The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

As we celebrate our accomplishments for the past year, I want to take this opportunity to express my own thanks to the entire Federal 

incredible journey and for the excellent work that is done every day. As Associate Administrator I have been in a unique position to s

the organization on a wide range of issues. Let me offer a few observations about the way in which we do our business.

First of all, the Federal Lands Highway (FLH) organization is passionate about its mission to deliver the best transportation services 

provide access to America’s treasures. That passion is reflected in the positive feedback we receive for the work we deliver, from the ap

have of us in administering a quality program, and in the enthusiasm I see from folks when I ask them what they do or what they’ve a

Second, FLH is committed to quality. We are continually challenging ourselves to find a better way, a more efficient process, a more c

commitment to quality is in part a reflection of the heritage of the organization and the desire to achieve the next level of accomplish

the investment in discipline expertise and being the leaders in our respective fields. 

Third, FLH makes leadership development a part of its core philosophy and values. I have seen several future leaders emerge from FL

FHWA. This is not by chance, but rather is the result of an environment that actively supports and encourages personal growth, and 

become leaders from anywhere in the organization. The FLH focus on leadership will serve us well as we plan our future.

Congratulations on another year of success for the FLH organization, and thanks to everyone who contributed to its success through y

quality, and leadership.

From the desk of the Associate Administrator

JoAs OJoA 

John Baxter speaking at the Grand Canyon National Park, Mather Point Open
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationOffice of Federal Lands Highway

EFL

FLH HQ

WFL CFL

FLH Division Offices

FLH Federal Lands HQEFL Eastern Federal LandsCFL Central Federal LandsWFL Western Federal Lands

CALIFORNIA

ARIZONA NEW MEXICO

UTAH

NEVADA

COLORADO

WYOMING

TEXAS

OKLAHOMA

KANSAS

NEBRASKA

SOUTH DAKOTA

NORTH DAKOTA

MONTANA

IDAHO

OREGON

WASHINGTON

ALASKA

MINNESOTA

MICHIGAN

WISCONSIN

IOWA

MICHIGAN

NEW YORK

ILLINOIS

INDIANA OHIO

PENNSYLVANIA

MISSOURIARKANSAS

LOUISIANA

MISSISSIPPI

ALABAMA

KENTUCKY

TENNESSEE

WESTVIRGINIA

VIRGINIA

VT

MAINE

NH

RI

MASS

CONN

NEW JERSEY

DELAWARE

MARYLAND DC

NORTH CAROLINA

SOUTHCAROLINA

GEORGIA

FLORIDA

PUERTO RICO

USVI

HAWAII

Our RoleHighlightsOverview of Program & FundingIndian Reservation Road ProgramSummary of Projects Indian Reservation Roads Program Park Roads & Parkways Program Forest Highway Progam Refuge Roads Program Other Title 23 Program Non Title 23 Program Public/Private PartnershipsOur ExpertiseDeveloping Our WorkforceAwards & RecognitionOur Key Business MetricsLooking AheadAppendix A Funding TablesAppendix B List of Construction Contracts Awarded List of Construction Projects Completed

The Federal Lands Highway Program

2011

The Year in Review

Table of Contents

Federal Lands Highway Division Offices .......................................................................

....................................................................

.........................................

..............................

......................

.........................

.......................................

........................................

.........................................

.......................................

...................................

..............................................................

........................................

................................................

.........................................

............................................................

......................................................

................

...............

Front Cover: Gibbon Falls Overlook Parking Area, Grand Loop Park, Wyoming (see Project Summary page 17)Back Cover: Cades Cove Loop Road, Great Smoky Mountains N(see Project Summary page 16)
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

View from Beartooth Highway, Wyoming

Create the best transportation system 

in balance with the values of 

Federal and Tribal lands.

Vision

Mis

Improving tran

to and within Federal and Tr

and providing technic

to the highway co
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Our Role 

The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Office of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) is well-known for delivering projects that meet the varied needs of our many partners. We are relied upon to solve and manage unique challenges in environmentally sensitive locations through engineering solutions that are sensitive to the context of the land. Whether it is building highly visible and politically sensitive projects, constructing roads that are national landmarks, or providing critical access on low-volume transportation facilities, FLH is at the forefront of consistently delivering distinct, sensitive and sound engineering projects.The Federal Government, through various Federal Land Management Agencies (FLMA’s): the National Park Service (NPS); USDA Forest Service (Forest 

Service); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Tribal Governments; Bureau of Land Management (BLM); Department of Defense (DOD); U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE); and Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), have ownership responsibilities for more than 30% of the Nation’s land. This responsibility covers more than 500,000 miles of public and administrative roads across the U.S. and its island territories.Since 1914, FLH has assisted these Federal partners in the design and construction of aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive highway and bridge projects, including the original design and construction of many of this Nation’s national park and forest roads. Congress established the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) in 1982 to promote effective, efficient, and reliable administration for a coordinated program of public roads and bridges; protect and enhance our Nation’s natural resources; and provide needed transportation access for Native Americans. Now in its 30th year, the program and our role have continued to expand to include more Federal partners and road networks. FLH expertise and credibility has grown to deliver a wider variety of transportation projects and improvements nationwide.

We are responsible for:

t Transportation Planning t Program Administrationt Project Managementt Environmental Compliancet Preparation of Plans, Specifications and Estimat Contract Administrationt Construction Supervision and Inspectiont Technical Assistance to the Highway Communit

Our engineering and technical expertise includes: 

t Highway and Bridge Designt Survey and Mappingt Hydraulicst Geotechnicalt Traffict Safetyt Intelligent Transportation Systemst Design Visualizationt Materialst Consultant and Construction Contract Acquisit Road and Bridge Inventory and Inspectiont Asset Management

We employ principles and techniques of the FHWA Ever(EDC), designed to identify and deploy innovation aimedelivery, enhancing safety, and protecting the environm

t Safety Edget Warm-Mix Asphaltt Geosynthetic Reinforced Soilt Prefabricated Bridge Structures and Elementst Design-Buildt Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMt Project Streamlining through Collaboration Tombigbee National Forest, Mississippi
2 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Highlights

Passion, quality, and leadership exemplify the accomplishments of Federal Lands Highway (FLH) in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011, again, an outstanding year in terms of program accomplishment and productivity. These attributes will be necessary in facing likely challenges with surface transportation reauthorization legislation.Global and natural events in 2011 have affected America’s recovery effort and its outlook for transportation legislation. Modest job and construction growth, helped in part by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), have slightly improved a struggling economy. A scaled-back war effort and defense spending will bring our troops home, but will further demand a need for good jobs. An increase in natural disasters, especially tornadoes and flooding, emphasize our continuing need for emergency preparedness and disaster response. Yet a political standstill in Congress and an upcoming presidential election year leave cautious optimism and uncertainty for future transportation legislation.Despite the events of America’s 2011, the Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and FLH must position themselves to continue assisting America with improving the economy, rebuilding the infrastructure, generating new jobs, and ensuring that public funds are well spent. Through these attributes of passion, quality and leadership, FLH projects and staff have distinguished themselves in many ways this last year.Our Passion — Delivering the Best Transportation Services to our PartnersQuality of Life — In October 2011, FLH concluded a 14-year effort, in cooperation with the Metlakatla Indian Community, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the U.S. Military-Joint Task Force (JTF), to design and construct the 14-mile Walden Point Road on Annette Island, Alaska. With FLHs’ assistance, JTF conducted and trained over 11,000 troops in all aspects of military operations including road and bridge construction in support of the community. The FLH Project Engineer, Dan Reid, became a mentor and role model for the young soldiers, Metlakatla, and FHWA employees on design, survey, and construction techniques. The road enhances the quality of life by providing a year-round, reliable multi-modal access to Ketchikan for services, products, employment, and health care.Partnership — FLH was honored by the Fairfax County Government and the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency with Team Excellence and Star Partner Awards for the Fairfax County Parkway BRAC Team in recognition of outstanding interdisciplinary team effort, exemplary design and construction management, and extraordinary support to the partners. In response to one of the largest land development actions in Fairfax County resulting from the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC), the Team developed and executed a countywide mitigation program to address the impacts of over 19,000 workers relocating to Fort Belvoir. President Obama was so impressed with the Team’s work on BRAC, he has made several project visits to recognize the success.

The “Missing Link” — The National Park Servicin 1944 to build the Foothills Parkway in Tenne

segment of the Parkway, the “missing link,” remaiof cost, complexity, and environmental sensitivityMountains National Park, two design-build projeroadway, drainage and retaining walls are underwengineering challenges working on pristine mounaccess, the projects include the most difficult and Bridge 2, an 825-foot, precast segmental structurcompletion will open a 16-mile segment of Parkwto traffic since the 1980s, in time for the 2016 NP
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

HighlightsOur Quality — Finding a Better WayWorld-Class — Last year’s completion of the world-class Hoover Dam Bypass, Mike O’Callaghan–Pat Tillman Memorial Bridge garnered national and international recognition from eleven prestigious organizations, including the American Segmental Bridge Institute, Award of Excellence; the American Public Works Association, Project of the Year; and the International Bridge Conference, Eugene C. Figg Medal, to name just a few. We are especially proud that the FHWA recognized Dave Zanetell, Director of Project Delivery, with the 2011 FHWA Engineer of the Year for his outstanding achievement for project and contract management.

Environmental Excellence — In July 2000, wildfires section of the 270-foot timber bridge along the Bizz 

Recreation Trail in the Lassen National Forest. Thrdelivery this completed project restored the historicfunctionality of the most impressive bridge on the 30for the annual Bizz Johnson Marathon. The design inbicycle and pedestrian access across the Susan River alignment. To accommodate trail users with disabilitwas designed for wheelchairs and horse drawn carriaunique design and functionality, the project was awaNational Environmental Excellence Award.Improving Government — Meritalk, an online comgovernment Information Technology (IT) profession

award for ideas to improve the quality of Governmenthinking, potential savings, and ease of implementatTransportation Planning Team Leader, submitted his idea to create a centralized national database to cfull use among Government agencies. His entry was 1,000 worldwide.
4 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Our Leadership — Part of our Core PhilosophyInnovative Contracting — FLH continues its leadership within FHWA in testing new contracting techniques to add to its capabilities for successful delivery. In light of the Every Day Counts (EDC) Initiative, FLH awarded its first Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) contract to deliver the Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge project, to replace an historic suspension bridge within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area in San Francisco for the U.S. Coast Guard and NPS. The uniqueness of a suspension bridge, site access, construction materials, and environmental concerns all made CMGC a practical and sure method to ensure project delivery.Reauthorization — As the Administration began to craft surface transportation policy in conjunction with the FY 2012 budget, FLH lead the effort to consolidate and update the “Federal Allocation Programs,” in particular the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP). The Administration proposed to restructure the FLHP into the Federal Lands Transportation Program, the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP), and the Tribal Transportation Program. These programs expand eligibility and programs to the Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and allocate funds through a discretionary process based on performance management principles. FLH conducted extensive outreach with partners and provided technical assistance to Congress in support of the proposal.Personal Initiative — The FHWA Leadership Award recognizes individuals for the personal initiative they take beyond their job requirements and for their dedication to making positive change. Walt Stong, Materials Lab Team Leader, demonstrated exceptional initiative, leadership and accountability in the FLH Western Division materials lab by revising the lab quality manual and creating quick reference guides to prepare lab personnel for ISO re-accreditation, resulting in the highest ratings ever received, rejuvenating morale and generating a sense of ownership among staff.

Our ProgramFLH goals and resources are focused on fulfilling on our strategic alignment with the four FHWA Program Delivery; System Performance; and Coridentified key initiatives and measures of success levels of the organization. Under each goal area, Performance Objectives, performance measures and initiatives to support the objectives. In combthe delivery of our program and utilized carefully progress, and identify ways to strengthen the effeAs we developed our objectives and initiatives, wand suggestions from employees and partners, rand customer surveys, recommendations from pagency’s Strategic Implementation Plan. We southe Administration’s priorities including safety, isustainability, livability and economic growth as We were especially mindful of the extra level of Recovery Act as well as our core program and oIn FY 2011 FLH delivered one of its most signifiof the overall program, projects and specific accfurther highlighted these impressive accomplishRecovery Act — FY 2011 was a busy year for advprojects. The 2009 legislation required that we pthat could be completed within two years. Of thawarded (Title 23 and Title 16), FLH had expendand fully completed 59 percent of the projects bremaining projects will be substantially completshould be fully expended by the end of FY 2012. our partners should feel certain of based on our is capable of delivering a larger program.

Highlights
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

TIGER — As part of the Recovery Act, the DOT launched the TIGER (Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery) Discretionary Grant Program to spur a national competition for innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects that promise economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, region or the nation. FLH contributed to this important program, obligating $203 million in FY 2011 with the delivery of three oversight projects for the National Gateway Corridor railroad project and the Crescent Corridor regional intermodal railroad facilities in Memphis, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama.Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program — FLH substantially increased the Program’s obligation rate. Of the available IRR funds ($499 million), 96 percent were obligated by the BIA, FLH, and tribal governments. This increase is attributed to many reasons. Seventeen additional tribal governments entered into direct funding agreements with FHWA, to administer their portion of the IRR program. The BIA developed and implemented their own version of a direct-funding agreement for the BIA Tribes, allowing for the immediate transfer of funding to the Tribes with BIA stewardship and oversight. FLH’s stewardship and oversight of the IRR program funding was further enhanced by updating the Tribal Transportation Program Delivery Guide, providing procedural guidance to eligible Tribes entering into Program Agreements with either FHWA or BIA, and assisting the tribal governments in the administration of the IRR program. IRR program reviews were conducted for four BIA Regional offices and five Tribes operating under FHWA Program Agreements. These program reviews helped to enhance the IRR project delivery processes, ensure efficient and effective administration and delivery of the program, and identify best practices.

Program — Together, the FLH Divisions awarded 1contracts, totaling $516 million, distributed among tand States in 2011. Both FLH Division and IRR Progwill improve 3655 lane miles of road and 91 new or rfederal and tribal land nationwide. The FLH Divisions completed 104 construction projbillion. These projects and those delivered through timproved 4055 lane miles of road and 110 new or rehFLH had authority to spend over $1.88 billion on traimprovements among FLH Program funds, other Tit23 funds. Of the almost $1.2 billion authorized in FLfor the IRR program; 18.6% for the Park Roads and P19.8% for the Forest Highway Program; 19.0% for the Discretionary Program; and 2.7% were for the Refugtotal funding supported 429 active design projects to347 active construction projects totaling $2.08 billioWe are especially pleased to note that of all funds obfunds were leveraged funds, funds obligated in additprogram. Our partners also helped FLH achieve an 8satisfaction score, our highest ever!The 2011 Annual Report — The Year in Review, is oaccomplishments; an assessment of our organizationto the importance we place in our role as stewards o

Highlights
6 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

The Core ProgramFederal Lands’ role includes stewardship and oversight responsibility for the Highway Trust Fund dollars that fund the Program, totaling over $1 billion per year through the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).FLH has two mission areas, Program Administration and Program Delivery. Program Administration addresses FLH’s stewardship and oversight responsibilities for our resources, both human and monetary, and encompasses many critical functional areas, including but not limited to, acquisition, planning and programming, financial management,and information technology. Program Administration provides management and oversight of the program.FLH is entrusted with many different types of funds. The majority are authorizations through DOTs transportation legislation, specifically Title 23, Section 204, which is the FLHP. Funding CategoriesThe FLHP funding categories are as follows: Indian Reservation Roads and Bridge Programs; Park Roads and Parkways Program; Public Lands Highway Program: Forest Highways; and Public Lands Highway Discretionary; and the Refuge Roads Program.The Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program provides funding which may be used by Indian tribal governments, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the FHWA for the planning, design, construction, or reconstruction of designated public roads that provide access to or within an Indian reservation, Tribal lands, Indian communities, and Alaska native villages. The IRR Bridge Program (IRRBP) was established as a set aside within the IRR program to fund bridge replacement or rehabilitation and to also provide funding for design.The IRR program is the largest of the FLH Programs, established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address the transportation needs of Tribal Governments throughout the United States. A prime objective of the IRR program is to contribute to the economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Native Americans.The Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) Program provides funding which may be used by the National Park Service (NPS) and FHWA for planning, design, construction, or reconstruction of designated public roads that provide access to, or within, National Parks, recreation areas, historic areas, and other units of the National Park System. The Park Road System consists of 8,000+ miles of public roads owned by the NPS.Overview of Program & Funding

The Public Lands Highway (PLH) Program alfor construction and transportation planning accomponents of this program, namely the Forest the PLH Discretionary Program. The Forest Higthe States, Forest Service, and FHWA for plannireconstruction of designated public roads that pwithin National Forests. Thirty-four percent of treflected in SAFETEA-LU, are available for the PFHWA solicits for candidates and selects projecapplications received for this program. Sixty-six available for the FH program. Approximately 29federally-owned public roads are designated as FThe Refuge Roads (RRP) Program, first authofor the maintenance and improvement of public or within, a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge manages and maintains approximately 4,800 milpublic use roads, 87 public use bridges, and over administrative use. Other Title 23 Authority Funding — FLH admtransportation funds from programs outside the programs in which we receive and manage transgoverned by the U.S.C. Title 23 include EmergenOwned Roads (ERFO), Federal-aid funding from appropriations, and other programs.Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads administers the ERFO Program. The intent of thhelp pay the unusually heavy expenses associatereconstruction of Federal roads and bridges seridisaster over a wide area. Restoration in-kind to predominate type of repair. The ERFO Program that have been defined as Federal roads; forest hroads, park roads and parkways, Indian reservatpublic lands highways, and public lands developNon Title 23 Authority Funding — The FLH is administer Defense Access Road (DAR) & Air FoMaintenance (O&M) in cooperation with the DeThe DAR Program provides a means for the milhighway improvements necessary to mitigate an activity. An unusual impact could be a significana military installation relocation of an access gatoversized or overweight vehicle or transporter u
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Overview of Program & Funding

The Department of Defense also provides O&M funds to States having gravel-surfaced roads that support the Minuteman Missile Systallocated based upon needs identified by the Air Force in cooperation with the States and the FHWA. When requested by States, projeconstructed and administered directly by the FLH Divisions. The FLH may also receive other Federal, state, or local funding to support a new project or leverage additional funds for a Title 23 fund

Accomplishments — FLH Program and Non-FLH Program

Programs Funding Obligations Construction 

Contracts Awarded

Lane Miles 

Constructed

Bridges Constructed 

or Improved

FLH – Indian Reservation Roads $464,514,962 $458,034,266 Not Available 2106 62 FLH – Park Roads and Parkways $223,522,805 $221,181,012 36 1275 32 FLH – Public Lands Highway $466,057,094 $260,965,335 24 425 4 FLH – Refuge Road Program $32,679,983 $32,466,941 13 65 5 Non FLH Program $686,888,623 $486,269,433 38 184 7 
8 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

The Recovery ActAs many Federal agencies were still in the midst of getting Recovery Act funds obligated, the FHWA was focused on getting funds expended and projects closed out. By all accounts, FHWA has been extremely successful. FLH expenditures and project closeouts have closely mirrored the overall national numbers.Of the $550 million authorized for FLH projects, 99.95 percent were obligated by the September 2010 deadline. Project under-runs on closed out projects resulted in an overall obligation rate of 99.65 percent at the end of FY 2011; in the same year, 87 percent of the funds were expended, or paid out to our contractors. We will achieve the 90 percent goal of expended funds set by our Executive Director for FY 12 in the first few months of the fiscal year. This high rate is a positive indicator of our meeting the requirement that priority be given to projects that can be completed within two years of enactment thus supporting the overall goal of putting people to work.We have closed out 59 percent (64 percent FLH-delivered projects and 52 percent of IRR projects) of the 621 Recovery Act projects. The remainder will be closed out in FY 2012, or shortly thereafter.Our successful delivery of the Recovery Act is a testament to Congress and others that we can deliver a larger program in the future. Infrastructure needs are enormous and we are facing enormous funding challenges from the economic downturn. Congress is now debating how to determine the balance between taking care of infrastructure needs and controlling the deficit and accumulating debt. One thing is certain — they know that we can deliver, if asked to do more for improving access to our Federal Lands. FY 2012 will bring additional challenges, as we complete the Recovery Act projects and work with our partners to deliver the new program we hope to have authorized in FY 2012. FLH is up to the challenge.Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) GrantAs part of the Recovery Act, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) launched the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program. The TIGER Discretionary Grant Program was included in the Recovery Act to spur a national competition for innovative, multi-modal and multi-jurisdictional transportation projects that promise significant economic and environmental benefits to an entire metropolitan area, a region or the nation. Projects funded with the $1.5 billion allocated in the Recovery Act include improvements to roads, bridges, rail, ports, transit and intermodal facilities.Overview of Program & Funding

Mesa Verde National Park, Colorado

National Gateway Project Tunnel Work, West Virginia (se
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Overview of Program & FundingFederal Lands Recovery Act Project Status as of September 30, 2011

Forest Highway Program

$60M Authorized

10% unpaid obligation, 90% expended

Park Roads and Parkways Program

$170M Authorized

13% unpaid obligation, 87% expend

$43,763,315 — 14%

Indian Reservation Roads Program

$310M Authorized

14% unpaid obligation, 86% expended

$5,938,460 — 10% $55 — 

$22,24

Refuge Roads Program

$10M Authorized

*0% unpaid obligation, 100% expen

$53,273,860 — 90% $9,986,155 — 100%

$265,353,596 — 86% $147,532,106 — 87%

ExpendedUnpaid Obligation

*rounded to nearest %
10 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Indian Reservation Roads ProgramThe Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) program is the largest of the Federal Lands Highway Programs, established in 23 U.S.C. 204 to address the transportation needs of Indian Tribes throughout the United States. The purpose of the program is to provide safe and adequate transportation and public road access to and within Indian reservations, Indian lands, and Alaska Native Village communities. A prime objective of the IRR program is to contribute to the economic development, self-determination, and employment of Indians and Native Americans.The IRR program was authorized at $450 million in FY 2011. An additional $49 million in prior year funds was also made available. The following approximate dollar values further break down the distribution of the available funding during the fiscal year:

t $349 million to the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for tribal projects, including High Priority Projects (HPP); and for administration of the funding to 470 Tribes nationwide.t $107 million to 95 Tribes that have signed FHWA IRR Program funding agreements, for tribal projects including HPP.

t $6 million to Federal Lands Highway for initiatives, Tribal Technical Assistance ProgCoordinated Technology Implementation Padministration.t $37 million for takedowns and unallocat

In FY 2011, a marked increase in the obligation 95.8 percent of the available IRR funds were oblLands Highway, and tribal governments. As is nyear, these funds went to Tribes in 36 States throplanning, design, construction, and maintenancimprovements to their eligible transportation faAs part of the IRR regulated distribution formulaside from the total authorized amount for tribaevidence of safety concerns, geographical issuesassistance needs. 39 projects were funded with Hor construction activities. The IRR Bridge Progrmillion in addition to the $450 million annual prBridge Program funds, 20 projects were funded either structurally deficient or functionally obsothe fiscal year, 2,106 lane miles of roadway were were constructed or rehabilitated in Indian counof funding. 

Blackfeet Tribe paving project — Tribal personnel operating breakdown roller from the Rocky Mountain Region’s equipment pool Ramah Navajo Chapter Project Groundbreaking Ceremon
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Indian Reservation Roads ProgramVehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety continues to be of prime concern in Indian country, and the concerted tribal safety outreach program continued during FY 2011. Six tribal safety summits were held in Alaska, Washington, North Dakota, Montana, California, and Wisconsin. Each of these summits highlighted best practices with an emphasis on modest cost investments that could yield significant safety benefits, such as performing roadside safety audits, constructing safety edges on pavements, and conducting education and outreach on pedestrian safety and seat belt usage. IRR safety activities continue to emphasize the four “E”s—Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Response.Under Section 1119(g)(4) of SAFETEA-LU, tribal governments may enter into program funding agreements directly with FHWA, in order to administer their portion of the IRR program. In administering the IRR program, the tribal government is required to comply with applicable provisions of 25 CFR Part 170, and the terms of the Tribe’s FHWA IRR Program Agreement. While a Tribe may elect to work directly with FHWA in the administration of the IRR program, the Tribe and FHWA continue to involve the BIA and other agencies in certain aspects of the program; including the IRR inventory updates, right-of-way acquisition, maintenance, and environmental clearances. 17 Tribes signed FHWA direct-funding agreements in FY 2011, bringing the total number of FHWA Tribes to 95. Towards the end of the 

School bus route — Navajo Nation, Crownpoint, NM

fiscal year, the BIA also developed and implemented direct-funding agreement for many of the BIA Tribethe immediate transfer of the funding to the tribal gostewardship and oversight.Federal Lands Highway’s stewardship and oversight funding was enhanced in FY 2011 with the updating Transportation Program Delivery Guide. The documguidance to eligible Tribes entering into Program AgFHWA or BIA, and assists the tribal governments in IRR program in the areas of funding, transportation requirements, design, safety, contracting, constructimaintenance. In addition, IRR program reviews were BIA Regional offices (Eastern Oklahoma, Rocky Mouand Alaska) and five Tribes operating under FHWA (Oglala-Sioux, Fort Peck, Turtle Mountain, Kasaan, aprogram reviews help to enhance the IRR project deefficient and effective administration and delivery of identify best practices.The Seneca Nation Department of Transportation succeeds in Ebank stabilization project at the Cattaraugus Creek Bridge in Ir
12 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Indian Reservation Roads Program ProjectsThe Haxton Way Pedestrian Path was a safety improvement project for the Lummi Nation. Haxton Way is a heavily used main route through the Lummi Nation serving both vehicular traffic travelling at speeds commonly over 50mph and pedestrian/bicycle traffic. This narrow county road had little or no shoulders, lighting, and was bordered on both sides with deep ditches. With no accommodation for both types of traffic and little to no visibility, this created a dangerous situation that had resulted in numerous fatalities.The Lummi Nation in cooperation with Whatcom County developed this project to provide an 8 foot wide pathway with solar lighting for the safety of all traffic along Haxton Way, and did so in a very sensitive and sustainable way ensuring the safety of the community.

In the Ramah Navajo Chapter Mountain View Sbeen driving on a two-track jeep trail for nearly plan for the subdivision is to build 42 home sitesremained contingent on the design and constructhe existing and new families within the Ramah County, New Mexico. The subdivision currently Chapter Employees that includes both Medical Response Members who had a hard time getting on-call 24/7 during inclement weather.The project included clearing and grubbing, treborrow, sub-grade preparation, lime treated suband asphalt paving with minor structures work, and seeding and erosion control with storm watcontrol measures. A minimum of 70% of the workforce for this proTribal Members. This road construction project grow to its potential.

Collaboration Safety Susta

Haxton Way Pedestrian Path — Recovery ActWhatcom County, Bellingham, WashingtonPartners: Lummi Nation Tribe, Washington State Department of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Ramah Route Number 114 — Recovery ActRamah Navajo Reservation — Cibola County, New MexicoPartners: Ramah Navajo Chapter, Navajo Nation, Bureau of Indian 

Before
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Indian Reservation Roads Program Projects

Federal Land’s mission on this project, in cooperation with the Metlakatla Indian Community, the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the United States Military-Joint Task Force, was to design and construct Walden Point Road on Annette Island, Alaska. This 14 mile long road will enhance the quality of life of the Indian Community by providing year round access to the city of Ketchikan via ferry, reliable multi-modal access to services, products, employment, and health care.The mission of the U.S. Military was to conduct joint training under the Innovative Readiness Training Program that supports the Metlakatla Indian Community. The Military, with Federal Lands’ assistance, trained over 11,000 troops in all aspects of military operations including road and bridge construction. Of particular note, is the training received by young engineers who participated in six-week GPS survey training assignments on site.

Vah-Ki Road, located in the Gila River Indian Commaccess to homes and churches in the area, but to agrCommunity as well. The old pavement was severely the Gila River Indian Community Department of Trneed for constant maintenance. This project included upgrading sections from dirt/gdrainage, placement of aggregate base course, hot asfinal fog seal, the installation of culverts, guardrail, cpavement markings.This project provided several benefits to the commuproviding safe year round access for school buses; smvehicle access for medical transport, police/fire and protection through the significant reduction in dust better accommodation for planned residences along and most importantly it created and sustained emplonative and native Americans.

Benefit to the Community Livability/Mobility Context S

Walden Point Road — Recovery ActMetlakatla Indian Community — Annette Island, AlaskaPartners: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Metlakatla Indian Community, Alaska Department of Transportation,Department of Defense

Vah-Ki Road — Recovery ActSacaton, ArizonaPartners: Gila River Community, Bureau of Indian Affairs

Before
14 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Park Roads and Parkways Program ProjectsThe scenic Cades Cove Loop Road is a 10 mile one-way, asphalt paved loop road in the western portion of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Cades Cove receives approximately 2 million visitors per year. The Loop Road is narrow and windy, and offers visitors the opportunity to observe a variety of types of wildlife as well as visit old homesteads, churches, and mills that were part of the way of life in the Cove before the Park was created. There are also numerous hiking trails that originate from the Loop Road and a campground, ranger station, picnic area and horse stables that are just outside the entrance/exit of the Loop Road. The Loop Road was last paved in the late 1970’s.The rehabilitation project of the Cades Cove Loop Road involved Full Depth Reclamation (FDR) with cement of the Loop Road and parking areas, and included ditch reconditioning, drainage improvements, signing and striping and paving of some gravel turnouts. The project also included construction of concrete low water crossing fords. Several existing paved pullouts were widened to accommodate the full width of a vehicle, gravel pullouts were constructed, and some paved, at destination sights as well as at areas where traffic could be eased. The parking area and entrance road at the Cable Mill Visitor’s center were also rehabilitated within the existing limits. The bridge over Abrams Creek was replaced with a wooden bridge deck.

The National Park Service (NPS) was authorizedin 1944, to build 72 miles of the Foothills Parkwsegment of the Foothills Parkway, referred to as unconstructed because of cost, complexity, and for more than 25 years. Located in a scenic, enviwith limited access within the Great Smoky Moudesign-build projects for the construction of six and retaining walls are under construction to cothe Foothills Parkway.This “Missing Link” presents multiple engineeripristine steep mountain slopes often with sulfidprojects include the most difficult and signature Bridge 2, an 825-foot, precast segmental structuthe environmentally sensitive mountainous terraconstructed “top-down” with precast concrete sopen a 16 mile segment between Walland and Whas never been opened to traffic since its originaall in time for the 2016 NPS Centennial celebrat

Livability/Mobility Environmental Impact Historic Significance Climate Change 

Cades Cove Loop Road Great Smoky Mountains National Park — Blount County, TennesseePartners: National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains National Park

Foothills Parkway — Multi Funded/Leveraged; RecoverGreat Smoky Mountains National Park — Blount County, Partners: National Park Service, Great Smoky Mountains Nationa
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Park Roads and Parkways Program ProjectsThis project improved a 10 mile long segment of the Grand Loop Road between Madison and Norris Junctions. Specifically, the work included repairs to the historic stone masonry retaining walls near Gibbon Falls and improvements to the Gibbon Falls overlook and parking area making it safer for visitors while providing handicap access. The road above the historic stone walls was also reconstructed, partly to reduce the danger of falling rock. A variety of new retaining walls were constructed to minimize construction impacts and to stabilize slopes. A new 3-span bridge was constructed crossing the Gibbon River, designed architecturally similar to the historic bridges in the area. The Beryl Spring Bridge, found to be structurally deficient was rehabilitated. The Gibbon River Picnic Area was restored; and the project succeeded in reclaiming two old gravel pits located within the park. Restoration of the river banks of over two acres of wetlands was made possible with the relocation of two miles of the alignment out of the confines of the Gibbon River Canyon. Native rock from the excavation was conserved for all of the stone masonry work on the project.

Within Glacier National Park in Montana, the 50 miRoad is the only access through the park, connecting sides while crossing the Continental Divide. It also pthe primary destination point within the park, Logan divide). The heart of the project is located in the the significant and most difficult portion of the 50 mile lThe road is listed on the National Register; designateEngineering Landmark; twice documented by the HiEngineering Record and most significantly became a Landmark in 1997. Given the Historic designation, cowere employed to develop repairs to preserve the hiselements of the road (stone masonry guard walls, brivistas and roadway width) while also guarding the fraThe project included construction of a Transit Centernew buses, construction of 16 transit stops, installatioTransportation System (ITS) infrastructure, and the dcommunication system. In addition, the project includtraffic control system (limiting the public to a just 30 mover the entire 50 mile long project), Indefinite Delive(IDIQ) construction contracting process, and incorpolike “warm mix asphalt”. The addition of Recovery Acconstruction and significantly contributed to the locaemployment opportunities for locals and residents of 

Grand Loop RoadYellowstone National Park — Segment B between Madison and Norris Junctions, WyomingPartners: National Park Service

Going to the Sun Road — Recovery Act

Glacier National Park — West Glacier, Montana

Partners: National Park Service, Montana Department of Transportation

Context Sensitivity National 

Unique Conditions Multi-Modal Sustainability
16 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

The Humpback Bridge is located on the George Washington Memorial Parkway (GWMP) just north of Interstate 395. More than 75,000 vehicles cross it every day, far more than it was designed to carry when it was built in 1932. The bridge was in need of replacement to meet current traffic demands and also to correct several safety issues while relieving congestion on the Parkway to Reagan National Airport, I-395 in Northern Virginia and on the 14th Street Bridge into the District of Columbia. Traffic routinely backed up on the 14th Street Bridge, impacting into the city of Washington, DC. This section of the Parkway had the highest accident rate. Insufficient sight distances over the bridge contributed to frequent accidents caused by sudden braking. Mount Vernon Trail users wishing to cross the bridge were confined to a narrow sidewalk with speeding traffic on one side and the bridge wall on the other. Pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the Parkway were doing so in the face of oncoming vehicle traffic traveling at a high rate of speed in both directions. The replacement of the historic Humpback Bridge was designed to incorporate all existing architectural features (including reuse of all existing stone) into the replacement structure. The grade of the road was adjusted to improve sight distance over the bridge. A pedestrian crosswalk was replaced with a tunnel under the Parkway for safe access between the Columbia Island Marina, the Mount Vernon Trail and the Potomac shoreline. A barrier was incorporated along the Humpback Bridge to separate users of the Mount Vernon Trail from Parkway traffic. All of this eliminating many sources of conflict and thus substantially improving safety and traffic flow, while maintaining the aesthetic character of the bridge.

Mather Point is a popular viewing area for park vconstruction of 250 parking spaces, picnic areas afacilities on the north end of the new commercial removal of the remaining roadway and parking lofeature honoring Native American tribes and a newere also constructed. This project rehabilitated including ADA compliance and construction of arim. Mather Point was fully leveraged using NPS greatly improved safety, while enhancing the park 

Historic Significance Safety Context Sensitivity Sustain

Humpback BridgeGeorge Washington Memorial Parkway — Arlington County, Virginia & Washington, DCPartner: National Park Service 

Mather PointGrand Canyon National Park — Grand Canyon, ArizonaPartners: National Park Service, Grand Canyon Association

Park Roads and Parkways Program Projects
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

One facet of the EDC initiative is the use of innovative contracting techniques to accelerate project delivery times. Federal Lands is currently using one such technique, Construction Manager/General Contractor (CMGC) services, to deliver the Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge Project. CMGC is a hybrid between traditional Design-Bid Build and Design-Build, where a firm is brought on board during project design as a Construction Manager. During design, the contractor’s construction experience will help the project development team estimate quantities, develop a work breakdown structure, procure materials with long lead times, identify risks and increase constructability of the design. All of these activities promote collaboration and require the contractor to share risk which gives the contractor a vested interest in risk mitigation.The design phase of the CMGC contract was awarded based on a best-value evaluation of proposals. During the design phase, the contractor attended the on-site 70% and 95% design reviews, provided a constructability report, began pricing materials and items of work, and created a construction schedule. Central Federal Lands and the contractor negotiated a final price for the construction phase in September 2011, and on site construction began in October 2011. The completion date is scheduled for April 1, 2012.The advantages of CMGC fit nicely with the unique needs of the Point Bonita Lighthouse Project. Point Bonita is located within the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The lighthouse and bridge are owned by the U.S. Coast Guard, but the bridge is maintained by the National Park Service. Bringing a contractor on board during project design has improved communication and collaboration among all project stakeholders and provided the contractor with knowledge about construction within a park setting. This project is also budget constrained with non-program funds, and the CMGC method was useful in helping to contain scope within the available funding. Additional benefits of the CMGC process are that it allowed for a more comprehensive and integrated discussion of project scope and it was helpful in achieving timely environmental compliance.The U.S. Coast Guard built the existing suspension bridge in 1954 using treated Redwood timbers to construct the towers. In 2005 it was determined that the bridge was a contributing structure to the Point Bonita Light Station which had been entered into the National Record of Historic Places in 1991.

Recent field inspections have determined that the brDue to the historic nature of the bridge, the replacemthe bridge’s character including structure type and mno longer a viable option for the required size and stmembers. During preliminary design it was determihardwoods were the only acceptable replacement mahardwoods require long lead times to procure, the cocontract modification to order the tropical hardwooand structural steel were also procured in advance, pfinal negotiated construction price. The ability to proin advance minimizes delays during construction anconstruction schedule. Site access to the bridge and the construction staging equipment and materials may not fit through the tunhelicopter may be required. Environmental concerns logistics by restricting the available flight paths to anInvolving the contractor early on during project devminimize the use and maximize the efficiency of expservices and improve planning of construction staginWhile we anticipate challenges using this new contrafeel that it has given us the best chance of success on providing valuable knowledge and skills to help us emin the future.

Innovative Contracting Livability/Mobility

Point Bonita LighthouseGolden Gate National Recreation Area – San Francisco, CaliforniaPartners: U.S. Coast Guard, National Park Service

Partner

Park Roads and Parkways Program Projects
18 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Great Basin National Park in Nevada is in the process of developing recreational infrastructure in the Strawberry Creek Watershed and restoring existing natural resources impacted from years of unregulated recreation and prior road construction activities. This project involved removing the existing fish passage barrier and then carefully restoring it to this stretch of creek containing four species of NPS Management Concern, including the Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, currently petitioned for listing on the Endangered Species List. The four species have genetics unique to the area and have been isolated for over 10,000 years in this valley. FHWA was asked by Great Basin National Park to look at alternatives for this site to restore fish passage while providing an aesthetic structure for the area.The Strawberry Creek Bridge was designed as a 28-foot long, 16-foot wide timber bridge structure supported on concrete vertical abutment walls with spread footings placed 12 feet below the ground elevation. Due to the remote location of this bridge, the contractor’s initial bid for cast-in-place concrete to construct the abutments caused the total construction cost to be significantly higher than the engineer’s estimate. Since the road needed to be closed during construction their initial proposal also called for approximately a three week closure. In order to reduce costs and closure time, the bridge was redesigned as a Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Integrated Bridge System (IBS). GRS-IBS is an EDC initiative under Accelerated Technology. This technology uses alternating layers of compacted granular fill material and fabric sheets of geotextile reinforcement to provide support for the bridge. The GRS-IBS structure included prefabricated timber deck, steel girder bridge on precast concrete footings. The GRS-IBS design reduced the overall cost of the bridge by about 30% and the closure time by 50%. The GRS-IBS guidelines and construction videos provided by the FHWA Office of Infrastructure Research and Development were given to the contractor to refer to during construction.The contractor mobilized to the site, closed the roadway to public traffic, diverted the channel, constructed both abutments and the bridge, built both approaches, placed riprap in the channel, cleaned up the site, and demobilized in 10 days. Even though this contractor was not experienced in the construction of GRS-IBS bridges, the plans were easy to follow and construction went very smoothly.

This project reconstructed 27 miles of Wawona the existing road, and parking areas, pullouts weproject schedule was accelerated to address marand safety issues. To accelerate the project, the poriginally programmed projects into one project nine-month design timeframe. Environmental cconcurrently with the design creating a more effwith minimal impacts to the overall schedule. Saa consistent paved width, signing, striping and a reduce accidents along this route. The Park allowhours and night work in order to complete consaccelerated construction schedule reduced what of construction impacts to millions of Park visitoseason. This project provided a local economic bemployment of many construction and material 

Environmental Impact Context Sensitivity Sus

Park Roads and Parkways Program Projects

Strawberry Creek BridgeGreat Basin National Park — Strawberry Creek Road, Baker, NevadaPartners: National Park Service, Great Basin National Park

Wawona Road — Recovery Act

Yosemite National Park — Mariposa County, California

Partners: Yosemite National Park, Denver Service Center

Applied Technology
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

The Cass-Oark Road, State Route 215, is now considered one of Arkansas’ premier recreational motorcycle routes, following the Mulberry River in north-central Arkansas. This reconstruction project improved and widened the existing gravel road to accommodate two-lane traffic, constructed two bridges and provided for aesthetic guardrails and retaining walls. The Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department and the Forest Service faced significant challenges to improve the quality of the road and bridges in difficult terrain without disturbing the beautiful river vistas. This area can now accommodate the safe access of recreational vehicles used by motorcyclists, hikers, campers, and hunters; and is better able to meet the increased demand for accessibility to this scenic area.The upgrades provide tremendous economic benefit to the area as this public road connects the Ozark National Forest to nearby roads, and serves local recreational, residential and commercial needs as well as those of visitors to the forest.

The Wynoochee (Camp Grisdale) Road was first conto haul out timber, supplementing an existing railroaearlier for the same purpose. Due to limitations on lothe Grays Harbor County area near the project, had local recreation facilities was challenging. Camp Grisdale Road is the primary access to the Wyarea, campgrounds, trailheads, and over 100,000 acrOlympic National Forest. The road was unpaved and in the summer and impassible without continuous mThe project included reconstructing the roadway alistandards with a paved surface, construction of a briimprovements that improved aquatic organism passthe restoration of wetlands. The newly upgraded roatraffic at the Lake and area campgrounds. Low-clearthat never would have made it up the old road are beaccording to the local Forest Service Campground mAct funding enabled Federal Lands to complete this schedule opening the recreational area of Olympic Nhost of new visitors.

Livability/Mobility Economic Benefit

Forest Highway Program Projects

Cass-Oark Road — Recovery Act

Johnson County, Arkansas

Partners: USDA Forest Service, Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 

Camp Grisdale Road — Recovery Act

Olympic National Forest, Western Washington

Partners: Grays Harbor County, Olympic National Forest
20 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Working in cooperation with the Forest Service and the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, an 85 mile modern road system was constructed for Prince of Wales Island, the fourth largest island in the United States. The rainforest environment required deep excavations of unsuitable material and surcharging of the roads to obtain stability. The road system serves the residents of the island and tourists in providing efficient transportation between the communities, the two ferry terminals, the airport, and the seaplane bases.

In beautiful northern Idaho, the Fernan Lake RoIdaho Panhandle National Forest. The project wbetween FLH, the Idaho Panhandle National FoHighway District that operates and maintains thshores of a lake, the winding road was narrow, pnumerous accidents. The road also contributed various accesses needed improvements. To addrwas reconstructed with new curves along the lakcurrent standards. Access points along the route was captured for treatment before entering the lprovide years of maintenance free service. A curcauseway across one of the lake’s bays, improvinaquatic species. FLH completed an Environmenguide the development of the roadway plans.

Environmental 

Context Sensitivity Safety

Coffman Cove — Multi-Funded/Leveraged

Tongass National Forest — Prince of Wales Island, Alaska

Partners: USDA Forest Service, Alaska Department of Transportation

Forest Highway Program Projects

Fernan Lake RoadIdaho Panhandle National Forest — Coeur d’Alene, IdahoPartners: Eastside Highway District, Idaho-Panhandle National Fo
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Forest Highway Program ProjectsGuanella Pass Road is one of the premier high mountain roadways close to Denver. The project consisted of major grading, retaining walls, drainage improvements, and placement of aggregate base and hot asphalt concrete paving of 6.4 miles of Guanella Pass Road. The project started in Georgetown, Colorado and proceeded in a southerly direction towards the top of Guanella Pass. The rehabilitation of this road focused on improving the condition of the roadway while minimizing overall environmental impacts associated with poor drainage, raveled aggregate surfacing and wash boarding.Upon completion, everyone was thankful to see the roadway completed. The local residents were happy with drainage improvements that will alleviate the local concerns with flooding in the Town of Georgetown and erosion of the mountainside. The local agencies were pleased that the new roadway would reduce their maintenance requirements. Anyone who visits Guanella Pass will not only be able to enjoy the new roadway but also the improved parking areas and trail access. The roadway to Guanella Pass finally matches it’s pristine surroundings and will be there for the public to enjoy for many years.

A major flood in December 2006 undermined the ceMullins Bridge, causing the pier to settle 4 feet. UsinWestern Federal Lands removed the bridge to prevethe river. The contractor spanned the river with steethe river from debris during demolition. Then, using contractor removed the bridge restoring the environthe road on which the bridge existed extends about aGifford Pinchot National Forest, south of the Mount boundary. It accessed a small rock quarry site used in maintenance of local forest and NPS Roads and a triarea. There are no current plans to re-establish this ahave been made with the local tribes to provide alterthe vicinity. Future rock quarry materials necessary fobtained from alternate locations in the area.

Guanella Pass Road — Recovery Act

Guanella Pass Scenic Byway — Arapaho/Roosevelt National Forest, Colorado 

Partners: USDA Forest Service, Clear Creek County, Town of Georgetown, Georgetown Historical Society

Jody Mullins Bridge — ERFO

Gifford Pinchot National Forest — Packwood, Washington

Partner: USDA Forest Service 

Livability/Mobility Partnership Sustaina
22 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Forest Highway Program Projects

The Little Salmon River Bridge connects State Highway 95 to the Salmon River Road. Located just south of Riggins, Idaho, and the Little Salmon — Salmon River confluence, the bridge provides a gateway to one of the premier recreational rivers in the country and the new Whitewater Park being developed by the City of Riggins. The bridge replaces a narrow one-lane, structurally deficient span with a span of 180 feet made from high-strength American steel. Currently 15 miles of the Salmon River Road are undergoing reconstruction to provide better access for the wide variety of recreationalists that use the river.

The Manning Crevice Bridge, a suspension bridreached 70 years of service and is in need of upgservice life. The bridge crosses the Salmon River Crevice canyon. This project will increase the deimprove vertical clearances, and will improve thvehicles to cross the bridge. The river has a very and is eligible for “Wild and Scenic River” statusFLH is using a Construction Management/Geneprocurement method for this unique project. A selected based on their ability to provide design A construction contractor will be selected using construct this unique bridge, as well as their pricThe contractor will become part of the design testage. The design team will then be able to use teliminate risks, lower costs, and provide a tailor

Uniqu

Partnership Context Sensitivity

Little Salmon River Bridge — ERFO

Nez Perce National Forest — Riggins, Idaho

Partners: Idaho Transportation Department, Idaho County, Nez Perce National Forest

Manning Crevice BridgeNez Perce National Forest — Salmon River, Riggins, IdahoPartners: Bureau of Land Management, Nez Perce National Forest, 

Innovative Contracting

Existing condit
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Forest Highway Program Projects

Collabora

Economic Benefit Public Involvement

Skyliners Road provides access from the City of Bend Oregon to recreation areas on the Deschutes National Forest, to local residents, and to the City of Bend municipal watershed. Skyliners road is a major bicycle route that is used for nationally recognized bicycle events. Average seasonal cyclist use is over 100 daily.The project would reconstruct 8 miles of Deschutes County maintained road to address deteriorating pavement conditions and provide bike lanes for the existing mix of bicycle and vehicle use. The road improvement project is being coordinated with the City of Bend’s Surface Water Improvement Project and with improvements by the Deschutes National Forest to Phil’s Trailhead.The City of Bend owns and operates a surface water supply system that includes a pipeline that runs parallel to Skyliners Road. The City plans to replace the existing pipeline with a new pipeline that would be located within the Skyliners Road prism. Work on the pipeline is being closely coordinated with the road project to share development costs; identify construction cost reduction opportunities; and minimize construction impacts to road users.

Skyliners RoadDeschutes National Forest — Bend, OregonPartners: City of Bend Oregon, Deschutes County Oregon, Deschutes National Forest

The Washington Road project involved the rehabilitsection of California Forest Highway 123, improving and safety while reducing the annual maintenance pcounty agency. The existing roadway was pulverized to use as the new roadbase. Drainage improvements protect the roadway. Safety improvements included hazards within the clear zone, realignment of substawidening to account for the many logging trucks and frequent this road.This project improved the only paved road into the cWashington, California. Several residents of Washinemployed by the contractor for this project. This proeconomic stimulus for the community of Washingtocamped in the local campgrounds and patronized lo

Washington Road — Recovery Act

Washington, California

Partners: Tahoe National Forest, Nevada County California

Existing condition
24 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Refuge Roads Program Projects

This project relocated the Souris River Bridge (commonly referred to as the Johnson Bridge) and created an interpretive site. This site included a small parking area, concrete trail, interpretive panels, and railing/stairs that allowed pedestrians on the bridge. The Johnson Bridge was constructed in 1908 and is one of three steel Pratt truss bridges of its kind in North Dakota. This bridge was a one lane bridge with substandard substructure and railing components. Due to its historical significance, the North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Federal Lands agreed to relocate the bridge and construct an interpretive site. A new Souris River Bridge was constructed on the roadway alignment. The new bridge is a concrete bulb tee girder bridge and accommodates two-way traffic. Seven low water crossings were also constructed in specific areas to provide access on the route during the high flow periods of spring and early summer. This project was a hallmark Recovery Act project for the Refuge Road program. It opened important public access to an appreciative refuge and public, corrected a significant safety problem by replacing and preserving an old bridge, and created jobs in a significant time of need.

This project involved replacement of the CentraBridges and rehabilitation of Lake Landing Road Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge. Economtechnology was employed by using precast deck foundation for the two bridges instead of traditicast-in-place abutments and decks. Bridge abutmfoundations have demonstrated excellent characcarrying capacity. A Cellular Confinement Systegravel-filled cells has been used as a facing to prto the GRS abutments. Despite construction delpreloading and differential settlement, traditionhave been more expansive and time consuming. project supported the FHWA EDC initiative.

Benefit to the Community Livabil

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge — Recovery Act

Bottineau and McHenry Counties, North Dakota

Partners: US Fish and Wildlife Service, North Dakota State Historical Preservation Office

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife RefugeRoute 10, Lake Landing Road, North CarolinaPartner: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Habitat Restoration
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Refuge Roads Program ProjectsThe North Bank Lane Road Improvement Project serves as an excellent example of the benefits that can be gained by innovative project development, streamlining and partnership coordination.North Bank Lane is a two-lane road that provides access to local residences, businesses, Refuge headquarters, recreational facilities and other local roads. Roadway improvements were needed primarily to reduce road flooding and permit the Refuge to fully implement a project to restore over 400 acres of tidal wetlands, the largest tidal wetland restoration project in Oregon history! The roadway project involved installing larger culverts to improve aquatic organism passage and fish habitat upstream of the tidal wetlands. Though a relatively small project, it was complex for many reasons. The Refuge’s wetland restoration project occurred concurrently within the same geographic area as the roadway project. The project was situated in an area with numerous sensitive environmental resources including Federally-listed fish species and historic properties listed on the National Register. And there were a number of stakeholders involved in both the road and wetland restoration project.Delivering the project on time and within budget would not have been feasible if typical design and clearance processes were employed. Because the road project was an integral part of the wetland restoration project, USFWS and FHWA agreed to partner in the production of one Environmental document, addressing both projects. By partnering on the EA, other environmental clearances were streamlined and permitting requirements were greatly reduced. The regulatory agencies involved with these clearances expressed appreciation for this approach because it saved them time and money. Also, partnering on the NEPA had the beneficial effect of directing close coordination between Federal Lands and the FWS on the design of the projects. This resulted in improved planning and implementation of construction activities for both projects, which were to occur concurrently and in the same location resulting in a more efficient and cost-effective delivery of the overall project. Multiple agencies worked together efficiently and effectively, making use of their specific skill sets, to provide high quality and valued products. Through this project significant tidal wetlands were restored, species were protected and safe access was provided to the public.

This project included improvements to the entrance at the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge, one onational wildlife refuges in the country, located withmetropolitan community. The Refuge is home to neaover 50 species of mammals, 25 species of reptiles anwide variety of insects, fish and plants. The Refuge ppriority public uses cited in the National Wildlife Imand already enjoyed a high volume of visitors.The project improved the gravel parking lots at the vwayside, by adding sustainable features such as bio-swpervious pavers under the parking areas and paving tabatement. The bioswale, constructed with amended will collect and cleanse storm water, protecting habiterosive flows and flooding. The Refuge will also use tinnovative green technology in traditional constructiwas provided meeting the priority of providing enviropportunities to the public, while furthering economthe local community.

Unique Con

Environmental Impact

North Bank Lane RoadBandon Marsh National Wildlife Refuge — Southern Coast of Oregon Partners: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Coos County, the Coquille Indian Tribe, the Confederated Tribe of the Siletz Indians, Ducks Unlimited, National Marine Fisheries Service, USACE, Oregon State Historic Preservation Office, and local residents

Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge — Recovery ARefuge Entrance Road and Parking Areas — Tualatin, Oregon Partners: US Fish and Wildlife Service

Context Sensitivity Handicap Accessibility
26 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

This Design-Build project involved the design and reconstruction of the 9th Street Bridge over New York Avenue, NE, and connecting roadways. The new bridge replaces a 70 year old bridge over railroad tracks for the CSX and Metro. It features wider lanes and sidewalks to provide space to bicyclists, as the city is experiencing a welcome boom in bike traffic.The new bridge improved traffic congestion and safety to a vital corridor to Washington, DC. The City’s mayor described the roadway as vital to economic development downtown. The project also incorporated numerous aesthetic features designed to allow the new bridge to blend seamlessly with the existing community and as an aesthetic and attractive gateway into the city.

This project involved construction of a five-leg mheart of Cruz Bay, on St. John in the U.S. Virgin politically sensitive and it involved multiple chala gas station, underpinning of existing building sand significantly lowering the roadway to providroundabout was the only realistic alternative consafe movement of tractor trailers leaving the St. the island. The successful completion of this prolocal economy and tourism, but it also helped lobusinesses by removing traffic congestion. Streamain ferry docking area is a welcome change for to successful partnering between FLH, the VirgiPublic Works, and the local community.

Other Title 23 Program Projects

Benefit to the Community Innovative Contracting Safety Freigh

9th Street Bridge — State

9th Street over New York Avenue, NE, Washington D.C.

Partners: District of Columbia Government, District Department of Transportation

St. John Roundabout — Territorial Highway Program

Cruz Bay, St. John, U.S. Virgin Islands

Partners: Virgin Islands Department of Public Works
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

This Trail Bridge project restored dedicated bicycle and pedestrian access across the Susan River on the original railroad alignment. In July 2000, wildfires destroyed a 90-foot timber section of the 270-foot bridge leaving this historic bridge inoperable. Work on the project included demolition of existing bridge deck, installation of replacement girders, removal of lead based paint, and repainting of existing steel trestle structure. The replacement steel girders were designed and painted to match the original girders installed in 1913. The BLM considers the bridge to be eligible for listing under the National Register of Historical Places. To accommodate trail users with disabilities, the bridge decking was designed for wheelchairs and horse drawn carriages. The bridge was reopened to the public in October 2010, in time for the annual Bizz Johnson Marathon. The race is a large tourism boost for the local economy, filling hotels and restaurants in nearby Susanville. Both the design and construction of the project was completed in 10 months, which is substantially less than the typical duration for a project of this complexity. Through fast tracked delivery of design and construction, this project has restored the historical character and functionality of the most impressive bridge on the 30-mile Bizz Johnson National Recreation Trail. This project also received a 2011 FHWA National Environmental Excellence Award in the Non-Motorized Transportation Category. Along with others from 2010, this project represents the beginning of a partnership between Central Federal Lands and the BLM that will result in enhanced transportation facilities on BLM lands throughout the west.

This project is located in two counties- economically reductions in the logging industry. The project inclustructurally failing culverts, all 40 years or older. The of these culverts was inhibiting road access to BLM lvisiting public, recreationists, contractors, fire manaBLM staff. Nine of the eleven culverts also blocked pCoho salmon in the Siuslaw River watershed, as well The eleven new culverts, ranging in diameter from 5 to provide adequate flow for a 100 year magnitude flculverts on fish passage creeks are also designed and natural streambed along the inside of the culvert.This project ensures access for multiple users of thesimproves fish passage for federally listed endangered potential sedimentation and erosion that would imp

Other Title 23 Program Projects

Bizz Johnson Trail Bridge — Recovery Act

Bizz Johnson National Recreation Trail, Lassen National Forest — Lassen County, California 

Partners: Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service

Partnership Handicap Accessibility Economic Benefit Historic 

Buck, Esmond & Hawley Creek Culverts — Recovery Act Lane and Douglas County, nearest city, Eugene, OregonPartner: Bureau of Land Management
28 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

The Cibola Bridge Project consisted of replacing a deteriorated bridge deck on this structure that spans the Colorado River in Arizona, near the Arizona/California border. The bridge is about 20 miles south of Blythe, California. The project also upgraded bridge railing, added new navigational lighting under the bridge for vessels traveling on the Colorado River and added new pile wrapping protection for the piers in the water.This project is one of only a handful of structures that crosses the Colorado River in this area. It is relied upon for agricultural purposes, and fire protection. Also, the Cibola National Wildlife Refuge covers the entire area providing recreation and emergency access. All other structures in the area are substandard and pose some risk for use, especially by larger vehicles. The improvements made to Cibola Bridge provide safer access, and enhance the visitors experience within the Refuge environment by affording access to both banks of the Colorado River.

The Mineral Canyon Road is one of the primary used recreation trail system in Grand County, Uonly accessible and feasible route to integrate usCanyonlands National Park. Additionally, the ropoints to the Green River for both commercial aboating. On August 19, 2010, the Mineral Bottointense storm resulting in complete destruction feet of roadway, closing the roadway to the publRecreation and tourism generate the largest poreconomy. Our partners expressed concern for imthe heaviest recreation use period. The project creconstructing the washout areas with mechanigenerated on site by drilling and blasting.Original project estimates were nearly $2.0M wschedule of over 9 months. A letter contract waprocurement process, the project was completeunder $1.1M. A strong partnership was formed Grand County, and Canyonlands National Park.

Other Title 23 Program Projects

Environ

Innovative Contracting Unique Conditions

Cibola Bridge Cibola National Wildlife Refuge — Arizona/California BorderPartner: Bureau of Reclamation & US Fish & Wildlife Service

Mineral Canyon Road — ERFO

Moab, Grand County, UT

Partners: Bureau of Land Management, Canyonlands National Pa
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

This project represents the final key sections of a parkway that passes through one of the National Capital areas’ most congested traffic corridors. It will minimize the impacts associated with the Army’s initiative to relocate 8,500 military staff to Fort Belvoir under the Base Realignment and Closure Act (BRAC). Fort Belvoir will have the fifth-largest military population of any installation in the country, consolidating employees from six locations. The engineer proving ground, next to the main Army post, is becoming home to the 2.4 million-square-foot headquarters of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. In addition to providing another entry to the Fort Belvoir North Area, it will construct a four-lane divided limited access highway to complete the missing link of the Fairfax County Parkway between Rolling Road and I-95. This project is the result of unprecedented cooperation among the Department of the Army, Virginia Department Of Transportation, and FHWA/Federal Lands.The project corridor begins at Rolling Road/Franconia-Springfield Parkway and proceeds southeastward on a new alignment and ends east of Fullerton Road. This corridor is approximately 1.5 miles long and a majority of the new alignment is located on the southern portion of the BNA, and included the construction of multiple grade separated interchanges. The work involved in the Parkway Project includes grading, drainage, paving, bridges, noise walls, lighting, traffic signals, landscaping, signing and striping. Federal Lands is responsible for the design and construction of the Parkway Project as well as the coordination and facilitation of the overall schedule. The project consisted of 4 Phases: 1 & 2 completed the Parkway & provided a major interchange into the adjacent military base, Phases 3 & 4 were only made possible by the stimulus package. Phase 3 provided interchange improvements and the removal of an at grade signalized intersection which was replaced by a bridge further enabling traffic flow through a heavily congested area. Phase 4 constructed a new interchange providing a direct link from the Parkway to the Interstate for high volume truck traffic formerly forced to route through a residential community. This project has corrected several decades-long traffic & access issues, while also providing for significant future planning. Given the traffic implications to the local community if this project did not move forward, it was often described as the most important project in the history of the area.

Non Title 23 Program Projects

Partnership National Importance

Fairfax County Parkway — Recovery Act

Springfield, Virginia — near Fort Belvoir 

Partners: Virginia Department of Transportation, U.S. Army, and Fairfax County

Public Involvement 

This project was distinguished with two presidential very high level of public involvement. Considered to sensitive project, it was touted as a Recovery Act sucadvancing critically needed transportation projects.
30 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Norfolk Southern Railway Company initiated the Crescent Corridor Intermodal Freight Program of projects to develop a fast and efficient rail intermodal route from the Gulf Coast to the Northeast. When fully developed, this program of projects will provide new and improved domestic rail intermodal service between the Northeast and Southeast. Rail route enhancements and intermodal terminal development are required to provide the service necessary to create these public benefits. The Norfolk Southern Crescent Corridor Program was awarded a TIGER grant in the amount of $105 million, split evenly towards the construction of two regional intermodal facilities in Memphis, Tennessee and Birmingham, Alabama.The regional intermodal facilities are public-private partnerships, consisting of a $97.5 million project to construct the Birmingham facility and adjacent infrastructure improvements, along with a $105.1 million project to construct the Memphis facility and its adjacent infrastructure improvements. The combined $105 million TIGER Grant will be coupled with additional funding from the Federal CMAQ Program, ALDOT, TDOT, and Norfolk Southern to fully construct these two facilities, our responsibilities include the coordination of the overall project schedules, oversight of TIGER funds used in design and construction, environmental compliance, as well as the execution of grant agreements, memorandums of agreement, and financial plans.

The National Gateway Freight Rail Clearance Promillion public-private partnership and improvemdouble-stack trains to move more efficiently alonInc’s (CSX) rail corridor and is supported by the sPennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Within that have clearance deficiencies (unable to accomstack freight rail service). The CSX standards for specify a vertical clearance of greater than 21’ aboaddition to the tunnel work, there are 29 other ovto be removed or adjusted. These additional obstrreplacements; 8 bridge removals; 4 bridge raises; track modifications. Upon full completion of Phase 1, the Project will system connecting Midwest producers and consuand world markets. In addition to spurring econoregion, this project will double intermodal capacwithout increasing noise, emissions, or the numbstewardship and oversight for the delivery of the Project funded by a $98 million grant under the TProgram. FLH responsibilities include: coordinaschedule; oversight of TIGER funds, environmenof the grant agreement, memorandums of agreem

Public/Private Partnership Projects

National Importance Multi-Modal Collaboration Su

Crescent Corridor Regional Intermodal FacilitiesCrescent Corridor — between Louisiana and New JerseyPartners: Norfolk Southern Railway Company, Alabama Department of Transportation (ALDOT), Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT)

National Gateway Corridor — Phase I National Gateway Freight Rail Corridor — North BaltimorePartners: CSX Transportation Inc., Maryland, Ohio, Pennsylvania, 
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Our Expertise 

Summaries of this year’s highlights from a selection of FLH discipline teams:Acquisition FLH was very successful in meeting Major Procurement Preference Program Goals. The FHWA and the USDOT Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, reports annual procurement goals for awards to Small Business, Small Disadvantaged Business, Women-Owned Small Business, HUBzone, and Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Businesses. FHWA Acquisitions extended special congratulations to FLH for their outstanding achievements in supporting the small business program, contributing to much of FHWA’s success in meeting goals on socioeconomic contracting.The Acquisitions Team developed policy positions on a DOT-wide directive relating to IT security requirements; background investigations for contractors; and provided coordination on all requests for comments/data calls, from FHWA Office of Acquisition Management, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and the White House Office of Management & Budget.Asset ManagementFLH Asset Management focuses on developing consistent approaches taking into account the various stages of understanding and implementation that exists amongst our partners, to identify incremental steps for improving how data and management systems are used to make informed, accountable transportation and resource allocation decisions.Asset Management has several Pilot Programs and Transportation Improvement Plans underway this year to better facilitate assisting our partners with future plans:FLH is conducting the Land Between the Lakes (LBL) Safety Pilot in partnership with the Forest Service, Kentucky and Tennessee State DOT’s and Federal-Aid offices, and the USACE. LBL asked FLH to examine safety related issues from Strategic State Safety Plans to develop a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer for all crash data.The Pilot is focused on the development of business practices for investigation, implementation and correction of safety related issues while developing a roadmap for the Forest Service to assist in the development of additional Safety Studies. FLH is also conducting a Forest Highway Pavement Condition Update Pilot, making ground truth site visits to Minnesota, Texas and Florida. All data on the affected routes has been verified and will be used to develop maintenance and rehabilitation fixes for all the Forest Highways in Regions 8 and 9.FLH Asset Management has provided technical support to the following partners: the US Fish & Wildlife Service Asset Management Refuge Transportation Program; the Texas Forest Highway Program for the Sabine, Angelina, Davy Crockett, and Sam Houston National Forests; the Texas State DOT.

Bridge InspectionFLH continues to work with Federal owners of publitheir bridge inventory data is accurate and current, trequirements set forth in the National Bridge Inspecand that it is submitted annually to the National Bridrequired by that regulation. These efforts help ensurare addressing their bridge safety responsibilities. Maintaining bridge inspection data and submitting irequirement of the NBIS. A strong bridge inspection essential factor in bridge safety and cost effective brito the NBIS oversight process developed for State Dprograms, FLH is in the initial year of program revieagencies that own, maintain, and perform safety inspvehicular bridges.Because the Federal agency reviews encompass a divorganizations in varying degrees of compliance, and enforcing compliance differs between Federal agencisomewhat different approach is required. Efforts thion developing that approach as we complete the baslevel review for the USACE, our pilot agency. We excompleted by the end of the 2011, and intend to appthe process to determine the necessary strategy and the remaining agencies. We are also developing somin this undertaking.
32 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Our Expertise 

EnvironmentEnvironment succeeded in completing the FLH National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) initiative, resulting in an NPDES training curriculum. This curriculum was presented to 80 FLH employees representing Design, Environment, Project Management, Technical Services, Construction, Acquisitions and Planning. The Environment Team revised the FLH Construction Manual and Project Development & Design Manual to align with new NPDES requirements. A multi-agency steering committee meeting was conducted for the CTIP Greenroads Project. The CTIP project rated 7 FLH projects in both Greenroads and the FHWA sustainability rating systems. The Team achieved an Environmental Collaboration survey score of 85.2% and represented FLH at a national workshop for NCHRP 20-24(71), “Expediting NEPA Decisions and other Practitioner Strategies for Addressing High Risk Issues in Project Delivery” in support of the FHWA EDC initiative.The Team also developed a stand-alone SWPPP binder template that includes all information required for project compliance with EPA and authorized state NPDES permits. Stand-alone SWPPP binders were developed for 38 projects under construction and delivered to Project Engineers for implementation at construction sites.Geographic Information Systems (GIS)The GIS Team implemented a GIS NPS Pilot website for NPS Road Inventory Program (RIP) data and NPS safety management system data (crash data for approximately 35 parks). Provided technical oversight and design assistance for development of FLH Website development for NPS GIS data and FLH GIS data. This also includes continued development of the ArcSDE (Spatial Database Engine) set-up for FLH GIS data. Along with EFL, NPS GIS and Forest Service GIS data, CFL FWS and Forest Service data and WFL Forest Service data have been added to the SDE server for possible future Web development.GIS highlights:The NPS Navigator website has been upgraded to Silverlight technology allowing users to compare cycle 3 and 4 RIP date using a browser, eliminating the need for any specialized visualization software. An eERFO program was deployed within the CFL division allowing ERFO applicants to apply, follow the approval process and create Programs of Projects on line allowing HQ to see real time locations and spending levels.GIS tools were used to spatially locate crashes for the George Washington Memorial Parkway, Baltimore Washington Parkway and Clara Barton Parkway.The GIS Team assisted Programs and FLH Asset Management staff with updates to Forest Highway inventory data for Forest Service Regions 8 and 9. 

Assistance was also provided to the Road Inventproviding GIS data for use in the creation of RIP GIS worked with other FLH teams in the determby demonstrating new GIS tools in the new WEGIS analysis of ongoing Mississippi River and trto an FLH ERFO Coordinator to assist with deteflooding of federal roads. USACE inundation moverlaid on FLH GIS routes to determine extent A GIS demonstration supporting development oFederal Lands Projects Management Agency Magarnered interest and received special project fuVisualization Team. The Team is overseeing a comemorandum identifying industry/government NPS for data integration and management.Work continues on building the GIS library, to dbeen acquired, organized, stored, and documentand other extents. All Forest Service units GIS dMontana, Idaho, and Alaska have been loaded. Aagencies are being acquired and loaded. (See httpprograms/plh/fh/inventories.htm). Comprehensive crash data layers for the last 10 and Washington. The goal is to have this compilA website has been developed for downloading This website allows RIP data to be checked for quploaded to the server where the reports are crethe web. Users can download information within savings of both time and money. Geotechnical EngineeringThe Geotechnical Team advanced Geosynthetic Integrated Bridge System (IBS) technology, EDC calculations, and standard CADD drawings. The uploaded to the FHWA EDC website.The second major accomplishment was collabordivisions and the Western Federal Lands Structuto develop the practitioners’ eight questions on tunique soil nail wall design and construction verconstruction theory. A training course was deveeight questions and gave FLH geotechs greater iof soil nail walls.FLH participated in the development of the NatImprovement Program, 10 year plan. The plan hand improvement areas that FLH can support/a
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Our Expertise 

geotech work plans will align to the national geotech improvement plan. The Geotech Team has participated in Decision Support System (DSS) seminar/training planning. To support the Program the geotech champion participated in the Office of Infrastructure Research & Technical Road Map development and submitted two Section 3.2.1 Initiative proposals which were Smart Roadway Instrumentation Protocols and Automatic Remote Continuous Monitoring in Urban and Rural Areas. In January 2011, FLH took on the task of adapting the existing GRS-IBS design drawings and calculation methods to a standard design, drawing set, and quantities. This multidivisional effort was coordinated with the FHWA Turner Fairbanks Highway Research Center (TFHRC) and the FHWA Resource Center (RC).The Geotech Team has been promoting the use of new automated slope monitoring technologies that are now being pursued jointly with TFHRC Geotechnical specialists. The FLH Team hosted the National Highway Institute Load and Resistance Factor Design for Highway Bridge Substructures (NHI LRFD) Seismic design course. FLH developed a Complex Soil Nail Design and construction inspection course that is being shared with our partners.

HydraulicsThe Hydraulics Team completed a new Culvert AssesProject Development Design Manual and provided eddrainage criteria and Aquatic Organism Passage (AOPnew Special Contract Requirements for culverts have with a pilot training course for Culvert Assessment anThe Team evaluated the EDC initiative for GRS bridgworking to develop national competency requiremendiscipline. Design guidance documents Hydraulics En18, “Evaluating Scour at Bridges,” and HEC 20, “Steam Structures” and Hydraulic Design Series 5, “Hydraulic Culverts” to include discussion on culvert design for APavement & MaterialsThe Pavement & Materials Team had several accompof the Warm Mix Asphalt (WMA) and Safety Edge EDivisions have now successfully completed multiple Divisions continue to incorporate the safety edge speprojects, and all FLH Divisions have successfully comedge project with a total of four completed FLH-widReview and recommendations were provided to Yellfor a Highway Pavement Management Application (report and participated in ground-truthing data on-A Western Alliance for Quality Transportation Conssupport agreement was completed.
34 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Our Expertise The Team partners with TFHRC to test and evaluate aggregate and binder and serves as members of the Expert Task Group (ETG) a group made up of national experts, who develop, test, evaluate, and implement new technologies and test methods in the areas of WMA, Pavement Smoothness, and Pavement Preservation. FLH team members participate in specification and design development and standardization through several nationwide and international groups. The papers and presentations promoted collaboration, sharing of best practices, and uniformity. PlanningThe FLH Planning Team is working collaboratively with our partners developing Long Range Transportation Plans (LRTPs) at the national, regional, and unit levels. National level plans are being developed in concert with NPS and FWS. Regional LRTPs for the NPS are under development in the Alaska, Northeast, and Intermountain Regions. Regional LRTPs for the FWS have been completed for Region 1 Northwest and are underway in Regions 3 Midwest and 4 Southeast.The Planning Team held three FLMA Transportation Planning webinars featuring NPS, FWS, BLM and USFS. In collaboration with the partners, the Planning Team is currently updating the previously developed Transportation Planning Template. This new guidance document is 80% complete.The Planning Team is providing support to the updates of General Management Plans (GMPs) and Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs). The FLH is represented by two staff members in the FHWA Planning Leadership Council which sets the direction and provides guidance on the Planning Discipline agency wide. Other Planning staff members are serving as members of the Planning Discipline Team (PDT) established to support the activities of the Planning Leadership Council. FLH had strong participation in the FHWA Planning Discipline with several individuals chosen to participate on the Planning Leadership Council.FLH completed the transportation plan elements of the CCP for the National Key Deer NWR and has initiated similar efforts in support of the Assabet River NWR and the Felsenthal & Overflow NWRs. Efforts in support of the Forest Service in statewide planning and improved project selection process development in both Region 8 Southern Region and Region 9 Eastern Region continue. The Planning Team continues to lead the FWS National ITS demonstration project with support from Central and Western staff. The Eastern staff is currently managing a congressionally requested study to investigate the potential widening of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway and participated in the Expert Working Group established to monitor the progress of two other multi-state regional highway corridor studies in the southeastern region.

Five Alaska Long Range Transportation Plans wby the end of December. The five Plans include: (known as the Umbrella Plan); USFWS Region 7Alaska Region LRTP (the first to be Forest ServiHighway routes); NPS, Alaska Region LRTP (the Region LRTP (the first for BLM).The Oregon Forest Highway LRTP has been comand Montana Forest Highway LRTPs are all in dcompleted before the end of FY 12. WFL has a dprogram. WFL has also been providing unit-leveassistance (transportation studies, CCP/GMP asforecasting, etc) for NPS at Kenai Fjords, OlympRainier, Crater Lake, Yellowstone, and Glacier Nat Mt. Hood, Mt. Baker Snoqualmie, Deschutes at Deer Flat, Oregon Coast, William Finley, BaskHagerman National Wildlife Refuges. FLH is alsClimate Change Mitigation Project, which is protrack and reduce their greenhouse gas emissionsProject ManagementThe Project Management Team has developed sinclude: a draft Project Management Handbookpractices guide on implementation of Recovery Risk Management Policy and provided training Management Risk Register; update to the ProjecSystems white paper; an operational guide of rec
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Our Expertise 

and Design Build Innovative Contracting in support of EDC; a preliminary cost estimate risk review and estimate for the Arlington Memorial Bridge in our Nation’s Capital, a tremendous bridge rehabilitation project in conjunction with the FHWA Office of Innovative Program Delivery.For the second year in a row the George Mason University (GMU) Highway Design and Construction Laboratory course was held. The “hands on” course educates engineering students on the process of delivering highway projects. This accredited course was fully coordinated and administered by FLH staff. SafetyThe Safety Team completed 13 safety studies at the following Parks: Acadia, Assateague, Cape Cod, Colonial, Fredericksburg/Spotsylvania, Gateway, Gettysburg, Shenandoah, Valley Forge, Hot Springs, Mammoth Cave, Yosemite, and Alaska Region surpassing the goal for 2011. The Team also held two Tribal Safety Management System Steering Committee meetings and plans to conduct a National Tribal Safety Summit in 2012. International Assistance — QatarThe Middle Eastern country of Qatar is the world’s leading exporter of liquified natural gas, as well as an exporter of oil. In the past decade, the country has undertaken massive development of their infrastructure, commercial and government high rise buildings, and new land development projects. This growth was further accelerated when the country became the successful bidder to host the 2022 International Federation of Football Association (FIFA) World Cup. The transportation infrastructure improvement program that will link the various events during the World Cup will be a critical component of the success of the World Cup and will also fulfill Qatar’s long term vision of becoming an international financial center. 

The Qatar Public Works Authority (Ashghal), requeAs a first step toward a forging a relationship, the US invited a team of FHWA experts to visit Qatar in Apemployees representing a wide range of expertise pavisit to Qatar to gain an understanding of the organienvironment. The Review Team focused on the follotransportation operations: transportation planning, safety, contract management and Quality Control/Qprojects, and operations and ITS. The Team conducvarious governmental Ministry officials, the Qatar Odevelopment corporations, Architect/Engineering (Athe delivery of projects, and construction contractorhighway construction project sites, public transportacommand center that monitors traffic congestion anAs a result of the review, the Team determined that Apositioned to take on the challenges of the rapid groinfrastructure. They have hired international A/E fira multi-billion dollar highway program and to providof consultants and construction contractors. The Teimprovement, primarily in coordinating the multi-mprograms (highways, bus and taxi services, future ligrail, and a future high-speed subway system) that are agencies. The Team also identified possible areas of Qatar and FHWA such as: assisting with Qatar’s tranprocess, developing engineering standards that are uconsulting firms, providing quality assurance reviewPlans, Specifications & Estimates packages and conssharing technology, training and development.
36 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

From a FLH perspective, the FLH organization can support many partnership opportunities in the field of project delivery from preliminary engineering to construction management. FLH’s expertise in project management and materials quality acceptance are two examples of how FLH can contribute to a future partnership with Qatar.International Assistance — TanzaniaAt the request of Secretary Clinton, the U.S. State Department convened a 6-person delegation to travel to Tanzania to better understand the need, scope, impacts and alternatives for a proposed road through the Serengeti National Park. The Team included, representatives from FHWA, NPS, USFWS, U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department. Team members participated in meetings in the German and U.S. embassies including a meeting with the Deputy U.S. Ambassador. They also met with agencies of the Tanzanian government including Tanzania National Parks (similar to the NPS) and the National Environmental Management Council (similar to EPA), as well as World Bank, the superintendant of Serengeti National Park and non-governmental organizations such as the Africa Wildlife Federation and the Frankfurt Zoological Society.The Team drove extensively within Serengeti National Park examining the area along the proposed road alignment. The diversity and volume of wildlife in the park is amazing.

Travel also extended south of the park to providunderstanding on opportunities associated with of the park. Formal reports on team findings wilClinton, and the U.S. Embassy with future distriThe Coordinated Technology Implementation ProgThe Coordinated Technology Implementation Pfor evaluating, deploying, and promoting new anadvances. This program is carried out in three wand assistance. The program is in cooperation wa forum for identifying, studying, documenting to the transportation community and is funded the Indian Reservation Roads, Forest Highways, In FY 2011, this funding was allocated through a which resulted in a more focused approach for mFLH technology program. Focus this year was oCrossings, Climate Change, and Native Plant UsCTIP co-sponsored the International Wildlife CrCompetition. The FHWA FLH’s funds were leverARC Competition Partners of NPS, Forest ServicTransportation, American Association of State HOfficials, Montana State University’s Western TraWoodcock Foundation, and Edmonton CommunThe competition creatively took on this challengethe safety and mobility of both motorists and wildcoexist through innovative engineering and archiwith FHWA Wildlife Vehicle Collision Reduction Safety Research and Development, the Office of PEnvironmental Review, and the Office of Federal Competitors were asked to propose design conceWest Vail Pass on I-70 in Colorado, about 90 mileeast-west Interstate in Colorado, I-70 is a critical the same time, it is a barrier, even called the Berliwildlife in the Rocky Mountain region. Designers challenges unique to the West Vail Pass area, inclweather, high elevation and steep grades, a six-lanhigh traffic volumes, as well as multiple species oThe goal was to identify more innovative, less expstructures that would better protect both wildlife overall safety of the roadway. In attracting broad the competition, the plan was also to generate enfield to envision the solutions these crossings offeThe competition garnered 36 submissions from 9 very useful and flexible design solutions. The su

Our Expertise 
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Our Expertise suggestions on ensuring efficiency in construction with limited interruption of traffic while also allowing for adaptation to changing landscape/habitat conditions. Some examples included suggested use of:

t Pre-fabricated, pre-vegetated habitat modules that respond to local conditions. These modules can be added or removed as needed and can be switched out if local habitat conditions changet Layered construction using stacked convex and concave “arcs”, or steel lattice with modular landscape inserts.t Real-time monitoring of wildlife movement for both scientific and public educational purposes through various design features, for example, placement of cameras on the bridge that will download to smart phone apps, websites, information kiosks, and school classrooms.t Viewing platforms from highway pullouts or a “periscope” for discreet observation internal to the bridge structure.t Monitoring strategies designed to permit adaptive management of vegetation and habitat – and in several cases, the structure itself, designed to be replicated elsewhere, specific to different contexts.t A variety of span sizes and widths to accommodate different habitat configurations t Diversity of building materials including glued laminated timber, steel, ductile concrete (which is more compressive and resistant), glass reinforced plastic and wood core fiberglass, as well as innovative use of everyday materials such as pre-cast concrete. t Consideration of a reduced animal load which results in lighter materials, increased cost effectiveness and improved safetyt Inverted arc shape which conveys the feeling of a valley for animals and results in more light for drivers and the roadway.t Pillar-free structures which improve highway safety

Each of the competition finalists produced scale models of their proposed designs, which were recently displayed at the 2011 Transportation Research Board meeting, the Western Governors’ Association Wildlife Council, the Rayburn House Office Building, and the Vail Film Festival. Descriptions and photographs of each of the finalists’ designs can be found at: http://www.arccompetition.com/.

The CTIP program produced the following publicatio

t Verification of Grouting Using 3D Seismic Tet 3D Induced Polarization and Seismic Imagint Advanced InSAR Technology (SqueeSARTM) F Movement of Landslidest Road Dust Management and Future Needs 2t Wildlife Crossing Structures Handbook Desi North Americat Rock Slope Design Guidelines for Context Set Guidelines for Temporary Traffic Controlt Assessing the Impacts of Climate Variability  Infrastructuret Best Management Practices for Road Design t Current and Innovative Solutions to Roadsid Using Native Plantst Successful Roadside Revegetation Using Natit Fabric Interlayer Application Pocket Guide

These products are available through FLH and FHW
38 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Learning and DevelopmentFLH has continued its learning and development commitment by attracting new, highly qualified entry-level, employees through the Student Temporary Employment Program/Student Career Employment Program (SCEP/STEP) programs, Summer Transportation Intern Program for Diverse Groups (STIPDG), and FHWA’s Professional Development Programs (PDP). Because of well developed recruitment programs in all the offices, we have attracted highly qualified entry level employees in both the professional and technical fields. Our SCEP/STEP programs had 32 employees and our STIPDG program had 1 employee. We sponsored 7 Pilot PDPs, 2 Decentralized PDPs, and 20 PDP participants on assignments, and 7 Development Program participants.We also provided developmental opportunities for our existing workforce. Eleven FLH employees had details to Federal Aid. Sixteen employees had details in division developmental assignments, 8 in leadership positions, 1 Eastern Rotational assignment, other in-house assignments and support to efforts in Afghanistan. We also provided 3 assignments to other FHWA employees from Federal Aid and Turner Fairbanks and 1 assignment for a President Management Fellow from Federal Transit Administration.We continue to promote leadership training to managers. Five GS-13 employees attended competitive leadership development programs to include: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) National Transportation Management Conference, and the Building a Foundation for Visionary Leadership. Three GS-14/15 managers attended leadership development programs to include, the AASHTO National Transportation Leadership Institute; and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Executive Development Series — Leading Organizations.It was a successful year for training, from the standpoint of FLH providing technical training to FHWA as well as from the standpoint of having FLH employees gain Federal Aid experience. All of these programs continue to support our efforts of attracting and retaining a highly qualified workforce dedicated to accomplishing our mission.FHWA Leadership Development AcademyThe FHWA Leadership Development Academy (LDA) provides an opportunity for FHWA employees to improve their leadership skills. The LDA is designed to elevate competency in working effectively with others to achieve intended results. The primary focus of the Academy is Emotional Intelligence — self-awareness, self-management, and building relationships. The LDA is open to all grade levels and lasts for 6 months. Classes conducted within the Federal Lands Divisions are open to all FHWA employees within their vicinity. Two programs were held in 2011, graduating a total of 47 FHWA employees. The class held by EFL accomodated 23 participants which included: 2 from the 

Virginia Division Office, 2 from the Delaware/Mfrom Headquarters, Office of Policy Informationwere from EFL. Participants were coached by 2 E1 from the Virginia Division Office, 1 Turner FairHeadquarters. The graduation was hosted by the Melisa Ridenour on April 5, 2011 with FHWA Exin attendance as the featured speaker. The class held by WFL accomodated 24 participthe Washington Division Office, 2 from the Orethe Idaho Division Office, 2 from the Montana DCalifornia Division Office, and 2 from the Alaskwere coached by 3 WFL employees/managers anDivision Office. A panel discussion titled “LeadePersonal Development” was held on graduation the Division Administrators from the Alaska and the Assistant Division Administrator from the Wgraduation was hosted by the WFL Engineer, Clwith FLH Associate Administrator, John Baxter featured speaker.HiringFLH exceeded our goal for the number of new hof nine individuals were hired through the Wounthe Vet2Fed Program; Disabled Veterans; and taSchedule A and targeted disability candidates wopen positions.

Developing Our Workforce
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Awards & Recognition

Partner RecognitionNational Park Service Arrowhead Award Award Criteria: In recognition of PartnershipRecipient: Park Road Program Teams, WFLFairfax County, Virginia Team Excellence AwardAward Criteria: In recognition of the outstanding efforts of groups of employees, often from different agencies, with interdisciplinary membership coming together to accomplish a specific goal.Recipients: Base Realignment & Closure (BRAC) Team, EFL members — Robert Morris, Kurt Dowden & Tim BrownNational Geospatial Intelligence Agency Star Partner AwardAward Criteria: Exhibiting corporate behavior, setting positive examples, and dedication to the shared goals of a project team.Recipients: Fairfax County Parkway Project Team, EFL — Robert Morris, Kurt Dowden & Tim BrownProject AwardsAmerican Public Works Association (APWA),Public Works Project of the YearAmerican Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC),Grand Conceptor Award American Segmental Bridge Institute,Award of Excellence, 2011Structural Engineers Association of Arizona (SEAoA),Excellence in Structural EngineeringAmerican Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC),National Grand Award International Bridge Conference (IBC), Eugene C. Figg MedalAmerican Road & Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA)Globe AwardAmerican Council of Engineering Companies of Nevada (ACEC-NV), Grand AwardFinalist - ASCE 2012, Outstanding Civil Engineering Award (To be announced 3/2012)

Transportation Development Foundation, Globe AwardThe Society for Protective Coatings, E. Crone Knoy AwardAward Criteria: VariedRecipient: Hoover Dam Bypass Project, CFLDOT AwardDOT Sustainability AwardsAward Criteria: This award commemorates the Department’s commitment to sustainability principles. In keeping with the spirit of this award, non-local award recipients will be recognized via video conferencing technology to minimize the use of energy and any emissions intensive travel to the award ceremony.Recipients: Green Team, WFL — Dan Donovan, George Snyder, Wendy Hull, Telina Thompson, Brian HarrisonFHWA AwardsSecretary’s Operation New Dawn Service Award — RibbonAward Criteria: This award recognizes U.S. Military Reservists and civilian employees within who have served and continue to serve our nation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East.Recipient: Matthew Joerin, WFL

Administrator’s Award for Superior Achievement Award Criteria: This is the highest honor award given by the Administration’s Administrator and nominations reflected sigadvancing FHWA’s Strategic Goals.Recipients: Merry McKay, WFL; Brent Coe, WFL; Mr. Allen GScott, CFL; Mitchell A. King, EFL; James F. Larscheid, EFLFHWA Administrator’s Leadership AwardAward Criteria: This award honors individuals at all levels whextraordinary leadership in advancing FHWA’s goals and missRecipient: Walt Stong, WFLAdministrator’s Award — Excellence in TeamworkAward Criteria: This award recognizes teams that have achieand beyond normal expectations.Recipients: Futures Team, CFL — Ed Hammontree, Curtis ScoLongley, Bryant Gonsalves, Rick Simansons, Bob Bowden, ScotFHWA Administrator’s Organizational Excellence AwardAward Criteria: This award is the highest honor for FHWA oorganizations that can be viewed as models because of the resRecipients: CFL Project and Resource Controls Team — Mike Demarco, Bryant Gonsalves, Scott Hogan, Chris Longley, and MFHWA’s Engineering Excellence Award Award Criteria: This award was established to recognize the FHWA engineers make to the safe and efficient movement of country. Nominees are judged on the significance of their engeducation, professional honors, and community contributionRecipient: Dave Zanetell, Program Manager, CFL FHWA’s Northern Human Resources Committee (NHRC) AAward Criteria: This award recognizes employees of FHWA outstanding leadership as part of implementing the requiremNominee: Patricia Mark, Financial Integrity Review & EvaluaManager, EFLFLH AwardThe 2011 Carol H. Jacoby Honorary AwardAward Criteria: The Carol H. Jacoby Honorary Award is FLHwhich annually recognizes employees who most exemplify thdemonstrated by Mrs. Carol H. Jacoby throughout her career Recipient: Kevin Black, Highway Construction Manager, CFLNominees for this award: Robert Sparrow, HQ; Thomas A. JohPakhchanian, EFL; Peter C. Field, WFL; Adam L. Ahola, WFLOther or Outside AwardMeritalk — An online community network of government Ias a partnership among the Federal Business Council, FedeServices, Federal Managers Association, GovLoop, USO, anAward Criteria: This is a merit award measuring entries basepotential savings, and ease of implementation. A panel of judgsectors, the academic community, Members of Congress, corchoose five finalists from more than 1,000 worldwide entries. was for ideas to use Information Technology to improve the qconcept was to create a centralized national database to cataloinstance, unused automobiles, construction equipment, and oRecipient: Aung Gye, Transportation Planning Team Leader, F
40 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Our Key Business Metrics 

Goal/Objective Performance Measures Accomplishments

Key: NL — National Leadership SP — System Performance PD — Program Delivery CC — Corporate Capacity

PD-1: Leverage Funding

45% of annual awards comprised of non-FLHP fund

FLH — 59.8% 

PD-2: Context SensitiveSolutions (CSS)

4.6 Self Assessment Score

FLH has been and continues to be a leader in the implementation of CSS. To measure cin this area, FLH conducts an annual self assessment utilizing the FHWA CSS ImplemeDivision assigns ratings to 5 categories of implementation (policies, training, integrationand interdisciplinary teams) and computes an average score. Scores from each Division establish an annual FLH score. Major accomplishments that contributed to the “exemplfollowing: Two CSS-related publications were produced through the FLH Technology D(Wildlife Crossing Structure Handbook - Design and Evaluation in North America; and Design Solutions). Both are located on the CFL TD web page; Seven FLH projects were and FHWA sustainability rating systems. These case studies will be included in another Best Practices for the Office of Federal Lands Highway) recently approved for release; WCSS web page. The recent FHWA directive on social media provided the framework to page and post videos from case studies to a beta version of the web page; Development Plans (LRTPs) for the FH program in each state continues. These plans not only reflect Cinvolvement of new stakeholders; We continue development of regional LRTPs for Park Highway programs.

PD-3: Technology Deployment

90% of technologies displayed

The calculated score for 2011 is 100%; A training curriculum to improve NPDES complitraining will be completed in early FY 2012; Training targets are Construction, HydraulDesign. Training will include storm water pollution and will consist of 40-80 hours in a webinar, video conference and also on site. (a) Percent of Technology Deployed as part of TD Roadmap: 100% (10/10) (b) Funds Obligated: 100% (c) Percentage increase in technologies deployed per year: 100% (10/9) (d) Deploy a number of technologies multiple times across multiple FLMA’s: 100% (5/5(e) Publish/present deployment results for distribution in transportation community: 1

PD-4: Road Measure

1600 miles (includes IRR) by End of FY 11 Total = 3655 lane miles improved (Represents Awarded Projects) 

PD-5: Bridge Measure

50 improved (includes IRR) by End of FY 11 Total = 91 (Represents Awarded Projects) 

PD-6: Long Range Transportation Planning

50% of LRP with transportation components implemented regionally or by tri-agency, as appropriate for FLHP

FLH exceeded the goal with a score of 51%!
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Goal/Objective Performance Measures Accomplishments

PD-7: Partner Satisfaction

85% ≥ or based on results of 3 surveys

Based on results of 3 surveys; Construction Completed Project Survey: 88% with 61 respondProject Development Survey: 90%, with 79 respondents; Planning and Programming Partner Survey: 80%, with 102 respondents We exceeded our goal with a Customer Satisfaction Composite Score of 86.2% !

PD-8: Obligations

95% or ≥ FLHP obligated by End of FY 11

IRR: 96%; Park Road: 99%Refuge Road: 99%Forest Highway: 73%Overall: 90.4% (approximate)This shortfall is attributed to the late appropriation (March 18) and the inability to borrow/lostates and the Economic Recovery program required us to deplete most of our shelf projectsfrom our flexibility over the last 2 years to match program amounts to needs in each state. 

PD-9: Funds on the Ground

75% or ≥ of dollars obligated on road improvements minus program delivery obligations by End of FY 11

The 4th Quarter total was 72%; Using FLHP funds for Construction Engineering (CE) on remprojects may have brought this number down. (FY 2010 was 71%, FY 2009 was 73%, FY 2008 number is very close to the previous few fiscal years, which had been between 71% and 74%. was expected to remain under our target, due to our using FLHP funds for CE on ongoing Rhad made the commitment to use FLHP funds to finish these projects and assumed it would ground” number down a little.

PD-10: Environmental Streamlining

90% of Environmental Documents completed on schedule (36 month EIS/12 month EA)

92 of 97 actions were completed for 95% on CE’s. Median duration for FONSI was 18 monthprojects approved for final design by the Federal Lands Divisions were categorically excluded to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)EAs and there were no EISs completed. Four of the five EAs were delivered as originally scheThe median duration for completing the 5 EAs is 18 months. This median duration fails to mmonths. In fact, all 5 projects required more time than the FHWA median target of 12 montEA’s and one legacy project covering 5 to 6 years made target unobtainable.

PD-11: Environmental Collaboration

85% or ≥ results of surveys distributed to resource, regulatory and partner agencies

FLH accomplished the goal with a score of 85.2%! The target of 85% or greater was achieved Forty Environmental Collaboration Surveys were completed for 34 FLH projects.

CC-12: Employee Satisfaction

70% or ≥ employees satisfied with jobs by end of HRMC Cycle

Overall FLH Score = 70%

Our Key Business Metrics 
42 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Looking Ahead 

As can be seen from this year’s project profiles, discipline reports and program accomplishments, FLH always manages to step up to the task at hand through our passion, quality and leadership. As proven through the Recovery Act, FLH continues to demonstrate flexibility, innovation, and resourcefulness to achieve results. Delivering a larger Federal Lands program at current staffing levels is both sensible and achievable.National LeadershipFLH has worked hard at addressing emerging climate change, sustainability and livability issues as part of transportation planning, program development and project/program delivery this year. We have succeeded in planning for the future by conducting in depth analysis in the form of two “Futures” papers examining the Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program and Federal Lands Organizational Structure. In consideration of the growing number of tribes negotiating directly with FHWA, we have examined the possible ramifications of FHWA managing various levels of the IRR program in lieu of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Federal Lands Organizational Structure paper establishes a scenario forum to determine the impact from various changes with many options already analyzed. All this information will drive the development of our next 5-year Business Plan.We have focused on advancing our policies to build a surface transportation authorization proposal. As stated before, reauthorization holds an uncertain future and many challenges and opportunities for FLH will arise. While we have provided technical assistance on proposed legislation, it remains to be seen as to what bill will be crafted by Congress and when it will pass. The proposed legislation provides both opportunity and challenge with new partners, new programs and uncertainty as to who will deliver these projects. FLH will work hard to forge and refine these new relationships, to develop in partnership performance-based measurements, and to grow our level of productivity.System PerformanceWe are committed to continuing our efforts to coordinate with Federal owners of public bridges to assess their inspection efforts and the quality and accuracy of data provided to us for the National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS) database. This ongoing effort will help Federal agencies identify bridge repair, rehabilitation and construction needs and ultimately provide the public with safer and more reliable Federal bridges. Now that the initial pilot program review for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers bridges will be completed, the lessons learned from this review will be implemented into the next Federal agency reviews. Program reviews of the remaining agencies will begin in FY 2012.It has taken several years to initiate long-range transportation planning with many of our partners. In the last few years, dramatic headway has been achieved and long-range transportation planning for various state and 

Federal Lands are in place. Continuing efforts ncurrent successes and become more prevalent oestablished through these regional plans will conperformance management programs.Program DeliveryAs our Deputy Administrator pointed out about initiative: “It’s your hard work and dedication thsuccess. We were impressed and gratified when acknowledged EDC as an effective strategy to acEfforts to support the FHWA EDC initiatives in were of tremendous value. Federal Lands will cotechnology and innovation. This includes additifaster construction techniques to further expand in project delivery.Successful implementation and close-out of Reccomplete and FLH will be ready for the next chawill present us. We expect these opportunities wpartners as well as new ones — federal, state and that there will continue to be strong transportatoperations. We have made many strides in the dboth in providing necessary oversight and in fortribes; this will only bring us more success in the To meet the Office of Management and Budget’Scorecard, all Federal Agencies are now requirecontract actions, task orders and delivery orders energy efficient (Energy Star or FEMP designateenvironmental preferable EPEAT certified, non-recycled content, or non-toxic or less toxic alterand services meet agency performance requiremcurrent contracting actions to determine the cuwithin our contracts. While FLH includes optiomaterials within its contracts now, this may be tlevel of sustainability by requiring a minimum uand materials within the contracts. This may haconstruction contract bid prices!Corporate CapacityFLH is expected to experience a significant numnext 10 years as the Baby Boomer generation swcareer. These retirements may be accelerated or Congress and OPM adjust the Federal retiremenFLH must continue robust training and recruitm
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

At present FLH has been maintaining its workforce primarily through the Student Career and Student Temporary Employment Programs (SCEP and STEP), as well as through the Professional Development Program (PDP). In FY 2012, an evaluation will be completed of the FLH PDP Pilot Program. The Office of Human Resources and FLH developed the FLH Pilot Program in 2009 which provides for FLH participation and assistance in providing design, construction and specialized training for engineer participants. The Program 

Looking Ahead 

We look forward to the coming months as we gear up for new challenges and make headway on the many initiatives that have been ideFHWA and the Office of the President. Leadership would like to thank all the employees within the Office of Federal Lands Highway fodedication to our mission as we strive for continued success throughout this fiscal year.

review will evaluate the programs efficiency and recocurrent program’s implementation.We will also focus on making sure our supervisors anequipped to take on their important duties of mentopeople to carry-out the important work for which wincludes a special focus on both first-time and front-leaders through training, peer-exchanges, coaching a

Saddle Road, Hawaii — with a view of Mauna Loa in the background
44 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Appendix A Funding Tables

FLH Program Allocations and Obligations

FLH Programs

Authorization/

Allocation Made 

Available

Program Changes

Transportation

Planning 

Set-Aside

Prior Year Funds Total Funds Available 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) $447,750,000 $(33,133,500) $49,898,462 $464,514,962 

 New Indian Reservation Roads Bridge Program (IRRBP) $14,000,000 $(1,036,000) $112,539 $13,076,539 Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) $240,000,000 $(18,871,200) $2,394,005 $223,522,805 Public Lands Highway (PLH): Forest Highway (FH) $198,000,000 $(15,568,740) $(6,000,000) $61,009,374 $237,440,634  Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLH-D) $102,000,000 $(8,020,260) $(3,350,000) $127,247,298 $217,877,038  Public Lands Highway Transportation Planning (PLH-TP) $0 $0 $9,350,000 $1,389,422 $10,739,422 Refuge Roads Program (RRP) $29,000,000 $(2,280,270) $0 $5,960,253 $32,679,983 

TOTAL FLHP $1,030,750,000 $(78,909,970) $0 $248,011,354 $1,199,851,384 
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) Program

IRR Program IRR Program Obligations Balance IRRBP Program 

Authorized Amount $447,750,000 $14,000,000 FLHP Changes: * $(33,133,500) $(1,036,000)Prior Year Funds Made Available: ** $49,898,462 $112,539 Total Available for Use: $464,514,962 $13,076,539 Distribution of FundsAmount Distributed to Federal Lands Divisions: EFL $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0  CFL $129,100 $129,100 $0 $0  WFL $1,485,367 $1,485,367 $0 $165,000 Amount Distributed to FHWA Tribes: $107,148,000 $107,148,000 $0 $5,598,220 Amount Distributed to BIA: $348,879,626 $331,825,399 $17,054,227 $7,180,567 Amount Distributed to FLH: $4,452,613 $4,452,613 $0 $0 Unallocated: $2,370,256 $2,370,256 $132,752 TOTAL $464,514,962 $445,090,479 $19,424,483 $13,076,539 

*IRR and IRRBP reductions reflect a lop-off of 7.4% per SAFETEA-LU Section 1102(f).**Prior Year Funds Made Available include prior year carryover and August redistribution

Appendix A Funding Tables

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) Program

PRP Program PRP Program Obligations Ba

Authorized Amount $240,000,000 FLHP Changes: * $(18,871,200)Prior Year Funds Made Available: ** $2,394,005 Subtotal Available for Use: $223,522,805 Distribution of FundsAmount Distributed to Federal Lands Divisions:EFL $73,694,810 $73,615,219 CFL $61,356,515 $61,256,031 WFL $34,956,773 $34,134,509 FHWA Office of Environment and Planning: $0 $0 Amount Distributed to NPS: $52,175,253 $52,175,253 Amount Distributed for August Redistribution: $0 Unallocated: $1,339,454 $0 TOTAL $223,522,805 $221,181,012 

*PRP reductions reflect a lop-off of 6.4% per SAFETEA-LU Section 1102(f)**Prior Year Funds Made Available include prior year carryover and August redistribution
46 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Public Lands Highway (PLH) Program

PLH Program PLHD Obligations Balance FH Obligations Balance Plannin

Authorized Amount * $102,000,000 $198,000,000 FLHP Changes: ** $(8,020,260) $(15,568,740) Transportation Planning Set-aside *** $(3,350,000) $(6,000,000) $9,350Prior Year Funds Made Available: **** $127,247,298 $61,009,374 $1,389Total Funds Available for Use: $217,877,038 $237,440,634 $10,739Distribution of FundsAmount Distributed to Federal Lands Divisions: EFL $7,011,977 $6,643,805 $368,172 $31,071,296 $25,808,258 $5,263,038 $100 CFL $5,610,000 $5,349,757 $260,243 $64,819,590 $61,741,640 $3,077,951 $110 WFL $2,566,223 $2,356,845 $209,378 $77,328,225 $70,674,280 $6,653,944 $150Amount Distributed to Forest Service: $373,393 $373,393 $0 $14,685,127 $14,685,127 $0 $2,197Amount Distributed to BIA: $18,465,827 $18,465,827 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount Distributed to NPS: $2,516,735 $2,516,735 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount Distributed to USFWS: $940,100 $940,100 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount Distributed to USACE: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,933Amount Distributed to BOR: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $454Amount Distributed to BLM: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,889Amount Distributed to Air Force: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500Amount Distributed to Army: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,250Amount Distributed to Navy: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $565Amount Distributed to States: $48,450,736 $51,109,566 $(2,658,830) $0 $0 $0 $30Amount Distributedfor August Redistribution: $121,780,355 $121,780,355 $40,000,000 $40,000,000 Unallocated $10,161,691 $0 $10,161,691 $9,536,396 $0 $9,536,396 $1,558TOTAL $217,877,038 $87,756,029 $130,121,009 $237,440,634 $172,909,305 $64,531,329 $10,739

*PLH authorized amount reflects .50% reduction for Lake Tahoe MPO Set-aside per 23 USC 134(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II). **PLH reductions reflect a lop-off of 6.4% per SAFETEA-LU Section 1102(f)***Transportation Planning funds are made available from PLHD and FH Programs. Planning column shows distribution information on these set-aside funds

**** Prior Year Funds Made Available include prior year carryover and August redistribution.

Appendix A Funding Tables
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Appendix A Funding Tables

Refuge Roads (RRP) Program

RRP Program Obligations 

Authorized Amount* $29,000,000 FLHP Changes: ** $(2,280,270)Prior Year Funds Made Available: *** $5,960,253 Subtotal Available for Use: $32,679,983 Distribution of FundsAmount Distributed to Federal Lands Divisions: EFL $6,290,774 $6,250,062  CFL $10,729,009 $10,581,155  WFL $679,068 $661,971 Amount Distributed to USFWS: $13,323,754 $13,323,754 Amount Distributed to States: $1,650,000 $1,650,000 Amount Distributed for August Redistribution: $0 Unallocated: $7,378 $0 TOTAL $32,679,983 $32,466,941 

*RRP authorized amount reflects a .50% reduction for Lake Tahoe MPO Set-aside per 23 USC 134(f)(3)(C)(ii)(II)**RRP reductions reflect a lop-off of 6.4% per SAFETEA-LU Section 1102(f).***Prior Year Funds Made Available include prior year carryover and August redistribution.

Non Title 23 Funds

Non Title 23 Funds Defense Access Roads Air Force Operations & Maintenance 

Authorization/Allocation/Made Available $187,294,715 24,754,000 Program Reductions $0 $0 Prior Year Funds $0 $278,102 Total Available for Use: $187,294,715 $25,032,102 TOTAL OBLIGATIONS $72,573,672 $24,212,025 
48 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Other Title 23 Funds

OTHER 

 TITLE 23 

FUNDS

CMAQ Equity Bonus 

Program

ERFO High Priority 

Projects 

Program

High Priority 

Projects Program 

SAFETEA-LU

Highway 

Safety 

Improvement 

Program

Lake Tahoe 

Metro 

Transportation 

Planning

National 

Highway 

System

National 

Highway System, 

Territories

Proj

Re

and 

Sign

Amount Made Available*

 $9,400,000 $8,633,942 $21,000,000 $0 $12,223,410 $240,000 $4,717,970 $267,457 $21,477,527 

Prior Year Funds Made Available: **

 $0 $829 $101,124,248 $4,361,528 $23,000,887 $0 $9,654 $0 $794,347 $5

Subtotal Available for Use:

 $9,400,000 $8,634,771 $122,124,248 $4,361,528 $35,224,297 $240,000 $4,727,624 $267,457 $22,271,874 $5

Distribution of Funds ***Amount Distributed throughout Federal Lands: EFL $9,400,000 $1,441,817 $18,369,595 $0 $11,302,139 $0 $0 $267,457 $20,080,000 $5 CFL $0 $0 $8,538,482 $0 $19,556,769 $0 $4,627,624 $0 $0  WFL $0 $7,192,125 $9,871,627 $0 $4,365,340 $0 $0 $0 $0 Amount Distributed  to NPS:

 $0 $0 $1,525,359 $175,020 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to Forest Service:

 $0 $0 $18,151,172 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to BIA:

 $0 $0 $36,557,031 $4,093,772 $0 $240,000 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to USFWS:

 $0 $0 $10,830,188 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to USACE:

 $0 $0 $1,603,754 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Unallocated $0 $829 $16,677,041 $92,736 $50 $0 $100,000 $0 $2,191,874 

TOTAL $9,400,000 $8,634,771 $122,124,248 $4,361,528 $35,224,297 $240,000 $4,727,624 $267,457 $22,271,874 $5

Obligations $(9,400,000) $9,240,399 $(89,881,575) $(4,206,380) $(20,897,881) $(240,000) $(4,593,648) $(261,466) $(17,702,749) $9

Obligations: Negative indicates net obligation activity for FY, Positive indicates net de-obligation activity for FY* Includes all program reductions** Includes restatement of prior year funds to our partners*** These figures do not reflect allocations made by other offices within FHWA

Appendix A Funding Tables
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Appendix A Funding Tables

Other Title 23 Funds continued

OTHER

TITLE 23 

FUNDS

Section 115, 

PL 108-199

Section 117, 

PL 108-447

Section 129, 

PL 110-161

Section 162, 

JFK Center 

Road and 

Plaza

Section 1940, 

Going To The 

Sun Road

Section 330 

(or 344), 

SURF TRAN 

PRJ SEC 344 

108-7

Section 330 

(or 344), SURF 

TRAN PROJ 

GP 108-7

Section 378, 

Miscellaneous 

Projects

Surface 

Transportation 

Program

Surface 

Transportation 

Research

D

Gr

Amount Made Available*

 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $38,537,508 $510,000 $2

Prior Year Funds Made Available: **

$3,364,035 $2,843,725 $479,341 $4,859,871 $1,704,208 $230,326 $1,525,556 $1,523,912 $0 $538,186 

Subtotal Available for Use:

$3,364,035 $2,843,725 $479,341 $4,859,871 $1,704,208 $230,326 $1,525,556 $1,523,912 $38,537,508 $1,048,186 $2

Distribution of Funds ***Amount Distributed throughout Federal Lands: EFL $0 $0 $0 $4,859,871 $0 $0 $0 $302,908 $10,195,900 $120,000 $2 CFL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,027,451 $0  WFL $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,421,494 $0 $0 $0 $1,314,517 $150,000 Amount Distributed to NPS:

 $0 $1,360,312 $447,741 $0 $119,242 $230,326 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to Forest Service:

 $121,195 $4,989 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to BIA:

 $29,507 $1,103,930 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to USFWS:

 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Amount Distributed to USACE:

 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Unallocated $3,213,334 $374,493 $31,600 $0 $163,472 $0 $1,525,556 $1,221,004 $(360) $778,186 

TOTAL $3,364,035 $2,843,725 $479,341 $4,859,871 $1,704,208 $230,326 $1,525,556 $1,523,912 $38,537,508 $1,048,186 $2

Obligations $(150,701) $(2,415,598) $(447,741) $(3,873) $(1,510,701) $(152,898) $(1,146,175) $189,984 $(38,536,869) $(964,465) $(20

* Includes all program reductions** Includes restatement of prior year funds to our partners*** These figures do not reflect allocations made by other offices within FHWA
50 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) — project information provided in narrative pg. 10-11Park Roads and Parkways (PRP)

Alaska Denali National Park AK PRA DENA 10(28) Replace Culverts on 15 miles of 

paved park road

Culvert replacement

Arkansas Multiple - BUFF, ARPO, CHSC, 

FOSM, HOSP and PERI

MWR_PMS(AR) Buffalo National River, Arkansas 

Post National Memorial, Little Rock Central HS and Fort Smith Historic Sites, Hot Springs National Park, and Pea Ridge National Military Park.

MWS Pavement Preserv— Arkansas

California Pacific West Region CA NPS/PRA CABR 

PRES 1(10)

Cabrillo & Santa Monica National Park Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration anrehabilitation 

California Sequoia National Park CA PRA SEKI 10(9A) Halstead Meadows Bridge Bridge ReconstructionCalifornia Yosemite National Park CA PRA YOSE 16(6) El Portal Road Rockslide Repair and stablize rock California Sequoia National Park CA PRA SEKI 13(1) Disney Bridge Bridge Reconstruction District of Columbia

National Mall and Memorial Parks

NAMA_10(2) Constitution Avenue Rehabilitation of Constit

from 15th Street to 23rd 

Florida Canaveral National Seashore CANA_10(1) Playalinda Beach Road and parking 

areas

Leveling and Overlay 

Georgia Chickamauga and Chattanooga 

National Military Park

CHCH_13(2) Alexander’s and Slough Bridges Rehab. 2 bridges on Alex

Road. 

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HI PRA HAVO 10(1) Crater Rim Drive Reconstruction, rehabili

pulverizing, asphalt paveoverlay, subexcavation, dimprovements; plus rest& rehabilitation on pavepreservation

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HI PLH HAV0 10(3) Mauna Loa Access RoadHawaii Haleakala National Park HI NPS HALE 1(11) Haleakala National Park Pavement 

Preservation

Hawaii All Parks in Hawaii HI PRA/NPS PWR 

1(11) 

All Parks in HI Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration anrehabilitation

Hawaii Volcanoes National Park HI PRA/NPS HAVO 

1(11) 

Hawaii Volcanoes Pvmt Pres Pavement restoration an

rehabilitation 

Indiana Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore

INDU_215(2) County Line Road Bridge Replace Deck 

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Indiana Indiana Dunes National 

Lakeshore

INDU_211(1) East State Park Road and Beverly 

Drive

Rehab. East Park State Road, Beverly Drive (1.2 miles), Mt. Intersection

Kentucky Mammoth Cave National Park MACA_20(1) Rehabilitation of the Main 

Entrance Road

Rehabilitation of the Main EnRoad 

Mississippi Natchez Trace Parkway NATR_3H23_J10 MP 181 to MP 204 Ramp to MS 

Highway 9, Jeff Busby Park Area

NATR Parkway rehabilitation181 - 204 

Mississippi Natchez Trace NATR_3W12 Coles Creek Bridge Coles Creek Bridge Painting Mississippi Natchez Trace NATR_3A15 Bear Creek Bridge Bear Creek Bridge Painting Montana MT Glacier National Park MT PRA/NPS GLAC 

PRES 1(11)

MT Glacier NP Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration and rehabilitation

Montana Glacier National Park MT PRA GLAC 

PW(2)

Park Wide Traffic and Quality Control

Parkwide Traffic and Quality for ongoing projects.

Montana Glacier National Park MT PRA GLAC 10(22) GTSR Rehab - Phase VII 

Avalanche to West Tunnel

Grading, Pavement, Base, Draand Structures

Nevada Lake Mead Recreational Area NV PRA LAKE 1(5C) Las Vegas Wash Bridge Repairs Bridge repair Nevada/South Dakota

Midwest NE/SD PRA/NPS 

MWR-PRES 1(11)

Midwest Region Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration and rehabilitation

New Mexico Petroglyph National Monument NM PRA PETR 10(1) Rehabilitate Main Route Pavement rehabilitation, grad

drainage, asphalt surfacing, aparking lot construction

North Carolina

Blue Ridge Parkway BLRI_2M24 Blue Ridge Pkwy (MP 

344)-reconstruct/repave the access ramp to Highway 80, include an overlook on Highway 80

Blue Ridge Pkwy (MP 344)-reconstruct/repave the aramp to Highway 80, include overlook on Highway 80

North Carolina

Blue Ridge Parkway BLRI_2S17 Ferrin Knob and Big Witch Tunnels Ferrin Knob Tunnel #1 

North Carolina

Blue Ridge Parkway BLRI_2Y13 Big Witch Tunnel Big Witch Tunnel 

Utah Capitol Reef National Park UT PRA CARE 10(1) Scenic Drive Road reconstruction, pulveriz

pavement, asphalt pavement, low water crossing replacemeinprovements, drainage imprgrading & other miscellaneouimprovements

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) — continued
52 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Utah Intermountain Region UT/WY PRA/NPS 

IMR PRES 1(11) 

DINO,FOBU,GOSP,TICA Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration anrehabilitation

Virginia George Washington Memorial 

Parkway

GWMP_1A107 NB GWMP near first scenic 

overlook

Slide repair on NB GWMscenic overlook

Virginia Blue Ridge Parkway BLRI_BMS_NC(2) MP 222 to MP 469 Excavating and patching 

approaches, milling and overlay, and other misce

Washington Olympic National Park WA PRA OLYM 

103(3)

 Sol Duc Valley Road Structure excavation; gra

wall repair; tie back and aggregate base, and asph

Washington Mount Rainier National Park WA PRA MORA 13(4) Stevens Canyon Compaction Grouting, d

paving, and stone mason

Wyoming Grand Teton National Park WY PRA GRTE 13(9) North Park Road, Utilities and 

Slope Stabilization

Parkwide Traffic and Qufor ongoing projects.

Public Lands Highway (Forest Highway (FH) & Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD))

Alaska Tongass National Forest AK PFH 40-1(1) Kake to Seal Point Road Grading, base, aggregate 

drainage, and retaining w

Arizona Apache National Forest AZ PFH 49-1(1) & AZ 

ERFO 49-1(2)

Apache Trail Retaining Walls Retaining wall repairs, sl

stabilization

Arizona Tonto National Forest AZ PFH 51-1(2) Control Road Bridge Replacement Arkansas Ozark National Forest AR_FSR_1003(1) FDR 1003 Repair of storm damage

Ozark National Forest

Arkansas Osark - St. Francis National 

Forest

AR_FSR_1201B(1)ETC Gravel Pit Road and Sulphur Road Repairs to roadways dam

flooding and storms.

California Six Rivers National Forest CA PFH 148-1(1), 148-

1(2) & 149-1(3)

Trinity County Bridges Bridge replacement, gra

hot asphalt concrete pav

Colorado Pike National Forest CO PFH 81-1(3) Tarryall Creek Road Road reconstruction: gra

rockery wall, aggregate basurfacing, and bridge cons

Colorado Arapaho Nationial Forest CO PFH 80-1(3) Guanella Pass Horse Trail & Bridge Horse trail grading, draina

walls, surfacing and bridg

Georgia Chattahoochee National Forest GA_PFH_2(1) FSR 70, Tallulah River Road Bridge 

Replacement

FSR 70, Tallulah River RReplacement

Georgia Chattahoochee and Oconee NF GA_FSR_54C1 Abe Gap Road, Red Root Road Repair several damaged 

Chattahoochee and Oco

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) — continued
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Hawaii Honokohau Harbor 

Access Road

HI PLH HONO 10(1) Honokohau Harbor Access Road Road Reconstruction 

Idaho Sawtooth National Forest ID PFH 25(3) Idaho City - Stanley Highway; 

Goat Creek & Iron Creek

Culvert Replacement, Gradinand Striping

Idaho Salmon-Challis National Forest ID PFH 88-1(1) Yankee Fork Road Asphalt overlay, retaining walls

fence, bridge repair, and draina

Idaho St. Joe National Forest ID PFH 50(7) St. Joe River Road Drainage, two fish passage pi

subexcavation, milling, recycasphalt base, and paving

Montana Custer National Forest MT PFH 90-1(1) East Fork Otter Creek Road Grading, Drainage, Subexcav

Excavation, Roadway ObliterSrufacing, and Monumentati

Montana Lolo National Forest MT PFH 71-1(1) Petty Creek Road Grading, drainage, aggregate 

paving, bridge replacement

Montana Lewis and Clark 

National Forest

MT PFH 76(1) Charles M Russell Memorial Way Treated base aggregate, pavin

structures

Nevada Soldier Creek Wilderness NE PFH 7-1(4) Soldier Creek Road Road rehabilitation, grading, 

surface, and drainage improv

Oregon Siskiyou National Forest OR PFH 60(2) Powers to Agness Highway Grading, Drainage, Paving anSouth Dakota

Black Hills National Forest SD PFH 17-1(7) Hill City to Lead Road reconstruction, grading

drainage, retaining walls, aggbase, & asphalt surfacing

Utah Fishlake National Forest UT PFH 29-1(1) Beaver to Junction Road reconstruction, paving 

grading, retaining walls, and 

Virginia Wolf Trap National Park for the 

Performing Arts

VA_PLH_WOTR_267(1)

Pedestrian Bridge over Dulles Access & Toll Road

Pedestrian Bridge over Dulle& Toll Road

Washington Olympic National Forest WA PFH 5(1) Quinault South Shore Road, 

Pedestrian Enhancement

Asphalt sidewalk and asphalt areas

Wyoming Carbon Co & Med Bow 

National Forest

WY PFH 26-1(2) Sage Creek Road Road construction (4R), grad

drainage, and aggregate surfa

Refuge Roads (RRP)

Alabama Wheeler National 

Wildlife Refuge

WLR_10(2) Rockhouse Bottoms Road Embankment Protection 

California Stone Lakes National 

Wildlife Refuge

CA RRP STLA 11(1) & 904

Entrance Road & Parking Lot Grading, drainage, and pavin

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Public Lands Highway (Forest Highway (FH) & Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD)) — continued
54 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Colorado Alamosa National 

Wildlife Refuge

CO RRP ALAM 100(1) Bluff Overlook Drive Aggregate surface course

drainage

Delaware Bombay Hook National 

Wildlife Refuge

BMH_10(1) Bombay Hook National Wildlife 

Refuge Auto Tour Route

Bombay Hook National Refuge Auto Tour Route

Georgia Bond Swamp National Wildlife 

Refuge

BND_102(1)_103(1) Repair Route 102, Route 103, Route 

903 (parking entrance), and Beaver Swamp Trail

Repair Route 102, Route 903 (parking entrance), aSwamp Trail

Louisiana Sabine National Wildlife Refuge SBN_169(1)_171(1) Vastar and Northline Bridges and 

Parking Area

Replacement of Vastar RBridge,Northline Bridge Northline PA - LA2008-

Maryland Patuxent Research National 

Wildlife Refuge

PRR_14(2)_16(2) Rehab of Bald Eagle Drive, Visitor 

Center Entrance Road and Wildlife Loop

Rehab of Bald Eagle DrivCenter Entrance Road anLoop

New York Iroquois National 

Wildlife Refuge

IRO_10(1) Feeder Road and Parking Areas Rehab. Feeder Road and 

areas

North Dakota

Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge

ND RRP DESL 11(2) Lower Lake Road Grading, drainage and ag

surfacing

Oklahoma Wichita Mtn National

Wildlife Refuge

OK RRP WIMO 10(2) Entrance Road Grading, drainage, and s

Puerto Rico Vieques National 

Wildlife Refuge

VEQ_104(1) La Chiva Lagoon Bridge Replacing Bridge 

Tennessee Hatchie National 

Wildlife Refuge

HTC_11(1) Oneal Lake Road Oneal Lake Wildlife Driv

Utah Ouray National Wildlife Refuge UT RRP OURA 10(2) Entrance Road Pavement widening and 

improvements

Other Title 23

Alabama Not Applicable Birmingham_Intermod Norfolk Southern Crescent 

Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project

Birmingham Intermodal Crescent Corridor 

Alaska Walden Point Road AK BIA AIR 7(8) Walden Point Road Paving Road Reconditioning, Pa

and Striping

Alaska Atka Road AK DEN 2009(11) Atka Roads Surfacing Grading and Surface CouAlaska AHKIOK Tsunami Shelter 

Road

AK DEN 2009(14) AHKIOK Tsunami Shelter Road 

Surfacing

Culvert extension, road sregraveing, ditch grading

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Refuge Roads (RRP) — continued
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Alaska Gakona Village School Road AK DEN 2007(4) Gakona Village School 

Road Rehab

Grading, base, paving and dra

Alaska Manley Hot Springs AK DEN 2009(7) Manley Hot Springs 

Community Streets

Grading, drainage and base 

Alaska Akiak Road AK DEN 2009(5) Akiak Road Rehabilitation Grading, Base, Drainage and 

Stabilization

Alaska Metlakatla-Walden Point AK DEN 2011(1) Metlakatla-Walden Point Pavement removal and asphaCalifornia Angeles National Forest CA ERFO 13(2) Various Sites - Six Rivers 2010 Grading, paving, aggregate bas

drainage, and reinforced fill

California Angeles National Forest CA ERFO 2(1) MT Lowe Road Angeles 2010 Grading, rock fall protection, 

repair, and mechanically stabearth wall

California Golden Gate National 

Recreation Area

CA NPS GOGA 433(1) Point Bonita Lighthouse Bridge Bridge Reconstruction 

California Lassen Volcanic National Park CA NPS LAVO 10(4) Lassen Park Road Slope repair and reinforceme

paving

California Sequoia National Park CA NPS/PRA SEKI 

PRES 1(10)

Sequoia/Kings Canyon Pavement Pres

Pavement restoration and rehabilitation

California Yosemite National Park CA PRA/NPS YOSE 

PRES 1(11)

Yosemite NP Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration and rehabilitation

Colorado Minuteman Missile 

Access Road

CO OMAD 300 (56b) Minuteman Missle Access Road Aggregate surface course, int

& roadway widening

Colorado Minuteman Missile 

Access Road

CO OMAD 300 (56a) Minuteman Missle Access Road Aggregate surface course, int

& roadway widening

Colorado White River National Forest CO ERFO 307(1), CO 

ERFO 415(1), CO ERFO 906(1)

Pitkin Coal Creek 2010, Brush Creek Road 2010, Garfield Coal Creek 2010

Grading, paving, drainage, refill, rock embankment, slide r

Florida Eglin Air Force Base R_AD_SR_85(1) Eglin Air Force Base Highway 85 

Overpass

Eglin Air Force Base Highway Overpass

Hawaii Honokohau Harbor 

Access Road

HI PLH HONO 10(1) Honokohau Harbor Access Road Road Reconstruction 

Montana Minuteman Missile Base Roads MT OMAD 18(47) Minuteman Missile Base Roads Treated base aggregate, pavin

structures

Nevada Great Basin National Park NV NPS/SNP GRBA 

705(1)

Strawberry Creek Bridge Bridge Reconstruction 

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Other Title 23 — continued
56 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Ohio and Pennsylvania

Not Applicable NATIONAL_

GATEWAY_RR

National Gateway Project Railroad Corridor Clear

Tennessee Not Applicable Memphis_Intermodal Norfolk Southern Crescent 

Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project

Memphis Intermodal FaCorridor

Texas Anahuax National Wildlife 

Refuge

TX FWS ANAH 10(2) Various Roads Grading, drainage, pavin

replacement

Utah Green River State Park UT ERFO 129(1) Mineral Canyon Road Rock embankment, grad

surfacing

Virgin Islands

US Virgin Islands Department of Public Works

VI_0A30(035)_C5 Long Bay Road Landscaping and Irrigat

Virgin Islands

US Virgin Islands Department of Public Works

VI_66(9)_C4 Christiansted Bypass Final paving, street light

signals 

Virgin Islands

US Virgin Islands Department of Public Works

VI_30(35)_C2 Frenchman Bay Road Reconstruction and Wid

Frenchman Bay Road

Virginia Fort Lee VA_A_AD_JPR(1) Jefferson Park Road Intersection 

near Gate A at Fort Lee

Jefferson Park Road InteGate A at Fort Lee

Virginia Ft. Belvoir VA_A_AD_48(2) Old Mill Road, Mount Vernon 

Memorial Highway, Richmond Highway and Telegraph Road

Fort Belvoir Connector R

Washington Gifford Pinchot National Forest WA FS ERFO 

2009(1)-22(2)

Benham Creek Permanent Repair Bridge installation, bridg

approach roads

Washington Mt Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest

WA FS FDR 23(1) White Chuck River Road 

Decommissioning

Roadway reconditioning surfacing, drainage, and decommissioning

Washington Mt Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest

WA FS ERFO 091-2003

Tacoma Pass Road FSR 52 Emergency Repair

Realignment and reconsroadway

Washington Olympic National Park WA NPS OLYM 11(1) Lake Crescent Riprap Bank Armoring Excavation and riprap 

Wyoming Grand Teton National Park WY PLD GRTE 700(1) Grand Teton Park 

Pathways, Phase II 

Grading, aggregate baseconcrete paving, pedestrunderpass

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Other Title 23 — continued
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Appendix B Construction Contracts Awarded

Construction Contracts Awarded

State Name Project # Location Type of Work 

Other Title 23 — continued

Wyoming Intermountain Region WY PRA/NPS GRTE 

PRES 1(12)

Grand Tetons National Park Pavement Preservation

Pavement restoration and rehabilitation

Wyoming Medicine Bow National Forest WY ERFO 261(1) Cedar Pass (Turpin Res) Road Grading, aggregate surace co

drainage, and reinforced soil 

Wyoming Shoshone National Forest WY HPP 4_1(6) Beartooth Highway Roadway realignment, recons

grading, drainage, aggregate basphalt concrete pavement, gand bridge
58 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

 

Indian Reservation Roads (IRR) — project information provided in narrative pg. 10-11Park Roads and Parkways (PRP)

Alabama Natchez Trace 

Parkway

PRA-NATR 2A15

Lindsey Creek, Threet Creek and County Road 85 Bridges

Reconstruction of 3 bridges 0.88 1.76 

Arizona Grand Canyon 

National Park

AZ PRA-GRCA 15(1) & 12(3)

Hermit & South Entrance Road

Grading, drainage, and surfacing

20.54 41.08 

Arkansas Buffalo 

National River

PRA-BUFF 10(1) Buffalo Point 

Campground Access

Asphalt overlay on Buffalo Point Campground Access Road & Beach Access Road

1.66 3.32 

California Yosemite 

National Park

CA NPS-YOSE 16(3)

Cascades Dam, Yosemite National Park

Dam removal and roadway paving

0.28 0.56 

California Redwood 

National Park

CA PRA-REDW 102(1)

Alder Camp Road Asphalt milling, overlay, and 

drainage improvements

4.10 8.20 

California Lassen 

National Park

CA PRA-LAVO 10(3)

Lassen Park Road Roadway reconditioning and 

overlay

44.20 88.40 

California Yosemite 

National Park

CA PRA-YOSE 15(1)

Glacier Point Road Pulverizing, hot asphalt 

concrete pavement, and drainage

10.94 21.88 

California Lassen 

National Park

CA PRA-LAVO 10(2)

Lassen Park Road Chip seal, pulverizing 

pavement, asphalt overlay, sub excavation, embankment reconstruction, and drainage

39.74 79.48 

California Yosemite 

National Park

CA PRA-YOSE 14(4)

Wawona Road Pulverizing, Hot Asphalt 

Concrete Paving and Drainage

48.81 97.62 

California Yosemite 

National Park

CA PRA-YOSE 500(1)

Valley Loop Road Pulverizing, hot asphalt 

concrete pavement, and drainage

14.40 28.80 

Colorado Colorado 

National Monument

CO PRA-COLM 10(2)

Rim Rock Drive, Colorado National Monument

Road construction, drainage and asphalt surfacing

0.32 0.64 

Colorado Rocky Mountain 

National Park

CO PRAROMO 10(5) Trail Ridge Road Pulverizing, asphalt surfacing, & sub excavation 21.56 43.12 

Colorado Intermountain 

Region 

CO PRA/NPS IMR-PRES 1(08)

Pavement Preservation, Canyonlands National Park 

Pavement preservation and restoration

179.06 358.12 
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Colorado Mesa Verde 

National Park

CO PRA-MEVE 10(9)

Main Entrance Road, Mesa Verde 

Pulverize, stabilize base course, asphalt pavement overlay and drainage

42.88 85.76 

Colorado Mesa Verde 

National Park

CO PRA-MEVE 10(8) & 200(1)

Chapin & Wetherill Roads, Mesa Verde

Pulverize pavement, double chip seal, stabilize base course, asphalt pavement & drainage.

51.28 102.56 

Maine Acadia National 

Park 

PRA-ACAD ITS-FOT

Acadia National Park 

Intelligent Transportation Systems

0.40 0.08 

Michigan Pictured Rocks 

National Lakeshore

PRA-PIRO 15(1) Little Beaver Road and 

RV Return Route

Aggregate surface course overlay, roadway reconstruction; roadway widening, parking lot recon

3.10 3.60 

Mississippi Natchez Trace 

Parkway

MISC-NATR 3O18

Bridge over U.S. Highway 51

Bridge girder repairs 0.00 0.01 1 

Mississippi Natchez Trace 

Parkway

PRA-NATR 3H24

Replacement of the bridge over Pigeon roost Creek, Repair to bridge over Columbus & Greenville Railroad

Bridge Replacement and Repair

0.16 0.32 1 

Mississippi Natchez Trace 

Parkway

PRA-NATR 3S10,T7,W11

NTP Milepost 8-20 and 37-88

Pavement rehabilitation 42.6 85.20 1 

Mississippi Natchez Trace 

Parkway

PRA-NATR 3X5,6

Grading, drainage, paving

Grading, drainage, paving, 7 bridges from Liberty Road to US 61

8.70 17.40 7 

Montana Glacier National 

Park

MT NPS GLAC PR 1(10)

Glacier National Park Pavement Preservation 43.30 86.60 

Montana Glacier National 

Park

MT PRA GLAC 10(33)

GTSR Crystal Point to Haystack 

Grading, pavement, base, drainage, and structures

1.99 3.98 

Montana Glacier National 

Park

MT PRA GLAC 10(36)

GTSR Scaling/Stone Surfacing

Locate stone sources, collect stones

0.1 0.10 

Nevada Lake Mead 

National Park

NV PRA-LAME 1(8)

Northshore Road Rehabilitation, drainage, and 

bituminous surfacing

4.81 9.62 2 

New Mexico Capulin Volcano 

National Monument

NM PRA-CAVE 

10(1)

Carlsbad Caverns Road rehabilitation, parking 

area rehabilitation and drainage

14.00 28.00 

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

# of 

 Bridge

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) — continued
60 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

North Carolina Blue Ridge 

Parkway

PRA-BLRI 2T13 Buck Springs Tunnel Replace tunnel drainage 

chases, mill & overlay

0.13 0.25 

North Carolina & Virginia

Blue Ridge Parkway

PRA-BLRI IDIQC-TO#2

Bridges from MP 115 to 393

Bridge repairs 

Pennsylvania Allegheny Portage 

Railroad National Historic Site

PRA-ALPO 10(1),900(1)

Visitor Center Road and Parking Area

Mill and overlay and spot reconstruction 

0.40 0.80 

Pennsylvania

Johnstown Flood National Memorial

PRA-JOFL 900(1)

Visitor Center Access Road and Parking Area Reconstruction 

0.07 0.14 

South Carolina

Fort Sumter National Monument

PRA-FOSU 10(1),900(1)

Park Entrance Road Route 10 and parking area Route 900

Rehab entrance road and parking area

0.19 0.78 

South Dakota

Wind Cave National Park

SD PRA-WICA 11(2) & 12(1)

Visitor Center & Cave Access Roads

Visitor Center and Cave Access Roads

16.84 33.68 

Tennessee Foothills Parkway PRA-FOOT 8G14 Slide area near MP 15.10 Restoration and stabilization 0.09 0.19 

Tennessee Natchez Trace Parkway PRA-NATR 1J15 Replace bridge over TN Highway 13 Bridge Replacement 1.29 2.58 

Tennessee Foothills Parkway PRA-FOOT 8E13 Foothills Parkway

Construction of Foothills Parkway from Sta 24+477 to 25+600 and from Sta 25+600 to 26+120, including one girder bridge 

0.40 0.80 

Tennessee Foothills 

Parkway

PRA-FOOT 8E15

Bridge over Happy Hollow Road

Bridge repair 0.23 0.90 

Tennessee Foothills 

Parkway

PRA-FOOT 15A32

Foothills Parkway Roadway rehabilitation 6.40 18.40 

Texas Big Bend 

National Park

TX PRA-BIBE 13(5)

Big Bend West Entrance Road

Roadway drainage repair 0.01 0.02 

Virginia Assateach 

Island National Seashore

PRA-ASIS 11(3) Assateague Channel 

Bridge

Seal & repair bridge deck 0.17 0.33 

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

 B

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) — continued
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

Virginia Spout Run 

Parkway/George Washington Memorial Parkway

PRA-GWMP 4(1),5(1)

Bridge on Spout Run Parkway and rock slope on GWMP

Repair of bridge foundation and slope work

N/A 1.00 

Virginia Colonial National 

Historical Park

PRA-COLO 027T

5 span pedestrian bridge Replace bridge 0.05 0.05 1 

Virginia George 

Washington Memorial Parkway

PRA-GWMP 1A104

George Washington Memorial Parkway

Stabilize crib wall N/A 

Virginia Colonial 

Parkway

PRA-COLO 1D41-LC

Colonial Parkway, north of Rte 199

Drainage, embankment and pavement repairs

0.02 0.02 

Virginia Colonial 

National Historical Park

PRA-COLO 1B35,1A19, 1D43, 1E14

King’s Creek Br, Indian Field Creek Br, Rte17 Parkway Bridge, College Creek Br, Mill Creek Bridge and Isthmus Bridge

Paint bridges 0.20 0.40 7 

Wyoming Yellowstone

National Park

WY PRA YELL 10(15)

Madison to Norris, Segment B

Grading, base, drainage, paving, bridge and structures

9.98 19.96 2 

Public Lands Highway (Forest Highway (FH) & Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD))

Alaska Tongass National 

Forest

AK PFH 44(7) USFS 3030 Road Cleanup Road Clean Up 4.35 4.35 

Alaska Tongass National 

Forest

AK PFH 44(8) USFS 3030 Excavation, Grading, Drainage 0.94 0.94 

Alaska Tongass

National Forest

AK PFH 44(9) USFS 3030 Excavation, Drainage, Grading, 

Paving

19.57 19.57 

California Trinity National 

Forest

CA PFH 149-1(2a)

Mad River Road, Slide Repair 

Landslide repair 0.30 0.60 

California Eldorado 

National Forest

CA PFH 137-1(4)

Wentworth Springs Road

Cold recycling, asphalt surfacing, paved ditches, asphalt curb, aggregate base, guardrail and drainage

10.76 21.52 

California Inyo National 

Forest

CA PFH 138-1(1)

Mammoth Scenic Loop Road recondition, grading, 

drainage and surfacing

11.69 23.38 

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

# of 

 Bridge

Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) — continued
62 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

California Tahoe National 

Forest

CA PFH 123-1(1)

Washington Road Road reconstruction, grading, 

drainage, and reconditioning with Continuous Cold Recycled Asphalt, HACP 

10.58 21.16 

California Trinity National 

Forest

CA PFH 149-1(2)

Mad River Road Grading, paving, structural fills 

and drainage

13.66 27.32 

California Trinity 

National Forest

CA PFH 114-1(1)

Hyampom Road Grading, drainage and asphalt 

surfacing

7.63 15.26 

Florida Big Cypress 

National Preserve

PLH-BICY 104(1)

US 41 and Sea Grape Drive

Construct comfort station, visitor center, and parking area

0.30 0.30 

Idaho Payette 

National Forest

ID PFH 60(4) Little Salmon River 

Bridge

Grading, Drainage, Base, Paving, Retaining Walls, Bridge

0.41 0.82 

Idaho Payette 

National Forest

ID PFH 9(5) Enaville-Thompson Pass Sub excavation, base and 

paving

12.90 25.80 

Idaho Clearwater 

National Forest

ID PFH CDP 67(2)

Grangemont Road Cement recycled asphalt base, 

stabilization, pavement

18.40 18.40 

Mississippi Tombigbee 

National Forest

MS PFH 030-1(002)

Highway 30 Reconstruction & widening 0.77 1.50 

Montana Beaverhead 

County

MT PFH 2009(2)B

Beaverhead County Pavement Preservation 44.4 88.80 

Montana Granite County MT PFH 

2009(2)C

Granite County Pavement Preservation 16.3 32.60 

Montana Cascade County MT PFH 

2009(2)E

Cascade County Pavement Preservation 2 4.00 

Montana Mineral County MT PFH 

2009(2)D

Mineral County Pavement Preservation 1.8 3.60 

Montana Flathead County MT PFH 

2009(2)A

Flathead County Pavement Preservation 14.3 28.60 

Montana Bitterroot 

National Forest

MT PFH 78(1) East Fork 

Bitterroot Road

Sub excavation, drainage, base, grading, paving

14.65 29.30 

Nevada HumboldtToiyabe 

National Forest

NV PFH 2(1) Mount Rose Highway Road reconstruction, widening 

in Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest

0.86 1.72 

New Mexico Inyo 

National Forest

NM PFH 12-1(7) Cuba — La Cueva Grading, drainage, aggregate 

base, and asphalt pavement

2.40 4.80 

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

 B

Public Lands Highway (Forest Highway (FH) & Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD)) — continued
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

North Carolina

Pisgah National Forest

NC PFH 100-1(2)

North Carolina Route 1129

Bridge replacement 0.17 0.34 1 

Utah Fishlake 

National Forest

UT PFH 39-1(3) Sevenmile Gooseberry 

Road, Fishlake National Forest 

Stabilize base course and superpave pavement

10.30 20.60 

Utah Box Elder 

County

UT PLH 523-1(1)

Bear River Access Road(Bear River Migratory Refuge)

Grading, drainage, Superpave Asphalt Concrete Pavement

7.23 14.46 

Washington Olympic 

National Forest

WA PFH 5(1) Quinault South Shore Road 

Pedestrian Enhancement

Asphalt sidewalk and parking areas

0.25 0.25 

Washington Olympic 

National Forest

WA PFH 208(2) Camp Grisdale Road Grading, base, asphalt, 

concrete, paving, draining

5.8 11.60 

West Virginia

Monongahela National Forest

WV PFH 097-2(001)

Smoke Hole Road Rehab & resurfacing of Smoke 

Hole Road & one parking area

0.8 1.60 

Wyoming Medicine Bow 

National Forest & Carbon County

WY PFH 26-1(1) Sage Creek Road Precast concrete box culverts, 

grading, drainage and wetland mitigation

0.90 1.80 

Refuge Roads (RRP)

California Modoc National 

Wildlife Refuge

CA RRP-MODO 100(1)

Wildlife Tour Loop Road Road rehabilitation, 

restoration and resurfacing

4.14 8.28 

Georgia Okefenokee 

National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-OKF 10(3) Asphalt overlay Swampt 

Island Drive and 4 PA’s, Recon Suwannee River Sill Road

Asphalt overlay of Swampt Island Drive and 4 PA’s, Recon Suwannee River Sill Road

6.14 11.60 

Kentucky Reelfoot 

National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-REL 10(2) Reelfoot National 

Wildlife Refuge

Roadway resurfacing, parking lot paving & other work

0.94 2.00 

Nevada Ruby Lake 

National Wildlife Refuge

NV RRP-RULA 107(1)

CCC Dike Road Aggregate surfacing 1.80 3.60 

North Carolina

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-MTK 10(1) Lake Landing Road and 

Wildlife Drive

Rehab and bridge replacements

0.51 0.94 2 

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

# of 

 Bridge

Public Lands Highway (Forest Highway (FH) & Public Lands Highway Discretionary (PLHD)) — continued
64 The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review

North Carolina

Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-PED 10(1) Wildlife Dr, Sullivan 

Pond Road, Ross Road, Sullivan Pond Road and Handicapped Trail parking

Rehab Wildlife Drive, & other roads and parking areas

3.45 4.50 

North Dakota

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge

ND RRP-CLSA 12(1)

Auto Tour Route Bridge replacement 0.68 1.36 

North Dakota

J. Clark Salyer National Wildlife Refuge

ND RRP-CLSA 12(2)

Auto Tour Route Bridge construction, bridge 

relocation, low water crossing construction

1.32 2.64 

Oklahoma Wichita Mountains 

National Wildlife Refuge

OK RRP-WIMO 10(1) & 11(1)

Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge

Grading, drainage, bridge and surfacing

5.42 10.84 

Tennessee Tennessee 

National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-TNS 10(1) Refuge Lane and Parking 

Area

Rehabilitation and resurface Refuge Lane and rehab various Refuge roads

5.19 13.64 

Tennessee Cross Creeks 

National Wildlife Refuge

RRP-CRK 10(1) Wildlife Road and 

Visitor Center Roads

Rehab Wildlife Road & Visitor Center Access Loop & other roads

3.09 5.86 

Other Title 23

Alaska Kobuk AK DEN 2007(1) Denali Commission 

Projects — Kobuk

Bridge Replacement 0.01 0.25 

Arizona Cibola National 

Wildlife Refuge

AZ BOR-CIBR 900(1)

Cibola Bridge Deck Replacement

Bridge Deck Replacement, Guardrail, Minor Paving, Electrical/Lighting

0.30 0.60 

Arizona Coronado 

National Forest

AZ ERFO 100(1) Sabino Canyon ERFO 

Improvements

Wall repair, grading and drainage

0.14 0.28 

Arizona Arizona & 

Nevada DOT

AZ-NV HPP 93(3)

Hoover Dam Bypass, Colorado River Bridge

Concrete arch bridge 2.00 4.00 

Arizona Arizona & 

Nevada DOT

AZ-NV HPP 93(5)

Hoover Dam Bypass, Final Roadway Improvements 

Grading, Drainage, Aggregate Base, Asphalt Surfacing, Barrier, Signing, Marking, and Lighting

17.60 35.20 

California Klamath 

National Forest

CA ERFO 102(1) Sawyers Bar Road Grading, paving, drainage and 

MSE walls

1.39 2.78 

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

 B

Refuge Roads (RRP) — continued

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed
The Federal Lands Highway Program — 2011 The Year in Review 

California Six Rivers and 

Klamath National Forests

CA ERFO 13(1) Six Rivers, Orleans Grading, paving, aggregate 

base course, drainage, reinforced fill, rock embankment and MSE wall

4.62 9.24 

Colorado San Juan 

National Forest

CO ERFO 667(1)

East Fork Road Slide Repair

Sub-excavation, road Reconstruction, horizontal drains, interceptor drain system

0.30 0.60 

Georgia ChattahoocheeOconee 

National Forest

GA ERFO/FS 64(1)

Three Forks Road FS 64 - Three Forks Road slide 

repair

0.15 0.15 

Illinois Shawnee 

National Forest

ERFO-IL-FSR 220(1)

McCraven Road Recondition 0.9 miles of 

McCraven Road; reconstruct 5 slopes

0.82 2.00 

Mississippi Homochitto 

National Forest

FS/STP OKLA 10(1)

Okhissa Lake New road construction 7.33 14.66 

Montana Judith Basin MT OMAD 

18(43)

Arrow Creek Bridge Bridge replacement, 

embankment

0.25 0.25 1 

Montana Fergus 

Wheatland

MT OMAD 18(45)

Minuteman Missile Base Roads

aggregate surfacing 42.00 84.00 

Oregon Siskiyou 

National Forest

OR EMK 2005(2)

Agness Road Bridge Rehabilitation 1.00 2.00 1 

Puerto Rico Vieques National 

Wildlife Refuge

ERFO-VEQ 10(2)

Routes 11, 12, 104, 103, 102 and 109

Repair of existing aggregate surfaced roads

11.79 22.60 

Puerto Rico Cabo Rojo 

National Wildlife Refuge

ERFO/CAR 10(1),100(1)

Route 100 Reconstructing damaged 

sections of road; replace culvert

0.39 0.39 

Tennessee Catoosa Wildlife 

Management Area

BR A151(1),A153(1)

Potter Ford Road Bridge and Otter Creek Road Bridge

Replace 2 bridges 0.25 0.49 2 

Virgin Islands

Christiansted Bypass

VI NH-66(008) C1

Christiansted Bypass New construction 1.95 3.90 

Washington Gifford Pinchot 

National Forest

WA FS ERFO 071-2209

Jody Mullins Bridge Removal

Bridge Removal and Roadway excavation

0.25 0.25 

Construction Projects Completed

State Name Project # Location Type of Work Project 

Length 

(miles)

Project 

Length 

(lane miles)

# of 

 Bridge

Other Title 23 — continued

Appendix B Construction Projects Completed
86'HSDUWPHQWRI7UDQVSRUWDWLRQ

)HGHUDO+LJKZD\$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ2IILFHRI)HGHUDO/DQGV+LJKZD\