IH 20 RANGER HILL REALIGNMENT/ RECONSTRUCTION

Biological Issues and Compressed Schedule

Project Background – Concerns for this portion of IH 20

Three main safety concerns – Steep grade

– Sharp curve

– Steep superelevation (8% banking)

No frontage roads – No access for emergency vehicles

– No detour if lanes are closed

Need to update to current design standards

Project Description

Project Description

Removal of vegetation on 89 acres of new ROW – Wooded areas and steep slopes

Realignment & Reconstruction of IH 20 mainlanes

– Approximately 3 miles of project limits – Major road cut – Excavation of up to 65’ of bedrock (~2,000,000 CY) – Major embankment fill – Up to 60’ high – Drainage culvert for stream under embankment section

Construction of new IH 20 frontage roads

Braided, grade-separated entrance/exit ramps

– To allow access to westbound Safety Rest Area

Installation of new lighting and signage Removal of roadbed on original alignment

Challenges – Endangered Species Habitat Impacts

New alignment through potential habitat for Golden-cheeked Warbler

Challenges –Wetland and Stream Impacts

Impacts to ~850 linear feet of intermittent stream

Wetland impacts

Challenges – Project on New ROW

Environmental Surveys – Archeological investigations

– Wetland/Stream delineation

– Habitat and presence/absence surveys for GCWA

Geotechnical Investigations – Geotechnical information was needed from across the area to improve

Project Design and inform bid prices

– Project area vegetation needed to be cleared for equipment access

– Vegetation couldn’t be cleared until after NEPA clearance

Challenges – Aggressive Project Schedule

Original Project Timeline – Start April 2015 – with letting in December 2016

Actual Project Timeline – WA Executed – April 2015, started in earnest on Environmental activities – Late October 2015 – Received Environmental Clearance November 2016

On-site Visit with USFWS - March 2, 2016

TPWD Coordination - March 9, 2016 -

May 20, 2016

Conference Call with USFWS to

Discuss Survey

Results - May 2, 2016

Biological Assessment to USFWS July 1,

2016

Biological Opinion Issued -

October 21, 2016

Solutions – Effective Meetings with Regulatory Staff

Meeting on-site with USFWS Liaison and Arlington ES Office Staff – Talked through project details and

construction sequencing

– Discussed construction methodologies (e.g. use of blasting for roadcut)

– Evaluated habitat quality in project area

– Came to agreement on scope and scale of potential impacts

Follow-up Meeting with USFWS – Discussed results of surveys

– Added BCVI to consultation

Solutions – Effective Meetings with Regulatory Staff

Meeting on-site with USACE Ft Worth Regulatory Staff – Discussed project impacts

– Assessment methodology for calculating mitigation credits

– Information needed for PCN

Solutions - Early ROW Acquisition

Early ROW acquisition with state funds enabled project activities to move forward more quickly: – We were able to start ROW processes ahead of NEPA clearance

– ROW was acquired shortly after NEPA clearance

Solutions – Separate Contract for Clearing

Separate maintenance contract for clearing vegetation which:

Allowed for clearance of vegetation prior to nesting season for GCWA and BCVI

Allowed for more detailed geotechnical investigations prior to letting , which increased knowledge about excavation and potentially improved bid prices

Opened the door to other construction contractors that might not have been willing to bid

Timeline Comparison

Takeaway Messages

Start early, but not too early – Identify milestones during scoping phase

Communicate openly and effectively – Engage regulatory agencies early

– Value of site visits

– Keep everyone in the loop as things change

Look for Innovative Methods – Know what resources are available to you

A Parting Shot

Below is a link to a video from a drone shot when blasting https://youtu.be/A_ledu0dsOA