It was determined in 1965 that the bad soil situation does not end at the west levee and consequently Louisiana recommended that the west abutment be located approximately 1,000 ft. west of the west levee. The authority for granting permits for levee crossings rested with the Louisiana Levee Board. The Department of Highways recommended a crossing that preserved the integrity of the levee, as requested by the Levee Board. The subject of the levee crossing was resolved three years later when it was decided to overcross the levee and maintain its integrity. SECONDARY ROADS Mr. RICHARD M. LAUZIER, SCOTT COUNTY ENGINEER, Davenport, Iowa, June 22, 1971. Managing Director, American Road Builder's Association, ARBA Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR DICK: I have my own idiosyncrasy about FHWA "red tape", since we have a Federal Air project being let today. It has taken us three years to bring it from inception to letting because of two hearings (location and design) and right-of-way acquisition. I have asked Mr. James L. Stober, Iowa's Secondary Road Engineer, to give you a summary of Iowa Secondary Road "red tape" problems. He has written direct to you, dated June 18, 1971, so that you would get it earlier. I believe the two examples confirm that trivial details are time consuming. Many counties are building up fund ba ances because of de ays in bringing their projects to 'etting. I hope this will help in preparing your testimony. I also hope that the same study is being done regarding primary and interstate. Another matter-ARBA gets a spot on our Iowa County Engineers annual conference in Ames in December. Can someone from D.C. appear on the program? If not, I will appear, and perhaps you could furnish me information that you would like to be included in the presentation. Best personal regards, ELMER G. CI AYTON, P.E. & L.S., Scott County Engineer. IOWA STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSION, Mr. RICHARD M. LAUZIER, American Road Builders Association, ARBA Building, DEAR SIR: Mr. Elmer G. Clayton has passed on to us your letter of June 9, 1971, regarding "red tape" problems. We shall attempt to reiate some of our experiences to you. Project S-1199 (1)—Franklin County, Iowa. In May of 1970 this project was proposed for shouldering of an existing paved road, As a part of the project they had to acquire right of way from a county park of about one acre size which had no improvements. It was an old rural school house site which was turned over to the County Conservation Commission. The original submittal included a letter from the County Conservation Commission stating the taking would in no way affect or damage the park. This proposal and information was sent to the Federal Highway Administration on June 5, 1970. On September 8, 1970 no word had been received so we contacted them to check on progress. On November 13, 1970 we received a request for added information on the park lands. This was submitted to FHWA on November 30, 1970. On December 22, 1970, FHWA asked for additional information. On December 29, 1970, this was submitted to them. On January 18, 1971 we were notified by FHWA that the park was no longer considered as 4(f) lands because it had no local, state, or national significance. The proposed project could be advanced in the normal manner. The project will be let to contract on July 20, 1971. It was to be let June 22, 1917, but the County hit a snag in right of way acquisition which was done using local funds. Project $-177 Dickinson County, Iowa. This project was proposed as a locally funded county grading project which might be paved using Federal Aid funds at some future undetermined date. The project required the acquisition of right of way from an area called Yager Slough which is owned by the State Conservation (640) Commission and contains about 56 acres with no improvements of facilities on the site. The first information was sent to FHWA on June 5, 1970, and it included a construction permit from the State Conservation Commission. This gave the County permission to use a strip of land 27 ft. wide by 1207.4 ft. long for right of way and borrow purposes. On June 9, 1970, FHWA requested added information. This information was gathered and submitted to FHWA on September 14, 1970. On December 28, 1970 we were notified by FHWA that inadequate information had been furnished to them. Also that if design approval had not been given we would now have to submit an environmental statement. They also asked that deeds be checked to make certain there were no restrictions on the use of the slough lands. On January 7, 1971 we notified FHWA that Design approval had been given on March 13, 1970. FHWA then requested a statement that the land taken for highway purposes was not of local, state or national significance or historical interest. On February 10, 1971 FHWA was notified that there were no deed restrictions and that the State Conservation Commission believed the land taken was not of any significance and that the project would have no detrimental effects on the area. On April 7, 1971 we were informed that our submissions were deficient and approval could not be given. If we desired to use Federal Aid funds we should begin from scratch in accord with FHWA instructions dated January 12, 1971. To date the project has not been cleared for use of Federal Aid funds. It has been graded with local funds. It is doubtful if we will pursue the matter any further. We have begun work on an Environmental statement for a FAS project in Sac County. The draft has been submitted and all comments returned. The final has not been submitted. We do not know what the final outcome of this project will be. We may forego the use of Federal Aid funds. I trust this will be of some aid to you. We, of course, do not know how this has changed the County Engineers' thinking but this type of procedure definitely causes much added work for the counties. In addition, the State Highway Commission has encountered considerable delay in attempting to obtain FHWA approval of environmental statements on one Interstate project and one primary project. The Interstate project involves the diagonal section of I-35 in Wright and Franklin counties. The primary project involves the relocation of US-20 betweeen Cedar Falls and Waterloo. If we can be of further help, please advise. Mr. RICHARD M. LAUZIER, JAMES L. STOBER, P.E., Secondary Roads Engineer. COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, PUBLIC WORKS AGENCY, San Diego, Calif., June 16, 1971. Managing Director, American Road Builders' Association, DEAR MR. LAUZIER: In response to your request of June 9, 1971, San Diego County has no specific examples to offer of FAS projects ensnarled in red tape. We have avoided this problem by employing a specialist-an experienced and knowledgeable senior civil engineer with unusual skills in horse trading. Though effective, this solution to the problem is expensive and would be unavailable to organizations too small to afford such a full-time specialist. Very truly yours, D. K. SPEER, Public Works Administrator. Mr. ELMER G. CLAYTON, Davenport, Iowa DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, DEAR ELMER: You requested specific information regarding problems of Federal-aid Secondary projects. I would like to relate an experience we had within the past two weeks. We have an FAS project in the design stage which travels through mostly residential areas of Springfield. It passes along churches, schools a private golf course, a city park and a city golf course in addition to the residences. Of prime importance with the environmental and 4f requirements are the city park and the city golf course. The design and location studies had been approved by this office prior to the environmental and 4(f) requirements. However, a negative statement was made in regard to the public park and the public golf course. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation had a special interest in the golf course since they had funds in it. The plans did not call for any right-of-way to be taken from the golf course, merely a construction easement to permit a minimum of landscaping to blend into the construction of the 4-lane facility. We have communications and explanations, including sets of plans, which were sent to the B.O.R. to assure them that no right-of-way was to be taken. We had made arrangements with the Park Board and had their concurrence on the construction plans. It would take some trees since we had some fill in a ravine. We offered them the possibility of steepening the slope and taking less trees. The Park Board chose the flatter slope to permit easier planting later. A landscape architect was hired to provide assistance in blending this improvement into the environment. During the course of time, a member of the B.O.R. was in Springfield and asked to see the project. We found they were not interested in the public golf course in which they had funds, as we had surmised and their letters had inferred (we were not surprised since we were not taking any right-of-way). They did make quite an issue of the public park; however, it was not necessarily on the affect to the park for recreation purposes but on the affect of trees which, in our mind, were outside their area of expertise. They immediately suggested a shift of the road so that some of these trees could be spared. It was pointed out that a shifting of the road would take a like amount of trees (hardwood in contrast to soft maples). They related they had no concern for the trees on private land. A closer check of the trees to be taken, found that some were soft maples in which the trunk was hollow or the tops had been taken off by utilities. This did not deter their determination to protect them even with formed wells, if necessary. Finally, the cost of relocation was discussed. The cost did come to somewhere near 10% of the project and this seemed to be more than they felt they could justify. The point I wish to make is, if these people who are concerned about our environment and recreation are sincere then they should be as concerned about private trees as they are about public trees. This did not seem to be the case. They were, it seemed to us, outside their area of expertise as I mentioned before. The 4(f) submittal was made to FHWA in September, 1970. In February, FHWA requested additional information and that the entire submission be rewritten and submitted in accordance with an FHWA notice issued in January, 1971. Relative to another project, I am attaching a copy of a letter that is being sent to FHWA today. The letter and its attachments should be self-explanatory. Very truly yours, MELVIN B. LARSEN, Engineer of Local Roads and Streets. ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS, Mr. C. S. MONNIER, Division Engineer, Federal Highway Administration, Springfield. DEAR MR. MONNIER: This environmental consideration is to accompany our request for approval of Federal-aid Secondary Project S-613 (103) Section 43Q in Morgan County. 1. The proposed improvement involves the relocation of a portion of F.A.S. Route 613 beginning near the intersection of College and Johnson Streets in Jacksonville and extending northeasterly for a distance of approximately one mile to a connection with the existing road. The proposed section will consist of the necessary medium grading for a high type pavement, a structure over Mauvaisterre Creek with a grade separation at the Norfolk and Western Railroad. 2. The primary purpose of this project involves the elimination of a host of substandard conditions such as the inadequate structure over Mauvaisterre Creek, the extremely narrow and dangerous underpass at the N. & W. Railroad, and the substandard pavement width and alinement in general. 3. There will be no displacement of people as a result of the proposed project. The proposed improvement will not dissect or disrupt any existing community but will significantly enhance the safe and orderly flow of traffic inasmuch as two dangerous structures are being replaced (as noted in paragraph No. 2), and will provide positive visual and aesthetic effects, because the alinement is removed from a rather blighted area, with no derogation of unique areas of interest and scenic attraction. 4. This improvement will not destroy or detract from recreational areas, important nesting, breeding or feeding grounds and will not adversely affect the water table or disturb the ecological balance of the land and water area. It has also been determined that there will be no contamination of a public water supply source, treatment facility or distribution system. 5. The impact on the human environment will be insignificant. The probable increase in the noise level to nearby residents due to the proposed overhead at the railroad will be nominal due to the already existing noise level of the railroad. This is the only factor that might possibly affect the human environment and since it is negligible this new alignment will be an improvement in vehicular traffic flow. 6. There are no evident long-term impacts on the natural environment of any significant affects. Good erosion control practices must be assured during construction to minimize temporary water pollution and the reinstatement of the existing vegetation prior to construction will be necessary to keep the impact on the natural environment to a minimum. These practices will maintain the impact on a short-term basis. 7. Based on the foregoing conclusions, the construction of this section will provide a salutary effect with regard to transportation quality and a negative declaration is in order. Sincerely yours, Illinois Division of Highways Concur: JACK L. STOVALL, Morgan County Superintendent of Highways. RICHARD H. GOLTERMAN, Chief Highway Engineer. By: MELVIN B. LARSEN, Engineer of Local Roads and Streets. |