Environmental Review Toolkit |
Home | Planning and Environment |
NEPA and Project Development |
Accelerating Project Delivery |
Historic Preservation |
Section 4(f) | Water, Wetlands, and Wildlife |
Accelerating Project Delivery |
![]() |
Printer-friendly PDF version (210kB) Table of ContentsPeer Exchange Details Recommendations for Successful Tools & Techniques EIS Experiences and Best Practices from Peer Exchange Participants
Maryland — Intercounty Connector
Missouri — Paseo Bridge Montana — I-15 Corridor and US 2 Utah — Mountain View Corridor Florida and the Environmental Review Process — Project Examples Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process
District 1: State Route (SR) 29 District 2: Bridge of Lions District 3: Gulf Coast Parkway District 4: SR 7 Extension District 5: SR 40 District 6: I-395 Appendix A: Peer Exchange Attendees Appendix B: Peer Exchange Agenda Peer Exchange Details
Abbreviations
BackgroundThe Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) shares a common concern with many State Departments of Transportation (SDOTs) regarding the length of time it takes to complete the environmental documentation process, particularly for complex transportation projects. In the State of Florida, the average length of time required to complete the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process now stands at 60 months. This amount currently falls short of the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA) target of 36 months for the completion of an EIS. To compound the issue, FDOT presently faces the prospect of having to initiate and complete more EISs in the coming years than at any other time in their history. To bring these issues to light within FDOT's various districts, and to afford their field practitioners the opportunity to share with each other about similar experiences and situations, FDOT and the FHWA Florida Division Office organized a Peer Exchange to identify successful strategies and approaches for effectively moving complex environmental documents through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process in a timely manner. FDOT and the FHWA Florida Division Office invited representatives from several SDOTs and the respective FHWA Division Offices in those states to discuss specific project experiences with counterparts from FDOT. State DOTs and FHWA Division offices participating in the Peer Exchange included Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Utah, and Florida (including FDOT Central Environmental Management Office (CEMO), District offices and Florida's Turnpike Enterprise). The out-of-state attendees described details of their EIS projects; they conveyed the challenges and controversies faced, as well as lessons learned from their experiences. The representatives from various FDOT Districts also illustrated instances where they had employed unique approaches in order to move their projects along the environmental review process; they presented best practices and discussed some remaining challenges that required resolution. Karen Brunelle of the FHWA Florida Division and Larry Barfield of FDOT CEMO hosted and organized the Peer Exchange, in collaboration with Louise Fragala of Powell, Fragala & Associates, Inc. who facilitated the discussions. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussions that took place during the Peer Exchange. The report begins with recommendations of successful tools and techniques to navigate the environmental review process quickly and effectively, followed by highlights of projects presented during the peer exchange. Recommendations for Successful Tools & TechniquesDuring the Peer Exchange, participants described one or two transportation projects in their states or districts that had gone through the environmental review process relatively quickly. They highlighted the challenges encountered, methods used to successfully and efficiently navigate the EIS process, and lessons learned from their experience. The practices described by the SDOTs represent a fundamental paradigm shift in the way agencies have conducted the business of environmental review over the last 10–15 years. SDOTs have embraced innovative and creative solutions to balance transportation and infrastructure needs with environmental protection and community concerns. The environmental review processes for the successful projects highlighted during the Peer Exchange were conducted in a collaborative and transparent manner, whereby SDOTs sought to include stakeholders early and often throughout development of the EIS. Such methods not only lead to a faster completion of the environmental review process, but perhaps more importantly, they result in the delivery of better quality projects, ones that fulfill the transportation needs of communities while maintaining protection of environmental resources at the same time. While each project had a unique set of circumstances, there were a number of tools and techniques utilized to streamline the EIS process that were common to several of the projects. As the discussion evolved, participants noted that the tools and techniques could be grouped into three main elements for navigating the environmental review process efficiently and effectively: communication, collaboration, and commitment. CommunicationEffective public involvement can help to generate support for a transportation project, or address public concerns and minimize opposition to a controversial project. Effective public involvement means that an agency listens and responds to all individuals and groups with issues and concerns about the project. The following tools and techniques for effectively involving the public were recommended by the Peer Exchange participants:
CollaborationWorking cooperatively with project stakeholders creates an atmosphere of partnership that may prove valuable in advancing the environmental review process. Including agencies early and often throughout the process enables issues to be identified and addressed early, thereby minimizing project delays. Communicating with agencies throughout the process reduces the likelihood that reviewing agencies will be surprised by any information or details in the actual environmental document, leading to a more efficient review. The following tools and techniques for effectively collaborating with stakeholders are recommended:
A collaborative working relationship between transportation and resource agencies requires mutual trust. How a SDOT works with other agencies on a day-to-day basis lays the foundation for developing this trust. Implementing the techniques highlighted above will help a DOT gain the trust of a resource agency staff, which in turn will make it easier to work with those agencies when major projects arise. Establishing a collaborative internal working environment is another essential element in streamlining the environmental documentation process. Tools and techniques to effectively collaborate with internal DOT staff include:
CommitmentDemonstrated agency commitment to priority projects and project schedules provides the impetus for moving projects forward in a timely manner. Establishing consistency in how the environmental review process is managed and in the quality of information provided helps to build trust and bolster a SDOT's credibility with agencies and the public. Tools and techniques to demonstrate commitment to the environmental review process include:
EIS Experiences and Best Practices from Peer Exchange ParticipantsRepresentatives from SDOTs and FHWA Division Offices in Maryland, Missouri, Montana, and Utah gave presentations on particular projects in their respective states that had moved through the environmental review process quickly. Maryland — Intercounty ConnectorThe Intercounty Connector (ICC) is an east-west, 18 mile multi-modal highway connecting I-270/I-370 and the I-95/US-1 corridors. The concept of the ICC has been included in local master plans since the early 1950s. Two previous NEPA studies, one conducted in 1983 and another initiated in 1997, were abandoned after the Draft EIS was released, due to reviewing agencies' concerns over potential environmental impacts, as well as considerable mistrust between local government planners and Federal resource agencies. In contrast, the third and final NEPA study, which began in 2003, was completed and the Record of Decision (ROD) was signed by FHWA in less than 3 years. Wesley Mitchell of SHA and Dan Johnson of the FHWA DelMar Division identified several key principles that led to the successful completion of the ICC's third environmental review process. As highlighted in the recommendations section of this report, the keys to the ICC's project's success included: ![]()
Figure 1: This 4.5 acre wetlands creation project at a former soccer field is one example of how environmental features were incorporated into the ICC.
Missouri — Paseo BridgeThe Paseo Bridge is an innovative Design-Build project that is part of a corridor improvement project along I-29/35 in Kansas City, Missouri. It was designed to address capacity issues and to enhance deteriorating infrastructure. Two primary challenges existed. The first was that the project was one of three Design-Build pilot projects in the state. The Design-Build was a new approach for MoDOT, and it presented unique challenges during the EIS process. For example, the level of specific details typically provided to the public during the environmental review process are not provided for a Design-Build project because the specific details of the project design are not known until a contractor has been selected, which follows the approval of the EIS. The second challenge was that the MoDOT adopted a practical design approach for the project, whereby MoDOT was careful not to promise more than it was financially capable of delivering. This approach was new for MoDOT and the community; MoDOT had historically promised big projects with complex financial implications. Minimizing the scope of the project was something MoDOT had to communicate to the stakeholders. Even though the project involved the new approaches of using Design-Build and a practical design approach, the Paseo Bridge project completed the EIS process in 2 years and 9 months, compared to the average timeline for the NEPA process in Missouri of 5 years. Lee Ann Kell of MoDOT and Ed Cordero of the FHWA Missouri Division attributed the streamlining of the environmental review process to the following factors: ![]() Figure 2: The Community Advisory Group played a lead role in rating the aesthetics of the proposed bridge designs.
Montana — I-15 Corridor and US 2The Interstate 15 Corridor project is a traffic improvement project in the Helena Valley. The first EIS for this project was developed in the early 1990s, and construction began in 1999. A subsequent legal challenge to the validity of the environmental document resulted in the project's termination. When the project was reinitiated in early 2000, a new corridor-wide EIS was employed. The new EIS process carried several challenges. As a result of the project's previously failed attempt, the community harbored some mistrust of MDT and the new project carried its own set of public controversies. In addition, the MDT Director wanted the EIS for the project to be completed in two years, which put significant pressure on the project team to adhere to the schedule. While the average for EIS completion in Montana is 5.21 years, the I-15 EIS, from the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the ROD, was completed in 2.48 years. According to Tom Martin of MDT, the streamlined EIS process for the I-15 project resulted from the following:
Craig Genzlinger of the FHWA Montana Division spoke about another streamlined EIS project, the US-2 from Havre to Fort Belknap, which was completed in 2.31 years. The purpose of the US-2 project was to replace aging infrastructure and improve mobility for the purpose of promoting economic vitality. The public strongly supported expanding US-2 into a 4-lane highway. The state legislature passed a bill to build a 4-lane highway on US 2; however, the project was not in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). The lack of understanding regarding the transportation funding process and NEPA created a challenge in the EIS process. Genzlinger identified the following as critical factors to streamline the EIS process:
Utah — Mountain View CorridorIn 1995, Utah's Governor envisioned a legacy parkway. Planning for the parkway quickly became controversial; one alternative had wetland impacts, while the other alternative would impact housing. As a result, public opinion regarding the project turned into a debate that seemingly pitted human concerns against environmental concerns. In 2001, construction on the parkway stopped due to the ongoing controversy. The Mountain View Corridor, which is under the umbrella of the larger legacy parkway project, encompasses a 35-mile area across more than 13 jurisdictions. The proposed corridor was designed to address population growth and travel demand within the project area for the year 2030. Similar to previous projects, the Mountain View Corridor project was controversial and met with much public opposition. ![]()
Figure 3: The public gathers around one of UDOT's "Talk Trucks" to learn about the Mountain View Corridor project.
Despite the numerous challenges facing the Mountain View Corridor, the project was able to move through the environmental review process in a streamlined fashion due to the following actions taken by UDOT:
Florida and the Environmental Review Process — Project ExamplesThe following section presents highlights of current projects from several FDOT District offices — these include a history of each project, as well as key successes, challenges, or lessons learned. The projects are in various stages of completion, and while some have moved through the environmental review process relatively quickly, others have faced unique challenges. Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) ProcessFlorida's Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process, developed in 2000, is an integrated approach to accomplishing transportation planning and project development for major capacity improvement projects in Florida. One of the benefits of the ETDM process is that it provides a forum for resource agencies to raise issues early in the process, allowing for a dispute resolution process to resolve them before the project moves forward. The ETDM process enables agencies and the public to provide early input to the FDOT and MPOs about the potential effects of proposed transportation projects. ETDM has two main components: the technology and the interagency agreements. The agreements define how the ETDM process will be implemented, how each agency's requirements will be satisfied through ETDM and identifies the resource needs of each agency to implement ETDM. Additional information on the ETDM process is available at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/. District 1: State Route (SR) 29SR 29 in Immokalee, Florida, also known as Panther Road, has two active projects, one an Environmental Assessment (EA) and the other an EIS. Immokalee is a small, rural, and highly agricultural region with a wide range of socio-economic groups. FDOT's District 1 had to balance the needs and desires of the local residents with those of the area's landowners who have differing views for how to develop the region. An additional challenge was that through FDOT's ETDM process, both projects were flagged by resource agencies due to potential impacts on conservation land and panther species. As a result of being "red flagged" in ETDM, a dispute resolution process was initiated for both projects. The District utilized the Land Suitability Mapping (LSM) process, based on techniques and concepts developed by Ian McHarg in the 1970s in his book "Design with Nature." LSM is a process of layering Geographic Information Systems (GIS) datasets together to comprehensively assess the potential effects and benefits of a project. Using social, cultural, natural environment, and physical environment data layers and datasets, FDOT identified features that should be avoided if possible, which allowed them to eliminate some corridors while highlighting potential areas for corridor development. Analyzing available data enabled FDOT to address the resource agencies' concerns. District 1 also underlined the importance of listening to the public, including both the residents and landowners. FDOT joined in Immokalee's visioning process, meeting with the mayor and city and county officials. By talking with a broad group of stakeholders in order to figure out what each were looking for, the District generated positive goodwill and developed significant relationships. District 2: Bridge of LionsThe Bridge of Lions, designated as a National Historic Landmark, is located in the historic district of St. Augustine, Florida. Built in 1927, the bridge was in need of upgrades. A debate ensued on whether to rehabilitate the existing bridge or replace it. Additionally, there was strong public and national interest in the project — various stakeholders formed blocs of advocacy groups, formal public hearings were very well attended (in excess of 600 people for the last meeting), and more than 8,000 letters were received from the public. Other key stakeholders such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) had competing priorities which FDOT had to balance as well. To address stakeholders' competing desires and concerns, FDOT implemented some unique activities as part of the EIS process. FDOT developed a dedicated project website, one of the first projects to do so in the state. This helped FDOT answer the public's questions and provide them with information throughout the process. Another unique aspect was that FDOT and the USCG held a joint public hearing (the USCG was the only permitting agency involved in the project). An important lesson learned was the need to create and preserve a good administrative record, which prevented unnecessary lawsuits from stakeholders. District 3: Gulf Coast ParkwayFDOT's District 3 serves a predominantly rural region, and the Gulf Coast Parkway (GCP) project presented the first opportunity for District 3 to do an EIS. Funded by the Transportation Outreach Program (intended for economically disadvantaged counties), the GCP started a feasibility study in 2001. The Purpose and Need of the GCP took into account several factors, including the need to reduce travel time; provide a more direct route between US 98 and freight transfer facilities on US 231 within Bay County; improve access to Gulf and Bay counties; and improve security for the Tyndall Air Force Base Reservation by providing an alternative route to US 98 through Tyndall. The project had originally been managed by a public-private, nonprofit agency — Opportunity Florida. However, the project was put on hold in 2001 until July, 2008, when FDOT was able to issue a notice to proceed with the consultant. In the meantime, the project completed the ETDM process in April, 2007, and in August, 2007 the corridor report was revised and resubmitted. The GCP was set into motion because of a $25 million earmark in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). One challenge was that FDOT had to go back and revisit the alternatives because the original ones had been developed during a separate, non-Federal process. District 4: SR 7 ExtensionDistrict 4 has substantial experience with conducting EISs, and is currently processing 24 Project Development & Environment (PD&E) studies. The SR 7 Extension project, a proposed 4-6 lane corridor, is a controversial project located in Palm Beach County. From September, 2005, to August, 2007, FDOT conducted a Corridor Study to determine the best path for extending SR 7. Four corridors were considered in addition to the No-Build option. One of the options — Corridor 4 — would bisect the Pond Cypress Natural Area, the Grassy Waters preserve (a catchment area for the city of West Palm Beach), and a mitigation area for Acreage Reliever Road. While the public had an expressed preference for the Corridor 4 option, the permitting agencies identified critical issues with this same corridor and preferred the other options. As a result, FDOT initiated an informal dispute resolution process to address the conflicting views. Although one outcome of the dispute resolution process was that the number of agencies disputing the project increased from 1 to a total of 6 agencies, FDOT made a policy decision to eliminate the Corridor 4 alternative and was able to achieve consensus on moving forward with one recommended corridor — Corridor 3 — with the support of the resource agencies. Using ETDM demonstrated several benefits, including early agency involvement and a high level of participation, the elimination of infeasible corridors, and time and money savings. District 5: SR 40SR 40 crosses the Ocala National Forest and other protected lands. Beginning in 1988, District 5 initiated several PD&E studies to explore improvements to SR 40. Each of those studies was eventually stopped due to concerns regarding potential environmental impacts. The District lost the trust of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and various public and environmental groups. When the project was revisited in the early 2000s, District 5 decided to take a proactive approach to address project issues. FDOT initiated a collaborative feasibility study, whereby it made joint recommendations with stakeholders regarding the feasibility of project alternatives. Participating stakeholders included Federal and State resource agencies. To handle the public involvement process, FDOT utilized a team of consultants as neutral facilitators. The facilitators struck a delicate balance between incorporating the views of numerous agencies' wildlife biologists and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society, without allowing any one group to dominate the meeting. Through multiple public meetings, FDOT slowly built back its credibility with the USFS. FDOT learned that having a good public involvement plan goes a long way — by the time they had a public meeting, a lot of issues had already been addressed. District 6: I-395Overtown was once a thriving community known as the Harlem of the South. In 1957, the Overtown community was almost decimated by the development of the I-95 and I-395 freeways. The constructed roadway had a disastrous impact on the economic and social structure of the community. The community continues to shoulder the lingering effects of those negative impacts, and as a result there is also persistent anger towards and distrust of FDOT. The I-395 project, which proposes safety upgrades and a new access point to the Port of Miami tunnel, has been met with much public opposition. As part of the I-395 study, District 6 is working hard to rebuild trust in the community. FDOT opened a public outreach office in the Overtown community, which is staffed with a Community Liaison who works closely with the local residents to keep them informed of all transportation projects in the area. In addition, FDOT conducts extensive public outreach efforts including conducting community visioning workshops, organizing Project Advisory Groups, and holding numerous, one-on-one meetings with various community stakeholders. FDOT recognizes the importance of making a genuine effort to built trust with the community, and has learned to not assume that they know what is best for the community. As a result, while the alternatives analysis process has taken time and effort, the results will better address the community's concerns. Appendix A: Peer Exchange Attendees
Appendix B: Peer Exchange Agenda
For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact Harold Peaks at 202-366-1598. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator. ![]() |