Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

– Peer Program Report –

Federal Highway Administration Resource Center
Peer-to-Peer Workshop

Georgia Department of Transportation Peer Exchange to
Improve Environmental Processes

I. Summary

The following report summarizes the results of a Peer Workshop held through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The FHWA Georgia Division and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) hosted a Peer-to-Peer Workshop intended to enhance the internal environmental and planning processes as they relate to transportation project development and delivery within GDOT and specifically within the Office of Environment and Location (OEL). The OEL is responsible for moving projects out of the planning process, through the environmental process — which is part of project delivery — and into construction.

In efforts to improve these processes, GDOT sought the expertise and feedback of project managers and executives from DOTs considered to be at the forefront of various planning and environmental topic areas. Specifically, the Peer-to-Peer Workshop consisted of eight presentations, which includes the introduction, given by a panel of visiting environmental and transportation managers from across the United States. Following each of the presentations, the peer panel led roundtable discussions. Topics of the presentations and subsequent roundtable dialogue included: results from a previous peer exchange event in Tennessee; the impacts of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU); environmental streamlining initiatives; initiating environmental performance measures; enhancing interagency coordination; improving environmental documentation; and, improving the linkage between planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Jeffrey Bryan of the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Volpe National Transportation Systems Center facilitated the Peer-to-Peer Workshop. Participants included transportation professionals from FHWA Georgia Division, FHWA Headquarters, FHWA Indiana Division, FHWA Resource Center, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT), Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), and Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT). The Peer-to-Peer Workshop was held November 2-4, 2005 in Atlanta, GA.

back to top

II. Background

GDOT's stated mission is to "provide a safe, seamless, and sustainable transportation system that supports Georgia's economy and is sensitive to its citizens and environment." One of the Department's major strategic objectives is to deliver State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) projects more effectively and efficiently. A critical component of the plan development process, as well as project advancement and delivery, is the NEPA environmental review process.

In June 2004, GDOT developed the Georgia Linking Planning and NEPA Action Plan, which was intended to help the Department achieve the benefits of more effectively linking planning and NEPA. The philosophy underlying the workshop was to minimize duplicative processes by identifying and utilizing opportunities to use work completed in one process in subsequent processes. The effort was part of the FHWA and FTA's jointly sponsored series of "Linking and Planning and NEPA" workshops offered through both the National Highway Institute and the National Transit Institute.

The November 2-4, 2005 Peer-to-Peer Workshop built upon the Georgia Linking Planning and NEPA Action Plan by allowing GDOT staff the opportunity to learn about how the each peer state has linked planning and NEPA. The peer states' viewpoints gave GDOT insight into what practices have and have not worked in these states. Specific topic areas discussed included: environmental streamlining; improving environmental documentation; enhancing interagency coordination; initiating environmental performance measures; and, linking planning and NEPA.

GDOT plans to use the information gathered during the Peer-to-Peer Workshop to explore environmental stewardship and streamlining opportunities. After comparison to existing GDOT processes, it is also anticipated that GDOT will generate a best practices list that outlines process improvements that it wishes to integrate within their program, as appropriate. DOT's OEL, in coordination with FHWA Georgia Division, would be responsible for implementing the recommended improvements within their respective program areas.

back to top

III. Perspectives and Issues

The presenters at the Peer-to-Peer Workshop are considered the leading environmental and transportation managers in their respective agencies. Their participation was sought because FHWA and/or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) have recognized them as experts in planning and environment. Summaries of their presentations are provided below.

1. Peer-to-Peer Exchange Introduction
   Buddy Gratton (GDOT), Harvey Keepler (GDOT), and Bob Callan (FHWA GA Division) welcomed the participants and briefly described the purpose of the event. It was mentioned that one of the biggest unknowns in project delivery is the NEPA process. Due to the complex issues and variables faced during the process, a broad range of interdisciplinary skills and experience can facilitate success. According to the speakers, this Peer-to-Peer Workshop was intended to help GDOT begin to build a support network for its effort to improve its ability to make better, timelier decisions.
2. Tennessee Results from Peer-to-Peer Exchange
   Doug Delaney, Director Environmental Division — TDOT
   
   The first presentation of the Workshop focused on describing the results of a previous peer session held in Tennessee. The exchange, which TDOT and the FHWA TN Division hosted June 29-July 1, 2004, grew out of the TDOT Environmental Planning and Permits Division's efforts to integrate its NEPA documentation and evaluation functions better and earlier into TDOT's project development process.
   
   At the 2004 exchange it coordinated, TDOT wanted to learn of neighboring states' experiences — successes and pitfalls — in revising their environmental and project planning processes. Peer exchange focus areas and results are summarized below.
   • Evolution of the NEPA Integration Process — At the TDOT exchange, North Carolina DOT described the development of its "Merger 01 Process" and the concurrence points on which the process depends. Based on lessons learned in the discussion, TDOT is working to finalize an interagency agreement on four concurrence points to be used in the project development process.
   • Institutionalization — Consultant selection, management, and training were institutionalization-related topics covered at the TDOT exchange. Equipped with knowledge of the participant states' best practices, TDOT has recently begun consideration for the development of a standardized Scope of Work template for contractors. The Department is also looking to develop consultant training.
   • Agency Coordination — After a discussion on Ohio DOT's agency coordination practices, TDOT began and has continued to pursue agreements to fund liaison positions from other agencies at the DOT.
     
     Similarly, after learning of how Florida DOT was helping other Florida agencies understand its project delivery process, TDOT decided to attend an interagency meeting with other Tennessee agencies to determine if they understood TDOT's project delivery process. At the meeting, TDOT learned that the resource agencies, in fact, did not understand TDOT's process. In response to this and requests from the resource agencies to be more involved, TDOT began informing its partnering agencies about its project delivery process.
   • Streamlining — Based on information shared on various training approaches, TDOT is now developing an in-house environmental training program. Additionally, the University of Tennessee published a study indicating that purpose and need statements often were not clear for TDOT projects.
   • Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) — At the TDOT exchange, Kentucky DOT described its efforts to develop CSS policy. TDOT built upon Kentucky DOT's ideas and is now working on creating a CSS policy; the Department is drafting both a brief policy statement and a longer policy describing a potential CSS process.
   • Performance Measures — TDOT indicated that it is working on developing appropriate program and project performance measures. After describing the roundtable discussion on performance measures held at the 2004 TDOT exchange, an informal discussion of the topic was generated at GDOT's exchange. WSDOT pointed out that it submits a quarterly report called the Grey Book to the Governor and Washington State Transportation Commission. The publication presents results for WSDOT performance topics and helps support accountability at the Department. Ohio DOT mentioned that it has a time accounting system for each staff member, allowing for measurement of individual performance and productivity.
   
   The outcomes and benefits of the 2004 TDOT peer exchange were not limited to these topic areas. In particular, Florida DOT gave a presentation on its Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process and the associated geographic information system (GIS). Impressed with the system's ability to conduct screening analyses early in project development, TDOT staff later visited Florida to see hands-on demonstrations of the tool. Since that visit, TDOT has begun to develop plans for a similar environmental management system.
   
   According to TDOT, the major benefits of its first peer were 1) hearing that states each seem to be facing similar issues and 2) learning how the states are attempting to address those issues. TDOT recommended that GDOT staff attending the current Peer-to-Peer Workshop follow up with invited peer states after the event.
3. Impact of Reauthorization: SAFETEA-LU
   Lamar Smith, NEPA and Project Development Technical Assistance Team Leader — FHWA Headquarters
   
   The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) includes provisions to enhance transportation and environmental decision-making, environmental stewardship, and the efficiency of the environmental review process. Under the transportation bill, states will have an opportunity to advance innovations in transportation delivery and leverage federal funding to achieve a variety of community goals. During the "Impact of Reauthorization: SAFETEA-LU" presentation, changes to the environmental and planning process resulting from reauthorization were described. The changes discussed are summarized here.
   • Transportation Planning — SAFETEA-LU keeps environment as a planning factor and supports consistency between transportation improvements and planned growth and economic development. Under reauthorization, long-range plans must include a discussion of — not a commitment to — potential environmental mitigation areas. The bill as signed into law also provides for more comprehensive, consistent, and integrated planning at local levels. For example, it includes provisions for the consultation, comparison, and consideration of the statewide plans and programs of other agencies and tribes.
   • Efficient Environment Reviews for Project Decisionmaking — Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU prescribes a new environmental review process for highway projects, public transportation capital projects, and multimodal projects. It is mandatory for EISs and optional for EAs, at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation. It specifies changes from current NEPA procedures, including new obligations for public and other agencies' involvement in the development of project purpose and need and for project alternatives, It requires the development of a coordination plan and schedule that must be provided to all participating agencies and made available to the public. The provision allows states to continue operating under environmental review processes approved by the Secretary under authority from the Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century (TEA-21).
     
     Section 6002 also supports interagency involvement by continuing the funding of interagency liaisons, as well as formalizing the language "participating agency." Now, agencies with an interest in the project will be invited to participate. These agencies will assist in the coordinated development of purpose and need, range of alternatives, methodologies and the level of detail required in environmental documents.
     
     Finally, the section establishes a 180-day statute of limitations on litigation. The 180-day clock starts with publication of a notice in the Federal Register that a permit, license or approval action is final. Heretofore, notices regarding Records of Decision (ROD) and Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSI) have not been published in the Federal Register, so a new process for publication will be required. (Note: On December 1, 2005 FHWA issued an Interim Guidance on the Use of 23 USC §139(1), Limitation on Claims Notices, which is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm)
   • State Assumption of Responsibilities for Certain Programs and Projects — Section 6003 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to establish a pilot program for states to assume the Secretary's responsibilities for environmental reviews for the Transportation Enhancement Program and the Recreational Trails Program. This excludes delegation of the Secretary's responsibilities relating to federally-recognized Indian tribes. For the first three years of SAFETEA-LU, this pilot is limited to five states.
   • State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical Exclusions — Section 6004 allows the Secretary of Transportation to delegate responsibility for categorical exclusion (CE) determinations to states, subject to criteria to be established by the Secretary. The bill also allows for delegation of the Secretary's responsibilities for other environmental reviews [e.g., 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act] for projects classified as CEs. This may not include delegation of government-to-government consultation with Indian tribes. The U.S. DOT is to implement this provision through individual MOUs with states after public notice and comment. The delegation is not a pilot program and is renewable after the first 3 years.
   • Surface Transportation Project Development Pilot Program — Under Section 6005, five pilot states — Alaska, California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas — may assume FHWA's responsibility for NEPA and reviews and consultations required by other federal environmental laws. This section applies to highway projects only, and can be for one project or multiple projects. Section 6005 also contains conditions and restrictions, some of which may require new state legislation.
   • Exemption of Interstate System — The Section 6007 provision exempts a majority of the Interstate Highway System from consideration as an historic site under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. The limited exceptions to this provision are the same discrete Interstate elements currently being identified under a FHWA nationwide initiative, that continue to be subject to the Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act process under provisions of the Section 106 exemption adopted administratively in March 2005. (Note: On January 13, 2006 FHWA issued Guidance for applying the 4(f) exemption for the Interstate Highway System, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm).
   • Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges, and Historic Sites — Under SAFETEA-LU's Section 6009, the existing Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (23 USC §138 and 49 USC §303) is amended. Section 4(f) requirements will be considered satisfied with respect to a Section 4(f) resource if it is determined that a transportation project will have only a "de minimis impact" on the resource. The provision allows avoidance, minimization, mitigation and enhancement measures to be considered in making the de minimis impact finding. The agencies with jurisdiction must concur in writing with the determination. For historic properties the de minimis criteria are defined as "no adverse affect" or "no historic properties affected" under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The de minimis criteria for parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges were not clearly defined in the law but are generally minor impacts not adversely affecting the activities, features, or attributes of the Section 4(f) resource. In addition, Section 6009 requires the Secretary to promulgate regulations within one year after the date of enactment to clarify the factors to be considered and the standards to be applied in determining the prudence and feasibility of alternatives under Section 138 of Title 23 and Section 303 of Title 49, USC. (Note: On December 13, 2005 FHWA and FTA issued Guidance for Determining De Minimis Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources, available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm),
   • Environmental Review of Activities that Support Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems — SAFETEA-LU's Section 6010 requires the initiation of a rulemaking to establish categorical exclusions for activities that support the deployment of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS). Also required is the development of a national programmatic agreement for ITS and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
     
     
     Impact of Reauthorization: SAFETEA-LU — Roundtable Discussion
     
     Will state DOTs publish notices in the Federal Register for all projects?
     
     FHWA Headquarters (HQ) — This is undetermined as of yet.
     
     Under Section 6004, for programmatic CEs, what is delegated to a state's responsibility?
     
     FHWA HQ — If FHWA decides that a state is not adequately serving its responsibilities as specified in the MOU, FHWA may take back the delegation of authority for CEs.
     
     Who defends the state if it sued in federal court under Section 6004?
     
     FHWA HQ — A state may need to be defended by a state lawyer. State resources would likely be required to cover these suits.
4. Environmental Streamlining
   Dianna Noble, Director of Environmental Affairs Environmental Division — TXDOT
   
   Streamlining is defined at TXDOT as the timely delivery of cost-effective, environmentally sound, and publicly supported transportation improvements. The TXDOT presentation focused on describing effective practices and initiatives the Department is currently implementing to support this goal.
   
   TXDOT Environmental Organizational Overview
   TXDOT, which faces a variety of challenges due to the vast size of the state and the wide range of its environmental issues, functions as a decentralized agency: 25 district offices, each overseeing 9 counties, work independently with oversight from the headquarters office. Each district has the authority to develop and implement new initiatives and procedures, as it deems appropriate. The Environmental Affairs Division (ENV) is responsible for central coordination and oversight of TxDOT's environmental program. This includes the development and implementation of environmental policies and procedures; conducting environmental investigations, studies and reviews; coordinating environmental issues with other state and federal agencies; and providing quality assurance and control.
   
   Effective TXDOT Streamlining Practices
   • Offer Joint Environmental Education — TXDOT offers professional development courses that have the joint participation of design staff, construction inspectors, and environmental coordinators. Having a cross-trained staff that understands each other's responsibilities strengthens working partnerships and can facilitate internal coordination on a project. Such training can also help to reduce turnover.
   • Publicize Environmental Successes — By making stakeholders aware of successes, TXDOT has been able to earn these groups' trust.
   • Utilize Technology — Streamlining efforts can be facilitated by the use of information technology. In particular, document management software that communicates and exchanges project environmental information can promote interagency coordination and accountability. Archaeological probability models are one technology that will likely streamline project development at TXDOT; TXDOT expects significant timesavings since fewer field surveys will be necessary.
   • Eliminate Internal Deficiencies — TXDOT works to have streamlining reach beyond the Environmental Affairs Division to all offices across the organization.
   • Track Projects and Analyze Issues — Without an analysis of a problem's root cause, the same mistakes can be more likely to occur repetitively. TXDOT attempts to identify gaps and issues so projects can avoid meeting known pitfalls.
   • Memorialize Decisions — By documenting decisions, those who are involved and why they are involved can be clearly stated. With a written record of decisions, the history of project decisions is available and the context for future decisions is set.
   • Identify Priorities — TXDOT tries to look at its entire program to determine where to concentrate its efforts. If all projects are a priority, then no project is a priority.
   • Consider Programmatic Agreements — Before TXDOT's Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Texas Historical Commission (THC), the THC reviewed all environmental documents. Now, the THC only provides review when an adverse effect is expected, when it is a contentious project, or when THC or TXDOT requests review. This agreement was possible because of 1) an understanding by THC that TXDOT's Environmental Affairs Division is continuously working to ensure compliance, and 2) a track record of trust that has been cultivated with the THC. TXDOT estimates the agreement saves 10 working days per environmental document.
   • Involve the Public — The public is especially interested in how projects affect the community. Their early and continuous involvement is key to streamlining environmental review.
   
   Challenges to Environmental Streamlining — Before the Peer-to-Peer roundtable discussion of environmental streamlining, TXDOT listed places it had sometimes experienced challenges to environmental streamlining. Issues included:
   • Resource agencies sometimes request an increased number of funded positions;
   • TXDOT partners do not always have the same technological capabilities;
   • Some special interest groups believe environmental streamlining is occurring at the expense of the environment;
   • Pre-NEPA decisions have been disputed
   Current TXDOT Environmental Streamlining Initiatives
   • Texas Environmental Resource Stewards (TERS) was established in July 2002 to seek greater federal and state interagency collaboration on identifying and supporting joint priorities, particularly regarding transportation issues. Leaders from participating agencies identified common interests and target activities for collaborative ecosystem management that would benefit each agency. The TERS executives developed a vision that included the following actions: improve mutual understanding; use collective knowledge to support decision-making; and strive for synergy.
   • TXDOT is also continuing to update its web-based Environmental Tracking System (ETS). ETS was developed to resolve permit-tracking issues the Department was having. With the system, all dates and communications are tracked and time stamped, and explanations for delays are provided. Now, TXDOT is able to understand what the problems are and where and why they are occurring.
   • Under SAFETEA-LU, CEs have been delegated to TXDOT. Currently, 90% of TXDOT projects are CEs. It is estimated that under delegation, over 3,000 days will be saved per year (time for FHWA review), likely moving projects to construction earlier.
   • Finally, the Department is working towards agreements for ecosystem-based mitigation in addition three wetland mitigation banks that have been developed.
   
   
   Environmental Streamlining — Roundtable Discussion
   
   Do the peer states track projects by phase?
   
   TXDOT — Key dates are tracked for each project phase. Some of these dates are reported to the Commissioner. This helps TXDOT to establish more realistic letting dates.
   
   INDOT — After recent gubernatorial elections in Indiana, INDOT made a decision to reorganize the entire agency and to develop a new Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). As part of the reengineered business model, INDOT is creating a Gantt Chart for every process necessary in project delivery. Together, INDOT and FHWA are working to coordinate on Organization Performance Indicators (OPI), or standards for what is being tracked so the agencies are tracking the same the information.
   
   INDOT has also adopted a streamlined EIS process. A team of six federal agencies, four state agencies, and one MPO coordinates to agree on three project milestones. These milestones are Purpose and Need, the Preliminary Alternatives Package, and the Preferred Alternatives Package. At each of these milestones, the team is given 60 days to comment. A meeting is held in the middle of the 60-day period. This meeting helps to identify issues that a particular agency may have with one of the milestones, thus minimizing contention when final comments are submitted.
   
   Another environmental streamlining initiative that INDOT is pursuing is a historic bridge programmatic agreement that implements a concurrent signature process.
   
   TDOT — Tennessee DOT encourages Georgia DOT to consider the entire project development process to try to understand what other problems are causing delay and can be addressed. Sometimes environmental issues have been scapegoats for project delays.
   
   A Program Project Resource Management (PPRM) scheduling tool is used department wide. The PPRM tracks commitments, environmental procedures, and adherence to schedules.
   
   UDOT — Utah DOT convenes an annual meeting of the executives of various federal and state agencies to review its major projects and plans. These meetings have helped the agencies to develop an appreciation of each other's roles and to build high-level trust that can filter down through agencies' staffs. UDOT also tracks project development with a formal Project Delivery List (PDL) generated from its electronic Program Management System (ePM).
   
   FHWA Headquarters — It is important to develop predictability in the environmental process, not just at the project level. One approach would be to Plan — Do — Check — Act. Predictability is not necessarily related to doing something in a shorter amount of time. It is about expectations and outcomes.
   
   FHWA Resource Center — The FHWA Resource Center recommends that GDOT look more into systems that track project development — specifically TXDOT's ETS, which is being upgraded to automatically update date information.
   
   GDOT sometimes has a staff turnover problem. How do the peer states bring staff up to speed quickly?
   
   TDOT — Tennessee DOT is developing training directed at each of its specialties. TDOT is trying to pull day-to-day tasks out of the central office so that it can do more oversight tasks and focus more on identifying relevant training opportunities.
   
   TXDOT — Texas DOT has a training coordinator who can assess the needs of staff and can find available training opportunities. The Department also provides annual training that must be taken before staff can work on certain types of projects. The Department believes staff must be given the tools they need to perform and succeed. It is also important for staff to understand why the training exists.
   
   UDOT — A rotation without pay program is used at UDOT. The program helps staff develop a better understanding of the breadth of skills required to deliver a project.
   
   How have the peer states convinced non-environmental staff to view environmental issues as important?
   
   TXDOT — TXDOT was having compliance problems. The effects of these problems extended to the entire agency. Through better communication, the trust in and support of top administration for the environmental division was earned.
   
   UDOT — Utah DOT has elevated the classification of some environmental jobs within the Department.
   
   How do the peer states conduct public involvement?
   
   TDOT — For projects, TDOT develops a public involvement plan. The plan helps TDOT obtain an early gauge of how a specific project may affect the public and what level of involvement might be expected. TDOT uses "citizen resource teams" to educate the public as to what issues are involved in the project.
   
   TXDOT — The public often does not understand how projects are developed, but are instead only interested in how the projects affect their homes/neighborhoods. To address this gap, TXDOT now holds meetings, in advance of public hearings, to address how project decisions will affect landowners.
   
   What are the panel agencies' approaches to NEPA re-evaluations?
   
   TXDOT — Since decisions cannot be made based on data that is old, all environmental documents at TXDOT are re-evaluated in some form. Sometimes public involvement has to be re-done due to changes in the project. Currently, TXDOT is developing a re-evaluation template.
   
   UDOT — Re-evaluations have not affected construction much for UDOT. The Department does not often have documents "sitting still." When re-evaluations are necessary, the process for completing them vary from writing a brief memo to going through an extensive process with considerable work.
   
   FHWA Headquarters — Reevaluation is not a NEPA requirement; it is a FHWA requirement that helps ensure that a document is still valid before next steps are taken. The concept of reevaluations was not meant to create an added burden but to be a way to keep a document current. There is currently no guidance on reevaluations, but an effective practice might be to factor in re-evaluations as part of the overall process.
5. Performance Measures
   Phil Kauzloric, Environmental Programs Manager — WSDOT
   
   WSDOT Background — WSDOT, which comprises 6 regional offices and several modal offices, employs approximately 7,500 people statewide. The Environmental Services Office, which provides statewide NEPA policy and procedure assistance, has a staff of 84 with expertise in wide-ranging disciplines. Specific NEPA responsibilities of the Environmental Services Office include tracking the status of and processing environmental documentation; leading streamlining efforts; and, guiding environmental documents through the formal agency signature and approval process.
   
   Performance Measuring — Performance measurement requirements applied to the WSDOT and assist in evaluating project delivery, environmental issues, and assessing the effectiveness of governmental streamlining efforts. These requirements assist in program evaluation and resource allocation decisions helping to ensure governments are more results-oriented.
   
   FHWA Vital Few Goals (VFG) and Negotiated Timeframes Initiative — These initiatives address processing times for NEPA EISs and EAs. More specifically, the VFG identifies median processing times to be achieved by 2007 — 36 months for EISs and 12 months for EAs. The Negotiated Timeframes Initiative generally calls for EIS and EA projects to review and define anticipated major environmental documentation milestones and completion dates. The projected and actual dates for these milestones are then reviewed to determine success rates and potential problem areas to be addressed to increase efficiency.
   
   Signatory Agency Committee (SAC) Agreement — One of WSDOT's major environmental streamlining initiatives is the 2002 Signatory Agency Committee (SAC) Agreement. Development of the SAC Agreement — an agreement that applies to all transportation projects in the State of Washington requiring (a) an individual U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 10 or Section 404 permit and (b) FHWA action on a NEPA EIS. The SAC is a collaborative process involving eight federal and state agencies. The goals of the Agreement improvements are to (a) create a clear, consistent and efficient process that occurs within a predictable timeline (b) provide a forum to exchange information (c) commit participants (d) complete environmental impact statements that adequately consider the environment and (e) deliver transportation projects. SAC uses concurrence points for purpose and need; alternative screening criteria; the range of alternatives; and the preferred alternative, Least Environmentally Damaging Preferred Alternative (LEDPA) and aquatic compensatory mitigation selection.
   
   The SAC Agreement also includes a provision for an annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report. Some questions answered for the performance measures the report uses include:
   • Are process timelines being met?
   • Is the required project documentation being submitted?
   • What "Concurrence" response types are occurring?
   • Is WSDOT responding to advisory comments in a timely manner?
   • Is the environment enhanced due to the SAC process?
   
   Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC) Permit Streamlining — Established in 2001, the TPEAC Permit Streamlining is intended to help reduce mitigation costs, increase environmental benefits of mitigation, and reduce project re-design and time required to obtain permits. Some of the deliverables developed to help improve permitting efficiency are listed below:
   • Creation of model tribal consultation procedures
   • Development of watershed characterization tools
   • Posting of an on-line, one-stop permitting system
   • Development of various programmatic permits
   • Development of environmental compliance assurance procedures
   
   Government Management Accountability Performance (GMAP) — The Governor of Washington has implemented the GMAP Program. Within the program, agency directors report to the Governor on management and policy challenges. GMAP gives the public and stakeholders an understandable analysis of how government programs are performing. As a part of GMAP performance measurement, WSDOT's project managers track project milestones in order to prevent and/or mitigate milestone slippages before they occur.
   
   Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) — JLARC carries out independent performance audits, program evaluations, sunset reviews to determine if a particular agreement is still necessary, and other policy and fiscal studies on behalf of the Legislature and the citizens of Washington State. To address performance gaps that JLARC has identified, WSDOT implemented recommendations on coordinating and tracking project schedules, further developing and using on-line permit applications, and continuing to improve streamlining practices.
   
   Transportation Performance Audit Board (TPAB) — Specific to transportation, the Washington State Legislature established TPAB to help better understand how the State's transportation agencies are performing. The Board, which has citizen, Governor-appointed, elected, and other government staff, conducts performance audits to aid the Legislature in determining programs' efficiency and effectiveness.
   
   WSDOT's Gray Notebook (GNB) — Within WSDOT, the GNB is the main performance measurement standard. The GNB is a quarterly report that WSDOT staff prepares to track a variety of accountability measures for review by the public, legislature, Transportation Commission and others. The GNB highlights each quarter's progress and reports on financial, operational, environmental, and other program management topics as well as detailed information on key projects.
   
   Examples of GNB environmental performance measures include:
   • EIS processing timelines [Notice of Intent (NOI) to ROD 1990-2003]
   • Water quality at construction sites (turbidity requirements)
   • Wetland mitigation sites meeting regulatory requirements
   • Removal of fish barriers
   • Pounds of compost and bio-solids used
   
   Initiative 900 — Finally, in November 2005, a citizen initiative called "Initiative 900" was voted on and passed. The initiative requires that all state and local government entities undergo performance audits to ensure accountability. The performance audits are to be conducted by the state auditor in accordance with the US Government Accountability Office auditing standards.
   
   
   Roundtable Discussion — Initiating Performance Measures
   
   What are FHWA Divisions doing to measure performance?
   
   IDOT — Most performance measures tie into project scheduling and delivery. The quality aspect is being added. The goal of time performance is getting a project delivered as quickly as possible without compromising quality.
   
   The Department has a pre-qualification process for all of its consultants. IDOT provides feedback on the quality of consultant work.
   
   TDOT — TDOT is trying to emulate Virginia DOT's dashboard. The new Commissioner has created an agency policy that requires emails to be responded to within 3 days and letters within 10 days unless reason for delay is given.
   
   TXDOT — Texas DOT has often struggled with performance measures. In particular, it has been difficult to decide what should be measured. Time of project delivery, improved safety, and congestion relief are relatively easy variables to measure while value added to the community and environmental impacts are more difficult.
   
   TXDOT also aims to identify fatal flaws before a project is added to the plan. A project is not programmed until it is clear the project can be delivered in a reasonable amount of time.
   
   UDOT — Utah DOT uses a project delivery list that shows red when a project slips past date. The Department has struggled with "what do we want to show?" A key area that UDOT would like to focus on in the future is verifying that they lived up to all commitments.
   
   UDOT measures performance at trainings — "rate your knowledge" before and after.
   
   FHWA Headquarters — Establishing goals is key to Plan — Do — Check — Act. Having performance measures for the sake of generating numbers is likely not helpful. It might be useful to know how others are rating you. For example, the EPA tracks whether their comments on environmental documents were addressed and, if so, how they were addressed.
   
   FHWA Resource Center — The SAFETEA-LU Performance Measures Committee is discussing internally some ideas for performance measures guidance. Some include public involvement, the number of public meetings, number of lawsuits, public acceptance.
   
   FHWA Headquarters — FWHA is measuring performance at a national level. Processing time of environmental documents is being measured (12 months for EAs / 36 months for EISs).
6. Enhancing Interagency Cooperation
   Timothy Hill, Office of Environmental Services — Ohio Department of Transportation
   
   Ohio DOT provided Peer-to-Peer Workshop participants with a series of lessons learned and recommendations for ways to enhance interagency cooperation. Following these recommendations, descriptions of how ODOT itself implements the practices were discussed.
   
   Inform Staff of Their Importance in the Overall Program — Each member of ODOT's staff is taught where he/she fits into the Department's overall program. Emphasis is placed on having each staff member understand the specifics of any given project delivery schedule.
   
   Focus on the Basics — ODOT is committed to keeping its entire staff up-to-speed through training. The Department has made a significant investment to develop all of its courses, each of which has a testing component, internally. All environmental staff are required to take a 2-week ODOT-specific NEPA course. Other cross-discipline courses are required, helping to instill an understanding of colleague needs. Consultants are allowed to attend ODOT courses on a non-billable, as available basis.
   
   ODOT also has a rigid pre-qualification process for its consultants based on the firm's personnel. If a person in a qualified firm leaves, the firm can lose its qualification. Sometimes when one consultant firm does not have expertise in a particular field, more than one contract are awarded. Additionally, after outsourcing work, ODOT continually evaluates its consultants' products. Therefore, consultants must continue to demonstrate the ability to produce quality deliverables.
   
   Develop Good Relationships with Resource Agencies — ODOT works to train the state resource agencies, helping to build their trust in ODOT. Oftentimes, the resource agencies view ODOT environmental staff as experts in many natural resource areas.
   
   ODOT also reports both positive and negative performance. If an agency has performed poorly, the report is sent to supervisory staff within that particular agency. In addition, ODOT meets monthly with each individual agency, allowing DOT staff to develop one-on-one working relationships with resource agency staff. With a friendly working relationship, ODOT has been able to learn what the frustration of the resource agencies and what their needs are. For example, in one case, through personal meetings ODOT learned that an agency lacked sufficient computing resources. To address the issue, ODOT donated its old computers to the agency. In another case, ODOT built the State Historic Preservation Office's (SHPO) GIS system, including the required hardware, to address that agency's need for a more efficient method of inventorying the State's historical resources.
   
   In the past, ODOT has also rented helicopters to fly DOT and resource agency teams over project areas. This has helped those involved see firsthand what is physically present at a specific site.
   
   Focus on an Outcome Based Approach — ODOT's first goal in project delivery is to address the Purpose and Need by building the project. The second goal is to minimize impacts to resources.
   
   Establish and Maintain Critical Path Schedule — ODOT establishes a tight schedule, which it meets 90% of the time (projects are awarded to construction at, or prior to, the date established in ODOT's project tracking database). This goal was established by ODOT's environmental section and uses Microsoft Project to develop schedules for the completion of environmental documents. The output is a Gantt Chart that shows the critical path required to complete the project delivery process. The timeframes used in the templates are based on historical data, but project specific timeframes are occasionally negotiated with resource agencies.
   
   The Gantt Charts also assists in the development of milestone dates, which are adjusted as necessary during project development. However, "lock down" dates have been established for all critical decision points. On a given day each year, ODOT "locks down" construction sale dates for the next 18 months and uses that date to help maintain the critical path schedule.
   
   Other keys to the 90% or greater on schedule success rate include:
   • A Focus on People and Process — ODOT has made an effort to be internally aligned, strengthening the Department's accountability;
   • An Effort to Ask Questions of Resource Agencies — What information does your agency need to make a project decision? Why does the agency need the information? The law requires X. Why does your agency need and/or want Z?
   • A Willingness to Pursue Funding Agreements — ODOT's liaison programs often begin with Director to Director discussions. This high-level support has filtered throughout the Department.
   
   
   Improving Interagency Coordination — Roundtable Discussion
   
   How is ODOT evaluating consultant performance?
   
   Firms are evaluated based on their performance on the entire project. If the consultant performs poorly on a particular section, a meeting can be scheduled with the firm to discuss ways to avoid similar problems in the future. Additionally, ODOT maintains a statewide, web-based system of contractor performance. One firm can request to view another firm's performance record.
   
   TXDOT — Texas DOT measures consultant performance by the number of times staff is forced to go back into the field to redesign a project that cannot be built. Consultants have asked TXDOT if in-house work is evaluated in the same manner.
   
   Does ODOT have a Quality Assurance/Quality Control process for consultant-produced documents?
   
   Yes. The process used for consultant documents is the process used for documents produced in-house. If certain quality standards are not met, documents will be sent back for revision.
   
   What is tribal consultation coordination like in Ohio?
   
   ODOT — The tribes with whom ODOT works are located in Oklahoma. FHWA has funded ODOT travel to Oklahoma so that the project delivery process could be described to the tribes. Similarly, ODOT has funded some tribal travel to aid coordination of tribal consultation.
   
   UDOT — Utah DOT has held non-project related meetings with the tribes to hear and discuss tribal concerns and needs.
7. Improving Environmental Documentation
   Brent Jensen, Director Environmental Services — UDOT
   
   To work towards improved environmental document quality, UDOT, in cooperation with FHWA and consultants, recently created a Quality Improvement Team (QIT). The QIT clarified roles and responsibilities for reviewing environmental documents, as well as prioritized strategies to improve document quality. The QIT also worked to produce tools to help project managers improve the quality of environmental documents. Tools developed include:
   • EA, EIS, and Environmental Study Scope of Work Template — This tool has helped to reduce uncertainty as to what a consultant's first step is for a particular environmental documentation project.
   • EIS Schedule Template — The EIS Schedule Template helps to manage expectations by setting dates for the project upfront.
   • Environmental Document Comment-Response Matrix — The Comment-Response Matrix created a standardized approach to providing and addressing comments to environmental documents. Information captured includes the commenters' names, their comments, how and where comments were addressed, and whether there is concurrence with the comment.
   
   Other tools mentioned were: Environmental Document Process Approach; Environmental Document Close Out Form; Environmental Roles and Responsibilities; and anEIS Milestone Responsibility Chart. For more information or to download these tools, click here.
   
   The Department has created several other tools in addition to these. The following were also described:
   
   CE Expert System "Wizard" — Designed to help streamline the CE process, the system allows user to navigate by answering various yes-no questions. Examples are: "Does the project have the potential to cause effects on historic properties?" and "Has a formal public notice been published in the area newspaper?" among many others. The system also compiles mitigation commitments.
   
   User Friendly Environmental Process Manual — UDOT's Environmental Manual of Instruction is a user-friendly CDROM that includes guidance, template forms, policies, and processes, among other topics all in one place.
   
   
   Improving Environmental Documentation — Roundtable Discussion
   
   How does UDOT keep its consultants up-to-date on requirements?
   
   UDOT's environmental process can be downloaded from its website.
   
   ODOT — Ohio DOT has a Design Reference Resource Center (DRRC). The DRRC is a centralized reference tool that helps users locate materials available on-line and to get information on obtaining printed material. The center is updated every two months on a set schedule. Any updates to requirements are automatically sent out to those signed-up on the DRRC's mailing list.
   
   Who is on UDOT's environmental document review team and does FHWA review documents concurrently?
   
   UDOT's environmental document review team consists of one person from the central office's environmental division and an environmental manager or engineer from the region. FHWA provides concurrent review for some documents.
   
   TXDOT — After a first screening within TXDOT, environmental documents are concurrently reviewed by the TXDOT District, TXDOT headquarters, and FHWA to provide one set of comments.
   
   ODOT — Ohio DOT often uses concurrent review with FHWA. One question ODOT attempts to answer is, "Does the comment change the path of the project?"
   
   Do the peer states use an electronic filing system for environmental documents?
   
   UDOT — Utah DOT has received seed funds from FHWA to begin building an electronic filing module to integrate with its existing project management tool. Currently, this is used only for CEs. UDOT also maintains electronic administrative records for complex EA and EIS projects provided by consultants on CD.
   
   ODOT — Ohio DOT has an in-house document tracker that is being modified into a CE document generator that is tied to the Department's GIS.
   
   In environmental documents, how much of previous documents should be summarized and how much should they be included?
   
   FHWA Headquarters — A DOT should include enough data to be able to defend the document. Some projects that have incorporated technical data entirely by reference have created legal issues for FHWA. Groups are working now to define the legal sufficiency of the Administrative Record versus the legal sufficiency of the environmental document.
8. Improving the Linkage Between Planning and NEPA
   Doug Delaney, Director - Environmental Division - TDOT
   
   Despite a clear organizational distinction between planning and environmental divisions at GDOT, over recent years the Department has been working with FHWA to implement more practices to internally link planning and NEPA practices. Three recent examples are 1) GDOT's effort to begin documenting its funded resource agency positions; 2) the practice of sharing comments received at public meetings with its planning division; and 3) the centralization of the Department's GIS database so that planners and environmental staff are using the same data.
   
   Through the "Improving the Linkage Between Planning and NEPA" agenda item, GDOT hoped to learn more about how other states are going about this process, as well as about the benefits they have experienced through doing so.
   
   Effective Linking Planning and NEPA Practices at Tennessee DOT
   Over the last three years, TDOT has worked to build better relationships in an attempt to change the way it is perceived both externally and internally. A Department-wide reorganization has been a key factor in the process. Now, there are six major environmental sections at TDOT: (1) Technical studies office; (2) NEPA documentation office; (3) Environmental permits office; (4) Environmental compliance office; (5) Highway beautification office; and (6) Environmental policy office.
   
   Other divisions that have been developed include a LRTP division; a short-range planning division; and a public involvement division. The latter tailors public involvement to an appropriate level based on project need. As a symbolic statement, TDOT physically located planners and NEPA practitioners on the same floor in the DOT building. Another significant step toward linking planning and NEPA at TDOT has been the creation of an environmental management system (EMS) that allows planners to use environmental GIS layers as early as possible.
   
   In the past, TDOT produced an advanced planning report. As more and more projects were planned, groups could no longer make site visits for all projects. Planners had to make the visits with environmental specialists and then were asked to make decisions based on incomplete information. Now, TDOT has a standardized process, which includes the development of a problem statement, the completion of a needs assessment, and then the development of a transportation planning report. In the report, projects are given priority scores, feeding the 10-year and 3-year plans. These scores are ranked, better enabling the determination of short- and long-term needs. If a project is placed on the 3-year plan, the formal NEPA process will be initiated.
   
   TDOT is also establishing rural planning organizations (RPO) that will assist the State's metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to determine priority scores. As planning moves forward, the RPOs will likely help TDOT planners develop general project options that have a preliminary cost estimate associated with it.
   
   
   Roundtable Discussion — Improving the Linkage Between Planning and NEPA
   
   Are planning and environmental divisions at the peer states separate, and how does that organization affect cost estimates/project priorities?
   
   INDOT — At Indiana DOT, planners make initial cost estimates, which are rechecked at each project development step. Projects are periodically reevaluated to determine if "scope creep," or pressure to deliver more than initially agreed, is occurring. If it appears that scope creep is a problem, it is possible that the project be stopped.
   
   ODOT — Ohio DOT's environmental division is not a part of the planning division. Teams in the planning division are responsible for systems planning.
   
   TXDOT — TXDOT's planning division — which interacts with the State's MPOs — is separate from the environmental affairs division. Historically, TXDOT has found that a project's cost usually continues to rise above the initial cost estimates made in planning. TXDOT is working to improve these planning cost estimates by dedicating more funds upfront to making better projections and project schedules.
   
   A lesson that TXDOT has learned is that it is critical to identify a project's fatal flaws at the planning level — not with the intent of changing Purpose and Need, but so that decisionmakers can state an awareness of the issues and a desire to continue should it exist.
   
   UDOT — Planners conduct an annual workshop to review the 5-year plan. At the workshop, MPOs describe the projects that should be put on track as priorities.
   
   UDOT is also developing an action plan for linking planning and NEPA. This continuing effort will produce a strengthened framework for how planning information will be most effectively provided to the environmental staff.
   
   What is the relationship between the Vital Few Goals (VFG), Negotiated Timeframes, and SAFETEA-LU?
   
   FHWA HQ — The VFG are over-arching agency goals. Negotiated Timeframes are a tool to support the VFG. Even though SAFETEA-LU repeals section 1309(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, streamlining is still an agency priority. SAFETEA-LU includes congressional ideas for how streamlining can occur. Specifically, sections 6006, 6004, and 6005; the revised 4(f) provisions; revised de minimus impact provisions; the requirement of developing a coordination plan; and the provision for comment deadlines each have streamlining implications. For these reasons, the VFG and Negotiated Timeframes are in parallel with the transportation authorization bill.
   
   What level of consultant resource planning is done in the peer states?
   
   ODOT — There are 12 districts in ODOT, and each district staffs at least 2 environmental personnel. These people remain involved throughout a project, helping to determine how consultant resources are allocated. Typically, ODOT expands the scope of consultant participation as a project moves forward. When a consultant is responsible for completing an environmental document, ODOT tracks the progress of that document regularly.
   
   TDOT — Tennessee DOT has 49, 2-year consultants hired on staff. Five of these are NEPA consultants and 10 are archaeological consultants.
   
   TXDOT — There is no standardized process for deciding what will be outsourced. Sometimes environmental documentation work is done completely in-house. Other times, the Director will assess all of the Department's projects and decide what should be outsourced. In each case, Districts coordinate the environmental work. If a skill set is missing, tasks will be contracted out on 2-year contracts.
   
   UDOT — Each UDOT region's environmental division is organized slightly differently. The regions are given latitude to bring staff resources up to speed on the issues it sees most often. When consultants are hired, a determination on which consultant to use is made for each stage in the project delivery process; by final design the consultant hired may not be the consultant that started the project. In other words, corridor studies, EA and EIS documentation development, and final design may be contracted out separately.
   
   Is a person in the central office accountable for each region?
   
   INDOT — At INDOT, central office staff are assigned to districts; some staff are located in the headquarters office, while others are stationed in the districts.
   
   ODOT — Since the late 1990s, ODOT has balanced centralization and decentralization. Districts are responsible for their own work, but headquarters helps to move each district's work forward. Headquarters staff members are part of the districts' project teams. Ohio DOT assigns a person at the central office to each district. A reassignment occurs every 2-3 years. This practice has been successful because districts have one, known point of contact when issues arise.
   
   TDOT — Tennessee DOT assigns central office staff to the districts.
   
   TXDOT — Texas is not suited to being centralized. The amount of required travel and difficulty in coordinating public interaction would make a centralized system less effective than a decentralized system. TXDOT headquarters attempts to provide consistency across districts by standardizing their organization and some of their processes. For example, the headquarters office has created a standardized document format template, as well as a common training curriculum. TXDOT headquarters also organizes an annual meeting of the districts.
   
   GDOT — Georgia DOT may consider awards for its districts' environmental work. Awards could instill a competitive spirit between districts to strive to deliver even better projects than currently delivered.

back to top

IV. Lessons Learned/Recommendations

GDOT intends to compare the peer states' practices revealed at the Workshop to practices it currently uses. The Department, in coordination with FHWA, hopes to make improvements where they are feasible. To begin, GDOT and FHWA expect to develop an action plan to integrate the practices and processes identified from the Peer-to-Peer Workshop into standard operating procedures for GDOT.

At the Exchange's conclusion, the following recommendations and strategies for developing a preliminary action plan were collected:

• Schedule GDOT/FHWA meeting to discuss Peer-to-Peer Workshop outcomes. Agenda topics could include 1) a comparison of FHWA Georgia Division's CE review process with other states' programmatic CE agreements, and 2) a review of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) protocols.
• Be strategic. Work to prioritize projects and ways to measure their performance. As near-term and long-term goals change, have a plan for adapting.
• Recognize the value of hiring quality staff. It is important that they know how their responsibilities and their work contribute to the overall program.
• Continue the development of electronic resource planning and data-sharing/communication tools.
• Keep website information revised and up-to-date.
• Clearly define relationships with consultants to improve coordination and accountability.
• Cultivate trustworthy relationships with agencies and stakeholders. Work with individuals one-on-one, helping to develop project confidence and support.
• Consider future Peer-to-Peer teleconferences, videoconferences, and/or Exchanges. Interact with other States to learn how to implement successful processes and systems that already exist.

back to top

V. For More Information

back to top

VI. Attendees List

back to top

VII. Additional Resources

FHWA's SAFETEA-LU website.
FHWA's Planning, Environment, and Realty (HEP) website.

back to top