Using GIS to Improve Project Delivery Outcomes

1. Using GIS to Improve Project Delivery Outcomes Brian Gardner Systems & Analysis Team FHWA Office of Planning

2. GIS & NEPA • Both evolving for decades • Concerted effort to reduce project delivery times • Intersection of process and technology • Process streamlining • Collaborative GIS • Benefits and lessons of recent applications

3. Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects

4. The Eco-Logical Approach • A multi-step process that: • Increases Predictability • Promotes Connectivity • Improves Conservation • Provides Transparency

5. Collaboration and Integration Collaboration: • Agencies agree to work together • Identify data that group will use • Agree how to handle other data needs Integration: • Resource data groups are combined • Transportation data overlain • Assess effects: Identify areas of concern/opportunity

6. AASHTO Innovation Initiative State DOTs Participating in UPlan Image courtesy AASHTO

7. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/everydaycounts

8. Geospatial Data Collaboration • Bridging between organizations to improve working relationships • Facilitating data sharing among process participants • Improving communications and information flow within the environmental process

9. Collaborative GIS Map image courtesy UT DOT

10. Benefits • Organizational efficiency • Improve focus of IT and planning staff resources • Additional IT options for implementation • Help manage engagement of all parties in the environmental process • Process efficiency • Reduce time required for data assembly and management • Automate repetitive analyses and transactions • Improve relevance, quality, and timeliness of decision-support documents

11. Florida’s EST Map image courtesy FDOT

12. Utah’s UPlan Map image courtesy UT DOT

13. Synthesis of State Efforts • Screening Tools • Data Libraries • Multi-Agency Decision Support Systems Graphics courtesy SCDOT

14. Synthesis of State Practices • How State DOTs and other transportation agencies are using geospatial tools to improve project delivery • collecting geospatial data, • integrating or consolidating geospatial data into a common framework, • developing standards and common formats for these data, accessing them, and • using these data to communicate better with stakeholders.

15. Geospatial Tools Case Studies

16. Agreements • Some formal arrangements • MOA, PA, OA • Data flows and access • Operational responsibilities • Mostly informal arrangements • How and when to share data • How a given tool will be used in the process • Frequent common broker • Designated state agency responsible for maintaining all authoritative data

17. Types of Tools • Static Data Repositories • Interactive Gateways • Viewers • Screening Tools • Web Portals

18. Common Gateway Features • Federated web services • Mapping functionality • Contribute and modify information • Layered access control

19. Benefits of Repositories and Gateways • Improved communications • Increased efficiencies • Improved data quality • Streamlined project screening and development • Improved strategic decision-making

20. Challenges of Repositories and Gateways • Standardizing data • Sharing sensitive data • Maintaining data • Adapting to change • Identifying opportunities

21. SHRP2: Eco-Plan

22. Starts with SHRP2 C40 • 2011 TRB workshop sought recommendations SHRP2 could take to • overcome barriers to implementing Eco-Logical and • “reduce the transaction costs. • Addressing the data and analysis issues was the number one recommendation. • Result was a project to integrate national-level environmental resources with locally–available data, with three proof of concept pilots:

23. SHRP2 C40A • Scope • Build a national-level GIS tool to provide the data and analysis • Support Eco-Logical and Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF) • Focus on novice users with little in-house GIS resources • Leverage Federal web services to provide up-to-date data • Pre-NEPA ecological screening • Process • Form several groups to provide design input and testing feedback • C40Bs, User Group, Technical Expert Task Group, Beta Testers • Gathered and documented needs • Developed a vision • Designed the architecture • Tested and updated based on feedback

24. Eco-Plan Vision Primary users are state and MPO planners Provide Federal data sets Not a replacement of existing tools Allow upload of local data Only for pre-NEPA screening Support the IEF

25. Architecture - Data

26. Maps • Gallery of themes maps and data services

27. Add Other Data From Web • Search for authoritative data sets identified by Eco-Plan • Add data sets from ArcGIS Online or the Web

28. Customize Maps • Find and copy existing theme maps for customization • Show/hide data layers

29. Ecological Screening • Provide a simple ecological screening tool based on the user’s shape • Prototype functionality limited to • Several states • Only critical habitat, wetlands, and protected areas data

30. Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Wetlands

31. Eco-PlanAGO – EWG Critical Habitat and Species

32. EDC II – Geospatial Data Collaboration Brian Gardner FHWA Office of Planning brian.gardner@dot.gov 202-366-4061 Mark Sarmiento FHWA Office of Planning mark.sarmiento@dot.gov 202-366-4828 Ben Williams FHWA Resource Center ben.williams@dot.gov 404-562-3671 Who can you contact?

33. SHRP II – Eco-Logical Shari SchafleinFHWA Office of Human Environment Shari.Schaftlein@dot.gov 202-366-5570 MarlysOsterhuesFHWA Office of Project Delivery & Environmental Review Marlys.Osterhues@dot.gov, 202-366-2052 Brian YanchikFHWA Resource Center 443-522-9446 Who can you contact?