Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects (2012)

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.

1The main objectives of this study were to identify, describe, and evaluate effective tools and tech- niques for expediting the delivery of transportation projects and to present that information so that it is accessible and useful to practitioners and decision makers. In addition to this report, key findings will also be available on the Transportation for Communities website (1). That site will provide tools and information that can be used to understand and implement specific strategies for expediting project delivery. The literature review indicated that the transportation sector dominates the pool of existing studies and information related to evaluating project delay and promoting expedited project delivery. The reasons for this are probably twofold: first, completing the environmental impact statement (EIS) process—a task that consumes a substantial share of the overall schedule to deliver large, federalized projects—consistently takes longer for transpor- tation projects than for any other sector (2); second, starting in the late 1990s, federal legislation, executive orders, and policies directed the transportation sector to improve the speed of project delivery. The last three federal transportation authorization bills have included language aimed at reducing project delay. Most recently, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) launched the Every Day Counts initiative, which is “designed to identify and deploy innovation aimed at shortening project delivery” (3). Projects can be either delayed or expedited in every phase of delivery. This study was specifi- cally directed to evaluate the earlier phases of delivery that lead up to final design and construc- tion. Nearly all of the strategies described here are implemented during the planning, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), or permitting phases. There are two important points to make in regard to the timing of the strategies. The benefits of many strategies are not always realized in the phases in which they are implemented; sometimes the expediting benefits do not accrue until later phases of project delivery. For example, making up-front commitments to environmental enhancement during the planning phase of a project will not necessarily expedite planning, but such commitments are likely to expedite subsequent phases such as NEPA compli- ance, permitting and design, and possibly even construction. The other important point is that although programmatic instruments such as programmatic permits or regional analysis frame- works can expedite project delivery, they typically need to be developed before the project begins. This research began with reviewing existing studies, award programs, agency databases, and other information relevant to delay and streamlining. The purpose was to begin identifying areas in which the existing literature was relatively thorough and areas in which it was limited and to begin identifying potential projects that could provide examples of successful expediting strate- gies. Research then continued with interviews of members of the teams who had implemented the identified projects and/or with stakeholders familiar with the project. The strategies were then evaluated based on the constraints they address, the effect they have on project schedules, general cost considerations for implementing the strategies, any risks the strategies might introduce, other benefits of the strategies, and considerations for applying or transferring these strategies to other Executive Summary

2projects. This report includes case study descriptions for many of the projects from which the strategies have been drawn. However, if the projects are already adequately described in other documentation or web sites, this report generally refers to those sources rather than repeating lengthy case study descriptions. This report presents research methods and findings (Chapter 1), common types of expediting constraints (Chapter 2), specific strategies that can address these constraints (Chapter 3), and case studies that provide further illustration of how these constraints have been encountered and successfully addressed (Chapter 4). The report conclusion (Chapter 5) considers the results of the study and recommends areas for additional research. The documentation in this report that is likely to be most immediately useful to practitioners includes • Constraints and strategy analysis (Chapter 2): Constraints to expediting are described and linked to the strategies that address them. The discussion and presentation of constraints provide diag- nostic information that allows a practitioner to identify both leading and lagging indicators for each of the listed constraints and potential strategies to eliminate or reduce delay. • Expediting strategies (Chapter 3): Each strategy outlines key information, including the project development phase(s) in which the strategy is applied; the decision points it helps to inform or expedite (many strategies address multiple decisions); the particular constraints or causes of delay the strategy addresses; a description of the strategy; examples of specific successful appli- cations of the strategy (including references and links to more information, if available); an evaluation of the strategy’s implications for schedule, cost, risks, benefits, and transferability; notes about applying the strategy; and lessons learned from previous applications. The lists of constraints and strategies in this report are not exhaustive. The strategies included are those that met the criteria described in Chapter 1 and that could be completed within the time restrictions of the study. The research team began drafting a list of fundamental expediting themes during the initial phase of the research and refined this list as the research progressed. The six final expediting themes, with expediting strategies organized by theme, are introduced in the following sections. Improve Public Involvement and Support Building and maintaining public support can be one of the most crucial yet challenging keys to expediting project delivery. Significant controversy and opposition commonly delay project delivery. Some of the evaluated strategies that can be applied to public communication and involvement in order to expedite project delivery include • Conducting highly responsive public outreach that addresses more than the narrowly defined transportation objective to improve public interest and engagement; • Employing principles of context-sensitive solutions to better understand and address com- munity values; • Hiring a media relations manager to more effectively engage and communicate with media outlets; and • Providing up-front commitments to ensure a net benefit to affected resources that are impor- tant to stakeholders. Improve Resource Agency Involvement and Collaboration Fostering trust and constructive engagement with resource agencies can minimize or avoid a variety of factors that delay project delivery. Some strategies include • Using performance measures in permits to provide assurance to resource agencies (this can minimize protracted analysis and debate over impacts and mitigation); • Using concurrent, rather than sequential, review of documents and permits;

3• Developing programmatic permits and approvals to streamline permitting for individual projects; • Developing and using an interagency dispute-resolution process; • Funding dedicated transportation liaison positions to ensure resource agencies can dedicate staff to collaborate during project development; • Using a facilitator to more clearly align expectations up front; • Being particularly engaged with and responsive to resource agency issues; and • Providing up-front environmental commitments to proactively address resource concerns. Demonstrate Real Commitment to the Project Financial, political, staffing, and other commitments are needed for a project to succeed. A high- profile demonstration, including a commitment to do what is necessary to expedite delivery, can be a major factor in overcoming challenges and achieving success. Strategies include • Securing early commitment to construction funding to create momentum, engaging stake- holders, and demonstrating that the project is a high priority; • Making early commitments to environmental or community enhancements that go beyond basic regulatory requirements; and • Empowering a high-profile, project-level decision council with direct access to agency execu- tives and elected officials. Improve Internal Communication and Coordination Cumbersome communication within project teams or unclear protocols and responsibilities are commonly cited constraints that are typically within the direct control of the transportation agency. Some of the expediting strategies evaluated to improve internal communication and coordination include • Establishing protocols and time frames to expedite internal review and decision making (see the next section on streamlining decision making); • Conducting a readiness assessment with strategic oversight to ensure the project has the resources needed; • Co-locating project teams; and • Reviewing documents and permits concurrently rather than sequentially. Streamline Decision Making Projects cannot start or progress without numerous, periodic decisions, both large and small. Decisions are often needed within specific time frames to avoid delay, but if made hastily deci- sions can create more time loss when they must be revisited. Strategies include • Developing and implementing a process to expedite internal decision making by assigning clear roles, responsibilities, and time frames for decisions; • Developing a consolidated decision council of senior agency staff with authority to make most decisions and with ready access to agency executives; and • Developing a dispute-resolution process to avoid protracted or stalled debate. Integrate Across All Phases of Project Delivery Every phase of project delivery involves analysis, findings, documentation, and decisions that allow a project to progress. As projects advance from one major phase to the next (e.g., from planning to NEPA, NEPA to final design, and final design to construction), the responsibility for implementing project delivery typically transitions from one group or division to another. These transitions pose risks that previous work and decisions will be reopened or redone either because

4 5 Table ES.1. Expediting Strategies by Phase of Project Delivery Issues Arising Late Cause Project Change Stakeholder Controversy and Opposition Unusually Large Scale of and/or Complex Project or Program Relocation Process Delays Construction Ineffective Internal Communication Insufficient Public Engagement or Support Negative or Critical Coverage from the Media Inefficient Section 106 Consultation with SHPO Conflicting Resource Values Lengthy Review/ Revision Cycles Slow Decision Making Inability to Maintain Agreement Difficulty Agreeing on Impacts and Mitigation Inordinate Focus on Single Issue Avoiding Policy Decisions through Analysis Lack of Dedicated Staff Change-control practices c Consolidated decision council c c c c c Context-sensitive design c c c Coordinated and responsive agency involvement c c Dispute-resolution process c c c c c c DOT-funded resource agency liaisons c c c Early commitment of construction funding c c c c Expedited internal review and decision making c c c c Facilitation to align expectations up front c c c c c c Highly responsive public outreach c c c c c c Incentive payments to expedite relocations c Media relations manager c c c c c Performance standards c c Planning and environmental linkages c c c c c c c Planning-level environmental screening criteria c c c c c c c Programmatic agreement for Section 106 c Programmatic permits c c c c c c Real-time collaborative interagency reviews c c c c c Regional environmental analysis framework c c c c c c Risk management c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Strategic oversight and readiness assessment c c c c c Team co-location c c c c Tiered NEPA process c c Up-front environmental commitments c c c c Note: SHPO = state historic preservation office; DOT = department of transportation.

6the previous work may not adequately support or reflect the needs of the subsequent phase, or because the previous work may not be understood by those implementing the subsequent phase. It is important to integrate the considerations, findings, decisions, and documentation across phases (in both directions) in order to minimize repeating work and reopening decisions. Man- aging these tasks to expedite project delivery involves ensuring that expectations are well aligned, data and analysis are transferable across phases, and analysis is well coordinated and focused on informing decisions. Strategies include • Leveraging analysis and decisions from planning phases during the NEPA process; • Employing environmental criteria during planning to better support subsequent project development; • Using a tiered NEPA structure to ensure that corridor planning-level work is reliable for sub- sequent project-level analysis; • Using facilitated meetings with resource agencies and stakeholders to align expectations up front; and • Using change-control practices to manage and reduce unnecessary project changes. Expediting Strategies by Project Phases Table ES.1 ties the strategies described in this report to specific phases of project delivery and issues that may be encountered during the project. As noted above and elsewhere in this report, some strategies expedite the phases in which they are applied, while others help to expedite sub- sequent phases. The table indicates when to apply each strategy. The particular benefits of each strategy, including the timing of those benefits, are discussed in Chapter 3. While this study focuses on describing expediting strategies that can be implemented during the planning, NEPA, and permitting phases of project delivery, some of these strategies can also be applied during construction, as indicated in Table ES.1. References 1. Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects Through Partnerships. Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. www.transportationforcommunities.com. Accessed Feb. 27, 2012. 2. deWitt, P., and C. deWitt. How Long Does It Take to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. Envi- ronmental Practice: Journal of the National Association of Environmental Professionals, Vol. 10, 2008, pp. 164–174. 3. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Every Day Counts. www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts. Accessed Oct. 28, 2011.