacement land rather than that of NPS. In addition, reviews can be conducted concurrently by ODNR and NPS if the project schedule is expedited. And purchase of the replacement property can occur after National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) approval (it must be completed prior to final acceptance of the construction project by the engineer).

Furthermore, NPS now accepts FHWA’s documentation for Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act in order to satisfy their NEPA obligations for Section 6(f), which opens the door to one of the biggest time-savers: a standardized single form the partners developed for Section 6(f) as well as Section 4(f). Having a single form means that information doesn’t have to be duplicated, and the new format makes it easier for district staff and consultants to follow and for agency staff to fill out. Also, since Section 4(f) analysis must be approved prior to Section 6(f) approval, ODOT can have all of the information readily available, conduct the Section 4(f) determination and simultaneously be working on the Section 6(f) evaluation.

“Saving time is saving money,” says Schneider. “Streamlining saves us time in the environmental process and also translates through into cost savings during construction due to factors such as inflation and project delays.”

Genesis of the PA

Schneider says that when she and her co-workers at ODOT realized something had to be done about the Section 6(f) process, they first went to their FHWA Division Office. Together, they decided that the next step was to approach NPS and ODNR, the state agency that administers Land and Water Conservation Funds in Ohio. The goal was to suggest jointly developing a process that everyone would benefit from, a process during which participants would collectively identify and integrate streamlining measures.

FHWA, as the counterpart federal agency, initially took the lead in broaching the subject with NPS. Shortly thereafter, ODOT came together with FHWA, NPS, and ODNR for initial discussions. The concept received a universal green light, after which it took about a year to get through the entire process. Initially the discussion focused on what was required by law. Then the focus shifted to how the process could be streamlined. A draft agreement was created, increasingly refined, then finalized and signed in April of 2014. Schneider describes the process as “an excellent team-building exercise,” one that improved participating agencies’ relationships with each other.

Since signing the 6(f) agreement, ODOT has used -- or is in the process of using -- the PA for five maintenance-type projects and six projects that constitute a non-conforming use. Currently, six conversion type projects are in progress. Five of them are small conversions and the sixth is a full conversion. For the latter, replacement property still is being sought.

Schneider says that ODOT has applied to take on FHWA’s environmental review authority under NEPA, but that ODOT’s new role will not affect the PA. ODOT likely will include a cover letter explaining that under NEPA assignment, ODOT will be responsible for all of FHWA’s actions and responsibilities under the Section 6(f) agreement.

Possibility for Other State DOTs

“To my knowledge, we are the first and only state with a Section 6(f) PA in place,” says Schneider. From her perspective, the concept is one that could be adopted by other state DOTs provided they have a good working relationship with their state agency responsible for administering the LWCF, and that both agencies work well with their federal counterparts, FHWA and NPS.

“NPS was great to work with throughout the process,” she continues. “They were willing to look for streamlining measures wherever the law allowed it. Unfortunately, the law is quite strict in a number of areas so our opportunities were somewhat limited.”

On September 31, 2015, the LWCF expired and Congress has yet to reauthorize it. If the law is not reauthorized, no new Section 6(f) properties can be added. But lack of reauthorization would not eliminate Section 6(f) requirements.

“Lack of reauthorization only means that for the time being, there will not be any new Section 6(f) properties,” Schneider explains. “Despite no new additions, the LWCF protections will remain in effect on all existing properties into perpetuity. So while we may not have new properties in that category to worry about, we will always have the existing group. ODNR estimates that approximately 1,430 properties across the state fall into this category. ”

Additional flexibility like the de minimis impact option developed for Section 4(f) compliance, would be helpful, according to Schneider. Such changes could offer improvements to the process as well as opportunities for enhancement of the resources involved.

“The good news,” she concludes, “is that for all those existing properties, we have our PA in place.”

For more information, go to ODOT’s Office of Environmental Services or contact Erica Schneider, ODOT’s Assistant Environmental Administrator at Erica.Schneider@dot.ohio.gov.

[back to top]

Sustainability

Recent Developments: Civil Engineers Issue 2017 Infrastructure Report Card

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) has released its 2017 infrastructure report card, distributed every four years to assign a letter grade rating the physical conditions and needed investments for infrastructure improvement. The nation was given a D+ rating overall for 16 categories of infrastructure. Individually, the report card gave a rating of C+ for bridges, indicating that 9.1 percent of bridges were structurally deficient and rehabilitation needs are $123 billion. The report card provides a grade of D for roads due to poor conditions and increased traffic congestion and fatalities. Transit received a D- due to increased demand without significant funding, but rail transportation has a grade of B because of significant capital investment. The report card also addresses aviation, energy, dams and levees, ports, parks, schools, solid waste and wastewater. For more information link to the report card. (3-9-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: Survey Shows MPOs Using Performance Measures to Evaluate Spending

A survey addressing how metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are using performance measures to evaluate their spending has been conducted by Transportation for America. The survey found that 75 percent of MPOs are already using performance measures in some fashion but only 30 percent of MPOs utilize performance measures to evaluate specific projects for inclusion in the fiscally constrained five-year plans that govern all short-term spending. The survey also found that two-thirds of all agencies want to become national leaders in using performance measures and nearly half of MPOs surveyed chose equity and/or health as one of the five additional goals they are interested in measuring and assessing. For more information, link to the press release and survey results. (2-9-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Issues Transportation Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act Report

The Department of Transportation has released a report to Congress concerning the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA). The report is required biennially and provides the state of financial performance of projects receiving TIFIA funds. TIFIA provides credit assistance to surface transportation projects that address highways, transit, rail and intermodal freight and has provided 13 loans to support 11 projects since 2014. The report includes project examples that address the connection of light rail transit lines, roadway improvements to increase airport access, congestion-based tolling and project delivery through private-public partnerships. For more information, link to the report. (1-25-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Releases 5-Year Strategic Plan for Transportation System

The Department of Transportation has released a five-year strategic plan concerning research, development and technology. The report identifies research priorities for fiscal years 2017-2021 concerning the current and future performance of the nation’s transportation system. The report addresses several solutions from the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, Federal Aviation Administration and the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to mitigate the effects of transportation activities on climate change. Solutions include development of pollinator-friendly practices for sustainable highway roadsides; deployment of clean technology transit buses under the Low and No Emissions Program; increased pipeline safety research and development; and research concerning aircraft energy use, noise and air pollutant emissions. For more information, link to the plan. (1-13-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Releases Beyond Traffic 2045 Final Report

The Department of Transportation has released the final draft of its Beyond Traffic 2045 report. The report found that the U.S. transportation system, and the current planning and funding mechanisms, will not meet the demands presented by population growth, climate change and new technologies like driverless cars. The report is a comprehensive study of the major trends that will shape the U.S.’s transportation system over the next 30 years. The report also outlines three strategies that will ensure the U.S. can meet the coming challenges: take better care of legacy transportation systems; fund and prioritize new projects based on future projections; and use technologies and better design approaches to maximize the use of old and new transportation assets. For more information, link to the report. (1-9-17)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: USDOT Build America Bureau To Finance Seattle Transit

The Department of Transportation has announced that an innovative infrastructure financing tool could provide nearly $2 billion for four transit projects in Seattle. USDOT’s Build America Bureau, a one-stop finance office launched this summer, signed a Master Credit Agreement with the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority. Under the agreement, the transit authority will be able to expedite multiple loan requests. The first of these loans, $615.3 million for the Northgate Link Extension, has been closed, allowing the extension to move forward. For more information, link to press release. (12-22-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Arizona - Arizona DOT Champions Sustainability Using INVEST Tool

The Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) is using a self-evaluation tool to assess and improve its projects and programs, helping the agency integrate sustainability into virtually every component of the transportation lifecycle, including planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance activities.

Over the last several years, ADOT increasingly has recognized the importance of delivering transportation solutions in a more sustainable manner to achieve economic, social, and environmental goals.

“After three years of progress, our Sustainable Transportation Program has reached every corner of the agency,” said Steven Olmsted with ADOT’s Office of Environmental Planning. “It has become our standard way of carrying out our work and is bringing multiple benefits.”

Arizona DOT’s Sustainable Transportation Program has implemented solutions such this roundabout on US 89. Photo: Arizona DOT

History and Program Structure

The roots of ADOT’s sustainability program extend back to 2012 when the agency published two planning documents that both called for sustainability to be a key objective. At that time, it also was adding sustainable land use and urban planning into its Multimodal Planning Division, and beta testing the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST).

In 2013, ADOT began incorporating sustainable practices into its project development and construction activities, “cherry-picking” successes and bringing them to the attention of managers to build internal support. For example, by addressing the storm water run-off component of a pavement project during construction, project managers could point out that heavy rains otherwise would have shortened the lifespan of the pavement an added to maintenance costs.

ADOT’s Sustainable Transportation Program was formalized in 2014 and is housed in the Environmental Planning Office, with management and oversight remaining largely centralized. Olmsted described the method as a “bottom up approach.” Since that time, the program has been working through designated milestones to ensure consistent adoption across a balance of disciplines. These have included an ADOT Resilience Program and ADOT’s 2016 Complete Transportation Handbook, which is a foundational resource to guide sustainable project development efforts. The handbook includes a set of strategies and tools to improve transportation system sustainability.

ADOT’s Administrative Services Division is the most recent agency component to be placed under the sustainability program lens. Draft policies are being developed for practices such as fuel efficiency, office recycling, and commuting, and are expected to become standard policy in 2017. Meanwhile, the agency continues to incorporate and assess best management practices for achieving sustainability in every component of the transportation lifecycle. For instance, INVEST has been used to assess the effectiveness of mobile onsite batch plants for cement production in sensitive eco-regions of the state.

Operational Focus Areas

To frame ADOT’s sustainability program for the year ahead, a roadmap containing several dozen “Operational Focus Areas” is agreed upon annually that span the agency’s work: planning, project development, operations, maintenance, and administrative activities. For 2016, focus areas included activities such as:

  • sustainable outreach to Arizona tribes,
  • upgrading the heavy equipment idling policy,
  • developing a reuse policy for millings, and
  • assisting the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in framing global sustainable transport.

Efforts also include stand-alone projects such as the Black and Green Sustainable Pavement Pilot Program. Sustainable pavement management enhances roadway safety and optimizes pavement life cycles to reduce costs, while also considering the environmental impacts of construction and material usage. Other projects are on the drawing board, including efforts related to clean energy and sustainable freight.

In addition, ADOT plans to publish a progress report on the three framework components of its FHWA Climate Resilience Pilot Project: storm water, extreme weather, and downscaling of climate data as it relates to transportation systems.

Evaluating Performance Using INVEST

ADOT has advanced its sustainability efforts in large part by pioneering the FHWA’s INVEST sustainability tool. FHWA developed INVEST to help transportation agencies incorporate the “triple bottom line” objectives of environmental, economic, and social sustainability into their programs and projects. Web-based INVEST includes four independent modules: Systems Planning for States, Systems Planning for Regions, Project Development, and Operations and Maintenance.

Using INVEST modules, agencies can self-score how well they have achieved specific sustainability goals by measuring their work against carefully chosen best practice “criteria.” Each criterion has been selected because it links to one or more components of the “triple bottom line.” For example, one criterion included in the Project Development module is ecological connectivity, while the Operations and Maintenance module includes an electrical energy efficiency criterion. In total, INVEST incorporates 81 criteria spread across the four modules.

ADOT has played a key role in the evolution of INVEST. In 2011 it participated in the INVEST Version 1.0 beta-test program. Then in 2013 and 2014, it implemented the PD module, and in 2015 and 2016 it scored and adopted the OM module. Also during 2016, it assisted with developing INVEST Version 1.2 and issued its 2nd Annual Sustainable Transportation Program Report which included the Arizona DOT Sustainability Implementation Report. Being a pilot test agency for the modules gave his agency an early lead in leveraging INVEST’s capabilities to make major strides forward in its own internal sustainability work, said Olmsted.

“We use INVEST to measure, plan, discuss, and improve,” he said. “It is a shortcut for arriving at what the current FHWA sustainable universe encompasses and helps us do more with less.”

Putting INVEST to Work

ADOT already has put INVEST to good use. In 2015, it scored 50 projects in the agency’s five-year construction program using the Project Development Module, with an initial specific focus on statewide roundabout projects. ADOT then expanded the scoring from roundabouts to projects ranging from pavement preservation to bridge deck rehabilitation to new lane miles. It was particularly interested in how green infrastructure, low-impact development, multimodal mobility, freight and Context Sensitive Solutions can be measured and defined.

Out of the projects scored, two were rated gold (50 percent of total possible points), 9 were rated silver (40 percent of total possible points), and 20 were rated bronze (30 percent of total possible points).

In 2016, ADOT’s INVEST scoring focus centered on the agency’s operations and maintenance efforts The agency received an independently scored 142 points out of a possible 210, sufficient to achieve INVEST’s highest platinum rating.

ADOT also has harnessed INVEST’s capabilities to help meet NEPA requirements. For example, the agency applied INVEST as a scoring tool for design alternatives and a public outreach tool for two Environmental Impact Statements by requesting comment during the scoping period.

Challenges Encountered

Selling the concept of sustainability inside a traditional road-building agency can be challenging, Olmsted said. And working with a self-scoring tool such as INVEST initially may be met with resistance from some managers. But by maintaining the focus on exchange of information, and with a potential to highlight successes as well as areas for improvement, managers usually transition from initial skepticism to active involvement in sustainability discussions.

Another challenge is that precise financial benefits are difficult to quantify. Comprehensive sustainable transportation is still in its infancy without the benefit of cost-benefit analysis and return on investment statistics.

Advice for DOTs

For other state DOTs interested in developing a comprehensive sustainable transportation program, Olmsted offered the following guidance:

  • Identify an internal senior-level champion early in the process.
  • Work closely with FHWA staff, who are extremely knowledgeable.
  • Be prepared to invest considerable time and effort to make the program viable.
  • Incorporate an awards program such as ADOT’s Excellence in Advancing Sustainable Project Development Award Program.
  • Carry out training on how to use INVEST for continuous improvement, and make its use a standard operating procedure.

Training on using INVEST is crucial, said Olmstead. In 2014 and 2015, his agency carried out classroom training on INVEST and also trained several local public agencies. During 2016, most sustainability training took place by having the training team “embed themselves” with individuals in their offices. In the coming years, the agency plans to continue classroom training classes as well as sponsor larger state-wide training sessions.

For more information about ADOT’s sustainable transportation program and use of INVEST, access the ADOT Sustainable Transportation Program web page or contact Steven Olmsted, ADOT Office of Environmental Planning at SOlmsted@azdot.gov.

[back to top]

Case Studies: District of Columbia - District of Columbia DOT Advances Sustainable Practices Department-Wide

Environmental stewardship and sustainability efforts in the nation’s capital are continuing to advance, with the District of Columbia Department of Transportation’s (DDOT) implementation of a sustainability plan and a range of sustainable practices for the department.

DDOT’s Sustainability Plan incorporates and integrates sustainable practices throughout the department’s work, according to Faisal Hameed, Chief of the Project Development, Environment, and Sustainability Division at DDOT. The agency has established measures and targets that will be revised regularly so that DDOT can track and improve its environmental performance and increase the sustainability of the city’s transportation projects and programs.

Environmental, Social, Economic Goals

DDOT’s Sustainability Plan reflects the “triple bottom line” approach to sustainability, targeting environmental quality, social structure, and the economy.

DDOT defines a sustainable transportation as “a transportation system that provides its users with various mode choices in a balanced manner without compromising their safety, accessibility, and mobility while supporting the economy, promoting livability and protecting the environment.”

The plan identifies eight priority areas for sustainability and establishes goals, actions, measures, and targets for each. The priority areas and goals are:

  • Promoting transportation and land use linkage
  • Improving mode choices, accessibility and mobility
  • Effective cost assessments in decision-making
  • Supporting the economy
  • Improving DDOT operations and project development processes
  • Protecting the environment and conserving resources
  • Climate change adaptation
  • Promoting livability and safety

For each priority area, measures and targets are identified, such as reduction of annual greenhouse gas emissions from DDOT projects by 5 percent annually. DDOT will track each area and report annually on progress made in achieving the targets.

Sustainable Initiatives and Projects Underway

Examples of sustainable efforts include DDOT’s “Great Streets” initiative, with efforts such as the Nannie Helen Burroughs Avenue project, which won one of the first grants from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under its Green Highways Partnership. DDOT employees successfully worked with EPA, the Federal Highway Administration, District Department of Environment, National Park Service, and other agency partners and the community to develop a sustainable design that improves bicycle and pedestrian safety by adding bike lanes, enhancing sidewalks, and incorporating low impact development (LID) features. Project features include bioretention areas, stormwater planters, and permeable concrete sidewalks, all of which help treat stormwater and reduce runoff into local waterways.

DDOT’s work to develop a Climate Change Adaptation Plan is another key sustainability effort. The plan will focus on developing a framework of recommendations for adapting to impacts brought on by a changing climate, especially as they relate to transportation infrastructure. DDOT has conducted workshops with the Federal Highway Administration, EPA, AASHTO, Metropolitan Washington Area Council of Governments, District Department of Environment, and various other agencies to develop this framework.

DDOT also is emerging as a national leader in bike-sharing and bicycle improvement programs, spearheaded by DDOT’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Program Manager. Over 100 bike-share stations have been installed in the city and several more are planned.

Another example is the Klingle Valley Trail project, which will address historic flooding that caused erosion of a stream and road in Rock Creek Park. Working through an interagency partnership focused on a watershed approach to mitigation, DDOT will replace the existing storm-damaged roadway with a 10-foot-wide permeable-surface multi-use trail, use LID techniques and build a consistent bioswale parallel to the trail, and conduct innovative full stream channel restoration and bank stabilization for Klingle Creek.

In addition, historic preservation goals were achieved in a sustainable manner in the reconstruction and restoration of O and P Streets in the Georgetown National Historic District.

Restoration of one and a half miles of the roadway required the excavation of more than 300,000 granite pavers and removal of historic trolley tracks. After inspecting each granite paver, more than 90 percent of the original stones were reused. Each was power washed and placed one-by-one into the new roadway base. The trolley tracks and underground appurtenances were refurbished and returned to their original locations. At the same time, the 19th century water mains were replaced. DDOT employees led the complex design and construction of the roadway features while maintaining traffic and access for residents in a street that consists of all historic houses.

Other successful efforts include DDOT’s Green Alley pilot program to demonstrate use of permeable pavement and other low impact development techniques in alleys throughout D.C., as well as the city’s LED street lights programs.

EMS Advances Sustainability

In support of its sustainability efforts, DDOT also is implementing an environmental management system (EMS), based on the International Standards Organization (ISO 14001) structure. The agency may seek ISO certification in the future, Hameed said. The EMS is being implemented in phases. As the first phase, DDOT focused on the project development and environmental review process as well as office operations.

Following the “plan-do-check-act” EMS model, DDOT’s EMS outlines the agency’s environmental policy and describes objectives, measures, and targets as well as roles and responsibilities for implementation, measuring and reporting progress, and ensuring continuous improvement.

For project development and environmental review, the plan applies to all phases of project development, including planning, preliminary engineering, environmental review, final design, construction and maintenance. It calls for incorporation of environmental features in DDOT projects and increased use of beneficial and recycled materials.

For example, under the plan, projects will set a goal to achieve a 5 percent decrease in overall emissions as well as a 5 percent decrease in greenhouse gas emissions, and at least half of all projects will include environmental components such as low impact development features and tree planting.

In addition, measures and targets are included to help streamline environmental reviews by reducing delays from environmental issues, avoiding delays in obtaining permits, and fulfilling environmental commitments on projects.

As part of the EMS implementation, environmental audits will be conducted at every phase of the project development process, and environmental commitments and mitigation will be tracked to ensure that the commitments are carried through to design and construction. The results of the reviews will be documented in an annual report, including recommendations for corrective actions.

“The idea is to monitor and evaluate environmental considerations throughout the project development process,” Hameed said. Forms must be filled out when a project is initiated, he said, and based on that form, determinations are made regarding potential environmental impacts and mitigation. That form is reviewed and approved by the Project Development, Environment, and Sustainability Division to ensure commitments are carried out.

For more information, link to the DDOT Sustainability Plan.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Massachusetts - MassDOT Advances GreenDOT Sustainability Initiative

The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is continuing to make progress on sustainability initiatives, a process that began with the 2010 GreenDOT policy directive.

In 2014, the agency conducted a comprehensive review of its progress on sustainability initiatives and issued the GreenDOT Report 2014 Status Update Report. Key priorities being pursued include:

  • improving the consideration of GHG impacts in transportation planning;
  • implementation of a complete streets funding program;
  • initiating a statewide climate adaptation and vulnerability assessment;
  • development of renewable energy on MassDOT assets;
  • delivering travel demand management services;
  • improving energy efficiency of MassDOT’s fixed assets; and
  • supporting increased uptake of electric vehicles.
Increasing bicycle and pedestrian mode share is an important element of MassDOT’s sustainability initiative. Photo: MassDOT

Improving Consideration of GHG impacts

MassDOT has been working with Metropolitan Planning Organizations for a number of years to incorporate GHG impacts of projects as a consideration when transportation projects are selected. This work has taken on new urgency with the 2015 passage of state regulation 310 CMR 60.05 which makes the consideration of GHG impacts a legal requirement.

The agency has provided metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) with analytical tools, guidelines and training to enable the quantification of GHG impacts. It also is undertaking analysis to identify the most efficient and effective means of reducing transportation sector GHG emissions through implementing a pilot of the Federal Highway Administration’s Energy and Emissions Policy Analysis Tool and a project with UMass Amherst under the Massachusetts Cooperative Research Program.

Shannon Greenwell, MassDOT’s project lead, noted that the central challenge in this work is to develop a system of GHG impact assessment that is consistent across the Commonwealth’s MPOs and allows the quantification of GHG impacts at a relatively early stage in the project development process.

Implementing a Complete Streets Funding Program

MassDOT has been a national leader in promoting Complete Streets designs. Early efforts were recognized in the award-winning 2006 Project Development and Design Guide. More recently, MassDOT issued the 2012 Healthy Transportation Engineering Directive and supporting engineering directives that set minimum standards for accommodation of active modes of transportation.

Its pioneering efforts to promote complete streets continue with the finalization of a Complete Streets Funding Program. This program will be released in January of 2016 and will help incentivize municipalities to adopt complete streets policies and construct complete street projects.

The agency also finalized a ground breaking Separated Bike Lane Planning & Design Guide in 2015 that significantly advances bicycle facility design in the Commonwealth and aims to set new precedents for design in the United States.

MassDOT Complete Streets Engineer Luciano Rabito noted that the first projects will be ready for funding in 2016 and that MassDOT has sought to provide flexibility for all participating municipalities. “We have designed a program that will offer assistance to all municipalities large or small; urban, suburban, or rural. The program, which will be managed online, will be easy to use and keep municipalities engaged throughout the process. Based on the positive feedback we have received, we are anticipating a hugely successful program.”

Statewide Climate Adaptation and Vulnerability Assessment

MassDOT has initiated a climate vulnerability assessment to help prepare the Commonwealth for the likely impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure.

The scope of this first phase will include mapping the full inventory of MassDOT assets; compiling and mapping climate change predictions; conducting workshops to gather data on current conditions; assessing the level of risk to individual assets and the system as a whole; developing asset vulnerability criteria; and identifying a prioritized set of high-risk hazards and high-risk assets.

Development of Renewable Energy on MassDOT’s Assets

MassDOT’s work to support increased generation of renewable energy continues. The first phase of the project to establish solar farms on underutilized areas near State Highways was completed in 2015 with the addition of five solar arrays. These projects utilize an innovative form of Power Purchase Agreement financing, under which a solar developer bears the upfront cost of the installations and operation and maintenance responsibilities, and MassDOT secures a long term agreement to purchase low cost electricity. Additional solar projects are planned, as well as a wind turbine project for a commuter rail facility.

These developments add to a range of existing renewable energy initiatives on MassDOT’s assets which include solar projects as well as a wind energy project at an MBTA facility.

The project lead, Lily Oliver, explained that MassDOT is starting to see the benefits of highway solar projects after almost 2 years of design and construction. “A lot of upfront work was required for these projects to go ahead” says Oliver. “This included a competitive procurement process, price negotiations, town and highway access permits, obtaining approvals from FHWA and securing state incentives. It is satisfying to see these projects coming online which means reduced operating costs for MassDOT and lower greenhouse gas emissions for Massachusetts,” Oliver said. (see related AASHTO case study under Energy/GHG Emissions topic)

Delivering Travel Demand Management Services

In the area of travel demand, MassDOT supports the reduction of single-occupant vehicle travel by increasing the availability and use of commuting options such as carpooling, vanpooling, transit, bicycling, and walking through its MassRIDES program.

The use of these options leads to reduced traffic congestion; improved air quality; reduced GHG emissions; and enhanced quality of life in Massachusetts. MassRIDES now serves 495,000 employees within its 335 partner organizations.

Improving Energy Efficiency of MassDOT’s Fixed Assets

MassDOT has a number of initiatives underway and planned to reduce the energy used in its buildings and other fixed assets. These include the following:

  • Energy audits and high-payback upgrades of 130 buildings covering almost 1.9 million square feet; An estimated $4.4 million dollars will be invested in upgrades to the 130 MassDOT facilities, which are expected to produce an annual saving for Massachusetts taxpayers of $500,000.
  • Installation of LED lights in the tunnels of the Metropolitan Highway System in downtown Boston. The tunnels to be covered by the project contain approximately 25,000 existing fixtures that will be replaced.
  • Upgrading the heating units that prevent the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority’s third rail from freezing during winter. The existing heaters are outdated, have outmoded controls, and require a large amount of electricity to power. They are turned on in late fall and remain on until spring, running 24 hours per day. The MBTA is installing efficient units that can be remotely controlled based on actual weather conditions. It is estimated that this initiative could create savings of over 39.8 million kWh and $3.4 million annually in electricity costs.

Supporting Increased Use of Electric Vehicles

Massachusetts committed to a goal of 300,000 zero emission vehicles registered in the state by 2025 under a Multi-State ZEV Action Plan. MassDOT has a number of responsibilities under its draft Massachusetts’ Zero Emission Vehicle Action Plan. They include the installation of up to 12 DC fast charging stations at locations close to State Highways within Massachusetts to provide range confidence for drivers on longer journeys and providing signage to guide drivers to charging stations.

Challenges arise when installing a new layer of refueling technology on a busy State Highway system. They include meeting rules governing the use of federal air quality funds and complying with restrictions on commercial activities near the highway. MassDOT also must work with existing lessees, utility companies and other state government agencies, all while siting the charging stations where they will be most useful to the traveling public.

For more information on MassDOT’s sustainability initiatives, visit MassDOT’s GreenDOT Sustainability Initiative website.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Minnesota - MnDOT’s Corridor Investment Strategy Yields Social, Economic, Environmental Benefits

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s (MnDOT) Corridor Investment Management Strategy (CIMS) was created with one key objective in mind: advance multimodal solutions that ensure a high return on investment while reflecting the state’s social, economic, and environmental goals.

CIMS is a system of selecting projects to be funded based on an analysis and scoring of social, environmental, and economic benefits of each project.

The MN 23 CIMS project in Duluth widened and reconstructed sidewalks, realigned signals, closed driveway access points, added bus pullouts and improved lighting. Photo: Minnesota DOT

Challenge, Solution
“CIMS gave MnDOT the opportunity to apply a robust understanding of public return on investment to the selection of highway improvements”, said Philip Schaffner, MnDOT’s Policy Planning Director.
The MN 23 CIMS project in Duluth, MN widened and reconstructed sidewalks, realigned signals, closed driveway access points, added bus pullouts and improved lighting.

CIMS came about as a result of challenging conditions. As was the case for other state transportation agencies in 2012, MnDOT officials were dealing with increasingly constrained resources alongside a transportation system that was aging. MnDOT determined that dialog and possible collaboration with other agencies whose work intersected with theirs could help strategically leverage resources and also potentially create more sustainable systems. The result was CIMS.

To familiarize other agencies and the public with the CIMS strategy, MnDOT held a series of 16 regional meetings that spring. In February of 2013, the agency issued a $30 million solicitation that invited municipalities to apply for state highway funding for projects that offered the greatest potential to help move CIMS objectives forward and also were consistent with the Minnesota GO Vision and the Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan. The funds were from the state trunk highway account, which is funded by a combination of state gas taxes, vehicle registration fees, and sales tax on the sale of motor vehicles.

”The Minnesota GO vision calls for transportation systems that maximize the health of people, the environment and our economy, so we knew our selection process needed to reflect the triple bottom line,” Schaffner said.

MnDOT formed an advisory group of other state agencies to help develop the project evaluation criteria and evaluate project proposals. The group included Explore Minnesota Tourism and the state’s Department of Commerce, Department of Education, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Department of Health, Department of Natural Resources, Department of Public Safety, and the Pollution Control Agency.

Evaluation Criteria

Notably, the project evaluation criteria decided upon by the advisory group were broader than strictly traditional performance factors such as direct user benefits/costs and system performance. Instead, the following criteria were applied to determine project proposal scores:

  • 60 percent: enhanced benefit-cost ratio calculation using a benefit-cost ratio analysis tool that considered the following factors:
    • social – safety, bicycle/pedestrian health effects, and noise;
    • economic – travel time, travel time reliability, vehicle operation costs, life cycle costs, and loss of agricultural land;
    • environmental – emissions (carbon dioxide plus criteria pollutants), wetland effects, and runoff.
    • 30 percent: other factors evaluated qualitatively (one example cited for each) -
      • local economic impacts – such as improving access for tourist destinations;
      • context sensitivity – such as enhancing natural, historical, archeological, and cultural resources;
      • system considerations – such as closing a gap in a trail/bikeway;
      • community health and access – such as improving access for disadvantaged populations; and
      • multimodal impacts – such as improving access to an intermodal terminal.
      • 10 percent: financial plan match – at least 10 percent of project costs are covered by non-MnDOT funding with additional points available for applications that requested less than 90 percent of project costs.

Ten projects were selected from a total of 45 applications, with project construction scheduled for either 2014 or 2015. Selected projects tended to address three types of scenarios: a solution for a significant safety issue; a low-cost operational improvement; or a multifaceted urban main/complete streets project. The projects all are either complete or were scheduled to be finished by early 2016.

Typical project components include activities such as the following:

  • curb, sewer, utility, and pavement upgrades/replacement;
  • improved sidewalks and ramps;
  • additional turn lanes and upgraded signals;
  • streetscaping (that in one case specifically is designed to reduce flooding);
  • improved pedestrian crossings and bicycling conditions; and
  • improved access to other modal nodes such as bus and rail transit or trails.

For one of the projects, an interchange was constructed that increases safety, reduces environmental impacts, and facilitates agricultural equipment crossings. Another project included a four-to-three lane conversion and construction of a roundabout to support future economic vitality.

“The $30 million in CIMS funding helped the agency leverage an additional $65 million in other federal, state and local funding for a total construction program of almost $100 million,” Schaffner said.

Lessons and Reflections

The use of an enhanced benefit-cost analysis helped MnDOT translate broad goals into comparable and common metrics. The methodology allowed the review committee to compare a range of project types using one set of criteria.

“One of the benefits of the CIMS approach was that environmental impacts, particularly runoff, were elevated in importance and considered when selecting projects,” Schaffner said.

However, not all of the measures made much of a difference in project selection. For example, lack of data and forecasting methodologies meant that the health impacts of biking and walking were often missing from applications and, even when included, they usually were small relative to other factors.

“The 2013 CIMS solicitation was an incredible learning opportunity for MnDOT,” he said. “We have incorporated some of the measures into our standard guidance for benefit-cost analysis, we’re continuing to study and refine the methodology for other measures, and we’re using the solicitation as a template for other competitive grant programs.”

In terms of advice for other transportation agencies that might be interested in a similar approach, Schaffner recommended working with other agencies to develop scoring criteria “to ensure they are understandable and customized to the local context.”

For more information, contact Philip Schaffner, Policy Planning Director, Minnesota Department of Transportation at philip.schaffner@state.mn.us, or link to the MnDOT CIMS website.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Ohio - Ohio DOT Innerbelt Bridge Project: A Commitment to Sustainability

In February 2009, the Ohio Department of Transportation (DOT) initiated the first of two projects designed to replace the aging steel truss bridge that carries Interstate 90 over the Cuyahoga River Valley and into Cleveland’s central business district. The first Innerbelt project, developing a new westbound bridge adjacent to the existing bridge, demonstrates how Ohio DOT is working to make its major transportation investments sustainable by reducing cost, maximizing benefits, and conserving resources.

The Innerbelt project team committed to achieving sustainability goals in seven categories, which have been dubbed the “Green 7.” These include:

1. energy and energy efficiency;

2. community environment;

3. green building;

4. waste reduction and recycling;

5. green project administration;

6. materials and resources; and

7. construction practices.

Photo: Courtesy Innerbelt Bridge Photo Stream

ODOT's Commitment to Sustainability

The Innerbelt project’s design and construction team found several ways to cut project costs while conserving resources and getting the bridge built faster. Progress toward achieving these goals is documented in Monthly Sustainability Summaries posted on the agency’s website. For example, as of Oct. 31, 2012, the agency reported the following achievements:

  • Construction Vehicle Fuel Savings: By using construction vehicles with greater load-carrying capacity, the project has documented savings of over 85,000 gallons of diesel fuel.
  • Carbon Emissions Reductions: By reducing the fuel usage during earthmoving, the project team has saved more than 1,074 metric tons of CO2 emissions.
  • Materials Recycling: The demolition debris from the project is processed and sorted and more than half of all materials are recycled. The project team has recycled almost 5 million pounds of steel, preventing more than 123,000 cubic yards of waste from entering landfills.
  • Smaller Bridge Footprint - By using a creative bridge design that featured a modified alignment from the one originally proposed, the project team was able to reduce the amount of earthwork needed during construction by about 35,000 cubic yards and decrease the amount of steel and other materials needed to build the bridge.

Other examples of sustainability on the project include construction of a pair of “pocket habitats” under the new span of the bridge. These areas allow growth of native plants and provide a safe haven for migrating fish. In addition, the project team is relocating Peregrine Falcons that made their home beneath the existing bridge.

Based on these and other attributes, Ohio DOT has used the Federal Highway Administration’s INVEST sustainability self-assessment tool to give the project a “gold” rating.

More information on the project, access Ohio DOT’s Innerbelt Bridge website and project sustainability page.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Puget Sound Regional Council - Puget Sound's 2010 'Transportation 2040' Plan Sets 30-Year Vision for Sustainable Transportation

With a projected growth of approximately 1.5 million people in the next 30 years, the Puget Sound area in Washington State faces increased demand on the region’s transportation system.

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), which is the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the four-county Seattle-Tacoma-Everett region, has crafted an ambitious long-range strategy to plan for and shape the area’s transportation needs. The Transportation 2040 plan, adopted in 2010, lays out a 30-year vision for funding and building sustainable transportation programs and projects in the coming decades.

The plan – which received an award in 2010 from the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations – translates the PSRC’s broad commitment to transportation sustainability into tangible actions. The Plan is built around three equal and interrelated strategies that together define what “sustainable transportation” means for the region and are designed to influence overall transportation investment decisions. These three strategies address the following:

  • Congestion Relief and Better Mobility - To improve system efficiency, the plan recommends creating “smart corridors” with advanced technology, better information, advanced tolling approaches, and strategic capacity improvements. As an example, one project underway in the Puget Sound region is the deployment by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) of an Active Traffic Management System, including the use of high-tech overhead signs displaying variable speed limits, lane status, and real-time traffic information so drivers know what is happening on the road ahead. The first signs were installed on northbound Interstate 5, a major highway traversing Seattle. Since then, WSDOT has implemented similar systems on SR 520, completed in November 2010, and I-90, completed in June 2011. Active traffic management aims to improve safety, reduce congestion, and benefit the environment. Although more collision data will be needed for a statistical analysis of collision frequency, WSDOT officials expect to see a measurable and statistically significant reduction in collisions. Congestion relief also has economic benefits, with reduced fuel consumption as vehicles spend less time stuck in traffic jams.
  • Environmental Protection - A key focus of the PSRC’s long-range plan is to protect and improve the region’s environmental health. This includes ensuring that the region has healthy air, planning transportation projects that are better equipped to handle stormwater runoff, and addressing transportation’s role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.
  • New Approach to Funding - The Transportation 2040 financial strategy relies on traditional funding sources in the early years but later transitions to add funding from new user fees. Such fees could come from high occupancy toll lanes, facility and bridge tolling, vehicle miles traveled charges, and other pricing approaches that replace the gas tax and help manage the transportation system usage.

Detailed recommendations for program changes and major new projects in three major focus areas help transform Transportation 2040’s vision for sustainable transportation into reality. These include the following:

  • Maintain, Preserve and Operate - The plan’s highest priority is to maintain, preserve, and operate the region’s existing transportation system, and represents the largest program cost;
  • Increase System Efficiency – Use transportation system management strategies like Active Traffic Management and variable tolling to improve efficiency of the existing transportation system; and
  • Strategically Expand Capacity - Implement strategic capacity investments in all modes of transportation including a 100 percent increase in peak hour local transit service, bicycle and pedestrian improvements in regional growth centers, and completion of a network of roadway projects. These investments would rely on users of the new highway capacity to pay for improvements through highway tolling.

In addition, Transportation 2040 supports the goals of Vision 2040, PSRC’s umbrella strategic plan, by focusing transportation investments in designated urban growth areas, increasing the availability and efficiency of transit and rail services, and focusing development in major travel corridors and regional growth centers.

As required under federal law, PSRC is in the process of updating the plan, anticipating completing the revision in 2014. The update will incorporate a method for the better prioritization of projects, include revised revenue estimates based on existing law, and address the level of investment for maintenance and preservation of the existing system.

PSRC has been developing the new prioritizing process over the past two years. The framework will assess projects using nine evaluation measures:

  • air quality,
  • freight,
  • jobs,
  • multi-modal,
  • Puget Sound land and water,
  • safety and system security,
  • social equity and access to opportunity,
  • support for growth centers, and
  • travel.

The prioritization framework will be used to evaluate over 800 projects, with the results being used to support decisions on transportation investments. When finalized, the framework will be integrated into the Transportation 2040 plan.

The update also addresses refinements to the transit-oriented development plans and the active traffic management plans to further address the level of demand on the transportation system. Under consideration are ways to encourage alternative, environmentally sensitive transportation choices; the development of land use policies that support bicycles, transit, and ridesharing; and the incorporation of complete streets principles.

In addition, the update will include a new rural transportation strategy and address other statutory requirements and issues identified by the PSRC boards.

PSRC is working to interpret new mandates from Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and will incorporate new requirements into the plan update as appropriate, according to Robin Mayhew, a transportation program manager with PSRC. This may include collaboration at the state and national levels to shape the implementation of MAP-21 in advancing regional goals as identified in the plan.

PSRC will have opportunities in the coming year for public involvement in the plan update process.

A wide range of information is available on the PSRC’s Transportation 2040 website, http://www.psrc.org/transportation/t2040. Additional information is available by contacting Charlie Howard by e-mail at choward@psrc.org or Robin Mayhew at rmayhew@psrc.org.

[back to top]

Water Quality/Wetlands

Case Studies: FHWA Compilations

Case Studies: Arizona - Arizona DOT Provides Guidance for CWA Section 404/401 Permits, Certification

The Arizona Department of Transportation has developed a manual to ensure compliance, provide consistency, and increase awareness of permitting and certification requirements for its projects under Sections 404 and 401 of the Clean Water Act. The ADOT Clean Water Act Sections 404/401 Guidance Manual, issued in October 2013, provides ADOT-specific guidance for obtaining and complying with required permits and certifications.

ADOT 404/401 Program Coordinator Julia Manfredi said the manual was developed to assist ADOT staff in project development as well as maintenance and construction. In response to a 2010 404 permit violation and a desire to improve its compliance efforts, ADOT added a 404/401 program coordinator to its staff, conducted a wide-ranging training program for hundreds of employees, and developed the Guidance Manual to provide additional guidance.

Manfredi said one of the purposes of developing the manual was to help determine when certification and permits are needed for maintenance activities, in addition to construction activities. Common "waters of the U.S." that would be subject to regulation in Arizona include washes, rivers and streams, natural ponds, wetlands, and canals.

Construction activities that could trigger Section 404/401 compliance by ADOT include culvert or bridge construction, roadway and utility crossings and geotechnical borings. Examples of maintenance activities would include channel bank protection, wash realignment and channelization and removal of sediment buildup from culverts.

Step-by-Step Process Outlined

The guidance manual provides a step-by-step permitting decision process for transportation agency staff. It outlines the following process both for construction and maintenance activities:

  • Step 1: Could "waters of the U.S." be involved?
  • Step 2: Will the activity involve discharges of dredged or fill material into "waters of the U.S."?
  • Step 3: Will a jurisdictional determination be needed? This may require preliminary calculation of impacts. Conduct a jurisdictional delineation if required.
  • Step 4: Quantify impacts and determine the type of Section 404 permit that is needed: either nationwide or individual permit.
  • Step 5: Prepare the Section 404 permit application and determine if a preconstruction notification is required for a nationwide permit. Submit the application to the Corps.
  • Step 6: Determine Section 401 certification required - whether conditionally or individually certified - and acquire certification.

The manual also provides information on staff roles and responsibilities, timing of permit decisions, clarification on how Corps guidance applies to ADOT, information on the internal coordination processes for construction activities and for maintenance activities, documentation for non-notifying permits, and check lists and flow charts. A link to the manual has been distributed widely, including districts and district engineers, and has been the subject of a series of webinars, she said.

Lessons Learned

Manfredi said the manual, which took about six months to develop, is currently in use and has been well-received by ADOT staff and regulatory agencies. She said it has helped to simplify the process and empower those required to make permit decisions. The process of developing the manual went smoothly, in large part because it was developed through a collaborative effort of ADOT staff and district offices, the Corps, and the Federal Highway Administration, she said.

She also noted that the manual - which includes a range of check lists and templates that are also available on the ADOT website - is a work in progress and will likely be updated on an ongoing basis. Future efforts will include ongoing compliance tracking and additional audience-specific training programs.

Manfredi said the manual could be used as a starting point for other state DOTs looking to document their own CWA Section 404/401 permitting processes - particularly western states in arid climates. The step-by-step process for permit decisions could be adapted for most any state, she added. ADOT anticipates the manual will help avoid permit violations and will help ensure better protection of resources by training staff how to better identify resources in the field. It will also serve as a streamlining tool by simplifying the process and allowing better use of time and resources within the agency, Manfredi said.

For more information, link to the Guidance Manual, and the ADOT Section 404/401 Procedures website or contact Julia Manfredi at JManfredi@azdot.gov.

[back to top]

Case Studies: Florida - Florida DOT’s Programmatic Approach to Wetlands Mitigation

More effective mitigation for unavoidable wetland losses from transportation projects in Florida is being achieved through a unique programmatic mitigation approach developed by the Florida Department of Transportation.

The state’s "Revised Mitigation Statute," in combination with Florida’s Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method and a new General Permit for FDOT issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, have provided a framework for the programmatic mitigation approach.

Background

Given Florida's geology, FDOT construction projects often required the unavoidable loss of wetlands. In 1996, the Florida Legislature passed a law (the Mitigation Statute) to standardize and expedite situations where mitigation was required to compensate for the unavoidable loss of wetlands from FDOT’s projects. The 1996 statute required FDOT to pay the appropriate Water Management District (WMD) a fee established by the statute per acre affected by the FDOT project. With the WMDs tasked with protecting and managing their water resources, funding from the mitigation budget of an FDOT project would allow the WMDs to achieve their water resource protection and management effort, thereby mitigating the loss of wetlands from the roadway construction.

The law was forward thinking for its time. However, important portions of the law became outdated, and in 2014, the Florida Legislature passed revised language designed to give FDOT more flexibility to obtain full value for their wetlands mitigation expenditures (Title XXVIII, Chapter 373, Section 373.4137), commonly referred to as the "Revised Mitigation Statute."

Florida DOT's programmatic approach for wetlands benefits species such as the wood stork. Photo: FDOT

Benefits/Features

The "Revised Mitigation Statute,” passed in 2014, has a number of innovative elements.

  • The Revised Mitigation Statute requires FDOT to consider all mitigation options that meet federal and state requirements, thereby complying with the 2008 mitigation rule issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency. While working with the WMDs remains an option, FDOT may also consider the use of private mitigation banks providing FDOT with the ability to seek the most cost-effective option. FDOT has substantially reduced its mitigation costs and receives greater value for each wetland mitigation dollar.
  • WMD deliverables and responsibilities when using FDOT funds are now more explicit, improving accountability. Now, when WMD's receive mitigation funds from FDOT, they must prepare detailed plans for project-specific wetland mitigation areas enabling identification of specific wetland mitigation funded through each project's environmental mitigation budget.
  • The Revised Mitigation Statute enables advance mitigation. FDOT forecasts the wetland impacts associated with their three-year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) in an "impact inventory." FDOT may then purchase wetland mitigation credits, based on the forecast in the impact inventory, in advance of more detailed project development. If there is no mitigation bank in the area, the WMD may receive FDOT funds to plan and develop a mitigation bank to accommodate the mitigation requirements of future FDOT projects. The amount of mitigation provided by the WMD is then deducted from FDOT's future mitigation requirement. This program encourages WMD's to think of FDOT as a customer and shape their water resource plan to coordinate with the development of the state highway system in the area. Additionally, the FDOT forecasts of wetlands loss help the wetland banking industry plan for future demand.

Wetland Functions Considered

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (FDEP) continued development of Florida's Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) and its inclusion by FDOT in the Revised Mitigation Statute helped further accountability and accuracy. This process provides a scientific basis for adjusting the gross acreage of wetlands impacted by the specific functions provided by the affected wetlands. UMAM was adopted by all state agencies and the Corps.

With the UMAM analysis substantiating the existing functions of the wetlands affected by roadway construction, FDOT is able to coordinate with the Corps and FDEP on appropriate mitigation quantity, and thereby paying for only what is needed to mitigate the loss of wetland function.

Collaborative Effort Provides Ongoing Dividends

The "Revised Mitigation Statute" resulted from a fortunate confluence of knowledgeable stakeholders and a state legislature focused on efficiency, expedited project delivery, and an approach to mitigation that best serves the people of Florida. The effort was led by Marjorie Kirby and Xavier Pagan in FDOT State Environmental Management Office and Kathleen Toolan of the FDOT Office of the General Counsel with FDOT leadership support.

The rewrite of the Mitigation Statute involved intense negotiations involving FDOT, representatives of the mitigation banking community and FDEP and WMDs. With stakeholder unity, the revised statute sailed through the legislature because it respected the interests of all stakeholders.

The trust that was developed among stakeholders through the passage of the Revised Mitigation Statute has continued to benefit Florida as the various stakeholders continue to work directly to improve approaches to roadway project development and permitting. For example, seeing the opportunity to improve the efficiency of the permit process, stakeholders collaborated to develop a Regional General Permit from the Corps of Engineers for FDOT projects. The General Permit was issued April 8, 2015, and was designed to include the Revised Mitigation Statute. It also incorporates such features as:

  • Integration of NEPA and Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements; and
  • Addressing projects with five or less acres of fresh water wetland impact per linear mile, , excluding tidal wetlands, up to a limit of 10 miles of roadway (this category of project includes a large proportion of FDOT construction); and

Future Activities

FDOT continues to push ahead with proactive, programmatic approaches to wetlands as well as biological impacts. For example:

  • New uses for UMAM are being developed, in coordination with FDEP and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to enable its use for species and habitat mitigation.
  • New programmatic agreements are being developed, leveraging the collaboration developed among FDOT and the resource managers and FDOT has a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff member working exclusively on programmatic agreements. The first species to be addressed are freshwater mussels.
  • Technical specifications are being updated to include standard environmental minimization and mitigation measures. Presently documents enumerate environmental mitigation measures, but having standard environmental construction conditions for contractors will help ensure a uniform approach to activities across the state.

Florida is now benefiting on several fronts from the collaborative approaches that have been and are being developed to address the unavoidable wetlands and biological impacts of road construction, according to the state DOT officials. This is the result of a successful public-private partnership that has helped build trust and communication pathways to clarify, simplify and focus, laws, coordination and procedures to develop better outcomes for the environment and the users of the transportation system.

For more information on FDOT’s wetland mitigation approach, contact Marjorie Kirby, FDOT Environmental Programs Administrator at Marjorie.Kirby@dot.state.fl.us, or Xavier Pagán, FDOT Natural & Community Resources Administrator, at Pagan, Xavier.Pagan@dot.state.fl.us, State Environmental Management Office, Tallahassee, Fla.

[back to top]

Wildlife & Ecosystems

Recent Developments: FWS Issues Revised Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has released a revised Habitat Conservation Planning Handbook. Habitat conservation plans (HCPs) are negotiated agreements under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) that help conserve species while accommodating land use activities. The handbook describes how landowners can expedite their ESA permit reviews by specifying the process for drafting, reviewing, approving and implementing HCPs. The handbook also incorporates comprehensive guidance concerning species monitoring, mitigation techniques and climate change. For more information, link to the handbook. (12-20-16)

[back to top]

Recent Developments: AASHTO Issues Handbook to Address Species Consultation

AASHTO has issued a new practitioner's handbook providing an overview of Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act for transportation projects. The handbook, Complying with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act for Transportation Projects (Practitioner's Handbook 17), is the latest in the practitioner’s handbook series. The handbook includes an overview of the regulatory framework, issues to consider, and practical tips. A webinar by the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO will be scheduled soon to discuss the handbook. Practitioner's Handbook 17. For more information, link to the handbook. (12-2-16)

[back to top]

Case Studies: Colorado - Agreement Offers Streamlined Mitigation Option for Impacts to Canada Lynx in Colorado

An innovative Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) created by Colorado DOT (CDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will provide CDOT with a new streamlined option for fulfilling its mitigation responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act as they relate to the Canada lynx (lynx). In essence, for projects that are determined to have impacts on lynx, CDOT now can propose that it pay an in-lieu fee (ILF) into a Lynx Mitigation Fund rather than carry out mitigation measures onsite. The MOA was signed on July 7, 2015.

Colorado DOT’s in-lieu fee mitigation fund will support broad efforts to mitigate impacts to the Canada lynx. Photo: Colorado Division of Wildlife

“We have known for some time that our actions were impacting lynx by increasing the barrier effect of highways,” explains Jeff Peterson, Wildlife Program Manager for CDOT’s Environmental Programs Branch. “However, because our right-of-way very seldom contains usable habitat, mitigation has been challenging. Choices such as providing safe passage over or under the highway at the site often can end up being more costly than the project itself, and possibly less-effective.”

Under the terms of the MOA, Peterson says, “we can propose using the ILF as our preferred mitigation choice in our Biological Assessment (BA). USFWS then either agrees or disagrees with our choice in its Biological Opinion (BO). Furthermore, we can propose it under both Section 7 and Section 10 of the Act.”

From Peterson’s perspective, the new option is a win-win. If the ILF gets a green light for a particular project, CDOT’s ESA responsibilities are fulfilled and it can get on with its project. And from a species preservation perspective, adding an in-lieu fee to the fund opens up the possibility of using the fund for more strategic and comprehensive mitigation elsewhere in the state. Although CDOT has not yet had the opportunity to put the MOA to work, Peterson says, his agency is planning a number of projects that are strong candidates for the ILF option. “And when that time comes -- and I’m virtually certain it will -- we’re ready,” he says.

The lynx is listed as threatened in Colorado. Currently, there are believed to be approximately 200-300 lynx statewide. Peterson says it has been estimated that approximately 670 miles of Colorado highway are located in lynx habitat, and an additional 210 miles or so of lynx movement corridors exist between patches of suitable habitat.

MOA Provisions

ILF contributions to the mitigation fund are based on project “award” costs with the rationale that they represent the most accurate construction cost estimates. The amount contributed is tied to the type and severity of the impact(s) the project would be expected to have on the lynx. It is based upon the average cost of mitigation and compliance with the ESA compared to total construction costs (by percent) for past projects that included mitigation for impacts to lynx. Maximum contribution for an individual project is 5 percent.

The fund can be used for a new stand-alone mitigation project or, more likely, to enhance a current project. For example, if a highway project is in lynx habitat, and mitigation normally would call for a concrete box culvert (CBC) to be installed under a portion of the highway to channel flowing water, the ILF could be used to cover additional costs of building a bridge, which would open up passage for lynx under the bridge.

Under the terms of the MOA, funds can be leveraged, and partnering is encouraged. For instance, the Forest Service may be carrying out a project to consolidate land parcels that includes trading some of its land for private parcels throughout the forest. If some of those parcels are in an area known to be frequented by lynx, CDOT could partner with the Forest Service so the land on either side of a proposed lynx crossing would be protected from development.

The MOA calls for two management teams to be created: an Advisory Committee and a Fund Management Team. The teams are in charge of managing the ILF mitigation process for individual projects. Besides participation on the teams, each of the three lead agencies has additional responsibilities spelled out in the MOA. For example, CDOT is in charge of setting up the two management teams; FHWA must participate in the development of ESA compliance documents and consult with USFWS on any project that may affect lynx; and USFWS is responsible for providing the most up-to-date information and science available when determining the most appropriate mitigation for lynx.

Benefits, Challenges and Transferability

Peterson predicts that numerous benefits will accrue from using the MOA. First, there are the direct benefits of enabling projects to move forward efficiently and mitigation efforts to be broader and more strategic for the benefit of the lynx. In addition, he anticipates that it will also foster increased trust between CDOT/FHWA and the resource agencies. Other potential benefits may include a more positive public perception of CDOT’s wildlife department and demonstrated success in interagency collaboration.

Challenges in putting the MOA to work remain to be seen. In the meantime, challenges definitely were encountered in creating and signing off on the MOA. The first was securing active and substantive support from senior-level management on the concept itself. Beyond that, obtaining agreement among Regional Managers on the terms of the sliding scale initially was a hurdle. Yet another obstacle encountered was how to account in budgets for moving money from one project into another one that isn’t in the same CDOT region, or perhaps even proposed yet.

“The good news is that the basic procedure outlined in the MOA can serve as a template for creating a similar document in another state,” he says. “It would be a matter of plugging in state-specific details such as funding sources, maintenance responsibilities, and reporting requirements. To my knowledge, no one else is using anything similar.”

According to Peterson, perhaps the most important thing to do at the very beginning is to get all the parties together for several informal discussions during which everyone is heard but nothing is yet put down on paper. The time is well worth it, he says. Once everyone is invested in the success of the endeavor, the chances of developing the MOA in a spirit of collaboration are much greater.

“But everyone should be prepared for a fair amount of wordsmithing before the document is finalized. No matter how well everyone gets along, each agency needs to feel comfortable that its mission is protected. I’d recommend access to a lawyer to help with that aspect; for our MOA, we used the USFWS legal advisor and it worked well.”

Peterson concludes, “At the end of the day, it’s a case of rolling up your sleeves and putting the effort in now to reap benefits well into the future.”

For more information, contact Jeff Peterson, Wildlife Program Manager, Environmental Programs Branch, Colorado DOT, at Jeff.peterson@state.co.us or visit the CDOT website at www.CODOT.gov/programs/environmental/wildlife.

[back to top]

Case Studies: FHWA Compilations

New - items posted in the last 7 days

AASHTO (American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials)
skip navigation