Environmental Compliance for Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway Reconstruction Project

1. Environmental Compliance for Segment 4 of the Beartooth Highway Reconstruction Project A Case Study in How Collaboration Contributes to Context Sensitive Design and Environmental Streamlining By Jennifer Corwin Environmental Protection Specialist Central Federal Lands Highway Division Lakewood, Colorado

2. Background

3. Location • Located in NW Wyoming and Southern Montana • Crosses 2 states, 3 counties, and 3 National Forests

4. Designated All American Road for Outstanding Scenic and Natural Qualities

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

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

7. Current Status of Maintenance and Upkeep

8. Precursors to the Reconstruction of Segment 4 • 1994 Beartooth Highway Inventory • Steering Committee formed in 1997 • Department of Interior Appropriations Act of 1998 • Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

9. Project Development and NEPA Compliance for Segment 4

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

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

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

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

14. Operation of the Team (cont.) • Consistent team member participation • Adjust agendas to accommodate schedules • Phone conference members in • Follow-up written invitations with phone calls • Finance travel if that team member’s attendance is critical

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

16. How Collaboration Resulted in a Context Sensitive Design

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

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

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

20. How Collaboration Contributed to Environmental Streamlining

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

22. Continued Collaboration for Post-NEPA Project Activities • Development of Public Information Plan • Development of Project Delivery Plan • Development of USFS and NPS agreement, to identify responsibilities for long-term environmental commitments

23. Problems Encountered

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

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

26. Lessons Learned and Applied

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

28. Questions