SAFETEA-LU Planning Provisions Workshop

final report

# SAFETEA-LU Planning Provisions Workshop {#safetea-lu-planning-provisions-workshop .Heading}

# Table of Contents {#table-of-contents .HeadingFront}

[**1.0** **Introduction 1-1**](#introduction)

[1.1 Workshop Format 1-1](#workshop-format)

[1.2 Background 1-2](#background)

[1.3 Opening Remarks 1-3](#opening-remarks)

[2.0 Fiscal Constraint 2-1](#fiscal-constraint)

[2.1 Overview of Provision 2-1](#overview-of-provision)

[2.2 Florida DOT Experience 2-1](#florida-dot-experience)

[2.3 Breakout Session 2-2](#breakout-session)

[3.0 Consultation 3-1](#consultation)

[3.1 Overview of Provision 3-1](#overview-of-provision-1)

[3.2 Arizona DOT Experience 3-1](#arizona-dot-experience)

[3.3 Breakout Session 3-2](#breakout-session-1)

[4.0 Congestion Management Process 4-1](#congestion-management-process)

[4.1 Overview of Provision 4-1](#overview-of-provision-2)

[4.2 Minnesota DOT Experience 4-1](#minnesota-dot-experience)

[4.3 Breakout Session 4-2](#breakout-session-2)

[5.0 Visualization 5-1](#visualization)

[5.1 Overview of Provision 5-1](#overview-of-provision-3)

[5.2 Kansas DOT Experience 5-2](#kansas-dot-experience)

[5.3 Breakout Session 5-3](#breakout-session-3)

[6.0 Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and
Development Plans
6-1](#consistency-of-transportation-plan-with-planned-growth-and-development-plans)

[6.1 Overview of Provision 6-1](#overview-of-provision-4)

[6.2 Washington State DOT Experience
6-1](#washington-state-dot-experience)

[6.3 Breakout Session 6-3](#breakout-session-4)

[7.0 Safe Routes to School 7-1](#safe-routes-to-school)

[7.1 Overview of Program 7-1](#overview-of-program)

[7.2 Caltrans Experience 7-1](#caltrans-experience)

[7.3 Breakout Session 7-2](#breakout-session-5)

[8.0 Environmental Considerations in Planning and Project Development
8-1](#environmental-considerations-in-planning-and-project-development)

[8.1 Overview of Provisions 8-1](#overview-of-provisions)

[8.2 Examples of State DOT Experiences
8-3](#examples-of-state-dot-experiences)

[8.3 Breakout Session 8-6](#breakout-session-6)

[9.0 Security (Including Border Security)
9-1](#security-including-border-security)

[9.1 Overview of Provision 9-1](#overview-of-provision-5)

[9.2 Maryland SHA Experience 9-1](#maryland-sha-experience)

[9.3 Breakout Session 9-2](#breakout-session-7)

[10.0 Strategic Highway Safety Plan
10-1](#strategic-highway-safety-plan)

[10.1 Overview of Provision 10-1](#overview-of-provision-6)

[10.2 Montana DOT Experience 10-1](#montana-dot-experience)

[10.3 Breakout Session 10-2](#breakout-session-8)

[11.0 Concluding Remarks 11-1](#concluding-remarks)

[11.1 Participant Workshop Evaluation
11-2](#participant-workshop-evaluation)

**[Appendices]{.smallcaps}**

[A. Workshop Agenda A-1](#a.-workshop-agenda)

[B. Participant List B-1](#b.-participant-list)

[C. Joint FHWA/FTA Guidance C-1](#c.-joint-fhwafta-guidance)

[D. FHWA Guidance D-1](#d.-fhwa-guidance)

[E. Clarifying Guidance E-1](#e.-clarifying-guidance)

[F. Environmental Resources F-1](#f.-environmental-resources)

[G. Online Resources G-1](#g.-online-resources)

[H. Excerpts from Workshop Evaluations
H-1](#h.-excerpts-from-workshop-evaluations)

# List of Figures {#list-of-figures .HeadingFront}

[Figure 4.1 4-2](#__RefHeading___Toc134256303)

[Figure 5.1 5-3](#__RefHeading___Toc134256304)

[Figure 6.1 6-2](#__RefHeading___Toc134256305)

[Figure 7.1 7-2](#__RefHeading___Toc134256306)

[Figure 8.1 8-4](#__RefHeading___Toc134256307)

[Figure 9.1 9-2](#__RefHeading___Toc134256308)

[Figure 10.1 10-2](#__RefHeading___Toc134256309)

# Introduction

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA‑LU) Planning Provisions Workshop
(Workshop) attracted nearly 70 attendees representing state departments
of transportation (DOT) from around the country. Held on March 27 and
28, 2006 in Phoenix, Arizona, the Workshop was jointly sponsored by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee
on Planning (SCOP). The Workshop provided an opportunity for Federal and
state DOT representa­tives to exchange information and engage in a
detailed review of nine SAFETEA‑LU planning provisions. The breadth of
state DOTs represented at the Workshop reflects a keen interest to learn
more about the new statewide plan­ning provisions in SAFETEA‑LU.
Effective July 1, 2007, all metropolitan and statewide transportation
plans, transportation improvement programs (TIP), and statewide
transportation improvement programs (STIP) must be consistent with all
SAFETEA‑LU planning provisions. The objective of the Workshop was to
foster a dialogue between FHWA and state agencies about the following
nine planning provisions, while highlighting successful state practices:

1.  Fiscal Constraint;

2.  Consultation;

3.  Congestion Management Processes in Transportation Management Areas;

4.  Visualization;

5.  Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and
    Development Plans;

6.  Safe Routes to School;

7.  Environmental Considerations in the Planning Process;

8.  Transportation System Security; and

9.  Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

## Workshop Format

The Workshop format focused on discussing the new planning provisions
with representatives from FHWA and sharing successful practices with the
larger transportation community. This format provided an informative
forum for par­ticipants to review the SAFETEA-LU requirements in detail
and also provided participants the opportunity to discuss key issues and
practices with other states. Transportation professionals were
encouraged to share their best or innovative practices in the nine
planning provision topic areas during breakout sessions.

Each planning provision was introduced and summarized by FHWA during one
of three plenary sessions followed by a presentation by a state DOT
highlighting a best practice(s) by their agency or other DOTs. After
summaries of three plan­ning provisions and state DOT highlights were
presented in each plenary ses­sion, Workshop participants divided
themselves into breakout sessions. These sessions provided opportunities
to discuss each planning provision in depth, share experiences and
successful approaches, ask questions, and identify issues and potential
solutions.

Breakout sessions were moderated by a DOT presenter or colleague from
the plenary session. Moderators were instructed to guide breakout
sessions by asking the following questions:

-   How is your DOT implementing this planning provision?

-   What's working? Why? What do you consider key to your success?

-   What issues or concerns do you have?

-   What steps could be taken to address these concerns?

After the breakout sessions, each moderator presented a summary of their
session to all the Workshop participants. Sharing a summary of each
breakout session benefited the entire group of participants and allowed
them an opportu­nity to comment on each provision. A detailed Workshop
agenda is included in this report as Appendix A as well as a Workshop
participant list, which is included as Appendix B.

## Background

Signed into law on August 10, 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users is the most
recent authorization for surface transportation investment in the United
States. Building on previous national transportation bills -- the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century (TEA‑21) -- SAFETEA‑LU
provides guaranteed funding for highways, highway safety, and public
transportation in the amount of \$244.1 billion. SAFETEA‑LU promises the
largest guaranteed funding total for transportation ever realized by the
transportation community. Carrying forward many of the principles and
achievements of previous landmark legislation, SAFETEA‑LU will build on
and refine many existing efforts as well as introduce new measures to
meet the changing transportation needs of the nation.

Transportation in the 21^st^ century faces many challenges. Demand often
sur­passes capacity just as need often exceeds revenue. The nation's
transportation system is hard pressed to sustain mounting pressure to
meet the needs of a diverse nation, with some needs having national
significance and others with a state, regional, or local scope. FHWA and
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have provided interim
implementation guidance on a number of SAFETEA-LU planning provisions.
In addition, the agencies are preparing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) to update the Code of Federal Regulations on the planning
process. On September 2, 2005, FHWA and the Federal Transit
Administration (FTA) put forward interim guidance for FHWA and FTA field
offices when implementing changes to the planning, environment, and air
quality requirements of the new law that are jointly administered by
FHWA and FTA. Each agency has also provided separate interim guidance on
SAFETEA‑LU provisions and funding programs that are administered
sepa­rately. Copies of the guidance are included in this report as
Appendices C, D, and E. The latest interim guidance can be found at the
following web site:

**http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm**

Most state DOTs are in the process of interpreting changes to the
Federal surface transportation law and will use the interim
implementation guidance as a road­map for complying with the law,
especially for those provisions that are imme­diately effective. Many
state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and public
transportation operators have already begun to review existing planning
processes with their FHWA Division Offices and FTA Regional Offices to
ensure compliance with SAFETEA‑LU planning provisions. In addi­tion to
issuing interim implementation guidance, FHWA is in the process of
drafting new rulemakings for a number of SAFETEA‑LU planning provisions.
FHWA welcomes state DOTs to submit comments and/or questions on the
interim guidance as well as on the proposed rulemaking.

## Opening Remarks

### American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials {#american-association-of-state-highway-and-transportation-officials .unnumbered}

Janet Oakley, Director of Policy and Government Relations at AASHTO,
dis­cussed the evolution of national transportation policy from ISTEA
through its most recent incarnation -- SAFETEA‑LU. Following ISTEA, MPOs
and state DOTs began to collaborate more extensively to implement a
toolbox of strategies and techniques. These approaches expanded and the
planning process began to become more robust. Although there were few
statutory changes under TEA‑21, the legislation provided greater
flexibility and eligibility in highway funds and focused greater
attention in certain areas critical to transportation agencies, such as
connectivity, freight, asset management, and performance measurement.
SAFETEA‑LU places additional focus on certain activities in
transportation plan­ning, such as safety and accelerating project
delivery through environmental streamlining. Ms. Oakley stressed that,
given the breadth of Federal transporta­tion legislation, state DOTs seek
flexibility and discretion rather than overly pre­scriptive rules.

### Federal Highway Administration {#federal-highway-administration .unnumbered}

Gloria Shepherd, Director of the FHWA Office of Planning also offered
intro­ductory remarks and provided an overview of the provisions. She
reiterated the evolution of transportation planning through the
succession of transportation legislation and commented that the
SAFETEA‑LU Planning Provisions Workshop will provide input to help FHWA
modernize the 1993 planning regu­lations. Because the planning regulation
has not been updated since 1993, efforts are now underway to make them
current. The Workshop was meant to provide a forum to discuss ways to
execute the intent of the planning provisions. In addition, FHWA
acknowledged that state DOTs seek less prescriptive require­ments and the
flexibility to learn from the best practices of colleagues. FHWA
recognizes the variety of needs and business approaches among state DOTs
and will continue to promote discretion and flexibility within the
statutory frame­work. FHWA commended state DOTs for their proactive
involvement in SAFETEA‑LU and noted that the number of participants at
the workshop exhib­ited how interested states are in moving forward to
address and implement the legislation.

After July 1, 2007, plans and programs must be compliant with SAFETEA-LU
requirements. FHWA recognizes the concern that a STIP amendment after
July 1, 2007 might trigger the need to update the plan at that time in
order for the plan and STIP to be SAFETEA-LU compliant. FHWA will
consider this concern and consider clarification of the current
guidance.

# Fiscal Constraint

> *Fiscal constraint requires that revenues in transportation planning
> and pro­gramming (Federal, State, local, and private) are identified
> and "are reasonably expected to be available" to implement the
> metropolitan long-range transporta­tion plan and the STIP/TIP, while
> providing for the operation and maintenance of the existing highway
> and transit systems. In addition, revenues must be "available or
> committed" for the first two years of a TIP/STIP in air quality
> nonattainment and maintenance areas.*

## Overview of Provision

The core purpose of the fiscal constraint planning provision is to
ensure that revenues are available to adequately cover the costs of
projects included in state transportation improvement programs. Gloria
Shepherd discussed this planning provision in detail, noting the
importance of documenting operations and main­tenance (O&M), especially
on both the highway and transit side in the STIP. The requirement to
account for O&M costs has been in place since 1993, but according to
Ms. Shepherd, many states are not adequately accounting for or
documenting O&M expenses. All sources of revenue need to be documented
as well as O&M costs in Financial Plans and, when STIP amendments occur,
Financial Plans must be revised.

Furthermore, FHWA advised states to use "year of expenditure" as opposed
to "current year" to program STIP funds. FHWA highly recommended that
states document the involvement of a number of departments, such as
environmental, planning, and finance, so that consultation does not
become an issue when Financial Plans are evaluated. Consistency between
programming documents is important when conformity is an issue for
projects that cross state boundaries. Since conformity can only be done
on fiscally constrained plans, these types of projects must comply with
the rule. Finally, in order to avoid challenges that can jeopardize
implementation of certain projects, FHWA recommended that states
thoroughly fiscally constrain programming documents.

FHWA recognizes that the STIP is a programming document and is not a
budg­etary or cash flow document. FHWA will continue to exercise
flexibility as they develop the new rule, including flexibility for
public-private partnerships.

## Florida DOT Experience

David Lee, Administrator of Statewide Planning and Policy Analysis at
Florida DOT presented his agency's efforts at implementing fiscal
constraint in their transportation plans. Formal Revenue Estimating
Conferences are conducted at least twice each year in which the
Governor's Office, the Florida Legislature, and state agencies reach
agreement on the projections of state revenues. FDOT issued a 2020
Revenue Forecast and accompanying handbook in 2001. A 2025 Revenue
Forecast is soon to be published. It will be used by Florida's 26
metro­politan planning organizations in developing their fiscally
constrained long-range plans. FDOT also produces a Transportation Costs
report which includes inflation factors and other cost data. Florida's
newly adopted 2025 Florida Transportation Plan (2025 FTP) establishes
five long-range goals for transporta­tion and places emphasis on
Maintenance and Preservation as one these goals. A Short-Range Component
of the Plan is updated each year to report on FDOT's plan and
performance for accomplishing the 2025 FTP goals and objectives. A
five-year Work Program is updated annually and the Florida
Transportation Commission monitors the performance of the department in
delivering the Program. Recent construction cost increases, hurricane
impacts, and other fac­tors have made all of these efforts to ensure that
plans are fiscally constrained more difficult. FDOT is closely examining
these issues, which may result in adjustments to address cost increases.

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing .unnumbered}

In addition to presenting at the Workshop, David Lee also served as
moderator for the fiscal constraint breakout session. States differ in
the way that forecasts are conducted; some states base their forecasts
off Federal funds from appor­tionment levels and others from obligation
levels. States also differ in the way that transportation earmarks in
SAFETEA‑LU are programmed, with some states mandated to include them in
STIPs while others include earmarks in STIPs only when the project is
fully funded. Generally, states represent a range of priority and
funding complexity. Many states find it difficult to transfer funding
among programs and execute plan amendments while simultaneously keeping
the plan fiscally constrained. While states already employ a number of
tools to verify fis­cal constraint, such as building contingencies into
plans, the need to balance capacity enhancement and maintenance
needs/costs was a common theme echoed by many states.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified .unnumbered}

With regard to the O&M clause, many states feel that the FHWA/FTA fiscal
con­straint guidance is unclear regarding the level of O&M detail that is
expected to be reported. Since states differ in their assessment of O&M
needs, what is con­sidered reasonable O&M reporting for one state may not
apply to any other state. In response to whether states would be open to
reporting O&M at the local level, they generally responded that they
would be open to considering reporting local O&M as long as FHWA
demonstrates flexibility.

Many states expressed concern regarding programming earmarks, the
ability to fund them, and whether specific earmarks are even a priority
for any given state. According to many state DOTs, earmarks are often
problematic to program given other demands that must be addressed. FHWA
listened to these concerns and the challenge that earmarks pose for
state DOTs. Some states, such as New Mexico DOT, continuously work with
their congressional delegation to help ensure that potential earmarks
are programmed in the STIP during reauthorization.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the Fiscal Constraint Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-fiscal-constraint-requirement .unnumbered}

During the breakout discussion, state DOTs discussed some suggestions
for FHWA to consider when developing the new rule. Following are a
listing of principles proposed for the rulemaking set forward by several
participants.

-   Closely follow the underlying statutory requirements. FHWA should
    not impose more restrictive requirements than are warranted by the
    statute itself.

-   Recognize that substantive decisions regarding transportation
    policy -- including decisions on funding levels, and on the
    allocation of funding among competing needs -- are to be made by
    states and MPOs, not FHWA and FTA.

-   Provide a range of options that states and MPOs can use to
    demonstrate that they have satisfied fiscal constraint requirements.
    Flexibility should be pro­vided in terms of format, types of
    information, and level of detail.

-   Focus on achieving the core purpose of the fiscal constraint
    requirement, which is to ensure that adequate revenues are available
    to cover the costs of the projects included in a metropolitan plan,
    TIP, or STIP. Detailed accounting of state and local expenditures
    *outside* of the plan, TIP, or STIP should *not* be required.

-   The regulations should take into account the potential for
    unintended conse­quences, including the potential for seemingly minor
    changes in regulatory language to evolve over time into onerous new
    requirements.

-   Explain fiscal constraint in plain language.

-   Recognize that the STIP is a programming, not a budgetary, document.

# Consultation

> *With respect to nonmetropolitan areas, the statewide transportation
> plan shall be developed in consultation with affected nonmetropolitan
> officials with responsibility for transportation.*
>
> *MPOs and States must consult "as appropriate" with "state and local
> agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources,
> environmental protec­tion, conservation, and historic preservation" in
> developing long-range trans­portation plans. Additionally for the
> Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan, States must consult with
> Federally recognized Tribal agencies responsible for land use
> management, natural resources, environmental protection, conser­vation,
> and historic preservation.*
>
> *The State shall provide for nonmetropolitan local official
> participation. The State shall have a documented process(es) that is
> separate and discrete from the public involvement process for
> consulting with nonmetropolitan local officials.*

## Overview of Provision

Rob Ritter, Team Leader with FHWA's Office of Planning, described the
changes regarding consultation contained in SAFETEA‑LU. He also
acknowledged the work that AASHTO and others had done in crafting an
approach for states to consult with nonmetropolitan officials. The
groundwork done by all the partici­pants contributed greatly to the
development of a successful rule on consultation with nonmetropolitan
local officials. That rule was published in February, 2003.

Statewide Transportation Plans must be developed in:

-   Cooperation with metropolitan planning organizations;

-   Consultation with affected nonmetropolitan officials; and

-   Consultation with tribal governments and the Secretary of the
    Interior.

Consultation with state, tribal, and local agencies is expected to
include those agencies responsible for land use management, natural
resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
preservation. SAFETEA‑LU identifies the requirements for this
consultation, specifying that this consultation shall include comparison
of transportation plans to state and tribal conservation plans and maps,
and inventories of natural and historic resources, to the extent that
these materials are available.

## Arizona DOT Experience

Dale Buskirk, Director, Transportation Planning Division, and John Pein,
Manager, Safety and Regional Planning for Arizona DOT (ADOT) discussed
the purpose and value of consultation and described Arizona's experience
in building consultation processes, focusing on nonmetropolitan
consultation. The purpose of consultation is to ensure a formal
mechanism for local officials to provide, and state officials to
receive, input on the planning and project selection processes. The
final rule on nonmetropolitan consultation requires an evaluation of the
effectiveness of this consultation.

Arizona local governance includes rural Councils of Governments (COG),
two Transportation Management Areas (TMAs) (Maricopa and Pima), and
three smaller metropolitan planning organizations. A formal agreement --
the Casa Grande Resolves -- established an allocation formula for funds
distribution among these groups. A strong ADOT relationship with the
rural COGs and the Rural Transportation Advocacy Council has been key to
ADOT's effectiveness in nonmetropolitan consultation. ADOT and the COGs
worked collaboratively to sponsor meetings with local elected officials
in each rural county at key decision points. These sessions -- which are
separate and discrete from public involve­ment -- are held specifically
to give rural local elected officials opportunities for participation
and input at "meaningful points" during the decision-making proc­ess.
ADOT found that these targeted meetings are worthwhile both to provide
local officials access to the process and for ADOT to learn from local
representa­tives and to generate support.

Based on its experience, ADOT has revised some aspects of its
consultation proc­ess. Most significantly, ADOT has brought the MPOs into
the process and now holds consultation meetings within each COG/MPO
region, and relies on the COG/MPO to identify appropriate participants.
Clear presentations, a casual format that encourages discussion, and
timely response to questions that arise have been key to the success of
the consultation process.

Arizona has 22 Federally recognized tribes and tribal lands represent a
consider­able portion of total property in the State. Therefore
consultation with tribal governments is an additional important aspect
of ADOT's consultation process. ADOT also holds regular partnering
meetings with Federal land agencies, and has developed formal
memorandums of understanding between ADOT and each Federal Agency.

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-1 .unnumbered}

Dale Buskirk moderated a lively discussion on state approaches to
consultation. States are engaged in a wide variety of efforts related to
consultation, depending on the characteristics and needs of individual
states. The degree to which a state is urban or rural, whether or not
there are Federally recognized tribes, the types of environmental
concerns, and the history of consultation and public involve­ment each
affect the focus of consultation activity. Some states have
well-established processes for consultation; for these DOTs, the focus
is on documenting existing practices and making this information
publicly available. Other states are defining new consultation
procedures with local elected officials (LEOs). Still others are
considering how to build effective communication mechanisms with
resource agencies.

-   Oregon DOT (ODOT) manages consultation through 10 area commissions
    on transportation, which cover all regions in the state except the
    Portland TMA. The commissions are each made up of 50 percent elected
    officials, along with representatives from tribes, businesses, and
    others. The commissions, which meet regularly, are staffed by ODOT
    planners.

-   California DOT (Caltrans) is divided into 18 MPOs and 26 rural
    transporta­tion agencies. Each agency develops a regional plan, and
    has control of 75 percent of their funding. District directors from
    Caltrans meet with these boards monthly.

-   Mississippi DOT's Office of State Aid Roadway Division regularly
    meets with counties to discuss plans and programs.

-   Louisiana DOT (LADOT) has been required by state law to present its
    plan to communities across the State. LADOT is now developing a
    process targeted specifically to local elected officials, and
    working with district DOT Administrators to further build
    consultation with LEOs.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-1 .unnumbered}

A number of issues were discussed by participants during the discussion.
These include:

-   *Who participates in nonmetropolitan consultation?* The focus for
    consultation is with local elected officials. Participants discussed
    the pros and cons of including local government technical staff as
    well as the elected officials in consultation. States approach this
    in a variety of ways, but generally concur that staff are important
    resources to elected officials.

-   *What constitutes "meaningful involvement"?* While states are
    required to involve local elected officials at meaningful points
    during planning and pro­gramming, states are approaching this
    requirement in different ways. States are challenged to balance
    sufficient involvement with "meeting fatigue" -- overtaxing both
    officials and DOT staff.

-   *How can states manage different languages and cultural needs?* Many
    states have translators available or work with communities to
    identify translators when needed. Approaches to tribal consultation
    vary depending on the resources and capabilities of the tribes
    involved. Some states find that one-on-one meetings are called for
    in order to achieve meaningful involvement.

-   *How can states manage turn-over?* Plans and projects that extend
    many years frequently experience turn-over, both in the elected
    officials involved and in the state DOT personnel working on the
    project. This can result in conflicting local input and shifts in
    priorities. There is a need to educate elected officials and their
    staff about the process.

-   *How can environmental data be integrated into the planning
    process?* States are required to demonstrate consideration of
    environmental concerns and data in their long-range plans. This
    includes consultation with land management and resource agencies.
    Geographic Information Systems (GIS) tools are an important resource
    to assist in presenting information and relationships in a useful
    way.

-   *How can states meaningfully incorporate environmental issues at the
    planning stage?* A number of states cited difficulty in engaging
    environmental agen­cies in the statewide planning process, and a
    tension around achieving an appropriate level of detail for the
    level of planning underway. Many resource agencies are most
    experienced in reviewing and commenting on specific project plans,
    and are unfamiliar with more strategic-level approaches. Further,
    some agencies are concerned that participating at a strategic
    planning level may undercut their ability to intervene at the
    project stage. Therefore, some state DOTs have found that resource
    agencies are reluctant to participate in planning processes,
    preferring to wait for "real projects."

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for the Consultation Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-the-consultation-requirement .unnumbered}

Participants identified several themes to help states strengthen their
consultation processes and meet Federal requirements.

-   *Design a "Separate and Discrete" Process --* States emphasized that
    consultation with local elected officials is to be addressed
    separately from other public participation processes. This is a key
    requirement of the consultation rule. States also stressed that it
    is important that consultation be a formal process, particularly
    initially.

-   *Consider Joint Processes --* One strategy to avoid "meeting
    fatigue" is to identify other planning efforts in which partner
    agencies are engaged, and consider integrating DOT consultation into
    those ongoing processes. This can encour­age participation and
    potentially achieve more satisfactory planning out­comes. It is
    important to note, however, that the nonmetropolitan local official
    consultation process must be a separate and discrete process.

-   *Document Consultation Activities --* Participants stressed the
    importance of documenting the efforts DOTs take to consult with
    elected officials, tribes, and resource agencies. Documenting a
    systematic process for input and con­sultation is an essential
    requirement, irrespective of the substance of the ultimate plan that
    is produced.

-   *Involve Resource Agencies* -- Land management agencies and resource
    agencies need to be involved in the planning and programming
    process. Establishing memoranda of understanding between the DOT and
    resource agencies, such as those developed by AZDOT, can help
    clarify the role of each agency and specify the expected benefits to
    each agency of participating in these plan­ning processes. DOTs such
    as Caltrans and Colorado DOT have successfully involved resource
    agencies by utilizing their extensive data sets to create GIS-based
    tools which are then used to jointly assess alternative development
    scenarios.

-   *Develop Educational Materials --* Many states find that providing
    orientation and training to newly elected officials and staff at
    partner agencies helps these individuals participate effectively in
    the planning process.

# Congestion Management Process

> *SAFETEA‑LU requires there be "a process that provides for effective
> manage­ment and operation" to address congestion within a metropolitan
> planning area serving a TMA.*

## Overview of Provision

Ken Leonard of Cambridge Systematics Inc. discussed the planning
provision for congestion management process (CMP) in transportation
management areas TMA. This requirement is similar to that described
under ISTEA and its succes­sor TEA‑21, with minor adjustments made to
previous language. Essentially, the CMP planning provision aims to place
more of an emphasis on management and operations to address congestion
management before considering capacity expansion. The intent of this
planning provision is to make the CMP more meaningful by fostering a
better linkage to the planning process. For example, the CMP presents
opportunities for addressing recurring and nonrecurring con­gestion in
the transportation planning process and advances congestion man­agement
initiatives for planning, operations, and the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). Many MPOs already include a CMP in long-range plans
and some have established policies that consider funding operations
projects before capacity enhancement projects.

## Minnesota DOT Experience

Peggy Reichert, Director of Statewide Planning at Minnesota DOT
presented her agency's experience with applying a Congestion Management
System (CMS) within a planned urban service area, which includes the
seven county Twin Cities Metro Area. The Twin Cities Metropolitan
Council, which is the TMA/MPO in the area, acted as the lead agency in
developing the CMS in part­nership with local governments, Metro Transit,
Minnesota State Patrol, and Minnesota DOT. For its part, Minnesota DOT
built on its history of performance measurement to develop performance
measures and targets to identify con­gested areas on freeways and State
arterials. Since it is expensive to build new capacity, a CMS toolbox
approach to implementation was employed. Neither strategies nor specific
projects were dictated; instead operating agencies were encouraged to
implement appropriate projects. A consequence of employing this approach
is that most CMS strategies are now mainstreamed and the CMS philosophy
is reflected in Minnesota DOT investment priorities.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256303 .anchor}Figure 4.1

![](media/image2.png){width="5.5in" height="4.125in"}

**The congestion management system in the Twin Cities incorporates
extensive use of performance measurement including target setting.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-2 .unnumbered}

Considering that SAFETEA‑LU requires TMAs to develop a congestion
man­agement process, states attending the CMP breakout session initially
questioned whether this provision is even a state issue. Ken Leonard
moderated the break­out session and after exploring the topic further,
participants realized that the TMA's long-range plan and TIP include
many state projects and that, in order to implement state projects, the
CMP must be approved by the TMA. Furthermore, operational or intelligent
transportation systems (ITS) projects included in the TIP are likely to
be the responsibility of the state DOT.

Addressing congestion is an increasing challenge for state DOTs.
Participants discussed the difficulty they encounter in sufficiently
addressing congestion given the growing demand on transportation
systems. Many participants felt that approaches to congestion should be
led through operations and emphasized that capacity enhancing projects
are often cost-prohibitive. Furthermore, non­recurring congestion is a
habitual problem for many DOTs and many breakout participants felt that
strategies that concentrate on operations are the best approach.
According to the breakout participants, even though capacity enhancement
projects are usually proposed by state legislatures rather than state
DOTs, funding for these projects is scarce. Therefore, many state DOTs
are using system preservation and operations as methods to try to manage
congestion.

Breakout participants also addressed the effectiveness of congestion
performance measures. Participants felt that measures that address
reliability, travel time, delay and accessibility rather than
volume/capacity ratios (V/C) and level of service (LOS) should be given
further consideration. DOTs expressed a prefer­ence for more guidance to
refer state DOTs to best practices or examples.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-2 .unnumbered}

A number of concerns were raised by participants during the session.
These include:

-   *Unclear Guidance --* Federal CMP guidance is unclear about what
    specifically is meant by developing a plan and schedule to implement
    the CMP process.

-   *Major Investment Study (MIS) Guidance --* What will be included in
    the rules on MIS and will it be mandatory?

-   *Relationship Between MIS and CMP --* How will the MIS be related to
    the CMP?

-   *Relationship Between CMP  and NEPA --* How will the CMP help link
    planning and NEPA? Will the link be mandatory or discretionary?

-   *Update Plans to Conform to SAFETEA-LU Requirements --* If the STIP
    is amended does that mean the long-range plan has to be updated to
    conform to SAFETEA‑LU?

-   *STIP Updates --* What is the difference between a STIP amendment
    and a modification or revision?

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the CMP Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-cmp-requirement .unnumbered}

Several themes clearly stood out for participants of the CMP breakout
session, these include:

-   *Involvement of Stakeholders --* It was suggested that FHWA require
    TMAs to involve state DOTs in the development of the CMP.

-   *Guidance on Linking Planning and NEPA--* States requested guidance
    or best practices on how to link planning and NEPA.

# Visualization

> *As part of transportation plan and TIP development, MPOs shall employ
> visu­alization techniques.... States shall also employ visualization
> techniques in the development of the Long-Range Statewide
> Transportation Plan....*

## Overview of Provision

Rob Ritter introduced the new provision requiring states to use
visualization techniques in the process of developing their long-range
plan. He noted that this requirement appears in the statute in relation
to public participation -- the emphasis in the legislation is on
strengthening public participation by making transportation plan
information more accessible and easier to understand. While many states
have extensive experience in using visualization techniques for spe­cific
projects, fewer states have experience in using visualization to convey
information about transportation plans. However, visual imagery can be
used to communicate at a variety of levels: policy, planning, and
project, and at various geographic scales: statewide, regional, local
area, and project level. The effective presentation of projects' impacts
to the public has become an increasingly essen­tial part of the planning
and design of the transportation system.

Mr. Ritter reviewed a variety of visualization techniques that state
DOTs can consider using as appropriate, ranging from simple
illustrations and charts to sophisticated simulation tools. The statute
is not prescriptive in the types of visualization that should be used;
states should select those techniques that are effective for their
purposes. For example, the use of flow charts to explain the planning
process is a simple and effective application of visualization. Tools
include:

-   Artist renderings;

-   Computer modeled images;

-   Computer simulation;

-   Drawings;

-   Flowcharts;

-   Interactive GIS systems;

-   Maps;

-   Models;

-   Photo manipulation;

-   Scenario planning tools;

-   Simulated photos;

-   Sketches;

-   Videos; and

-   Visual preference surveys.

Mr. Ritter offered a few examples of how states are depicting
information related to their plan.

-   Minnesota DOT and North Carolina DOT use web-based mapping tools to
    provide information about specific regions and projects;

-   Pennsylvania DOT's Vidlog is an on-line video log that allows the
    public to view video images of routes throughout the State;

-   Connecticut DOT provides on-line information, maps, and links to
    docu­ments regarding proposed plans and major investment studies; and

-   Florida DOT uses an interactive map to enable public users to
    specify loca­tions for which they would further information.

During discussion, it was noted that some states are moving to web-based
STIPs, reducing or eliminating hard copy reports. Scenario planning
tools are good examples of plan-level visualization tools. Participants
discussed the possibility of a research project through the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) regarding how best to apply
visualization to policy-based plans.

## Kansas DOT Experience

Mary Beth Pfrang, GIS Applications Project Manager for Kansas DOT,
demon­strated KDOT's web-based GIS tool: KGATE. KGATE is a GIS web portal
avail­able to KDOT staff on the agency's intranet. KGATE is designed to
promote data sharing of information stored in many different locations
throughout KDOT. The portal links to geo-referenced and non
geo-referenced data, including digital images, multiple data bases,
imagery, and other raster data. Point and linear data is displayed
simultaneously on a map of Kansas. The tool streamlines data access and
research, expands access to new users, and allows planners to visual­ize
multiple data sets simultaneously. Through queries, users can access for
spe­cific locations aerial photos, related reports, video logs, and
incident data, among other information.

KDOT is beginning to explore how the agency's planners can use the KGATE
tool during the planning process. The system is grounded in a strong
document management system and the availability of information from data
sources throughout the agency. They are also working with the state GIS
committee to share data across state agencies, and may consider
purchasing data from com­mercial sources in the future to augment public
data. KDOT is working with their legal office to determine how to manage
public access to KGATE data. Some data is sensitive and needs to be
restricted, such as data regarding pro­tected species.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256304 .anchor}Figure 5.2

![](media/image3.png){width="5.5in" height="3.0458333333333334in"}

**Kansas DOT designed a GIS web portal for the KDOT intranet that
enables users to visualize multiple data sets simultaneously.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-3 .unnumbered}

The breakout session on visualization was moderated by Thomas Dow,
Regional and Urban Planning Manager for Kansas DOT. States recognize the
value of visualization in effectively communicating transportation
information, and are generally optimistic that a broader use of
visualization tools will naturally occur as technology continues to
develop. Most states are using some types of visuali­zation; these
practices range from using graphs and charts in presentation and
reports, to the use of simulation to depict potential projects. However,
states are uncertain about how to conduct a systematic visualization
process at the state­wide level, and are wary of prescriptive
requirements in this regard. States will continue to build on what they
are doing and learn from the experience and best practices of
colleagues.

Some examples of state visualization applications include:

-   Vermont DOT (VDOT) maintains route logs on its web site, providing
    segment data for highways. VDOT developed a graphics manual to
    explain the type of development allowed at interchanges. VDOT has
    employed CommunityViz to visualize prospective development, and is
    currently developing a GIS format to be used during scenario
    planning.

-   Idaho DOT recently went live with an interactive web site to manage
    citizen participation throughout the entire STIP process. The site
    explains the proc­ess and planning calendar, provides live links for
    more information, and enables on-line comments during public comment
    periods.

-   Arizona DOT is developing a mapping component on its web site to
    enable public queries linked to geographic locations.

-   Several states noted the use of map printouts, color graphics, and
    photos as extremely useful in communicating with the public in
    meetings, in printed documents, and on their web sites.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-3 .unnumbered}

As states move forward in expanding their use of visualization, a number
of con­cerns have been identified. These include:

-   *Planning Applications --* How do states move from project-level
    visualization to applications at the planning level?

-   *Liability and Proprietary Constraints --* How can legal concerns
    about access to sensitive or private information be addressed?

-   *Technical Limitations --* How can DOTs address technical issues,
    such as band­width constraints or software needs?

-   *Resources --* What is reasonable to expect from organizations that
    have limited staff or funding?

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the Visualization Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-visualization-requirement .unnumbered}

In order to meet the visualization planning provision requirements,
breakout participants provided the following recommendations for
implementing the provision:

-   *Avoid Prescriptive Regulations --* There was broad agreement among
    states that Federal rulemaking should avoid specifying visualization
    techniques and requirements. States are best served by FHWA
    providing guidance and information on best practices.

-   *Develop Visualization Toolbox --* Participants suggested that FHWA
    develop a "tool box" of visualization techniques that states may
    want to use in their planning processes.

-   *Create a "Visual Dictionary" --* States may want to consider using
    visualization to explain transportation terms and jargon to lay
    people, as one technique to make transportation planning more
    understandable to the public (e.g., "turning radius" or "how does a
    floating bridge float?").

-   *Balance Legal Concerns With Need to Make Informed Decisions --*
    While recog­nizing legitimate legal concerns about releasing
    sensitive data, participants noted that these risks need to be
    balanced against the risk of making poor decisions. The availability
    to the public of comprehensive information pro­motes good
    decision-making.

-   *Provide Samples of Data Management and Access Agreements --* A
    library of agreements used by states could be made available to use
    as templates or resources by other states for their own agreements.

# Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and Development Plans

> *SAFETEA‑LU revises the previous planning provision related to
> environment to add "promot\[ing\] consistency between transportation
> improvements and state and local planned growth and economic
> development patterns."*

## Overview of Provision

Gloria Shepherd detailed the objective of the consistency of
transportation plan with planned growth and development plans
(consistency) provision. The overall purpose of this planning provision
is to promote the connection between transportation and land use plans
and economic development. FHWA encour­ages states to document their
efforts at fostering this connectivity. States are expected to create
and document efforts regarding their *process* of making transportation
and economic development plans consistent. The focus is on cre­ating and
using a good process, not necessarily on outcome. FHWA recognizes that
establishing concurrence between transportation and economic development
plans is difficult, which is why FHWA encourages states to document
their efforts at joining the two.

## Washington State DOT Experience

Brian Smith, Director of Strategic Planning and Programming at
Washington State DOT, noted that Federal and state law in Washington
State guide efforts to make transportation planning consistent with
development. In addition to gen­eral statewide transportation planning
efforts, the Growth Management Act (GMA) in Washington State is aimed at
coordinating planned growth and eco­nomic development through the use of
Comprehensive Plans. Essentially, the GMA positions Washington State DOT
as a partner in regional and local plan­ning. Comprehensive Plans provide
20-year planning projections, with eco­nomic development as a required
element. The process of designing these plans ensures that land uses are
consistent with transportation infrastructure. Major policy themes are
an emphasis on interjurisdictional coordination and consis­tency, as well
as citizen and community involvement. In order to establish inter­nal and
external consistency across plans, Washington State DOT stresses that
land use and transportation plans be current, otherwise efforts are
wasted on being consistent with outdated data. Similarly, a successful
concurrency process requires that all parties use common sets of
assumptions (i.e., economic generators). Lastly, land use and
development decisions are generally local, not state or Federal actions.
This has to be recognized in implementing state and MPO planning
requirements related to consistency with land and economic development
plans.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256305 .anchor}Figure 6.3

+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| **Federal Planning    | **State Planning       | **Required Modal    |
| Factors\              | Emphasis Areas\        | Plans\              |
| **(23USC135)          | **(RCW 47.06)          | **(RCW 47.06)       |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+
| -   Support the       | -   Relief of          | **State-owned**     |
|     economic vital­ity |     congestion.        |                     |
|     of the United     |                        | -   Highways        |
|     States, the       | -   Preservation of    |                     |
|     States, and       |     existing           | -   Ferries         |
|     metropolitan      |     investments.       |                     |
|     areas, especially |                        | **State Interest**  |
|     by enabling       | -   Preservation of    |                     |
|     global            |     downtowns.         | -   Aviation        |
|     competitiveness,  |                        |                     |
|     pro­ductivity, and | -   Ability to attract | -   Public          |
|     efficiency.       |     or accommo­date     |     Transportation  |
|                       |     planned population |                     |
| -   Increase the      |     and employment     | -   Freight Rail    |
|     safety of the     |     growth.            |                     |
|     transportation    |                        | -   Intercity       |
|     system for        | -   Improvement of     |     Passenger Rail  |
|     motorized and     |     traveler safety.   |                     |
|     nonmotor­ized      |                        | -   Bicycle and     |
|     users.            | -   Efficient movement |     Pedestrian      |
|                       |     of freight and     |                     |
| -   Increase the      |     goods.             | -   Marine Ports    |
|     security of the   |                        |     and Navigation  |
|     transportation    | -   Improvement and    |                     |
|     system for        |     integration of all |                     |
|     motorized and     |     transportation     |                     |
|     nonmotor­ized      |     modes to create a  |                     |
|     users.            |     seamless           |                     |
|                       |     intermodal         |                     |
| -   Increase the      |     transportation     |                     |
|     accessibility and |     system for people  |                     |
|     mobility          |     and goods.         |                     |
|     available to      |                        |                     |
|     people and for    |                        |                     |
|     freight.          |                        |                     |
|                       |                        |                     |
| -   Protect and       |                        |                     |
|     enhance the       |                        |                     |
|     environment,      |                        |                     |
|     promote energy    |                        |                     |
|     conservation, and |                        |                     |
|     improve quality   |                        |                     |
|     of life.          |                        |                     |
|                       |                        |                     |
| -   Enhance the       |                        |                     |
|     integration and   |                        |                     |
|     connectivity of   |                        |                     |
|     the               |                        |                     |
|     trans­portation    |                        |                     |
|     system, across    |                        |                     |
|     and between modes |                        |                     |
|     throughout the    |                        |                     |
|     State, for people |                        |                     |
|     and freight.      |                        |                     |
|                       |                        |                     |
| -   Promote efficient |                        |                     |
|     system management |                        |                     |
|     and operation.    |                        |                     |
|                       |                        |                     |
| -   Emphasize the     |                        |                     |
|     preservation of   |                        |                     |
|     the existing      |                        |                     |
|     transportation    |                        |                     |
|     system.           |                        |                     |
+-----------------------+------------------------+---------------------+

**Washington State DOT evaluated its Transportation Plan issue areas and
strategies against stipulated goals as part of its effort to make the
Plan consistent with state growth management goals.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-4 .unnumbered}

Brian Smith moderated the breakout session. He noted that state DOTs are
implementing a number of approaches to address consistency between
trans­portation and planned growth and economic development. Following
are a number of examples.

-   Oregon DOT is compiling a list of "shovel-ready" sites that detail
    the neces­sary actions and documents required to develop certain
    property. The approach is framed around predictability, which allows
    the state to prioritize, focus resources, and market economic
    development so that development is drawn to strategic locations.

-   Okalahoma DOT conducts an analysis known as SWAT to identify
    strengths, weaknesses, and, threats to development. The DOT
    routinely communicates with the economic development agency in an
    effort to address the nexus between transportation and economic
    development.

-   In the past, Caltrans identified transportation access as a limiting
    factor to inform investment decisions. While this strategy proved
    successful for Caltrans, a similar approach employed by Kentucky
    DOT, which analyzed six contiguous counties, revealed that
    transportation was a contributing fac­tor, but not a main one.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-4 .unnumbered}

Many states expressed concern about the consistency planning provision,
including:

-   *Gaining Buy-In --* It may be challenging to garner support from
    land use con­stituencies because agencies might have a hard time
    accepting consistency as a "process" as opposed to actually seeing
    consistency happen in the built environment.

-   *Different Perceptions of "Growth" --* States with limited land use
    management policies may encounter difficulty in coordinating with
    regional and local agencies. For example, one community may
    negatively associate growth with sprawl while another may perceive
    growth as welcome economic development.

-   *High-Growth Areas May Be Limited --* States experiencing tremendous
    growth in concentrated areas may have inadequate experience with
    handling the demands of sophisticated developers.

-   *Inappropriate Matches Between Economic Development and
    Transportation Plans --* Some economic development agencies look to
    state DOTs to drive economic development instead of crafting
    targeted strategic plans that work in con­junction with
    transportation plans.

-   *Unpredictable Economic Development Patterns --* Given that economic
    develop­ment is often fragmented, it may be difficult to make
    transportation and eco­nomic growth plans consistent. This is
    exacerbated by the difficulty in discerning whether transportation
    serves as a catalyst for development that might not otherwise have
    occurred, or whether transportation merely dis­places development
    that would have occurred elsewhere.

-   *Different Interpretations of Consistency --* The boundaries on what
    is considered consistent are unclear. This can lead to consistency
    being interpreted in unmanageable ways for a DOT. For example, while
    all states have overall economic aspirations, individual cities and
    counties within have their own distinct -- and potentially
    conflicting -- priorities as well. There exists no "master set" of
    transportation and economic development priorities to inte­grate
    these various goals.

-   *Inexact Forecasts --* Land use plans and growth forecasts are often
    imprecise; however, there is no vehicle to build contingencies into
    the planning process so that a range of possibilities are presented.

States concurred that economic development is influenced by a number of
factors beyond transportation, such as education and workforce, and that
transportation is not the panacea for promoting economic development.
Transportation is funded through a dedicated source, which makes it
highly visible. Many state DOTs are heavily influenced by other agencies
or political interests who use transportation to affect economic
development, even when transportation is only marginally important. As a
consequence, transportation projects are often pro­posed because of their
reputed economic consequences, even though many states feel that this
link is weak and the benefits overstated. In fact, state DOTs are often
reactive and are hard-pressed to meet even basic transportation needs.

In response to the above concerns raised by many states, FHWA stresses
that the planning provision requires that states make a good faith
effort to create consis­tency and that whether or not consistency between
plans is achieved as a result is secondary to the process itself.

The discussion also touched on some of the tertiary benefits of the
planning pro­vision. Some states suggested that economic development be
perceived as a tool to manage the existing transportation system. In
this regard, consistency between plans can be used as a tool to market a
state's assets and improve upon existing facilities. Other states felt
that the consistency planning provision can be used as leverage because
all agencies will be using the same numbers and similar assumptions.
This makes the consistency planning provision a potential
trouble-shooting mechanism.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the Consistency Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-consistency-requirement .unnumbered}

Given the extent to which many states expressed concern about the
consistency planning provision, it was suggested that the following be
considered by FHWA:

-   *Comprehensive Guidance --* States requested better guidance on what
    consti­tutes the standard for consistency, and clarification on how a
    DOT will know when the planning provision is working and when it is
    not effective.

-   *Flexibility of Actual Consistency Outcome --* Given that this is a
    process require­ment, states felt that FHWA should be flexible
    regarding the actual consis­tency outcome.

# Safe Routes to School

> *A new program required under SAFETEA‑LU, the Safe Routes to School
> pro­gram provides Federal-aid highway funds by formula to DOTs over
> five Federal fiscal years (FY 2005-2009) for infrastructure and
> non-infrastructure projects and to administer SRTS programs that
> benefit a specified vicinity around ele­mentary and middle schools
> (grades K‑8).*

## Overview of Program

Beth Alicandri, Director of the Office of Safety Programs at FHWA,
highlighted the purpose of implementing the Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
program; promote projects and activities that improve safety and reduce
traffic, air pollution, and fuel consumption in a two-mile vicinity of
schools. Funding for the program is divided into two categories
(infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects) and has no match
requirement. The objective of infrastructure projects to foster walking
and biking to school in a safe environment; non-infrastructure projects
are encouraged to address the "three E's": education, engineering, and
enforcement. (A fourth "E," EMS, was mentioned during the Strategic
Highway Safety Plan discussion.) The SRTS program is intended to
supplement -- not supplant -- existing programs, or initiate a program
if one does not already exist. Flexibility is built into the program,
with little prescription on how state DOTs split their allocation,
except that a minimum of 10 percent (and a maximum of 30 percent) of
funds must be spent on non-infrastructure projects. The legislation
requires each state to have a full-time employee to administer the
program, but allows funding for this position from the infrastructure
portion of a state's SRTS funding allocation. Other elements of the SRTS
program are the establishment of a Task Force, intended as a coalition
that supports the objectives of the program, and development of an
informational clearinghouse to serve as a resource for state DOTs.

## Caltrans Experience

Sharon Scherzinger, Acting Division Chief of the Division of
Transportation Planning at Caltrans, presented on that state's SRTS
program, which has been in place for six years. California passed
legislation establishing a new funding for­mula for Federal safety funds
intended for projects that support bicycle and pedestrian safety as well
as traffic calming. The SRTS program in California concurs with other
plans and policies in the state that promote alternative modes of travel
as well as sustainable development strategies. Caltrans engaged a number
of partners, including sister agencies and advocacy associations, when
developing its statewide SRTS program. Caltrans continues to address
issues regarding equity, program administration, and program evaluation.
Because of its early efforts, Caltrans' SRTS is likely to meet the
requirements of the Federal SRTS program.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256306 .anchor}Figure 7.4

![](media/image4.png){width="5.503472222222222in"
height="3.4555555555555557in"}

**Caltrans has legislatively established a Safe Routes to School program
to promote and implement qualifying projects that are consistent with
statewide transportation plans and policies.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-5 .unnumbered}

Sharon Scherzinger moderated the breakout session, where there was much
con­cern expressed over the administrative burden that the SRTS program
potentially presents. Considering the funding level of the program, many
states felt that the full-time coordinator requirement created an
administrative burden because the program is too small to justify a
full-time position and that staff resources would be spent more
efficiently if combined with bicycle and pedestrian programs. Many
states have moved to implement the SRTS program and have program
coordinators in place. Discussion focused on how to balance the specific
statu­tory requirements of the program with other DOT safety priorities.
States are working to ensure that funds are distributed equitably and
that funded activities effectively achieve safety improvements.

Montana DOT is addressing equity concerns posed by the SRTS program by
evaluating whether it is feasible to reserve a portion of program funds
for smaller school districts in order to protect against larger urban
areas receiving unbalanced portions of funding. Also, Montana DOT is
considering placing a minimum funding level on SRTS projects in order to
reduce the number of appli­cations for very small projects. Several state
DOTs raised concerns about having to hire full-time SRTS coordinators.

A number of state DOTs expressed interest in learning about what
processes and criteria DOTs use when selecting projects for SRTS
funding. Colorado DOT dis­cussed their selection criteria which can be
accessed via their DOT web site.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-5 .unnumbered}

After much discussion regarding the planning provision, a number of
themes began to emerge including:

-   *Full-time SRTS Coordinator --*Thirty-six state DOTs already employ
    SRTS pro­gram coordinators; however, many of the breakout
    participants expressed significant concern regarding the requirement
    to hire a full-time program coordinator to administer such a small
    program. This concern is underscored by the fact that many state
    DOTs are reducing staff or have limits on hiring, even if the
    positions are Federally funded. Several DOTs expressed a desire to
    opt out of the SRTS program or swap state funds for Federal funds to
    avoid hiring a full-time program coordinator. Participants discussed
    deter­rents to pursuing this course of action, including the risk of
    criticism by school districts.

-   *Evaluation Component and Criteria --* DOTs understand that
    evaluating the effectiveness of SRTS projects is difficult.
    Suggestions included employing evaluation techniques such as those
    conducted for road safety audits or developing criteria for
    performance measures for the SRTS program.

-   *Linking SRTS to Agency Plans and Policies --*A number of states
    felt that it is important to link the SRTS program with larger DOT
    plans and policies. The SRTS is a stand alone requirement, but it is
    a small program. Therefore, to support its legitimacy as a discrete
    program, many state DOTs felt that SRTS projects need to be tied to
    an overall agency plan or policy. This linkage could be made in a
    state's long-range plan or Strategic Highway Safety Plan.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the SRTS Program? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-srts-program .unnumbered}

Overall, states asked for clarification and flexibility in applying the
SRTS pro­gram to meet state needs. States suggest that FHWA consider the
following:

-   *Allow Flexible Staffing --* Many state DOTs felt that it may be
    more efficient to combine the SRTS coordinator position with the
    responsibilities of the Pedestrian/Bicycle coordinator at state DOTs
    and asked FHWA to allow this staffing approach. However, the
    requirement for a separate SRTS coordina­tor position is in
    SAFETEA-LU legislation, not mandated at the discretion of FHWA.

-   *Consider Grant Program Approach --* A number of DOTs suggested that
    the labor involved in administering a small program might not be the
    best use of resources; therefore, it was suggested that the SRTS
    program be changed from a reimbursement program to a grant program.
    The program is defined by statute as a reimbursement program.

-   *Clarify SRTS Use to Meet Specific Needs --* For example, states
    asked the ques­tions: What happens when new schools are built? Are
    state DOTs required to coordinate prior to construction, after, or
    not at all? How can DOTs with a heavy transit dependent population
    employ the program?

# Environmental Considerations in Planning and Project Development

> *Metropolitan and statewide transportation plans must include a
> discussion of potential environmental mitigation activities and areas
> to carry out these activities that may have the greatest potential to
> restore and maintain environ­mental functions.*
>
> *States and MPOs shall consult with State and local agencies and
> Tribal agen­cies responsible for land use management, natural
> resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic
> preservation in developing plans.*
>
> *As part of statewide and metropolitan planning, States and MPOs must
> con­sider, if available, "conservation plans and maps" and "inventories
> of natural and historic resources."*
>
> *The Secretary may consider the FHWA report "Flexibility in Highway
> Design" and the national CSS workshop report in establishing standards
> to be used on the National Highway System.*

## Overview of Provisions

Shari Schaftlein, Team Leader, FHWA Office of Project Development and
Environmental Review, provided an overview of the environmental
considera­tions requirements in SAFETEA‑LU, and the resources available
to states to assist them in this area. A handout of key resources,
"Environmental Resources for Transportation Planners" was distributed
(Appendix F). Ms. Schaftlein addressed five key components of
environmental considerations in planning: environ­mental mitigation,
consultation with resource agencies, consideration of resource maps and
inventories, context sensitive solutions, and Section 6002 requirements
regarding the environmental process.

*Environmental Mitigation* A broad range of planning-level activities
are underway that state DOTs can draw on to inform the transportation
planning process in regard to environmental mitigation. These efforts
are led by various Federal agencies, state and regional partnerships,
and nongovernmental organizations. For example, watershed plans will
gain more prominence in decision-making under new regulations of the
Army Corp of Engineers. Further, all states have recently completed
State Wildlife Action Plans for the first time. While of varying
quality, these plans are likely to be useful to transportation planners
in identifying environmental considerations in their state, and
providing an opportunity to build discussions with the state resource
agency. FHWA in partnership with several Federal resource agencies
recently published Eco-Logical -- a guide to making infrastructure more
sensitive to wildlife and eco­systems through greater integrated
planning, new partnerships, and cooperative conservation. The approach
introduces a framework for mitigation options and performance
measurement. Several other drivers that may be useful to DOTs were
addressed.

*Consultation with Resource Agencies* is required for state DOTs,
including consul­tation with local and tribal agencies engaged in land
use, natural resources, envi­ronmental protection, conservation, and
historic preservation. Resource agencies believe that they have the
tools and information to be able to add value to plan­ning decisions, and
think that the time is ripe to apply these tools to preserve key lands
and species. States are taking a number of approaches to this
consultation, ranging from "shuttle negotiation" with individual
resource agencies to group processes that engage multiple players based
on topic, geography, or level of government. Ms. Schaftlein noted that
some foundations are funding non­governmental organizations (NGOs) to
help facilitate planning, and that DOTs may want to consider taking
advantage of this capacity rather than relying on government conveners
in all situations.

The requirement for *Consideration of Resource Maps and Inventories* is
hampered by several factors. There is uneven availability of data in
different geographic areas, and available maps may not match available
resource inventories. Furthermore, only 40 percent of state wildlife
plans include maps, in part due to concern about negative consequences
of identifying where resources are located. This is of par­ticular
concern when private property is involved. Understanding the concerns of
resource agencies is important when attempting to build consultation
proc­esses. Conservationists face an inherent tension between the public
right to know and concerns about confidentiality and species protection.
Further, regu­latory agencies have a long culture of individual species
management through regulation. Moving toward a collaborative strategic
planning process will take time, but is worth the effort.

Ms. Schaftlein listed a number of areas that FHWA is investing in to
support states in implementing context sensitive solutions. These
include development of training and information on best practices
through classroom and web-based training, updates of existing National
Highway Institute (NHI) courses, devel­opment of a Context Sensitive
Solutions (CSS) primer, and work with AASHTO's Center For Environmental
Excellence on a CSS conference and peer exchanges. Further information
can be found at:

**www.contextsensitivesolutions.org.**

The *Environmental Review Process* outlined in Section 6002 spells out
several com­ponents of the required environmental review process. While
this is a "new" process, many states have already incorporated much of
the approach outlined in the statute. Finally, Ms. Schaftlein
highlighted the use of geospatial tools to support environmental
streamlining ("GIS4EST"). The GIS4EST continuum portrays the progressive
steps DOTs take in building their use of GIS to support improved
integration of environmental considerations in transportation planning.

## Examples of State DOT Experiences

Kathy Ames, Deputy Director of Planning and Programming for Illinois
DOT, described what several states are doing to incorporate
environmental considera­tions in planning and project development. She
highlighted best practices in four areas: environmental mitigation,
consultation with resource agencies, con­sideration of resource maps and
inventories, and context sensitive solutions.

*Best Practices for Environmental Mitigation --* In considering
mitigation options as part of a transportation plan, the goal is to
identify practices that have the greatest potential to restore and
maintain environmental functions affected by the plan.

-   Illinois DOT (IDOT) created the Illinois LaGrange Wetland Bank in
    west cen­tral Illinois -- a 1,645-acre site strategically located in
    the floodplain of two major watersheds and home to listed species.
    The Bank creates a regionally based restoration and enhancement
    resource supporting a large portion of the State. By creating a
    significant wetland bank, IDOT receives credits that offset
    unavoidable impacts in the region, while reducing the time and costs
    required for individual projects. The project also provides the
    foundation for ongoing collaborative restoration efforts that IDOT
    is pursuing with resource agencies and nonprofit environmental
    organizations.

-   Arkansas DOT has also taken an ecoregion-based approach to wetland
    miti­gation. It's first mitigation bank was established in 1996; the
    State has since developed four additional banks, addressing each
    ecoregion in the State. Arkansas has benefited from their strong
    collaboration with multiple resource agencies, and has contributed
    to the creation of high-value environmental resources that have the
    highest potential for long-term eco­logical success.

-   Colorado DOT (CDOT) joined with FHWA, Federal and state resource
    agencies, and the Nature Conservancy to undertake the highly
    successful Shortgrass Prairie Initiative. The Partnership
    established an ongoing agreement on scientific processes and
    procedures that would be used to pre­serve thousands of acres of
    shortgrass prairie in eastern Colorado. CDOT has found that the
    agreement has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of
    maintenance activities, enables proactive planning to avoid and
    minimize environmental impacts, and supports effective ecological
    action while facili­tating a streamlined process for DOT projects.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256307 .anchor}Figure 8.5

![](media/image5.png){width="5.503472222222222in"
height="3.727777777777778in"}

**Illinois DOT worked with resource agencies and nonprofits to establish
regional wetland banks that improve ecological results while reducing
the time and cost of project delivery.**

*Consultation with Resource Agencies* is required, as appropriate, with
agencies engaged in land use management, natural resources,
environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation.

-   Colorado has established a Transportation Environmental Resource
    Council to coordinate consultation on all environment and
    transportation matters. This executive-level body includes the FHWA
    Division Administrator, CDOT's Executive Director, and the Director
    and Executive Management of Federal and state resource agencies.

-   In California, Merced County has established a Partnership for
    Integrated Planning (PIP) to improve the delivery of transportation
    projects through early state and Federal agency participation in the
    planning process. The PIP has succeeded in improving communication
    among all parties, and devel­oped methods for conducting an effective
    multiparty planning process on a broad scale that incorporate land
    use, transportation, and ecosystem preser­vation. Benefits were
    demonstrated using a GIS application to facilitate the analysis of
    impacts, including cumulative impact analyses. This approach may
    contribute to the development of a standardized method statewide.

Ms. Ames highlighted three states' best practices in *Consideration of
Resource Maps and Inventories.*

-   Illinois DOT has developed protocols for sharing environmental
    information across agencies. The Wetland Impact Review Tool enables
    both the DOT and resource agencies to locate and assess wetlands for
    permits in review. The Historic Architectural and Archaeological
    Resources GIS (HAARGIS) con­solidates data by locational site and
    type for use by multiple agencies. Staff for each of the programs
    includes one or two positions funded by Illinois DOT.

-   Washington State (WashDOT) DOT's Environmental GIS Workbench
    program -- with 125 data layers -- enables WashDOT to coordinate
    with Federal, state, tribal and local sources to collect and access
    critical data. The Workbench provides technical support for both
    project planning and delivery.

-   Florida's Efficient Transportation Decision-Making (ETDM) process
    redes­igned the State's approach to planning, permitting, and project
    review. As part of this process, FDOT developed a GIS-based tool
    that supports multi-agency evaluation of cumulative impacts; and
    relationships among land use, ecosystem management, and mobility as
    an integrated approach. It includes various modules, such as a
    sociocultural effects module.

Best practices for incorporating *Context Sensitive Solutions* in
transportation plan­ning address both the visible elements and the
underlying culture, values and expectations of the community.

-   Pennsylvania DOT conducts a Community Context Audit to identify
    commu­nity characteristics for each transportation project location.
    This helps define the project purpose and need based on community
    goals and local plans for future development.

-   IDOT must comply with state CSS legislation. IDOT uses the Balanced
    Scorecard management approach to implement CSS on a department wide
    and multimodal basis. Community impact assessment and the
    stakeholder involvement process are large parts of the CSS process.

-   New Hampshire DOT has developed a CSS Project Delivery Process,
    out­lining CSS considerations in each stage of project delivery, from
    need identi­fication through project maintenance and operation.

-   Oregon DOT incorporated a Context Sensitive and Sustainable
    Solutions framework to plan and implement its State Bridge Delivery
    Program. ODOT estimates that its investment in this planning
    approach has a potential savings of over \$50 million, and may
    reduce the program schedule by one to two years.

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-6 .unnumbered}

States are pursuing a number of strategies to integrate environmental
considera­tions into their planning practices. In the breakout session,
co-moderated by Shari Schaftlein and Kathy Ames, several states offered
examples of successful approaches.

*Environmental Mitigation in Planning --* Many states have found that
addressing environmental concerns at the planning level can save time
and money at the project level. However, states also stressed the
importance of having clear agreements with resource agencies up front,
to avoid duplicating work at later stages. Many resource agencies value
a more system-level approach to deter­mining mitigation strategies,
because it can achieve better ecological results. Other states have
found that resource agencies are reluctant to be involved in the
planning level, wanting to wait to participate until a more detailed
project-level review. Use of programmatic agreements has been key to
building successful planning approaches with partner agencies.

*Consultation with Resource Agencies --* States emphasized the
importance of "getting agencies on board," and developing programmatic
agreements regarding consultation. States stressed the importance of
documenting the processes they have developed for consultation.

*Maps and Inventories --* Several DOTs are incorporating data and
mapping tools developed by other organizations into their planning
processes.

-   California worked with the Nature Conservancy to apply regional maps
    that contain diversity data overlaid with population and growth
    projections. Through this integrated data and geospatial analysis,
    Caltrans identified "hot spots" and key parcels for conservation.

-   Colorado utilized GIS tools developed by the Nature Conservancy to
    com­pare value of habitat with property values of those areas,
    enabling the DOT to identify cost-effective areas to meet mitigation
    objectives.

Many state DOTs, such as Washington State, are developing their own list
of environmental assets for management, for example fish passage
barriers and stormwater outfalls.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-6 .unnumbered}

A number of concerns were raised by participants during the discussion.
These include:

-   *Participation by Resource Agencies --* Some states have had
    difficulty engaging resource agencies during planning stages. This
    may be due in part to their lack of familiarity with the planning
    process, inadequate staff capacity, disagreement about the level of
    detail necessary, reluctance to waive project-level reviews, or a
    history of conflict or distrust among agencies. Culturally, some
    agencies view themselves as "regulatory" rather than "planning"
    organizations. Moving to a more strategic planning approach often
    takes considerable time.

-   *Balance in Level of Detail and Scale of Plan --* States have
    difficulty defining with resource agencies an appropriate level of
    detail in relation to the level of planning. Developing
    strategic-level agreements as part of a policy plan is a relatively
    new approach for many agencies, but can be valuable in estab­lishing
    a broad agreement for subsequent work. Some states have found it
    more effective to engage resource agencies at a corridor or
    subregional level of planning, in which a more specific plan can be
    considered than at a state­wide level. It is important to
    differentiate between what is contained in a regional and statewide
    plan versus other planning activities.

-   *Areawide Mitigation Plans --* Several states are working toward
    development of multi-agency agreements for mitigation, in which the
    DOT participates. There is a trend toward moving away from project
    by project mitigation.

-   *Effects on Sensitive Areas --* States recognized the concern that
    identifying sen­sitive ecological areas for protection at the
    planning stage may fuel land speculation or endanger sensitive areas
    or species.

-   *Staff Capacity --* A growing number of states are funding staff
    positions within resource agencies, recognizing that staffing
    constraints have limited the abil­ity of resource agencies to engage
    in DOT activities at both the planning and project level.

-   *Management and Confidentiality of Data --* States are challenged to
    develop appropriate data management protocols that protect sensitive
    data and ensure data quality. Some DOTs, such as Arizona and Kansas,
    are working through statewide interagency data management working
    groups to develop consistent protocols for data sharing and
    management.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend to Facilitate Integration of Environmental Considerations in Planning? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-to-facilitate-integration-of-environmental-considerations-in-planning .unnumbered}

Following are recommendations states discussed during the breakout
session:

-   *Retain Flexibility in Rulemaking --* States urged that FHWA
    recognize the importance of flexibility in implementing these
    provisions. The circum­stances and priorities of individual states
    are very different, requiring a range of approaches.

-   *Develop Programmatic Agreements --* States should pursue
    programmatic agree­ments with resource agencies to encourage their
    participation in planning activities and ensure a clear and
    consistent approach to consultation and mitigation decisions.

-   *Consider a Range of Planning Scales --* Many states find planning
    at corridor and regional levels to be a productive level of focus
    for consultation.

-   *Use GIS Councils for Coordination of Data Sharing --* Tapping into
    statewide groups provides additional data resources to DOTs and
    facilitates data man­agement and quality control.

# Security (Including Border Security)

> *SAFETEA‑LU calls for the security of the transportation system to be
> a stand-alone planning factor, signaling an increase in importance
> from prior legisla­tion, in which security was coupled with safety in
> the same planning factor.*

## Overview of Provision

Gloria Shepherd provided a summary of the security provision and
explained that, under SAFETEA‑LU, the security and safety planning
provisions have been decoupled, with each receiving more emphasis. Many
states have taken actions to address security, even before security
became a stand alone planning provi­sion. FHWA recognizes that states are
at difference stages in adopting transpor­tation security plans. In fact,
many states are still in the process of learning and defining how the
planning provision applies to their particular state, while others have
already begun to incorporate security into their transportation plans.
FHWA also acknowledges that states have different security priorities,
so a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for this planning
provision. Given that states are at different stages in implementing the
security planning provision, FHWA stresses the importance of documenting
actions (i.e., developing plans, initiating dialogue with other
agencies, applying for homeland security grants) that address security.

## Maryland SHA Experience

Douglas Simmons, Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer for Planning and
Engineering at Maryland State Highway Administration, described the
Maryland State Highway Administration's (SHA) "all hazards" approach to
security planning on its highways. This approach rests on the premise
that SHA builds its security planning on the foundation erected through
familiar or previ­ous experiences (i.e., winter storms, incident
management, and natural disaster). Part of this approach is to define
the agency's exact responsibilities and coordi­nate plans based on those
assumptions. SHA catalogued all available emergency resources, including
local government resources and private contractors. Having a
comprehensive inventory of resources allows SHA to choose the most
appro­priate emergency response from a menu of resources. The agency then
devised a matrix of security measures depending on the threat level that
considers both the potential for disruption and the relative importance
of each facility. By building on existing security efforts, SHA was able
to add specific security elements, such as a terrorism element, to
existing emergency operations plans. After taking a comprehensive review
of its system and facility vulnerabilities, SHA expanded its security
planning efforts to address evacuation, with particular attention to the
regional level. In order to increase the SHA security network, SHA has
employed Department of Homeland Security grants which help cover the
cost of developing plans, conducting studies, and making system upgrades
and enhancements. In order to test the effectiveness of these efforts,
Maryland's Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) conducts statewide
tabletop drills and employs a dedicated Homeland Security Coordinator.

SHA developed a comprehensive Continuity of Operations Plan, which was
sub­sequently certified by MEMA. Involving MEMA helped to promote the
legiti­macy of the plan. AASHTO can assist states when conducting
vulnerability assessments. AASHTO's assessment tools can help state DOTs
determine and evaluate their critical and vulnerable assets in support
of their security plans.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256308 .anchor}Figure 9.6

![](media/image6.png){width="5.503472222222222in"
height="3.607638888888889in"}

**Maryland DOT conducted vulnerability assessments and created a matrix
of threat level responses, which feed into its evacuation planning.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-7 .unnumbered}

In addition to presenting at the Workshop, Douglas Simmons also served
as a moderator for the breakout session. Many state DOTs believe that
traditional planning partners have not been incorporated into the
security planning process. Now that security is a stand alone planning
factor, planning will likely play a more significant role. However, not
all states face the same levels or types of security threats; therefore,
the depth and emphasis of one state's transportation security effort may
differ from another. Furthermore, security efforts often focus on
highways, but depending on the state, it may be prudent to consider
transit dependent workforces or railway dependent economic centers. In
addition, goods movement security has increasingly become a major
concern for many state DOTs. The intricacies of security planning are
even more challenging for those states with international borders, since
cross-border security planning is likely to have a different focus for
states with more pressing freight or immigra­tion issues.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-7 .unnumbered}

Many state DOTs feel that security efforts fall into one of two
categories -- natural disaster plans and systems security plans.
Similarly, there are two different approaches to security planning:
1) minimize risk; and 2) response to an event. State DOTs discussed the
importance of involving agencies beyond the state DOT as critical
partners in security planning. Expanding the dialogue beyond
transportation professionals can help in the exchange of necessary
information for transportation security planning, as for example, when
reversing travel pat­terns or when assessing facility vulnerabilities
(i.e., nuclear reactor sites, natural gas terminals, military
installations). Some state DOTs feel that transportation security
planning is fragmented, especially when a state has large, dense
metropolitan areas that require multiple levels of security planning,
while other states have less sophisticated planning needs. Regardless,
many states believe that transportation planners should be included in
the security planning process because planners have a unique skill set
and temperament to mediate the trade­offs that occur when security is
considered.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the Security Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-security-requirement .unnumbered}

Given that security is now a stand alone planning factor, many states
expressed interest in becoming more involved in transportation security
planning efforts. Following are a number recommendations states suggest
for the planning provision:

-   *Manage Competing Demands --* Recognize that there is a limit on
    DOTs ability to affect security. Because security is usually not
    part of a state DOT's core mission, it is difficult to devote money
    to security when there are other more direct transportation
    investments to balance.

-   *Engage Planning Processes --* The planning community needs to
    actively engage and insert itself into the security planning
    process.

-   *Target Improving Information Exchange --* Aim security planning
    efforts at engaging state DOTs across all modes. For example, some
    state DOTs have separate modal administrations, but there must be a
    plan to communicate among them to efficiently exchange information
    and share resources when an emergency occurs.

-   *Proper Prioritizing  --* Since there are many dimensions and facets
    of security, it is important to define a full range of security
    issues, then prioritize those issues and use them as leverage to
    influence funding allocation.

-   *Strategic Implementation --* Since unfunded mandates compete for
    scare trans­portation funds, it is important to prioritize funds.
    This may mean imple­menting strategic, smaller projects as opposed to
    large, visible ones.

-   *Expand Traditional Toolboxes --* There is an array of planning
    tools, such as GIS and behavior modeling, that can aid in security
    planning.

-   *Be Conservative --* States should be encouraged to be conservative
    when priori­tizing projects that address security because integrating
    security into long-range planning has the potential to be overused
    as justification for projects that have minimal security-related
    benefits.

-   *Mitigate Spillover Effects --* Security issues cross state
    boundaries, which means that actions or policies can have indirect
    benefits or consequences to other states. One way to address
    spillover effects is to approach certain security issues through
    multistate involvement.

# Strategic Highway Safety Plan

> *A Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a new requirement under the core
> Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Its purpose is to identify
> a state's key safety needs and guide investment decisions to achieve
> significant reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries on
> all public roads.*

## Overview of Provision

Beth Alicandri noted that the Highway Safety Improvement Program, a core
program, has experienced a large increase in funding. In order to
receive these increased funds, states are required to develop a
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). The objective of this planning
provision is to coordinate efforts to guide investment decision and
ultimately improve surface transportation safety by forming partnerships
in support of developing and implementing a SHSP. Drilling down and
evaluating data will enable a state DOT to strategically focus funding
in order to reduce fatalities and injuries on all public roads. DOTs are
responsible for consulting with other various safety partners across the
engi­neering, education, enforcement, and EMS disciplines, and
determining empha­sis areas and strategies in a SHSP; the state governor
must approve of the plan. According to FHWA, it is important for the
SHSP effort to be led by a champion that supports this interdisciplinary
approach, helps to break down stovepipes, and drives implementation of
the SHSP.

## Montana DOT Experience

Sandra Straehl, Planning Division Administrator at Montana DOT,
discussed Montana's experience with developing and implementing a SHSP
that not only focused on reducing the fatality rate on Montana's
roadways, but specifically focused on reducing the number of
alcohol-related fatalities and incapacitating injuries among Native
Americans. Montana DOT formulated a seven-step proc­ess that includes the
following: outreach to partner agencies, data analysis, define goals and
strategic objectives, align existing efforts, conduct gap analysis,
target SHSP champions, and implement the plan. A parallel effort known
as the Traffic Records Strategic Plan is being undertaken by Montana DOT
to support data integration and overall SHSP efforts. Montana DOT
applied a crash sever­ity index in order to identify high-crash corridors
and better define causality. Montana DOT's data effort is meant to
provide a more precise location identifi­cation of crashes, promote data
exchange regarding driving under the influence (DUI) convictions, and
foster a more comprehensive analysis of causality.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc134256309 .anchor}Figure 10.7

![](media/image7.png){width="5.503472222222222in"
height="4.263888888888889in"}

**Montana DOT is using a seven-step comprehensive process in order to
reduce all traffic fatalities and target Native American and
alcohol-related fatalities.**

## Breakout Session

### What Are States Doing? {#what-are-states-doing-8 .unnumbered}

Sandra Straehl moderated the breakout session where it was understood
that state DOTs will need to develop a SHSP or face limited Federal
funding under the Highway Safety Improvement Program. However, there is
a wide spectrum regarding how far along state DOTs are in developing or
implementing their SHSP. Some state DOTs already have SHSPs in place,
and others are in the proc­ess of updating them to meet the requirements
of SAFETEA‑LU. Michigan DOT has had a safety plan for years but is
updating it to conform to SAFETEA‑LU. The Ohio Governor and other
cooperating agencies will sign their SHSP in May 2006. A few states like
South Dakota are beginning to develop their safety plans.

Plans are often led by different units within a DOT organization and, in
some cases, by other state agencies. Many participants favored a strong
role for plan­ners when developing the SHSP. Participants cited planners'
skill set as multi­disciplinary and their experience in having
cross-jurisdictional knowledge as a benefit when breaking down
organizational "silos" and mediating among inter­ests. The majority of
state DOTs attending the breakout session began safety planning efforts
through a safety forum.

Many state DOTs currently incorporate safety measures as criteria in
their pro­gramming processes or are exploring ways to incorporate safety
in decision-making, for example by incorporating a ranking system into
capital construction. Arizona DOT currently considers safety as a
criterion in ranking highway projects. Ohio DOT provides safety funds to
all their counties and MPOs. Other state DOTs involve MPOs in safety
planning, although their involvement tends to be regarding facility
issues and not the behavioral side.

### What Issues Have State DOTs Identified? {#what-issues-have-state-dots-identified-8 .unnumbered}

Two key issues were identified by states as being central to
implementing the SHSP requirement, they are:

-   *Data --* There is a concern among many state DOTs regarding the
    quality, reli­ability, and accessibility to data on roadways off of
    the state network or on lower function roads. Furthermore, obtaining
    crash data for incidents that occurred on tribal lands and dealing
    with the processes used by reservations is challenging. Such data
    accuracy problems raise concern over equity because if the accuracy
    and comprehensiveness of data is questionable, then the legitimacy
    of funding decisions made for safety improvements that use this data
    is also questionable. Strategies included in the SHSP should be
    based on sound data and the strategies should be reflected in the
    long-range transportation plan either by inclusion or reference.
    Participants also dis­cussed incorporating incapacitating injuries in
    addition to fatalities in order to provide for a better analysis in
    trends over time. Reviewing both sets of data can also make
    performance measurement more comprehensive.

-   *Breaking Down Stovepipes --* Fostering communication across
    disciplines can be challenging especially considering the
    constrained resources of state DOTs. Participants noted that often
    the same players come to the table, making it difficult to hear or
    include other stakeholders. Champions are needed who understand the
    nuances of the many transportation disciplines in order to address
    this challenge.

### What Do State DOTs Recommend for Implementation of the SHSP Requirement? {#what-do-state-dots-recommend-for-implementation-of-the-shsp-requirement .unnumbered}

The following recommendations were discussed by breakout participants:

-   *Flexibility --* In developing the rule, FHWA should not elaborate
    beyond statu­tory language.

-   *Program Funding Approach --* Block grants for safety funding would
    be a better funding mechanism for state DOTs instead of many small
    and separate programs such as those within the National Highway
    Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) programs.

-   *Comprehensive Guidance --* The states would like more FHWA guidance
    on how to develop a SHSP.

-   *Targeted Data Research --* States suggest that a research project
    be directed to examine methods for data collection on lower function
    roadways.

-   *Consideration of Existing Efforts --* Consideration should be
    embedded in the rule for the actions that state DOTs have already
    taken.

# Concluding Remarks

The facilitator, Ken Leonard, thanked all participants for their
contributions to the Workshop. The Workshop provided an opportunity for
FHWA to present a Federal interpretation of the planning provisions in
SAFETEA-LU and for state DOTs to gather detailed information about the
planning provisions. A number of websites were referenced during the
Workshop and are included in this report as Appendix G. State DOTs
appreciated getting guidance on the provisions, and the opportunity to
share their experiences and best practices. A number of use­ful examples
were presented and discussed. The PowerPoint presentations given at the
Workshop are available on AASHTO's website at:

**ttp://www.transportation.org/?siteid=30&pageid=399**

On behalf of FHWA, Gloria Shepherd thanked all participants for
attending. She particularly acknowledged the leadership of Dale Buskirk,
Arizona DOT in spearheading and hosting the event. The timing of the
Workshop was especially helpful, because it allowed FHWA and states to
discuss the provisions infor­mally, in advance of the formal rulemaking
process. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) will be released
shortly, and Ms. Shepherd encouraged all state DOTs to provide comments
on the proposed rules. AASHTO plans to establish a committee to receive
comments and coordinate state DOT input. FHWA seeks to continue the
productive dialogue established at the Workshop through future peer
exchanges.

Ms. Shepherd asked that state DOTs evaluate the NPRM, when issued, in
rela­tion to the statute itself, as much of the statutory language leaves
little room for flexibility or interpretation. Ms. Shepherd also
reminded participants that FHWA is accountable to many constituencies
and must work with all parties to develop acceptable rules. FHWA is
confident that states have the capacity to meet the new SAFETEA-LU
requirements. Key to this compliance will be docu­menting existing and
new processes that address these provisions. The impor­tance of
documentation was emphasized throughout the two-day Workshop.

At the end of the Workshop, Ken Leonard initiated an open question and
answer period where the following points were discussed:

-   Several state DOTs expressed concern regarding plan updates,
    especially those that might be triggered by modifications to STIPS
    after July 1, 2007, as required by current FHWA/FTA guidance. FHWA
    acknowledged this con­cern and will be working with FHWA Divisions to
    clarify this point.

-   States were asked whether or not they will be taking advantage of
    the 4-year update cycle as provided in SAFETEA-LU. Most DOTs did not
    appear to be moving to 4-year STIPs, but several DOTs, such as
    Colorado DOT and Oregon DOT, are weighing their options in
    consultation with MPOs and partner agencies.

-   States noted that the upcoming NPRM will be both complicated and
    signifi­cant, and urged colleagues to be actively engaged in
    scrutinizing the pro­posed rules and participating in the comment
    period.

The discussion concluded with appreciation to the organizers and
sponsors for a productive and informative Workshop.

## Participant Workshop Evaluation

Before departing, participants completed a written evaluation of the
Workshop. The average rating for the Workshop was 4.22 on a five-point
scale, with five being best. Overall, states found the Workshop to be
useful in enhancing their understanding of the provisions and learning
about the experiences of other states. Participants mentioned the value
to them of networking with planning colleagues and participating in peer
exchange discussions in the breakout ses­sions. Attendees also
appreciated the opportunity to raise with FHWA concerns that they have
about the provisions and the upcoming rulemaking process. Some noted
that the Workshop would have benefited from broader participation
including FTA and nonplanning disciplines (e.g., security, safety,
environment).

Many participants said they would appreciate further discussion on some
of the more complex topics. There were several suggestions for
follow-up, including:

-   Additional dialogue between state DOTs, FHWA, FTA, and AASHTO;

-   Survey of states to learn more about best practices and barriers to
    imple­mentation;

-   Additional information regarding fiscal constraint and STIP/TIP
    related issues;

-   Joint open-mike forums via web-conferencing for SAFETEA-LU topics;

-   Future workshops with participation of FHWA Divisions;

-   Training on performance measurement; and

-   More peer exchange on specific topics (use of GIS, traffic data,
    safety, fiscal constraint, environmental integration).

Appendix H contains a full list of the comments and suggestions
received.

#  A. Workshop Agenda {#a.-workshop-agenda .unnumbered}

**SAFETEA‑LU Planning Provisions Workshop**

**AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning**

**Agenda**

### Monday -- March 27, 2006 {#monday-march-27-2006 .unnumbered}

#### **Plenary Session, Room Yucca/Aloe** {#plenary-session-room-yuccaaloe .unnumbered}

8:00 Opening Remarks

-   Janet Oakley, Director of Policy and Government Relations, AASHTO

8:15 Overview of the Workshop

-   Ken Leonard, Cambridge Systematics -- Workshop Facilitator

-   Introductions

-   Supplemental handouts

8:30 FHWA Overview of the Planning Provisions

-   Gloria M. Shepherd, Director, FHWA Office of Planning

9:00 Best Practices Presentations

-   Fiscal Constraint

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Gloria M. Shepherd, Director, FHWA Office of Planning

-   David Lee, Administrator, Statewide Planning and Policy Analysis, FL
    DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consultation

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Robert Ritter, FHWA Office of Planning

-   Dale Buskirk, Director, Transportation Planning Division, AZ DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Congestion Management Process versus Congestion Management System

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ken Leonard, Cambridge Systematics

-   Peggy Reichert, Director, Statewide Planning, MN DOT

10:15 Break

#### **Breakout Sessions** {#breakout-sessions .unnumbered}

10:30 Breakout Sessions

-   Fiscal Constraint, *Yucca/Aloe*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- David Lee, Administrator, Statewide Planning and Policy
    Analysis, FL DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consultation, *Room 301-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Dale Buskirk, Director, Transportation Planning
    Division, AZ DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Congestion Management Process versus Congestion Management System,
    *Room 360-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Peggy Reichert, Director, Statewide Planning, MN DOT

#### **Lunch** {#lunch .unnumbered}

12:00 Lunch, *Courtyard*

#### **Plenary Session, Room Yucca/Aloe** {#plenary-session-room-yuccaaloe-1 .unnumbered}

1:00 Observations from morning sessions

2:00 Best Practices Presentations

-   Visualization

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Robert Ritter, FHWA Office of Planning

-   Mary Beth Pfrang, GIS Applications Project Manager, KS DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and Economic
    Development

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Gloria M. Shepherd, Director, FHWA Office of Planning

-   Brian Smith, Director, Strategic Planning and Programming, WA DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Safe Routes to School

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Beth Alicandri, FHWA Office of Safety

-   Sharon Scherzinger, Acting Division Chief, Division of
    Transportation Planning, CA DOT

3:15 Break

#### **Breakout Sessions** {#breakout-sessions-1 .unnumbered}

3:30 Breakout Sessions

-   Visualization, *Room Yucca/Aloe*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Thomas Dow, Urban Planning Manager, KS DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and Economic
    Development, *Room 301-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Brian Smith, Strategic Planning and Programming, WA DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Safe Routes to School, *Room 360-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Sharon Scherzinger, Acting Division Chief, Division of
    Transportation Planning, CA DOT

5:00 Adjourn

**SAFETEA‑LU Planning Provisions Workshop**

**AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning**

**Agenda**

### Tuesday -- March 28, 2006 {#tuesday-march-28-2006 .unnumbered}

#### **Plenary Session, Room Yucca/Aloe** {#plenary-session-room-yuccaaloe-2 .unnumbered}

8:00 Observations from afternoon session

9:00 Best Practices Presentations

-   Environmental Considerations in the Planning Process

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Shari Schaftlein, FHWA Office of Project Development and
    Environmental Review

-   Kathy Ames, Deputy Director, Planning and Programming, IL DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Security as a Planning Factor (including border security)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Gloria M. Shepherd, Director FHWA Office of Planning

-   Douglas Simmons, Deputy Administrator and Chief Engineer for
    Planning and Engineering, MD DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strategic Highway Safety Planning

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Beth Alicandri, FHWA Office of Safety

-   Sandra Straehl, Planning Division Administrator, MT DOT

10:15 Break

#### **Breakout Sessions** {#breakout-sessions-2 .unnumbered}

10:30 Breakout Sessions

-   Environmental Considerations in the Planning Process, *Room
    Yucca/Aloe*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Kathy Ames, Deputy Director, Planning and Programming,
    IL DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Security as a Planning Factor (including border security), *Room
    301-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Douglas Simmons, Deputy Administrator and Chief
    Engineer for Planning and Engineering, MD DOT

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Strategic Highway Safety Planning, *Room 360-A*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Moderator -- Sandra Straehl, Planning Division Administrator, MT DOT

#### **Lunch and Plenary Session, Yucca/Aloe** {#lunch-and-plenary-session-yuccaaloe .unnumbered}

12:00 Observations from morning session

Closing observations and recommendations

-   Including an opened-ended question and answer period

2:00 Adjourn

# B. Participant List {#b.-participant-list .unnumbered}

  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Last Name**   **First     **Title**             **Agency**       **Address**   **City, State, **Phone**      **Fax**        **Email**
                  Name**                                                           Zip**                                        
  --------------- ----------- --------------------- ---------------- ------------- -------------- -------------- -------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Adams           Melvin      Director, Policy and  Vermont Agency   1 National    Montpelier, VT 802-828-3441   802-828-3983   <mel.adams@state.vt.us>
                              Planning              of               Life Drive,   05633-5001                                   
                                                    Transportation   Drawer 33                                                  

  Alicandri       Elizabeth   Director, Office of   FHWA             400 7th       Washington, DC 202-366-6409   202-366-3222   <beth.alicandri@fhwa.dot.gov>
                              Safety Programs                        Street, SW,   20590                                        
                                                                     Room 3419                                                  

  Ames            Kathy       Deputy Director,      Illinois DOT     2300 S.       Springfield,   217-782-6332   217-524-0875   <amesks@dot.il.gov>
                              Office of Planning                     Dirksen       IL 62764                                     
                              and Programming                        Parkway                                                    

  Anderson        Stuart      Director, Office of   Iowa DOT         800 Lincoln   Ames, IA 50010 515-239-1312   515-233-7857   <stuart.anderson@dot.iowa.gov>
                              Systems Planning                       Way                                                        

  Balentine       William R.  Director of           Mississippi DOT  PO Box 1850   Jackson, MS    601-359-7025   601-359-7050   <rbalentine@mdot.state.ms.us>
                              Intermodal Planning                                  39910                                        

  Beaupre         Sandra K.   Director, Planning    Wisconsin DOT    4802          Madison, WI    608-266-7575   608-267-0294   <sandy.beaupre@dot.state.wi.us>
                              and Economic                           Sheboygan     53707-7913                                   
                              Development                            Avenue, Room                                               
                                                                     933\                                                       
                                                                     PO Box 7913                                                

  Bennett         Scott       Assistant Chief       Arkansas State   PO Box 2261   Little Rock,   501-569-2241   501-569-2688   <scott.bennett@arkansashighways.com>
                              Engineer for Planning Highway and                    AR 72203-2261                                
                                                    Transportation                                                              
                                                    Department                                                                  

  Bjorneberg      Tim         Project Development   South Dakota DOT 700 E.        Pierre, SD     605-773-2924   605-773-6608   <tim.bjorneberg@state.sd.us>
                              Engineer                               Broadway      57501                                        
                                                                     Avenue                                                     

  Bohard          Jerri       Planning Section      Oregon DOT       555 13th      Salem, OR      503-986-4165   503-986-4174   <jerri.l.bohard@odot.state.or.us>
                              Manager                                Street NE,    97301-4178                                   
                                                                     Suite 2                                                    

  Brantley        Albert V.   Assistant State       Mississippi DOT  401 N. West   Jackson, MS    601-359-7680   601-359-7652   albrantley@mdot.state.ms.us
                              Planning Engineer                      Street        39201                                        

  Broussard       Daniel      Statewide Planning    Louisiana DOT    PO Box 94245  Baton Rouge,   225-379-1924   225-379-1807   <danbroussard@dotd.louisiana.gov>
                              Engineer, Office of                                  LA 70804                                     
                              Planning and                                                                                      
                              Programming                                                                                       

  Burnham         Arnold      Air                   Arizona DOT      206 S. 17th   Phoenix, AZ    602-712-8591   602-712-3046   <aburnham@azdot.gov>
                              Quality/Programming                    Avenue, MD    85007                                        
                              Manager                                320B                                                       

  Buskirk         Dale        Director,             Arizona DOT      206 S 17th    Phoenix, AZ    602-712-8143   602-256-7659   <dbuskirk@azdot.gov>
                              Transportation                         Avenue, MD310 85007                                        
                              Planning Division                                                                                 

  Clawson         David H.    Program Director for  AASHTO           444 N.        Washington, DC 202-624-5807   202-624-5806   <davidc@aashto.org>
                              Policy and Planning                    Capitol       20001                                        
                                                                     Street, NW,                                                
                                                                     Suite 249                                                  

  Cooper          Kent        Assistant Director -  Nevada DOT       1263 S.       Carson City,   775-888-7240   775-888-7203   <pmorton@dot.state.nv.us>
                              Planning                               Steward       NV 89712                                     
                                                                     Street, Room                                               
                                                                     204                                                        

  Cuddy           Muffet Foy  Chief of Programs,    New Mexico DOT   1120          Santa Fe, NM   505-827-5549   505-989-4983   <muffet.cuddy@state.nm.us>
                              Programs Division                      Cerrillos     87504-1149                                   
                                                                     Road\                                                      
                                                                     PO Box 1149                                                

  Dow             Thomas      Urban Planning        Kansas DOT       700 SW        Topeka, KS     785-296-2552   785-296-0963   <tdow@ksdot.org>
                              Manager                                Harrison      66603                                        
                                                                     Street                                                     

  Fernandez       Sonna Lynn  Senior Transportation Idaho DOT        3311 W. State Boise, ID      208-332-7823   208-334-4432   <sonnalynn.fernandez@itd.idaho.org>
                              Planner                                Street        83707-1129                                   

  Fiol            Marsha      State Transportation  Virginia DOT     1401 E. Broad Richmond, VA   804-786-2985   804-225-4785   <marsha.fiol@vdot.virginia.gov>
                              Planner                                Street        23219                                        

  Foster          Jack        Director, Systems     Texas DOT        118 Riverside Austin, TX     512-486-5024   512-486-5040   <jfoster@dot.state.tx.us>
                              Planning                                             78714                                        

  Fowler          Matthew     Assistant Planning    Georgia DOT      2 Capitol     Atlanta, GA    404-657-6916   404-657-5228   <matthew.fowler@dot.state.ga.us>
                              Administrator                          Square        30334                                        

  Garrison        Jami        Data Bureau Manager,  Arizona DOT      206 S. 17th   Phoenix, AZ    602-712-8958   602-712-3046   <jgarrison@azdot.gov>
                              Transportation                         Avenue, MD    85007                                        
                              Planning Division                      310B                                                       

  Gerstle         George      Manager,              Colorado DOT     4201 E.       Denver, CO     303-757-9795   303-757-9727   <george.gerstle@dot.state.co.us>
                              Transportation                         Arkansas      80222                                        
                              Planning                               Avenue                                                     

  Greer, P.E.     Daryl J.    Director, Division of Kentucky DOT     200 Metro     Frankfort, KY  502-564-7183   502-564-2865   <daryl.greer@ky.gov>
                              Planning                               Street,       40622                                        
                                                                     Station                                                    
                                                                     W5-05-01                                                   

  Hill            Tim         Administrator,        Ohio DOT         1980 W. Broad Columbus, OH   614-644-0377   614-728-7368   <tim.hill@dot.state.oh.us>
                              Environmental                          Street        43223                                        

  Hoffman         Jocelyn                           Cambridge        4800 Hampden  Bethesda, MD   301-347-0100   301-347-0101   <jhoffman@camsys.com>
                                                    Systematics      Lane, Suite   20814                                        
                                                                     800                                                        

  Jackson         Denise      Administrator         Michigan DOT     425 W. Ottawa Lansing, MI    517-335-2962   517-373-9255   <jacksonde@michigan.gov>
                                                                                   48864                                        

  Jensen          Brent       Environmental         Utah DOT         4501 S. 2700  Salt Lake      801-965-4327   801-965-4564   <brentjensen@utah.gov>
                              Director                               West, Box     City, UT                                     
                                                                     148450        84114-8450                                   

  Key             Tori J.     Fellow                District of      2000 14th     Washington, DC 202-671-1597   202-671-0617   <tori.key@dc.gov>
                                                    Columbia DOT     Street, NW,   20009                                        
                                                                     7th Floor                                                  

  Laden           Kenneth     Associate Director,   District of      2000 14th     Washington, DC 202-671-2309   202-671-0617   <ken.laden@dc.gov>
                              Transportation Policy Columbia DOT     Street, NW,   20009                                        
                              and Planning                           7th Floor                                                  

  Lee             David       Administrator, Office Florida DOT      605 Suwannee  Tallahassee,   850-414-4802   850-414-4898   <david.lee@dot.state.fl.us>
                              of Statewide Planning                  Street, MS 28 FL 32399                                     
                              and Policy Analysis                                                                               

  Leonard         Ken                               Cambridge        1842 Breezy   Madison, WI    608-845-2616   608-845-2616   <kleonard@camsys.com>
                                                    Systematics      Trail         53719                                        

  Malley          William     Partner               Akin Gump        1333 New      Washington, DC 202-887-4280   202-887-4288   <wmalley@akingump.com>
                                                    Strauss Mauer &  Hampshire     20036                                        
                                                    Feld             Avenue, NW                                                 

  Mauller         Don         Transportation        Arizona DOT      206 S. 17th   Phoenix, AZ    602-712-7916   602-712-3046   <dmauller@azdot.gov>
                              Planner                                Avenue, MD    85381                                        
                                                                     320B                                                       

  Minnitte, Jr.   Samuel F.   Director, Office of   Maryland DOT     7201          Hanover, MD    401-865-1275   410-865-1198   <sminnitte@mdot.state.md.us>
                              Planning and Capital                   Corporate     21076                                        
                              Programming                            Center Drive                                               

  Oakley          Janet       Director, Policy and  AASHTO           444 N.        Washington, DC 202-624-3698   202-624-5806   <joakley@aashto.org>
                              Government Relations                   Capitol       20001                                        
                                                                     Street, NW,                                                
                                                                     Suite 249                                                  

  Oliver-Wright   Patricia    Strategic Planning    New Mexico DOT   1120          Santa Fe, NM   505-827-5562   505-989-4983   <patricia.oliver-wright@state.nm.us>
                              Section Head,                          Cerrillos     87504                                        
                              Planning Bureau                        Road\                                                      
                                                                     PO Box 1149                                                

  Ortbahn         Jerry       Engineering           South Dakota DOT 700 E.        Pierre, SD     605-773-3281                  <jerry.ortbahn@state.sd.us>
                              Supervisor                             Broadway      57501                                        
                                                                     Avenue                                                     

  Ottesen         Jeff        Director of Program   Alaska DOT       PO Box 112500 Juneau, AK     907-465-8953   907-465-6984   [Betsy_Sandberg@dot.state.ak.us](mailto:betsy_sanberg@dot.state.ak.us)
                              Development                                          99811                                        

  Pein            John        Manager, Safe and     Arizona DOT      206 S. 17th   Phoenix, AZ    602-712-8239   602-712-3046   <jpein@azdot.gov>
                              Regional Planning                      Avenue, \#    85007                                        
                                                                     310                                                        

  Pfrang          Mary Beth   GIS Project Manager   Kansas DOT       700 SW        Topeka, KS     785-296-6315   785-296-8168   <marybeth@ksdot.org>
                                                                     Harrison      66603-3754                                   
                                                                     Street                                                     

  Pierce          Jeff A.     State Planning        Mississippi DOT  401 N. West   Jackson, MS    601-359-7685   601-359-7652   <jpierce@mdot.state.ms.us>
                              Engineer, Planning                     Street        39215                                        
                              Division                                                                                          

  Potter          Joanne                            Cambridge        4800 Hampden  Bethesda, MD   301-347-0100   301-347-0101   <jpotter@camsys.com>
                                                    Systematics      Lane, Suite   20814                                        
                                                                     800                                                        

  Raino           Patricia    Intermodal Planning   Idaho DOT        PO Box 7129   Boise, ID      208-334-8209   208-334-4432   <pat.raino@itd.idaho.gov>
                              Manager                                              83707-1129                                   

  Reeb            Ralph       Director, Planning    Delaware DOT     800 Bay Road\ Dover, DE      302-760-2111   302-739-2251   <ralph.reeb@state.de.us>
                                                                     PO Box 778    19903-0778                                   

  Reichert        Peggy       Director, Statewide   Minnesota DOT    395 John      St. Paul, MN   651-289-0501   651-296-3019   peggy.reichert@dot.state.mn.us
                              Planning                               Ireland       55155-1899                                   
                                                                     Boulevard, MS                                              
                                                                     440                                                        

  Ritter          Rob         Team Leader, FHWA     FHWA             400 7th       Washington, DC 202-493-2139   202-493-2198   <robert.ritter@fhwa.dot.gov>
                              Office of Planning                     Street, SW,   20590                                        
                                                                     Room 3301                                                  

  Ross            Gerald M.   Division Director of  Georgia DOT      #2 Capitol    Atlanta, GA    404-656-0610   404-656-0584   <gerald.ross@dot.state.ga.us>
                              Planning, Data and                     Square, SW    30334                                        
                              Intermodal                                                                                        
                              Development                                                                                       

  Ryan            Andrea      Administrative        AASHTO           444 N.        Washington, DC 202-624-5806   202-624-5806   aryan@aashto.org
                              Assistant, Policy                      Capitol       20001                                        
                              Planning and                           Street, NW,                                                
                              Intermodal Activities                  Suite 249                                                  

  Schaefer        Loren D.    Director, Division of South Dakota DOT 700 E.        Pierre, SD     605-773-3174   605-773-3921   <loren.schaefer@state.sd.us>
                              Planning and                           Broadway      57501-2586                                   
                              Engineering                            Avenue                                                     

  Schaftlein      Shari       Team Lead,            FHWA             400 7th       Washington, DC 202-366-5570   202-366-7660   <shari.schaftlein@fhwa.dot.gov>
                              Program/Policy                         Street, SW,   20590                                        
                              Development                            HEPE-1, Room                                               
                                                                     3232-J                                                     

  Scherzinger     Sharon      Acting Division       Caltrans         1120 N        Sacramento, CA 916-653-3362   916-654-6237   <sharon.scherzinger@dot.ca.gov>
                              Chief, Division of                     Street, MS 32 95814                                        
                              Transportation                                                                                    
                              Planning                                                                                          

  Schiro          Michael     Transportation        Louisiana DOT    PO Box 94245  Baton Rouge,   225-379-1956   225-379-1807   <mschiro@dotd.louisiana.gov>
                              Planning                                             LA 70804                                     
                              Administrator, Office                                                                             
                              of Planning and                                                                                   
                              Programming                                                                                       

  Schvaneveldt    Kim         Engineer for          Utah DOT         4501 S. 2700  Salt Lake      801-965-4354   801-965-4551   kschvaneveldt@utah.gov
                              Transportation                         West          City, UT 84119                               
                              Planning                                                                                          

  Shepherd        Gloria M.   Director, FHWA Office FHWA             400 7th       Washington, DC 202-366-0106   202-493-2198   <gloria.shepherd@fhwa.dot.gov>
                              of Planning                            Street, SW    20590                                        

  Simmons         Douglas H.  Deputy                Maryland State   707 N.        Baltimore, MD  410-545-0411   410-209-5014   <dsimmons@sha.state.md.us>
                              Administrator/Chief   Highway          Calvert       21202                                        
                              Engineer for Planning Administration   Street, C-411                                              
                              and Engineering                                                                                   

  Smith           Brian J.    Director, Strategic   Washington State 310 Maple     Olympia, WA    360-705-7958   360-705-6813   <smithb@wsdot.wa.gov>
                              Planning and          DOT              Park Avenue,  98504-7373                                   
                              Programming                            SE\                                                        
                                                                     PO Box 47373                                               

  Stevens         Jeanne      Director, Long-Range  Tennessee DOT    505 Deaderick Nashville, TN  615-741-3421   615-532-8451   jeanne.stevens@state.tn.us
                              Planning                               Street, Suite 37243                                        
                                                                     900                                                        

  Stillings       Ed          Engineering           FHWA             400 East Van  Phoenix, AZ    602-379-3646                  ed.stillings@fhwa.dog.gov
                              Development                            Buren         85004                                        
                              Coordinator                                                                                       

  Straehl         Sandra      Planning Division     Montana DOT      PO Box 201001 Helena, MT     406-444-7692   406-444-7671   sstraehl@mt.gov
                              Administrator                                        59620                                        

  Sullivan        Dawn        Planning & Research   Oklahoma DOT     200 NE 21st   Okalahoma      405-521-2927   405-521-6917   <dsullivan@odot.org>
                              Division Engineer                      Street        City, OK 73105                               

  Taylor          Carol       Surface Programs      Alaska DOT       PO Box 112500 Juneau, AK     907-465-8953   907-465-6984   [Carol_Taylor@dot.state.ak.us](mailto:betsy_sanberg@dot.state.ak.us)
                              Chief                                                99811                                        

  Teneyck         Thomas      Director, Bureau of   Pennsylvania DOT Keystone      Harrisburg, PA 717-787-5796   717-783-9152   <tteneyck@state.pa.us>
                              Planning and Research                  Building, 400 17120-0064                                   
                                                                     North Street,                                              
                                                                     6th Floor                                                  

  Townley         Jennifer    Administrator, Office Ohio DOT         1980 W. Broad Columbus, OH   614-466-7493   614-644-2484   <jennifer.townley@dot.state.oh.us>
                              of Systems Planning &                  Street        43223                                        
                              Program Management                                                                                

  Treat           R. Leah     Resource Allocation   District of      2000 14th     Washington, DC 202-671-3490   202-671-0650   <leah.treat@dc.gov>
                              Officer               Columbia DOT     Street, NW,   20009                                        
                                                                     5th Floor                                                  

  VanDyke         Cindy       Assistant State       Georgia DOT      Office of     Atlanta, GA    404-657-6696   404-657-5228   <cindy.vandyke@dot.state.ga.us>
                              Transportation                         Planning\     30334                                        
                              Planning                               2 Capitol                                                  
                              Administrator                          Square                                                     

  Wood            William L.  Highway Engineer      West Virginia    1900 Kanawha  Charleston, WV 304-558-9622   304-558-3783   <bwood@dot.state.wv.us>
                              Supervisor, Planning  DOT              Boulevard,    25305-0430                                   
                              and Research Division                  E.\                                                        
                                                                     Building 5,                                                
                                                                     Room A-817                                                 
  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#  C. Joint FHWA/FTA Guidance[^1] {#c.-joint-fhwafta-guidance .unnumbered}

**INTERIM GUIDANCE\
FOR IMPLEMENTING KEY SAFETEA-LU PROVISIONS ON PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT, AND
AIR QUALITY\
FOR JOINT FHWA/FTA AUTHORITIES**

**September 2, 2005**

This joint FHWA/FTA interim guidance is intended for the use of FHWA and
FTA field offices in working with their State/local planning partners
and grantees in implementing SAFETEA-LU. Short summaries of key changes
to the statutory requirements for planning and environmental reviews are
provided, followed by guidelines for how FHWA Division and FTA Region
Offices should administer and oversee highway and transit programs
during this TEA-21/SAFETEA-LU transitional period. This interim guidance
covers planning, air quality, and environmental requirements that are
jointly administered by FHWA and FTA. Additional information and case
study examples of the new or changed requirements under SAFETEA-LU will
be developed, as appropriate.

FHWA and FTA will be issuing separate interim guidance on SAFETEA-LU
provisions and funding programs that each agency will be administering
separately.

**I. PLANNING PROVISIONS:**

-   **Section 6001 - Transportation Planning**: This section, along with
    virtually identical language in sections 3005 and 3006, retains and
    revises the metropolitan and statewide transportation planning
    statutory requirements. Although most of the text in these sections
    mirrors previous law, key statutory changes are summarized below.
    Furthermore, sections 3005 and 6001(b) provide that "The Secretary
    shall not require a State or metropolitan planning organization to
    deviate from its established planning update cycle to implement
    changes made by this section."

> *Most of the transportation planning requirements became effective
> immediately when SAFETEA-LU was signed into law on August 10, 2005.
> However, many of these provisions require rulemaking to implement the
> changes. FHWA and FTA expect to initiate a comprehensive rulemaking to
> update the metropolitan and statewide planning regulations in the near
> future. In the interim, FHWA and FTA realize that the planning process
> must continue to function as a whole. It would be difficult for States
> and MPOs to separate out the schedule requirements in the current
> regulations from the content requirements. Therefore, FHWA and FTA
> have determined that, in order to not require a State or MPO to
> "deviate from its established planning update cycle," States and MPOs
> are allowed to continue to comply with existing planning regulations
> for this current set of updates. Any transportation plans,
> metropolitan transportation improvement programs (TIPs), and state
> transportation improvement programs (STIPs) currently under
> development (per TEA-21 schedules), may be completed under the
> pre-SAFETEA-LU planning requirements, including adherence to plan and
> TIP update cycles and content requirements.*
>
> *While all TIPs, STIPs, and plans adopted after July 1, 2007, must
> comply with SAFETEA-LU planning provisions. States and MPOs may wish
> to take advantage of the SAFETEA-LU provisions prior to July 1, 2007,
> and they are encouraged to do so. If a State or MPO opts to implement
> the SAFETEA-LU planning provisions prior to July 1, 2007, they must
> meet all SAFETEA-LU requirements in Section 6001, since the various
> provisions are closely interrelated. If plans and TIPs are prepared
> under the new update cycle described below, they must also comply with
> the expanded scope, consultation, mitigation, and participation
> requirements set forth in SAFETEA-LU. In addition, in no instance
> should the next update of a STIP or TIP be more than 4 years from the
> most recent update.*
>
> *Implementation of the new 4-year cycle allowed for FHWA/FTA
> certification of planning processes in Transportation Management Areas
> (TMAs) is the responsibility of the FHWA/FTA field offices and can
> take place immediately under certain circumstances, as discussed
> below.*
>
> *We have provided some basic guidance below for those States and MPOs
> that opt to implement SAFETEA-LU immediately.*

-   **Metropolitan Plan Cycles:** Metropolitan transportation plans
    shall be updated at least every four years in air quality
    nonattainment and maintenance areas, and at least every five years
    in attainment areas. *To align the MPO adoption of the
    transportation plan in nonattainment and maintenance areas and
    conformity determinations, the date of the FHWA/FTA conformity
    determination on the transportation plan is to be used as the basis
    for tracking update cycles in nonattainment and maintenance areas.*

-   **TIP/STIP Cycles and Scope:** STIPs and metropolitan TIPs must be
    updated at least every 4 years and must contain at least 4 years of
    projects and strategies. *The 4-year frequency cycle and the 4-year
    scope requirements go hand-in-hand and must be implemented together,
    for any STIP or metropolitan TIP adopted after July 1, 2007.*

-   **Metropolitan and Statewide Plans -Environmental Mitigation:**
    Metropolitan and statewide transportation plans must include a
    discussion of types of potential environmental mitigation
    activities, to be developed in consultation with Federal, State and
    Tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies. *Details
    on these "discussions of types of potential environmental mitigation
    activities" are outlined in amended 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(2)(B) and 23
    U.S.C. 135(f)(4), respectively, based on the consultation
    requirements highlighted below. Identical provisions for transit
    appear in the amended 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(B) and 49 U.S.C.
    5304(f)(4). The environmental mitigation requirement must be in
    place prior to MPO and State adoption/approval of transportation
    plans addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions.*

-   **New Consultations:** MPOs and States must consult "as appropriate"
    with "State and local agencies responsible for land use management,
    natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and
    historic preservation" in developing long-range transportation
    plans. Additionally for the Long-Range Statewide Transportation
    Plan, States must consult with Federally-recognized Tribal agencies
    responsible for land use management, natural resources,
    environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation.
    *These new requirements must be in place prior to MPO and State
    adoption/approval of transportation plans addressing SAFETEA-LU
    provisions. Details for metropolitan and statewide planning are
    outlined in the amended 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(4) and 23 U.S.C.
    135(f)(2)(D), respectively, and for transit,* in the amended 49
    U.S.C. 5303(i)(4) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(2)(D)**.**

-   **Consistency of Transportation Plan with Planned Growth and
    Development Plans:** Revises the previous planning factor related to
    environment to add "promot\[ing\] consistency between transportation
    improvements and State and local planned growth and economic
    development patterns." *This new requirement must be in place prior
    to MPO and State adoption/approval of transportation plans
    addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions.*

-   **Transportation System Security:** SAFETEA-LU calls for the
    security of the transportation system to be a stand-alone planning
    factor, signaling an increase in importance from prior legislation,
    in which security was coupled with safety in the same planning
    factor. *This new requirement must be in place prior to MPO and
    State adoption/approval of transportation plans addressing
    SAFETEA-LU provisions.*

-   **Operational and Management Strategies:** Metropolitan
    transportation plans shall include operational and management
    strategies to improve the performance of the existing transportation
    facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the safety
    and mobility of people and goods (see amended 23 U.S.C.
    134(i)(2)(D)) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(2)(D)). *The requirement for the
    inclusion of operational and management strategies must be in place
    prior to MPO adoption of transportation plans addressing SAFETEA-LU
    provisions.*

-   **Participation Plan:** MPOs must develop and utilize a
    "Participation Plan" that provides reasonable opportunities for
    interested parties to comment on the content of the metropolitan
    transportation plan and metropolitan TIP. Further, this
    "Participation Plan" must be developed "in consultation with all
    interested parties". This consultation requirement is intended to
    afford parties who participate in the metropolitan planning process
    a specific opportunity to comment on the plan prior to its approval.
    *A participation plan must be in place prior to MPO adoption of
    transportation plans and TIPs addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions.
    FTA/FHWA particularly expect this to encompass governmental and
    nonprofit organizations that receive Federal assistance from a
    source other than the Department of Transportation to provide
    non-emergency transportation services and recipients of assistance
    under section 204 of title 23, U.S.C.*

-   **Visualization Techniques in Plans and Metropolitan TIP
    Development:** As part of transportation plan and TIP development,
    MPOs shall employ visualization techniques (see amended 23 U.S.C.
    134(i)(5)(C)(ii)) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(5)(C)(ii)). States shall
    also employ visualization techniques in the development of the
    Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan (see amended 23 U.S.C.
    135(f)(3)(B)(ii)) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(3)(B)(ii)). *States and MPOs
    must employ visualization techniques prior to adoption of statewide
    and metropolitan transportation plans and metropolitan TIPs
    addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions.*

-   **Publication of Plans and TIP/STIP:** MPOs shall publish or
    otherwise make available for public review transportation plans and
    TIPs "including (to the maximum extent practicable) in
    electronically accessible formats and means, such as the World Wide
    Web" (see amended 23 U.S.C. 134(i)(6) on plans and 23 U.S.C.
    134(j)(7)(a) on TIPs, and for transit, amended 49 U.S.C. 5303(i)(6)
    and 49 U.S.C. 5303(j)(7)(a)). States also shall use a similar
    approach for the Long-Range Statewide Transportation Plan (see
    amended 23 U.S.C. 135(f)(8)) and 49 U.S.C. 5304(f)(8)). *These
    publication requirements must be in place prior to adoption of
    transportation plans and TIPs addressing SAFETEA-LU provisions.*

-   **Annual Listing of Obligated Projects:** SAFETEA-LU specifies that
    the development of the annual listing "shall be a cooperative effort
    of the State, transit operator, and MPO" and also shall include two
    new project types, "investments in pedestrian walkways and bicycle
    transportation facilities" for which Federal funds have been
    obligated in the preceding year. *This revised requirement for an
    annual listing must be in place prior to adoption of transportation
    plans and programs addressing SAFETEA-LU.*

-   **Congestion Management Processes in Transportation Management Areas
    (TMAs):** Within a metropolitan planning area serving a TMA, there
    must be "a process that provides for effective management and
    operation" to address congestion management (see amended 23 U.S.C.
    134(k)(3)) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3)). *This provision is similar to
    the ISTEA/TEA-21 requirement for a Congestion Management System
    (CMS) to be developed and implemented in TMAs. Each TMA (with input
    from the FHWA Division Offices and FTA Regional Offices) should
    assess the extent that the TMA's existing CMS meets the new
    statutory requirements for a congestion management process under
    amended 23 U.S.C. 134(k)(3) and 49 U.S.C. 5303(k)(3) and define a
    plan and schedule to implement this process. Consistent with
    previous FHWA/FTA guidance, the phase-in schedule for this provision
    in newly designated TMAs is 18 months after the identification of a
    TMA.*

-   **TMA Certification Cycle:** FHWA/FTA must certify each TMA planning
    process at least every four years (as opposed to the prior
    legal/statutory requirement of every three years). *This provision
    is effective immediately and allows FTA/FHWA to add one year to
    existing TMA certifications. The only exception is "conditional
    certifications" issued for a TMA, which must be completed in
    accordance with the schedule previously defined by the FHWA Division
    Office and FTA Regional Office. The timing for certification reviews
    remains a joint FTA/FHWA decision, and SAFETEA-LU extends the
    minimum allowable frequency to "at least every 4 years." This does
    not preclude FTA/FHWA from initiating a Certification Review more
    frequently and at any time it is warranted. The status and quality
    of MPOs' Plan and TIP development, the potential for conformity
    lapse, and other MPO performance indicators should be considered by
    FTA/FHWA in deciding whether to delay (as allowed under SAFETEA-LU),
    or accelerate, Certification Reviews.*

-   **Coordinated Public Transit-Human Services Transportation Plan
    (Sections 3012, 3018, and 3019):** As a condition for receiving
    formula funding under the following 3 FTA programs, proposed
    projects must be derived from a locally developed public
    transit-human services transportation plan: (1) Special Needs of
    Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities \[49 U.S.C.
    5310(d)(2)(B)(i) and (ii)\]; (2) Job Access and Reverse Commute \[49
    U.S.C. 5316(g)(3)(A) and (B)\]; and (3) New Freedom \[49 U.S.C.
    5317(f)(3)(A) and (B)\]. The plan must have been developed through a
    process that included representatives of public, private, and non
    profit transportation and human services providers, as well as the
    public. *This new requirement reinforces the broadened list of
    entities to be involved in the MPO's Participation Plan (23 U.S.C.
    134 (i)(5)(A) and 49 U.S.C. 5303 (i)(5)(A)), as described above. In
    preparing the local public transit-human service transportation
    plans, service providers seeking assistance under these programs
    should ensure full coordination with the applicable metropolitan and
    statewide planning processes.*

**II. AIR QUALITY PROVISIONS**

**Section 6011 - Transportation Conformity:** Makes several changes to
the transportation conformity process including:

-   a 12 months conformity lapse grace period;

-   a change in the update frequency cycle to 4 years;

-   a conformity redetermination on existing transportation plans and
    TIPs within 2 years of certain actions on the state implementation
    plan (SIP) for air quality;

-   options to shorten the time horizon for conformity demonstration
    (but must include an informational regional emissions analysis);

-   transportation control measure (TCM) substitution without requiring
    a new conformity determination or SIP revision, and adoption of
    substitute TCM rescinds previous TCM; and

-   streamlined conformity SIP requirements.

EPA is required to promulgate revised regulations to implement changes
not later than 2 years after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU. *Although the
EPA is required to promulgate a rule, some or all of these provisions
may be effective even before the rule is issued. We are working with EPA
to develop interim guidance on how to implement these provisions while
the rule is being developed. We expect to supplement this guidance
document by issuing additional interim guidance in coordination with EPA
as soon as possible.*

**III. ENVIRONMENT PROVISIONS:**

**Section 6002 - Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project
Decisionmaking:** Prescribes a new environmental review process for
highway, public transportation capital, and multimodal projects. It is
mandatory for EISs and optional for EAs, at the discretion of the
Secretary. It specifies changes from current NEPA procedures, including
new obligations for a public comment process for project Purpose and
Need and for project Alternatives, and requires the development of a
coordination plan and schedule that must be provided to all
participating agencies and made available to the public. The provision
allows States to continue operating under environmental review processes
approved by the Secretary under TEA-21 authority. *All highway and
transit EISs for which the NOI was published after 8/11/05 must follow
the new process (except as provided by Section 6002(b), as described
below) while highway and transit EISs for which a NOI was published
prior to 8/11/05 may continue as "grandfathered" under prior law.*

*For highway projects only, the FHWA Division and State may wish to
transition ongoing EIS projects to the new process, if advantageous to
the project, and where they can demonstrate that the new requirements
for coordination with agencies and the public have been met through the
existing project development process (i.e., interagency merger
agreements, public workshops that included early identification of
purpose and need and alternatives, etc).*

*Under Section 6002(b), States have the option of continuing to advance
projects under processes "approved" under TEA-21's Section 1309
authority. Please discuss with your State whether or not they would like
to continue any such existing environmental review process. In such a
case, please request that the State provide FHWA written documentation
indicating the intent to follow previously established processes, either
as a program or for individual projects. The state should include an
explanation as to how the process falls under this provision. This
documentation must be sufficient to stand up in court in case of a legal
challenge to not following the new 6002 process. You should obtain
written Headquarters concurrence before informing a State that they may
follow a pre-existing environmental review process for EIS projects in
lieu of following the new Section 6002 process. FHWA will be providing
more comprehensive guidance on the new process for new and on-going
highway EISs, as well as the application of the "existing process"
provision within the next 90 days.*

*For transit projects, FTA does not have any processes specifically
approved under TEA-21's section 1309, so the SAFETEA-LU option of
grandfathering such processes is not generally helpful. For multimodal
highway-transit projects for which FHWA and FTA are co-lead agencies,
FTA will make every effort to follow FHWA's lead in complying with this
provision. FTA will be providing further guidance on compliance with
this provision within the next 90 days. The FTA Regional office and
sponsoring transit agency may transition an ongoing transit EIS to the
new process, if it is deemed advantageous to the project, and if the new
requirements for coordination with agencies and the public have been
essentially followed during the project development process up to now.
\[FTA does not expect any ongoing EISs to meet these conditions, but
please contact Joe Ossi in TPE if one does.\]*

**Section 6002 - Statute of Limitations**: Creates 23 U.S.C. 139 (l)
which, establishes a 180-day statute of limitations on litigation.
However, the 180-day clock starts with publication of a notice in the
Federal Register that a permit, license or approval action is final.
Heretofore, notices regarding RODs and FONSIs have not been published in
the Federal Register, so a new process for publication will be required.
*This provision is effective immediately and may be exercised
independently of whether or not the new environmental review process
under Section 6002 was followed.*

*For highway projects, within the next 30 days, HCC will specify a
process for publishing notices of the finality of RODs and FONSIs, as
well as 404 permits and possibly other Federal actions in the Federal
Register, so they can benefit from this provision. It is assumed that
most "approvals" (e.g., Section 106 MOAs) will be completed by RODs or
FONSIs and a separate notice would not be required, unless there is a
substantial lapse of time between the FHWA decision and other federal
action, such as subsequent issuance of a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
permit. This provision is discretionary and should be decided on a
case-by-case basis, especially for EA/FONSI documents, depending on an
assessment of controversy and likelihood for litigation. The standard
statute of limitation time frame of 6 years will be used for those
projects, approvals or permits that do not publish the Federal Register
notice.*

**Section 6004 -State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical
Exclusions:** Allows the Secretary to delegate responsibility for
categorical exclusion (CE) determinations to states, subject to criteria
to be established by the Secretary. Also allows for delegation of the
Secretary's responsibilities for other environmental reviews (e.g., 4(f)
of the Department of Transportation Act) for projects classified as CEs.
May not include delegation of government-to-government consultation with
Federally-recognized Indian tribes. US DOT is to implement this
provision through individual MOUs with states, after public notice and
comment. *Within the next 3-4 months, FHWA and FTA will develop guidance
and a template memorandum of understanding (MOU) for FHWA Divisions and
FTA Regions to use in carrying out this provision. States may not use
this authority for specific projects until an MOU is in place. FHWA
Divisions should begin discussing with the State its preferences as to
which DOT authorities it wishes to assume under this provision (e.g., CE
determination, Section 4(f) approval, coordination under various Federal
laws, highway CEs only or both highway and transit CEs, etc.) Our
assumption is that most States will want to assume all responsibilities
allowed by law for highway projects. If transit projects will also be
included, the FTA Regional office must be brought into the discussion.
Please note that Section 6004 permits delegation of the specified
responsibilities of the Secretary only to the States, not to transit
agencies that are not State agencies. FHWA Divisions should discuss the
systems and procedures the State will use to assure that the Section
6004 authority is appropriately exercised.*

**Section 6009 - Parks, Recreation Areas, Wildlife and Waterfowl
Refuges, and Historic Sites):** The requirements of Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act will be considered satisfied with
respect to a Section 4(f) resource if it is determined that a
transportation project will have only a "de minimis impact" on the 4(f)
resource. The provision allows avoidance, minimization, mitigation and
enhancement measures to be considered in making the de minimis
determination. The Agencies with jurisdiction must concur in writing
with the determination. For historic properties the de minimis criteria
are defined as "no adverse affect" or no "historic properties affected"
under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The de
minimis criteria for parks, recreation areas and wildlife and waterfowl
refuges were not clearly defined in the law but are generally minor
impacts not adversely affecting the activities, features or attributes
of the Section 4(f) resource. In addition, Section 6009 requires the
Secretary to promulgate regulations within 1 year after the date of
enactment to clarify the factors to be considered and the standards to
be applied in determining the prudence and feasibility of alternatives
under section 138 of title 23 and section 303 of title 49, United States
Code. *The de minimis provision for historic properties can be applied
immediately for those projects in which a draft Section 4(f) evaluation
has not been distributed. Section 106 compliance is essential to the de
minimis finding and therefore, the assessment of effects should be
documented on a property-by-property basis. For parks, recreation areas,
wildlife and waterfowl refuges, US DOT will have to issue guidance to
allow application of the de minimis provision. The process for
developing the guidance is underway and is expected to be complete
within one month but is subject to change depending on the need to
coordinate with other agencies.*

**Section 6010 - Environmental Review of Activities that Support
Deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems:** Requires the
Secretary to initiate rulemaking within 1 year to establish Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) activities as CEs, "to the extent
appropriate." This applies to multi-modal ITS projects. Also requires
the Secretary to develop a national programmatic agreement for ITS and
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. *Most ITS
activities already qualify as CEs. FHWA and FTA are not aware of delays
in implementing ITS activities due to environmental reviews, including
Section 106. Within US DOT, a determination will be needed as to the
lead DOT agency for implementing this section, since several DOT
agencies have ITS interests and responsibilities.*

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Tony
Solury at tony.solury@fhwa.dot.gov.

This page last modified on April 20, 2006

#  D. FHWA Guidance[^2] {#d.-fhwa-guidance .unnumbered}

**INTERIM GUIDANCE FOR IMPLEMENTING SAFETEA-LU PROVISIONS ON PLANNING,
ENVIRONMENT, AND AIR QUALITY FOR FHWA AUTHORITIES**

**September 2, 2005**

**ENVIRONMENT PROVISIONS:**

**Section 6003 -State Assumption of Responsibilities for Certain
Programs and Projects (Transportation Enhancements & Recreational
Trails):** Authorizes the Secretary to establish a pilot program for
states to assume the Secretary's responsibilities for environmental
reviews for the Transportation Enhancement Program and the Recreational
Trails Program. Excludes delegation of the Secretary's responsibilities
relating to Federally-recognized Indian tribes. For the first 3 years of
SAFETEA-LU, only 5 states may be selected by the Secretary for this
pilot program. *The Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty (HEP)
will assess State interest in using this provision; if the interest is
there, HEP will develop application procedures and more information in
the future, after more immediate SAFETEA-LU implementation requirements
are met.*

**Section 6005 - Surface Transportation Project Development Pilot
Program:** Allows US DOT to delegate to 5 states (specified as CA, TX,
OK, AK, and OH) the Secretary's responsibility for NEPA and reviews and
consultations required by other Federal environmental laws. This section
applies to highway projects only. Can be for 1 project or multiple
projects. Contains multiple conditions and restrictions, some of which
may require new state legislation. Requires USDOT to issue regulations
via rulemaking to establish application requirements within 270 days of
SAFETEA-LU's enactment. *The statute does not address tribal
consultation, but FHWA's interpretation is that this provision does not
extend additional authority for States to assume US DOT responsibilities
for such consultation. HEP and the Office of Chief Counsel (HCC) have
begun a series of discussions with (a) other affected Federal agencies,
(b) the 5 affected Divisions; and (c) the 5 affected states, to develop
the best way to implement this Section. FHWA expects to hold individual
meetings with the 5 states in September to ascertain their interest in
this and discuss the obligations and requirements that would apply.
Divisions and States should begin discussing which projects and which US
DOT authorities the States wish to assume in preparation for the formal
State application.*

**Section 6006 - Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement;
Control of Noxious Weeds and Aquatic Noxious Weeds and Establishment of
Native Species:** Provides new and expanded eligibility for using
Federal-aid funds. First, it extends the existing Surface Transportation
Program (STP) eligibility for pollution abatement and restoration to the
National Highway System (NHS). Second, it adds a new eligibility item
under both the STP and the NHS for projects that promote the detection
and eradication of noxious weeds, and it establishes a preference to the
extent practicable for the planting of native plant species. *These
provisions are effective immediately. We will issue further guidance as
necessary to address questions that arise.*

**Section 6007 - Exemption of Interstate System:** This provision
exempts the vast majority of the Interstate Highway System from
consideration as an historic site under Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act. The limited exceptions to this provision are the
same discrete Interstate elements currently being identified under a
FHWA nationwide initiative, that continue to be subject to the Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act process under provisions
of the Section 106 exemption adopted administratively in March 2005. *A
Consultant will be on board soon to do phone interviews with State DOTs,
State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), FHWA Divisions, and others
and to compile a list of candidate elements for consideration at the
national level. FHWA Divisions should begin discussing with State DOTs
and SHPOs the individual elements of the Interstate System in your State
that warrant consideration.*

**PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENT FUNDING PROGRAMS:**

**Section 1101(a)(19) - Appropriations for Borders and Corridors
Programs:** Authorizes \$140,000,000 for fiscal year 2005 for the
National Corridor Planning and Development and Coordinated Border
Infrastructure programs under sections 1118 and 1119 of TEA-21. *These
programs will be closed, so they can be replaced by the new programs and
funding structures in SAFETEA-LU. The close-out will likely take several
years based on past experience with States that have difficulty
obligating specific projects. The Office of Interstate and Border
Planning (HEPI) will issue instructions regarding implementation of the
Office of Budget and Finance redistribution notice.*

**Section 1103 - Apportionments (CMAQ):** Establishes a modified
apportionment formula for Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ)
funding. Uses the multiple weighting of eight-hour ozone classifications
previously used for the one-hour classifications. Adds a 1.0 weighting
for the Subpart 1 eight-hour ozone nonattainment areas and for all
maintenance areas. Does not provide a weighting factor for PM~2.5~ or
PM~10~ although CMAQ funds may be used in those areas. *These factors
will be effective with the FY06 apportionment and will be applied to
reconcile FY05 apportionments.*

**Section 1007 - Metropolitan Planning (PL Funds)**: Adds a new
requirement that state DOTs must reimburse Metropolitan Planning
Organizations (MPOs) for costs of carrying out the Section 134 planning
process, out of PL funds, within 30 days of receiving the MPO's claim
for reimbursement. *This requirement is effective immediately. If a
state DOT believes the MPO did not provide adequate supporting
documentation for reimbursement claims and the state DOT needs more than
the 30 days to verify the claims, the state DOT should reimburse the MPO
and then deduct any charges later determined to be unallowable from the
MPO's next claim for reimbursement. Please ensure that state DOTs and
MPOs are aware of it and that state DOTs are complying.*

**Section 1117 - Transportation, Community, and System Preservation
(TCSP) Program:** SAFETEA-LU more than doubles the TCSP Program for the
last four fiscal years. However, SAFETEA-LU does not provide for formula
allocation, as contained in the Administration's SAFETEA proposal.
Effective immediately, the TCSP Program is no longer 100 percent
Federally-funded**.** The Federal share is now in accordance with 23
U.S.C. 120(b).

**Section 1122(a) - Definitions (Transportation Enhancement
Activities):** The definition of transportation enhancements (TE) in 23
USC 101(a)(35) is amended to clarify that acquisition of historic
battlefields and inventory for outdoor advertising are eligible
activities. *These clarifications are effective immediately. HEP staff
will revise existing TE guidance on FHWA's website at
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/te/index.htm to reflect those
clarifications for TE project eligibility.*

**Section 1303 - Coordinated Border Infrastructure Improvement
Program:** Establishes an apportioned (a.k.a. formula) program for about
\$833 million/year for the States with land borders with Canada or
Mexico. Projects are to be selected by the States. Eligible projects
must be within 100 miles of the border. Eligible uses include
construction of highways, safety enforcement infrastructure, operations
improvements and international coordination. States may fund projects
that are physically located in Mexico or Canada under some conditions.
*HEP expects to issue guidance on this program within a month.*

**Section 1304 - High Priority Corridors on the National Highway
System:** Modifies and adds to corridors previously identified in
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) Section 1105,
as amended. Also designates some corridors as future interstates.
Subsection 1304(d) seems to provide funding for improvement of the
corridors, but it just provides the authorization that would be needed
if some future appropriations act provided the funding.

**Section 1802 - National Scenic Byways Program:**- This program was
amended to allow Indian tribes to apply directly to the FHWA for Byway
designation and for funding. *This provision is effective immediately.
HEP will implement this change for pending FY 2005 discretionary grants
once projects are selected. HEP will also provide more specific guidance
as needed in the solicitation of FY 2006 grants this fall.*

**Section 1807 - Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program:** This is a
new program for four communities to encourage nonmotorized
transportation---Columbia, MO; Marin County, CA; Minneapolis-St. Paul,
MN and Sheboygan County, WI. *Agreements need to be in place for the
communities to initiate the pilots. FY 2006 funding should be available
by February 2006. We need to coordinate the efforts of the four pilot
communities to ensure comparable data collection and analysis for use in
preparing reports to Congress due in 2007 and 2010. HEP staff are
consulting with staff in the four affected FHWA Divisions on how best to
form the agreements and administer the four pilots.*

**Section 1808 - Addition to CMAQ-Eligible Projects:** Provides
continued eligibility to use CMAQ funds in those former one-hour ozone
areas that are required to prepare maintenance plans. Reinforces the
eligibility of projects that contribute to attainment or maintenance.
Specifies the eligibility of advanced truck stop electrification,
interoperable emergency communications equipment, and transportation
systems management and operations projects that mitigate congestion and
improve air quality. Calls for priority to be given to funding diesel
retrofit projects and other cost-effective CMAQ strategies that improve
air quality. *HEPN will coordinate with FTA in updating FHWA's CMAQ
guidance to clarify the new eligibility categories. In the interim,
however, these projects are immediately eligible (and in fact many of
these project types were eligible even before SAFETEA-LU was enacted).
In addition, EPA will also be developing related guidance on obtaining
conformity credit for emissions reductions associated with diesel
retrofits. Until EPA issues this guidance, credit for diesel retrofits
can only be obtained through the current SIP revision process.*

**OTHER PROVISIONS:**

**Section 1106 - Future Interstate Routes**: Increases the time allowed
to bring designated 'future interstates' to Interstate standards from 12
to 25 years. *This change is effective immediately and is
self-explanatory. HEP will begin a revision of 23CFR 470 to incorporate
this change into FHWA regulations. HEP will also notify divisions about
six months prior to the expiration of the new deadline (this will not be
in the FHWA regulations).*

**Section 1908 - Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate
System and NHS:** Requires some designation actions. *HEP will shortly
contact FHWA Divisions where action is needed.*

**Section 1927 - 14^th^ Amendment Highway and 3^rd^ Infantry Division
Highway:** Requires studies for two corridors, one between Augusta, GA
and Natchez, MS, and one between Savannah, GA and Knoxville, TN. Three
line items in section 1702 provide about \$1.3 million (over the life of
SAFETEA-LU) to Georgia for these two studies. *HEPI expects to work with
the Georgia Division and Georgia DOT to establish protocols for
implementing this section in cooperation with other States in these
corridors (Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Tennessee).*

**Section 1923 - Transportation Assets and Needs of Delta Region:**
Provides funding (\$1 million) for a study that will result in a report
to Congress. The study is to address all modes of transportation. *The
funding will go to the Delta Regional Authority to author the report.
HEP will consult Divisions in the 8 States within the Delta Region
(Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri
and Tennessee).*

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Tony
Solury at tony.solury@fhwa.dot.gov.

#  E. Clarifying Guidance[^3] {#e.-clarifying-guidance .unnumbered}

**FHWA/FTA CLARIFYING GUIDANCE ON IMPLEMENTATION OF SAFETEA-LU PLANNING
PROVISIONS**

Since the issuance of the *FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on Implementation
of SAFETEA-LU Planning Provisions* on September 2, 2005, a number of
questions have been posed by FHWA Division Offices, FTA Regional
Offices, State DOTs, public transportation operators, and MPOs on the
period between August 10, 2005 (SAFETEA-LU enactment date) and July 1,
2007 (the SAFETEA-LU requirement for full implementation of the planning
provisions).  The following provides clarified information for
addressing this transition.

**BEFORE JULY 1, 2007:**

Metropolitan and statewide transportation plans, transportation
improvement programs (TIPs), and statewide transportation improvement
programs (STIPs) may be completed under TEA-21 requirements.  For
metropolitan transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs that are developed
under this scenario, the FHWA/FTA action (i.e., conformity
determinations and STIP approvals) must be completed no later than June
30, 2007.  For metropolitan transportation plans in attainment areas
that are developed under this scenario, the MPO adoption action must be
completed no later than June 30, 2007. If the applicable actions are not
taken before July 1, 2007, all SAFETEA-LU provisions would apply,
regardless of when the transportation plan and/or program were
developed.

**ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 2007:**

State and MPO adoption actions on transportation plans, TIPs, and STIPs
(i.e., amendments, revisions, or updates) must completely reflect all
SAFETEA-LU planning provisions prior to the FHWA/FTA action.  Because
projects included in TIPs and STIPs are drawn from transportation plans,
the underlying planning processes involved in preparing the
transportation plan, TIP, and STIP must be consistent.  Therefore,
projects contained in TIPs and STIPs approved after July 1, 2007 must be
consistent with transportation plans based on SAFETEA-LU requirements.

**EARLY TRANSITION FROM TEA-21 TO SAFETEA-LU:**

MPOs in nonattainment and maintenance areas may take advantage of the
four-year SAFETEA-LU update cycles for transportation plans
immediately.  Therefore, the next transportation plan update (and
FHWA/FTA conformity determination) must be completed within four years
of the date of the FHWA/FTA conformity determination on the current
transportation plan.  However, the resulting transportation plan must
reflect all SAFETEA-LU planning provisions at the time of the FHWA/FTA
conformity determination (before or after July 1, 2007).

**NEXT STEPS:**

Well in advance of July 1, 2007, FHWA Division Offices and FTA Regional
Offices should work closely with the States, MPOs, and public
transportation operators to cooperatively assess their existing
transportation planning processes and mechanisms relative to the
SAFETEA-LU provisions and define key process and/or product "gaps" to be
addressed.  Moreover, above and beyond the update cycles for
metropolitan transportation plans, States and MPOs should begin
reviewing and assessing their processes and update cycles for TIPs and
STIPs, since projects reflected in the TIP and STIP must be consistent
with the respective transportation plans.

**FURTHER QUESTIONS:**

If you have any further questions on this clarifying information, please
contact:

**FHWA:**

John Humeston or Harlan Miller, Office of Planning (transportation
planning issues).

Emily Tait or Gary Jensen, Office of Natural and Human Environment
(transportation conformity issues).

**FTA:**

Charlie Goodman or Carolyn Mulvihill, Office of Systems Planning
(transportation planning issues).

Abbe Marner, Office of Environment (transportation conformity issues).

This page last modified on April 20, 2006

#  F. Environmental Resources {#f.-environmental-resources .unnumbered}

**Environmental Resources for Transportation Planners**

Standing Committee on Planning SAFETEA-LU Workshop, March 27, 2006

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Efficiency
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) includes several provisions
intended to enhance the consideration of environmental issues and
impacts within the transportation planning process. The following is a
list of resources that transportation planning and environment
professionals might find helpful in building a knowledge base in this
area.

**Resources on Legislation, Guidance, and Executive Orders**

Guidance and Interim Guidance on SAFETEA-LU Planning and Environment
Provisions:

-   *Interim Guidance for Implementing Key SAFETEA-LU Provisions in
    Planning, Environment, and Air Quality for FHWA and joint FHWA/FTA
    Authorities* (September 2, 2005).
    <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm>

-   *FHWA/FTA Clarifying Guidance on Implementation of SAFETEA-LU
    Planning Provisions* (December 8, 2005).
    <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/planningtransition.htm>

-   *Program Guidance on Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA
    Processes* (February 23, 2005).
    <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/plannepa.htm>

*Executive Order 13274: Environmental Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Reviews, Interagency Work Group Baseline Reports*
(March 15, 2005): Contains an overview of the EO 13274 Interagency Work
Groups and baseline reports (Project Purpose and Need, Indirect and
Cumulative Impacts, and Integrated Planning).
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/workgroups.htm>

*Context Sensitive Solutions in the Transportation Planning Process*
(February 2006): Contains a set of frequently asked questions and
answers that address how CSS can be better incorporated into the
transportation planning process.
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/csstp/cssqa.htm>

**Training Resources**

*Linking Planning and NEPA Workshops*: Two part series of facilitated
workshops focused on identifying the current process for performing
planning and NEPA studies in support of project-level decisions, and
developing strategies for achieving greater integration in this work.

<http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=1153>

*Strategic Conservation Planning Using the Green Infrastructure
Approach*: Cooperatively offered by The Conservation Fund and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, this introductory course on green
infrastructure theory and practice is designed to provide participants
with "why" and "how to" information on planning, designing, and
implementing interconnected green space systems in conjunction with
existing grey infrastructure.
<http://www.conservationfund.org/?article=2487>

*Use of GIS within Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship
(GIS4EST)*: Tailored to audience requirements (topics and length), this
1.5 to 2-day workshop provides a general overview of spatial data
technologies and how these can be used to enhance environmental
decision-making and streamlining. For more information: Contact Aung
Gye, <aung.gye@fhwa.dot.gov>, or Ben Williams,
[ben.williams@fhwa.dot.gov](mailto:ben.Williams@fhwa.dot.gov).

*Conservation and Transportation Planning Workshops*: FHWA, NatureServe,
and Defenders of Wildlife are partnering to produce a workshop that will
introduce data, methods and systems that can be collaboratively utilized
among transportation, resource and regulatory agencies. Three workshops
will be held in 2006. For more information contact Aung Gye,
[aung.gye@fhwa.dot.gov](mailto:aung.gye@dot.gov)

**Documents and Other Resources**

*Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure
Projects* (2006): Eco-Logical encourages Federal, State, tribal, and
local partners involved in infrastructure planning, design, review, and
construction to use flexibility in regulatory processes. The report lays
conceptual groundwork for integrating plans across agency boundaries,
and endorses ecosystem-based mitigation.

<http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp>

*State Wildlife Action Plans*: Each State recently completed a
comprehensive wildlife conservation strategy, also known as wildlife
action plan. These Plans can be valuable resources for planners wishing
to consider habitat and conservation issues more systematically within
the context of the transportation planning process.

-   More information on the plans can be found at:
    [http://www.teaming.com](http://www.teaming.com/state_wildlife_strategies.htm).

-   A review of state wildlife action plans conducted by Defenders of
    Wildlife, *Conservation Across the Landscape: A Review of the State
    Wildlife Action Plans* can be found at:
    <http://www.defenders.org/statewildlifeplans/report.pdf>.

*NCHRP Reports on Environmental and Transportation Planning
Decision-making*: NCHRP has several reports on the subject of
considering environmental factors in the planning process.

-   *NCHRP 8-36 (48): Improved Linkage Between Transportation Systems
    Planning and NEPA* (January 2006):
    [http://planning.transportation.org/?siteid=30&pageid=1399](http://www.transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP 8-36(48) Final Report.pdf)

-   *NCHRP 541: Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation
    Planning* (2005):
    <http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_541.pdf>

-   *NCHRP 25-22: Technologies to Improve the Environmental
    Decision-making Process* (September 2000):
    <http://trb.org/publications/nchrp/cd-14/>

*Exemplary Ecosystems Initiative*: This website contains examples of how
exemplary ecosystem initiatives in eight States are reducing habitat
fragmentation and barriers to animal movement, encouraging the
development of more sustainable mitigation sites, stimulating early
ecosystem planning, and fostering ecosystem-based research.
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ecosystems/>

*White House Conference on Cooperative Conservation* (August 2005):
Conference convened by the Council on Environmental Quality to advance
the spirit and objectives of the Executive Order on the Facilitation of
Cooperative Conservation. The conference website contains many useful
documents and references:
<http://cooperativeconservation.gov/index.html>

*USGS Geospatial Programs*: USGS geospatial data resource website, which
includes the *Geo-Spatial One-Stop*, a spatial data clearinghouse:
<http://www.usgs.gov/ngpo/>

**Comments or suggestions?**

Please contact Michael Culp, FHWA Office of Project Development and
Environmental Review, (202) 366-9229, <michael.culp@dot.gov>

#  G. Online Resources {#g.-online-resources .unnumbered}

Interim Guidance For Implementing Key SAFETEA-LU Provisions On Planning,
Environment, And Air Quality For Joint FHWA/FTA Authorities

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpja.htm

Interim Guidance For Implementing SAFETEA-LU Provisions On Planning,
Environment, And Air Quality For FHWA Authorities

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpfa.htm

FHWA-FTA Clarifying Guidance On Implementation Of SAFETEA-LU Planning
Provisions

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/planningtransition.htm

FHWA, Planning, Environment and Realty (HEP)

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/legreg.htm

FHWA-FTA Program Guidance on Linking the Transportation Planning and
NEPA Processes

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/plannepa.htm

Tool Kit for Integrating Land Use and Transportation Decision-Making

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/landuse/index.htm

Context Sensitive Solutions - Program Activities

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/activities.htm

Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project
Reviews

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/workgroups.htm

Fiscal Constraint Guidance

-   http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/fcguid62705.htm

Safe Routes to School Program

-   http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferoutes/

Strategic Highway Safety Plan

-   http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/safetealu/toc.htm

AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning -- Workshop Presentations

-   http://www.transportation.org/?siteid=30&pageid=399

#  H. Excerpts from Workshop Evaluations {#h.-excerpts-from-workshop-evaluations .unnumbered}

### What parts of the Workshop did you find most beneficial? {#what-parts-of-the-workshop-did-you-find-most-beneficial .unnumbered}

-   Learning from FHWA's perspective.

-   Application sharing from various states on issues.

-   Getting an understanding of the range of new SAFETEA‑LU planning
    provi­sions and the state peer exchange.

-   Breakout sessions.

-   Topics were very timely \[and addressed\] necessary issues needing
    attention.

-   The agenda was set up nicely and flowed nicely.

-   Don't worry about time of presentations -- we have nowhere to go.

-   Being new to planning meetings, networking with other state reps was
    the most beneficial.

-   Fiscal constraint session was very informative.

-   Visualization.

-   Exchange of information between states and FHWA.

-   Exchange between speakers and conference attendees.

-   Seeing Best Practices and what's going on in other states.

-   Discussions and clarifications about provisions.

-   Identification of concerns and clarifications.

### What changes would have improved this Workshop? {#what-changes-would-have-improved-this-workshop .unnumbered}

-   More on fiscal constraint and STIP/TIP-related issues.

-   FTA should have been present.

-   Handouts on small CDs in e‑form to better enable sharing with staff.

-   More subsets of topic areas.

-   Hotel not convenient to cultural, shopping or food options -- didn't
    provide Internet wireless for working needs.

-   Wish FHWA would have been more forthcoming about what guidance/\
    regulations they are considering on each of these areas.

-   What is the process that FHWA is going to use to determine if a
    state's long-range transportation plan meets the requirements of
    SAFETEA‑LU.

-   More time. Great topics, but more time to discuss **more** best
    practices.

-   More general Q & A time. More microphones.

-   A polling before may have given some indication how to arrange
    breakout sessions -- would have liked to attend some that
    overlapped.

-   More comfortable chairs.

-   Pre polling of the states to get some idea of what they're doing in
    each topic area -- this would make a great handout and talking
    points -- plus add input for those states not represented.

-   Nine topics is a lot to absorb.

-   Not sure that we got enough out of the breakouts.

-   More emphasis on the structure of the discussion: What are the
    states doing, what's working well/poorly, where do we need help,
    what should we do next.

-   FHWA was not informative.

-   Some sessions had limited expertise among participants from planning
    offices -- limiting discussion.

-   Need to further target expert DOTs on issues and bring appropriate
    staff.

-   The Environment, Security, Safety, and Planning areas are not all
    located in the planning division of state DOTS. It would have been
    beneficial for those areas to have been present, too. AASHTO should
    coordinate this.

-   Lots of questions \[were\] asked at meeting and not all were
    answered. Maybe the questions should have been submitted beforehand
    with answers given or discussed at the meeting.

-   FHWA could more openly discuss concepts in NPRM.

-   Limit presentations to 10 minutes.

-   Some topics didn't appear to hit the mark, i.e., how is this
    actually going to be handled in planning?

-   None.

### Are there issues you would like to address in the future? {#are-there-issues-you-would-like-to-address-in-the-future .unnumbered}

-   Better STIP/TIP guidance.

-   Arrange open schedules for joint open mike forums via web for
    SAFETEA‑LU questions for Environment and Planning.

-   A meeting to discuss draft regulations with FHWA and FTA would be
    bene­ficial.

-   Financial plans discussion.

-   Future workshops where state DOTs and their FHWA division offices
    could jointly attend.

-   Where and how to get data.

-   Forecasting (population, travel, induced demand).

-   Training/education curriculum for planners on performance
    measurement.

-   More peer exchange on specific topics GIS, traffic data, safety etc.

-   Rapidly growing state and what are the planning impacts.

-   Clearly identify "required" versus "recommended."

-   More time would have been good, but travel became a problem. Perhaps
    more central meeting sites could allow for longer (two full-day
    sessions).

-   Spend more time on linking/integrating Planning and NEPA (two).

-   Updates to the draft regulations and the interpretation of the bill
    by the Feds.

-   Continued updates on implementation of SAFETEA‑LU and further
    discus­sion on financial impacts.

[^1]: Guidance dated September 2, 2005 and available on-line at:
    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpja.htm.

[^2]: Guidance dated September 2, 2005 and available on-line at:
    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/igslpfa.htm.

[^3]: Guidance dated December 8, 2005 and available on-line at:
    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/‌planningtransition.htm.