Practices and Performance Measures for Local Public Agency Federally Funded Highway Projects (2013)

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.

14 CHAPTER TWO PRACTICES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES USED BY DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION (commonly called the Uniform Act). Guidance for ROW matters is contained in Real Estate Acquisition Guide for Local Public Agencies (FHWA 2011). Matters pertaining to the complexity of federal-aid proj- ect contracts are an area of common inquiry. Understanding federal-aid contract provisions, administrative procedures, and applicable policies related to federal-aid design and construction contracts is vital to ensuring LPA project com- pliance. The Contract Administration Core Curriculum Participant’s Manual and Reference Guide (FHWA 2006) is formatted like a training course student manual and also serves as a reference guide. In 2012, FHWA introduced an online library of informa- tional videos and related materials specifically designed for LPAs. This new resource, which highlights key components of the FHWA program, is called “Federal-aid Essentials for Local Public Agencies.” Summary of Federal-aid Programs Applied to Local Agency Sponsors Local governments and other transportation or community organizations have a number of available federal-aid pro- grams. Potential project sponsors apply through an MPO, Regional Planning Agency, or the state DOT for federal funds to implement a project. Projects are funded through the DOT, which administers the funds on behalf of the fed- eral government. Many states have also issued their own sup- plemental guidance. Table 3 lists the federal-aid programs identified as part of this synthesis as being most widely used as sponsors for LPA projects. Table 3 also summarizes and describes each federal-aid program and pertinent informa- tion collected from the DOT survey. Figure 3 provides a graphical display of all DOT responses on the types of projects that take the longest to complete. The DOTs rated transportation enhancement (54%) and highway bridge (38%) projects as taking the longest to complete. Bike path projects were also identified as challenging to complete on schedule. For example, in California, bridge projects were reported to present the most risk and take longer to complete owing to the complicated environmental issues. Addition- ally, there are often archaeological sites on the riverbanks, hazardous materials in the water from the bridge, and bio- INTRODUCTION This chapter provides an overview of practices used by DOTs to enhance development and implementation of feder- ally funded LPA projects. It discusses the federal regulations and federal-aid programs that pertain to the LPA program. In addition, a definition of performance measures in the context of transportation project is provided, along with a description of metrics used by the transportation commu- nity. This was accomplished through a review of the litera- ture, DOT survey responses, and insights from interviews with a number of DOTs to present examples of the effec- tive practices and performance measures being used by state transportation agencies and other agencies involved in the LPA program. The survey of state DOTs, including the Dis- trict of Columbia and Puerto Rico, yielded a 92% response rate. Appendix A contains the DOT survey questions and the entire survey response set. Summary of Federal Regulations/Guidance Related to Local Public Agency Program Administration FHWA’s guide to many of the particulars regarding a basic understanding of federal-aid programs, regulations, or other program characteristics is titled “A Guide to Federal-aid Programs and Projects” (2011). This guide is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects.cfm and can be downloaded in PDF format. Another federal regulation concerns developing LPA projects in accordance with NEPA. Compliance with NEPA is a vital milestone in the determination and approval of project eligibility, development, and funding, and it can help guide LPA project planning, alternative selection, and design parameters. The guidance document commonly referred to as the “Environmental Review Toolkit” (FHWA 2012) pro- vides information and resources pertaining to topics on the environment and transportation. An additional common LPA inquiry pertains to local public agencies and others that receive federal-aid highway funds for projects involving the acquisition of real property. The primary law for acquisition and relocation activities on federal or federally assisted projects and programs is Pub- lic Law 91-646, The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended

15 TABLE 3 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL-AID PROGRAMS AND PROJECT TYPES AND RELATED DOT SURVEY RESPONSES Federal-aid Program Program Description and Details Percentage of Local Match Required1 Percentage of DOTs That Distribute Funds to LPAs Through This Program2 Rated as Being the Longest to Complete2 Rated as Most Risk of Not Being Completed Within Budget2 Surface Transporta- tion Program (STP) Flexible funding for use by states, cities, and municipalities on any federal-aid highway 20% 95% 27% 38% STP Transportation Enhancements Activities Projects that relate to surface transportation and aim to improve the transportation experience for users of various types of transportation (pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and safety, scenic and historic highways, landscaping, historic preserva- tion, and environmental mitigation) 20% 51% 3% 5% Road Improvement Projects (STP) Road projects for widening and overlays Typically fall under the STP category. These proj- ects are not funding categories but project types 20% 84% 24% 8% Recreational Trails (RTP) Funds to develop and maintain recreational trails for both motorized and nonmotorized trail uses 20% 97% 54% 49% National Scenic Byways Program Funds projects on specific roads identified as scenic byways 20% 89% 14% 27% Safety (HSIP, HRRR, SRTS) Projects that reduce the occurrence and potential for fatalities and serious injuries from crashes on all public roads 10%3 8% 3% 5% Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Project (NTPP) Provided $25 million to four communities and endeavors to demonstrate that the number of peo- ple who walk and bike will increase if walking and bicycling networks are improved 0% 89% 27% 19% Congestion Mitiga- tion and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) Federal funding for transportation projects to improve air quality and reduce traffic congestion in counties classified as air quality nonattainment and mainte- nance areas for the federal criteria pollutant ozone 20% 73% 16% 22% Highway Bridge Projects (HBP) Replacement or rehabilitation of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges on public roads 20% 87% 38% 38% Accessibility Projects for sidewalks, curbs, ADA ramps. May fall under the STP or Safety category. Varies 70% 3% 14% Other Projects specifically designated by Congress, High Priority, TCSP, ARC, TIGER, etc. Various 41% 16% 22% 1 Consult state DOT for specific local match requirements. 2 Survey data in these columns requested respondents to “check all that apply”; thus, percentages exceed 100%. 3 Certain Safety Improvement projects are eligible for 100% federal funding under 23 U. S. C. 120(c) (e.g., SRTS). FIGURE 3 Percentage of DOTs that rated that projects in these programs take longest to complete.

16 logical environs. Further complicating these projects are the extended consultation with regulatory agencies, develop- ment of mitigation strategies, and limited time available for construction. A similar trend was observed in terms of the types of projects that present the most risk of not being completed within the planned budget: specifically, highway bridge projects, transportation enhancement activities, and some project types as part of the surface transportation program. Some other attributes of projects for which DOTs reported budget overruns include projects specifically designated by Congress with low estimates, and projects that require rail- road coordination or environmental permits. All of the DOTs have executed some form of stewardship and oversight agreement with their FHWA Division Office to govern and provide guidance on executing federal-aid projects. These agreements can be viewed on FHWA’s web- site: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/stewardship/. PROJECT PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING The following sections highlight various approaches used by states and planning organizations to administer federal funds to local agency project sponsors. Legislation related to the LPA program is discussed, as well as federal-aid pro- grams in which local agencies most frequently participate. Of the 46 DOTs that responded to the survey, 36 have a formalized LPA program. In the context of the survey, a formalized LPA program consists of a documented system of policies, procedures, and criteria. The majority of DOTs have more than 100 local agencies that are engaging in the LPA program activities. For example, Iowa has 99 counties and 947 cities; however, between 200 and 500 agencies may have active federal-aid projects at any given time. In some states, other entities such as tribes, ports, schools, natural resources districts, and nonprofit organizations are also par- ticipating in federally funded projects. Approximately 74% of DOTs indicated that large local agencies have had the most success in developing and executing federal-aid projects, while only 10% of DOTs responded that small local agen- cies were successful. There is some variability in what DOTs have established as the basis for eligibility in the LPA pro- grams (see Figure 4). The most common eligibility require- ments are based on the federal-aid funding type, local match availability, and certification of the LPA by the state DOT. Other specific examples include mandatory LPA training completed by prospective project sponsors, past experience with federal-aid projects, and existence and quality of docu- mented policies or processes at the local level that relate to project development and oversight. One DOT requires LPAs to submit a formal request to administer a project, and the DOT District Office then independently evaluates the LPA’s ability to administer federally funded projects. A number of DOTs evaluate the LPA staff levels and qualifications, and access to prequalified consultants. FIGURE 4 Examples of the basis for LPA eligibility in DOT-sponsored LPA programs.

17 ensure federal-aid eligibility. Details on these examples can be found in Appendix D. Funding Techniques DOTs were asked to provide information on the types of inno- vative alternative funding techniques that have been imple- mented in the LPA program. In most cases, for the states that addressed funding allocation techniques, their choice of tech- nique depended on the type of project. For example, Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) will exert the maximum flexibility if an LPA project is able to tie into safety improvements, which streamlines delivery by enabling two or more projects to move concurrently as one project (e.g., con- necting a new trail connects into existing infrastructure such as a pedestrian crossing on a main street, or tying pedestrian mobility into an existing trail). Figure 6 presents the details of all the DOT responses. The innovative funding allocation is done primarily at the state DOT level; however, four DOTs indicated that this function was carried out by either the MPO or RPO. More than 89% of DOTs have a written LPA manual that is used to guide local agencies through the various facets of the LPA program. Many DOTs have made their LPA manu- als available online; web links to each manual are provided in Appendix C. In 50% of the DOTs, the LPA manual is rou- tinely updated every 1 to 3 years. Training is included as part of more than 55% of the DOT LPA programs, either available upon request or routinely held. Figure 5 presents the types of information included as part of DOT training courses related to the LPA process. The majority of DOTs include training related to program (both state and federal-aid) and eligibility requirements, the reim- bursement process, and quality assurance. Other examples of DOT training include peer-to-peer lessons-learned meetings among LPAs, bridge inspection certification, pavement con- dition rating, ROW acquisition, civil rights, and construc- tion oversight. Nebraska Department of Roads (DOR) has online videotaped training sessions on topics related to the LPA program. Michigan DOT has posted a “How to Develop a Federal-aid Project” guideline on its website that includes a detailed step-by-step process for project development to FIGURE 5 Examples of topics related to the LPA process included in DOT training courses.

18 Colorado The Colorado DOT website offers detailed meeting minutes from its Local Agency Reevaluation Task Force Meeting. The 2010 meeting minutes provided more information on the fund- swapping program and findings on how the same type of pro- gram is used in other states, such as California, Oregon, and Utah. The task force discussed potential efficiency of fund swaps used on smaller projects. Discussions emphasized the impor- tance of basing the fund swap decisions on risk levels rather than a project dollar amount (“Local Agency Reevaluation Task Force Meeting Minutes” September and October 2010). Colo- rado DOT Region 2 was mentioned as considering the launch of an off-system (not on the state highway or national highway system) project as a pilot study for the fund swap practice. DOTs were asked to rate whether federal regulation should require a formalized certification program for LPAs, based on their experience. Thirty-eight percent of states supported requiring the establishment of a state-sponsored LPA certification program. Kansas Kansas DOT presented information on a federal funds exchange program for fiscal management of LPA projects Some DOTs shared some specific examples of innovative funding techniques, captured in Table 4. Many of the exam- ples had an aspect of state-level legislation, which allowed for fund matching or swapping. TABLE 4 EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE DOT PRACTICES FOR FUND ALLOCATION Effective Practice Details States State Aid Funding Funded through the New Jersey Transportation Trust Fund Act New Jersey Project Milestones Funds obligated based on proj- ect milestones or phase Tennessee Funding Match Soft match, flexible match, overmatch New Mexico, Utah Fund Swapping/ Exchange State for federal dollars; federal funds exchange between LPAs with funded projects; small fed- eral for state funding swap California, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon Needs Assessment Funds allocated based on needs of entire federal-aid transporta- tion system conditions, usage, and extent New York Funding Formula State has developed separate funding formulas for STP and HBP programs for jurisdictions with less than 50,000 population Nebraska FIGURE 6 Summary of the funding allocation techniques implemented for LPA programs.

19 at the NACE annual conference meeting in April 2012. The program is based on the enabling federal legislation in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) and involves a voluntary program in which LPAs can trade their federal obligation authority with Kansas DOT or another local agency in exchange for state (or local) funds. The state funds are compensated on a reimbursement basis as the LPAs incur costs. Kansas DOT reported that some of the benefits observed from the federal funds exchange program include reduced project costs, minimized time for meeting federal-aid project requirements, and increased flexibility in the selection of projects. The federal funds available for exchange include STP and Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funds allocated to counties and small urban local agencies. A general list of the types of projects that are acceptable for receiving a fund exchange includes safety improvements; pavement preserva- tion; trails; accessibility upgrades; drainage and stormwa- ter control measures; roadway resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation projects (3R); materials purchase for roads; and bridge-related projects. Additional details on the Kansas DOT program are included in Appendix D. Minnesota Minnesota DOT has a comprehensive website entitled “State Aid for Local Transportation,” http://www.dot.state.mn.us/ stateaid/, and an online LPA manual that outlines in detail the specific requirements for local agencies participating in the program. Oregon Oregon DOT allocates more than $100 million annually to local agency programs. This amount accounts for a third of the projects and a quarter of the STIP funding. The STIP is maintained on a 4-year cycle and lists all of the federal proj- ects scheduled in the state. The STIP coordinates with the MPO TIPs and Regional Transportation Improvement plans to get a complete vision that matches with the Oregon Trans- portation Plan. The Oregon Transportation Plan establishes the goals and vision for the Oregon transportation system for the next 25 years. PROJECT DEVELOPMENT The following sections present aspects of the survey that dealt with practices delineated through the various phases of project development. This section includes information on issues that arise during the design and construction phases, and the use of categorical exclusions. Design Phase The survey requested information on how conflicts between the DOT design requirements and local community’s needs are resolved. Generally, conflicts occur during the design phase, when highway design manual standards conflict with community needs. Often, conflicts result when a project adds capacity, such as through additional ROW, nonstandard lane widths, use of raised medians, and elements related to access control (e.g., signals, crosswalks, bulb-outs, loss of on-street parking). Signal warrants must be met, safety standards must be met or mitigated, ROW must be obtained, stormwater treatment facilities such a detention ponds are not common, utilities must be moved (which can increase costs for the local governments), and construction staging always affects businesses. Any of these concerns can mean delay, redesign, and even political elevation. The decision rests with the state DOT for granting exceptions to design standards (AASHTO 2004). For projects within the ROW of an NHS route, FHWA requires that all exceptions from accepted guidelines and policies be justified and documented, with formal approval for 13 specific controlling criteria. The justification and documentation process, although not required, can be fol- lowed by state DOTs with exemption from FHWA oversight on non-NHS projects. DOTs do not need FHWA approval for a design exception on projects that are on non-NHS routes. Under the Intermodal Surface Transportation and Efficiency Act of 1991, a DOT may request an exemption from FHWA oversight on non-NHS projects. Although 10% of DOTs reported that they do not have any formal alternatives to resolve conflicts, a number of states use various techniques to address this recurring design phase issue. The majority of DOTs (78%) use design exceptions to help resolve conflicts between the DOT design standards and LPA project needs. Seven DOTs use an abbre- viated DOT design standard on LPA projects, and 15 DOTs allow the use of LPA design standards on some LPA projects. Another form of conflict resolution used by nearly 50% of DOTs is to develop context-sensitive solutions by a team of DOT and LPA representatives. In Oregon, conflicts over design guidelines or standards are resolved through the use of design exceptions, LPA design standards on some LPA projects, and context-sensi- tive solutions developed through a team of DOT and LPA representatives. Illinois DOT conducts joint policy meet- ings with LPA associations such as the Illinois Association of County Engineers and Illinois Municipal League. New Mexico DOT will allow supplemental and special provisions within LPA construction contracts to control work and mate- rials standards. Missouri DOT will allow special provisions to overwrite DOT standards where necessary to accommo- date an LPA project. In Tennessee, the LPAs will sometimes pay for upgrades to their design standards as nonparticipat- ing items. Of the states that rated conflicts over design guidelines or standards as affecting LPA project delivery, 45% indi- cated that delays occur in the completion of LPA project

20 reviews. Other impacts included additional funding com- mitments required (42%) and postponement of LPA project milestones (37%). To a lesser extent, design phase conflicts also affect LPA project delivery by expanding the initial project scope (30%) and by requiring the revisiting of NEPA provisions (16%). DOTs reported that some other impacts to project delivery resulting from conflicts during the design phase include project elimination if minimum design guidelines are not met, increased ROW acquisition, reduced LPA project scope, and PS&E not being approved until all federal requirements have been satisfied. In Wash- ington, conflicts during the design phase are usually limited to bicycle or pedestrian projects or to city street projects that are owned by Washington State DOT (WSDOT) and classified as state highways. Another impact identified in the survey was the increase in scope of LPA projects. DOTs have various techniques for limiting scope increases in LPA projects, as shown in Figure 7. The most frequently used technique was requiring a firm funding commitment from the LPA before project award. Another technique often used was frequent coordination with project stakeholders to finalize the project scope early. Some DOTs reported that they do not allow an increase in project scope after final PS&E is completed and approved. DOTs also use a number of project delivery tools to improve communications and involvement in LPA projects. The examples provided by DOTs are shown in Figure 8 and were reported to streamline processes or lead to overall effi- ciencies in LPA project development. The majority of DOTs reported that categorical exclu- sions and programmatic agreements are efficient project delivery tools. In addition, a number of DOTs improved project oversight during construction of LPA projects, tracking of LPA project funding obligations, and continuous monitoring and reporting on LPA project progress. Eleven DOTs reported that the implementation of a statewide LPA certification program was a streamlining practice; details on this item are provided in chapter three. Florida The Florida DOT Specifications and Estimates office, in conjunction with the Local Agency Program coordinator, has generated a number of specification and standard guide- lines for use by local agencies. The original intent for these LPA-specific guidelines was to simplify the requirements and streamline the design process for LPA projects that were on neither the NHS nor the state highway system (designated as “off-system” projects). The guidance has grown from four Florida DOT-generated LPA material specifications in 2006 to a larger set of guidelines. Four examples of these specifi- cation guidelines are presented in Appendix D. One Florida DOT material specification deals with the construction of a hot mix asphalt (HMA) pavement based FIGURE 7 Summary of DOT approaches used to minimize LPA project scope increase.

21 on the type of work specified in the cited construction cat- egories: (1) bike paths and miscellaneous asphalt; (2) new HMA turn lanes, paved shoulders, and other nonmainline pavement locations; and (3) new mainline HMA pavement lanes, milling, and resurfacing. The specification applies to off-system projects and outlines HMA plant, equipment, and construction requirements. There is a similar specifi- cation for construction of concrete, based on the type of work in three categories: (1) the construction of sidewalks, curb and gutter, ditch and slope pavement, or other non- reinforced cast-in-place elements; (2) the construction of precast concrete, including concrete barriers, traffic rail- ing barriers, parapets, sound barriers, inlets, manholes, junction boxes, pipe culverts, storm sewers, box culverts, prestressed concrete poles, concrete bases for light poles, highway sign foundations, retaining wall systems, traffic separators, or other structural precast elements; and (3) the work associated with the placement and/or construction of structural cast-in-place concrete meeting the require- ments of this section. Two other materials-related LPA specifications for off-system projects are the landscaping guidelines and earthwork and related operations. More recently, specification guidelines were created to deal with LPA conduct of design-build projects on the state highway system (designated as “on-system” projects). LPAs receive directions on which sections of the Florida DOT Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction apply for any Local Agency Program design-build on-system proj- ects. For project sponsors, the guidelines clearly state the language that is required to be included directly into the contracting LPA agency specifications for all design-build on-system LPA projects. Iowa In Iowa, conflicts between DOT design requirements and local needs are primarily resolved through the use of design exceptions. Changes to the scope after PS&E approval are not allowed unless additional review is conducted. Changes would be allowed if the original NEPA clearance is still valid, the changes still fit within the project description in the STIP, and the changes would not affect the competitive bidding requirements. Iowa DOT does combine projects in the planning, environment/permitting, and procurement phases, and has witnessed time and dollar savings. Over- all efficiencies have been achieved through the use of CE and programmatic agreements, reprogrammed funds that were not obligated by the deadline set in the joint pro- grammatic agreement, and improved project oversight during construction. FIGURE 8 Summary of efficient project delivery tools reported by DOTs.

22 Louisiana During the April 2012 NACE annual conference meeting (“Streamlining LSRP Project Delivery in Louisiana” 2012), a technical session by the Louisiana LTAP center provided a review of a streamlining method being used for local street and road project (LSRP) delivery. Various reasons were reported for local project delivery delays, including consul- tant contract services and the consultant selection process. The small purchase provision per 23 CFR 172.5(a)(2) was suggested as a possible solution to accelerate project delivery. On March 17, 2012, FHWA–Louisiana Division tentatively approved to implement a 2-year pilot program for applying the “small purchase” approach on LSRP projects, defined as less than $250,000 available under 23 CFR172.5 (a)(2). Thus far, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development has reported reduced time to execute design contracts by reducing the advertisement period through the use of the “small purchase” provision (“Streamlining LSRP Project Delivery in Louisiana” 2012). Construction Phase The survey asked DOTs how they would improve oversight of LPAs during the construction phase. Figure 9 shows many options for DOTs to do so, primarily through the use of con- struction checklists and better contract administration or quality assurance training for oversight staff. In South Carolina, many of the elements listed in Figure 9 are currently in practice. A large number of LPA projects are funded through the TE activities and are not typical of the types of transportation projects with which South Carolina DOT construction staff is familiar. Therefore, South Car- olina DOT also included staff training to address various construction issues and current topics that are effective in oversight improvement. Oregon DOT reported the use of in-depth federal audits or process reviews during the LPA certification start-up phase. In addition, Oregon DOT suggested requiring LPAs to implement their own quality assurance throughout every aspect of project development. In New York, the DOT does not hire consultants to man- agement LPA projects during construction; however, project sponsors routinely hire consultants to design, inspect, and manage the majority of locally administered projects. Colorado Colorado DOT provided information on how it plans to address project delivery issues and to improve its own LPA manual (“Local Agency Reevaluation Task Force Meeting Minutes” September 2010, October 2010, and January 2011). Colorado DOT determined a strategy to improve the overall project development process, which includes establishing a FIGURE 9 Summary of techniques for improved construction oversight of LPA projects.

23 project schedule that encompasses funding and construction schedules, local government decision-making phases, and turnaround and evaluation times; simplifying and clarify- ing existing Colorado DOT forms used in the LPA program; enhancing the Local Agency Manual for user-friendliness; providing better LPA access to training requirements; and reviewing the effectiveness of online resources. Iowa Iowa DOT applies tools in LPA oversight during the construc- tion phase, including less stringent DOT-level materials spec- ifications. Tiered levels of materials specifications are used on some projects, allowing a less stringent state specification to be used in the project requirements. Other Iowa DOT tech- niques include construction checklists and field reviews that result in corrective item lists to LPAs; construction contract administration or quality assurance training for staff; and independent assurance reviews of LPAs during construction, along with a final review after construction is complete. Categorical Exclusions Several DOTs have applied CEs for certain LPA projects, primarily for projects with no change in construction foot- print or with no ROW acquisition required. Eight DOTs apply CEs for safety projects under a certain dollar value. Table 5 includes a number of CE examples provided by DOTs in the survey responses. Iowa In Iowa, projects with no change in construction footprint include nonconstruction projects such as planning, feasibility and corridor studies, research activities, publication develop- ment, technology transfer programs, and on-the-job training TABLE 5 EXAMPLES OF CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS USED BY VARIOUS DOTS State Category Details Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Flor- ida, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Wyoming Safety projects under cer- tain dollar value • Intersection improvements • Existing signal hardware, lighting hardware upgrades • Automatic CE • Cases when dirt is not being moved, such as signing and stripping • Left lane installation Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington, Wyoming Projects with no change in construction footprint • Intersection improvements • Nonconstruction projects such as planning, feasibility, and corridor studies, research activities, development of publications, technology transfer programs, and on-the-job training programs • CE-A, CE-B, and CE-C: Based on past experience with similar actions, these type of projects do not involve significant environmental impacts • Routine highway resurfacing projects, signal projects, and preventative maintenance projects all qualify for this exemption • Under ARRA, several projects were constructed that were essentially pavement replacement. Because of the limited scope and minimal impact outside the pavement area, these were classified as Class II Type A Categorical Exclusions • Sidewalk repair project • No drainage or in a cleared archeological situation Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, Tennessee, Washington Projects with no ROW purchase required • Intersection improvements • Traffic signalization, railroad signals or crossing repairs, landscaping, emergency relief, trail grooming, pavement patching, 3R projects (resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation), 4R projects (resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation, and reconstruction), and rest area repairs • CE-A, CE-B, and CE-C: Based on past experience with similar actions, these type of projects do not involve significant environmental impacts • Sidewalk and other pedestrian-safety improvements • Sidewalk repair project • Restriping bike lanes, landscaping California, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah Others • Any projects that meet criteria under CFR 777.117 • Not necessary as the NEPA Assignment MOUs give full authority and responsibility and supersede previous Programmatic CE agreements • Nonconstruction, noninfrastructure, noninvasive, and noncontroversial projects • Safety projects • Projects with no significant impact

24 policy and procedures guidance, invoicing, and database management are handled by the Caltrans central office, the oversight of program development and execution is decen- tralized to the 12 district offices. Any jurisdiction can qual- ify for federal funds for any transportation project, with no cost limits, performance measures, or performance criteria. Iowa Iowa DOT has a formal LPA program coordinated out of a central office and executed primarily through six district offices. Depending on the type of program, such as the more traditionally used surface transportation and bridge pro- grams, the DOT district offices handle the day-to-day proj- ect planning and design through PS&E development. For smaller programs such as Recreational Trails, Safe Routes to School, and TE activities, the central office takes the prime responsibility for project development. The central office also serves as the advisor on rules and regulations, and over- sees the training program, for LPAs. Iowa DOT generally executes all contract procurements with some exceptions for smaller projects, which can be executed by an LPA. After projects are awarded, the LPA generally will handle the con- struction inspection and payments. One unique program is the designated “farm to market” road system whereby Iowa DOT handles contractor payments authorized by the county engineer through the preparation of voucher payments. Iowa uses project development teams to coordinate the program. All of its 99 counties and 947 cities may receive federal-aid funds, with no prequalification, certification, or other qualification requirements. Potential LPA projects must meet the minimum threshold cost of $50,000. Iowa has more than 200 active projects, with about $120 million being allocated to local government agencies annually. Minnesota Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has a formal LPA program centralized in the state aid office. Seven district offices and one Twin Cities metropolitan office district are involved in its execution. The state’s 87 counties and 151 cities with a population over 5,000 can participate and receive federal funds. The appropriate LPA staff, jurisdiction popu- lation, and the previous satisfactory execution of federal-aid projects determine eligibility. MnDOT has not implemented an LPA certification program because the current LPA pro- gram operates efficiently and there appears to be very limited demand for expanded authority from local agencies. Oregon Oregon DOT historically managed the local program with more of a centralized structure, through the Local Govern- ment Section (LGS). The LGS was responsible for assisting LPAs with the application process, funding, scoping, and programs. Projects with no ROW purchase required include traffic signalization, railroad signals or crossing repairs, land- scaping, emergency relief, trail grooming, pavement patch- ing, 3R and 4R (restoration, resurfacing, rehabilitation, and reconstruction) projects, and rest area repairs. Projects that change the use rights for a property include protective or hardship property acquisitions; however, such property may not be acquired until the NEPA process is completed. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania DOT has outlined the use of checklists for cate- gorical exclusion evaluation in the post-TIP NEPA Procedures chapter of its design manual. CEs can be completed directly in Pennsylvania DOT’s CE Expert System. This system, which operates through ECMS, is the documentation tool for CEs in Pennsylvania. The information gathered in the screening forms, along with analyses conducted and documented in pre- TIP phases of the process, is the starting point for CE proj- ects in the NEPA process. The pre-TIP information should be transferred and accepted into NEPA unless it is no longer valid, in which case further study is necessary. In addition, Pennsylvania DOT has Section 4(f) checklists that expedite the Section 4(f) clearance and consequently the NEPA approval process. The applicable Section 4(f) check- list is attached to the CE document in the CE Expert System. Pennsylvania DOT reported that these checklists simplify and expedite the CE process because it is no longer neces- sary to write a Section 4(f) evaluation document for each project affecting an eligible Section 4(f) resource, as long as it is not an individual Section 4(f). PROJECT MANAGEMENT A portion of the survey focused on DOT project manage- ment approaches or processes. These include how the DOT is organized to handle the LPA program, if a formal one exists. This section presents agency organization, fiscal management, and project agreements. Organization Structure of the Local Program Offices DOTs provided information about their organizational struc- tures. In 74% of the DOTs, staff from the central and district offices are involved in the administration of the LPA program. Some DOTs are assisted by a separate agency or consultant tasked with managing local projects on behalf of the DOT. The majority (74%) of DOTs use project development teams or task forces specifically to coordinate the LPA program. California The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has a formal LPA program, and while certain activities such as

25 responding to project issues throughout the life of a project in collaboration with the regional staff. Oregon DOT Regional Local Program Units were responsible for delivering the projects, including intergovernmental and contract admin- istration throughout design and construction. This method of management did not have a clear delineation of respon- sibilities for program management and project delivery. Oregon DOT is currently undergoing organization realign- ment to make the five Regional Local Program Units respon- sible for local program project delivery, including scoping, responding to all project-related issues, and meeting project performance measures. Local program policy and program management remains at the central level, with continuous and strong collaboration with the five Regional Techni- cal Centers and Regional Local Program Units to ensure continuity and priority. With more than 100 local agencies participating in the local program and 13 local governments participating in the Oregon DOT Certification Program, the Oregon DOT Local Program is supported by both central and regional leadership, technical, management, and stakeholder teams. These groups include the Local Program Leadership Team, Oregon Local Program Committee, Local Agency Guidelines Review Committee, Local Agency Spec Team, and Local/state Integration Team, a subteam of the Project Delivery Leadership Team. These teams support the local program, policy, and project delivery; collaborate on issues across the agency; and provide an avenue and medium for the local agencies to participate in Oregon DOT policy and process. Other groups include technical leadership teams such as the Environmental Leadership Team, Area Manag- ers Team, and Technical Leadership Team. The Local Program Leadership Team is a subteam of Oregon DOT Project Delivery Leadership Team. The Local Program Leadership Team is composed mostly of Oregon DOT internal staff and includes a representative from Ore- gon Division of FHWA, Oregon’s Association of Counties, and the League of Oregon Cities. It is charged with manag- ing policy and program updates, resolving project issues that have statewide impacts, and developing communication and training across regions and management levels. Recently, the Highway Leadership Team appointed one of its mem- bers, a regional manager, to chair the Local Program Lead- ership Team. This appointment was made to strengthen the ties with Oregon DOT executive management. The Oregon Local Program Committee includes mem- bers who are mostly external staff from LPAs and is chaired by a representative of Oregon’s Association of Counties. Members include Oregon DOT staff and a representative from Oregon Division FHWA. The committee works on statewide local program transportation issues and is the key external committee to the Oregon DOT Local Program. The Local Agency Spec Team is composed of local agencies, Oregon DOT subject matter experts, specifica- tions reviewers, and the certification program manager. The work group is developing local agency general specifi- cations that will enable a streamlined project review using a standard that is LPA friendly. The Local Agency Guidelines Review Committee is responsible for reviewing and revising the Local Agency Guidelines manual. The committee is lead by the Oregon DOT Certification Program Manager and includes repre- sentatives from certified local agencies, FHWA, Oregon Association of Counties, Oregon League of Cities, central and regional Oregon DOT staff, and other subject matter experts. The manual was developed to provide Oregon local agencies, consultants, and DOT staff with guidance when developing and constructing federally funded trans- portation projects. It outlines policies and procedures as well as state and federal requirements that must be fol- lowed to complete and document local project work involv- ing federal funds. The manual is the most comprehensive resource for local agencies and Oregon DOT local program staff, as it covers the federal project delivery process from inception to closeout of construction including thousands of links to resource documents, other Oregon DOT manu- als, process descriptions, flow charts, desk procedures, checklists, and AASHTO and contact information. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania DOT has established a Local Project Delivery Task Force composed of members from the central office, districts, and FHWA division office. The task force has iden- tified a number of design and construction issues related to federally or state-funded LPA projects. Along with other stakeholders from Pennsylvania’s consultant, county, city, MPO, and municipal organizations, the task force developed solutions to these issues. After soliciting stakeholder input, a feasibility study of implementable solutions identified which changes to pursue. One product of this process is the consoli- dation of six different manuals that relate to aspects of LPA projects, with appropriate revisions, anticipated for comple- tion in 2013. Pennsylvania DOT is currently evaluating the recommendations to see which can be accomplished and which should be implemented. Utah Utah DOT has a formal LPA program, which is coordinated out of a central office and is implemented through four regional district offices. Utah has 29 counties and 245 cities and towns, all of which are eligible for federal-aid funding. Utah DOT is responsible for the design and construction of all LPA projects, with the central office handling the procure- ment phase. Each LPA project is assigned a project manager from Utah DOT to oversee the project in the regional offices. Although the Utah DOT Local Government Programs office is responsible for project programming and funding, other

26 offices are responsible for standards and regulations. To be eligible for federal funding, the LPA must be a legally recog- nized town, city, or county. Washington WSDOT has a formal LPA program coordinated out of a cen- tral office (Highways and Local Programs) and implemented through six Regional Local Programs offices. The regional offices are the direct link with local agencies and partners such as tribal governments, ports, and transit authorities. The primary responsibility of the regional offices is to man- age federal and state funds in a manner that allows the agen- cies to be successful in their transportation endeavors. At the same time, WSDOT regional offices assist LPAs in compli- ance with program requirements. Fiscal Management Fiscal management was included as part of the synthesis scope because a large amount of the federal funding allot- ted to a DOT may be passed through to fund local govern- ment projects. The survey identified that in the past fiscal year (FY), only six DOTs allocated less than $2 million of their federal funds to local agencies. Approximately 85% of DOTs allocated more than $2 million to local agencies, with amounts as high as $1.6 billion. Among 32 DOTs, the average amount of federal funding distributed in FY 2011 was $129 million. Some examples of how the funds were distributed have been provided, but in all cases the amount and exact distribution of the funding varies each year. For example, in Illinois, the FY 2011 funds allo- cated to local agencies totaled $342 million and were distributed with $234 million to STP and HBP projects, $13 million to major bridge projects, $14 million to HSIP projects, $6 million to rail safety projects, $52 million to Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Pro- gram (CMAQ) projects, and $22 million to Safe Routes to School projects. In Virginia, almost all of the TE activi- ties funding ($20 million in FY 2011) is allocated to local agencies. Tennessee DOT estimated that approximately $84 million in federal funding was allocated to cities with populations between 5,000 and 200,000 and to four MPOs. In Michigan, the federal-aid funding is split into 75% for state roads and 25% for local roads; in FY 2011, the local share was nearly $250 million. Of the federal-aid funding allocated to local agencies annually, 68% of DOTs estimated that up to 10% is distrib- uted as congressionally directed funds. However, there were two states in which funds specifically designated by Con- gress totaled up to 50%, and up to 75% in a third state, of all federal funds passed through to local agencies. Five DOTs have established a minimum project cost to determine LPA project eligibility for federal funding. Iowa and Oregon DOTs apply a minimum project cost around $50,000, while Connecticut, New Jersey, and Utah DOTs pro- vide federal funds to potential LPA projects with a minimum cost between $100,000 and $300,000. Three DOTs apply a maximum project cost limit to LPA projects to be eligible for federal funding. Ohio and Wyoming DOTs allow federal funds on LPA projects that do not exceed a maximum cost between $300,000 and $1.0 million. In Minnesota, the maxi- mum cost limit varies by area transportation partnership in the state but is typically greater than $1.0 million. Table 6 presents a summary of funding limitations by minimum or maximum project cost amount used to determine eligibility. TABLE 6 SUMMARY OF FUNDING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM PROJECT COST LIMITS USED BY VARIOUS DOTS State Minimum Project Amount Maximum Project Amount Connecticut $100,000–$300,000 Iowa ≤$50,000 Minnesota >$1 million but varies by Area Transportation Partnership New Jersey $100,000–$300,000 Ohio $300,000–$1 million Oregon ≤$50,000 Utah $100,000–$300,000 Wyoming $300,000–$1 million California In 47% of the DOTs, state legislation provides flexibility for innovative approaches to assisting LPAs with guaranteeing the local match required for federally funded projects. For example, Caltrans has authorized a federal-for-state funding exchange the Caltrans and LPAs. Chapter 18 of the Local Assistance Program Guidelines discusses the Regional Sur- face Transportation Program Exchange. Iowa Every county and city in Iowa may receive federal funding, with no prequalification or other eligibility requirements; however, projects must meet the minimum cost threshold of $50,000. The Iowa DOT central office coordinates the proj- ects, while the district offices handle the day-to-day LPA project planning and oversight through the development of the PS&E packages and all contract procurements for the STP and HBP programs. After the contracts are awarded, the LPA handles contract inspections and payments. Nebraska Nebraska DOR has a formal LPA program in which eli- gibility is based on the adequacy of LPA staff, local dol-

27 lar match availability, size and complexity of the project, and LPA qualification. Local agencies were programmed from $60 million to $70 million in federal funds in the past fiscal year. One new funding alternative, the federal Fund Purchase Program, will be an exchange program of federal for state funding. It will be used in the STP and bridge programs to avoid the more cumbersome federal regulatory process and regulations by using local laws and procedures. This swap concept is sometimes referred to as state cash in lieu of federal funding. To participate, local agencies will receive 80% return of state dollars for every federal dollar swapped. Oregon More than $100 million is provided to local projects in Oregon. No limit is placed on project cost to qualify for consideration for federal-aid funding. Local agencies are responsible for matching contributions. Once a federal grant is awarded and an agreement is executed, Oregon DOT local agency liaisons work with the local agency to develop a project schedule and assign anticipated project tasks to the following project phases: • Scoping, • Project Initiation, • Design Acceptance Package, • Final Design Acceptance, • PS&E, • NEPA, • ROW, • Construction Contract Administration, and • Closeout. Oregon DOT is responsible for NEPA clearance, civil rights compliance, ROW certification, funding, and final project acceptance. However, the local agency may be responsible for ensuring federal minimum requirements in other phases. This can lead to conflict, as Oregon DOT and the local agency apply different standards to designs, scop- ing quality, specifications, and contracting. Historically, safety projects and projects involving NEPA reviews have longer timelines and are at a higher risk of fail- ing to be completed within the planned budget. Safety proj- ects are generally smaller projects that involve a variety of local agencies and can require considerable time to coordi- nate, manage, and complete. Additionally, projects specifi- cally designated by Congress can be higher risk because of low initial cost estimates, political ripeness, build-readiness, or feasibility issues. Oregon DOT staff use several methods to reduce the time and risks associated with NEPA reviews, working with local agencies that are geographically located for managing multiple smaller projects. These smaller projects include contract bundling, scoping, and programmatic agreements. Oregon DOT bundles smaller projects in the environmen- tal and permitting phases and during construction inspec- tion, and with the local agencies it bundles smaller projects under a single contract to increase efficiency and capture contractor project delivery economies of scale. Oregon DOT also works to reduce the number of projects that require increases in scope. Scope creep is minimized through firm funding commitments before consideration from sponsors, and early collaboration with stakeholders and intergovern- mental agreements. Oregon DOT maintains and supports programmatic agreements on endangered species, Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species, Bio- logical Assessment, State Historic Preservation Office, the Routine Road Four C Blue Book, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE). CEs are pursued for projects with no change in construction footprint and no significant impact to the environment. Oregon DOT is working with its federal partners to develop a programmatic agreement for FHWA- funded projects. This programmatic agreement is scheduled to be executed in 2012. In the design and PS&E phases, conflicts are resolved through the use of design exceptions, local agency–approved design standards, context-sensitive solutions through a team of DOT and local agency representatives, and collaboration with FHWA. Another common area for conflict is scope creep and project capacity increases that can occur from ROW acqui- sition needs and design issues [standard lane widths, raised medians, access control, signals, crosswalks, curb exten- sions, loss of on-street parking and Americans with Dis- abilities Act (ADA) modifications]. Once a potential conflict is discovered, the local agency, its liaison, and Oregon DOT technical staff work together to find solutions, such as meet- ing signal warrants, mitigating or meeting safety standards, obtaining ROW, moving utilities, staging construction, determining business and citizen impacts, and determining placements of stormwater treatment facilities such as deten- tion ponds. As many of these conflicts can lead to project delays, redesign, and even political elevation, Oregon DOT and the local agency work to recognize and resolve potential conflicts in the project development stage. The Oregon DOT Construction Section is involved in local agency project delivery improvement processes, and Oregon DOT has implemented many tools to improve local program oversight during construction. These tools include preap- proved local agency specifications for materials and testing, template project inspection schedules and responsibilities, published construction manuals, checklists and procedures, and the development of the regional assurance specialist posi- tion, which reviews payment and documentation. Oregon DOT’s Office of Civil Rights also maintains regional field coordinators who are responsible for ensuring that projects comply with federal and state laws, such as equal employ-

28 ment opportunity, on-the-job training, disadvantaged busi- ness enterprise, and labor compliance programs. The Construction Section is also improving its pro- cesses for training, deficiency recognition and follow- up, quality assurance/quality control report templates, and local agency construction projects tracking. Other improvements include striving for consistent quality assur- ance processes for construction and closeout, independent assurance reviews of local agencies, the use of consultants to assist with inspections, development of a specific moni- toring and oversight plan for projects, and the use of fed- eral audits during the contract. Recently, Oregon DOT has shifted to become a more mul- timodal transportation department. One of the key goals for this multimodal movement is to integrate resources, funding sources, and programs to support and seek the best solutions to transportation problems. Once the best solution is deter- mined, the right groups of funding sources are determined, which will lead to a more strategic use of resources and build on the transportation system connectivity as a whole. One recent example of how Oregon DOT is working with the local programs to streamline the funding sources and project development phase is the combination of the appli- cations for State Bike/Pedestrian and the federal TE grant programs. Starting in June 2012, the State Bike/Pedestrian Program and the federal TE program initiated a two-phase combined grant application process. The first phase was a call for proposed projects, for which 170 conceptual proj- ects were submitted. The combined selection committee will choose around 60 of these projects to move forward into the application phase. The second phase of the combined grant application will ensure a higher caliber of projects by allowing a 6-month combined Oregon DOT and local agency scoping phase. Creating an opportunity to scope proposed local projects similar to state projects enables local programs and fund- ing managers to determine feasibility issues, environmen- tal concerns, and constructability complications early in the project development. This will lead to better solutions and funding choices. By combining the grant application pro- cess and funding streams, local agencies were able to apply for larger grants, use one application process and form, and save time and money. The combined application and award process will be used as a test case for Oregon DOT to com- bine funding sources to reach the best multimodal solutions for local transportation needs. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania DOT requires a firm funding commitment on local projects. The funding must be shown in the TIP and an agreement with the LPA must be executed before the funds are considered secured. When the project is federally funded, a request for PS&E approval must be authorized. One way the state legislation provides flexibility for inno- vative ways to guarantee the local match amount for federally funded projects is through the PA 1991 Act 26 legislation, which applies to county-owned bridge projects. The funding split on most federally funded local projects is 80% federal, 15% state, and 5% local. All county-owned covered bridges are eligible for the use of PA 1991 Act 26 funds in lieu of the local match. Other county-owned bridges are eligible for PA 1991 Act 26 funds if the bridge is in a financially distressed county. A financially distressed county is determined based on having a high unemployment rate (updated annually), and the local agencies in these counties do not pay any match. Utah Utah DOT recognizes any legally established local jurisdic- tion (e.g., county, city, town) as eligible to receive federal funds. The primary source of federal aid is through the STP, and Utah DOT did not identify any concerns over the size of the jurisdiction or in setting minimum or maximum costs in programming projects. Utah DOT is responsible for LPA project design and construction through a Utah DOT proj- ect manager. Project managers oversee LPA projects in their regional offices, and Utah DOT central office is responsible for the project programming and procurement phases. Policies and Procedures for Project Delivery The survey results indicated that 60% of DOTs apply a “one- size-fits-all” approach to federal requirements on LPA proj- ects. However, 40% of DOTs make individual distinctions of federal regulations on a project-by-project basis. The DOTs were asked what policies and procedures are instituted to assist with federally funded LPA project delivery. Ninety-five percent of DOTs use federal and state policy and guidance to assist LPAs with project delivery. In more than 40% of the states, guidance for project delivery is also established at the MPO/RPO and local levels. Some examples of the documents used include a quick reference guide for LPAs (Florida and Oregon DOTs and Vermont Agency of Transportation), specific guidance on the ROW process (Massachusetts DOT), and personal assistance from local agency liaisons (Oregon DOT). New Mexico has specific guidance on tribal regulations and their impact on the delivery of federally funded projects. VDOT pro- vides LPAs with guidance on specific requirements applied at the state level. One of the effective project delivery practices highlighted in the NCHRP Synthesis 414 (McCarthy et al. 2011) report was bundling several smaller LPA projects into a single large project. The survey asked DOTs whether they were applying

29 the practice of project bundling and in which phase of project delivery the LPA projects were being combined. For the 43% of DOTs that combine LPA projects, the majority of projects were combined in the construction contracting or inspec- tion phase (40%), environmental phase or during permitting (32%), procurement phase (30%), or the design or utility agreement phase (27%). Six DOTs combine LPA projects in the planning phase through the use of the STIP or TIP. In addition, both the Georgia and New Mexico DOTs have tied together several smaller LPA projects during the ROW acquisition phase. Another state is considering the combi- nation of 10 to 30 bridges in one design-build LPA project under one consultant, and will evaluate this approach in a pilot program focused on the use of design-build consultants for similar LPA projects. Nebraska LPA projects are handled through a centralized local project division office, which has two project coordinators assigned to assist LPAs on each project: one for preletting activities and one in the construction phase. Construction oversight and inspection occurs at one of the eight districts. High-risk projects that take the longest to complete are those with ROW acquisitions and extensive environmental review. Nebraska is evaluating its planning process to identify additional effi- ciencies. Nebraska DOR reported efficiencies in combining or bundling LPA projects, particularly in high-risk rural road and emergency relief projects. Washington Washington State received about $233 million, or 35% of the total state federal program, for its LPA program in the past fiscal year. LPA projects using funds from the National Scenic Byways program and TE activities were reported to take the longest to complete and present the most risk to Washing- ton’s LPA program. WSDOT reported that the lengthy time occurred primarily because LPA project sponsors were not certified agencies and their projects were not properly scoped or estimated. WSDOT does not have authority to require cer- tified LPA agencies to oversee these riskier projects. WSDOT reported using several tools to improve com- munications and streamline processes in improving proj- ect delivery. Performance measures include performing advanced project programming, conducting risk determi- nations, enabling continuous monitoring and reporting, tracking LPA project funding obligations, incorporating the use of CEs and programmatic agreements, and continu- ing the implementation of the certification program. Other performance tools include providing LPAs with automated project expiration dates and live updates from WSDOT tracking systems, hosting periodic meetings with LPAs that have active projects, and incorporating project administra- tion checklists. Programmatic Agreements Several DOTs have generated programmatic agreements for certain LPA projects to assist in project delivery. Figure 10 presents several agreements used to date. Programmatic agreements are most often used in dealing with historic pres- ervation, endangered species, and natural resources issues. Nearly 25% of programmatic agreements are generated to work with permitting agencies such as the USCOE and the U.S. Coast Guard. Some DOTs are using programmatic agreements to assist with the Section 106 process as well as with categorical exclusions and exempt projects. Ohio DOT has a programmatic agreement that allows it to com- plete NEPA documentation for all LPA projects classified as Level 1 categorical exclusions or exempt projects. MnDOT will soon be executing a programmatic agreement that assists with LPA projects that fall under the emergency relief program, and will allow MnDOT to approve lower dollar amount sites. Pennsylvania DOT has generated a bridge and roadway programmatic agreement for assisting with NEPA clearance. Nebraska DOR uses programmatic agreements for several LPA project elements such as bridge inspection, nonconstruction activities, pavement markings, sign instal- lation and replacement, lighting and signal replacements, and at-grade railroad crossing activities. An example of one of the PAs used in Nebraska is included in Appendix D. Florida In Florida, programmatic agreements are used with a num- ber of resource agencies to review all Florida DOT projects, through the Efficient Transportation Decision Making pro- cess, that relate to parks and recreation, water management district, permitting, endangered species and other natural resources, and historic preservation issues. The process applies to all Florida DOT and LPA capacity projects. Iowa Iowa DOT has a programmatic agreement with FHWA Iowa Division that streamlines the process for determining which projects may be classified and cleared as a CE. Some proj- ects have been determined to have no potential for signifi- cant environmental impacts, and therefore Iowa DOT can classify them as CEs without individual review by FHWA Iowa Division. These projects are grouped into three catego- ries: (1) nonconstruction projects; (2) construction projects within existing ROW; and (3) projects that change the usage rights for a property. Projects that do not fall into one of these categories may still be classified as CEs if certain other con- ditions are met. These projects are documented by the LPA in a short memo, reviewed by Iowa DOT, and, if acceptable, forwarded to FHWA Iowa Division for review and signature. Iowa DOT has a programmatic agreement with FHWA Iowa Division and the Iowa State Historic Preservation

30 Office for meeting its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This agreement establishes a streamlined process for identifying, evaluat- ing, and documenting whether a project will have an effect on historic properties. This agreement defines certain cat- egories of projects that have no potential to affect historic properties, and therefore require no further review. Michigan Michigan DOT has used programmatic agreements that result in certain projects being exempted from additional review. These projects generally are within the original project footprint, and the work type is primarily roadway resurfacing. Minnesota The local agencies in Minnesota received about $150 mil- lion in allocated funds in the past fiscal year, which amounts to 30% of the overall state’s federal-aid program. MnDOT reported that the use of programmatic agreements and abbre- viated submittal forms has improved the efficiency of its pro- grams. An example of a MnDOT programmatic agreement is included in Appendix D. New Jersey In cooperation with FHWA New Jersey Division and the New Jersey State Historic Preservation Office, New Jersey DOT has established a list of project actions and project types that will result in a “No Effect Finding” to historic resources under Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Projects in the “No Effect Finding” category are pro- cessed without individual project-by-project formal concur- rence by the State Historic Preservation Office and FHWA. Oregon In Oregon, one unique programmatic agreement involves the National Marine Fisheries Service opinion and proce- dures outlined in the Standard Local Operating Procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) program. SLOPES refers to the process and criteria that USCOE uses to guide the administration of activities regulated under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and Section 404 of the Clean FIGURE 10 Summary of programmatic agreements used for LPA project delivery.

31 In addition, Oregon DOT is developing a new program- matic agreement for use on all FHWA-funded projects. This new programmatic agreement is scheduled for publication in 2012. Pennsylvania Pennsylvania DOT has executed two programmatic agree- ments in recent years. The programmatic agreement for bridges and roadways was developed originally for envi- ronmental clearance for most of the bridge, roadway, and noncomplex state projects and has been applied to LPA proj- ects as well because the environmental review process is handled in the same way. The activities addressed as part of the agreement include roadway rehabilitation and pavement preservation activities; bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and preservation; and other noncomplex projects such as intersection improvements, addition of turn lanes, construc- tion or replacement of signage and guiderail/barrier, traffic operations, grade crossings, certain pedestrian and bicycle facilities, fringe parking, and ADA curb cuts. An example of this programmatic agreement is included in Appendix D. A second example of a programmatic agreement used by Pennsylvania DOT includes the Section 106 agreement with FHWA, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for fed- erally funded LPA projects (included in Appendix D). The normalized time and cost savings over the past 2 years as a result of the Section 106 agreement was estimated by the Bureau of Project Delivery and is presented in Table 7. The table shows the schematicized savings per 100 projects; an average savings of $829,000 per project and 4,170 days was calculated. Other examples of DOT programmatic agree- ments provided in the survey responses are shown in Table 8. PERFORMANCE MEASURES The survey identified performance measures that DOTs are currently using, as well as examples of the type of per- formance measures that DOTs recommend be explored to enhance the LPA program. Eighteen DOTs indicated that they apply performance measures when LPAs receive federal-aid funds. Some examples of these performance measures are Water Act of 1972. It also applies to activities carried out by USCOE as a part of civil works programs authorized by Sections 1135, 206, and 536 of the Water Resources Devel- opment Acts of 1986, 1996, and 2000, respectively, in areas occupied by Endangered Species Act–listed salmon and steelhead fish or their designated critical habitats. The proposed action as outlined in National Marine Fish- eries Service Northwest Region 2008 is a revision of SLOPES program that USCOE uses to guide the permitting of mainte- nance and improvement of roads, culverts, bridges, and utility lines. Use of the revised SLOPES helps ensure that USCOE’s regulatory oversight of these actions will continue to meet Endangered Species Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requirements with pro- cedures that are simpler to use, more efficient, and more accountable for all parties. Under the revision to SLOPES IV Roads, Culverts, Bridges and Utility Lines (2008), USCOE is proposing to authorize four categories of actions: • Major hazard response to complete an unplanned, immediate, or short-term repair of a road, culvert, bridge, or utility line; • Stream bank and channel stabilization to ensure that roads, culverts, bridges, and utility lines do not become hazardous as a result of the long-term effects of toe ero- sion, scour, subsurface entrainment, or mass failure; • Maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement to ensure that roads, culverts, and bridges remain safe and reli- able for their intended use without impairing fish passage, to extend their service life, and to withdraw temporary access roads from service in a way that pro- motes watershed restoration when their usefulness has ended; and • Utility line stream crossings to install, maintain, reha- bilitate, or replace pipes or pipelines used to transport gas or liquids, including new or upgraded stormwater outfalls, and cables, lines, or wires used to transmit electricity or communication. Other programmatic agreements commonly used by Oregon DOT include the Routine Road Four C Blue Book, Historic Preservation Issues, and USCOE. All of the pro- grammatic agreements, templates, and examples are avail- able on Oregon DOT’s website. TABLE 7 PENNSYLVANIA DOT SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF SECTION 106 PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENT Effect Finding Number Cost Savings per Project Total Cost Savings Time Savings per Project (days) Total Time Savings (days) Exempt 75 $8,000 $600,000 30 2,250 No Effect 17 $12,000 $204,000 90 1,530 No Adverse Effect 5 $5,000 $25,000 60 300 Adverse Effect 3 $0 $0 30 90 Totals 100 — $829,000 — 4,170

32 included in the following sections. Thirteen DOTs set specific performance metrics for LPA projects and share them with local agencies that receive federal-aid funds. In addition, five of the 13 DOTs provide statewide reports for meeting perfor- mance goals related to LPA project. The links to these reports are provided in Appendix C. Definition of Performance Measurement Performance measurement is the use of statistical evidence to determine progress toward defined organizational objectives. This includes both evidence of actual fact, such as measure- ment of pavement surface smoothness, and measurement of customer perception, such as the results of a customer satis- faction survey. In a service industry such as transportation, the performance measurement process starts by defining the services that the organization promises to provide, includ- ing the quality or level of service (e.g., timeliness, reliability) to be delivered. There are often good opportunities for col- lecting feedback from system users in “real time,” since the transportation service is often “consumed” at the same time it is “produced.” Performance measures provide information to managers about how well that bundle of services is being provided. Performance measures should reflect the satisfac- tion of the transportation service user, in addition to concerns of the system owner or operator (NCHRP 1998). Examples of Performance Measures Several DOTs recommended performance measures that could be used to direct the amount and type of funding to LPA projects. The information is presented in Table 9 and indicates that the definition of performance measures is specific to each state DOT. There appeared to be some confusion among some DOTs in responding to questions on performance measures. Although the survey defined performance measures, some responses did not align with that definition and described various actions the DOT was employing rather than specific performance measures. Figure 11 also presents the performance measures or tools that DOTs use to evaluate project delivery. The majority of DOTs reported using project administrative checklists as the main performance measure tool. However, seven or more DOTs also tracked obligations against programmed projects, hosted monthly or quarterly meetings with LPAs, predeter- mined capacity of LPAs to handle federally funded projects, and applied consistent quality assurance statewide on LPA TABLE 8 EXAMPLES OF PROGRAMMATIC AGREEMENTS USED BY VARIOUS DOTS State Category Details Colorado, Georgia, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington Endangered species and other natural resources • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • SLOPES • In accordance with agreement with FHWA and in compliance with 23 CFR 771 and 36 CFR 800 • MOU and guidance • Agreement with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service related to authority delegation Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, North Carolina, Michigan, Min- nesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin State historic preservation issues • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • In accordance with agreement with FHWA and in compliance with 23 CFR 771 and 36 CFR 800 • Based on historic bridge surveys and inventories • Section 106 Agreement • MOU and guidance • Tribal Historic Preservation Office agreement in place, historic bridge, and State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) process agreement Colorado, Florida Parks and recreation issues • All agreements pre-established at local or state level Colorado, Florida, Minnesota Water management district issues • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • In accordance with agreement with FHWA and in compliance with 23 CFR 771 and 36 CFR 800 Colorado, Minnesota Transit agencies • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • In accordance with agreement with FHWA and in compliance with 23 CFR 771 and 36 CFR 800 Colorado, Illinois, Florida, Minnesota, Utah Corps of Engineers, Coast Guard, etc. • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • Regional and nationwide permits; water quality California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington Other • Section 4(f) checklist, bridge and roadway programmatic agreement (for NEPA clearance) • All agreements pre-established at local or state level • Programmatic CE approval

33 ture bonds and ARRA projects either quarterly or monthly. This information is used to track delivery and when neces- sary request approval of cost, scope, and schedule changes. Caltrans reported that as a result of the success of projects completed under these programs, it is exploring an expan- sion of performance reporting to all future projects. Utah DOT uses project managers on all LPA projects, who are project design. For example, Maine DOT has implemented documentation to be used for rating and evaluating LPA perfor- mance in the project development stages to ascertain an LPA’s capability to administer future projects (see Appendix D). In California, LPAs are required to report project delivery information on projects funded by Proposition 1B infrastruc- TABLE 9 PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR DIRECTING AMOUNT AND TYPE OF FEDERAL FUNDING TO LPA PROJECTS Category Performance Measures State Time and Budgetary Measures Percentage of projects delivered on-time and within budget Pennsylvania On-time delivery within budget estimates Virginia Delivery Milestones Based on Project Phase NEPA, ROW, plan file, sale, and construction completion date Ohio Overall program delivery; compliance with federal requirements; billing activity and number of inactive agreements; project close-out New Jersey Financial, schedule, and planning requirements Wisconsin LPA Performance History Project complexity and LPA experience with projects of similar scope and magnitude. LPA financial history and current standing South Carolina Review LPA staffing levels and history in delivering past locally administered projects in making determina- tions for project awards Maine Ensure that the LPA has enough staff and knowledge/ability to administer a federally funded transportation project. Review previous LPA project history Kentucky Past performance history and size of an LPA Georgia Financial Activity Ratio of expended federal funds to funds allocated to capture whether an LPA is expending project funds in a timely manner Missouri Automated updates to LPAs from DOT financial tracking system on the remaining obligation authority. Provide LPAs with reports on project bid savings. Monitor project delivery by tracking obligations against programmed projects Michigan FIGURE 11 Summary of performance measures used by DOTs for evaluating project execution and delivery.

34 aided by several management systems, including the elec- tronic project management system. Arizona Arizona DOT presents several performance measures applied specifically to the federal-aid highway program at different project stages and for different project scopes in “The FHWA and ADOT Stewardship and Oversight Agreement” (2010). Two performance measures that relate specifically to LPA projects are an annual review regarding the number of Arizona DOT LPA reviews completed in each of the program areas and the percentage of certification acceptance agreements that have been updated compared with their establishment dates. Nebraska Performance measures used by Nebraska DOR include (1) managing delivery by tracking obligations against pro- grammed projects, (2) use of project administration check- lists, and (3) consistent quality assurance process incorporated statewide for LPA projects. One key area that Nebraska DOR reports on relates to the planning and quality management groups, using both FHWA Nebraska Division and internal audits to review project performance and delivery. Nebraska DOR project coordinators provide oversight in the environ- mental and ROW phases. A systemwide project tracking system is in place to review all projects and their schedules. Nebraska DOR reported that six programmatic agreements exist in several areas and have improved the efficiency of the program. The programmatic agreements create an exception to the requirements necessary to complete a NEPA determi- nation form. An example is provided in Appendix D. Oregon Oregon DOT instituted project and funding performance measures to track and monitor project progress and federal funding obligations. To track projects over time, Oregon DOT manages a Quarterly Business Review report that includes metrics for local program project delivery. The following analysis provided by the Oregon Local Program Leadership Team and FHWA partners is detailed in Appendix D: • Funds obligated for each local program vs. allocation. Target: 100%. • Percentage of projects on time for PS&E acceptance (statewide and regional). Target: 80%. • Percentage of projects on time for Notice to Proceed (statewide and regional). Target: 80%. • Percentage of projects completed on time (statewide and regional). Target: 80%. • Percentage of construction engineering (statewide and regional). Target: 15%. • Percentage of preliminary engineering (statewide and regional). Target: 15%. • Percentage projects awarded within the engineer’s esti- mate (statewide and regional). Target: 50%. • On budget: Percentage of original construction author- ity spent (statewide and regional). Target: 100%. Currently, the Quarterly Business Review does not track certified agency projects; these are tracked independently in the certified local agency tracking database developed in 2009. Oregon DOT is working on combining these two tracking systems to streamline the reporting duties and enable direct comparisons between certified and noncertified local projects. In addition to these tracking systems, Oregon DOT regional local program staff, local agencies, and Oregon DOT management, including the certification program manager, meet monthly or quarterly. These meetings are designed to maintain working relationships, provide proj- ect status updates and reviews, provide project and program quality control and assurance, establish local program train- ing needs, and develop local agency staff qualifications. Tools used to monitor and evaluate local agency project development and delivery include the following: • Certified and noncertified local agency checklists; • Local program desk procedures; • Quality assurance/quality control documents; • Intergovernmental and interagency agreements; and • Oregon DOT manuals and publications. Oregon DOT credits the certification program with helping to elevate the level of communication and partnership between Oregon DOT staff and certifying local agency staff. Recently, Oregon DOT regional staff was able to review and approve a number of certified agency projects within 1 day. As the certification program requires local agencies to perform pro- cess improvements, many of the certified local agencies are meeting or exceeding Oregon DOT performance metrics in design, procurement, and construction management phases. According to Oregon DOT’s local program working princi- ples, key elements for a successful local program include reg- ular training, policy and regulatory updates on guidance, and collaborative reviews. For example, the Oregon DOT regional local program unit defined performance measures and goals in terms of on-time delivery, award amounts, and budget. On- time delivery is meeting the 13-month lock-in dates agreed upon with the local agency and includes at least 80% of proj- ects on time for PS&E, construction, and Notice to Proceed. The performance target for award amounts is at least 50% of projects awarded within 10% of the engineer’s estimate. The budget performance measure is based on the mean average percentage of total budgets spent for preliminary engineer- ing and construction engineering (no more than 15% of total project budget spent on each of the two phases) for LPA proj- ects in two of the Oregon DOT geographic regions (Regions 1 and 2), and the Bridge Delivery Unit performance measures and goals.