Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
70 completed work description, acreage of impacted wetland, and as-built drawings.956 By adopting these procedures, the responsible party consents to the Corpsâ determination about the necessity of an after-the-fact permit.957 C. Miscellaneous Considerations During the course of this research, many experts raised the issue of how best to define suc- cessful emergency response.958 Specifically, some suggested that success in environmental compli- ance should optimally include sustainability and resiliency, concepts that are gaining wider na- tional attention.959 Experts question whether suc- cess means more than simply not running afoul of statutes, and should include attaining greater goals as intended by legislation on a larger scale. In fact, FHWA states that resiliency should be considered when undertaking repairs.960 In some instances, there is the potential that a rapid, en- vironmentally-compliant solution may not be the best sustainable and most resilient solution. One example of this phenomenon includes the restric- tion of a project to preexisting right-of-way and design in order to utilize NEPA categorical exclu- sion, while an expansion of the project could have resulted in a more durable and resilient solu- tion.961 However, there is the potential for an ex- panded scope to lead to significant delays from a much higher level of environmental analysis. For example, the 2004 Indian River Drive emergency repair in Florida was delayed an additional five years due to the desire to make permanent re- pairs, among other factors such as the sensitivity of adjacent resources and citizen opposition.962 In some instances, there are alternatives that are more sustainable and are equally as environmen- tally compliant as other solutions, an example being the use of low-cost alternatives to rip-rap to counter erosion.963 The Hurricane Ivan/I-10 bridge case study il- lustrated an approach that took into account both short term expediency and long term sustainabil- ity. FDOT had limited the recovery project scope by not expanding capacities on the bridge ap- 956 Id. 957 Id. 958 Vaughn, supra note 754; Weaver, supra note 444; Moody, supra note 780. 959 Vaughn, supra note 754; Moody, supra note 780. 960 Fed. Highway Admin., supra note 248, at 2-3. 961 Moody, supra note 780. 962 Kendall & DeTizio, supra note 484, at 5. 963 Eberlein, supra note 793. proaches.964 This reduced scope enabled the envi- ronmental process to proceed quickly. At the same time, FDOT expanded the width of the bridge it- self to accommodate a future expansion of the ap- proach spans.965 This dual approach may not al- ways be possible, since lane additions on a bridge or road could necessitate a large footprint, with the resulting necessity of greater environmental review. Despite the importance of sustainability and resiliency, the scope of this research digest fo- cused on compliance with existing environmental laws and expediting recovery. The reader is re- ferred to other resources for best practices in adopting sustainable solutions for emergency re- covery. For example, tools such as INVEST,966 Greenroads,967 and Envision968 can help agencies include sustainability in their recovery projects. V. CONCLUSION Transportation agencies are entrusted with the vital task of managing and operating public transportation facilities such as roads, bridges, and transit. The notion that transportation is a derived demand is highlighted during emergen- cies, since mobility is a necessity that allows other parties, such as first responders, grocery stores, fuel suppliers, and police to meet public health and safety needs. The identification of successful procedures and case studies for emergency envi- ronmental compliance helps to ensure that emer- gency transportation needs are met without com- promising environmental safeguards put in place by various laws. This legal digest contained a systematic review of best practices for emergency environmental compliance through indepth analysis of applicable statutes and regulations, the examination of agency procedures, the review of case studies, the summary of a national web survey, and the docu- mentation of proven strategies. The following is a 964 Volpe, supra note 396, at 11. 965 Id. 966 Fed. Highway Admin., INVEST (Infrastructure Voluntary Evaluation Sustainability Tool), available at https://www.sustainablehighways.org (last visited Dec. 31, 2013). 967 S. T. MUENCH ET AL., GREENROADS MANUAL V1.5. (J.L. Anderson, C.D. Weiland, and S.T. Muench, eds.) (2011). 968 The Inst. of Sustainable Infrastructure, ISI Envi- sion Sustainable Infrastructure Rating System, http://www.sustainableinfrastructure.org/rating (last visited Dec. 31, 2013).
71 summation of the most frequently used best prac- tices. Pre-disaster: ⢠Strong interagency relationships involving trust at both ground and management levels, and the fostering of such relationships on a regular basis; ⢠Shared staffing between applicant and re- source agencies for developing efficient inter- agency procedures and mutual understanding; ⢠Development and maintenance of critical mass in staffing to provide continuity and consis- tency in knowledge, expertise, and interagency relationships; ⢠Implementation and renewal of memoranda of agreement and programmatic agreements for streamlining emergency compliance; and ⢠Utilization of technology for improving access and accuracy of environmental resources data re- quired for planning and permitting. Post-disaster: ⢠Limiting project scope to prior right-of-way, alignment, and capacity to meet NEPA categorical exclusion classification; ⢠Adopting informal emergency review proce- dures stemming from interagency cooperation; ⢠Employing alternative contracting mecha- nisms such as design-build that provide flexibility for environmental compliance; and ⢠Fully utilizing emergency exemptions, waiv- ers, and alternate procedures. The urgency felt by all parties involved in the emergency recovery process is one motivation for successful environmental compliance in the case of emergencies.969 This reason is not classified as a best practice, since it is a natural companion to emergencies. Some normal causes of project delay are typically absent in emergencies.970 These causes include a lack of funding, local controversy and opposition, and political indifference.971 This urgency also makes the purpose and need of the project clear for the NEPA process.972 The media and other public stakeholders tend to be more ac- commodating in the NEPA public involvement 969 Volpe, supra note 396, at 5. 970 Id. 971 Id. 972 Id. at 7. process, since no one wishes to be viewed as an impediment to emergency recovery.973 973 Id. at 9.
