Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:41:25.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AND CASE STUDIES: NEPA Strategies for Accelerating Project Delivery: Every Day Counts, Tiering, and Alternative Delivery in the I-70 Mountain Corridor

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 December 2015

Colleen Kirby Roberts  and
Mandy Whorton
Colleen Kirby Roberts*
Affiliation:
Transportation Business Group, CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colorado
Mandy Whorton*
Affiliation:
Transportation Business Group, CH2M HILL, Englewood, Colorado
*
Address correspondence to: Colleen Kirby Roberts, AICP, Environmental Planning Manager, Transportation Business Group, CH2M HILL, 9193 South Jamaica Street, Englewood, Colorado, 80112; (phone) 720-286-0914; (fax) 720-286-8081; (e-mail) [email protected]
Address correspondence to: Mandy Whorton, Environmental Planning Project Manager and Senior Technologist in Environmental Studies and Documentation, Transportation Business Group, CH2M HILL, 9193 South Jamaica Street, Englewood, Colorado, 80112; (phone) 303-987-5940; (e-mail) [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have used Every Day Counts tools and other strategies to accelerate the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for projects intended to relieve congestion and improve safety in the Twin Tunnels area of Colorado’s Interstate 70 (I-70) Mountain Corridor. These Tier 2 projects follow the I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS). The Tier 2 Twin Tunnels projects incorporated tools from the FHWA Every Day Counts Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit, including the Planning and Environmental Linkages concept, legal sufficiency enhancements, and programmatic agreements; the Construction Manager/ General Contractor (CM/GC) alternative delivery method; and a unique stakeholder engagement approach. These tools were effective in reducing the Tier 2 NEPA process to half its normal duration, thereby accelerating overall project delivery. The Tier 2 process was easier to implement because of the scaffolding developed during the Tier 1 process. Establishing an early involvement agreement related to legal reviews allowed FHWA attorneys to work with the project team at early decision points. Using the CM/GC alternative delivery method allowed for early input from the contractor on the preliminary design, avoided the need for NEPA re-evaluations during the final design or construction process, and led to new ideas for avoiding or minimizing impacts to environmental resources. Early and continuous engagement with partner agencies and other stakeholders allowed for quick feedback and provided the necessary support to move the project forward quickly.

Environmental Practice 17: 278–290 (2015)

Type
Features
Information
Environmental Practice , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 278 - 290
Copyright
© National Association of Environmental Professionals 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The Collaborative Effort. 2008. Consensus Recommendation. Available at https://www.codot.gov/projects/contextsensitivesolutions/docs/pdfs/ce/collaborative-effort-consensus-recommendation/view (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011a. I-70 Mountain Corridor Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Discussion. February.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011b. I-70 Mountain Corridor Record of Decision. June.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2011c. I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS Context Sensitive Solutions. March.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2012a. Twin Tunnels Environmental Assessment and Section 4(f) Evaluation. June.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2012b. I-70 Frontage Road Improvements Categorical Exclusion. March.Google Scholar
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). 2014. Westbound I-70 Twin Tunnels Expansion Project Categorical Exclusion. February.Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2011. “23 CFR 627 - Value Engineering.” Government Publication Office, Code of Federal Regulations. April 1. Accessed at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/CFR-2011-title23-vol1/CFR-2011-title23-vol1-part627.Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2012. Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit. Planning and Environmental Linkages and Every Day Counts. Available at http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/edc.asp (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013a. Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/projects/toolkit (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013b. Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit. Legal Sufficiency Enhancements. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/projects/toolkit/enhancements.cfm (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013c. Shortening Project Delivery Toolkit. Expanding Use of Programmatic Agreements. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/projects/toolkit/programatic.cfm (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2013d. 2013 Environmental Excellence Awards: Environmental Streamlining (Every Day Counts). Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_excellence_awards/eea_2013/page07.cfm (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2014. Every Day Counts. EDC 2012 Initiatives: Construction Manager General Contractor. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts/edctwo/2012/cmgc.cfm (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Every Day Counts. Available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts (accessed February 3, 2015).Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Federally Recognized Tribes Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Agency, and White Mesa Ute Tribe. 2004. Programmatic Agreement between Federal Highway Administration, Colorado Department of Transportation, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Federally Recognized Tribes Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma, Kiowa Tribe of Oklahoma, Northern Arapaho Tribe, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Rosebud Sioux Tribe, Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Ute Mountain Ute Tribe, Ute Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Agency, White Mesa Ute Tribe Regarding the Section 106 Tribal Consultation Process for the Interstate 70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. June.Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer. 2008. Programmatic Agreement among Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Glenwood Springs Field Office, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Colorado State Historic Preservation Officer, and Colorado Department of Transportation regarding implementation of the Interstate 70 Mountain Corridor Project. March.Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. 2011a. A Landscape-Level Inventory of Valued Ecosystems (ALIVE) Memorandum of Understanding among the Colorado Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife. April.Google Scholar
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Clear Creek Watershed Foundation, Upper Clear Creek Watershed Association, and Colorado Trout Unlimited. 2011b. Stream and Wetland Ecological Enhancement Program (SWEEP) Memorandum of Understanding. January.Google Scholar