innovative approaches to federal highway transportation

United StatesDepartment ofTransportation

Federal HighwayAdministration

Prepared byUnited StatesDepartment ofAgriculture

Forest Service

Technology &DevelopmentProgram

7700—TransportationSystems Management

December 20010177 1806—SDTDC

FOREST SERVICE

DEP A R T MENT OF AGRICUL T U R

E

InnovativeApproaches toTransportation–A Guidebook

Information contained in this document has been developed for the guidance of employees of the ForestService, USDA, its contractors, and cooperating Federal and state agencies. The Department of Agricultureassumes no responsibility for the interpretation or use of this information by other than its own employees.The use of trade, firm, or corporation names is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such usedoes not constitute an official evaluation, conclusion, recommendation, endorsement, or approval of anyproduct or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on thebasis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, ormarital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities whorequire alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.)should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, WhittenBuilding, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voiceand TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

InnovativeApproaches toTransportation–A Guidebook

Authored by the Guidebook Committee

USDA Forest Service

San Dimas Technology & Development CenterSan Dimas, CA 91773

December 2001

Guidebook committee:

Marjorie ApodacaTransportation EngineerUSDA Forest ServiceSouthwestern Region

Nancy BrunswickForest Service Scenic Byway Resource SpecialistAmerica’s Byways Resource CenterUSDA Forest ServiceDuluth, MN

Betsy CarrollGrants StrategistsUSDA Forest ServicePacific Southwest Region

Susan ClementsProject LeaderUSDA Forest ServiceSan Dimas Technology & Development CenterSan Dimas, CA

Larry HoovestolTransportation PlannerUSDA Forest ServiceRocky Mountain Region

Sandra JacobsonDistrict Wildlife BiologistUSDA Forest ServiceBonners Ferry Ranger District

Maureen KestlerGeotechnical EngineerUSDA Forest ServiceWhite Mountain National Forest

Ellen LaFayettePublic Forest Service Roads Team LeaderUSDA Forest ServiceEastern Region

Dave OlsonPartnerships & Community AssistanceUSDA Forest ServiceGifford Pinchot National Forest

Paul SchneiderTechnical Services EngineerEastern Federal Lands Highway DivisionFHWASterling, VA

Cindy WilliamsFisheries BiologistUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Alan YamadaEngineering Program LeaderUSDA Forest ServiceSan Dimas Technology & Development CenterSan Dimas, CA

Janet ZellerAccessibility Program ManagerRecreation, Heritage, and Wilderness ResourcesUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Oversite provided by:

Thomas L. MooreNational Transportation Development Program ManagerUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Monica SchwalbachAssistant Director, Wildlife and Terrestrial EcologyUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

Floyd A. Thompson IIITravel and Tourism Program ManagerUSDA Forest ServiceWashington, DC

5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ........................................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction—Why A New Approach to Transportation ............................................................................. 3

Chapter 1—Forest Service Transportation Planning Process

Transportation Opportunities for the National Forests and Grasslands ..................................................................... 5

Transportation Planning—Caring for the Land and Serving People .......................................................................... 5

Transportation Planning—Building a Seamless Network ........................................................................................ 11

Chapter 2—FHWA and FTA Funding Programs and the Transportation Planning Process

The ABCs of Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning ......................................................................... 13

Statewide Transportation Planning ........................................................................................................................ 16

Metropolitan Transportation Planning ..................................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3—Implementation Funding

Transportation Program Funding Tables ................................................................................................................ 27

Chapter 4—Project-Level Highway Issues and Opportunities

Intermodal Transportation Linkages: TEA-21 Connects an Island .......................................................................... 57

Chapter 5—Success Stories

Tonto National Forest Interpretive Sites: Nominated for the Excellence in Highway Design Award .......................... 63

Kancamagus Scenic Byway: Changing Landscapes on the White Mountain National Forest ................................. 64

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: Emerald Bay State Park Enhancement ........................................................ 65

Willamette and Deschutes National Forests: McKenzie-Santiam Pass National Scenic Byway .............................. 66

Dixie National Forest to Bryce Canyon National Park: Red Canyon Bicycle Trail and Heritage

Center and Highway 12 Scenic Byway ....................................................................................................... 67

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area: Many Partners, Multiple Opportunities ....................................... 68

Buffalo Bill Cody Scenic Byway: The Most Beautiful 52 Miles in America! .............................................................. 69

Edge of the Wilderness: Increasing Organizational Capacity .................................................................................. 70

Arizona Department of Transportation: Funding Forest Service Experts ................................................................. 71

1

This document is a cooperative effort between theFederal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Federal LandsHighway and the United States Department of Agriculture(USDA) Forest Service. It outlines a strategy to betterintegrate transportation planning activities conducted bythe States, local transportation officials, and the USDAForest Service for federally funded projects that provideaccess to or within national forest land. At this writing, theForest Service Roads Policy has not been approved andthe FHWA Transportation Planning rulemaking processpertaining to the Forest Service has not been completed.However, this general strategy can aid in determining howand when to work with States, metropolitan planningorganizations, Tribal Governments, local transportationofficials, and other Federal agencies to identify and plansuccessful highway projects.

PREFACE

3

WHY A NEW APPROACH TOTRANSPORTATION?The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)Forest Service is comprised of 155 national forests and20 national grasslands covering 193 million acres of theUnited States. Within these forest lands is a system ofmore than 380,000 miles of roads and over 133,000 milesof hiking, biking, motorized, and equestrian trails. Bettertransportation links are emerging between State and localtransportation systems (including transit systems) andforest transportation systems to help people accessnational forests. As the connection between thesesystems becomes more seamless, this coordinatedtransportation network stimulates new national forest usesand activities for recreation, allows for more effectiveforest management, and enhances rural transportationinfrastructure for surrounding private land. However, thisincreased use creates challenges for maintaining nationalforest resources such as wildlife, fish, plants, waterquality, stream function, and environmental quality overall.

Seamless transportation systems and the national forests’commitment to building better relationships with Statesand other partners will help us to achieve our mission ofeffective land stewardship and public service. By workingtogether throughout the transportation planning process,we can ensure that transportation systems are developedto better serve communities and forest visitors. Inpartnership with State DOTs and local transportationofficials, a greater portion of the $200+ billion availablethrough Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) andFederal Transit Authority (FTA) surface transportationprograms can be used to construct transportation projects

that are mutually beneficial. The FHWA and FTA fundingis very flexible and can be used for many activitiesbeyond just constructing roads including enhancingroadside areas, providing traveler services (e.g.,construction of visitor centers), constructing trails, andimproving environmental conditions alongside roads andtrails.

However, most of this funding cannot be accesseddirectly by the Forest Service. To benefit from most ofthese FHWA and FTA funding programs, the ForestService must partner with the State and localgovernments. The Forest Service must participate inthe State’s transportation planning process to ensurethat projects that are important to the Forest Serviceare included in the State’s project priority list (knownas the State transportation improvement program orSTIP).

This guidebook outlines the transportation planningprocess and serves as a primer on

• which activities are eligible for funding,

• where to find funding,

• actions required for Forest Service managers toaccess and benefit from these funds and programs,

• which agencies to partner with, and

• how to integrate Forest Service objectiveswith State and local objectives.

The guidebook is designed to assist ForestService managers, staff, and partners indeveloping relationships and in maximizingparticipation in FHWA and FTA surfacetransportation programs currently fundedthrough the Transportation Equity Act forthe 21st Century (TEA-21). These

programs will be funded in the futurethrough the reauthorization of the

surface transportation act.With the technical asistanceavailable through the FHWA andthe FTA, the Forest Service canhelp further regional and localcommunity goals and help to fulfillthe Forest Service mission.

INTRODUCTION

4

INTRODUCTION

1

5

FOREST SERVICE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESS

TRANSPORTATION OPPORTUNITIES FOR THENATIONAL FORESTS AND GRASSLANDSThe Forest Service can significantly improve access tothe national forests and grasslands while reducingimpacts to adjacent areas. Because we are part of alarger community of local, regional, and State interests,integrated transportation planning can offer new andinnovative funding opportunities that benefit many groupsand meet the following mutual objectives:

• Improving safety and user comfort

• Restoring watersheds

• Protecting wetlands

• Improving wildlife habitat connectivity

• Protecting threatened, endangered, and sensitivespecies and their habitats

• Improving accessibility

• Enhancing tourism

• Preserving and interpreting cultural and naturalheritage sites

• Improving recreational trails

• Identifying, marketing, and enhancing scenicbyways

• Addressing the causes of air pollution

In addition, transit systems have the potential to expandnational forest and grassland access for underservedpopulations and to improve environmental conditions ofthe forest. Careful transportation planning can enhancethis potential.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING—CARING FORTHE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLEPlanning transportation systems, and managing road andtrail systems are identified in the Forest Service strategicplan as critical issues that require attention. ForestService policy, practice, and procedures for transportationplanning are derived from directives in the Forest ServiceManual (FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH).Relevant sections include:

• FSM Section 1900 and FSH Section 1900 (directsforest planning)

• FSM Section 7700 and FSH Section 7700 (directstransportation planning, primarily for roads)

• FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18 (directs planning fortrail systems)

How DoesForest ServiceTransportationPlanning Fit?The ForestServiceimplementspolicies todeveloptransportationsystems that willbest servecurrent andanticipated

management objectives and will accommodate public useof National Forest System (NFS) land (FSM 1920). This isaccomplished through transportation planning. Funding toaccomplish the goals outlined in forest plans and othertransportation planning initiatives is limited when having torely solely on the appropriated funds available to theForest Service. By supplementing Forest Serviceappropriations with TEA-21 funds, more of our plansgoals can be met to improve transportation systems thatprovide access to and within the forests, and improveenvironmental conditions of resources impacted by thepresence of roads and trails.

Forest plans should address the forest's transportationsystem needs and reflect Forest Service national andregional strategic plans. The forest plan should alsodefine the future vision for the forest's transportationsystem.

1

6


Figure 1—Forest Service planning process.

Transportation Partners (State Departments ofTransportation, Local Transportation Officials,Tribal Governments, FHWA, Others)

Stakeholders, Transportation Partners, State Long-Range Plans, Metropolitan Long-Range Plans, STIP,Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs(TIPs)

Stakeholders, Transportation Partners, State Long-Range Plans, Metropolitan Long-Range Plans, STIP,Metropolitan TIPs

Stakeholders, Transportation Partners

PROCESSES INPUT TO PROCESSES

Forest ServiceAppropriation

Funded Projects

Other FHWA/FTAFunded Projects

(Metropolitan TIP)

Identification of Potential FundingSources and Project Sponsors

If the project is funded with Forest Serviceappropriations, the Forest Service proceeds withproject development. If the project is funded withForest Highway funds or other FHWA/FTA funds,the sponsor places the project on the appropriateTIP. If the project is a Forest Highway project, theFederal Lands Highway Division will place theproject on the Forest Highway TIP. If the project is ina metropolitan area, the project sponsor will placethe project on the metropolitan TIP. If the project isoutside of a metropolitan area, the project sponsorwill place the project directly on the STIP.

Other FHWA/FTAFunded Projects

(STIP)

Forest HighwayProgram FundedProjects (FH TIP)

System Inventory

Develop Draft Forest Plan

Public Involvement

Final Forest Plan

NFMA Project Identification(Initial List of Proposed Forest Service Projects)

Finalize List ofProposed Forest Service Projects

FHWA/FTA Approve STIP

Projects Selected for Funding

PROJECT DEVELOPMENTEnvironmental Reviews and Approval

Engineering, Right-of-Way, Utilities

Construction/Procurement

Operation

1

7


• National and regional strategic plans outline goalsand objectives at the programmatic level, definingthe vision and direction for transportation networks.

• The forest plan identifies critical transportation-related issues as they relate to forest management.All decisions at the forest level flow from the goalsarticulated in the forest plan. The plan should clearlydefine the desired future resource conditions andvisitor experiences envisioned for the forest.

Partnering. A thorough transportation planning processincludes partnering with State Department ofTransportation (DOT) and local transportation officials,tribal governments, local communities, and other publicand private groups. These groups should be brought intothe transportation planning process at the beginning. It isimportant that partners goals and objectives areincorporated into the proposed improvements to thetransportation system. By working with partners early inthe process, better projects will be developed andsupported by our partners and others affected by thetransportation system.

Get Ready!Transportation analysis at all levels should follow asequential process (figure 1) that defines and addressestransportation needs in context with environmental,social, and financial considerations. The FSM 7700 andRoads Analysis: Informing Decisions about Managing theNational Forest Transportation System (1999) outline aprocess in which each step addresses the objectives offorest plans, legislated mandates, policies and fiscallimitations, environmental regulations, and public needs.

System Inventory. Thefirst step is to know whereyour forest transportationnetwork is, its condition,and its users. Table 1describes some toolsavailable for the planningteam and the

decisionmakers to obtain this data. Do not forget to inviteyour partners to assist with the inventory and analysis ofthe transportation system. Often State and local roads arethe foundation of the transportation system within theforest boundary. Connections beyond the boundary are

also key components of the system. State and localtransportation officials can describe their future plans fortheir transportation system, relevant issues related to thesystem, and provide data that may be useful to the ForestService when we perform planning for our transportationnetwork.

The Forest Plan. The forest planwill define a set of goals for thetransportation system and mayinclude a list of major proposedprojects or opportunities. Stateand local transportation officialsshould be included from thebeginning of forest planning andother transportation planningprocesses. They can provideinformation that will help indeveloping goals and projects tobe pursued. The forest shouldalso obtain transportationplanning documents that havebeen developed by the State andlocal transportation officials when

the forest begins to revise the forest plan. The States allhave long-range transportation plans that provideinformation on the long-range goals of the Statestransportation system. These plans may have proposedimprovements to transportation facilities, including thosethat provide access to and within the forests. The Statesalso have STIPs that include specific improvements to thetransportation system that are to be implemented withinthe next three years. Other transportation planning andland use documents should also be obtained from localofficials. It is also important to look for avenues toincorporate our partner's needs and objectives whendeveloping the transportation component of the forestplan. This partnering should begin prior to the publicinvolvement process. The finalized forest plan should beprovided to transportation agencies and others who maybe impacted by the plan’s goals or projects.

Get Set!NFMA Project Analysis. Using the roads analysisprocess described in table 1, further National ForestManagement Act (NFMA) project analysis occurs afterforest plan approval. The NFMA should establish an initialprioritized list of proposed projects that support forest plangoals. The forest should encourage partners andstakeholders to participate in this process.

1

8


Table 1—Transportation analysis tools.

Tool Description

The Roads Analysis Process (RAP) The RAP provides the foundation for transportation information in the forest plan. It is acomprehensive tool for evaluating road systems and road management strategies. Aninterdisciplinary team assesses the extent and current condition of the roads system ascompared to the desired condition. The team considers road access related toecosystem health and sustainability, commodity uses, recreation, social and culturalvalues, and administrative uses. Any formal changes in road use require a RAP. Roadsanalysis is intended to complement and integrate previous and ongoing analyticalefforts—access and travel management plans, transportation plans, watershedanalysis, NEPA analysis, and multiforest plans for conserving specific species, e.g.,grizzly bears and lynx. Information gathered can also support many other planningefforts such as corridor plans for national scenic byway designation proposals.

Engineering Inventory and Planning Forest engineering departments are responsible for many different inventories tomonitor the location and condition of the transportation system. This informationcontributes to the formation of goals and objectives in forest plans.

Transportation Atlas The transportation atlas consists of maps, inventories, plans, and associatedinformation on the system of roads, trails, and airfields within the forest or otheradministrative unit.

Road inventory The road inventory is a component of the transportation atlas. At the forest or multiforestscale, inventories supply information for broader assessments of road managementneeds. At the watershed or area scale, a comprehensive and complete inventoryencompasses all classified, unclassified, and temporary roads.

Road Management Objectives (RMOs) RMOs identify a management objective for each road in the NFS. An RMO isdeveloped from the management area direction, access management objectives, orother resource management direction, standards, and guidelines.

Operation Criteria These criteria determine how a road will be operated and maintained.

Road Maintenance Levels These levels define the level of service that a road provides and the maintenancerequired.

Traffic Service Levels These levels describe a road’s significant characteristics and operating conditions.

Functional Classes These classes describe how a road services land and resource management needsand the character of service provided.

1

9


Table 1—Transportation analysis tools (continued).

Tool Description

Management Systems Management systems provide information on the inventory, existing and future condition,and operational characteristics of transportation systems to assist planners anddecisionmakers in identifying opportunities and developing transportation systemimprovement priorities.

Road Maintenance These systems assist transportation system managers in setting priorities; planningbudgets; and scheduling, performing, monitoring, and evaluating maintenance of forestroads.

Safety Management Systems These systems provide information to assist in reducing the number and severity oftraffic crashes on a transportation system. Potential strategies for improvingtransportation system safety are identified, considered, implemented, and evaluated inall phases of planning, design, construction, maintenance, and operation.

Bridge Management Systems These systems provide information to assist in ensuring that Forest Service bridges aresafe and efficiently accommodate current and forecasted traffic.

Pavement Management Systems These systems provide information to assist in implementing cost-effective pavementreconstruction, rehabilitation, and preventive maintenance programs.

Congestion Management Systems These systems provide information to assist in monitoring transportation systemperformance and determining alternative strategies for alleviating congestion.

Traffic Counts Traffic counts describe traffic volume per specified time frame (hour/day/year) or vehiclemiles traveled.

Trails Inventory and Planning Trails inventory is described in FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18 (Trails ManagementHandbook). Trails, their use (motorized or nonmotorized), and their conditions areincluded in the transportation atlas. Trail planning is an integral part of recreationstrategic planning and the transportation system.

Management Systems

1

10


Finalize List of ProposedForest Service Projects.The next step is to workcooperatively with State andFederal agencies, tribalgovernments, counties,communities, and otherstakeholders to refine the

initial list of prioritized projects that were identified throughthe NFMA process. A great deal of support can begenerated through this early involvement. It is critical thatthe State and local departments of transportation beprimary partners in this process. If they understand theneeds and support the priorities, it improves the likelihoodthat these projects will be included in the STIP.

Identifying Potential Funding Sources and ProjectSponsors. After setting project priorities in partnershipwith other stakeholders, eligible projects must becategorized by potential funding sources, and projectsponsors must be identified. Many of the projects can befunded with several FHWA and FTA surface transportationprograms because the eligibility criteria often overlap.State DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs),RPOs, other local transportation officials, the FHWA, theFTA, and other stakeholders can assist in determiningpotential funding sources. After reviewing the availablesources of funding for each project, the funding sourcesthat are most likely to be able to provide funding shouldbe identified along with a project sponsor. For projectsoutside of metropolitan areas, the State, RPO or localtransportation officials will likely be the project sponsor.For projects within metropolitan areas, the MPO or publictransportation provider will likely be the project sponsor.

The final forest plan includes goals for thetransportation system. The implementation of projectsis a means for achieving the goals set forth in theforest plan. Not all of the projects that are required toachieve the goals will be included in any one STIP. It islikely that only a few projects will get onto any oneSTIP. Therefore, the process of developing a prioritizedlist of projects, and identifying project sponsors andfunding is an ongoing process. Over a period of time,many of the Forest Service recommended projects arelikely to be included on future STIP updates and thegoals of the forest plan will be accomplished.

Project Funded by Forest Service Appropriations orFHWA/FTA Programs. If the project is funded with ForestService appropriations, the Forest Service proceeds withproject development. If the project is funded with ForestHighway funds or other FHWA/FTA funds, the sponsorplaces the project on the appropriate transportationimprovement program (TIP). If the project is a ForestHighway project, the Federal Lands Highway Division willplace the project on the Forest Highway TIP. If the projectis in a metropolitan area, the project sponsor will place theproject on the metropolitan TIP. If the project is outside ofa metropolitan area, the project sponsor will place theproject directly on the STIP.

The Forest Highway program planning process is outlinedin the following steps:

• Projects are identified for funding at each State’sannual Forest Highway program meeting. A formaltriparty partnership, consisting of the State, theForest Service, and the FHWA Federal LandsHighway division office, is responsible for identifyingthe projects at the meeting.

• Identified projects are included on the proposedForest Highway TIP (FH TIP) prepared by the localFHWA Federal Lands Highway division office.

• The local FHWA Federal Lands Highway divisionoffice (with concurrence from the State and ForestService) approves the FH TIP. (Currently, no publicinvolvement is required prior to approval. However, itmay be required in the future.)

• After the FH TIP is approved, for projects innonmetropolitan areas, it is transmitted by theFHWA to the State for inclusion in the STIP. Nofurther action is required by the State. For projectslocated in metropolitan areas, the FHWA transmitsthe FH TIP to the MPO for inclusion in themetropolitan TIP. No further action is required by theMPO.

Project Selection. After the STIP has been approved(see chapter 3), the project can be selected, and theproject development process begins.

Because of the competitive nature of transportationproject funding, coalitions of support are crucial toobtaining funds for projects that serve forests and forest

1

11


communities. The Forest Service can be a very attractivepartner with its various sources of funding and in-kindsupport (i.e., right-of-way, engineering, or environmentalservices) that can be used as matching funds. Manysmall communities and organizations lack the workforceor the financial ability to meet the matching requirementsof many of the FHWA and FTA programs. Projects withmultiagency support and strong local backing generallyrank higher, increasing the chance of being approved forfunding by the State DOT. Leveraging funding from avariety of sources will greatly improve the likelihood of theproject being selected for funding (placed on the STIP).

Involving the Public.Public involvement

• occurs at allphases oftransportation andproject planning[e.g., forest planupdates, NFMAprocesses, NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) process],

• broadens the understanding of all interested groupsand citizens for a specific program or project,

• solicits ideas for solutions to transportationproblems, and

• leads to long-term relationships that help ensureconsensus by the Forest Service, the public, andlocal communities.

Public involvement is important because:

• Public input, with consensus from interested parties,will result in a better project and fewer delays in theproject development process.

• Public lands belong to the public; they have the rightto participate in decisions.

Public involvement is expensive, but poorly designedpublic involvement is even more expensive in terms ofproject delays and community dissent.

Go!Project Development. Transportationplanning ends when the project has beenincluded on the approved STIP. The nextphase, the project development process,includes:

• Project planning

• Preparing project-level NEPA andbiological-opinion documents

• Developing a preliminary design

• Preparing the plans, specifications,and cost estimate package forproject construction bids

The project development processinvolves decisions on the location,design, and operation and maintenanceof transportation services and systems. Project levelenvironmental impacts and mitigation measure includingvegetation management, fire risk management, wildlifeand fish crossings, and watershed restoration activitiesare addressed at this time.

A common mistake has been to apply for andto accept highway program funding, but to beunprepared to complete the project, and/oroperate and maintain the project after itscompletion. Competing priorities may result ininadequate staffing to accomplish the project.Sufficient staffing resources are required forthe design, on-the-ground work, administrativeassistance, maintenance, and thedetermination of sources for matching funds.Partners can, and often do, assumeresponsibility for operating or maintaining aproject or service after they are implemented.

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING—BUILDING ASEAMLESS NETWORKMultiple governmental jurisdictions have responsibilitiesfor the transportation systems within national forests andgrasslands. Transportation networks are seamless onlywhen these networks are managed holistically. It is criticalthat national forest transportation planning efforts beintegrated with those of the States, other Federalagencies, Tribal governments, counties, and communitiesto improve the effectiveness of the entire system.

1

12


Local communities and the Federal lands that borderthem are intricately linked. National forests adjacent tocommunities contribute significantly to the economy,cultural identity, and quality of life in these communities.National forests provide scenic beauty and recreationalopportunities and help nourish ecological values,benefiting local communities and nearby metropolitanareas. As members of the greater community, nationalforest transportation planners and other managers needto work with area leaders to create transportation, landuse, and economic development strategies that preservenatural resources while supporting local economic andother community objectives. Here is a good example ofhow Utah and Wyoming used transportation planningpartnerships.

Successful Expectations for TransportationPlanning Partnerships in Utah

When Dale Peterson of the Utah DOT asked ifa partnership incorporating the National ParkService and the Utah DOT would also benefitthe Forest Service, the Utah Forest Supervisorsand Bob Harmon, Region 4 TransportationEngineer, jumped at the opportunity. Thepartnership plan included a review of what wasworking and what was not between the UtahDOT and the Forest Service. “Sometimes wecould affirm that things were going very well.We identified a need for a new memorandum ofunderstanding (MOU) with a morecontemporary reflection of what we do,” saidMary Wagner, Forest Supervisor on the DixieNational Forest.

The MOU partnership charter defines severalways to help the agencies work together. One isto meet, at least annually, to address agencyneeds. The MOU emphasizes earlyinvolvement in everything from projectproposals and development to maintenance.The task team for the MOU revision determinedthat the most effective coordination occurred atthe forest and Utah DOT regional levels,although statewide coordination was effectivewhen needed. The task team developed asimple directory for the forests and Utah DOT,listing contacts for the design, construction,operations and maintenance, and planning oftransportation systems.

The partnership between the Forest Serviceand Utah DOT continues to grow andstrengthen. An example of this continuedcooperation, the Utah DOT invited the ForestService to participate in their “Context SensitiveDesign” futuring exercise to improve theirtransportation planning process and DOToperations. A more integrated NEPA effort bythe State, involving the Forest Service andother stakeholders in the development ofalternatives, is envisioned.

Has this relationship resulted in a bettertransportation system for our stakeholders andpartners? Innovative projects such as the RedCanyon Bicycle Trail (chapter 5) are evidencethat agency partnerships coupled with localcommunity involvement can succeed. Forfurther information about this partnershipcontact the Region 4 transportation engineer at(801) 625–5224 or the Dixie National Forest at(435) 865–3700.

13

2FHWA AND FTA FUNDING PROGRAMS

AND THE STATEWIDE AND METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROCESSES

FHWA and FTA surfacetransportation programscan provide significantfunding for implementingtransportationimprovement projectsthat assist the ForestService in achieving theirmission. Understandingand actively participatingin the statewide andmetropolitantransportation process isrequired for the ForestService to benefit fromthese funds because

most of the funding is provided to the State DOTs, localtransportation officials, and public transportation providersfor their distribution. These organizations determine theprojects to be funded by the FHWA/FTA programs throughthe statewide and metropolitan transportation planningprocesses.

By participating in the statewide and metropolitan planningprocesses, the Forest Service can benefit from FHWA andFTA funding programs in two ways:

• Direct funding can be provided for Forest Servicetransportation projects.

• Partners can construct projects that are beneficial tothe Forest Service.

There are many FHWA and FTA programs that providefunding for a wide variety of surface transportationprojects. In addition to simply funding the construction orreconstruction of roads, many of these programs canprovide funds for activities that go beyond roadconstruction (see chapter 3, table 5 for a list of activities).This chapter describes how the Forest Service canparticipate in the statewide and metropolitantransportation planning processes.

The FHWA and FTA programs are funded through surfacetransportation reauthorizations acts. Surfacetransportation reauthorization acts include provisions thatcontain specific funding levels for each individual FHWAand FTA program. A new surface transportationreauthorization act is signed into law when the previousone expires. The current act, TEA-21, was signed intolaw on June 9, 1998, and expires on September 30, 2003.TEA-21 authorizes about $200 billion for the surface

transportation programs in Title 23 U.S.C. (Highways,administered by the FHWA), and Title 49 U.S.C. (MassTransportation, administered by the FTA). Titles 23 and49 require that all projects funded under those titles beincluded in formal, mandated transportation planningprocesses.

Chapter 3 summarizes the eligible activities and programrequirements for the FHWA and FTA funding programs.

THE ABCs OFSTATEWIDE ANDMETROPOLITANTRANSPORTATIONPLANNINGThe primary goal oftransportation planning isto encourage and promotethe safe and efficientmanagement, operationand development ofsurface transportationsystems that will serve themobility needs of peopleand freight, and foster

economic growth and development while minimizingtransportation-related environmental impacts. Obtainingfunding is one way to accomplish the primary goal oftransportation planning because it gives you the ability toimplement your future vision for the transportation system.The transportation planning process considers all modesof transportation and is continuous, cooperative andcomprehensive.

The transportation planning process produces two keyproducts:

• Long-range transportation plans

– Contain the long-range vision for thetransportation system.

• Transportation improvement programs (TIPs)

– Contain a priority list of proposed FHWA/FTAfunded projects and strategies for theupcoming three years (minimum) that areconsistent with the long-range plan.

14



PlanningFactors

LocalOfficials

Involvement

ManagementSystems Input

Air Qualityand Other

EnvironmentalConsiderations

FinancialConsiderations

PublicInvolvement

TransportationPlan

TransportationImprovement

Program

Figure 2—Major components of transportation planning.

15



Coordination Among Plans

Plans Metropolitan Statewide ForestTransportation Transportation Plans

Plans Plans

Programs Metropolitan TIPs Statewide Forest Forest HighwayTransportation added Transportation Highway TransportationImprovement into Improvement TIPs Improvement

Programs (TIP) STIPs Program (STIP) added Programs (FH TIP)(Multi-year (Multi-year into (Multi-yearProgram of Program of STIPs* Program ofProjects) Projects) Projects)

Federal LandsHighwayApproval

All Transportation Improvement Programs Must Be Financially Constrained

FHWA/FTAApprove STIP

Projects SelectedFor Funding

State and FederalEnvironmentalReviews and

Project Development Approvals,Engineering,Right-of-Way,

Utilities


Operation

Figure 3—Coordination of transportation planning processes.

or or Forest HighwayFundedProjects

Non-Forest Highway

Funded Projects

* If a Forest Highway Project iswithin a Metropolitan Planningarea, the project must be includedin the metropolitan TIP. Themetropolitan TIP will then be addedto the STIP. If the project is notwithin a metropolitan planning area,the project will be added directly tothe STIP. The Forest Highway TIPsare approved by Federal LandsHighway prior to including them inthe statewide or metropolitan TIPs.Therefore, FHWA/FTA approval ofthe STIP does not affect ForestHighway projects.

16



Major components contributing to the development oflong-range transportation plans and TIPs are shown infigure 2. The result of the transportation planning processis an approved STIP. Projects that are included on theapproved STIP have FHWA and FTA funding identified fortheir implementation.

STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGStatewide planning is the foundation of all transportationplanning. All other transportation planning, includingForest Service transportation planning is a subset of theoverall transportation planning for a State. Figure 3 showsthe coordination of the statewide, metropolitan, andForest Service transportation planning processes. Theprocess begins by developing transportation plans withlong-range goals. Long-range goals from metropolitanand forest plans should be incorporated into the statewideplan. The next step in the process is to develop the STIPthat identifies and prioritizes projects and strategies thatsupport the long-range goals. Following FHWA and FTAapproval of the STIP, the project is selected and theproject development process begins which includes theNEPA process. Individual steps of this process will bediscussed throughout the remainder of the chapter.

Summary of the statewide transportationplanning process: Each State develops along-range plan. Throughout the life of thelong-range plan, the State develops STIPs thatare in conformance with and meet theobjectives of the plan. If a State has populationcenters of 50,000 or more, it is required toestablish MPOs, which must developmetropolitan long-range plans andmetropolitan TIPs of their own. Thismetropolitan planning process is a subset ofthe statewide planning process, as is theForest Service transportation planning process.

Title 23 (sections 134 and 135) describes therequirements of the MPO and statewide transportationplanning processes. Each State and MPO implementsthese requirements differently, so Forest Servicepersonnel must work with individual States and MPOs tobecome familiar with their specific requirements.

State DOTs are responsible for the development of long-range plans and STIPs. Title 23 includes seven planningfactors that must be considered throughout the planningprocess. The planning process must consider strategiesand develop projects that will

• support the economic vitality of the United States,the States, and metropolitan areas;

• increase transportation system safety and securityfor motorized and nonmotorized trail users;

• increase the accessibility and mobility optionsavailable to people and for freight;

• protect and enhance the environment, promoteenergy conservation, and improve the quality of life;

• enhance the integration and connectivity of thetransportation system, across and between modesthroughout the State, for people and freight;

• promote efficient system management andoperation; and

• emphasize preservation of the existingtransportation system.

These issues are also very important to the ForestService and are considered throughout the Forest Servicetransportation planning process as well as the statewideprocess.

State Long-Range Transportation PlansState long-range plans are required for the developmentand integrated management and operation of theintermodal transportation system of the State. Theseplans vary significantly from State to State. Some long-range plans include improvements for specifictransportation facilities or transportation corridors. Otherlong-range plans are more policy-oriented. Each nationalforest office should have a copy of its State’s long-rangeplan, available at the State DOT or local FHWA Federal-aid division office (located in the State capital). The FHWAFederal-aid division planner can facilitate contact with theappropriate State staff.

• Timeframe: A State long-range plan must have aminimum 20-year forecast period. (There are norequirements indicating how often the plan must beupdated. Some States update long-range plans on aregular cycle; other States update them whenevernecessary.)

17



Figure 4—Forest Service involvement in the statewide and metropolitan planning process.

Proposed State/ Forest ServiceMetropolitan Planners, engineers, and line officers provide input on Forest Service

Long-Range Plan management goals from forest plan in long-range plan development

Public Involvement Forest Service comments on long-range plan

Final State/Metropolitan

Long-Range Plans

Proposed TIP/STIP Forest ServicePlanners and engineers propose projects that meet goals of forest plans,and provide input on projects proposed by others that impact forestmanagement

Public Involvement Forest Service comments on proposed STIP

Final STIP Forest Highway TIP

FHWA/FTA Approvalof STIP

Project Selection

Project Development Forest Service engineers, planners, and resource specialists may assistEnvironmental Reviews with design and mitigation

and ApprovalEngineering, Right-of-Way,

Utilities


Operation

18



• Organizations involved: Title 23 requires the Stateto consider the concerns of the Forest Service whenthe Forest Service has jurisdiction over lands withinthe boundaries of the State. The States mustprovide the Forest Service the opportunity tocomment on the proposed long-range plan.

– In metropolitan areas, the State must develop thelong-range plan in cooperation with MPOs.

– In nonmetropolitan areas, the State must developthe long-range plan in consultation with affectedlocal officials with responsibility for transportation.In some States, this may include rural planningorganizations (RPOs).

– In American Indian tribal areas, the State mustdevelop the long-range plan in consultation withthe Tribal Government and the Secretary of theInterior.

• Public involvement: The State must provide anycitizen, public agency (i.e., Forest Service), or otherinterested party the opportunity to comment on theproposed long-range plan. Public involvement isintegral and perhaps the most important part of theprocess.

• Comments: Comments are reviewed andincorporated as appropriate.

• Environmental considerations: Environmentalissues that may be considered in the developmentof a State’s long-range plan include:

– Air quality

– Wetlands

– Habitats and recovery zones for threatened orendangered species

– Ecological connectivity and broadscale linkages

– Social and economic impacts

– Water quality

Why Should the Forest Servicebe Involved in the Developmentof the State Long-Range Plan?The statewide plan establishes theoverall vision for the State’s entiretransportation system. State andlocally owned transportationsystems provide access to andwithin forests and connect totransportation systems under ForestService jurisdiction. The vision forthe long-range plan should includeinput from the Forest Servicebecause the plan should include theForest Services' vision for the transportation system.

How Should the Forest Service be Involved in theDevelopment of the State Long-Range Plan?

• Forests should request to be included on State,RPO, and other planning agency mailing lists. TheState or local FHWA Federal-aid division office willknow whether such a statewide transportationplanning mailing list exists.

• The forest supervisor should make a formal requestto the local FHWA Federal-aid division office, theState DOT, and RPO to include the Forest Servicein the process for updating the long-range plan.

• If the plan is updated on an unscheduled basis, theforest should ask the FHWA Federal-aid divisionoffice and the State to inform them of when theState plans to update the plan.

• The Forest Service should participate in thedevelopment of the proposed plan, and provideinput on the proposed plan during the publicinvolvement process (figure 4).

– If the plan includes specific facilities and corridorsthat will be improved in the future, the ForestService should determine whether there are anyfacilities or corridors they would like to haveincluded in the next State long-range plan.

– If the plan is policy-oriented, the Forest Serviceshould determine whether there are anymodifications to existing policies or any newpolicies they would like to have included in thenext State long-range plan.

• Recommended modifications to the proposed planby the Forest Service should be based on the forestplan and Forest Service policy.

19



• When meeting with State or RPO representatives,the forest should bring its forest plan and use it asthe reference document for comments.

• In general, each forest should provide its forest planto the State when the forest plan is updated andwhen the State is updating its long-range plan.

• Forests are required to work in cooperation with theState when they are proposing the construction of aregionally significant project. These projects aresometimes included in the State long-range plan.

State Transportation Improvement Programs or STIPsIf a project is included in the STIP, FHWA and FTA fundinghas been identified for the project. If a project is notincluded in the STIP, FHWA and FTA funds cannot beused to fund the project.

STIPs include all FHWA- andFTA-funded surfacetransportation projects andother expenditures within theboundaries of a State andmust be consistent with thelong-range plan.

• MPO TIPs areincluded directly in the STIPor are referenced (see theMetropolitan TransportationPlanning section).

• STIPs also includeForest Highways TIPs. [If anew public Forest Serviceroads (PFSR) program isestablished, these PFSRTIPs will also be included inthe STIP.]

A map to the STIP process:• Organizations involved: The State works with the

MPOs, RPOs (if applicable), Federal landmanagement agencies (FLMAs) (e.g., ForestService), other planning agencies, and Tribalgovernments in developing a STIP.

• Projects included: The STIP includes FHWA andFTA funded projects, or project phases to be carriedout within the next 3 years. Projects are onlyincluded if full funding is available within the timeperiod identified in the STIP.

• Timeframes for updates: The STIP must beupdated at least every 2 years. Some States updatethem annually. States allow STIPs to be amended atother times, and the amendments may remove, add,or modify projects to the STIP.

• Public involvement: The State must provide anycitizen, public agency, or other interested party theopportunity to comment on the proposed STIP.Public involvement is integral and perhaps the mostimportant part of the process.


• Approval process: The STIP is finalized and sentto the FHWA and FTA for approval. The FHWA andFTA must approve the STIP at least every twoyears. (The FHWA and the FTA determine whetherthe planning process used in the STIP developmentis consistent with the FHWA transportation planningrequirements. If Federal planning processrequirements were followed, the STIP is approved.)

• Project selection: For the majority of FHWA andFTA funding programs, projects in nonmetropolitanareas are selected from approved STIPs by theState in cooperation with local officials of theaffected agencies.

Why Should the Forest Service be Involved in theDevelopment of the STIP?A vast majority of the FHWA and FTA surfacetransportation program funding is provided directly to theState for their use and distribution. The Forest Service, inpartnership with the State, RPOs, or other localorganizations, is often successful in having the Statesponsor a project recommended by the Forest Service.The project is then funded through the State and includedon the STIP. Significant funding is available for these

20



programs, and many forests have benefited from theseprograms. By participating in the development of theSTIP, the Forest Service is also able to review andprovide input for State and local recommended projectsthat affect national forest lands.

How Should the Forest Servicebe Involved in theDevelopment of the STIP?

• Each forest should obtain acopy of the current STIP.

• The forest should obtaininformation on the STIPdevelopment process for itsState and the schedule fordeveloping and amendingthe STIP. Most States havea document that describesthe STIP developmentprocess including atimeline.

• The forest supervisor should make a formal requestto the local FHWA Federal-aid division office, theState, and the RPO to include the Forest Service inthe process for updating the STIP.

• The Forest Service should participate in thedevelopment of the proposed STIP and during thepublic involvement process (figure 4).

— If the project(s) is a State or local recommendedproject that provides access to and within thenational forest, the Forest Service should reviewthe scope and description of the project(s). If theForest Service would like the project scope anddescription modified on a project(s) to meet theirneeds, the Forest Service should meet with theproject sponsor (State or local officials) toprovide their input on the specific project(s).

— If the forest identifies projects that can be fundedfrom programs other than the Forest Highwayprogram, forest personnel should contact theState or RPO to determine whether the State andlocal government(s) are willing to sponsor andprovide funding for the projects. Prior tocontacting the State or RPO, however, the ForestService should identify all possible fundingsources for the projects.

• If funding is made available for Forest Servicerecommended projects, the Forest Service shouldreview the subsequent STIP (or amendment to thecurrent STIP) to ensure that the projects have beenincluded.

It is important that the forest be familiar withthe various programs that could providefunding for a project. Chapter 3 describes mostof the eligible activities for each program underTitles 23 and 49. By using the tables in chapter3 and contacting the local FHWA Federal-aiddivision office, the Federal Lands Highwaydivision office, or the FTA regional office, theforest should be able to identify potentialfunding sources for their projects.

The Forest Service should determine whetherit can provide any funds for the project. TheFHWA and FTA programs generally require a20 percent non-Federal share, that is usuallyprovided by the project sponsor, normally theState or a local government. Forest Serviceappropriated funds, Federal lands highwayprogram (FLHP) funds and in-kind support(e.g., right-of-way, engineering, andenvironmental services) may be used as thenon-Federal share on most projects. Chapter 3describes under what circumstances FLHPand Forest Service funds can be used as thenon-Federal share. The potential for the ForestService to fund the non-Federal share makesthe Forest Service an especially attractivepartner.

METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNINGMetropolitan transportation planning is a subset ofstatewide transportation planning. Urban forests, orforests affected by the transportation system of an urbanarea need to be familiar with their local metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs). It is important todetermine if your forest is within or near metropolitanplanning area boundaries.

21



• To receive FHWA and FTA surface transportationprogram funds, all States are required to designateMPOs for each area of the State with a population ofmore than 50,000 individuals. These are federallyrecognized organizations that must follow specifictransportation planning requirements.

• Some States require the establishment ofnonmetropolitan, planning organizations. Theorganizations are called RPOs in some States; otherStates have different names for them. Some Statesdo not have established RPOs. The RPOs assistwith local plans and goals.

• Nonurban forests in States with established RPOsmay have to work with the RPOs during thedevelopment of the State long-range plans andSTIPs, but coordination with the State remainsimportant. Nonurban forests in States that do nothave RPOs work directly with the State and localtransportation officials during the development of thelong-range plans and STIPs.

• State DOTs or local FHWA division offices knowwhich States have RPOs.

• MPOs, in cooperation with the State and publictransit operators, must develop metropolitan long-range transportation plans and metropolitan TIPs.This planning process is a subset of the overallstatewide transportation planning.

• As in the statewide planning process, Title 23requires that the same seven planning factors beconsidered during the metropolitan planningprocess. Refer to the discussion on statewidetransportation planning.

The Metropolitan Long-Range PlanThe metropolitan long-range plan must identifytransportation facilities that function as part of anintegrated transportation system. The plan must include afinancial plan that demonstrates how the long-range plancan be implemented; an assessment of the capitalinvestments necessary to ensure their preservation andmust make the most efficient use of the existingtransportation system; and proposed transportationenhancement activities.

In nonattainment and maintenance areas (air quality)1 ,the metropolitan long-range plan must also includedescriptions of the design concepts and scope of work forproposed transportation facility improvement projects forFHWA- and FTA-funded nonexempt projects and non-Federal regionally significant projects. The plans must bedetailed enough for conformity determinations to bemade. If a forest is in a nonattainment or maintenancearea, the forest will have to provide the design conceptand scope of work for nonexempt Forest Servicetransportation projects (most Forest Service projects areexempt) to the MPO to be included in the conformityanalysis.

The format of metropolitan long-range plans variessignificantly from State to State. However, all metropolitanlong-range plans include specific transportation facilitiesor transportation corridors they intend to improve in thefuture. Each forest affected by an MPO’s transportationnetwork, should have a copy of the metropolitan long-range plan. To obtain a metropolitan long-range plan,contact the local FHWA Federal-aid division office or theMPO.

The metropolitan long-range planning process includesthe following:

• Organizations involved: The MPO, in cooperationwith the State and public transit operators, developsthe metropolitan long-range plan. The MPO mayconsult with Tribal Governments, FLMAs (e.g.,Forest Service), and others during the developmentof the proposed plan prior to the public involvementprocess.

• Funding: A metropolitan long-range plan mustinclude a financial plan and financing strategies.

• Timeframe: A metropolitan long-range plan musthave a minimum 20-year forecast period.

• Updates: The MPO must initiate the process ofupdating its long-range plan to meet the 3- or 5-yearrequired update cycle. (The plan must be updatedevery 3 years in nonattainment and maintenanceareas and at least every 5 years in attainmentareas.)

1 Air quality and other environmental considerations: Under theClean Air Act, transportation plans, TIPs, and projects mustconform to the State Air Quality Implementation Plan (SIP).Conformity ensures that transportation activities do not worsenair quality or interfere with the area meeting air qualitystandards.

22



• Air quality issues: The MPO must demonstratethrough the transportation conformity process, thatthe transportation projects will have emissionsimpacts that are consistent with those contained inthe SIP. The MPO must coordinate the developmentof the long-range plan with the State and local air-quality agencies, the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA), and other stakeholders.

• Public involvement: The MPO must provide anycitizen, public agency (e.g., Forest Service), or otherinterested party the opportunity to comment on theproposed long-range transportation plan.


• Approval: The long-range plan is finalized andapproved by the MPO. The plans do not have to beapproved by the FHWA or FTA, but the approvedplans must be provided to each of these agencies.

Metropolitan and statewide planning processes are similarexcept that congestion management systems arerequired for Transportation Management Areas (TMAs)(urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000).If all or a portion of a forest’s transportation system iswithin the boundaries of a TMA, that portion of the forest’stransportation system may need to be included in thecongestion management system of the TMA.

Why Should the Forest Service be Involved in theDevelopment of a Metropolitan Long-Range Plan?The metropolitan long-range plan establishes the overallvision for the metropolitan area’s transportation system.This system provides access to and within urban forestsand connects to the transportation systems under thejurisdiction of the Forest Service. The vision in the long-range plan should include input from the forests,especially because urban forests often have heavyrecreational use that generates a lot of traffic on themetropolitan transportation system. The metropolitanlong-range plan should include the forest’s vision of thetransportation system. There may be opportunities torequest that transit system goals include forestdestinations. Also, if a forest is in a nonattainment ormaintenance area, its transportation system is included inthe conformity analysis.

How Should the ForestService be Involved inthe Development of aMetropolitan Long-Range Plan?

• If the MPO has amailing list, eachforest shouldrequest to beincluded on themailing list. Thelocal FHWAdivision office orthe MPO will knowwhether a formal metropolitan transportationplanning mailing list exists.

• The forest supervisor should make a formal requestto the local FHWA division office and the MPO toinclude the Forest Service in the process forupdating the long-range plan.

• The Forest Service should review the current long-range plan to become familiar with it.Recommendations for modifications to the planshould be based on the forest plan.

• When meeting with representatives of the MPO, theforest should bring its forest plan and use it as thereference document for comments. In general, eachforest within the boundaries of an MPO shouldprovide its forest plan and a list of proposed projectsto the MPO when the MPO is updating its long-range plan. Forests are required to coordinate withthe MPO when they are proposing the constructionof a regionally significant project, so it can beincluded in the metropolitan long-range plan.

• In nonattainment and maintenance areas for airquality, the Forest Service should participate in theinteragency consultation process for the planningand conformity processes.

Metropolitan TIPsIf a project is included in the metropolitan TIP, FHWA andFTA funding has been identified for the project. If a projectis not included in the TIP, FHWA and FTA funds cannot beused to fund the project.

Metropolitan TIPs include all FHWA- and FTA-fundedsurface transportation projects and other expenditureswithin the metropolitan planning area boundary.

23



Metropolitan TIPs include Forest Highway projects. Theprojects in the TIP must be consistent with the long-rangeplan.

• Updates: The TIP must be updated at least every 2years. Some MPOs update them annually. TheMPOs also allow for the TIPs to be amended atother times, and the amendments may remove, add,or modify projects on the TIP.

• Organizations involved: The MPO must cooperatewith the State and affected public transit operators inthe development of the TIP.

• Projects included: The TIP includes projects, oridentified phases of projects to be carried out overthe next 3 years. Projects are only included if fullfunding is available within the time period identifiedin the TIP. The TIP must include a financial plan thatdemonstrates both how the TIP can be implementedand resources that are expected to be available forits completion.

• Public involvement: The MPO, in cooperation withthe State and affected public transit operators, mustprovide any citizen, public agency (e.g., the ForestService), or other interested party the opportunity tocomment on the proposed TIP.

• Approval: The Governor of the State and the MPOmust approve the TIP and the conformity that isdetermined if they are in a nonattainment ormaintenance area.

Why Should the Forest Service be Involved in theDevelopment of the Metropolitan TIP?A significant amount of FHWA and FTA program funds areprovided to the MPOs for their use. The MPOs, incooperation with the State and public transit operators,select projects to include on the metropolitan TIP. Projectsselected for funding by an MPO can benefit ForestService projects and management goals. If the ForestService partners with the MPO, other local organizations,or a public transportation provider, a Forest Serviceproject can be sponsored by the MPO and included onthe metropolitan TIP. By participating in the developmentof the TIP, the Forest Service is also able to review andprovide input for MPO and others’ recommended projectsthat affect national forest lands.

How Should the Forest Service be Involved in theDevelopment of the TIP?

• Each forest should obtain a copy of the current TIP.

• The forest should obtain information on the TIPdevelopment process for the MPO and the schedulefor developing and amending the TIP. Most MPOshave a document that describes the TIPdevelopment process including a timeline.

• The forest supervisor should make a formal requestto the local FHWA Federal office and the MPO toinclude the Forest Service in the process forupdating the TIP.

• The Forest Service should participate in thedevelopment of the proposed TIP and during thepublic involvement process (figure 4).

— If the project(s) is a State or local recommendedproject that provides access to and within thenational forest, the Forest Service should reviewthe scope and description of the project(s). If theForest Service would like the project scope anddescription modified on a project(s) to meet theirneeds, the Forest Service should meet with theproject sponsor (MPO or public transit operators)to provide their input on the specific project(s).

— If the forest has identified projects that can befunded through programs other than the ForestHighway program, they should contact the MPOto determine whether the MPO is willing toprovide funding for the projects. The ForestService should determine the various programsthat could fund specific projects.

• If funding is made available for Forest Servicerecommended projects, the Forest Service shouldreview the subsequent TIP to ensure that theprojects have been included.

It is important that the forest be familiar with the variousprograms that could provide funding for a project. Chapter3 describes most of the eligible activities for each programunder Titles 23 and 49. By using the tables in chapter 3and contacting the local FHWA Federal-aid division office,the Federal Lands Highway division office, or the FTAregional office, the forest should be able to identifypotential funding sources for their projects.

24



The Forest Service should determine whether it canprovide any funds for the project. The FHWA and FTAprograms generally require a 20 percent non-Federalshare. This is usually provided by the project sponsor,normally the State or a local government. Forest Serviceappropriated funds, FLHP funds, and in-kind support(e.g., right-of-way, engineering, and environmentalservices) may be used as the non-Federal share on mostprojects. The potential for the Forest Service to providethe non-Federal share makes the Forest Service anespecially attractive partner.

3

25

IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING

Now that we have looked atboth the Forest Service andthe statewide transportationplanning processes, let’slook at the specific fundingprograms that can helpaddress the needs definedduring the planningprocess. But first, note that:

TEA-21 funding may only be used fortransportation-related projects on public roads(i.e., roads that are under the jurisdiction of,and maintained by, a public authority and opento public travel). Projects on Forest Serviceadministrative roads are not eligible. However,using TEA-21 funds for public roads frees upother Forest Service funding for administrativenational forest roads and for addressing othernonroad-related issues.

The numerous FHWA and FTA programs with potential forfunding projects that are beneficial to the Forest Serviceare detailed in tables 3 through 5. The FLHP Public LandHighways program, the National Scenic Byways program,the Recreation Trails program, and the TransportationEnhancement program are described briefly below, as theForest Service has successfully funded many projectsthrough these programs.

Federal Lands Highway Program;Public Lands Highway—ForestHighway ProgramIt is a big advantage if a project iseligible under the Forest Highwayprogram (table 3), because theForest Service is not competing forfunding with the State and localgovernments. Each State with anational forest, has a designatedsystem of forest highways, most ofwhich are under State or localjurisdiction. The annual projectfunding level in each State is

established by a formula.

Federal Lands Highway Program, Public LandsHighway—Discretionary (PLH-D) ProgramIf a transportation project provides access to or is within oradjacent to a forest, the project is eligible for FLHP- PLH-D funding (table 3). The Forest Service must submitcandidate PLH-D projects to its local State DOT. If theproject is selected, the forest may be able to enter into anagreement with the State to receive the funds directlyfrom the FHWA.

Surface TransportationProgram—TransportationEnhancement Set-Aside.The Surface Transportationprogram (STP)—Transportation EnhancementSet-Aside is a flexiblefunding source that fundsmany activities in the area

affected by a transportation project (table 4).Transportation-related activities designed to strengthenthe cultural, esthetic, and environmental aspects of theNation’s intermodal transportation system are eligible.Many examples of eligible activities are identified in tables4 and 5. Each State has a transportation enhancement(TE) coordinator who provides application procedures.Information is available on the TE clearinghouse websiteat: http://www.enhancements.org/

National Scenic BywaysProgram. The scenicbyways program fundsprojects that enhance andpreserve the intrinsicqualities and visitor servicesalong State and federallydesignated scenic byways(table 4). Each State has a

scenic byways coordinator who approves applicationsand submits them to FHWA for consideration. The Statescenic byways coordinator can provide applicationprocedures. Information is available on the America’sByways website: www.byways.org.

3

26


Recreational TrailsProgram. The RecreationalTrails program providesfunds to develop andmaintain recreational trailsand trail-related facilities forboth nonmotorized andmotorized recreational trailuses (table 4). Each State

has a trails coordinator who is responsible for allocatingfunding and providing application procedures anddeadlines.

A Potpourri of Recreational Trails Program SuccessStoriesHere are a few examples of TEA-21 funding used to carefor the land and serve people on national forests acrossthe country.

HoosierNationalForest, IN:Horsebackriders, mountainbikers, andhikers havebenefited fromthe SpringValley trail off

Indiana State Highway 37, which was fundedprimarily by the Recreational Trails programand fee demo revenues. “Hopefully, this willprove to be a relatively painless way to getsome trail construction dollars. In this case,there would be no way this trail would be builtwithout the grant,” Les Wadzinski noted.

National Forests Nationwide: WatchableWildlife is a program designed to enhancewildlife viewing opportunities for the public. AllStates with national forests have participatedin highlighting their trails or highways withwatchable wildlife sites, and their respectiveState DOTs have assisted with funding theguides that list each site. Because these sitesare already nationally advertised, they areexcellent candidates for the TEA-21transportation enhancement program.

George Washington and Jefferson NationalForests, VA: Bob McKinney of the MountRogers National Recreation Area says, “I’mquite a fan of the Recreational Trails fund. Thispot of money gives out smaller grants(averaging $50,000 in Virginia), but the rulesare far more flexible and the money isavailable for trails and projects that are strictlyrecreational,” as opposed to some of the otherTEA-21 funding options. Bob should know,because he has successfully tapped thissource of funds over the years for about amillion dollars. He has used this funding forbuilding and renovating trails, constructinginterpretive sites, and renovating landscapes.

Lewis and Clark National Forest, MT: DickSchwecke helped the Montana Trail VehicleRiders Association obtain a grant from theNational Recreational Trails Program (NRTP)for an educational display called “On the RightTrail.” He helped the association design andbuild the $13,000 display. Dick used revenuesfrom the State gas tax and NRTP funds to staffa booth at the State and county fairs. “I haveused the display in about 10 sport shows as abackground for contacting the public andtalking about the ethical use of trails by bothmotorized and nonmotorized recreationists,”he reported.

Mark Twain NationalForest, MO: TEA-21Recreational Trailsfunds were used toenhance the SuttonBluff all-terrainvehicle/motorcycletrail system. TheMidwest Trail Riders

Association added $1,000 in labor andsupplies to the TEA-21’s $5,000, and theForest Service provided $4,000. This year, theforest received another $45,000 from TEA-21funds that will be matched with their $18,000to purchase a trail maintenance machine.“This ongoing partnership has gone a longway toward keeping the trail system in goodshape,” said Nancy Freakes, RecreationManager on the Mark Twain National Forest.

3

27


TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM FUNDINGTABLESThe following tables detail the FHWA and FTAtransportation programs available through TEA-21,including program titles, eligible activities, and fundinglevels. Information outlining programs that can provideleverage or match funding is included.

• Table 2 summarizes the differences between:

– Federal Lands Highway programs

– other FHWA Federal-aid and FTA programs

• Tables 3 and 4 show the activities eligible forfunding, the mechanisms for distributing funds, andthe non-Federal share requirements for eachprogram.

• Table 5 provides examples of eligible activities ofinterest to the Forest Service fundable throughselect programs described in tables 3 and 4.

It should be noted that specific program requirementsvary from State to State.

Additional information is available at www.fhwa.dot.gov,www.fta.dot.gov, www.byways.org,www.enhancements.org, and www.tea21.org.

Chattahootchee National Forest, GA: TheChattahootchee National Forest received a$150,000 TEA-21 grant (from the NRTP) for amountain bike and horse trail system.Improvements will include 4 parking areas, aprimitive horse camp, and about 40 miles of trail.

Inyo and Humboldt-Toiyabe NationalForests, CA: Independence, CA, now has anaccessible interpretive trail and brochures thatlink Independence Creek to the town park andmuseum. The lead agency, the Inyo National

Forest, worked withDeath Valley NationalPark, Devil’s PostpileNational Monument,Sequoia/KingsCanyon NationalPark, Yosemite

National Park,numerouschambers ofcommerce, andthe CaliforniaDepartment ofTransportation(Caltrans) to develop 110 interpretive signsalong 240 miles of Highway 395. MelissaTotheroh of the Inyo National Forest said,“There’s a huge feeling of community prideand cohesiveness in the eastsidecommunities, and tangible products to touchand see.”

Bighorn National Forest, WY: The BighornScenic Byway leads travelers through 3-billion-year-old rock to the Shell Falls Visitor Site. Theforest worked with the Rocky Mountain NatureAssociation to develop a site plan that includesa national designated trail and interpretivesigns explaining the ancient geology of thedeep canyon, bighorn sheep biology, andwater conservation. The short paved trail isjust one example of a coordinated effort withthe Wyoming DOT using TEA-21 and ForestService capital investment program funds tohelp solve traffic flow, accessibility, andpedestrian safety issues.

3

28


Table 2—Differences between the funding programs shown in tables 3 and 4.

Program FHWA’s FLHP (table 3) FHWA Federal-aid programs and FTA programs mostapplicable to the FLMAs (table 4)

Funding Funding provided specifically for transport- Most of the funding is provided to the States (generally toRecipient ation systems providing access to and within the State DOT) for distribution within their boundaries.

Federal lands. Some of the programs provide Some of the funding is provided directly to publicfunding directly for FLMA projects.

Comments Each program category has different To receive benefits from these funding programs, therequirements and restrictions. FLMA must partner with the States, other local

transportation officials, and/or transit operators.

3

29

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING

Table 3—Federal Lands Highway Program.

Program Overview Authorized Eligible Activities Fund Distributions Match Comments Planning,Funding Capital,

Operation andMaintenance

FHWA

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)Public Lands The FH program is the Year 2002 FH program funds may be used FH funds are allocated to Federal Planning,Highways— primary funding source $162.4 million to fund transportation planning, the Federal Lands Highway share is CapitalForest provided by the United research, engineering, and division offices by Forest 100 percent.Highway (FH) States Department of Year 2003 construction or reconstruction of Service region and by theProgram Transportation (U.S. DOT) $162.4 million any type of transportation State area for the States

for the forest highway project eligible for assistance that contain nationalnetwork serving the under Title 23 on forest highways. forest lands. Funds may beNational Forest System These include, but are not limited loaned and borrowed(NFS). FH funds may to, roadway, bridge, transit, and between Statesbe used to pedestrian and bicycle facilities.fund projects on FH program funds can be useddesignated forest as the non-Federal share forhighways. projects that are part of the

National Highway SystemForest highways are program, Congestion Mitigationpublic roads that provide and Air Quality Improvementaccess to or within the NFS. program, Surface Transportation

program, or InterstateThere is a designated Maintenance program.network of forest highways.Forest highways are FH program funds can be usedprimarily State/local- as the non-Federal share forgovernment owned and national scenic byways activities. maintained. Few areowned and maintained bythe Forest Service.

The FH program is aportion of the PLH program.Sixty-six percent of the totalPLH funds are set aside forthe FH program.

The planning andprogramming of projectsare performed throughtriagency (FHWA, State,and Forest Service)agreements in each State.

3

30

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)

Public The PLH-D program is Year 2002 PLH-D program funds may The FHWA issues annual Federal The PLH-D Planning,Lands a discretionary funding $83.6 be used for any type of calls for PLH-D projects. share is program CapitalHighways— program within the million transportation project- States submit project 100 may provide fundsDiscretionary PLH program. Thirty- eligible for assistance under applications to the FHWA. percent. for projects on(PLH-D) four percent of the Year 2003 Title 23. Projects include, Projects are selected for Federal lands;Program total PLH funds are $83.6 but are not limited to, PLH-D funding by the however, there is

set aside for select million reconstruction of existing FHWA from those candidate significantdiscretionary projects. roads, preliminary projects submitted by the competition for

engineering and design, States. Funds for selected these funds.The FHWA intelligent transportation projects are provided directlyadministers the studies (ITS), planning to the State transportation Project applicationsPLH-D program. studies, safety, and visitor departments. Through must be submitted

center enhancements. agreement with the State, by the FLMAs toFLMAs may receive the the State in whichPLH-D funds directly from the project isthe FHWA if projects they located.submit through the Stateare selected for PLH-Dfunding. The projects areselected on the basis ofneed as determined by theFHWA. Preference is givento those projects that aresignificantly impacted byFederal land and resourcemanagement activities.Preference is also given toprojects that are proposedby States that contain atleast 3 percent of the totalpublic lands in the Nation.

3

31

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)

Park RoadsandParkways(PRP)Program

The PRP program is theprimary funding sourceprovided by the U.S. DOTfor the transportationnetwork serving thenational park system. ThePRP program may fundprojects on public roads,including park roads andparkways.Park roads are publicroads that are locatedwithin, or provide accessto, an area in the nationalpark system with title andmaintenanceresponsibilities vested inthe United States;parkways are authorizedby Congress on lands towhich title is vested in theUnited States.The program is jointlyadministered by theFHWA and the NationalPark Service (NPS).

Year 2002$165 million


PRP program funds may beused to fund transportationplanning, research,engineering, and constructionor reconstruction of any typeof transportation projecteligible for assistance underTitle 23 that is within, adjacentto, or provides access to thenational park system. Theseinclude, but are not limited to,roadway, bridge, transit, ITS,and pedestrian and bicyclefacilities.

PRP program funds may beused as the non-Federalshare for National HighwaySystem Congestion Mitigationand Air Quality Improvement,Surface Transportation, andInterstate Maintenanceprojects.

PRP program funds may beused as the non-Federalshare for national scenicbyways activities.

PRP program funds aredistributed within the NPS inaccordance with the 1983FHWA/NPS interagencyagreement and the FLHP PRPRevised Funding Allocation andProject Prioritization Criteriadocument.

PRP program funding iscomposed of three categories.Each of these categoriesreceives a specific amount offunding as agreed to by theFHWA and the NPS. CategoryI: 3R and 4R projects. Thefunding is distributed byformula to each region.Category II: Congressionallymandated projects. Thefunding is provided for specificprojects. Category III:Alternative transportationsystems planning andimplementation. The funding isdistributed through an annualcall for projects. The ChoosingBy Advantage process is usedto select projects.

Federalshare is100percent.

PRP programroadway and bridgeimprovement/replacement projectsare primarilyundertaken on parkroads and parkways.PRP programroadway and bridgeimprovement/replacementprojects, however,may be undertakenon other publicroads, includingState/locally ownedand maintainedroadways. Throughpolicy developed bythe FHWA and theNPS, pedestrian andbicycle facilities areonly funded whenassociated withroadwayimprovementprojects.

Planning,Capital

3

32

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)IndianReservationRoads (IRR)Program

The IRR program is theprimary funding sourceprovided by the FHWAfor the IRR system. IRRprogram funds may beused to fund projects onIRRs.

Indian reservation roadsare public roads that arelocated within or provideaccess to AmericanIndian reservations,lands, or communities,or to villages of Alaskanatives.

There is a designatednetwork of IRRs.Approximately 50percent of them areState and locally owned.The other 50 percent areBureau of Indian Affairs(BIA) owned.

The FHWA and the BIAjointly administer theprogram.



IRR program funds may beused to fund transportationplanning, research,engineering, and constructionor reconstruction of any type oftransportation project eligiblefor assistance under Title 23that provides access to orwithin American Indianreservations, lands, orcommunities, or to nativeAlaska villages. These include,but are not limited to, roadway,bridge, transit, and pedestrianand bicycle facilities.

IRR program funds may beused as the non-Federal sharefor projects that are part of theNational Highway SystemCongestion Mitigation and AirQuality Improvement, SurfaceTransportation, or InterstateMaintenance programs.

IRR program funds may beused as the non-Federal sharefor national scenic bywaysactivities.

A majority of the IRR fundsare distributed to the 12 BIAregions using a relative needsformula.

Of the amounts authorized,$13 million are reserved forprojects to replace,rehabilitate, seismicallyretrofit, paint, applyenvironmentally acceptableanti-icing or deicingcompositions, or install scourcountermeasures for deficientAmerican Indian reservationroad bridges, includingmultiple-pipe culverts.


Planning,Capital

3

33

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP)RefugeRoads (RR)Program

The RR program is theprimary funding sourceprovided by the U.S. DOTfor the transportationnetwork serving thenational wildlife refugesystem. RR funds may beused to fund projects onrefuge roads.

Refuge roads are publicroads that provide accessto or within a unit of thenational wildlife refugesystem and for which titleand maintenanceresponsibility is vested inthe U.S. Government.

The RR program was anew FLHP category inTEA-21.

The FHWA and the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) jointly administerthe program.



RR program funds may beused for maintaining andimproving refuge roads andbridges.

RR program funds may beused for maintaining andimproving adjacent vehicularparking areas, pedestrianwalkways, and bicyclepathways, and for constructingand reconstructing roadsiderest areas, including sanitaryand water facilities that arelocated in and adjacent towildlife refuges.

RR program funds may beused for administrative costsassociated with these efforts.

Funds are distributedaccording to need. Projectselection is coordinatedbetween the FHWA and theUSFWS.


Planning,Maintenance

3

34

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING

Table 4—FHWA and FTA programs with potential for funding Federal lands projects.



FHWA

SurfaceTransportationProgram (STP)

The STP providesflexible funding thatmay be used by Statesand localities forprojects on anyFederal-aid highway(FAH).

STP funds areprovided to StateDOTs.

TE is a subcategory ofthe STP program. Tenpercent of the STPprogram funding is setaside for TE activities,such as safetyprograms funding theelimination of hazardsof railway-highwaycrossings and otherhazardous locations onany public road.

Year 2002$5,795 million


STP funds may be used forthe following activities:

1. Highway projects on theFAH system including ruralarterials, rural majorcollectors, urban arterials,and urban collectors; bridgeprojects on all public roads;transit capital projects; andpublic bus terminals andfacilities.

2. Programs to reduceextreme cold starts.

3. Environmental restorationand pollution abatementprojects.

4. Natural habitat mitigation.

5. Modifications of existingpublic sidewalks to complywith the Americans withDisabilities Act.

6. Infrastructure-based ITScapital improvements.

7. Certain bicycle, pedestrian,and parking facility projects.

8. Certain othertransportation-relatedprojects

STP funds are distributed tothe States using the followingformula: 25 percent based ontotal lane miles of FAH in theState as a percentage of totalFAH lane miles in the UnitedStates, 40 percent based ontotal vehicle miles traveled(VMT) on lanes of FAH in theState as a percentage of totalVMT on FAH in the UnitedStates, and 35 percent basedon estimated tax paymentsattributable to highway usersin the State paid into theHighway Trust Fund as apercentage of totalpayments. Projects areselected through thestatewide and metropolitantransportation planningprocesses.

STP projectsare fundedwith an 80-percentFederal shareand with arequired 20-percent non-Federal share.When STPfunds are usedfor interstateprojects, theFederal sharecan reach 90percent. Forcertainprojects thatcross Federallands, theFederal sharecan be 100percent.FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds may beused as thenon-Federalshare for STP-fundedactivities.

The ability to useFLHP- and FLMA-appropriated fundsas the non-Federalshare providesopportunities tobuild strongpartnershipsbetween theFLMAs and State/local governments.

Project funding isvery competitive.

Planning,Capital,Maintenance

3

35

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

SurfaceTransportationProgram—TransportationEnhancements(TE) Set Aside(suballocationof STP funds)

TE activities aretransportation-relatedactivities designed tostrengthen the cultural,esthetic, andenvironmental aspectsof the Nation’sintermodaltransportation system.TE program funds areprovided to StateDOTs.

Ten percent ofSTP set-asidesplus othermandatedprojects.

TE activities must relate tosurface transportation.Activities include, but are notlimited to:1. The provision of safety andeducational activities forpedestrians and bicyclists

2. Scenic or historic highwayprograms (including provisionfor tourist and welcomecenters)

3. The establishment oftransportation museums

4. Environmental mitigation toaddress water pollution due tohighway runoff or to reducevehicle-caused wildlifemortality while maintaininghabitat connectivity

5. Archeological planning andresearch

6. Landscaping and otherscenic beautification, historicpreservation, rehabilitation,and operation of historictransportation buildings,structures, or facilities

TE funds are administeredthrough a processestablished by each State.Typically, funds areprogrammed through thestatewide or metropolitantransportation planningprocess.

TE activitiesare fundedwith an 80-percentFederalshare and arequired 20-percent non-Federalshare.

FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds may beused as thenon-Federalshare for TE-fundedactivities.

Because of theesthetic andenvironmentalemphasis of theprogram, FLMAs, inpartnership withState and/or localgovernments, oftenhave projects thatqualify for TE funds.

Project funding isvery competitivebecause of the widerange of projectsthat are eligible.

Capital

3

36

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

Highway BridgeReplacementandRehabilitationProgram(HBRRP)

The HBRRP providesfunds to assist theStates in theirprograms to replace orrehabilitate deficienthighway bridges andto seismic retrofitbridges located on anypublic road.

HBRRP funds areprovided to StateDOTs.

Year 2002$3,552million


HBRRP funds may be used forthe following activities:1. Replace or rehabilitate (restorestructural integrity or correct majorsafety defect) highway bridgesover waterways, othertopographical barriers, otherhighways, or railroads when theStates and the Secretary ofTransportation find that a bridge issignificantly important and isunsafe because of structuraldeficiencies, physicaldeterioration, or functionalobsolescence.

2.Application of anti-icing/de-icingcompositions

3. Installation of scourcountermeasures

4. Paint

5. Seismic retrofit

6. Actions to preserve the historicintegrity of historic bridges (seeTitle 23 U.S.C. Section 144 (o) fordetails).

HBRRP funds aredistributed to the States byformula based on thesquare footage of deficientFederal-aid system and off-system bridges in eachState.

Projects are selectedthrough the statewide andmetropolitan transportationplanning process.

HBRRPprojects arefunded withan 80-percentFederalshare andwith arequired 20-percent non-Federalshare.

Capital

3

37

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

SurfaceTransportationProgram —Safety Set-Aside(suballocationof STP funds)

Safety set-aside projectsinclude the elimination ofhazardous locations onpublic roads and theelimination of hazardsassociated with railway-highway crossings.Funds are available forexpenditure on any publicroad or surfacetransportation facility,including bicycle orpedestrian pathway ortrail, and on any traffic-calming measures.

Safety set-aside fundsare provided to StateDOTs.

Ten percent ofSTP funds areapportioned toeach State.

The STP Safety Set-Asidefunds activities to resolvesafety problems athazardous roadwaylocations and sections,including roadsideobstacles and unmarkedor poorly marked roads,which may constitute adanger to motorists,pedestrians, and bicyclists.The safety set-aside alsofunds safety improvementsto reduce the number offatalities, injuries, andcrashes at public railway-highway grade crossings.

Safety set-aside funds areadministered through aprocess established byeach State. Funds aretypically programmedthrough the statewide ormetropolitan transportationplanning process.

Safety set-asideactivities arefunded with an80 percentFederal shareand a required20-percent non-Federal share.FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds may beused as thenon-Federalshare for safetyset-asidefundedactivities.

Planning,Capital

3

38

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

CongestionMitigation andAir QualityImprovement(CMAQ)Program

The CMAQ programfunds projects andprograms that reducetransportation-relatedemissions in air qualitynonattainment andmaintenance areas.

CMAQ program funds areprovided to State DOTs.



Projects include, but are notlimited to, public transitinvestments, ITS projects,and nonmotorizedtransportation projects, suchas the development ofbicycle and pedestrian trails.Other eligible projects areextreme low-temperaturecold-start programs and theMagnetic LevitationTransportation TechnologyDeployment program.

Funds are distributed toStates based on populationand severity of pollution withweighting factors for ozoneand CO maintenance areas,CO nonattainment areas,and ozone submarginalareas. TEA-21 expandsfunding to PM10nonattainment andmaintenance areas andareas designated asnonattainment under therevised 1997 air qualitystandards.

Projects are selectedthrough the statewide ormetropolitan transportationplanning process.

CMAQ projectsare funded withan 80- percentFederal shareand a required20- percentnon-Federalshare. Forprojects thatcross Federallands, theFederal sharecan reach 100percent.

FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds may beused as thenon-Federalshare of theCMAQ projects.

The CMAQprogram haslimitedapplicability toFederal landsbecause of theair qualitystandardsrequirements.The urbanforests inRegions 5 and 6have air qualityproblems. TheCMAQ programis a goodpotential sourcefor urban areasites but fundingis verycompetitive.FLMAs mustpartner withState or localgovernments toobtain funding.

Capital

3

39

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

National ScenicByways (NSB)Program

The NSB programprovides for thedesignation by theSecretary ofTransportation of roadsthat have outstandingscenic, historic, cultural,natural, recreational,and archeologicalqualities as All-American Roads (AAR)or NSB. The programalso providesdiscretionary grants forscenic byways projectson an AAR, an NSB, ora State-designatedscenic byway forplanning, designing, anddeveloping State scenicbyways programs. TheFHWA administers theNSB program.

Year 2002$25.5million


Eligible activities include:1. Activities related to planning,designing, or developing a Statescenic byways program

2. Developing and implementinga corridor management plan

3. Safety improvements

4. Constructing facilities forpedestrians and bicyclists

5. Improving access for thepurpose of recreation

6. Protecting resources adjacentto a scenic byway

7. Developing and providingtourist information

8. Developing and implementinga scenic byway marketingprogram

FHWA issues periodic callsfor NSB projects. Statessubmit grant applications tothe FHWA. Projects areselected for NSB funding bythe FHWA from candidateprojects submitted by theStates. Funds for selectedprojects are provideddirectly to the Statetransportation departments.Through agreement withthe State, FLMAs mayreceive the NSB fundsdirectly from the FHWA ifapplications they submitthrough the State areselected for NSB funding. Ahigher priority for funding isgiven to:1. Projects on routesdesignated as either anAAR or an NSB,

2. Projects that would makeroutes eligible fordesignation as either anAAR or an NSB, and

3. Projects associated withdeveloping State scenicbyways programs.

NSBprojectsare fundedwith an 80-percentFederalshare andrequire a20-percentnon-Federalshare.FLMAs canprovide thenon-Federalshare forprojects onFederal orAmericanIndianlands usingFLHP- and/or FLMA-appropriatedfunds.

As of 2001, aboutone-half of theNSBs and AARshave some nationalforest landinvolvement.Approximately 25percent of the NSBsand AARs are morethan 50 percentnational forest land.

Grant applicationsmust be submittedby the FLMAs to theState in which theproject is located.

Funding is limitedand competitive.

Planning,Capital

3

40

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

InterstateMaintenanceProgram(IM)

The IM program providesfunding for improving mostroutes of the interstatesystem.

IM program funds areprovided to State DOTs.



IM funds may be used forresurfacing, restoring,rehabilitating, and reconstructing(4R) routes on the interstatesystem. Secretarial agreementis required for use on toll roads.The addition of singleoccupancy vehicle lanes is noteligible.

Up to 50 percent ofapportionments may betransferred to National HighwaySystem (NHS), STP, CMAQ,and/or bridge programs.

IM funds are distributed to theStates using the followingformula: 33.3 percent basedon total interstate lane milesin State as a percentage oflane miles in all States, 33.3percent based on total VMTon interstates in each Stateas a percentage of VMT in allStates, and 33.3 percentbased on each State’scontribution to HighwayAccount of Highway TrustFund (HTF) attributable tocommercial vehicles as apercentage of totalcontributions by all States.

The Secretary ofTransportation annually setsaside $100 million fordiscretionary obligations.

Projects are selected throughthe Statewide andmetropolitan transportationplanning process.

IM projectsare fundedwith a 90-percentFederalshare and arequired 10-percent non-Federalshare in mostcases.

FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds may beused as thenon-Federalshare on IMprojects.

Generally, IMfunds are notapplicable forFLMA projects,unless aninterstate iswithin an FLMAsite. FLMAs mustpartner withState or localgovernments toobtain limited,competitivefunding.

Capital

3

41

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

NationalHighwaySystemProgram(NHS)

The NHS program fundsimprovements to rural andurban roads that are partof the NHS, including theinterstate system andconnections to intermodalterminals. NHS programfunds may be used fortransit improvements inNHS corridors undercertain circumstances.

NHS program funds areprovided to State DOTs.



In addition to roadway andtransit improvements, thefollowing activities areeligible for NHS programfunding:1. Natural habitat mitigation.

2. Publicly owned busterminals.

3. ITS capital improvements.Up to 50 percent of the NHSprogram funds may betransferred to IM, STP,CMAQ, and/or Bridgeprograms.

Up to 100 percent of theNHS program funds may betransferred to an STP.

NHS funds are distributed tothe States using the followingformula: 25 percent based ontotal lane miles of principalarterials (excluding theinterstate system) in eachState as a percentage of totalsuch principal arterial lanemiles in all States, 35 percentbased on total VMT on lanesof principal arterials(excluding the interstatesystem) in each State as apercentage of total VMT onlanes of such principalarterials in all States, 30percent based on diesel fuelused on all highways in eachState as a percentage ofdiesel fuel used on allhighways in all States, and 10percent based on total lanemiles of principal arterials ineach State divided by thetotal population in each Stateas a percentage of such ratiofor all States.

Funds are set aside fromauthorized amounts for theAlaska Highway and theterritories.

Projects are selected throughthe statewide andmetropolitan transportationplanning process.

NHSprojects arefunded withan 80-percentFederalshare and arequired 20-percent non-Federalshare inmost cases.FLHP- andFLMA-appropriatedfunds maybe used asthe non-Federalshare onNHSprojects.

NHS funds havelimitedapplicability forFLMA projects,unless a roadthat is part of theNHS is within anFLMA site or isowned by anFLMA. FLMAsmust partnerwith State orlocalgovernments toobtain limited,competitivefunding.

Planning,Capital

3

42

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FHWA

RecreationalTrailsProgram

The Recreational Trailsprogram provides fundsto develop and maintainrecreational trails formotorized andnonmotorized trail users.

Recreational Trailsprogram funds areprovided directly to theStates.



Recreational Trails programeligible activities include:1. Maintaining, restoring andconstructing existing and newrecreational trails (withrestrictions on new trails onFederal land)

2. Developing and rehabilitatingtrailside and trailhead facilitiesand trail linkages

3. Purchasing and leasingrecreational trail constructionand maintenance equipment

4. Acquiring easements orproperty for recreational trails orrecreational trail corridors

5. State administrative costsrelated to programadministration (up to 7 percent)

6. Operating educationalprograms to promote safety andenvironmental protection asthose objectives relate to the useof recreational trails (up to 5percent)

Recreational Trailsprogram funds areapportioned to the Statesby the following formula:50 percent equally amongall eligible States and 50percent in proportion tothe amount of off-roadrecreational fuel use (suchas by snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, off-roadmotorcycles, and off-roadlight trucks).

States must meetminimum funding sharesamong motorized,nonmotorized, anddiverse trail use asfollows: 40 percentminimum for diverse trailuse, 30 percent minimumfor motorized recreation,and 30 percent minimumfor nonmotorizedrecreation.

Generally,recreationaltrail projectsare fundedwith an 80-percentFederal shareand a 20-percent non-Federal share.If a Federalagencysponsors aproject, it mayprovideadditionalFederal fundsup to a total of95 percent.FLMA-appropriatedfunds maysupply theadditionalFederal funds.FLHP fundsmay not beused toprovide theadditionalFederal funds.

Funds fromFederalprograms,other thanU.S. DOT,may be usedfor the non-Federal share.

Recreational Trailsprogram funds areapplicable to FLMArecreational trailprojects. FLMAsmust partner withState or localgovernments toobtain limited,competitive funding.

Planning,Capital,Maintenance

3

43

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

Urbanized AreaFormula Grants(Sec. 5307)

This program providestransit capital andplanning assistance tourbanized areas withpopulations greaterthan 50,000.Operating assistanceis also available toareas under 200,000.

Authorized:Year 2002$3,371 million


Guaranteed:Year 2002$3,221 million


Sec. 5307 funds may be usedfor capital transit investmentsin land, technology,engineering, design, etc., forconstructing or improvingmass transit infrastructure andoperations.

Transit operating assistance tocover costs incurred inoperating a transit program,including preventivemaintenance for urbanizedareas with populations greaterthan 200,000 and operatingand maintenance funds forurbanized areas withpopulations less than 200,000.

Projects that enhance masstransit use, such as busshelters, landscaping, streetfurniture, and historicpreservation.

Funds are allocated to areaswith a population of lessthan 200,000 based onpopulation and populationdensity.

Funds are allocated todesignated recipients inareas with populationsgreater than 200,000 basedon population, populationdensity, and transit data.

Designated recipients arepublic bodies that have thelegal authority to receiveand disperse Federal funds.The program providesoperating assistance only tourbanized areas with apopulation of less than200,000. One percent is setaside for transitenhancement projects inurbanized areas withpopulations greater than200,000. Capital expensesdefinition includespreventive maintenance forareas with populations

Typically an80-percentFederal sharewith a required20-percentnon-Federalshare. A 90-percentFederal sharewith a required10-percentnon-Federalmatch for costof vehicle-relatedequipment tocomply withthe Clean AirActAmendmentsor AmericanswithDisabilities Act.A 95 percentFederal sharewith a 5percent non-Federal sharefor transitenhancementprojectsprovidingbicycle accessto masstransit. Anotherexception tothe 80-percentFederal shareis whenflexible fundsfor certainFHWAprograms arebeing used.

Most applicable toFederal landslocated in urbanizedareas withpopulations of lessthan 200,000 suchas nationalmonuments andnational historicparks and sites.Must coordinatewith the designatedrecipient. FLMAsneed to work withgrantees to identifyroutes and servicesthat benefit theirsites. Modificationof existing routesand services maybe considered toservice FLMA sites.

Planning,Capital

3

44

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

CapitalInvestmentGrants andLoans(Sec. 5309)

This program (formerlyDiscretionary Grants)provides transit capitalassistance for new fixedguideway systems andextensions to existingsystems (new starts),fixed guidewaymodernization, and busand bus-relatedfacilities.

Not a likely source offunding for the FLMAs.



New starts include fixedguideway systems and thedevelopment of transitcorridors and markets tosupport eventualconstruction of fixedguideway systems. Fixedguideway modernization isapplied to maintainingexisting rails, trolley buses,aerial tramways, inclinedplanes, cable cars, peoplemovers, ferryboats,motorbus operations, andhigh-occupancy-vehiclelanes. Bus expenditures areavailable for new bus fleetsand service expansion andother related facilities andservices.

Funds are distributed asfollows: 40 percent to fixedguideway modernization, 40percent to new starts, 20percent to buses. Newstarts and bus funds arediscretionary.Apportionment for fixedguideway modernizationformula uses systemwidemileage based on the dataused to apportion thefunding in FY 1998. At least5.5 percent of the busportion must go tononurbanized areas.

Typically an80- percentFederalshare with arequired 20-percent non-Federalshare. A 90-percentFederalshare with arequired 10-percent non-Federalmatch forcost ofvehicle-relatedequipment tocomply withthe Clean AirActAmendmentsor theAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.

Sec. 5309 may beapplicable toFederal landstrying to expandtransit service andshuttle bus fleets.

Sec. 5309 is not alikely source offunding for mostFLMAs, due tocompeting needsof recipients. Thebest opportunitiesfor FLMAs arefrom themodification orextension ofexisting urban orrural transit routes

Capital

3

45

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

Clean FuelsFormula GrantProgram

This program assiststransit operators inpurchasing low-emissions buses andrelated equipment,constructingalternative-fuel fuelingfacilities, and modifyinggarage facilities toaccommodate clean-fuel vehicles, andassists in the utilizationof biodiesel fuel.

This program is not alikely source of majorfunding for the FLMAs.

Year 2002$200million

Year 2003$200million

Eligible projects includepurchasing clean-fuel buses;constructing, modifying and/or leasing associatedfacilities; and repowering orretrofitting existing buses.Eligible technologies includecompressed natural gas,liquefied natural gas,biodiesel fuel, batteries,alcohol-based fuel, hybridelectric, fuel cells, or otherzero-emissions technology.

The program providesfunding only to grantees thatapply and use a formulabased on population, fleetsize, bus passenger miles,and severity of air qualitynonattainment. Establishes acap on grants to any onerecipient of $15 million forareas with a population ofless than 1 million and $25million for areas with apopulation of 1 million ormore.

An 80-percentFederalshare witha required20-percentState/localmatch.

A potential source offunding for smallFederal landsprojects involvingshuttle buses. Arelatively small totalfunding budget is aprimary constraint,so funding of majorprojects is unlikely.

No funds wereappropriated forFY 1999 or 2000.

Capital

3

46

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

FormulaProgramfor OtherthanUrbanizedAreas(Sec. 5311)

This program providestransit capital andoperating assistancethrough the States tononurbanized areas forpopulations of less than50,000.

Primarily used to fundtransit authorities inrural areas.

Authorizedandguaranteed:Year 2002$224.9million


Eligible grant recipientsinclude public and privatenonprofit organizations.Capital and operating costs ofpublic transit service in ruraland small urban areas.Support for rural intercity busservices is also eligible.

Funding is allocated to Statesby a formula based onnonurbanized population.States are responsible fordistributing funds equitablywithin the State.

An 80-percentFederalshare and a20-percentnon-Federalshare forcapital andprojectadministration.A 50-percentFederalshare foroperatingcosts and a90-percentFederalshare forincrementalcosts ofcomplyingwith theClean AirActAmendmentsor theAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.

Grants are made bythe State to local orregional public andprivate nonprofitagencies for ruraltransit service.Coordination withgatewaycommunities isessential. Mostlarge FLMAs are innonurbanized areas.Partnershipsbetween FLMA sitesand transit agencieshave beensuccessful inestablishing serviceto FLMA sites,including HotSprings and GreatSmoky MountainsNational Parks.Funding is limited.

Planning(limited),Capital,Operating

3

47

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FormulaGrants andLoans forElderlyIndividuals andIndividuals withDisabilities(Sec. 5310)

This program providestransit capital assistancethrough the States toorganizations thatprovide specializedtransportation servicesto elderly persons andpersons with disabilities.

Authorizedandguaranteed:Year 2002$84.7 million

Year 2003$90.7 million

Eligible expenses includevehicle acquisitions,purchased services, andadministrative support.

Funding is allocated to Statesby a formula based on elderlyand disabled populations.

Typically an80-percentFederalshare forcapital andpurchasedservices witha required20-percentnon-Federalshare. A 90-percentFederalshare with arequired 10-percent non-Federalmatch forincrementalcosts ofcomplyingwith theClean Air ActAmendmentsor theAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct.

Not a likelysource offunding, butcould beapplicable tosites thatattract elderlytravel groups.

Capital,Maintenance

3

48

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

Job Access andReverseCommuteGrants

This program providescompetitive grants tolocal governments andnonprofit organizationsto developtransportation servicesto connect welfarerecipients and low-income persons toemployment andsupport services.

Authorized:2002 $150M2003 $150M

Guaranteed:2002 $125M2003 $150M

A coordinated transportation/human service planningmechanism is required todevelop job access programs.The reverse commuteprogram provides services tosuburban employmentcenters from other areas.

Grant awards are based on:1. Percentage of thepopulation that are welfarerecipients

2. Need for additionalservices

3. Coordination with anduse of existingtransportation providers

4. Coordination with Statewelfare agenciesimplementing theTemporary Assistance forNeedy Families program

5. Use of innovativeapproaches

A 50-percentFederalshare witha 50-percentrequirednon-Federalmatch.

This program isprobably notapplicable for mostFLMAs, althoughas an employer,FLMAs couldparticipate in alocal project.

Some FLMA siteshave identified ATSas a means ofaddressing laborshortages causedby isolation frompopulation centers.

Planning,Capital

3

49

IMP

LEM

EN

TATIO

N FU

ND

ING




FTA

RuralTransportationAccessibilityIncentiveProgram

This new program willassist in financing theincremental capital andtraining costs associatedwith implementingDOT’s final rule onaccessibilityrequirements for over-the-road-buses (OTRB).



Eligible expenditures includecapital costs associated withmaking OTRBs wheelchairaccessible and training.

Grants are awarded basedon:1. Identified need for service

2. Acquisition of requiredequipment ahead of requiredtimeframes

3. Financial capacity

4. Service impacts in ruralareas and for low-incomeindividuals. A 50-percentFederal share with a 50-percent required non-Federalmatch, except in FY 2000,the Federal share is 90percent for intercity fixed-route providers.

Probablynotapplicable

CapitalA 50-percentFederalshare with a50-percentrequired non-Federalmatch,except in FY2000, theFederalshare is 90percent forintercityfixed-routeproviders.

3

50


Table 5—Select funding opportunities in Title 23 U.S.C.

OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMS

Sec. 133 Sec. 144 Sec. 204 Sec. 162 Sec. 206

TE – These activities can be funded from the Transportation Enhancements Set-Aside within the Sec. 133 Surface TransportationProgram.

X – These activities can be funded from the program shown in the column heading.

SurfaceTransportation

Program(Including

TransportationEnhancements

Set-Asides)

HighwayBridge

Replacementand

RehabilitationProgram

FLHPForest

Highway andPublic LandsHighway—

Discretionary

NationalScenicBywaysProgram

RecreationalTrails

Program

Abandoned railway corridor preservation(including the conversion and use forpedestrian or bicycle trails) TE X

Archeological planning and research TE X

Bicycle and pedestrian facilities TE X X X

Bridge repair and replacement X X X

Cultural and historic resource protection X X

Easement acquisition for recreational trailsand recreational trail corridors X X

Environmental mitigation to address waterpollution due to highway runoff or to reducevehicle-caused wildlife mortality whilemaintaining habitat connectivity TE X

Environmental protection educationalprograms related to the use of recreationaltrails X X

Environmental restoration and pollutionabatement projects to address waterpollution or environmental degradationcaused or contributed to by transportationfacilities X X

Historic preservation, rehabilitation, andoperation of historic transportation buildings/structures/facilities TE X

3

51







Program(Including


Set-Asides)

HighwayBridge

Replacementand


FLHPForest


Discretionary


RecreationalTrails

Program


Historic site acquisition TE X X

Intelligent transportation systemsinfrastructure X X

Interpretive facilities/signs X X

Landscape/scenic beautification TE X X

Management systems X X

Natural habitat mitigation efforts related toprojects funded under Title 23 X X

Outdoor advertising control and removal TE X X

Parking areas/facilities X X X

Public facilities (tourist and welcome centers) TE X X

Roadside rest areas X X

Safety and educational activities forpedestrians and bicyclists TE X X

Safety improvements X X X X X

Scenic and historic highway programs TE X

Scenic easement and scenic site acquisition TE X X

State scenic byways program— planning,design, and development X X

3

52








Program(Including


Set-Asides)

HighwayBridge

Replacementand


FLHPForest


Discretionary


RecreationalTrails

Program

Tourist information X X

Tourist-oriented signs X X

Trail construction and reconstruction X X

Trail facilities/trailheads X X

Trail maintenance X

Transit facilities X X

Wetlands mitigation efforts related toproject funded under Title 23 X X

Wildlife, habitat, and ecosystems—mitigation of damage caused by atransportation project funded under Title 23 X X

Wildlife crossings—mitigation of wildlifecrossing hazards X X

Approximate TEA-21 authorization level 5,000 3,500 249 25 50(in millions)

3

53


Non-TEA-21 FundingSome potential non-TEA-21 revenue sources and financing tools are summarized in tables 6 and 7. These arenontraditional sources of funding and financing tools for leveraging or matching other funding sources. Additional detail isavailable in the “Federal Lands Alternative Transportation Systems Study” (2001).

Table 6—Sample non-TEA-21 revenue sources.

Sample Revenue Sources Comment Example

User fees A fee charged to a user of a facility to cover or The Recreational Fee Demonstrationdefray the cost of providing the facility or a Program permits participating Federalspecific service (e.g., tolls, fares, parking fees, lands sites to retain 80 percent of feeslicense fees, and use permits). charged for internal use. (Fees primarily

used to address deferred maintenancerequirements.)

Private sponsorships Generally used as a means to raise funding for May be attached to a specific facilityrecreational and quasi-public purposes. Range [e.g., sports stadium, a major eventfrom large corporate sponsorships to individual (e.g., the Olympic Games)], or to supportcontributions. the ongoing work of special purpose

organizations (e.g., the NatureConservancy).

State and local funds Generally include sales tax surcharges on Have been used to fund transit systemtourist-related expenditures (e.g., hotels, projects.restaurants, rental cars, and tickets to events).

Fund raising and Local businesses sometimes contribute where These contributions have also beencontributions they see a direct benefit. “Friends” groups and used for transit projects, e.g., the Acadia

support organizations contribute substantial National Park Island Explorer transitsums of money to many of the major Federal system is routed directly to the door oflands sites. hotels and motels that provide a

contribution to the system.

State Infrastructure Banks Thirty-four states have been authorized to set(SIB) up infrastructure investment funds to make

loans and provide assistance to surfacetransportation projects.1 The program givesStates the capacity to use their transportationinvestment more efficiently and significantlyleverage Federal resources by attracting non-Federal public and private investment.2 Stateshave greater flexibility because they are allowedto pursue other types of project assistance inaddition to the traditional reimbursable grant.

1 TEA-21 authorizes SIBs in four additional States (California, Florida, Missouri, and Rhode Island).2 FHWA fact sheet for the State Infrastructure Bank Program and Statewide Transportation Planning Under ISTEA: A New

Framework for Decisionmaking, U.S. DOT, FHWA, and FTA.

3

54


Table 7—Sample financing tools for maximizing the benefits of additional revenue sources in table 6.

Financing Tool Definition

Public-Private Partnerships Agreement between a public entity and a private organization that provides for coordinated actions toplan, finance, construct, operate, and maintain a transportation facility or system. Responsibility forraising capital and project risk is shared. This enables the public to reduce the direct cost of the facilityto the Government and encourage private investment. Examples include franchises and concessions.The Presidio Trust is an innovative public-private partnership: It is an executive agency of the U.S.Government but its financial plan calls for self-sufficiency through lease revenues by 2013. ThePresidio, a historic military fort, is part of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. The financialmanagement program outlines how revenues generated from the rehabilitation and rental of itsbuildings will fund environmental and infrastructure improvements. It contains many historicallysignificant structures and the Trust plans to renovate and lease the buildings to the private sector. By2013, revenues will be large enough to no longer require additional Federal funding. One potential useof the revenues is to assist in funding transit projects.

Bonds Debt instruments issued for periods of more than 1 year to raise capital by borrowing. The Federalgovernment, States, cities, corporations, and other institutions sell bonds. A bond is a promise to repaythe principal plus interest on a specified date (maturity). Bond principal and interest payments can bemet from dedicated revenues (i.e., user fees) or general tax revenues.

Certificates of participation Financing instrument in which an investor buys shares of lease revenues of an agreement made by a(COP) municipal or governmental entity, rather than purchasing a bond secured by those revenues. Used

when a State faces limits on its ability to increase taxes or issue other forms of debt (such asCalifornia’s Proposition 13 limits). This instrument is used in the public transit industry to purchaseequipment.

Leasing Contract under which an owner of property or asset allows another party to use the property or assetfor a specified period of time in exchange for payment of rent or use fees. Lease may or may notinclude a purchase option under which the lessee can apply lease payments toward the purchaseprice of the property or asset being used. Leasing can be beneficial because it reduces the up-frontcost of major capital purchases and allows payments to be spread out over an asset’s useful life orplanned period of use. It also allows for the use of capital assets for a limited period of time withouthaving to acquire them outright.

Federal credit TEA-21 authorized a new Federal credit program, known as the Transportation Infrastructure Financeand Innovation Act (TIFIA), to support large, nationally significant transportation projects. It providesdirect loans, loan guarantees, and standby lines of credit for projects costing over $100 million.Program provides secondary or subordinate capital, repaid from dedicated project revenue streams,for up to one-third of the project costs. TIFIA assistance is available to State DOTs, local governments,transit agencies, special authorities, special districts, railroads, and private companies or consortiaseeking to finance, design, construct, and operate a major surface transportation project. Programdoes not lend directly to other Federal agencies (i.e., outside the Department of Transportation), butmay have applicability to projects sponsored or undertaken by eligible organizations. Borrowers cannegotiate more favorable terms (e.g., longer payback periods) than from private capital markets.Applications for TIFIA assistance will be solicited at least once a year during the authorization period ofTEA-21.

Grants State DOTs often create grants from specific Federal and State funding programs and for projectsdesigned to meet specific objectives. State lottery funding provides a good example. There is nostandard grant application process. Some programs require a brief application form; others require acomprehensive proposal. Regardless of the specifics of the application process, forests and theirpartners seeking grant funds should read the application form carefully to ensure that all requiredinformation is provided. Omitting a phone number or exceeding the required page limit may seem

3

55


trivial but could lead to the dismissal of the application. Many grant applications require detailedinformation to ensure that grant money will result in a project that can be implemented, e.g., evidenceof local support for the project may be required. Your forest’s grants and agreements specialists canmore than pay their own way through successful grant applications.

ASSISTANCE IS AVAILABLE FROM THE FHWA AND THE FTAThe FHWA and the FTA provide administrative and technical support to the Federal Land Management agencies inimplementing surface transportation projects and strategies. Table 8 describes the FHWA's and the FTA's field structurewhere support can be obtained by the Forest Service.

Table 8—FHWA and FTA field structure.

Agency Offices Responsibility/Support Service

FHWA 4 resource centers Support Federal-aid and FLH division offices

52 Federal-aid division offices Provide front-line Federal-aid program delivery assistance to partners and– 1 in each State Capital customers (primarily State DOTs) in highway transportation and safety services

– Washington, DC Provide assistance in the areas of planning and research, preliminary engineering,– Puerto Rico technology transfer, right-of-way, highway safety, civil rights, environmental

concerns, and highway beautification

3 Federal Lands Highway Administer the FLHP in coordination with the FLH headquarters in Washington, DCdivision offices: (FLHP consists of the Park Roads and Parkways program, the Public Lands

– Eastern (Sterling, VA) Highways program (PLH-Discretionary, and the Forest Highway program), the– Central (Lakewood, CO) Refuge Roads program, and Indian Reservation Roads program– Western (Vancouver, WA)

Provide inclusive planning, environmental, engineering, and construction supportservices directly to the Federal Land Management Agencies. Responsible forpromoting the development of new technology and for training engineers throughoutFHWA.

FTA 10 regional offices Provide front-line transit program delivery assistance to partners and customers.4 metropolitan offices Assist in planning and research, technology transfer, safety, environment,

engineering, and operations functions.

Table 7—Sample financing tools for maximizing the benefits of additional revenue sources in table 6—continued

Financing Tool Definition

3

56


4

57

PROJECT-LEVEL HIGHWAY ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES

Now that we have examined the transportation planning process to understand how the ForestService’s land management planning processes fit into the overall process, let’s take a brief look at thenext step: the project development process (figure 1).

FHWA and FTA programs present opportunities well beyond the roadway itself. Opportunities todevelop trails, transit systems, intermodal connections, and alternative modes of transportation arealso available under the various surface transportation programs. Implementing projects fundedthrough these programs can afford many opportunities to protect resources and improve recreation

Intermodal Transportation Linkages: TEA-21Connects an IslandOn Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska, TEA-21 funds are being used to link forest resources andcommunities with ferry terminals. The TongassNational Forest is working with the State of Alaska,local community groups, and the FHWA to upgrade 20miles of gravel single-lane forest road to a paveddouble-lane road. Improving the Coffman Cove Roadis part of the March 1999 Southeast AlaskaTransportation Plan published by the AlaskaDepartment of Transportation and Public Facilities.Paving the road will help reduce sedimentation inabout 50 salmon, steelhead, and resident fish streams and improve water quality in 25 other streams. Barriersto fish passage across the road will be removed.

The Coffman Cove Road is the last link between the existing Alaska Marine Highway terminal in Hollis onPrince of Wales Island and the proposed Inter-Island Ferry Authority terminal in Coffman Cove. Increasedrecreation traffic from the new ferry terminal is an important element of economic development for thecommunities on the island. The Inter-Island Ferry Authority, a private ferry startup, will provide daily year-roundservice from Ketchikan and Wrangell to Prince of Wales Island. This project was identified by the Prince of

Wales community advisory councilas their top transportation priority.For more information on thisproject, contact the transportationengineer at 907–586–7958.

An effective project developmentprocess encourages the reviewand improvement of standardoperating procedures to ensurethat management objectives aremet. Transportation planning andproject development offer a uniqueopportunity to create just such aneffective tool. Table 9 describesvarious environmental and socialissues and opportunities that canbe addressed through the FHWAand FTA programs listed in tables3, 4, and 5.

4

58


Table 9—Issues and opportunities..

Environmental Issues and Opportunities

Opportunity Area General Description ExamplesAir quality Transportation plans require integration of air quality Springdale, UT, a gateway community to

planning to meet EPA standards. Urban forests with Zion National Park, developed a transitair quality problems may reduce emissions by system using FHWA funding to reduceencouraging alternative forms of travel, such as mass emissions and solve traffic andtransit, bicycles, and shuttles through FHWA and FTA congestion issues.funding.

Ecosystem Highways usually affect areas on a larger scale than The Florida DOT and the Forest Servicefunctions typical forest roads, e.g., wildlife habitat connectivity are using national forests in Florida asand processes can be maintained for large, wary carnivores such as keystone parcels, along with other public

grizzly bears with small forest roads, but highways lands, in a multicounty effort to connectmay be nearly complete barriers. National forests can important ecological areas.help create an ecological infrastructure on a regionalscale by connecting stepping-stones of habitat, suchas State and local parks, with well-designed crossingstructures on highways. Partnerships with Tribal, local,and State stakeholders are critical in developing anational ecological infrastructure that enablesecological functions and processes to occurseamlessly throughout the Nation.

Fire Highways support wildfire suppression and fuels The Deschutes National Forest inmanagement for transporting resources on arterial and Oregon, used an innovative solution in acollector roads. Highways provide a source of ignitions, high-risk fire situation. A stand of treesbut also an increased ability to manage fuels and near Highway 20 was thinned usingwildfire. Highway width provides effective fuel breaks, transportation enhancement funding.particularly in wildland-urban interface situations. Fire This reduced fire risk while increasingfrequency and severity can be affected by highway fuel the scenic quality of the highwaybreaks. (chapter 5 provides moe details about

this project).

Fish and aquatic The amount of road in a watershed directly affectsspecies the available habitat of aquatic species. Highways

adversely affect water quality and aquatic habitats byincreasing drainage density and changing streamvelocity and elevations. Culverts, common forstream crossings, can cause fragmentation for aquaticorganisms. Full-span crossings are desirable forstreams over 1.5 meters wide because they stay out ofthe stream channel and shade the stream less, whileproviding a greater amount of passage space forriparian-associated animals. The SurfaceTransportation program can assist with funding theseexpensive structures through the TransportationEnhancements program, the Highway BridgeReplacement and Rehabilitation program, and theFederal Lands Highway program. Our strengthened

4

59


Table 9—Issues and opportunities (continued).


Opportunity Area General Description Examplespartnerships with State transportation agencies canhelp ensure that replacing stream-crossing structuresaccommodates fishery needs. This cooperative workingrelationship will ensure road stability and enhance theability of the structures to permit migration of aquaticspecies.

Physical factors Highway stability is a key component for safety and Many national forests, such as the Tonto,minimizing costs. Unique landforms may attract White Mountain, Lake Tahoe Basin, andvisitors, but planners should ensure that a safe and the Uncompahgre have used FHWAstable road protects the unique features. funds to enhance highway safety while

increasing visitor enjoyment throughincreased parking areas at vistas andaccessible interpretive centers.

Range management In many national forests and grasslands, livestock The Shasta-Trinity National Forests, theallowed to range freely across highways cause College of the Siskiyous, and Caltransnumerous vehicle accidents. Fences and crossing partnered to fund several miles of deerstructures for livestock and wildlife may reduce animal/ fencing along Highway 97 in northernvehicle collisions. California. Although the fencing was

designed primarily to reduce deercollisions, cattle collisions on the openrange were also reduced, resulting in a99 percent reduction in animal/vehiclecollisions.

Terrestrial wildlife Highways are barriers that reduce dispersal, migration, The Ocala National Forest partneredor other movements of wildlife. Motor vehicle collisions with the Florida Fish and Wildlifecause death or injury to birds, mammals, reptiles, and Conservation Commission and theamphibians. Effective transportation planning can Florida DOT to use FHWA surfaceidentify large-scale wildlife habitat linkages, while the transportation program funds and licenseproject development process can identify structures plate funds to research black bear andthat could be installed to allow wildlife to cross highway interactions. This partnership ishighways. These two steps must be integrated for yielding important information to manageoptimal success, and cooperation between the Forest bears and highways in Florida and alsoService and transportation agencies helps ensure enables the Ocala National Forest tolong-term success. FHWA provides funds through the participate in local events such as thetransportation enhancements program for habitat annual Black Bear Festival in Umatilla,mitigation and for construction of innovative crossing FL.solutions.

Vegetation Highways impact native plants by direct removal, On the Apalachicola National Forest,erosion control efforts with non-native plants, and close-working relationships between theconversion of habitat in line-of-sight clearings. Deicing Forest Service and the Florida DOTsalts, pesticides, and fertilizers used to manage allowed a right-of-way to be managed toroadside vegetation can injure native plants, enhance a small, endangered flower,

4

60




Opportunity Area General Description Examplesamphibians, and other aquatic species. Noxious weeds Harper’s Beauty. The revised mowingand exotic animals use line-of-sight clearings to expand schedule permitted better firetheir ranges. These effects often impact native plants management, a necessary component ofand the animals that depend upon these plants for food the plant’s ecology, and also provided aand shelter. Native plant communities can be restored spectacular blooming display on theusing Transportation Enhancements program funds. right-of-way that was easily accessibleTransportation maintenance agencies are often effect- to plant enthusiasts.ive partners for combating noxious weeds alonghighways and trails and for using appropriate non-chemical vegetation management in importantamphibian and aquatic habitat.

Water resources Information gained during watershed analysis should On the Tonto National Forest, Highwayaddress how the road system is hydrologically 188 altered drainage patterns, causing aconnected to the stream and riparian systems. Water wet meadow to dry up. Highway uses on the national forests may include diversions, realignment by the Forest Service andimpoundments, hydropower production and operation, the Arizona DOT successfully restoredand distribution systems. These water bodies and the meadow by fixing the drainage andwetlands also provide essential habitat for numerous developing irrigation and monitoringplants, wildlife, and aquatic species. Highways can systems.interrupt water flow and cause dramatic changes inwetland functions and the ecological processes ofplants and small animals such as frogs, salamanders,clams, and snails. Wetland mitigation can be fundedthrough the Transportation Enhancements program orthe Federal Lands Highway program.

Social Issues and Opportunities

Opportunity Area General Description Examples

Accessibility Under Forest Service policy, all facilities and programs On the White Mountain National Forestdeveloped by the Agency are to be universally Kancamagus Scenic Byway, TEA-21accessible, without barriers. Therefore, all transportation funding has supported universallyprojects will improve access for all people, including accessible roadside overlooks withpeople with disabilities. These funding programs can be adjacent pathways to picnic areas.used for: improving access to recreation, modifying Families with young children in strollersexisting sidewalks, retrofitting over-the-road buses for and people in wheelchairs can enjoy theaccessibility, and developing accessible educational area along with other visitors.programs. The potential for increased access for allpeople is tremendous.

Civil Rights FHWA and FTA programs provide opportunities FTA programs provide opportunities forto address civil rights issues that are Forest Service job access and reverse-commute grants.

4

61





priorities. Establishing mass transit access to forest This provision may enable the Forestdestinations may benefit visitors and potential Service to increase diversity in ouremployees with limited personal transportation workforce by assisting residents of urbanoptions to more easily experience national forests and areas to commute to suburban or ruralgrasslands. areas.

Cultural resources FHWA and FTA programs funding can assist national The Uncompahgre National Forestforests with archeological plans and research, fund partnered with Idarado Mining Companyhistoric easements or acquisitions, preserve and used the Colorado State Historicabandoned transportation corridors, or develop Fund grant and TEA-21 funds to developinterpretive sites. Transit systems may resolve some an interpretive wayside exhibit oncultural issues that highways create and should be geology and mining history.investigated for appropriateness in urban forests.

Economic factors Economic costs and benefits associated with highway The surface transportation programconstruction and maintenance impact the development funds can be used to provide innovativeof the local economy. Both economic efficiency from a benefits to local economies. The Floridasocietal point of view and the cost of a highway for the Fish and Wildlife Conservationtransportation agency are important to project planning. Commission works with Ocala NationalThe Forest Service has a unique role in weaving the Forest biologists to nominate, maintain,environmental and social objectives outlined in the and improve bird watching sites listed inforest management plan into a highway project on or the Great Florida Birding Trail, aaffecting NFS lands. Good working relationships with highway-based brochure and site touristtransportation agencies are critical to effective cost/ guide (funded with TE grants). Nationally,benefit mitigation strategies important to the Forest birding is big business, with retail salesService. Transit systems fundable through FHWA generating more than $477 millionand FTA programs can address a variety of needs that annually in Florida alone.may result in sound economic sense in the long termif resource restoration, traffic congestion, and localbusiness concerns are evaluated.

Infrastructure Many arterial and collector roads in the national forests Girders on bridges can provide valuableprovide primary access to rural communities and major bat habitat. Bat habitat enhancementsconnections between State highways and county roads. are now standard, and virtually cost-free,The routes may be important to the economic survival of on all bridges and box culverts onthese communities by furnishing access for commercial national forests in Arizona.traffic, mail delivery, school bus service, emergencyvehicle response, farm-to-market shipments, andenhanced tourism. FHWA and FTA programs arepotential funding opportunities for rural development,tourist resources, and bridge repair and replacement.Bridge replacement can correct many watershed-relatedissues initially caused by bridge construction andmaintenance.

4

62





Recreation Many components of recreation are affected by The Mt. Rogers National Recreationaltransportation systems, both as a means for accessing Area successfully used hundreds ofrecreation, and in many cases, as the recreation itself. thousands of dollars of FHWA funds toDriving for pleasure is the number one recreational use restore bridges and trestles beneath theof national forests. However, sometimes highways may Virginia Creeper National Recreationaladversely affect unroaded recreation. Improving Trail. This flexible Recreation Trailshighways may improve access, thereby increasing the program has funded the purchase of a use of unroaded and roaded recreation opportunities. $78,000 trail dozer and the constructionThrough the Recreation Trails and Enhancements of accessible fishing facilities and bicycleprograms, funding is also available to construct or trails.maintain motorized, nonmotorized, and mixed-use trails.

Scenic resources Highways can affect the visual resources of national See chapter 5.forests both to travelers on the highway and to visitorsviewing them from afar. Landscape and scenicbeautification projects funded through the FHWA areprovided under several programs, including theTransportation Enhancement program and thescenic byways program. The scenic byways programallows partners to manage scenic resources in nationalforests, including financing scenic easements acrossprivate lands.

5

63

SUCCESS STORIES

The stories highlighted in this chapter arejust a sample of what can beaccomplished using TEA-21 funds. Byusing the tools and funding opportunitiesprovided in this guidebook, your forestcan create their own success stories.

Tonto National Forest Interpretive Sites:Nominated for the Excellence in Highway Design AwardThe present-day Apache Trail began many centuries agoas an aboriginal highway through the SuperstitionMountains in central Arizona. In the early 1900s, the U.S.Bureau of Reclamation financed a highway so thatsupplies could be hauled from Phoenix to build theRoosevelt Dam.

Currently, the Apache Trail Scenic Byway is the secondmost frequently driven scenic road in Arizona. The Stateof Arizona designated it as a historical road because it isa primary transportation route directly associated withArizona’s history and the tourist industry.

The Tonto National Forest design team and the ArizonaDepartment of Transportation were partners indeveloping three interpretive sites that showcase severalunique values of the scenic byway. The design team wasnominated for a national Excellence in Highway Designaward for these sites.

These interpretive sites along the Apache Trail ScenicByway provide educational opportunities for thousands ofvisitors annually. All of the project materials werecompatible with both the desert environment and theoriginal materials used for constructing the dam androad. Low-maintenance, accessible, vandal-resistantmaterials enhanced functional efficiency and constructionquality.

The Needle Vista Interpretive Overlook introduces themotorist to the rich cultural and natural resources alongthe route. By locating the gateway on an abandonedadministrative site along the scenic byway, an oldeyesore was cleaned up and beautified. The facilitydesigners took advantage of existing clearings,vegetation, and topography. Native vegetation wasreestablished throughout the facility, and native flora andfauna can now be appreciated along a new, accessiblenature trail.

Designers remedied a safety hazard at the Canyon LakeVista along the Apache Trail. Numerous accidents wereoccurring because of limited visibility. Now drivers canmake safe turns into the vista, and pedestrians stoppingto capture images of the sweeping vista can linger safelyto enjoy the experience.

Fish Creek Hill was an ideal showcase for designers toincrease a visitor’s appreciation of the area. Retainingwalls faced with stone were constructed to mimic historichand-laid stone walls along the Apache Trail. A newaccessible trail leads out to a prominent butte. Signageinterprets the history of the area, highlighting theconstruction of the Apache Trail down Fish Creek Hill andthe difficulties encountered while constructing retainingwalls and sheer rock cuts.

For more information, contact the Tonto National Forest at602–225–5200.

5

64

SUCCESS STORIES

Kancamagus Scenic Byway: ChangingLandscapes on the White Mountain NationalForestThe Kancamagus Scenic Byway is a 34-mile stretch ofNew Hampshire Route 112 and includes 28 miles of theWhite Mountain National Forest. This two-lane mountainroad has a national reputation as one of the mostmagnificent drives in the northeastern United States.Panoramic views, colorful northern hardwood and spruce-fir forests, and picturesque country scenes draw urbanitesto this area. The byway’s theme, “changing landscapes,”was chosen to reflect the changes in the landscape due tohistoric activities and management actions.

Seventeen universally designed visitor facilities areplanned for the byway, including visitor centers at eachentrance, three overlooks, the Albany Covered Bridge,and a footbridge at Lincoln Woods. Innovative aspects ofthe project include interpretive sites with accessible trails,the development of a children’s guidebook, and aprogram center adjacent to a structure on the NationalHistoric Register.

The project will be completed over several years, with atotal investment of more than $4.3 million. ISTEA andTEA-21 grants contributed to well over half of the phase Ifunds. Partners contributed nearly $800,000 for phase I,and the Forest Service provided the balance from CapitalInvestment funds and fee demo revenues. During phasesII and III, a wildlife viewing area and the second visitorcenter will be constructed. Brochures and an audio tourfor the byway are being developed.

The Kancamagus Scenic Byway is an example of howthe four major points in the national recreation agendacan be implemented. Project dollars are invested in anationally designated facility. The project reflects theshared vision of its partners by allowing visitors toexperience recreational opportunities with a unified themeof the Kancamagus Scenic Byway fully withoutovercoming land ownership or jurisdiction constraints.

For further information, contact the White MountainNational Forest at 603–528–8721.

5

65

SUCCESS STORIES

Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit: EmeraldBay State Park EnhancementLake Tahoe, nestled in the Sierra Nevada Mountains ofCalifornia, is one of America’s crown jewels. Emerald Bayis a popular overlook for viewing the aqua-colored lake atthe base of breathtaking mountain peaks. Escalatingrecreational use in the area has elevated concerns forpublic safety and natural resource protection.

The Emerald Bay area is a National Natural Landmark, aNational Historic District, and is adjacent to a CaliforniaState scenic highway (Highway 89). The area has recentlybenefited from hard work and careful planning. In 1994,the California Department of Parks and Recreation, incooperation with the Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unitof the Forest Service, began to address visitor congestionin the Emerald Bay and historic Vikingsholm area.

Since then, a number of improvements designed toincrease safety, manage access, and reduceenvironmental impacts in the Vikingsholm historic areahave been completed. This project was accomplished notmerely by maximizing funding opportunities, but throughthe cooperation of various partners and their resources.California State Park staff, the California ConservationCorps work crews, volunteer organizations, and groups

such as the “Hard Rockers” pitched in to implement amultifaceted improvement plan. Improvements includedconstructing a historically accurate rock wall at theVikingsholm parking lot, interpretive sites and trails, andexpanded parking facilities. The project has receivedpraise for its universal access design and for the creationof the National Outdoor Trail guidelines for accessibility.

Funding for this project cametogether like carefully completedmarquetry. After initial funding,subsequent grant funds were usedto match additional fundingopportunities. Initial constructionwork began withFHWA fundingand a Sierra State ParksFoundation grant totaling $57,000.New bridge construction was thenfunded through a private donationof $50,000. The CaliforniaDepartment of Parks andRecreation provided $50,000 tomatch a California StateEnvironmental Enhancement andMitigation (EEM) grant of$170,000. A portion of this grantmatched an additionalRecreational Trails Program grantof $79,000, matched to yetanother grant of $159,000awarded through the next cycle ofthe California EEM program.

For further information, contact Lake Tahoe BasinManagement at 530–573–2600.

5

66

SUCCESS STORIES

Willamette and Deschutes National Forests:McKenzie-Santiam Pass National Scenic BywayCreating a fuel break along Highway 20 on the DeschutesNational Forest was the primary goal of thinning 20 milesof roadside tree stands. Highway 20 is part of theMcKenzie-Santiam Pass National Scenic Byway and is apopular travel route that crosses the Cascade Mountainsand connects the Willamette Valley with central Oregon.Following low-rainfall years, tree mortality along thehighway reached as much as 80 percent.

The browning forest was evident to the public, and ForestService managers were concerned about the fire hazard.On Santiam Pass, salvage timber sales helped thinstands with heavy treemortality where trees hadcommercial value. On theeast side of Santiam Passoutside the town of Sisters,OR, roadside stands wereprecommercially thinnedwith assistance from Statecorrections crews andfunding from the ForestHighways program. Oneproject goal was toenhance the scenic viewsand to maintain roadsideesthetics. The responsefrom the Sisters residentshas been so favorable thatadditional roadsidevegetative thinning isbeing considered.

The Willamette and Deschutes National Forests wereamong the first national forests in Region 6 to begincorridor planning in the early 1990s, with the hope ofreceiving National Scenic Byway designation. Their effortsand coordination with the Oregon DOT and FHWA havepaid large dividends. In addition to creating fuel breaksand recreation enhancements, portals to the byway weredeveloped at McKenzie River Ranger Station and at thetown of Sisters. The land for the town portal was donatedby a private development corporation (a $250,000 value)and includes a nonstaffed kiosk and accessible flushrestrooms. The town of Sisters has agreed to maintainthis facility under an agreement with the DeschutesNational Forest. TEA-21 Forest Highways funding wasalso critical in leveraging scarce Forest Service capitalfunding (Facilities Administrative and Operation funds) forthe west portal project.

The Willamette and Deschutes National Forests continueto commit Forest Service funding and staff time toplanning and implementing byway improvements. Theyare now planning resource restoration projects, includingroad runoff mitigation, road closures, and facilities forhuman waste.

For further information, contact the Willamette NationalForest at 541–465–6521 or the Deschutes NationalForest at 541–388–2715.

5

67

SUCCESS STORIES

Dixie National Forest to Bryce Canyon NationalPark: Red Canyon Bicycle Trail and HeritageCenter and Highway 12 Scenic BywayBicyclists love the red sandstone on Utah’s Highway 12with its towering “hoodoos,” foretelling of those they willencounter in Bryce Canyon National Park. TE funds aresupporting two projects that will greatly capitalize on theimposing views and visitor appeal, the Red CanyonBicycle Trail and the Red Canyon Heritage Center.

The exceptionally beautiful scenery enthralls bicyclists,but the narrow highway is a safety risk. The Red CanyonBicycle Trail is being built to reduce this hazard and tooffer bikers a great recreational experience. The trailwill be paved and separated from the highway, so bothmotorists and bicyclists can safely marvel at thesurrounding vistas. Envisioned to ultimately extend 17miles from Highway 89 to Bryce Canyon NationalPark, the first phase of the trail will be 5 1/2 miles.“One of the most fantastic things about the bicycle trailis that the people of Garfield County and the UtahDOT wanted the project and were cash-contributingpartners,” noted Mary Wagner, Forest Supervisor,Dixie National Forest. The majority of the $1.7 millionproject was funded under the TransportationEnhancements program, with additional contributionsfrom the Forest Service. “The local partners identifiedand shared the same need for the project, andworking together allowed them to be involved in waysthey could support it. That allowed the Federal familyto provide support and expertise as needed. If it had beenexclusively a Federal project from the beginning, it wouldnot have the degree of community support we now enjoy.”

About a quarter of a mile from the bicycle trail is the RedCanyon Visitor Center. Long identified as needingimprovement, the existing facility has an excellentlocation, but few amenities. The new visitor’s center willoffer interpretive services to visitors and will provide waterand comfort stations for bicyclists and motorists. Thecenter will present a different perspective on theresources in the park vicinity while establishing anexcellent portal to Bryce Canyon National Park and

Highway 12, a Utah State and USDA Forest Servicescenic byway. A unique partnership with the Highway89 Heritage Corridor Alliance will support the center’sfunding and services. In addition to traditionalinterpretive services, the center will showcaseexamples of local arts and crafts and highlight culturalevents and historic opportunities throughout Utah. TheDixie Interpretive Association is also a contributingpartner to the center’s services.

In 1991, Highway 12 received funding for interpretivewayside exhibits, brochures, and visitor guides throughthe National Scenic Byways program. The partnersincluded two State parks, Bryce Canyon NationalPark, the Bureau of Land Management, two areacounties, and many local communities. The partnersare currently working on an application for All-

American Road status and are funding the corridormanagement plan necessary for designation nomination.

For further information, contact the Dixie National Forestat 435–865–3700.

5

68

SUCCESS STORIES

The Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area:Many Partners, Multiple OpportunitiesTravel along roadways is a big part of how visitors andtravelers experience the Columbia River Gorge NationalScenic Area (CRGNSA) between Oregon andWashington. Millions of people travel on I-84 along theColumbia River annually. The Columbia River HistoricHighway on the Oregon side and Washington’s Highway14 are within a 30-minute drive of the Portlandmetropolitan area. In both Oregon and Washington, acoordinated approach with multiple partners andjurisdictions has been critical to providing qualityattractions.

The Columbia River Historic Highway in Oregon is one ofthe Nation’s first highways designed and built to highlightscenic attractions. Today, portions of this All-AmericanRoad through the CRGNSA are open to both vehicles

and trail users, thanks to years of coordination. TheNational Park Service inventoried and assessed thehistoric highway’s attributes, which the Oregon

Department of Transportation and CRGNSAstaff used to implement roadside and trailenhancements.

The Forest Service took the lead to plan, design,and develop placement standards for recreationsite signs across cities, State parks, andnational forests in the two States. Thirteenparties signed an MOU that documents thedesign and development of consistent sitesigning. Forest Highway funds were used for thedesign, fabrication, and placement of thesesigns. The FHWA was awarded the CRGNSAStewardship Award for its support of this project.

Abandoned tunnels along a section of thehistoric highway were reconstructed usingPublic Lands Discretionary funds, a large privatedonation ($500,000), and CRGNSA legislativefunding. TEA-21 funded the reopening ofrailroad tunnels for trail use, trailheadenhancements, safety guardrails, and theopening of views along the Columbia RiverHistoric Highway. The State Historical Societyand the Historic Columbia River AdvisoryCommittee reviewed the project proposals andproject implementation. The HistoricPreservation League of Oregon has been anadvocate of the historic highway.

For further information, contact the ColumbiaRiver Gorge National Scenic Area at 541–308–1706.

5

69

SUCCESS STORIES

Buffalo Bill Cody Scenic Byway: The MostBeautiful 52 Miles in America!Theodore Roosevelt called what is now the Buffalo BillCody Scenic Byway in Wyoming “The most beautiful 52miles in America.” U.S. Highway 14-16-20 follows theNorth Fork of the Shoshone River through the scenicWapiti Valley, well known for its abundant wildlife,spectacular rock formations, and exceptional recreationalappeal, to the east entrance of Yellowstone National Park.This area is the birthplace of the conservation movementwith the Nation’s first national park, Yellowstone, and thefirst national forest, the Shoshone. Several endangeredspecies reside here, as well as many common animalsthat grace the summer vacation albums of countlessAmericans.

In the 1980s, transportation planning began for wideningthe highway to accommodate the increasing flow ofvisitors into Yellowstone National Park. The ForestService was involved early in the process with theWyoming DOT to ensure that the character of the canyonand its natural ecosystem were maintained and tocapitalize onrecreationalopportunities.

Construction on the scenic byway began in 1995 andimpacted 8 campgrounds, 6 trailheads, 10 special-uselodges, 2 picnic grounds, and a firefighter memorial.Agencies and stakeholders insisted on well planneddesign features and mitigation measures to preserve keyhabitats of several species threatened by the widenedhighway. Mitigation included decommissioning a 20-unitcampground and restoring its wetlands and riparian areato prime grizzly bear habitat. Project sponsors closed onecampground because of its proximity to the widenedhighway and approved a new campground with addedfacilities on a new site. Retaining the existing curvilinearalignment, removing old highway scars and drill marks inrock, and simulating natural colors on manmade featuresimproved the view. A paved picnic area, severalinterpretive pullouts, and amenities such as running waterand accessible restrooms were added. Terrestrial andaquatic mitigation measures included riverside retainingwalls, boulder placement, and plantings alongstreambanks. The State of Wyoming and adjacentlandowners continue to negotiate conservationeasements to mitigate wildlife habitat loss.

The Wyoming DOT was the lead agency inthe NEPA process, while the ForestService provided interdisciplinaryspecialists and engineers. The State ofWyoming was responsible for obtainingfunding through the Highway Trust Fundfor mitigation measures and from theNational Scenic Byways fund forenhancement activities, securing over $2million in grants. Other important partnersincluded Wyoming Game and Fish, U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corpsof Engineers, Northwest WyomingResource Council, and a citizen advisory

committee. The Nature Conservancy played a key role innegotiating conservation easements.

Jim Fisher, project coordinator for the Shoshone NationalForest, said, “My greatest satisfaction is in looking backand observing the higher level of environmental sensitivitythat highway engineers and contractors now have. Thisresulted from the time our employees spent working withthem to increase their awareness of some of theseissues. Increased sensitivity has become part of theirstandard operating procedures.”

For further information, contact the Shoshone NationalForest at 307–527–6241.

5

70

SUCCESS STORIES

Edge of the Wilderness: IncreasingOrganizational CapacityThe Edge of the Wilderness National Scenic Bywaycaptures a glimpse of the beauty, charm, and culturaltreasures of the Minnesota north woods. Within the 47-mile stretch of Highway 38, visitors are awed by pristinelakes and the home of the largest population of baldeagles in the continental United States. A remarkablestory lies behind the scenes.

In 1993, a local task force was formed to improve safetyand road surfaces along Highway 38 between the smallcommunities of Grand Rapids and Effie. Highwayimprovements primarily would benefit hikers andbicyclists. This simple vision led to the rural highway beingdesignated in 1966 as one of the first 20 National ScenicByways.

The Chippewa National Forest assisted in the earlydevelopment of the necessary planning documents. Theresulting interpretive planning document and corridormanagement plan are unified blueprints for implementingprojects under the National Scenic Byways umbrella thatencompass the needs and interests of severalcommunities and agencies. The initial Forest Serviceinvolvement soon took on a life of its own, activelyengaging community organizations in all aspects of thebyway activities. The community has assumed primarybyway leadership and ownership, and the Forest Serviceis one of many partners.

Participation in the Highway 38 leadership board readslike a local telephone book: almost everyone is included.The board includes the Minnesota Historical Society,lodging associations, business associations, the localLion’s Club, citizens at large, and government agenciessuch as the Minnesota DOT, Minnesota Department ofNatural Resources, Arrowhead Regional Development

Commission, and the Forest Service. The Forest Serviceprovides in-kind support through office space and timedonated by specialists. The Chippewa National Foresthas contributed interpretive and environmental educationservices.

The complexity of the Edge of the Wilderness projectchallenged participants to seek innovative approaches tofunding. The diversity of partners increased the potentialfor funding and expanded the project scope.

Several FHWA scenic byways grants funded accessiblerest stops and interpretive sites, Web site development,and a photo-library project with a local high school. TheForest Service’s Economic Recovery Program, ItascaCounty Challenge economic development grants, and theBlandin Foundation were also funding sources. Grants formarketing contributed to advertising and public relations.TEA-21 Transportation Enhancements program fundedbyway markers, kiosks, and gateways at Grand Rapids,Marcell, and Effie. The Minnesota DOT paid for about $7million worth of road construction and improvementprojects, such as widening roads for bicycling and buildingthe new “Streetscape” and interpretive park in Bigfork.Similar improvements in surrounding communities willmaintain the character and theme of the byway.

The Edge of the Wilderness project has resulted inunprecedented benefits to the byway communities. Newlighting, curbs, sidewalks, decorative bridges, andinterpretive parks are revitalizing community pride aseach one creates its own design, while the byway themelinks them together. As a partner in such communities, theForest Service can ‘plant the seeds’ for success, and thenstep back and watch them grow.

Tim Johnson, the Edge of the Wilderness CommunityCoordinator said, “The biggest benefit is that the

ownership is community-based with citizens andvolunteers, and they are moreactively involved because ofit!”

For further information,contact the ChippewaNational Forest PartnershipCoordinator at 218-327-4792.

5

71

SUCCESS STORIES

Arizona Department of Transportation: FundingForest Service ExpertsThe Tonto National Forest has an abundance of fragiledesert resources close to the rapidly developing Phoenixarea. These fragile resources made early Forest Serviceinvolvement in transportation and highway projectplanning critical to meeting Arizona DOT and TontoNational Forest’s management objectives. At a 5-yearplanning meeting, the Tonto National Forest requestedTEA-21 funding for Arizona DOT’s $200 million highwayconstruction program. “Twice as much land area is beingremoved by highway projects as one of our proposedmines, so highways are important players in resourceissues,” said Terry Brennan, Professional Engineer, Statehighway implementation leader for the Tonto NationalForest.

The 1998 MOU between the Forest Service and theFHWA authorizes the Forest Service to act “as agent forthe FHWA” under certain circumstances. TEA-21authorizes State DOTs to fund Federal resource agenciesfor their involvement in highway projects. Because of theirlarge construction project, Arizona DOT funded six full-time Tonto National Forest employees, includingengineers and resource specialists, to help with highwaycoordination and planning. The Tonto National Forestworked with the Arizona DOT to determine the level ofNEPA analysis necessary for each project.

Has this relationship benefited the quality and timelinessof highway projects on the Tonto National Forest?“Absolutely,” according to Terry Brennan. Archeologicalsites have been avoided or mitigated, wildlife crossingstructures have been created, and even the gorgeous redrocks that brought fame to Arizona highways have beenstained and planted with local vegetation to restorescenic resources along highway cuts. In 1998,reconstruction of the Beeline Highway, State Route 87,was awarded an Excellence in Highway Design. In 1999,the highway received the FHWA’s Excellence in Wetlandsand Other Ecosystems award.

Even better, the close working relationships with theArizona DOT have resulted in much better planning forthe ‘Seven Dwarfs’ of implementation not usuallyconsidered under NEPA, such as water for construction,equipment staging areas, and balance of materials.

Frequent coordination with the Arizona DOT benefits theState as well, because problems are solved before theybecome irreversible. Forest Service specialists are wellinformed about highway issues and procedures and areable to provide the Arizona DOT with expert assistance.

For further information, contact the Tonto National Forestat 602–225–5200.

5

72

SUCCESS STORIES

5

73

SUCCESS STORIES

Now it is up to you and your forest to discover innovative ways to improvepartnerships and obtain funding to meet your forest’s resource managementgoals and objectives while striving to achieve a seamless transportationsystem

5

74

SUCCESS STORIES

innovative approaches to federal highway transportation

Documents