Eco-Logical Community of Practice Webinar:
Innovative Mitigation Contracting & Financing

Eco-Logical Community of Practice
October 5, 2016

Kate Kurgan, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

David Williams, Federal Highway Administration

Marisel Lopez-Cruz, Federal Highway Administration

Jody McCullough, Federal Highway Administration

Mike Pettegrew, Ohio Department of Transportation

Keith Greer, San Diego Association of Governments

Image: Collage of colored photographs of a bridge, a deer, a fish, and a curved rural road from the cover of the Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects report

Image: Logos of the following: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ASSHTO), SHRP2 (second Strategic Highway Research Program), and U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

• Safety: Fostering safer driving through analysis of driver, roadway and vehicle factors in crashes, near crashes, and ordinary driving.
• Renewal: Rapid maintenance and repair of the deteriorating infrastructure using already-available resources, innovations, and technologies.
• Capacity: Planning and designing a highway system that offers minimum disruption and meets the environmental, and economic needs of the community.
• Reliability: Reducing congestion and creating more predictable travel times through better operations.

Images: Icons that match each of the concepts listed above: Safety (a person wearing a seat belt/shoulder belt); Renewal (a circular arrow that reconnects to itself); Capacity (a bridge support structure); and Reliability (a clock)

Purpose: To continue the exchange of information after SHRP2 activities have concluded.

Goals: To create a self-sustaining network of practitioners to share knowledge, best practices, ideas, and facilitate technical assistance amongst members.

• Landscape-scale approach to transportation project development.
• Transportation agencies collaborate during the planning process.
• Lead to agreed-upon mitigation strategies and timely permit decisions.
• Linking Planning and Environment
• Programmatic Mitigation Plans

Image: Graphic showing the nine steps of the Eco-Logical Process

Kate Kurgan, AASHTO
KKurgan@aashto.org
202-624-3635

David Williams, FHWA
David.Williams@dot.gov
202-366-4074

Mike Ruth, FHWA
Mike.Ruth@dot.gov
202-366-9509

Planning & Environment Linkages

• Planning and Environmental Linkages (PEL)
• Programmatic Mitigation Plans
• Highlights of MAP-21 and FAST Act

PEL represents a collaborative and integrated approach to transportation decision-making that:

1. Considers environmental, community, and economic goals early in the transportation planning process.
2. Uses the information, analysis, and products developed during planning to inform the environmental review process.
3. Helps states and MPOs save time and money in the environmental review and permitting phases of transportation projects.

• States and MPOs may develop programmatic mitigation plans as part of the statewide and the metropolitan transportation planning processes.
  (23 U.S.C. 169 as amended by MAP-21 and FAST Act)
  (“Final rule” language is in 23 C.F.R. 450.214 and 450.320)
• States and MPOs anticipate the potential environmental impacts of future transportation projects (such as those listed in their long-range plans) and create, or use existing, programmatic mitigation plans to help mitigate those future impacts.
• Programmatic mitigation plans depend on close coordination between State DOTs/MPOs and relevant Resource Agencies

The programmatic mitigation plan may include:

• An assessment of the existing condition, historic and recent trends and/or any potential threats to those resources.
• Identification of economic, social, and natural and human environmental resources, including:
  • wetlands
  • streams
  • rivers
  • stormwater
  • parklands
  • cultural resources
  • historic resources
  • farmlands
  • archeological resources
  • threatened or endangered species
  • critical habitat

Integration into/from other plans

• Programmatic mitigation plan can be integrated with other resource plans including, but not limited to:
  • watershed plans
  • ecosystem plans
  • species recovery plans
  • growth management plans
  • state wildlife plans
  • climate change action plans
  • land use plans
• States and MPOs can adopt programmatic mitigation plans developed under another authority
• Includes the use of mitigation and conservation banks

State Planning and Research & Metropolitan Planning Funds

• Eligibility will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
  (Contact your FHWA Division Office or FTA Regional Office.)
• In general, transportation planning activities undertaken as part of the planning process prior to the initiation of NEPA are eligible
• NEPA development: in consultation with the relevant agency, the project sponsor is encouraged to consider adoption or incorporation by reference of the relevant components to advance environmental activities for a project eligible for federal funds

Marisel Lopez-Cruz, FHWA
Marisel.lopez-cruz@dot.gov
202-493-0356

Jody McCullough, FHWA
Jody.Mccullough@dot.gov
202-366-5001

Eco-Logical CoPWebinar - Innovative Mitigation Contracting/Financing - October 5, 2016

Mike Pettegrew
ODOT Office of Environmental Services
Ecological Program Manager

Image: ODOT logo
Image: Photo of a construction crew using a backhoe in a field. In the foreground is a sign: “Conservation Easement | No Trespassing.”

Why did the process develop?

• Reduction in staffing, reorganization, etc.
• Elimination of dedicated real estate staff for mitigation
• Mitigation regulations became more stringent
• Difficulties with incorporating mitigation with regular construction contracts
• Need to maintain competitive pricing
• Need for programmatic/landscape scale mitigation in certain circumstances

How is the full delivery model different than previous methods for ODOT to accomplish mitigation?

• “Old ways”
  • In house
    • Performed with dedicated real estate mitigation staff in conjunction with environmental staff and district staff
    • Mitigation sites requiring construction were incorporated into the transportation project contract
  • Utilizing consultants to assist or completely conduct work through a “professional services” contract
    • Can only do professional services and not construction
    • Cannot include price as a consideration in selection
    • Required controlling board approval
    • Typically 2 year contracts, limits on spending authority
  • Banks
    • Wetland only, limited coverage
    • ILF options recent to Ohio
    • Purchases require controlling board approval

New Full Delivery Natural Resource Mitigation Process

• Selection is competitively bid, but controlling board approval not required
• Can consider all services related to mitigation (e.g. environmental, real estate acquisition, construction, long term management, etc.)
• Contract length can be multiple years
• No predefined limits on spending authority
• Selection criteria can be customized and pricing can be considered as a selection criteria
• Cost proposals and invoices are simplified
• Contracts are written where no properties are purchased in ODOT’s name

New Full Delivery Natural Resource Mitigation Process

• Advantages of Full Delivery Process
  • Allows us to select highly qualified mitigation teams that have extensive mitigation experience. We don’t get stuck with a contractor that has no mitigation experience and is not focused on the mitigation project.
  • Consideration of pricing results in interested parties seeking to be more efficient. This saves the department money and results in additional mitigation opportunities.
  • Since properties are not purchased in ODOT’s name, this results in less future land management headaches
  • Maintains a competitive pricing between permittee responsible mitigation vs banks/ILFs
  • In general, the process is very flexible and efficient, thus resulting in a good tool to deal with decreased staffing/resources, helps manage complexity of mitigation regulations, etc.

New Full Delivery Natural Resource Mitigation Process

• Application of Full Delivery Mitigation Contracts
  • If there is a large project requiring extensive amounts of mitigation, ODOT creates a separate RFP/selection/agreement specific to the particular project and its mitigation needs
  • 2 Statewide Full Delivery Mitigation Contracts in place (5 year contracts) to cover smaller mitigation projects, non-compliance/violations, adaptive management/maintenance on older mitigation sites
  • Can also utilize for statewide mitigation efforts
    • Statewide bat conservation efforts for ODOT’s PBO for federally listed bat species
    • Strategic stream and wetland mitigation regional or district approaches

Images: Two photos of a bat mini-condo in a field

New Full Delivery Natural Resource Mitigation Process

• General Process for Full Delivery contracting
  • Request for proposal issued to interested parties
    • Evaluation criteria is listed in RFP
    • Project approach, project manager, experience/organization structure, cost approach, overall value to ODOT
      • These can be changed as needed and percentages can be adjusted
    • Evaluation/selection by committee
    • Selected mitigation team notified
    • A formal contract is developed with formal cost proposal as applicable
    • Regular status meetings
      • ODOT provides oversight and project management/coordination as necessary

How is the Full Delivery process working for ODOT?

• So far so good, but experience is limited
  • Since we have been through the process a few times we are getting a better feel/understanding and constantly improving
• As mentioned earlier
  • Competitive pricing, flexible, accomplishes mitigation with less ODOT staff/involvement, allows us to achieve additional mitigation/conservation, more qualified mitigation teams
• Only downside is the length of time to get a contract up and running
  • First few projects have been 8-12 months to get started
  • Statewide contracts will handle the smaller work so this helps this situation out

Practical tips?

• Each state is likely unique to their own state rules/policies/procedures
• Talk to your contracting offices and see what options exist to implement a full delivery mitigation process
• Keep in touch with the mitigation community and exchange ideas/information

Images: Four photos of a construction crew applying Brandenbark (an artificial bark roost) to the top of tall wooden poles and the final product erected in a grassy field

Mike Pettegrew, ODOT
Mike.Pettegrew@dot.ohio.gov
614-466-7102

Image: Photo of a person using a backhoe to remove a small dam in a wetland
Image: Photo of restored wetland

Eco-Logical Webinar: Innovative Mitigation Contracting & Financing

Keith Greer
October 2016

Image: Photo of a vast field of orange wildflowers
Image: Photo of a wetland surrounded by lush vegetation
Image: Close-up photo of red wildflowers with green hills in the background

• MPO (original established in 1966). SANDAG is made up of the 18 cities and county government in San Diego and serves as the forum for regional decision-making.
• RTA (1971). State designates SANDAG as the Regional Transportation Agency
• State law (2002) consolidates financial programming, project design and development under SANDAG for transit development.
• TransNet (½ cent local sale tax) to promote highways, transit, local roads and bicycles. First adopted in 1987 and reauthorized in 2004 by voters
• Environmental Mitigation Program (2004) established for the advanced mitigation of regional transportation projects and local streets and roads.
  • $850 million dollars of $14 billion dollar TransNet program ($2002)

Image: 3D vertical bar chart that shows how the distribution of transportation funding has changed in San Diego County from 1976 to 2016. In 1976, San Diego County received approximately 85% of its transportation funding from Federal and State sources and approximately 10% from local sources. In 2016, San Diego County received approximately 50% from Federal and State sources and approximately 45% from Local sources.

• San Diego County’s endangered species “problem”
• Perception that environmental mitigation is delaying infrastructure development
• Securing biological mitigation sites case-by-case basis - costly and ineffective
• San Diego long history of habitat conservation planning

Image: Photo of a small bird perched on a thin branch

Image: Color-coded map of the western Southern California area, from Los Angeles to San Diego

Image: Map of the San Diego region, color-coded to show habitat preserve planning areas, natural habitats, and developed, disturbed, and agricultural land

Image: Map of the San Diego region, marked to show transit lines, managed/HOV lanes, general purpose lanes, freeway connectors, and HOV connectors

Image: Map of the San Diego region, marked to show transit lines, managed/HOV lanes, general purpose lanes, freeway connectors, and HOV connectors and color-coded to show habitat preserve planning areas, natural habitats, and developed, disturbed, and agricultural land

Large scale acquisition and management →

• Reduced cost
• Accelerated Delivery
• Implement habitat plans
• ↓ Listing of species

Image: Photo of a green field and green hills
Image: Photo of a bridge under construction in a rural area

“The intent is to establish a program to provide for large-scale acquisition and management of critical habitat areas and to create a reliable approach for funding required mitigation for future transportation improvements thereby reducing future costs and accelerating project delivery. This approach would be implemented by obtaining coverage for transportation projects through existing and proposed multiple species conservation plans. (Section D)”

Total Program $850 Million
(In Millions, 2002 Dollars)

6.2% of TransNet Annual Net Revenue

TransNet Extension Ordinance Section D

Image: Pie chart that is divided into two slices: Major Highway & Transit Project Mitigation ($600) and Local Transportation Project Mitigation ($250)

Total Program $850 Million
(In Millions, 2002 Dollars)

Transportation Project Mitigation Fund
$650 Million

Regional Habitat Conservation Fund
$200 Million

Plus up to $30 million in financing costs for advanced habitat acquisition and $82 million in intra-program borrowing

TransNet Extension Ordinance EMP Principles

Image: The same pie chart as in the previous slide, except the Major Highway & Transit Project Mitigation slice has been reduced to $450, the Local Transportation Project Mitigation slice has been reduced to $200, and two new slices of $150 and $50 have been added, which together comprise the Regional Habitat Conservation Fund ($200)

Image: Reproduction of the cover of the 2005 AASHTO document: “Early Mitigation for Net Environmental Benefits”
Image: Reproduction of the cover of the 2006 document: “Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects”
Image: Reproduction of the cover of the 2012 document: “Draft Statewide Framework for Regional Advance Mitigation Planning in California”
Image: Reproduction of the cover of the 2014 document: “Statewide Advance Mitigation Funding and Financing Strategies Task 3 Report: The Business Case for Advance Mitigation in California”

• 39 properties
• 8,669 acres
• Restoration: 400 acres
• $127 million TransNet funds
• $30.4 million matching funds
• More Information? https://keepsandiegomoving.com/Home.aspx

Image: Map of the San Diego region, dotted with markers of the 39 properties

Image: Photo of a bridge under construction
Image: Photo of a train on one of a pair of railroad tracks

Images: Before and after photos of a section of the Tijuana River Valley Restoration project area: workers are watering an almost barren field (before) and a field with lush vegetation (after)

• RFP/IFB X (has not been utilized with advance mitigation)
• On-call Environmental Services
  • Job Order Contracting (JOC)
• CALTRANS STAFF (Master Agreement)
  • Division of Procurement and Contracts (DPAC)
• Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC)

Images: Before and after photos of a restoration project area: a barren field (before) and that field covered with new growth (after)
Images: Before and after photos of a restoration project area: a small wetland (before) and a much larger wetland (after)

Image: Logo: North Coast Corridor | A better environment for the future
Image: Aerial photo of a large wetland

Keith Greer, SANDAG
keith.greer@sandag.org
619-699-7390

Image: Photo of shrubs and grasses on a hillside with other green hills in the background

Please remember to type in your questions to the question prompt.

Thank you for participating!

Image: Photo of a rural road during autumn

Kate Kurgan, AASHTO
kkurgan@aashto.org
202-624-3635

David Williams, FHWA
david.Williams@dot.gov
202-366-4074

Mike Ruth, FHWA
Mike.ruth@dot.gov
202-366-9509

Jody McCullough, FHWA
Jody.Mccullough@dot.gov
202-366-5001

Mike Pettegrew, ODOT
Mike.Pettegrew@dot.ohio.gov
614-466-7102

Keith Greer, SANDAG
keith.greer@sandag.org
619-699-7390