# Presentation: 051936

## Environmental Mitigation and Stewardship Commitment Tracking 

- Dan Johnson,
- Environmental Program Leader
- DelMar Division
- _[danw.johnson@fhwa.dot.gov](mailto:danw.johnson@fhwa.dot.gov)_

## “Fulfilling commitments is critical to the environment.”

- 				*- Fred Skaer*
*	**	**	**	**       **June 17, 2008*

- Partnership

- Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Location

- Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project

-  20 + Regulatory Agencies
-  30 + Permits
- Multiple Volume EIS Documents Including 1997 FEIS and 2000 FSEIS
- 1,400+  Commitments  and Conditions
- 75 Acres of Permitted  Wetlands and Waters Impacts
- 109 Acres of Forest Impacts
- Required by Army Corps of Engineers Permit to Track Impacts

- WWB Project Permit and Impact Statistics

-   In the Development Stage, Project Team Researched Other Databases (PennDOT, DelDOT)
-   Developed Commitment as well as Impact     Tracking Database System
-   Ensures Commitments are Incorporated Into Design Process and Fulfilled During Construction
-   Maintains Compliance - 24+ Nearly Simultaneous Construction Contracts
-   Minimizes Risk of Fines, Violations, and Shutdowns

- Developing and Implementing a Record of Decision and Permit Tracking Database (RTD)

- Microsoft Access Database

-   Highly Flexible Platform
-   Generates Contract Specific Compliance Reports Based on Queries
-   Queries Are Linked to General Permit Tables
-   Database Maintenance is Conducted by Environmental Specialist
-   Environmental Specialist Coordinates Contract Specific Packages
-   Environmental Specialist Updates Information Within the Database
-   Nearly 1,400 Conditions Tracked on Regular Basis

| 
PROJECT WIDE CONDITIONS | 617 |
| --- | --- |
| VIRGINIA SPECIFIC CONDITIONS | 399 |
| MARYLAND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS | 356 |
| TOTAL CONDITIONS  | 1372 |

| 
Agency/Permit | # Conditions  | Jurisdiction |
| --- | --- | --- |
| United States Coast Guard  | 16 | Project Wide  |
| Federal Aviation Administration  | 3 | Project Wide |
| Army Corps of Engineers(initial permit & modifications)  | 191 | Project Wide |
| Virginia Department of Environmental Quality  | 236 | Virginia |
| Virginia Marine Resources Commission  | 36 | Virginia |
| Maryland Department of the Environment  | 259 | Maryland |
| Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System  | 57 | Virginia |
| National Park Service  | 67 | Project Wide |
| Maryland Department of Natural Resources  | 5 | Maryland |
| City of Alexandria | 70 | Alexandria (Virginia)  |
| Record of Decision for the Supplemental FEIS  | 148 | Project Wide |
| Compensatory Mitigation Monitoring Plan  | 192 | Project Wide |
| Cabin Branch Memorandum of Agreement  | 20 | Cabin Branch Mitigation Project (Maryland) |
| Indian Creek Memorandum of Agreement  | 20 | Indian Creek Mitigation Project (Maryland)  |
| Little Paint Branch Memorandum of Agreement  | 38 | Little Paint Branch Mitigation Project (Maryland)  |
| Northwest Branch/Sligo Creek Memorandum of Agreement  | 14 | NW/SC Mitigation Project (Maryland)  |
| TOTAL | 1372 |   |

- Scope of Tracked Permits

- Contract Specific T	racking

-      RTD develops contract specific reports (prior to final design and after construction) compiling:
- Federal and State Agency Jurisdictional Commitments
- Specific Contract Impacts
- Lessons Learned

- FHWA made the design compliance report a requirement for submittal before advertisement of any major construction contract.

- Sample Impact Tracking Sheet for BR-2 Contract

- Documenting Compliance and Recording Impact Minimization

- $125M** **Bridge Foundations (BR-2) Contract
- Monitored Impacts Semi-Annually Throughout Contract Via Environmental Inspection Reports Required by ACOE
- Use of RTD Recorded:
- 1.	42% Reduction of Permitted Impacts to Potomac River Wetlands and Waters
- Compliance with All Conditions as well as Description of Issues and Resolutions
- Innovations

- Lessons Learned

- Environmental Inspector Checklist
- 	1.  	Usage of Palm Pilots for Daily Review – 	Impractical and Slow
- 	2.  Solution - Developed Quarterly Review Environmental Checklist
- Technical Training and Experience - Essential in Database Management
- Careful Planning - RTD Systems Can Become Overwhelming
- Considerable and Ongoing Time Commitment
- Limitations of MS Access – Can be Slow and Awkward
- Limited Use – Web/GIS Size

- Advantages

- Establishes Consistency Between Regulatory Agencies, DOTs, Consultants, Designers, and Contractors in Regulatory Compliance
- Tracks and Confirms that Design and Construction Commitments are Met
- Impact Tracking
- Flexible Format - Can be Organized According To Different Project Parameters
- Living Document that is Expandable and Collapsible
- Documents Project Successes and Solutions

## Selected Alternative

**Notes:**
ICC is a 6-lane, 16.5 mile managed lane facility on new location linking I- 270 corridor near Gaithersburg with the I-95 and US 1 corridors.
Construction will be performed in five major design-build projects.  Cost Estimate is $2.4 Billion.

##  A Brief ICC History

- 1950 - ICC conceived as part of DC Outer Beltway.
- 1968 - Outer Beltway concept dropped, but ICC was retained in Master Plan.
- 1979 - MD SHA initiated first ICC Planning study.
- 1983 - Draft EIS circulated and public hearings held.
- 1997- Draft EIS circulated and public hearings held.
- 1999 -  former MD Governor halts ICC study.
- 2002 - new MD Governor pledges to build ICC.
- 2003 - ICC named pilot project under EO 14372.

## Project Dashboard, May 2003

**Notes:**
When the ICC was designated as a pilot project under the Executive Order on Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining, the project was the only project of the 13 pilot projects that lit up all categories on the pilot project dashboard (Red denotes concern; Yellow, potential concern): 
ESA – No known federal endangered species, but several species of state concern in the project area.  
4(f) – Corridor 2 has half the park acreage impacts as Corridor 1. In 1997, the section 4(f) impact ranged from 40.1 A to 145A.  
404 - Both alternates affect approximately the same level of wetlands.  Corridor 1 affects brown trout, Corridor 2 affects Rocky Gorge Reservoir, which supplies water to over 500,000 residents of the greater Washington, D.C. area.
Indirect/cumulative Impacts – There was no previous analysis of this issue. 
 Air – Environmental groups assert serious air toxic impacts if the project is built.  
Community impacts – for the last 20 years, persons buying property adjacent to Corridor 1 have been required to acknowledge the master plan before buying their property.  Those adjacent to Corridor 2 argue that they’ve purchased their $500,000+ homes with the knowledge that the Master Plan had no Expressways near their homes.  Corridor 2 has almost twice as many displacements as Corridor 1.

## ICC context

- The counties’ comprehensive master plan for the project area , which has been substantially developed, anticipated the ICC’s construction.
- Corridor 1 crosses four streams /associated county parks (*Over 100 acres of 4(f) impact in ’97DEIS*!)
- Environmental groups oppose the ICC based on direct, indirect & cumulative impacts (sprawl).
- In previous studies, Federal resource agencies were pitted against Counties’ existing developed Master Plan (Corridor 1), favoring a publicly unpopular Corridor 2.  (*trout** vs. **people*)

## Slide 19

**Notes:**
This is a detail of the Eastern half of the project where Alternates diverge.

## Slide 20

## Water quality improvements; 
Stream habitat restoration;
Bicycle and pedestrian trails; 
Community enhancement opportunities;
Cultural resource preservation; 
Increased acreage of wetlands & forests;
Aesthetic design guidelines

- Stream habitat restoration;
- Bicycle and pedestrian trails;
- Community enhancement opportunities;
- Cultural resource preservation;
- Increased acreage of wetlands & forests;
- Aesthetic design guidelines

**Env. Stewardship Elements**

## Ensuring the Commitments

- Redundancy of Environmental Oversight
- Adaptive Management
- Environmental Performance Specifications

**Notes:**
Environmental oversight at several layers-GEC,Design Build Teams (4-5), independent Environmental Monitor
Invited Utah & other states who had performed major projects to share their experiences on use of D-B
IAWG has continued beyond NEPA, reviewing design & construction issues, beginning with the Env. Performance Specifications
EPS have been very favorably rec’d by the first two D-B teams – Thus far impacts have continued to trend downward since the ROD.

## Redundancy of Environmental Oversight

- SHA Project Environmental Manager
- General Engineering Coordinator
- D-B Contractor Environmental Staff
- Independent Environmental Monitor

## Adaptive Management

- Inter Agency Working Group (5 Federal, 6 state and 6 local agencies) meet monthly to review & discuss design and construction modifications as the project is developed.

## Environmental Performance Specifications

- A very detailed package of environmental performance specifications were developed to motivate the Design-Build teams to exceed environmental commitment goals.

## Slide 26

## Slide 28

## Slide 29

## Slide 30

## Slide 31

## Slide 32

## Slide 33

## Slide 34

## Slide 35

## Slide 36

## Slide 37

## Slide 38

## Slide 39

## Slide 41

## Slide 42

## Slide 43

## Slide 44

## Slide 45