ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance Measures February 2012

1. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance MeasuresFebruary 2012

2. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance Measures Today’s Presentation Will Include • Measures that are required or are in place • Measure recommended to be discontinued • Other measures that may be useful and open discussion * Unless otherwise noted, the 2010 ODOT Geo-Environmental Annual Report is the data source.

3. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance MeasuresEIS Documents Completed in 2010 and 2011* *Data source is FHWA’s EIS and EA Database

4. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance MeasuresActive EIS Documents

5. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance MeasuresEADocuments Completed in 2010 and 2011 Active EA Projects

6. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Categorical Exclusions Approved in 2011 • In 2011, FHWA approved 51 CEs. The average approval timeframe was 9 days, meeting FHWA’s commitment in the CE guidance document of 2 weeks. • In 2011, ODOT approved 61 programmatic (P)CEs.

7. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Mitigation method percentages for projects requiring wetland mitigation: • Mitigation Banking: 90% • In-lieu Fee: 7% • Traditional mitigation: 3%

8. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Aggregated numbers of days for Resource Agency review of documents or permit application by project: • NMFS. Four Biological Opinion (BO) requests. None provided within the required timeframe (135 days). • USFWS. One BO was requested and it was provided within the required timeframe (135 days). • US ACOE. 29 total Issued permits; 2 were Standard Permits processed in144 days average, and 27 were Nationwide Permits (NWP) processed in 58 days average. • US NPS. 1 LWCF Section 6(f) Conversion Request Approval was provided within 6 months (no required timeframes).

9. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Aggregated numbers of days for Resource Agency review of documents or permit application by project: • SHPO: 204 projects were processed under the Section 106 PA not requiring review. • DEQ – 5 Individual 401 Water Quality Certifications, 9 Nationwide (internal ODOT review) - All DEQ permits received on time. • ODFW - no required time frames

10. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Aggregated numbers of days for Resource Agency review of documents or permit application by project: • DSL • 30 permit applications were submitted to DSL. • 27 for General Authorizations (GAs) • 3 for Removal-Fills (RF) permits. • Average processing time (from complete application to the permit being issued) was 68 days. • GAs: 43 days • RF permits: 262 days. • 27 of 30 permits submitted were complete upon receipt. Three were incomplete. • Fifteen wetland delineations were submitted to DSL. • All 15 were deemed complete • All 15 concurrence was issued within 30 days of receipt.

11. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Percent of mitigation sites that are monitored and found to be meeting permit conditions: 72%

12. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Number of staff in environmental resource agencies funded with State or Federal transportation funds to streamline the environmental process (data for 2010 calendar year):

13. ODOT – FHWA Environmental Performance MeasuresIn Place or Required Number of projects delivered using programmatic agreements:

14. ODOT – FHWAPerformance Measures Recommended to Discontinue The utility of each of these measures is unknown or questionable. Data for of these measures is not currently available. • Programmatic Categorical Exclusion • Duration from 0% scoping to CE approval. • Percent of NEPA documents delivered within agreed upon time frames. • Environmental Impact Statement • Percent from NOI to Draft EIS • Percent from Draft EIS to FEIS • Percent from FEIS to ROD • Environmental Assessment – • Percent from Letter of Initiation to EA • Percent from EA to Revised EA • Percent from Revised EA to FONSI • Percent DOT owned impervious surface for which water quality treatment is provided. • Number of review cycles for environmental documents • Number of projects delivered using programmatic agreements

15. ODOT – FHWA EnvironmentalPerformance Measures to Consider Adding • Number of permit violations (type, reasons, Region) • This measure could provide a very high-level measure of the health of the environmental program. • This measure could capture program-wide or recurring issues that need attention. • Percent of projects requiring mitigation. • This measure would provide better context for the measure of successful avoidance in lieu of mitigation that is being provided. • Percent environmental core training completed. • This measure could highlight training needs • Other? • ODOT and FHWA to develop collaboratively

16. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance Measures Next Steps • Collaboratively identify the overall desired outcome • Assess the overall health of environmental programs • Identify shared environmental program priorities on an annual basis • Will be incorporated into FHWA’s Annual Performance Plan • Focus on outcome based permitting • Reduce tracking of paperwork milestones with questionable utility. • Increase Value of Data (real, meaningful, measurable) • Support Programmatic Permitting approach • Integrate with JTA Environmental Performance Standards

17. ODOT – FHWAEnvironmental Performance Measures Discussion and Questions