MODIFICATION AND AMENDMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITS ON DESIGN-BUILD PROJECTS Requested by: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standing Committee on Environment Prepared by: The Louis Berger Group Inc. Florham Park, NJ Under Subcontract to: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Cambridge, MA August 2007 The information contained in this report was prepared as part of NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 25, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board. Acknowledgements This study was requested by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and conducted as part of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25. The NCHRP is supported by annual voluntary contributions from the state Departments of Transportation. Project 25- 25 is intended to fund quick response studies on behalf of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Environment. The report was prepared by Kenneth J. Hess of The Louis Berger Group Inc. under contract to Cambridge Systematics, Inc. The work was guided by a task group which included Brian Blanchard (Florida DOT), Steven DeWitt (North Carolina DOT), Farhan Haddad (New York State DOT), Brent Jensen (HDR, Inc.), Susie Ridenour (Maryland SHA), Randall Thomas (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet), Sylvia Vega (California DOT), and Gerald Yakowenko (FHWA). The project was managed by Chris Hedges, NCHRP Senior Program Officer. Disclaimer The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board or its sponsors. The information contained in this document was taken directly from the submission of the author(s). This document is not a report of the Transportation Board or of the National Research Council. Modification and Amendment of Environmental Permits on Design-Build Projects NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 25 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.....................................................................................................................1 2.0 Identification of Eight Case Studies...............................................................................2 3.0 Investigative Approach ...................................................................................................4 4.0 Summary of Lessons Learned ........................................................................................5 4.1 Working Relationships.........................................................................................5 4.2 Initial Permitting Responsibility and Compliance...............................................6 4.3 Permit Modification and Amendment Responsibility .........................................6 4.4 Other Issues and Suggestions...............................................................................7 4.5 Lessons Learned...................................................................................................8 5.0 List of Preparers............................................................................................................11 6.0 References .....................................................................................................................11 Appendix: Individual Case Studies … .....................................................................................12 Transportation Expansion (T-REX) Multi-Modal Project, Denver, Colorado..............13 Interstate 95 Widening from Duval County Line to Flagler County Line, St. John’s County, Florida .................................................................................21 Interstate 295 Connector Road, Portland, Maine...........................................................29 U.S. 113 Dualization, Worcester County, Maryland.....................................................36 U.S. 64 Knightdale Bypass and Connector (Eastern Wake Expressway), Wake County, North Carolina......................................................................................44 I-84 Lower Quarry Bridges Replacement Project, Union County, Oregon...................53 Texas State Highway 130 Toll Project, Austin, Texas ..................................................61 State Route 16: New Tacoma Narrows Suspension Bridge, Tacoma, Washington ........................................................................................................69 THE Louis Berger Group, INC. i Modification and Amendment of Environmental Permits on Design-Build Projects NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 25 Modification and Amendment of Environmental Permits on Design-Build Projects 1.0 Introduction With increasing population across the United States, a perpetual need for infrastructure improvements, and a limited budget for such improvements, state transportation agencies have turned to alternative methods to deliver the much needed improvements to the traveling public. In 1990, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) established Special Experimental Project Number 14 (SEP-14) that enabled state transportation agencies to test various project contracting methods that could potentially deliver projects in a more cost-effective manner. Among the methods is the design-build project delivery method, whereby the design and construction phases of a project are combined into one contract. Design-build has become increasingly more popular as a project delivery mechanism; between 1995 and 2002, over 300 projects were proposed for design-build contracting under SEP-14 in 32 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Today, the Design-Build Institute of America lists 259 ongoing civil infrastructure projects in their database. Several studies have been completed that examine the design-build delivery method, including the 2006 FHWA report entitled Design Build Effectiveness Study – As Required by TEA-21 Section 1307(f). Studies such as the 2006 FHWA Effectiveness Study and an April, 2007 study released by the University of Southern California’s Keston Institute for Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy confirm the belief that implementing design-build provides the potential for projects to be delivered more efficiently, cost-effectively, and in less time than traditional design-bid-build projects. One advantage of design-build is the engagement of the creativity of the design-build team that brings value engineering and innovation to project design. Another important advantage of design-build is the engagement of the creativity of the design-build team that brings value engineering and innovation to project design. For design-build projects, the owner and contractor must be aligned as the design-build team takes control of final design and the securing of required approvals. Generally, all conditions of acquired permits must be met by the contractor; in addition, any changes to design might potentially require a permit amendment or modification in order to proceed forward. The autonomy and creativity of the contractor helps resolve project issues and facilitates modification to the design of the project to avoid or minimize impacts. Motivated by the desire to keep costs and schedule delays to a minimum, significant coordination is necessary among the contractor, state transportation agency, and permitting agencies. In 2005, the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) published the study, Design-Build Environmental Compliance Process and Level of Detail: Eight Case Studies, which examined the design-build project delivery approach and the practices utilized by state transportation agencies in the preparation of permits and level of design detail in advance of selecting a design-build contractor. This study is a second phase report to the 2005 NCHRP publication, focusing in greater detail upon the permitting process for design-build projects. This study is intended to assist transportation agencies in better developing and integrating THE Louis Berger Group, INC. 1 Modification and Amendment of Environmental Permits on Design-Build Projects NCHRP Project 25-25 Task 25 knowledge of the permitting process at the state and Federal levels, and to allow them to benefit from the best practices identified and utilized to date. It would benefit state transportation agencies if they can better understand the potential implications and/or probable modification requirements associated with preparing and obtaining environmental permits in advance of the design-build process. In this regard, the transportation agencies would then be better equipped to effectively plan for such outcomes at Overview of Federal & State Permits the time of the initial preparation and receipt of the Included in Analysis permits, and to address those outcomes during the design-build process. They also would be in a Section 404 of the Clean Water Act better position to anticipate the needs and desires - Issued by the Department of the Army, of the regulatory and resource agencies responsible Corps of Engineers - Permit for the discharge of dredged or for permitting, approving permit amendments and fill material into jurisdictional modifications, and ensuring compliance with wetlands or navigable waters of the environmental commitments stated in the permits. United States This is especially important since the primary Section 401 Water Quality Certification responsibility for preparing permit amendments/ - Mandated under the Clean Water Act, modifications and complying with environmental but issued by state regulatory agencies