skip to main content
Environmental Review Toolkit

SHRP2 C19 Expediting Project Delivery

Home Expediting Project Delivery
Constraints Constraints
Strategies Strategies
Meetings and Conferences Meetings and Conferences
Webinars Webinars
Library Library
Contact Us Contact Us

Printer-friendly PDF (1.2 MB)
PowerPoint (1.8 MB)

Expediting Project Delivery Webinar

Streamlining Decision Making in Project Delivery

March 23, 2016

• SHRP2 and Expediting Project Delivery
• Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT
• Conclusion

SHRP2 and Expediting Project Delivery

Slide 1: Expediting Project Delivery Webinar - Streamlining Decision Making in Project Delivery

March 23, 2016

  • Kate Kurgan, AASHTO
  • David Williams, FHWA
  • Jacque Annarino & Tim Hill, Ohio DOT
  • Denise McClafferty & Jami Dennis, Maricopa Association of Governments

Image: A strip of photos: a concrete bridge over a river, a highway with numerous traffic devices on trusses above traffic, a bridge over a calm river at night, a train under a bridge, and a worker repairing the underside of a bridge

Slide 2: SHRP2 & Its Focus Areas
  • Safety: Fostering safer driving through analysis of driver, roadway and vehicle factors in crashes, near crashes, and ordinary driving.
  • Renewal: Rapid maintenance and repair of the deteriorating infrastructure using already-available resources, innovations, and technologies.
  • Capacity: Planning and designing a highway system that offers minimum disruption and meets the environmental, and economic needs of the community.
  • Reliability: Reducing congestion and creating more predictable travel times through better operations.

Images: Icons that correlate to the items listed above: a vehicle occupant wearing a seat belt and shoulder harness (Safety), a circular arrow that reconnects with itself (Renewal), a six-lane roadway (Capacity), and a clock (Reliability)

Slide 3: SHRP2 Implementation: Innovate. Implement. Improve.
  • $130 million Funding Assistance (Images: six dollar sign icons)
    • DOT: 52 Recipients
    • MPO/Local: 30 Recipients
    • University: 10 Recipients
    • Federal/Tribe: 7 Recipients

  • 63 SHRP2 Solutions (Images: 4 roadway vehicles icons)

  • 430+ Projects Implemented (Images: six orange-striped safety cone icons)
    • Renewal: 230+
    • Capacity: 100+
    • Reliability: 90+
    • Safety: 11
Slide 4: SHRP2 Implementation: Innovate. Implement. Improve.
  • 224,761 Participants Engaged (Images: 15 human icons)

  • 8,939 Outreach Activities (Images: three icons of three people sitting at a table)
    • Training: 8,286
    • Workshops: 463
    • Peer Exchanges: 81
    • Demos: 62
    • Showcases: 47

  • 14,961 Hours Technical Assistance (Images: an open laptop)
Slide 5: SHRP2 at a Glance
  • SHRP2 Solutions - 63 products
  • Solution Development - processes, software, testing procedures, and specifications
  • Field Testing - refined in the field
  • Implementation - 430+ transportation projects; adopt as standard practice
  • SHRP2 Education Connection - connecting next-generation professionals with next-generation innovations

13 agencies were selected to implement C19 strategies

Image: a map of the continental U.S. overlaid with the words “430+ SHRP2 projects nationwide”

Slide 6: Expediting Project Delivery
  • Expediting Project Delivery identifies 24 strategies for addressing or avoiding 16 common constraints in order to speed delivery of transportation projects.
  • Strategies Grouped Under Six Objectives:
    • Improve internal communication and coordination;
    • Streamline decision-making;
    • Improve resource agency involvement and collaboration;
    • Improve public involvement and support;
    • Demonstrate real commitment to the project; and
    • Coordinate work across phases of project delivery.
Slide 7: Expediting Project Delivery
Strategy Stage of Project Planning or Delivery
Early Planning Corridor Planning NEPA Design/ROW/Permitting Construction
1. Change-control practices
2. Consolidated decision council
3. Context-sensitive design and solutions
4. Coordinated and responsive agency involvement
5. Dispute-resolution process
6. DOT-funded resource agency liaisons
7. Early commitment of construction funding
8. Expedited internal review and decision-making
9. Facilitation to align expectations up front
10. Highly responsive public engagement
11. Incentive payments to expedite relocations
12. Media relations manager
13. Performance standards
14. Planning and environmental linkages
15. Planning-level environmental screening criteria
16. Programmatic agreement for Section 106
17. Programmatic or batched permitting
18. Real-time collaborative interagency reviews
19. Regional environmental analysis framework
20. Risk management
21. Strategic oversight and readiness assessment
22. Team co-location
23. Tiered NEPA process
24. Up-front environmental commitments

Boxes with a checkmark show direct applicability. Empty boxes show conditional applicability.

Slide 8: Implementation Award Recipients
  • Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
  • Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD)
  • Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
  • California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
  • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
  • Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
  • Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
  • Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
  • Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)
  • South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)
  • South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT)
  • Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans)
Slide 9: AASHTO & FHWA Contacts

Images: the AASHTO logo and the U.S. Department of Transportation logo

Slide 10: SHRP2 on the Web

Image: Screenshot of the SHRP2 website homepage

↑ Return to top

Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT

Slide 11: Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT

March 2017

Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services
Tim Hill, Administrator
Jacque Annarino, NEPA Assignment Coordinator

Image: the Ohio Department of Transportation logo

Slide 12: Streamlining at ODOT
  • ODOT’s need to integrate and streamline
  • How ODOT changed approach to project development
  • Accomplishments and Benefits of new approach
Slide 13: Why the need to Integrate and Streamline?

Image: a drawing of a 15-minute section of a clock face that is marked with the words “Time is Money”

Slide 14: ODOT’s Approach to Project Development
  • Project Development Process
  • Consultant Scoping Fees Guidance
  • Online Environmental Documentation System (EnviroNet)
Slide 15: ODOT’s Approach to Project Development
  • Programmatic Agreements
    • Farmlands
    • Coastal
    • Ecological
    • Indiana & Northern Long-eared Bat
    • Cultural Resources
    • Categorical Exclusion (CE)
    • Scenic River
    • Section 6(f)
    • Section 4(f)
    • Environmental Justice (guidance approved by FHWA - similar to an MOA)
  • Future Programmatic Agreements
    • Emergency Projects
    • Endangered Species
Slide 16: NEPA Assignment Potential Benefits for Ohio
  • Estimated 20-25% time savings to program
  • Estimated savings of up to $23 million annually
    • Reduced project inflation
    • Project user delay costs
  • Low risk - maybe 1 lawsuit every 8-10 years
Slide 17: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment

For projects under $20 million

  • FHWA reviews 4(f) and other support documents = 15-30 days
  • 40 per year = 1,000 review days per year
  • 35% performed concurrently = 650 project review days
  • Out of the 650, only 15% result in critical path reviews = 98 days
  • 3.9% inflation and delay cost = $500,000 per year
Slide 18: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment

For projects $20 million to $149 million

  • FHWA performs reviews on:
    • Purpose and Need = 30 days
    • Feasibility Study = 30 days
    • Alternative Evaluation Report = 30 days
    • Section 4(f) actions = 45 days
    • Review and approval of the CE = 60 days
    • …plus multiple reviews (drafts, etc.)
Slide 19: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment

For projects $20 million to $149 million

  • FHWA review for a medium sized project - 390 days
  • 30% performed concurrently = 273 project review days
  • ODOT averages 12 projects per year = 3,276 review days
  • Out of this, 25% results in critical path reviews
  • = 819 days of delay
  • 3.9% inflation and delay cost = $5.7 million per year
  • User costs/crash reduction benefits = $13.2 million per year
Slide 20: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment

For biggest projects…

Image: a large cartoon of the word “cha-ching!”

Slide 21: ODOT’s New Approach to Project Development

  • NEPA Assignment
    • For environmental actions on transportation projects
      • Does not include FTA or FRA

Image: a photo of a goldfish jumping from a small fishbowl to a much larger fishbowl

Slide 22: Implementation of NEPA Assignment
  • 10/21/14 - Letter of Interest submitted
  • 12/01/14 - Brief ODOT Executive Leadership & Agencies
  • 12/15/14 - Draft Application submitted
  • 12/15/14 - Begin district visits and meetings with Associations
  • 12/24/14 - Letters to Tribes sent
  • 04/12/15 - Draft Application Public Notice
  • 04/22/15 - Draft MOU submitted
  • 05/28/15 - Final Application submitted
  • 10/15/15 - MOU Public Notice
  • 12/28/15 - MOU Effective Date
Slide 23: Updated Agreements
  • Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
  • Ecological Memorandum of Agreement
  • Categorical Exclusion Programmatic Agreement
  • Indiana Bat Programmatic Agreement
  • Tribal Letter Agreement
  • Sole Source Aquifer Agreement
  • Section 106 Consulting Party Guidance
  • Section 4(f) Manual
  • Section 6(f) Manual
  • Farmlands Letter Agreement
  • Federal National Scenic River Agreement
  • Cover Letter for Other Agreements
Slide 24: New Guidance Documents
  • Escalation Procedures
  • 4(f) Guidance
  • CE Guidance
  • Emergency Projects Guidance
  • File Management & Documentation Guidance
  • Internal Communication Guidance
  • Legal Sufficiency Review Guidance
  • QC/QA Guidance
  • Records Retention Guidance
  • Self-Assessment Guidance
  • Self-Assessment Checklists
  • Signature Authority Guidance
  • Statute of Limitations Guidance

Image: a drawing of a pencil that has marked a check in three checkboxes

Slide 25: Other New Items
  • Performance Measures
    • Goals
    • Baseline Data
  • Training Plan

Image: a group of different-colored 3D arrows, each marked with a word: “Trends,” “Results,” “Goals,” “Objectives,” “Targets,” “Satisfaction,” and “Value”

Slide 26: NEPA Assignment Benefits for Ohio
  • Opportunity to “refresh” environmental staff
    • Updated manuals and guidance
    • Updated process improvements Department wide
    • Updated training
  • 1st Quarter Actual Savings was $4.6 million

NEPA Assignment removes “personal preferences”

Slide 27: NEPA Assignment Audit Results

Audit Report

  • Eleven Observations (mostly positive)
  • Three successful practices
    • Dedicated legal counsel as part of environmental team
    • Pre-qualified consultants for environmental work
      • Required to take same training as ODOT environmental staff to be prequalified
    • Required, on-going training of all environmental staff and consultants

Image: a graphic of a magnifying glass and the words “Don’t Fear the Audit”

Slide 28: Lessons Learned
  • Good team is important
  • Dedicate time
  • Push FHWA
    • Bi-Weekly Conference Calls with detailed agenda to keep everyone on task
    • Elevate issues quickly and push for resolution
  • Proactive outreach
    • Executive Management
    • Districts
    • Partner Agencies
    • Environmental Groups
    • Contractors
    • Locals
    • ACEC
    • Etc.

Images: Two drawings: a figure pushing a large rock up an incline and a city skyline with the words “Taking it to the Streets”

Slide 29: Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT

March 2017

Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services

Tim Hill, Administrator
(614) 644-0377

Jacque Annarino, NEPA Assignment Coordinator
(614) 466-1484

Image: the Ohio Department of Transportation logo

↑ Return to top


Slide 30: Questions?

Please remember to type in your questions to the question prompt.
Thank you for participating!

Image: a photo of a curved country road in autumn

Slide 31: Presenter Contacts

Kate Kurgan, AASHTO

David Williams, FHWA

Denise McClafferty, Maricopa Association of Governments

Jacque Annarino, Ohio DOT

↑ Return to top