# Presentation: 914425

## Environmental Compliance for Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway Reconstruction Project

- A Case Study in How Collaboration Contributes to  Context Sensitive Design and Environmental Streamlining
- By
- Jennifer Corwin
- Environmental Protection Specialist
- Central Federal Lands Highway Division
- Lakewood, Colorado

**Notes:**
Why am I here?

 I would not say that when this project began in 1998 the concepts of “streamlining” and “stewardship” were high on everybody’s radar.  Nor was it intended to be nor am I am claiming that this project is a model of collaboration, CSD, Streamlining, or Stewardship.  However, during the course of trying to simply get the environmental compliance done, we developed some processes and techniques that could be labeled as facilitating the development of a context sensitive design for the project while also streamlining the environmental review process.  These are not terribly earth-shattering or creative techniques, but they are measures that, I find, tend to not be implemented due to lack of time, staffing, etc.  My argument here is that while these measures might require a bit of up front investment and time, I propose that they can ultimately save us time in the long run.

## Background

## Location

- Located in NW Wyoming and Southern Montana
- Crosses 2 states, 3 counties, and 3 National Forests

**Notes:**
The Beartooth Highway is a road set in a stunning location east of the northeast entrance of YNP
As one might imagine, the crossing of multiple jurisdictions only serves to complicate the project
Provides access to northeast entrance of Yellowstone National Park
Road extends from 5,600 feet to almost 11,000 feet in altitude
Road traverses a variety of ecosystems from grasslands to tundra
Road crosses through fens and prime grizzly bear habitat

## Designated All American Road for Outstanding Scenic and Natural Qualities

**Notes:**
View of the road in June 
Portion in Montana from the western state line to the NE entrance of Yellowstone National Park was not included in the listing due to concern for private property rights.
Get views of the Absaroka and Beartooth Mountain – two distinct mountain ranges in that the Absaroka Range consists of volcanic rock and formed by volcanism and the Beartooths consist of igneous rock formed by uplift.
Roadway corridor is considered eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places 

## Historical Background

- Built under the 1931 National Park Approach Road Act
- Built between 1932 and 1936
- Only road built under this act
- Act gives the Secretary of Interior the authority to enter into maintenance agreements with the state and counties
- Secretary has been unable to interest the states or the counties in maintaining the Road
- The Act provided no funding mechanism to regularly appropriate funding to maintain this kind of road

**Notes:**
- The lack of a funding mechanism for maintenance and upkeep of the road made this an “orphan road”.  Everybody wants to travel it but nobody wants to own and maintain it.

## Historical Background (cont.)

- Attempts to Establish Maintenance Funding and Responsibilities
- Bureau of Public Roads (BPR) maintained road until 1945 using National Park Service (NPS) funds
- From 1945 to 1959 NPS maintained the road using NPS funds
- In 1959 NPS attempted to designate road and land adjacent to it as a National Parkway in order to secure regular maintenance funding – this attempt failed
- From 1930’s to the 1980’s NPS attempted to interest the states in maintaining the road
- Montana refused until road was built to accepted standards
- Wyoming refused because no highway linked the Beartooth Highway to the Wyoming system

**Notes:**
Attempt to designate the roadway as a National Parkway failed because the US Forest Service was reluctant to relinquish management control of the land adjacent to the road
There was no highway that linked the Beartooth to the Wyoming system until Chief Joseph Highway (SH 296) was improved in the 1990’s
Also various attempts were made for the Forest Service to share maintenance responsibilities of the road with the FS.  These attempts failed as well.

## Current Status of Maintenance and Upkeep

**Notes:**
Eastern Montana portion (23.7 miles) was reconstructed between 1960’s and 1970’s using Federal funds.  State of Montana maintains that portion.
The  western Montana portion (8.4 miles) is under construction. NPS maintains this portion.
16.1  miles of the Wyoming was reconstructed  between 1960’s and 1980’s using Federal funds.  NPS maintain this portion and the remaining unimproved portion.
Entire Wyoming section is 34.7 miles long.  This leaves Segment 4 as the only portion that has not been reconstructed.  Some consider this to be the most difficult segment to reconstruct give the high altitude.

## Precursors to the Reconstruction of Segment 4

- 1994 Beartooth Highway Inventory
- Steering Committee formed in 1997
- Department of Interior Appropriations Act of 1998
- Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

**Notes:**
Inventory was prepared by WFLHD at the request of Yellowstone National Park
Inventory divides Beartooth Highway into seven segments based on jurisdiction, route characteristics and past reconstruction activities
Steering Committee is comprised of high-ranking officials from the USFS , the NPS, the FHWA, WY and MT DOTs and staffs from the congressional delegation
Steering Committee was established to provide oversight of funding, maintenance, and ownership issues of the Highway
Steering Committee identified the primary goal with regards to maintenance of the road is to have the States take on ownership and maintenance of the entire road
Dept of Interior Appropriations Act provided funding for maintenance and 3-R work.
TEA-21 provided additional funding for the FHWA to conduct environmental review, planning, design, and 4-R work on Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway

## Project Development and NEPA Compliance for Segment 4

## Goal for the project
    Develop a roadway design for Segment 4 that accommodates present and projected traffic uses and land management goals and meets current standards so that any road maintaining agency would be willing to assume maintenance responsibility of the road while also preserving those characteristics that qualified the Beartooth Highway to be an All-American Road

*    **Develop a roadway design for Segment 4 that accommodates present and projected traffic uses and land management goals and meets current standards so that any road maintaining agency would be willing to assume maintenance responsibility of the road while also preserving those characteristics that qualified the Beartooth Highway to be an All-American Road*

**Notes:**
Given the project’s environmentally sensitive location, maintenance concerns, and landownership (USFS) the following goal was developed.
What is seen here took about 4 years to develop. The final purpose and need statement was developed in conjunction with the National Park Service, the Shoshone National Forest, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Key term here is that “any” maintenance entity would be willing to assume maintenance responsibility of the road
CFLHD recognized that in order to accomplish this dual, and often conflicting, goal it needed to assemble and interdisciplinary team of engineers, biologists, hydrologists, and landscape architects.

## Formation of Beartooth Team

- Formation of the Beartooth Team occurred shortly after CFLHD filed a notice of intent in September 1998 to prepare an EIS
**Requested and obtained WRITTEN COMMUNICATION FOR COOPERATING AGENCY STATUS from NPS, the USFS, the FWS, and the COE**
**SHPO, EPA, WY Dept of Environmental Quality, WY Game and Fish, and WY Dept. of Transportation – not formal cooperating agencies but CONTINUED COORDINATION/COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS**

## Operation of the Beartooth Team

- Frequent coordination
**Annual and semi-annual meetings/field reviews – occurred during key decision-making points in the NEPA process**
**Subject-specific meetings with appropriate agencies**
**Recording and distribution of meeting notes containing key decision and action items**
**Periodic updates provided in correspondence**

**Notes:**
Subject-specific meetings needed for MOA, BO, 404 permit, MBTA compliance
Periodic project update correspondence came about through problem with FWS
Coordinate meetings to accommodate team members schedules

## Operation of the Team (cont.)

- Ensure efficient and productive use of each member’s limited time
- Understand function and needs of other agencies – what information they require, at what key points in the environmental review process their involvement is critical
- Provide meeting agendas typically two weeks in advance of the meetings and field reviews
- Provide electronic files of review documents
- Hold meetings at other agencies’ offices or near them

**Notes:**
Conduct one on one meetings to learn agency requirements
Providing meeting agendas in advance gives members the opportunity to determine whether they need to be there

## Operation of the Team (cont.)

- Consistent team member participation
**Adjust agendas to accommodate schedules**
**Phone conference members in**
**Follow-up written invitations with phone calls**
**Finance travel if that team member’s attendance is critical**

**Notes:**
Third item addresses the “Do I really need to be there?” question
Customize agenda so members do not have to be there for the full meeting

## Operation of Team (cont.)

- Cultivate mutual trust & respect
**Provide meeting participants draft meeting notes for review**
**Track follow-up on action items identified at the meetings**
**Distribute meeting notes highlighting decision and action items to all team members – including those who did not attend**
**Keep team members apprised of progress on all aspects of the project**
**Follow through on commitments**
**Track all critical correspondence and transmittals through register mail or Fedex**

**Notes:**
Cultivating atmosphere of trust ensures more efficient operation of the team
Incorporate agency comments in meeting notes – often times agency comments corrected mistakes and prevented the perpetuation of misinformation
Brief all team members about outcomes of one-on-one agency meetings
Follow through on commitments carried out by tracking of action items and the holding of monthly internal (FHWA and consultant) meetings

## How Collaboration Resulted in a Context Sensitive Design

## Minimization of Impacts

- Approximately 84 acres of wetlands in project area – only 6 acres to be impacted
- Creative design and construction techniques
- No fen impacts and some fen restoration
- Develop site specific landscape and revegetation plans for wildlife crossings – minimizes impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat
- Refine the design of the foreslopes – minimizes vegetation impacts and allows for future maintenance to not disturb revegetated areas
- Provide environmental training for the contractor
- Provide environmental oversight of construction activities

**Notes:**
Roadway impacts to wetlands reduced to the greatest extent possible and agreed to by the COE during the development of the EIS because the COE participated in the development of the P&N and attended many field reviews.
Fen bridge design came about through collaboration among FHWA designers, COE, and FWS staff
Site specific landscape plans came about in conjunction between the FS, NPS, and the FHWA
Foreslope design developed in conjunction with NPS and WYDOT
Environmental Training will take the form of topsoil handling, wetland soil handling, Grizz training – Training idea developed by NPS, FS, and FWS
Oversight idea provided by FWS 

## Mitigation of Impacts

- Though all historic features of the road will be adversely impacted, these features will now be documented and interpreted for the traveling public
- Existing stone masonry will be salvaged and used to face the new bridges
- Extensive revegetation research has been performed on the  project site to identify methods that will maximize success of revegetation at high altitudes
- An extensive public information program has been developed to minimize impacts construction will have on the economies of the gateway communities

**Notes:**
Note that the SHPO is not happy with the design of the road
SHPO wanted bridges preserved – how to do this with bridges that have little lifespan left?

## Customer and Stakeholder Satisfaction

- The NPS “. . . appreciated [CFLHD’s] efforts in finding innovative solutions to problems. . . ” and that these “. . . efforts will make the project more context sensitive . . . ”
- The COE stated that FHWA’s “. . . wetland mitigation report  . . . is one of the best . . . this office has received . . . ”
- The EPA recommended to another transportation agency that “. . . the Beartooth Highway is instructive to consider as you seek measures to further reduce environmental impacts . . .”
- Awarded the 2003 Regional Forester’s award for Land Stewardship by the Region 2 of the USFS
- Beartooth Highway Project nominated for the Secretary’s Strive for Excellence Team Award

**Notes:**
Despite SHPO satisfaction with the project most partners on the Beartooth Team expressed appreciation for the project and design.

## How Collaboration Contributed to Environmental Streamlining

## Project Permits and Approvals

- Signing of the Record of Decision (ROD) in little over 5 years
- ROD contained the Biological Opinion (BO) from the FWS, the Memorandum of Agreement with the WY SHPO, and statements of concurrence from the USFS and the NPS
- The COE expedited the 404 permit process to provide a provisional authorization 5 months ahead of schedule

**Notes:**
While the NEPA process took longer than the goal for EIS projects, CFLHD still views this as an accomplishment due to the multiple jurisdictions and environmental concerns.

## Continued Collaboration for Post-NEPA Project Activities 

- Development of Public Information Plan
- Development of Project Delivery Plan
- Development of USFS and NPS agreement, to identify responsibilities for long-term environmental commitments

**Notes:**
PIP is a collaboration among the USFS, NPS, and local communities and is intended to keep the locals and travelers to the area informed of the progress of road construction.  PIP also assists in keeping the media informed.
PDP agreement among partnering agencies to follow-through on certain commitments made during the NEPA process.  PDP also used to guide future team members.
NPDES, MOA, and ROW all require long-term commitments by various agencies – to better ensure that these commitments will be carried out, the FHWA is coordinating the development of an MOA that identifies who will be responsible for carrying out these responsibilities once FHWA has completed construction

## Problems Encountered

## COST
Collaborative efforts and resulting context sensitive design measures can be expensive 
TIME
All of the collaborative effort requires substantial amount of time from CFLHD staff 
SECURING CONSISTENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
No matter how much you nag, some agencies won’t participate until late in the process

- Collaborative efforts and resulting context sensitive design measures can be expensive
**TIME**
- All of the collaborative effort requires substantial amount of time from CFLHD staff
**SECURING CONSISTENT AGENCY INVOLVEMENT**
- No matter how much you nag, some agencies won’t participate until late in the process

**Notes:**
COST - While collaborative efforts are expensive; lawsuits might be more expensive
TIME - failing to collaborate effectively might, ultimately, require more time

## RELIANCE ON DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
There appears to be a growing trend to employ design exceptions in the attempt to minimize environmental impacts
LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS
Who will implement long-term commitments once the FHWA has completed construction activities?

- There appears to be a growing trend to employ design exceptions in the attempt to minimize environmental impacts
**LONG-TERM COMMITMENTS**
- Who will implement long-term commitments once the FHWA has completed construction activities?

**Notes:**
There is the concern that too liberal use of design exceptions compromises safety of the designed roadway
Discuss paper from Historic Road Conference
Wetland Mitigation, NPDES permit compliance

## Lessons Learned and Applied

## MAINTAIN CONTACT
REACH OUT TO NEW TEAM MEMBERS
Meet one-on-one
Take the meeting to them
Don’t take no for an answer
DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MINIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FROM THE BEGINNING
MEET WITH AGENCIES WHEN THERE IS NOTHING AT STAKE

**REACH OUT TO NEW TEAM MEMBERS**
- Meet one-on-one
- Take the meeting to them
- Don’t take no for an answer
**DOCUMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT MINIMIZATION TECHNIQUES FROM THE BEGINNING**
**MEET WITH AGENCIES WHEN THERE IS NOTHING AT STAKE**

**Notes:**
Reach out – Employed this on the CA FH 81 Project
Document – Employed during 30 percent design on CA FH 81 Project
Meet – Meetings with FWS and EPA – Learn about each others programs, policies, missions in advance of coordinating on a project – Get to know each other outside of the context of a project/problem

## Questions