skip to main content
Environmental Review Toolkit
 
Initiatives to Accelerate Project Delivery
Eco-Logical
Every Day Counts
Planning and Environment Linkages (PEL)
Programmatic Agreements
SHRP2 C19 Expediting Project Delivery
Transportation Liaison Community of Practice

Eco-Logical Webinar
Innovative Eco-Logical Research: Highlights of the Upcoming Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting

Thursday, January 12, 2012
2:00 - 3:30 PM Eastern

Presenters:

  • Todd Lickfett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • Mehmet Egemen Ozbek, Ph.D., Colorado State University
  • Mike Culp, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Natural Environment

Moderated by Mary Gray, FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review

PDF Version [2.99 MB]

Table of Contents

Introduction of TRB and Relation to FHWA Eco-Logical Activities

Online Information Systems and Data Tools for Eco-Logical Decision-making

A Quantitative Decision-making Framework for Environmental Commitment Tracking

Eco-Logical Components of the Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST)

Introduction of TRB and Relation to FHWA Eco-Logical Activities

Slide 1: Innovative Eco-Logical Research: Highlights of the Upcoming Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting

Thursday, January 12, 2012
2:00 – 3:30 PM Eastern

Presenters:

  • Todd Lickfett, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
  • Mehmet Egemen Ozbek, Ph.D., Colorado State University
  • Mike Culp, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Natural Environment

Moderated by: Mary Gray, FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review

Image: Photograph of a two-lane expressway on the side of a steep, rocky, pine-covered mountain

Slide 2: Transportation Research Board (TRB)

  • One of six major divisions of the National Research Council
  • Mission:
    “To provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal.”
  • Services:
    • Information exchanges
    • Research and related programs
    • Policy analyses and recommendations
    • Publications
  • 91st Annual Meeting:
    January 22-26, 2012
    Washington, D.C.
    www.nationalacademies.org/trb/transportation-research-board

Image: Logo of the Transportation Research Board

Slide 3: Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects

Addresses challenges in planning for ecosystems and infrastructure:

  • Duplication of efforts
  • Uncertainty and lack of predictability
  • Results: piecemeal mitigation
Image: A white banner overlaid with the logos of the following Federal agencies: Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of Transportation (DOT), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), National Park Service (NPS), Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Department of Agriculture (DEA), Forest Service (USFS), and Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)

Slide 4: Eco-Logical Session at TRB

Enabling Planning-Level Ecological Decision Making
Monday Jan 23, 1:30 pm – 3:15 pm
Hilton, Connecticut Ave. DC

  • US Fish and Wildlife Service LEAP and NiSource
  • US Army Corps of Engineers Watershed Investment Tools
  • US Environmental Protection Agency/US Geological Survey (USGS) National Atlas of Sustainability Measures
  • California Statewide Advance Mitigation Initiative
Image: Photograph of a woman's hand holding up a crystal ball in front of a large branch with blooming flowers. The crystal ball is covered by a photograph of a calm riverway in a large city. A crew is rowing up the river; large buildings line the river.

Slide 5: TRB Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2)

Integration of Conservation, Highway Planning, and Environmental Permitting

Using an Outcome-Based Ecosystem Approach

  1. Integrated Ecological Framework
  2. Agency specific integrated approach to conservation and transportation planning

Through Development of an Outcome-Based Ecosystem-Scale Approach and Corresponding Credit System

  1. Cumulative Effects and Alternatives Analysis
  2. Regulatory Assurances
  3. Ecosystem Crediting
Image: Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) logo

Slide 6: Ecosystem-Based Decisionmaking

Image: A process diagram compares the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) with the FHWA Eco-Logical program. The SHRP2 Capacity research is led by TRB and includes pilots and implementation tools coordinated with FHWA. The FHWA Eco-Logical Program includes the Eco-Logical Grant Program. The diagram shows connections between research, testing, and implementation of the two programs.

Slide 7: Questions?

Eco-Logical:
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_initiatives/eco-logical.aspx

Eco-Logical Webinar Series:
https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_initiatives/eco-logical/webinar_series.aspx

Image: Photograph of a highway in a forested mountain valley. The highway runs along the side of one mountain, across the valley, and along the side of another mountain.

Back to Top

Online Information Systems and Data Tools for Eco-Logical Decision-making

Slide 8: USFWS Landscape-scale Energy Action Plan (LEAP)

Presentation on Online Information Systems and Data Tools for Eco-Logical Decision-making
January 12, 2012
Todd Lickfett
R6 Ecological Services
todd_lickfett@fws.gov

Images: Logos of the following: USFWS, Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, USGS, NatureServe, Saint Mary's University of Minnesota, University of Redlands, The Nature Conservancy, BLM, USFS, USACE, and USEPA.

Slide 9: LEAP Objectives

Avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to Trust Resources
by providing biologists and planners with information,
analyses, and decision support tools to inform project siting
early in the planning process

LEAP products:
Landscape-scale Vulnerability Assessments (LVAs)
Trust Resource Lists & Information
Policy Information
Conservation Frameworks (Internal Document)
Conservation Measure Reports
Report Builders (Biological Assessments etc.)
LEAP Data Portal @ USGS ScienceBase

Image: Photograph of a wide, curving highway overpass being constructed over a large, multi-lane highway
Image: Photograph of a large wind turbine. View is looking up the base to the blades, which are set against a blue sky and white puffy clouds.

Slide 10: DRAFT LEAP Landscape Vulnerability Assessment (LVA)

Image: A diagram shows the basic steps of conducting a LEAP Landscape Vulnerability Assessment (LVA). The diagram heading reads, “Conservation Value and Landscape Condition.” Underneath this are four variables that are taken into account when calculating the conservation value and landscape condition, including Condition Model, Listed/Other Species of Concern, Priority Conservation Areas, and Landscape Context. A map shows the conservation value different areas, with green representing an area with little conservation value and red representing areas with high values and intact landscapes.

Slide 11: LEAP Integration with IPaC

LEAP products will be delivered to the public through the ECOS-IPaC system

Image: Screenshot from USFWS's IPaC website. The screenshot is from Step 3 of the 4-step process: Trust Resources List. Three lists (listed below), superimposed on the screenshot, point to sections of the website page. The list for Conservation Measure Reports points to process Step 4 in the side menu, the list for Landscape-scale Vulnerability Assessments points to a map labeled "Project location map," and the list for Trust Resources points to a table entitled "Species that may be impacted by your project."

Conservation Measure Reports

  • provide species/project-specific BMPs

Landscape-scale Vulnerability Assessments

  • maps delivered through interactive mapper
  • project area “scores” for comparison
  • list of LVA elements
  • links to LEAP Data Portal

Trust Resource Lists

  • expanded to include non-listed Trust species (migratory birds, raptors)

Slide 12: LEAP Data Portal @ USGS ScienceBase

Searchable catalog of spatial data

Integrates with other data management platforms

LEAP assessment data:
LVA data bundles
Data processing scripts
Documentation

Other data themes:
Species Distribution & Range
Land Use/Land Cover
Land Ownership & Protection
Landscape Context & Metrics
Current Development & Disturbance
Proposed Development
Predictive Models

Image: Screenshot from the LEAP data portal entitled "Wyoming Toad Predicted Habitat WYNDD 2010"
Image: Close-up photograph of the endangered Wyoming Toad, Bufo baxteri, from www.earthmatturs.info

Slide 13: Applications to Transportation Planning

LEAP products will facilitate the Eco-Logical approach by providing information for landscape-scale decision-making

  • where to site projects
  • what resources will be affected
  • how to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts

Enhanced coordination with FWS

  • Faster project delivery
  • More efficient use of $$
  • Improved conservation
Image: Black and white photograph from 1958 of the partially constructed Highway 40 in Vallejo, California, from http://www.dipity.com/ctownsley/Expansion-and-Industrialization/

Slide 14: LEAP Status

Wyoming pilot completion in 2012

  • expand to include all R6
    (MT, WY, CO, UT, ND, SD, NE, KS)

Opportunities for cooperation with FWS

  • data sharing & collection
  • peer-review of spatial analyses
  • partnerships

2012 TRB Annual Meeting

  • Session 331: Enabling Planning-Level Ecological Decision Making: Recent Progress in the Development of National Online Information Systems and Environmental Performance Measures
  • Monday, January 23, 1:30 – 3:15PM @ Hilton

LEAP Contacts:

Image: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service logo

Back to Top

A Quantitative Decision-making Framework for Environmental Commitment Tracking

Slide 15: A Quantitative Decision-making Framework to Evaluate Environmental Commitment Tracking Systems for the Colorado Department of Transportation

Eco-Logical Webinar Series
January 12, 2012

Presentation based on:
TRB Paper 12-1533 and CDOT Research Report 2011-13

Mehmet E. Ozbek, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator
Department of Const Mang.
Colorado State University

Caroline M. Clevenger, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Const. Mang.
Colorado State University

Images: Logos of Colorado State University (CSU) and CSU's Department of Construction Management

Slide 16: Background

  • Environmental commitments are actions that are intended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate environmental impacts of a project
  • Environmental commitments are required as conditions of project approval during the environmental review process
  • The purpose of an Environmental Commitment Tracking System (ETS) is to provide a means of tracking the status of environmental commitments as well as maintaining necessary information tied to those commitments
  • Implementation of an effective ETS can provide the means necessary to demonstrate to all stakeholders that commitments have been met

Slide 17: Research Need and Purpose

NEED:

  • Colorado Department of Transportation's (CDOT) need to adopt an ETS to implement statewide

PURPOSE:

  • To evaluate the ETSs used by a number of state DOTs to determine which ETS would be the most beneficial for long-term implementation at CDOT

Slide 18: Research Approach

A quantitative decision-making framework was developed consisting of four steps:

Step 1 – Conduct interviews with stakeholders to identify the features that CDOT prefers to have in its ETS

Step 2 – Assign weights to those features to establish their importance relative to each other based on CDOT's preferences using a rigorous quantitative method (i.e., Analytic Hierarchy Process)

Step 3 – Collect data from eight state DOTs through surveys to identify which features their ETSs have

Step 4 – Perform a quantitative evaluation of those ETSs according to the features preferred by CDOT and their respective weights to assign a quantitative score to each state DOT's ETS

Slide 19: Step 1 – Conducting Interviews to Identify Features

The interviewees were selected based on their knowledge of ETSs, the fact that they would be ETS end-users at CDOT, and/or because of their involvement with the CDOT NEPA process

Interviewee* Affiliation Position
1. CDOT Planning and Environmental Manager – Region 1
2. CDOT Deputy Water Quality Program Manager
3. CDOT Environmental Project Manager – Region 1
4. FHWA – Colorado Division Environmental Program Manager
5. CDOT South Program Manager – Region 4
6. FHWA – Colorado Division Program Delivery Team Leader
7. CDOT Environmental Planner
8. CDOT Program Engineer – Region 5
9. CDOT Resident Engineer – Pueblo Region 2
* There were two interviewees who did not want their affiliation/position reported

Slide 20: Step 1 – Conducting Interviews to Identify Features

1) Allow external stakeholders to input/edit information: ETS allows for external project stakeholders (e.g., agencies like FHWA, contractor, etc.) to input/edit information in the tracking system for those projects which they are involved with.

2) Control which CDOT employees can view information: ETS has the capability to assign permissions to a select group of CDOT employees allowing only them to view tracking data for a given project.

3) Document Management: ETS has the capability to manage documents (i.e., storing and linking related documents such as word and pdf files for easy retrieval and/or versioning control).

4) GIS compatible: ETS has the capability of integrating with GIS.

...

18) Sort and filter data: Users can find and view only the commitments and permits that are relevant to a particular person or project.

Slide 21: Step 2 – Assigning Weights to Features

  • A well-structured quantitative multi-criteria decision analysis method, Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP), was utilized
    • Pairwise comparisons between two elements at a time: “Which of the two is more important, and how much more important is it?”
    • Once all comparisons are made, mathematical computations (based on matrix algebra) are performed to assign weights to those elements
    • AHP also requires the calculation of the consistency ratio (C.R.). C.R. is a measure to identify how consistent the participant was
  • 18 features → 153 pairwise comparisons performed by six respondents
  • C.R. of the group=0.028 (<0.10 is acceptable)
Image: A horizontal line marked with numbered/labeled pairs and anchored by rectangular blocks at its ends, "Document Management" on the left and "GIS Compatible" on the right. The numbered/labeled pairs progress from left to right as follows: Extreme Importance/9, Very Strong Importance/7, Strong Importance/5, Moderate Importance/3, Equal/1, Moderate Importance/3, Strong Importance/5, Very Strong Importance/7, and Extreme Importance/9. The Strong Importance/5 marking pair on the Document Management side of the line is circled in red.

Slide 22: Step 2 – Assigning Weights to Features

Metric Weight
Track deleted or modified commitments 0.1468
Track permits 0.1406
Standard Reports 0.0979
Sort and filter data 0.0975
Generate notifications 0.0693
Document Management 0.0537
GIS compatible 0.0526
Control which CDOT employees can input/edit information 0.0495
Integrate with ProjectWise 0.0432
Store data in a single centralized file 0.0395
Differentiate between CAT X, EA, & EIS 0.0371
Web based 0.0368
Allow multiple CDOT employees to input/edit information 0.0361
Integrate with SharePoint 0.0269
Allow ALL CDOT employees to view information 0.0208
Allow external stakeholders to view information 0.0194
Control which CDOT employees can view information 0.0170
Allow external stakeholders to input/edit information 0.0153

Slide 23: Step 3 – Collecting Data from State DOTs about their ETSs

Features Colorado
(CDOT)		 California
(Caltrans)		 Florida
(FDOT)		 Kentucky
(KYTC)		 New York
(NYSDOT)		 Tennessee
(TDOT)		 Texas
(TxDOT)		 Virginia
(VDOT)		 Washington State
(WSDOT)
Track deleted or modified commitments X   X X   X X X X
Track permits X X X X X   X X X
Standard Reports   X X X X X X X X
Sort and filter data   X X X X X X X X
Generate notifications   X     X X X X  
Document Management   X       X X X X
GIS compatible     X         X  
Control which DOT employees can input/edit information   X X X X X X X X
Integrate with ProjectWise                  
Store data in a single centralized file   X X X     X X X
Differentiate between CAT X, EA, & EISs X X X X X   X X X
Web based     X X   X X X X
Allow multiple DOT employees to input/edit information   X X X X X   X X
Integrate with SharePoint             X    
Allow ALL DOT employees to view information   X X X   X   X X
Allow external stakeholders to view information     X       X    
Control which DOT employees can view information X X X X X X X X  
Allow external stakeholders to input/edit information     X       X    

Slide 24:

Technical Features Colorado
(CDOT)		 California
(Caltrans)		 Florida
(FDOT)		 Kentucky
(KYTC)		 New York
(NYSDOT)		 Tennessee
(TDOT)		 Texas
(TxDOT)		 Virginia
(VDOT)		 Washington State
(WSDOT)
Track deleted or modified commitments 0.1468   0.1468 0.1468   0.1468 0.1468 0.1468 0.1468
Track permits 0.1406 0.1406 0.1406 0.1406 0.1406   0.1406 0.1406 0.1406
Standard Reports   0.0979 0.0979 0.0979 0.0979 0.0979 0.0979 0.0979 0.0979
Sort and filter data   0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975 0.0975
Generate notifications   0.0693 0.0693     0.0693 0.0693 0.0693  
Document Management   0.0537 0.0537       0.0537 0.0537 0.0537
GIS compatible     0.0526         0.0526  
Control which DOT employees can input/edit information   0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495 0.0495
Integrate with ProjectWise                  
Store data in a single centralized file   0.0395 0.0395 0.0395     0.0395 0.0395 0.0395
Differentiate between CAT X, EA, & EISs .0371 .0371 .0371 .0371 .0371   .0371 .0371 .0371
Web based     0.0368 0.0368   0.0368 0.0368 0.0368 0.0368
Allow multiple DOT employees to input/edit information   0.0361 0.0361 0.0361 0.0361 0.0361   0.0361 0.0361
Integrate with SharePoint             0.0269    
Allow ALL DOT employees to view information   0.0208 0.0208 0.0208   0.0208   0.0208 0.0208
Allow external stakeholders to view information     0.0194       0.0194    
Control which DOT employees can view information 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170 0.0170  
Allow external stakeholders to input/edit information     0.0153       0.0153    
TOTAL 0.34 0.66 0.93 0.72 0.48 0.57 0.85 0.90 0.76
Ranking 9 6 1 5 8 7 3 2 4

Slide 25: Conclusions and Future Research

  • Recommend further exploration of
    • FDOT's ETS (supports 93% of CDOT's preferences)
    • VDOT's ETS – 90%
    • TxDOT's ETS – 85%
    • CDOT's existing ETS – 34%
  • The analysis and recommendations are intended to minimize ETS development costs and ultimately to provide CDOT with an effective, efficient, and reliable ETS to track environmental commitment completion on projects
  • The quantitative decision-making framework can be used by any state DOT. The implementation of the framework requires a minimal amount of resources, mainly in the form of time commitment
  • Future research should investigate:
    • Ease of use
    • User satisfaction
    • First cost and Operational cost

Slide 26: Please hold all questions until the end of the webinar.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research work described herein has been funded by CDOT. The opinions and findings are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of CDOT. Authors would like to thank the CDOT Study Panel members and interview participants for their invaluable suggestions and contributions to this research.

Images: Logos of Colorado State University (CSU) and CSU's Department of Construction Management

Back to Top

Eco-Logical Components of the Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool (INVEST)

Most of the slides in this presentation are branded with a version of the Sustainability logo, which consists of three overlapping circles labeled Environment, Economic, and Social.

Slide 27: FHWA's Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool (INVEST)

Mike Culp
Team Leader, Sustainable Transport and Climate Change Team
Office of Planning, Environment & Realty

Eco-Logical Webinar
January 12, 2012

Slide 28: What is a Sustainable Highway System?

  • Satisfies functional requirements
    • Fulfills transportation goals and needs
    • Addresses development and economic growth
  • Avoids, minimizes, reduces impacts
    • Environment
    • Consumption of resources
  • Addresses environmental, economic, and social equity dimensions (triple bottom line)
  • Sustainability addressed throughout the project lifecycle
Image: The Sustainability logo with its circles' overlapping areas labeled as follows: the Environment and Social overlap is labeled "Bearable," the Social and Economic overlap is labeled "Equitable," the Economic and Environment overlap is labeled "Viable," and the overlap of all three is labeled "Sustainability."

Slide 29: Sustainability and the Project Lifecycle

  • For sustainability to be fully integrated into highway and transit programs, it must be considered throughout the project lifecycle
  • Must address sustainability from planning through operations
Image: Graphic of the Project Lifecycle as it relates to highway and transit systems, which shows three steps in a circle with clockwise-pointing arrows between steps: System Planning and Processes, Project Development, and Transportation Systems Management, Operations, and Maintenance.

Slide 30: Examples of Sustainable Practices

  • System Planning
    • Integrated Planning
    • Mitigation banking
    • Fiscal planning
  • Project Development
    • Cost Benefit Analysis
    • Construction Equipment Emission Reduction
    • Recycling and Reuse of materials
  • Operations and Maintenance
    • Strong asset management
    • Roadside vegetation management
    • Infrastructure maintenance
Image: Photograph of a work crew utilizing a fleet of road surfacing equipment

Slide 31: Sustainability and FHWA

  • Deliver Federal Aid Highway Program in a more sustainable way
  • Make wise investment decisions w/ limited resources
  • Take advantage of opportunities to include sustainability throughout the decision making process
  • Encourage change in professional practice
  • Stress more sustainable practices, get them to be applied/implemented
  • Go beyond compliance
  • Seek Balanced solutions

Slide 32: Overview of INVEST

  • Voluntary Web-based Tool
  • Lists “sustainable criteria” based on best practices for three project phases:
    • Systems Planning (SP)
    • Project Development (PD)
    • Systems Management, Operations and Maintenance (OM)
  • Each criterion assigned a points based on expected sustainability impact
  • In coordination with American Society of Civil Engineers/American Council of Engineering Companies/American Public Works Association effort

Slide 33: INVEST Goals

  • Encourage sustainable highway practices
    • Internal improvement
    • External recognition
  • Help agencies measure sustainability and quantify tradeoffs
  • Provide a framework for communicating with stakeholders about sustainability
  • Establish a method for evaluating sustainable highway systems, projects, programs

Slide 34: Support for Eco-Logical Principals

  • Encourages integrated planning, PEL approaches
  • Promotes engagement of resource and regulatory agencies
  • Encourages links b/n planning and project decision making
Image: Cover image of the Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects report

Slide 35: System Planning Criteria

SP-1 Integrated Planning: Land Use and Economic Development
SP-2 Integrated Planning: Natural Environment
SP-3 Integrated Planning: Community
SP-4 Accessibility
SP-5 Safety Planning
SP-6 Multimodal Transportation
SP-7 Freight Planning
SP-8 Travel Demand Management
SP-9 Air Quality
SP-10 Energy and Fuels
SP-11 Financial Sustainability
SP-12 Analysis Methods
SP-13 Congestion Management
SP-14 Linking Asset Management and Planning
SP-15 Linking Planning and NEPA
SP-16 Infrastructure Resiliency

Slide 36: SP-2 Integrated Planning: Natural Environment

Goal Integrate ecological considerations into long range transportation plans (LRTP), corridor plans, and the TIP/STIP process. Proactively support and enhance sustainable ecological function through the coordination of transportation and natural resource planning.
Points 1-10 Points
Requirements

3 points. Develop and adopt policies that encourage metropolitan or statewide transportation planning to incorporate ecological considerations into transportation plans and the planning process.

3 points. Develop institutional mechanisms that engage natural resource and regulatory agencies regularly in creating plans and programs (e.g. technical advisory committees).

4 points. Assemble data on natural resources and apply system or landscape scale evaluation techniques (e.g. the Eco-Logical Ecosystem Approach/Regional Ecosystem Framework) to assess ecological conditions and avoid and/or minimize potential impacts of planned transportation projects to the natural environment.

Slide 37: SP-15 Linking Planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Goal Incorporate planning documents and decisions from the transportation planning process into the environmental review process.
Points 2-10 Points
Requirements

2 points. The Agency has a program to consult with NEPA practitioners throughout the system-level planning process to ensure the material produced 1) Can be incorporated into subsequent NEPA documents in accordance with FHWA and CEQ regulations; 2) Will aid in establishing or evaluating the purpose and need of the projects, reasonable alternatives, impacts on the built and natural environment, or mitigation measures, and 3) Is in a form that is accessible during the NEPA scoping process and can be appended or referenced in the NEPA document.

4 points. Agency has documented procedures for linking the system-level planning process with NEPA.

4 points. Agency successfully incorporates analysis, decisions, and documents from the system-level planning process on specific NEPA projects. The planning studies can produce analyses and decisions for FHWA review and consideration.

Slide 38: www.sustainablehighways.org

Image: Screenshot of the Sustainable Highways Self-Evaluation Tool website

Slide 39: Next Steps for INVEST

  • Pilot Testing
    • PD criteria - done
    • OM criteria - complete in January 2012
    • SP criteria - complete in February 2012
  • Weighting & Scoring review - ongoing
  • Updates to Website - ongoing
  • Version 1.0 Release - Spring 2012

Slide 40: Pilots

INVEST Pilot Test Locations
Updated: December 13, 2011

Image: A gray map of the U.S. show all the locations in which the INVEST tool is currently being piloted. Montana, Oregon, Ohio, Maryland, Washington D.C., and North Carolina are conducting Project Development Criteria Testing. Nevada and Utah State DOTs are conducting Operations and Maintenance Criteria Testing. Wisconsin is the only State DOT conducting an independent test of pilot version of INVEST.

Slide 41: Thank You!

FHWA Sustainable Highways Team:

Michael Culp
Michael.culp@dot.gov

Connie Hill
Connie.hill@dot.gov

Heather Holsinger
Heather.holsinger@dot.gov

Image: Photograph of a two-lane road rising to the horizon at the top of a hill. A 35 miles per hour speed limit sign is on the right.

Back to Top

For questions or feedback on this subject, please contact Mike Ruth at 202-366-9509.

 


STAY CONNECTED
Facebook  LinkedIn  YouTube  Flickr  Twitter
U.S. DOT | USA.gov | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Budget and Performance | No Fear Act | Cummings Act Notices
Ethics | Web Policies & Notices | Vulnerability Disclosure Policy | Accessibility

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000