Table of Contents 

Introduction ............................................................................................................ 1

Survey Approach .................................................................................................... 2 

Road Inventory Program Survey ........................................................................... 4 

Project Development (Design) Survey .................................................................. 7 

Completed Projects (Construction) Survey ......................................................... 11

Accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2020 ............................................................... 14 

All charts and images are source: FHWA 
1 | P a g e

Introduction 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division (EFLHD), is 

committed to serving the needs of our Partners and we have been engaged in an ongoing evaluation and 

improvement process since 1993. As part of that process, we have collected survey information from our 

Partner Agencies and used their responses to improve our products and services. This Report has been 

developed to provide a summary of the feedback we received in relation to our program and project 

delivery, including identification of proposed improvement actions, and to report on some of our 

significant accomplishments. 

In Fiscal Year (FY) 2020, Survey Review & Enhancement efforts were completed on all customers 

surveys to identify areas of improvement. One of the recommended improvements was to discontinue 

the Environmental Collaboration Survey and include key environmental items within the Project 

Development and Completed Project Surveys. 

Please note that The Planning and Programming Survey (previously Program Administration Survey) 

was not administered in 2019 and 2020 due to on-going coordinating efforts with FLH Division Offices. 

In FY 2020, we distributed the following web-based surveys: 

 Roadway Inventory Program (RIP) 

 Completed Projects (Construction Process) 

 Project Development (Design Process) 

The results from those surveys have been reviewed and actions have been implemented to correct and/or 

improve upon our FY 2020 scores. We appreciate our many Partners; and value the feedback you 

provide. The adjustments and adaptations we implement intended efforts to better meet your needs in the 

delivery of your program of projects. 

In FY 2020, we awarded 38 projects at over $114 million in construction contracts from which survey 

solicitations were requested. We received comments from the following Agencies: 

 National Park Service (NPS) 

 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

 U.S. Forest Service 

 State Departments of Transportation 

 US Army Corps of Engineers 

 Other Agencies 

Comments are evaluated in consideration of the Program activity addressed and the partner representative 

from whom they were received. Our Staff often contacts the representatives to clarify individual 

comments. 

We continue to reach out to our partner agencies through site visits, feedback sessions, program status 

updates and teleconferences for the continual improvement of our program and project delivery services. 

In FY 2020, we had partner satisfaction scores at or above target for Completed Projects, Road Inventory 

Program, and Project Development. The overall satisfaction score for combining all surveys for FY 2020 

comes in at 93%, putting the overall score above our target of ≥ 85%. 

We would like to take this opportunity to extend our thanks for your participation and support of our 

efforts toward continued improvement. Your feedback is vital in the successful delivery of the Federal 

Lands Highway Program (FLHP) and is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, or additional 

comments, please contact Ms. Aide Romero, Division Program Management Analyst and System 

Manager, at 703-404-6235 or by email Aide.Romero@dot.gov. 
2 | P a g e

Survey Approach

We measure the satisfaction of our Partner Agencies at the major milestones of the program and project 

delivery processes. The surveys are sent throughout the calendar year at the completion of the 

environmental assessment, project design and construction phase, to gauge overall administrative 

support. Survey respondents include representatives of our Partners and other Agencies directly involved 

with delivery of the Program. 

Survey scores have slightly increased the last several 

years. EFLHD’s value of 93% in 2020 continued this 

trend. We are at our goal of ≥ 85%. Each of the three 

components that comprise this overall score is 

addressed in detail on subsequent pages of this report. 

The average value for all partner surveys is composed 

of the Road Inventory Program Survey at 98.5% with 

a response rate of 21%; the Project Development 

(Design) survey at 87.2% with a response rate of 34%; 

and the final component is the Completed Projects 

(Construction) Survey at 93.3% and with a response 

rate at 26%. 

Our target value aligns with the Federal Lands 

Highway and FHWA goals which strive for an 85% or 

greater for all external Partner Satisfaction surveys. 

The combined rate of 

return for all three survey 

areas in FY 2020 was only 

at 28.4%; this was higher 

than the prior year value of 

24.8%. Our percentage 

returned is still below 

statistically desirable 

numbers so efforts to 

improve will continue. As 

with all surveys, the 

number of responses 

received is critical to the 

validity of the feedback. In 

2021 branch office 

personnel will be contacting respondents to improve response rate over 2020 values. We continue to ask 

for your valued input to this improvement effort at EFLHD and welcome feedback that can assist us in 

increasing our customer satisfaction. 

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

85.8% 83.8% 82.4%

85.0%

93.0%

Average Score All Partner 

Feedback Surveys

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Program

Administration

Road Inventory

Program

Project

Development

(Design)

Completed

Projects

(Construction)

21%

34%

26%

Survey Response Rate 2020
3 | P a g e

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Program

Administration

Environmental

Collaboration

Road Inventory

Program

Project

Development

(Design)

Completed

Projects

(Construction)

138

25

113

38

124

38

111

40

123

38

140

87

53

18

137

126

34

62

94

34

# of Survey Invitations

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Program

Administration

Environmental

Collaboration

Road Inventory

Program

Project

Development

(Design)

Completed

Projects

(Construction)

71

6

41 20 52

7

44 18 44

7 23 23 27 5

45 23 5

13 32 9

# of Survey Responses

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

0

10

20

30

40

Total Responses Program

Administration

Road Inventory

Program

Project

Development

(Design)

Completed

Projects

(Construction)

33

0

13

16

4

16

0 0

12

4

2 1 1 0

0 0 0 0

3

0 0

3

0

Survey Respondents by Partner Agency in 2020

National Park Service U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Forest Service

State Dept. of Transportation Other Agencies
4 | P a g e

Road Inventory Program Survey 

The purpose of the Road Inventory Program Survey is to evaluate the degree to which our work provides 

the information necessary to support our partner’s asset management and program development 

processes. 

EFLHD Overall Satisfaction Index Target ≥ 85% 

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Route ID Manual Collection Vehicle Collection Data Delivery / Training 94.8 90.0 90.4 87.5 89.0 88.093.0 91.0 92.0 92.0 89.0 88.0 100 97.0

Road Inventory Program Component Scores (%) 

2017 2018 2019 2020

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2017 2018 2019 2020

90.7% 90.3% 90.3%

98.5%

Road Inventory Program Survey Score
5 | P a g e

Survey Results: This is the fourth year that the Road Inventory Program Survey is included in the 

Partner Feedback report. The Overall Satisfaction scores for the Road Inventory Program Survey 

improved to 98.5%. The current score continues to meet our target level of 85%. An analysis of the 

survey’s results by category yielded the following: 

Category 2017 2018 2019 2020 % Change 

Route ID 94.8 89.0 92.0 100 8.0 

Manual Collection 90.0 88.0 92.0 97.0 5.0 

Vehicle Collection 90.4 93.0 89.0 --- --- 

Data Delivery / Training 87.5 91.0 88.0 --- --- 

Overall Score 90.7 90.3 90.3 98.5 8.3 

Survey scores remain very high for all park units (see graph above). No parks provided scores below the 

target score of 85%, so all park interactions with RIP were very satisfactory. 

A low response rate continues to be the biggest challenge with these surveys. EFL performed a 

comprehensive review of the format, questions, survey sections, and method of distribution that should 

foster an improved response rate. Additionally, a new survey was created for FWS. The updated surveys 

will be implemented in FY 2021. A sampling of the written comments associated with this survey were: 

 The RIP project manager was engaging, professional, and clear. They explained this in language 

even I could understand. They often asked if clarification was necessary. At the end of each section 

they invited questions. I felt fully at ease, appreciated, and an important part of the process. 

 This was a series of very productive meetings that has been long needed. The RIP project managers 

were very thorough and patient in working through the many locations our park has and the many 

new ones we identified in these calls. 

 Only recommendation is that the lead project manager introduce their coworker who was also on the 

call. 

Action to Improve: We have initiated the following actions to improve and maintain partner satisfaction 

this year: 

 We will be reviewing the RIP communication plan as we prepare for cycle 7 and work to reduce 

unnecessary letters and emails. 

 We will be reviewing the format of Route ID meetings and will determine the best ways to introduce 

the RIP team to our Partners. 

Actions Taken: We implemented the following actions for improvement last year: 

 We identified opportunities to streamline Route ID meetings in Cycle 6 and in the upcoming Cycle 7. 

NPS started providing a monthly export of the FMSS dataset for roads and parking. This spreadsheet 

is uploaded into the RIP database system so that QC checks can be automatically run to produce a 

discrepancy report that is reviewed during the Route ID calls. The monthly FMSS report saves time 

because the RIP team no longer needs to ask park personnel to generate and share a report that the 

RIP Project Managers (PMs) then use to compare against RIP line by line. Additionally, the NPS 

Roads Work Group is trying to improve data alignment between RIP and Facility Management 

Software System (FMSS) by having the RIP team work directly with Regional FMSS Coordinators. 

These coordinators are more experienced with dealing with repetitive issues and can help parks 

resolve them in a timely manner. The RIP team has provided comments and suggested actions for the 

NPS to take for the Southeast and Northeast regions. RIP team will continue working on the other 

Regions to clean up the data at the end of Cycle 6, which will get Cycle 7 off to a better start having 

fewer discrepancies. 
6 | P a g e

 We continued with the standard training format delivered on a reduced schedule of every 3-4 months. 

The reduction was mostly due to focusing our time on other areas, so the issue has not been fully 

addressed yet. We will continue to review the training format and method of delivery as we review 

the overall RIP process for the next Cycle 7. One idea is to offer a RIP reference page on the NPS 

Navigator site where procedures, quick start guides, or even video recording can be offered to explain 

RIP data to our users. Live training may not be needed if people can access the procedures and get 

answers to their questions at their convenience. 

 The RIP team has started a comprehensive review of the database system to make it uniform across 

all agencies collected by the RIP. 
7 | P a g e

Project Development (Design) Survey 

The purpose of the Project Development Survey is to assess the quality of all project design elements and 

FLH management practices that lead to final design. 

EFLHD Overall Satisfaction Index Target ≥ 85%

60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

83.7% 83.4%

81.1%

86.0% 87.2%

Project Development Design Survey Results

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Management

Practices

Roadway and

Safety Design

Elements

Hydraulic and

Environmental

Design

Elements

Hydraulic

Design

Elements

Environmental

Design

Elements

Structural

Design

Elements

Final Design Advertisement

and Award of

Contracts 84.6 83.085.3 84.2 85.0 79.0 85.3 82.3 81.6 81.685.5 82.4 82.6 82.9 80.683.0 82.5 71.9 84.889.8 86.3 86.4 87.9 78.784.4089.10 88.80 89.50 91.80 86.90 79.40

Project Development Component Scores (%) 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
8 | P a g e

Survey Results: The overall Project Development Survey score for FY 2020 is 87.2%. The target of 

85% or higher was achieved for this year. An analysis of the survey’s results by the category area 

yielded the following results: 

Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 % 

Change

Project Management Practices 84.6 85.3 82.4 84.8 84.4 -0.40 

Roadway and Safety Design Elements 83.0 82.3 82.6 89.8 89.1 -0.70 

Hydraulic and Environmental Design Elements 85.3 81.6 80.6 86.3 --- --- 

Hydraulic Design Elements --- --- --- --- 88.8 --- 

Environmental Design Elements 89.5 --- 

Structural Design Elements 84.2 81.6 83.0 86.4 91.8 5.4 

Final Design 85.0 85.5 82.5 87.9 86.9 -1.00 

Advertisement and Award of Contracts 79.0 82.9 71.9 78.7 79.4 0.70 

Overall Score 83.7 83.4 81.1 86.0 87.2 1.20 

Questions resulting in the lowest scores for this survey period were: 

 Advertisement and Award of Contract: 76.9% 

Timeliness of Advertisement and Award. 

 Project Management Practices: 79.4% 

Management of project schedule (within program and cost constraints). 

 Roadway and Safety Design Elements: 81.7% 

Right-of-Way and Utility coordination. 

 Project Management Practices: 81.9% 

Management of project budget (within program and schedule constraints). 

Question with the highest scores for the current survey period were: 

 Structural Design Elements (new/rehabilitation): 95.3% 

Structural aesthetics. 

 Roadway and Safety Design Elements: 94.7% 

Cut and fill slope design. 

 Roadway and Safety Design Elements: 92.5% 

Roadway geometrics (curves, intersections, alignment, etc.). 

 Structural Design Elements (new/rehabilitation): 92.0% 

Structural type and size is appropriate for the site location. 

Our satisfaction score continues to show an upward trend and above the target value. Our response rate 

for this year was 34% and is up from last year’s value of 18.3%. Structural Design Elements Discipline 

area showed improvement from last year. The areas needing more attention are Advertisement and 

Award of Contract, Project Management Practices, and the Roadway and Safety Design Elements, 

although Advertisement and Award of Contracts did increase in score from last year. 

Actions to Improve: We will implement the following in FY 2021: 

 Advertisement and Award of Contracts (Timeliness) – Advertisement and Award of Contracts – At 

the end of FY 2020, EFLHD awarded 5 regional Construction Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity 

(IDIQ) contracts providing highway and/or bridge construction for the smaller (generally less than 

$2M) and less complex projects. These IDIQ contractors have experience working with EFLHD and 

will help streamline procurement over time, and we anticipate that these contractors will enable us to 

respond more quickly to emergency projects. In addition, EFL conducted an internal review of the 
9 | P a g e

Contract Advertisement and Award Process to identify opportunities to streamline. Specific changes 

related to completion of the acquisition plans, obtaining permits, internal communication, bid analysis 

and award recommendations, and processing the award documents including the final Purchase 

Request (PR) were clarified and reinforced to improve the existing process. 

 Project Management (Budgets) – EFLHD will continue to focus on the appropriate design and 

delivery method for all projects during the scoping phase. Projects with lower construction costs tend 

to have much higher preliminary engineering cost ratios than those with higher construction costs. 

EFLHD will first consider utilizing in-house staff for low risk and/or construction dollar value 

projects and optimize the use of the regional construction IDIQCs. When utilizing the construction 

IDIQCs, EFLHD will evaluate the design level necessary to support National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) and determine whether it is appropriate for the construction IDIQCs contractors to finish 

the design necessary to construct and obtain permits as means to reduce design costs. EFLHD will 

optimize opportunities during the scoping stage to streamline the overall design effort and simplify 

delivery and engage our Construction Branch staff to ensure the appropriate level of design is 

incorporated into the Plans, Specifications, and Estimates (PS&E) to minimize overdesign and 

control design costs. To help control overall budget costs, EFLHD updated guidance and the process 

for preparing and executing Project Agreements and Project Management Plans. These 

recommendations include a fully signed project agreement or plan before beginning preliminary 

design and environment activities, to help control expenditures. Finally, it is critical project managers 

will communicate with the partner and other maintaining entities in a timely manner on any scope 

changes resulting in schedule and budget impacts. 

 Project Management (Schedules) – EFLHD is focused on developing realistic schedules that 

considers design and permitting requirements, optimum construction season and any restrictions, and 

partner requested delivery timelines. This effort starts during the scoping phase with effective due 

diligence and open discussion with Partners to clearly understand goals and objectives, environmental 

coordination, permitting, and stakeholder outreach. To improve our ability to develop more realistic 

schedules, EFLHD is engaged in more detailed analyses of scheduling by evaluating resources during 

internal project kickoff meetings and collaboratively determine approaches to optimize delivery. 

Similar to the above outlined actions on budgets and advertisement and award of contracts, utilization 

of regional construction IDIQs for smaller construction contracts, simplified delivery, and 

streamlining design are tools that can be used to reduce delivery timeframes. 

Actions Taken: We implemented the following actions last year: 

 Hydraulic and Environmental Design Elements – EFLHD separated Hydraulic and Environmental 

Design Elements section, this action was identified as an area of improvement during Survey Review 

& Enhancement efforts. 

 Contract Procurement Type & Contractor Selection – We awarded 5 regional IDIQCs for delivering 

smaller less complex projects with pre-qualified contractors to streamline procurement on these 

projects. In addition, we evaluate the need for Best Value procurement on more complex projects and 

developing evaluation criteria with partner input. 

 Schedules and Budget – EFLHD has taken several actions to improve setting and maintaining 

budgets and schedules on projects. Utilization of regional construction IDIQs for smaller projects, 

simplified delivery, and streamlining design are tools our staff are encouraged to implement to reduce 

delivery costs and timeframes. Simplified delivery is a formal process that eliminates unnecessary 

PS&E review distributions on low risk projects. Streamlined design on low-risk, simple projects is an 

approach that provides the basic concept for repairs and enough quantities without detailed 

subsurface field investigations, and design staff consult with our Construction office to determine 

minimum information that must be conveyed in the plans and specifications. Both simplified 

delivery and streamlined design are process that are evaluated during the scoping phase and 

incorporated into the delivery process when applicable. 

 Final Design – EFLHD updated our formal evaluation of PS&E quality including verifying the plans 

and specifications are clear, accurate, and constructible. This also includes receiving feedback from 
10 | P a g e

our Partners and all internal reviewers on the quality of the plans, incorporation of scope, and the 

incorporation of comments at each distribution. This new process adds emphasis and a tracking 

measure to ensure comments from previous reviews are appropriately addressed and the latest 

versions of the documents are included, prior to distribution. The design teams continue to meet with 

our Construction branch to incorporate lessons learned from construction issues on past similar 

projects. 

 Structural Design Elements –Innovative materials and construction have been used on several 

projects to minimize construction durations and extend service life. Usage of “Prefabricated 

Elements” on bridges has advanced and used on many projects. Additionally, use of new technology 

materials are considered on all projects to further extend design life well beyond 75 years. 

Implementation of Ultra-High Performance Concrete (UHPC) has been integrated on a number of 

projects which is a key technology that will prolong design life. Projects in planning stage will 

include use of Polyester Polymer Concrete (PPC) Overlays which will also prolong design life. 

 Life Cycle Costs for entire inventory has been completed and is further being developed to identify 

bridge needs using deterioration modeling. This is a new development which will be used as an aid 

for planning. 
11 | P a g e

Completed Projects (Construction) Survey 

The purpose of the Completed Project Survey is to assess the quality of all completed construction 

projects and overall FLH management practices. 

EFLHD Overall Satisfaction Index Target ≥ 85%

 60%

65%

70%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

85.3% 83.7%

89.1%

87.7%

93.3%

Completed Projects Construction Survey 

Results

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Management

Practices

Completed Project

Elements

Completed Project

Aesthetics

Conditions During

Construction

Environmental

Sensitivity 86.2 82.183.986.1 84.3 82.2 78.581.7 80.782.7 88.6 90.2 90.1 87.7 89.1 86.990.0 89.091.8 81.1 93.3 93.1 94.4 93.1

Completed Projects Component Scores (%) 

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
12 | P a g e

Survey Results: Overall the Completed Projects Survey score came in above our target value at 93.3%. 

A concerted effort by the construction office personnel to contact partner agencies to improve survey 

feedback response rate was continued for 2020. The results of this work continue improving rates from a 

low of 39% in 2012 to today’s value of 51%. An analysis of the survey’s results by the category area 

yielded the following results. 

Category 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 % 

Change 

Management Practices 86.22 84.80 88.60 86.90 93.3 6.40

Completed Project Elements 82.12 80.80 90.20 90.00 93.1 3.10

Completed Project Aesthetics 83.91 82.70 90.10 89.00 --- ---

Conditions During Construction 86.14 83.70 87.70 91.80 94.4 2.60

Environmental Sensitivity 84.27 84.00 89.10 81.10 93.1 12.00

Overall Rating 89.00 86.30 88.10 84.00 91.1 7.10

Overall Score 84.98 83.70 89.0 87.70 93.30 5.60 

Questions resulting in the lowest scores for this survey period were: 

 Completed Project Elements: Drainage structures (culverts, channels, and ditches). 86.7% 

 Completed Project Elements: Pavement and/or bridge surface (texture and ride). 88.6% 

 Management Practices: Issue resolution (FLH and Construction Contractor). 91.1% 

 Conditions During Construction: Overall public reaction during construction. 91.1% 

 Environmental Sensitivity: Protection and preservation of natural, historical, and cultural 91.1% 

resources. 

 Overall Rating: Overall level of satisfaction with this Completed Project. 91.1% 

 

Question with the highest scores for the current survey period were: 

 Conditions During Construction: Accommodations and access of landowners, businesses 97.1% 

and adjacent property. 

 Completed Project Elements: Stability of cut and fill slopes and road shoulders. 96.0% 

 Completed Project Elements: Alignment of guardrail, walls, and roadside appurtenances. 96.0% 

 Completed Project Aesthetics: Major structures (bridges, walls, etc.) 95.6% 

 Management Practices: Timeliness of response to requests by your organization. 95.6% 

A sampling of the written comments associated with this survey were: 

 “Project was expertly handled. Completed project was exactly what we expected and completed in 

excellent fashion. Road was adequately mark as being under construction. Project was completed 

with cooperation and expertise. All issues were addressed.” 

 “Top notch communication, geotechnical, engineering, construction & project management services 

from EFL. thank you! FHWA's contractor did an excellent job during construction. USFS line 

officers were surprised by the efficiency.” 

 “This was a sidewalk and drainage project; the result was more than satisfactory. The project was 

adjacent to and crossed a heavily used commuter route. The detours and signage did not create any 

backups or other confusion for traffic flow. The staff was very pleasant and productive. There were 

numerous agencies to connect with during the process and the Federal Highways project manager 

connected the shareholders well.” 

Actions Taken: We implemented the following actions last year: 

 We provided technical training to identify and potential solutions for dealing with various problems 

of specifications, materials acceptance, changes, delays, claims, payment problems, and any other 
13 | P a g e

project administration issues. 

 We provided asphalt pavement related trainings including best practices and common issues to 

project staff. This training would enhance the skill of project staff during the inspection of bridge 

work. 

 We expanded the Construction Winter Conference project issue education amongst our entire staff. 

All issues of controversy or problems were discussed in order to promote awareness of common 

problems and hopefully improve our ability to address issues in the field. 
14 | P a g e

Accomplishments for Fiscal Year 2020 

Project Delivery 

Rock Creek Park Beach Drive Reconstruction completed by the Eastern Federal Lands Highway 

Division in 2019 was awarded the 2020 Excellence in Construction by the Associated Builders and 

Contractors Virginia Chapter competition representing 

the Metro Washington and Virginia Chapters of 

Associated Builders and Contractors. 

Bioretention pond and trail — Smithsonian 

National Zoological Park Gate, Washington, 

DC 

Beach Drive and trail — Rock Creek, Washington, DC 

The historic Arlington Memorial Bridge over the Potomac River in Washington, DC, is a concrete deck 

arch structure with a steel bascule (movable) span, constructed in 1932. The National Park Service owns 

the bridge which is inspected by EFLHD. Multiple emergency repair contracts were performed to keep 

the bridge operational prior to the recently completed rehabilitation project. 

This Design-Build project included the design and construction for the rehabilitation of the concrete 

approach spans, removal and replacement of the concrete deck, replacement of the bascule span at the 

center of the bridge, concrete repairs to the existing structure, rehabilitation of the bridge substructure, 

removal and resetting granite curb and railing, repairing and cleaning the bridge’s stone masonry and 

other miscellaneous work. The below images provide a skyline view of the bridge along with before and 

after shots of the bascule span. — Washington, DC/Virginia 
15 | P a g e

Tribal Partner Delivered Projects 

The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation Project, Joseph Williams Drive is a short, roughly 1,000-

foot, dead end road. The cul-de-sac ends with a one-way ‘eye-loop.’ This roadway is the only area within 

Mashantucket zoned for multi-family dwellings. Currently, there are four two-family townhouse units 

with plans for an additional two units. The units are serviced by a full complement of utilities that are 

installed below ground. 

Joseph Williams Drive was constructed with a curb-to-curb width of only eighteen feet, two feet 

narrower than typically specified to accommodate emergency vehicle access. Driveways of townhomes 

barely accommodate off-road parking for two cars per unit, so 

the narrow passage is exacerbated by occasional street 

parking. This situation makes it common to encounter onroad parking within the area. In 

addition to posing a general 

inconvenience, these conditions could 

prove a significant hazard by 

obstructing emergency vehicle 

response. It was this specific reason 

that Joseph Williams Drive was 

identified by two of the Tribe’s 

Constitutional Standing Committees 

(Housing & Community Planning) as 

a safety concern. 

Joseph Williams Drive 

— Mashantucket, 

Connecticut 
16 | P a g e

In 2018, the Pawnee Nation adopted the Construction Management/ General Contractor (CM/GC) 

method a pilot process through FHWA at the time. The Pawnee Nation had internal meetings and 

developed a vision, projects and goals. The vision was to provide safety improvements, quality of life 

and cultural enhancements around the Pawnee Nation complex. Thirteen projects with differing funding 

sources were selected. The following are some that have been completed: 

• 1st Street Safety Project consisting of Roadway reconstruction, School Bus Safety, sidewalks, LED 

lights, drainage, and intersection improvement. This was a main project for the Nation and it provided 

them their biggest achievement and innovation using CM/GC. by having the sub-contractors involved 

in the production they were able to reduce the pavement design by $300,000, through an innovation 

never used before in Oklahoma. 

• Morris Road Project consisting of sidewalks and lighting along Morris Road. Used existing terrain to 

eliminate the need for curb & gutter, a $150,000 cost savings. 

• Morris Rd. to Hwy 16/18 is a project using savings from other projects for road maintenance and 

entrance signs. 

• Fog Seal Project consisting of road maintenance and re-striping on the roads within the Pawnee Nation 

Tribal Complex; Lights on Catlett Road Project consisting of lights from the War Mothers Bridge up to 

the Elders Center. 

• Directional Signage Project consisting of (4) Four signs place around the Pawnee Nation tribal 

Complex guiding visitors to their destinations. 

• Meet Me at the Park Project consisting of an expansion of Pirau Park funded through a Walt Disney 

grant. 

• ICDBG Campgrounds and Fit Trail Project which included 

ADA restrooms, a redesigned arbor, electrical upgrades, and a 

fitness trail. 

• Building 1 Roof consisting of Remove and Replace roof. 

• Building 1 Addition Demo consisting of Demolition of a 348 

sqft non-original add-on. 

• Removal and replacement of the Trading Post Roof 

• Green Bridge project consists of rehabilitation of a fracture 

critical bridge on the main route into the Pawnee Nation Tribal 

Complex. The project was delayed due to the current health crises, 

the preliminary bridge design is complete. Pawnee Nation 

submitted an application for Tribal Transportation Bridge 

Program funding and was awarded $500,000. They are currently 

working on finalizing the plans and will begin work Spring 2021. 

Pawnee Nation Tribal 

Complex, Fog Seal Project 

— Pawnee, Oklahoma 

Pawnee Nation ICDBG Ceremonial Campgrounds and 

Nature Fit Trail Project was the 2nd to use a “Fast Cast 

Bridge “system and the 1st to use a “Fast Cast Bridge” 

system for a Pedestrian Bridge. — Pawnee, Oklahoma 

 
17 | P a g e

The I-564 Intermodal Connector Project extends from the International Terminal Boulevard near I-64 

to Hampton Boulevard at the Entrance to the Norfolk Naval Air Station. The Eastern Division signed a 

Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia DOT, and the U.S. Navy outlining the roles and 

responsibilities of each party. The project consisted of planning, preliminary engineering, preparation of 

environmental documentation, permits and other clearances, acquisition of right-of-way, relocation of 

utilities, and construction and contract administration. EFLHD was responsible for design and 

construction, stewardship and oversight of the Navy administered improvements, as well as coordination 

and facilitation of the overall schedule. This project included 2.82 miles of new four-lane limited access 

highway, and a reconfigured commercial vehicle inspection station for Naval Station Norfolk. 

Improvements included construction of the I-564 interchange, bridges and local connectors, stormwater 

management areas and other infrastructure associated with the I-564 Intermodal Connector. The project 

ends just short of the future Patriot’s Tunnel Crossing under the Elizabeth River. In addition, the project 

includes improvements on Naval Station Norfolk, Naval Support Activity Hampton Roads, and Norfolk 

International Terminals. Adjustments and tie-ins will also be required at the interface with Norfolk 

International Terminal at the location of the recently approved Virginia Port Authority North Gate 

TIGER Grant project and Norfolk Southern Railroad. — Norfolk, Virginia 
18 | P a g e

Technical Assistance 

FLH Bridge Team 

Bridge Design: FLH Bridge currently has 197 active structural projects: 76 (EFLHD), 56 (CFLHD), and 

65 (WFLHD) in various stages. 

Bridge Inspection: Budgeted $4,500,000.00 and spent all of it. This will include purchase of the new 

Snooper (partial payment) Money may be used to inspect non-NBI Bridges and removal of falsework 

from identified post tension box girder structures pending approvals. 

Performed 1,099 NBI/NTI structure inspections, including inspections for NPS (688), USAF (204), BIA 

(172), USVI (26), National Zoo (3), GSA (3), NASA (1) and Tribal Transportation Program (2); 

transmitted approximately 922 inspection reports. Evaluated numerous overload permit requests for 

bridges at Yellowstone NP and Denali NP. Performed deck and substructure studies for several bridges 

in SER. Performed deck studies for bridges at Colonial NHP and National Mall, and load ratings for 

Linn Cove Viaduct at Blue Ridge Parkway and several segmental concrete bridges at Foothills Parkway. 

Awarded task order for inspection and load rating of Tribal Transportation Bridges. Completed 

inspections for Blue Ridge Parkway (81), Great Smoky Mountains NP (82), Hubbell Trading Post NHS 

(1), Tuzigoot NM (1), Petrified Forest NP (5), Chickasaw NRA (3), Fort Pulaski NM (1), Russell Cave 

NM (1), Wilsons Creek NB (6). Buffalo NR (1), Big South Fork NRA, Ozark NSR, Yellowstone NP, and 

Cuyahoga NP. 

Bridge Management: Element level data collection is in progress. 

Final Regional Structure Priority and Preservation Lists were delivered to NPS regions - Southeast 

Region (SER), Midwest Region (MWR), Alaska Region (AKR), National Capital Region (NCR), 

Northeast Region (NER), Intermountain (IMR), and Pacific West Region (PWR). 

Life Cycle Record: Date records on file associated with the latest rehabilitation/replacement work done 

on Joints, Bearings, Paint, Deck, and Pavement for all NPS structures are complete. 

 

FLH NBIS Review Update: 

NBIS Compliance Review Final Reports for scheduled agencies: 

 

US Air Force: 

• Load Rating: 60% Structures completed 

• Fracture Critical Plans: 100% complete 

• Scour Evaluation: 95% scour screening completed 

Washington Airport Authority (MWAA): 

• Load Rating: 100% Structures completed 

• Fracture Critical Plans: 100% Structures completed 

• Scour Evaluation: 100% scour screening completed 

EFLHD Bridge Design Team Leader, 

George Choubah and FLH Bridge Branch Chief, 

Rich Pakhchanian on a project visit. 

 — Arlington Memorial Bridge, DC/Virginia 

Bridge Design & Inspection Team 

— Linn Cove Viaduct, Blue Ridge Parkway, North Carolina
19 | P a g e

Office of Bridges and Structures, 

Eastern Bridge Design team onsite 

during the placement of the UltraHigh Performance Concrete 

(UHPC) to connect the precast 

concrete deck panels. — Arlington 

Memorial Bridge, DC/Virginia 

The Bridge Inspection team performs a pier inspection and has been monitoring a wind meter to help the 

NPS gauge the safety of Laurel Fork Bridge. With wind being a critical loading factor on this aging 

bridge, a wind meter was mounted on the bridge to monitor the wind speeds. A crucial tool in 

determining when the bridge would need to be closed for safety pending its replacement with a new 

segmental concrete bridge in Fall 2021. 

— Laurel Fork Bridge, Blue 

Ridge Parkway, North 

Carolina 

EFLHD Brige Inspection Team perform core sampling and 

structural review (above) — Laurel Fork Bridge, Blue 

Ridge Parkway, North Carolina 

Members of the EFLHD Bridge Team onsite at the 

NC Route 18 Bridge — Blue Ridge Parkway, North 

Carolina 
20 | P a g e

Road Inventory Program (RIP) Team 

The RIP Team completed final reporting of data for the Alaska Region in early 2020. In Alaska, the RIP 

team collected 277 USFS miles, 165 NPS miles, 76 FWS miles, 37 USACE miles, 17 BLM miles, and 

numerous parking lot data at each Federal Land Management Agency (FLMA) location. 

While initially travel delays impeded the RIP team’s data 

collection efforts, the overall impact throughout 2020 

was minimal. Cycle 5 data collection for FWS, Cycle 6 

data collection for NPS, and Cycle 1 data collection for 

Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) safely continued in 

Department of Interior (DOI) Regions 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9. 

Data collection for NPS Cycle 6 is expected to conclude 

in the first half of 2021. 

RIP data collection vehicle and team members collecting data. 

Hopewell Furnace National 

Historic Site, Pennsylvania

The RIP team's gravel 

road assessments are 

a major component of 

the Alaska Long 

Range Transportation 

Plan, here are a few 

images from their 

travels.

 

Denali Park Road, Denali National

Park & Preserve, Alaska

Nome Creek Road — West, White 

Mountains National Recreation Area, 

Alaska

Frosty Peak Road, Izembek National

Wildlife Refuge, Alaska

Birch Hill Road, Lake Clark 

National Park & Preserve, Alaska 
21 | P a g e

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Project, Little Tonoloway Bridge is located in 

Washington County, Maryland. Rehabilitation of Little Tonoloway bridge and bridge approaches. The 

work includes the replacement of bridge deck, bridge rail, steel beams, bearings and curbs, reconstruction 

of bridge approaches, and other miscellaneous work. The existing bridge was closed in November of 

2019 due to deteriorated steel beams making it unsafe to drive on the bridge. The existing bridge 

provides access to a boat ramp, making it a popular destination throughout the year. Also, the bridge is 

used by bicyclists and pedestrians. The existing bridge is 12’ wide and 40’ long. A new 42” bicyclist rail 

was installed on the bridge due to history of bicyclist trashes. Bridge and Highway design completed the 

design in 1 month. All photos were taken during a 99% field review at the end of February 2020, just 

before the shutdown. 

The Design Team checking the site against the 

plans. — Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National 

Historical Park, Maryland

Bridge Design Team leader discussing construction access across the 

canal with NPS employees onsite. — Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

National Historical Park, Maryland

Little Tonoloway Bridge under construction (left) and the 

completed project (right). — Chesapeake and Ohio Canal 

National Historical Park, Maryland
22 | P a g e

Planning Team 

In cooperation with FLH Headquarters staff, members of the EFLHD Planning Team have been heavily 

involved in the conduct of a national scale project in support of the Department of Defense (DOD) 

Surface Deployment and Distribution Command Transportation Engineering Agency (SDDCTEA) for an 

examination of the ability of a group of 18 Power Projection Platform (PPP) routes to accommodate 

major military equipment movements during periods of conflict. 

 

Source: FHWA 

 

 

Project Scoping meeting at State Highway (SH)-21, the project in development includes construction 

of a wildlife over-crossing and big game fence paralleling SH-21. SH-21 corridor lies within a critical 

habitat linkage area for deer, elk, antelope and other wildlife and stands between the historic home 

range of these animals, from summer range to winter range and vice versa primarily within adjacent 

public lands. The fence will include access and maintenance gates as needed and tie into existing fencing 

to the south. Wildlife jump-outs will also be installed to allow animals trapped between fence lines 

adequate escape routes from the highway corridor. Cameras will be installed on and around the 

over-crossing to capture and observe animal usage. — Wildlife Overpass at Cervidae Peak, Boise 

County, Idaho 

Thank You for Your Feedback