 |
|
 |
|
|
Listed below are examples of case studies including best practices, and/or innovative tools/approaches. This section will grow as entries are submitted or links to other sites with useful examples are provided. If you believe your agency has utilized a best practice/approach that others could learn from, please submit a short description to AASHTO (including any pertinent links) on the Share Info with AASHTO form. Please note that currently submissions are only being accepted from governmental entities.
|
|
|
| |
| Federal Highway Administration Compilation |
| Numerous streamlining and stewardship case studies are documented in the Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO best practices competition reports. For access to the reports, link here.
[back to top] | | | |
|
| |
Alaska Interagency Consultation and Coordination Agreement
In Spring 2005, the Alaska Interagency Consultation and Coordination Agreement was successfully signed and implemented. This agreement was developed to expedite and improve environmental decision-making and permitting for all Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities federal-aid transportation program projects in which the Federal Highway Administration is the environmental lead agency. The intent of the Agreement is to allow signatory agencies to focus staff resources on major projects while ensuring that adverse effects of minor projects are identified and addressed. The Agreement also promotes early and effective interagency consultation and coordination. Click here for a copy of the Agreement.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Integration of Transportation Planning and NEPA Data
Colorado DOT and its Regional Transportation planning partners issued a guidance document on the integration of useful NEPA data and information into selected regional and statewide corridor visions. The document provides guidance and information on how data, analysis, and products from transportation planning can be incorporated into and can support the project environmental review process under existing laws. It is recognizes that transportation planning processes vary across the state and benefit from including NEPA language and analysis within the long range transportation planning process. Consultation and coordination with various resource and regulatory agencies is a key component to this guidance document.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Efficient Transportation Decision Making
The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has developed an innovative process for planning and implementing transportation projects. This process is called Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM). FDOT developed the ETDM Process in response to Congress’ call to streamline the environmental review and permitting process. A Memoradum of Understanding was signed by 23 agencies at a summit meeting on December 14, 2001. This agreement signified concurrence with the concept and commitment to continued development and implementation. The Process was developed over a 3-year period in collaboration with MPOs and federal and state resources agencies. Implementation of the Process is supported by additional agreements. The Master Agreement documents agency acceptance of the process, performance standards, dispute resolution, and statement of regulatory authority. Operating Agreements document agency-specific requirements and Funding Agreements document interagency funding provided by FDOT. For more information, please read the article about the ETDM process and a copy of the Master Agreement.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Herbicide Interactive Web Project
MaineDOT has developed an Environmental Management System that uses an internet web reporting application. This system was funded through an environmental streamlining grant from FHWA. The web application will be used by contractors and MaineDOT herbicide applicators to report on their herbicide applications in a more timely and accurate manner. This allows management access to the most up-to-date information, improving decision-making and tracking. The web application uses an ArcIMS interface to identify road spray Assets from any of the five MaineDOT Region's maps, and returns Asset data to the application for completing Daily Work Reports. Daily Work Reports for vendors are approved or rejected in a 2-tier system and upon approval are forwarded to the payroll electronically for payment.
[back to top]
Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
Maine DOT has a Programmatic Agreement with FTA, FHWA, and Maine Historic Commission to streamline the Section 106 process reviews. Under this agreement any undertakings are exempt and the review process establishes a step-by-step procedure that reduces review time.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
InterCounty Connector: Principals + 1 Meetings
InterCounty Connector Principals + 1
With a study of the magnitude of the Intercounty Connector (ICC), interagency coordination early and throughout the study process was imperative to a successful outcome. With that in mind, the ICC study team initiated a coordination group with Federal, State, and local agencies, known as the “Principals +1” (P+1). This group was established to build agreement on policy issues related to development of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The group consisted of executive and policy level principals and one staff person (+1) from Federal and State regulatory agencies. These members included the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Park Service (NPS), Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA), Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE), Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA), Maryland Historical Trust/Maryland State Historic Preservation Office (MHT/MD SHPO), Maryland Department of Planning (MDP), and Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR).
The group’s goal was to reach consensus whenever reasonably possible and to quickly identify any issues on which consensus could not be reached. A consensus agreement was one that all group members supported, built by identifying and exploring all parties’ interests and by developing an outcome that satisfied these interests to the greatest extent possible. If full agency consensus was not possible, the lead agencies used the group’s work to make decisions consistent with their regulatory authority or, if necessary, elevated the issue to the Federal Task Force. The P+1 group met periodically to address any new policy issues, maintain project oversight, and provide policy and substantive direction.
[back to top]
InterCounty Connector: Interagency Working Group
In the spirit of streamlining, environmental regulatory agencies agreed to participate in an expedited “Issue Resolution” process facilitated by an independent project neutral resolution specialist, and designed to quickly raise and resolve project and policy issues as the study progressed. An Interagency Working Group (IAWG) of Federal, state and local agencies met regularly throughout the project planning process to work with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Maryland State Highway Administration (SHA) to resolve project issues and to ensure the project stayed on schedule. Throughout the project planning process the IAWG generally met monthly and sometimes more frequently. They worked closely and cooperatively with the FHWA and the SHA in all aspects of the study, including development of environmental technical study methodologies, review of technical and other studies, development of the alternatives retained for detailed study, and NEPA document review. The IAWG also worked together and in the field with engineers and environmental scientists to study a range of issues and impacts, including avoidance and minimization goals for project alternatives under consideration, as well as mitigation and environmental stewardship projects.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Project Development Guidebook
MassHighway’s new Project Development & Design Guidebook, more than two years in the making, is the product of a Task Force whose members were made up of bicycle and pedestrian advocates, environmentalists, municipal representatives, regional planners, and others from the construction and design communities. The purpose of the Guidebook is to provide designers and decision-makers with a framework for incorporating context sensitive design and multi-modal elements into transportation improvement projects. The guiding principles in the development of this Guidebook were:
Multimodal Consideration — to ensure that the safety and mobility of all users of the transportation system (pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers) are considered equally through all phases of a project.
Context Sensitive Design — to incorporate the overarching principles of Context Sensitive Design throughout project planning, design, and construction. It is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all constituents in the development of a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility for all users.
A Clear Project Development Process — to establish a clear and transparent project development and design process that can be administered consistently throughout the state. The process encourages early planning, public outreach and evaluation through an open, consensus-building dialogue.
Project Manager:
Stanley Wood, P.E.
Email: Stanley.Wood@state.ma.us
Contact Person:
Luisa Paiewonsky, Commissioner
Email Luisa.Paiewonsky@state.ma.us
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Michigan Early Coordination
The resource agencies in Michigan are committed to early coordination. The Michigan DOT (MDOT) relies on several organized processes to help ensure success for their projects. There is a Memorandum of Understanding between MDOT and the environmental agencies. In addition, MDOT funds several Department of Environmental Quality positions. This ensures that there will be staff available for earlier coordination and that the agencies will be better informed before the design and permitting phase. Minor project activities are taken care of with an expedited permit process by staff in field offices, rather than in headquarters. As a result field staff are able to review and issue the permits in under thirty days.
In addition, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has discussed the categorical exclusions process with MDOT staff. From this discussion, MDOT learned what elements and activities triggered the interest of the DNR. MDOT now arranges early coordination when these items are involved. By receiving input from DNR very early in the process, MDOT is able to address those concerns. The number of permit applications being approved reflects the success of this early coordination.
As a result of the processes described above, MDOT, DEQ and DNR all have developed successful working relationships with each other.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Missouri Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the Missouri Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (CE) for qualifying projects to streamline the project development environmental process without compromising environmental protection. This Programmatic CE allows MoDOT to automatically classify certain types of projects as CEs without submitting each project to FHWA for approval of an environmental classification of CE. These include projects leading to or involving construction within existing right-of-way, and projects with acquisition of no more than three acres of right-of-way, except for long corridor projects where no more than a 25-foot strip of right-of-way is being added on each side of an existing facility. A joint biennial review assesses the effectiveness of this Programmatic CE and allows for changes and adjustments to be made, where warranted. CEs account for over 90 percent of MoDOT projects.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Interagency Leadership Team
North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team
The North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team includes representatives of agencies that are integrally involved in the planning, development, and implementation of North Carolina’s highway and transportation system. These agencies include North Carolina Department of Transportation, North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural Resources, North Carolina Department of Commerce, North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Federal Highway Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Marine Fisheries Service. The goal for the Team was to develop an interagency leadership plan for North Carolina to balance mobility, natural and cultural resource protection, community values, and economic vitality at the confluence of agencies’ missions.
Through a series of work sessions, the Interagency Leadership Team identified the top concerns and issues facing transportation, the environment, and the economy in North Carolina. Among the issues identified were earlier involvement of state and federal agencies in long range mobility planning, resource allocation practices, and the development of a comprehensive shared GIS database. The team will continue to meet to ensure that the strategies agreed upon are being implemented by the different work groups. The Interagency Leadership Team provides an organized forum for sharing information and a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all stakeholders.
For more information: link to the North Carolina Interagency Leadership Team.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Nations First Section 4(f) Programmatic Agreement Proven to be Successful
The nation’s first Programmatic Agreement (PA) delegating approval for programmatic Section 4(f) documents from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) was put into effect in Ohio during October 2002. Before this PA was implemented, every programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation and determination of non-applicability was reviewed and approved by FHWA. The need for a routine 30-day review and approval period by FHWA was evaluated to determine the value added when ODOT could effectively act on the Administration’s behalf in less time. Since October 2002, ODOT has approved a total of 225 combined determinations of non-applicability and programmatic evaluations, usually with a turn-around time of a day or two. This has saved hundreds of days of review time of Section 4(f) documents ultimately helping to complete transportation projects more quickly.
To streamline the process of coordination with FHWA, ODOT first proposed a Section 4(f) PA in 1998 that would allow FHWA to delegate authority to ODOT to determine the applicability of Section 4(f) to undertakings and the authority to approve programmatic Section 4(f) evaluations. Discussions among ODOT, the FHWA Ohio division office and the FHWA in Washington, D.C., continued on and off for the next three years through several revisions of the Agreement. A PA acceptable to all three parties was signed in October 2001. Before the agreement could be implemented, ODOT was required to offer Section 4(f) training and guidance to ODOT environmental personnel and to consultants who prepare Section 4(f) documents. ODOT staff also wrote and compiled a Section 4(f) resource handbook as a reference tool for districts and consultants.
Training for ODOT staff was completed in September 2002. Several sessions for consultants have been held and continue to be held on an as needed basis. Consultants become pre-qualified to prepare Section 4(f) documents by attending the training and successfully passing a learning assessment test. Thirty-seven (37) environmetnal consulting firms have been pre-qualified to prepare Section 4(f) documents for ODOT.
Thanks to the Section 4(f) Programmatic Agreement, ODOT can now approve evaluations very quickly. Not only has the agreement streamlined the NEPA process for ODOT, but it has also saved time and resources. ODOT looks forward to new opportunities for streamlining Section 4(f) under SAFETEA-LU.
[back to top]
ODOT Funds Corps of Engineers Field Office
The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) along with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Great Lakes & Ohio River Division (Corps)have signed an agreement to streamline and improve processes that protect wetlands in Ohio when federal highways are constructed. ODOT, FHWA and the Corps, Great Lakes & Ohio River Division signed an interagency cooperative agreement to ensure priority Corps review of Ohio highway projects.
The goal of the agreement is to achieve 404 permit decisions with safe, economical and environmentally sound highway design and improvements. The agreement will fund dedicated Corps regulatory employees who will work on permits for highway construction in the state of Ohio.
This funding agreement will enable the Corps to continue to improve the effectiveness of aquatic resource protection and the efficiency of transportation permit reviews and decision making.
The cooperative agreement preserves the authorities and responsibilities of each agency while encouraging early and close interagency coordination, enhanced regulatory consistency, and streamlined regulatory processes to the extent allowed by statute and regulation.
Establishing a single Corps District Office in Ohio to review transportation projects this agreement will afford ODOT more consistent, streamlined, and cost efficient project development process.
The Corps regulates proposed activities in waters of the U.S. under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Prior to this agreement, four Corps districts in Buffalo, Huntington, Louisville and Pittsburgh handled the review and processing of Ohio transportation projects. The agreement designates a single Corps point of contact, the Huntington District, for the review and evaluation of all Ohio federal-aid transportation projects. The funded positions will be located in a new field office in Columbus, Ohio. The other three Corps Districts will continue to have regulatory jurisdiction and authority in Ohio on non-ODOT related projects.
[back to top]
Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects
The Eastern Corridor is a long-range, transportation plan that integrates multi-modal solutions, land use planning and environmental stewardship to address the growing needs of the eastern Cincinnati metropolitan area. Through innovative and collaborative partnerships, 19 political jurisdictions have agreed to pursue a balanced transportation plan that encompasses highway, bus, rail transit, bike, pedestrian and local network projects. The Preliminary Engineering Phase is essentially complete with FHWA issuing the Record of Decision for the Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement on June 2, 2006. Eastern Corridor is the first tiered EIS for the FHWA Ohio Division Office.
The Eastern Corridor set of projects will improve transportation opportunities between the Cincinnati Central Business District and the eastern portion of Hamilton County and into Western Clermont County. This project will improve air quality in the region by reducing vehicle emissions by allowing for greater connectivity as well as for more efficient means of travel. The estimate for project implementation shows transit use will increase by 5 percent, reduce vehicle miles traveled by some 50 million, and increase the gross national regional product by $23 billion.
The Eastern Corridor has forged and will continue to create strong partnerships by becoming a means to unify communities in making transportation and land use decisions that benefit the region. The project has six funding sponsors that represent 19 separate political jurisdictions in the corridor in a home rule state without enabling/compulsory planning legislation. Working together, these separate entities were convinced that their best interests were served when they approached decision-making from a regional perspective that acknowledged interdependencies and a shared future. Private institutions have also been encouraged to provide leadership because one of the guiding principles of the project in that it must be market driven to be financially feasible and fit within development and institutional plans that are critical to its success. The project is also unique because it uses an economic analysis to quantify the economic benefits of each project for the region. These fiscal impacts can be identified by jurisdiction and used to recapture funding to complete the plan.
In addition to the strong jurisdictional partnerships formed, this project has (and will continue) to include proactive public involvement. The Eastern Corridor project is configured to keep the public informed and involved in the decision-making process. Many of the concepts now being developed into plans and projects came from a broad range of citizens’ ideas. The following mechanisms have contributed greatly to more effective communication and better information transfer and are largely considered as quite successful in involving the public:
- Award-winning project web site with more than 750,000 visits and downloads
- Staffed public information drop-in center and project office located within the corridor
- Newsletters, mailings and opinion surveys
- “House calls” and presentations
- Hands-on workshops
All of these mechanisms have contributed to effective communication and a true information exchange between the project team and public.
As a part of the project, The Eastern Corridor Land Use Vision Plan was developed, which includes a commitment to a “green infrastructure” preservation, restoration and enhancement program that focuses on sensitive features, needs and opportunities along the Little Miami River that bisects the corridor. The Little Miami River is a designated recreational component of the National Wild and Scenic River System. This combination of access enhancements including bike, pedestrian, transit and river corridor preservation mechanisms will further the management goals of the Little Miami River in this urbanized setting, as well as make the river more valuable and accessible to nearby communities.
The plan considers the values associated with the Little Miami River, a national scenic river, situated within the project area. The Outstanding Remarkable Values (ORV’s) assigned to the river source and considered at a minimum for the project were wildlife habitat, scenic quality, historic and cultural resources, recreation, and water quality issues. Additionally, Ohio Department of Natural Resources and other resource agencies’ mitigation requirements, as committed to in the EIS/ROD, will be implemented as the projects progress.
The plan is far reaching in that it provides for consideration a range of other coexisting resources from the Class 1 aquifer which underlies the project area to historic farms located about the project area. The aquifers provide high quality and abundant groundwater for both public and private use. The plan was mindful of aquifer protection and groundwater recharge, particularly of the OEPA Wellhead Protection Areas for public water supply.
Agriculture is a historical and economically important land use within the study area. Several historic farms are located in the floodplain of the Little Miami River. The land use plan aims for preservation of agricultural land. The project considered the values associated with agriculture, such as historically agricultural uses, air called aesthetic views of the the Little Miami River bottom land and farm fields, economic value, and the coexistence of wildlife and farming.
By utilizing a shared use approach, the Green Infrastructure Plan for the Eastern Corridor will build on the benefits of stream side re-vegetation and buffering used to enhance the riparian corridor of the Little Miami River by partnering with the Hamilton County Park District and others to maintain and enhance and capture this area for preservation and recreational opportunities. Agreements between the agricultural stewards of the land surrounding the Little Miami River Valley and those that will utilize these buffer zones will further enhance the ecological value of the region to provide a greater benefit to all. The Eastern Corridor project is providing the catalyst for these mitigation and enhancement opportunities and provides the ground work for a shared use that will provide a greater benefit to the region than individual actions could obtain.
Vist the Eastern Corridor website at http://www.easterncorridor.org for more information.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Northeast Transportation and Wildlife Conference
VTrans received a FHWA Streamlining grant to sponsor and host a first-ever regional Northeast Transportation and Wildlife Conference. VTrans co-sponsored the conference with the National Wildlife Federation, Northeast Office. Originally, conference attendance was expected to include 25 transportation and wildlife professionals from Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine interested in sharing challenges and success stories. This conference took on a life of its own and, after three very short months of planning, 100 participants from the region attended the two-day event. All of the New England states were represented at the conference as well as Ontario, Quebec, Washington DC, Virginia, and Georgia. By all accounts it was an overwhelming success with a mixture of state, regional, and national perspectives presented. There were also technical presentations focusing on specific projects and programs that would benefit the entire region. The second day consisted of breakout sessions where all the conference participants could share ideas and challenges with the larger group. The intent of this conference was to serve as a kick-off event bringing together regional professionals engaged in the issues of road ecology and to begin an ongoing dialog. The goal is to hold this regional conference every two years. Maine is hosting the 2006 conference in September of 06. Attached here is a summary of the conference.
[back to top]
|
|
| |
Roads in the Woods Workshops
During 2004, the U.S. Forest Service (FS), the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) planned and held four regional workshops entitled “Roads in the Woods.” The workshops were developed in response to the need to improve the quality of interagency relationships and the effectiveness of work on highway development projects.
Prior to the workshop, each agency was asked to submit a list of the top ten problems, issues, or weaknesses that the other two cooperators needed to change to be more effective. These suggestions were used in developing and framing the workshops.
Not surprisingly, the feedback from the agencies fell into three categories: 1) communication; 2) knowledge and understanding (relationships); and 3) highway development process technical issues.
The purposes of the workshops were: 1) to identify and reinforce agency roles and responsibilities within the highway development process; 2) to develop a better understanding of each agency’s mission, organization, and specific role (lead, cooperating, land management agency); 3) to increase the level of trust and understanding between agencies (develop relationships); 4) to identify sources of conflict and learn dispute resolution skills that facilitate collaborative problem solving; and 6) to learn to engage in difficult conversations and negotiate desired outcomes for successful highway project development in a manner that supports the missions of all affected agencies.
Each workshop lasted a day and a half and included a maximum of 36 local/statewide participants of whom approximately half were FS staff and half were WYDOT employees. The agenda included Context Setting, a “Basic 101” overview of the FS, WYDOT, and FHWA, and a series of discussion topics and break-out sessions centered on the Highway Development Process (Planning, Environmental Clearance, Resource Impact Analysis and Resultant Mitigation, Design and Plan Development, Federal Land Appropriation, Construction / Contract Administration, and Maintenance and Operation). Presentations relative to communication and relationship skills were interspersed (Sources of Conflict, Better Listening, Interest-based versus Position-based Problem Solving, and Mission, Roles & Purpose) through the agenda.
Agency reaction to the workshops was excellent. Individuals in leadership roles (decision-makers), as well as other staff and specialists participated. Seeds were sown for future relationships and all came away with improved understanding of processes, communication, and conflict. The workshops successes and the subsequent change in interagency “tone” far exceeded expectations.
[back to top]
Programmatic Section 7 Consultation
In early 2003, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) met with representatives from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) - Wyoming Division and the Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) to discuss possibilities for streamlining consultations for listed species and designated critical habitats. The streamlined consultations would be for construction projects under WYDOT’s State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) with the potential to adversely affect those species or critical habitats, as required under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
The statewide programmatic consultation was complex and required additional time as it covered 15 species and 3 designated critical habitats. After much coordination between agency representatives, FHWA/WYDOT’s final biological assessment was received by USFWS on March 21, 2005. The USFWS then initiated the Formal Section 7 Consultation process and a Final Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) was delivered on November 7, 2005 (download a copy of the PBO), which covers projects in WYDOT’s STIP from fiscal year 2005 through 2009.
The USFWS’ PBO primarily addresses the effects of STIP projects on the following threatened species: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), the Preble’s meadow jumping mouse (Zapus hudsonius preblei), the Ute ladies’-tresses orchid (Spiranthes diluvialis), and the Colorado butterfly plant (Gaura neomexicana ssp. coloradensis).
The programmatic agreement produced several benefits. The collaboration between WYDOT, FHWA, and USFWS allowed the agencies to develop stronger working relationships, which should set the stage for additional successful collaborations in the future. Streamlining the Section 7 consultation process for WYDOT’s STIP significantly reduced the number of individual consultations that involve the three agencies, saving a lot of time and money. The programmatic agreement provides WYDOT with the flexibility of swapping projects to keep up with the dynamic nature of the STIP and still be covered under the ESA for effects to listed species.
[back to top]
|
|
|
|
