Stewardship and Oversight Agreement

3.0 RESPONSIBILITIES BY PROGRAM AREA

The following subsections of Section 3 describe the functional/program stewardship and oversight areas that are subject to this Stewardship Agreement. This section provides information on how NMDOT and FHWA are organized and will address required reviews, specific working relationships, and efforts relating to management systems.

Included in each section are two tables: 1) Program Area Control Standards/Document and 2) Program and Project Action Responsibilities. This will help to delineate the actions that are required through the 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and related memorandums, policies, or guidance for administering the FAHP.

Under this Stewardship/Oversight Agreement, the NMDOT division and district offices are responsible for facilitating the preparation of statewide policy and procedural directives, providing technical assistance, conducting continual technical training, and providing quality assurance (QA) in all program areas. The division and district offices may be responsible for project production. The NMDOT regional design offices and district offices are responsible for preparing the complete construction packages including; project scoping, schedules, estimates, all certification documents, agreements, plans and specifications, supplemental specifications, addenda, notice to contractors, local entity agreements, and overall management of the individual projects.

The FHWA New Mexico Division is responsible for the stewardship and oversight of the Federal-Aid Highway Program in New Mexico. FHWA Operation Engineers are responsible for project level stewardship and oversight through risk-based project level activities. FHWA Operation Engineers and other Program Managers are responsible for stewardship and oversight activities by relating policy, providing technical assistance, working with other federal agencies, guiding their programs, on a statewide basis, and for ensuring quality assurance (QA) of the entire Federal-Aid Highway Program in New Mexico. FHWA Team Leaders and Management are responsible for ensuring the Operations Engineers and Program Managers receive the appropriate resources and leadership so that they may conduct an efficient and effective QA program.

3.1.0 PLANNING & AIR QUALITY

The relevant laws pertaining to planning are found in: 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135; 23 CFR Part 450. The FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Region VI Office are jointly responsible for required approval actions such as: Certification of the metropolitan planning process in each Transportation Management Area at least once every four years as well as yearly review and approval of the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), the Planning Annual Work Program, and amendments.

Transportation Planning also includes data collection and reporting, which are included under: 23 CFR § 420.105(b) which requires that "…State Transportation Agencies shall provide data that support FHWA’s responsibilities to the Congress and to the public. These data include, but are not limited to, information required for: preparing proposed legislation and reports to the Congress; evaluating the extent, performance, condition, and use of the Nation’s transportation system; analyzing existing and proposed FAHP funding methods and levels and the assignment of user cost responsibility; maintaining a critical information base on fuel availability, use, and revenues generated; and calculating apportionment factors."

3.1.1 Planning and Air Quality Method of Operation

NMDOT has responsibility for transportation planning per Federal laws (23 USC 134 and 23 USC 135) and regulations (23 CFR 420, 23 CFR 450, 23 CFR 460, and 23 CFR 470; and 49 CFR provisions). These laws establish the planning requirements to be conducted by NMDOT in cooperation with internal and external planning partners. State law and federal law, ensures that planning is conducted according to USDOT standards and requirements. At a minimum the state must develop a comprehensive, multimodal 20 year transportation plan that integrates and consolidates the regional transportation plans developed by the urban and non-urban regions of the state, a Planning Annual Work Program, and a four year STIP.

NMDOT, FHWA, RPOs, MPOs, and FTA work together closely and coordinate on issues pertaining to state and regional transportation planning in addition to periodic coordination meetings and discussions. These include:

Administration of Congestion Management Air Quality (CMAQ) program – Air Quality conformity
Development of annual State Planning and Research (SPR)
Development of Consolidated Planning Grants (optional)
Development of Statewide and Regional Transportation Plans
Planning and environmental linkages activities
Public Involvement and consultation efforts for transportation planning process
Quarterly reviews of Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs)
Review MPO certification every 4 years
Sustainability/livability initiatives
Technical assistance to MPOs and RPOs

The method of operation for NMDOT and FHWA Stewardship Agreement objectives will be met through:

Quarterly meetings (or more frequent as needed to provide adequate oversight) that will be held between NMDOT Planning Staff and FHWA to review NMDOT’s progress in meeting work objectives contained in the Planning Annual Work Program.
Technical Assistance provided to MPOs and RPOs as needed to carry out the FAHP and their Work Programs.
Control Standards / Documents
Development of the appropriate policies, procedure, and tracking mechanisms that guarantee and effective, efficient, and transparent delivery of the FAHP.

3.1.2 Planning & Air Quality Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAHP projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Manuals submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.1-1 Planning & Air Quality CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Annual Work Program / UPWP Policies and Procedures	NMDOT	New Document Pending 2013	NMDOT Planning Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	TBD	23 USC 134 23 USC 135 and regulations
MPO Quick Reference Guide (GTG)	NMDOT	2010 Update Pending 2013	NMDOT Planning Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/planning/MPO_Handbook.pdf	NMDOT Management Tool
Public Involvement Process (PIP)	NMDOT	July 2007 Update Pending 2013	NMDOT Planning Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://website (not a working link to this on the website)	23 USC 450.210(a)(2)
RPO Handbook	NMDOT	July 2010 Update Pending 2013	NMDOT Planning Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/planning/RPO_HANDBOOK.pdf	NMDOT Management Tool
STIP/TIP Policies & Procedures	Program Mgmt.	2/9/12	NMDOT Program Management Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/STIP/Approved_STIP-TIP_Procedures.pdf	23 USC 134 23 USC 135 and regulations
Tribal / Local Gov’t Handbook (LGAU)	NMDOT	October 2007 Update Pending 2013	NMDOT Planning Division Director	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	Hardcopy	NMDOT Management Tool

3.1.3 Planning and Air Quality Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

NMDOT is committed to implementing projects that address the State’s Transportation needs identified in the Long Range Transportation Plan. Factors that are expected to improve and influence successful implementation are:

Air quality improvements through reduction of mobile source emissions
Annual Work Plan Review
Certification acceptance of metropolitan areas with population over 200,000 every 4 years
Congestion control
Demonstration of conformity to the applicable emissions budgets identified in the State Implementation Plan
Fiscally constrained plans, including accurate projections of revenues and expenditures
Fiscally constrained TIP and STIP amendments
Percent of STIP Advanced projects/programs
Reduction of congestion through use of Transportation Control Measures (TCM) and Travel Demand Management (TDM)

3.1.4 Planning & Air Quality & Project Action Responsibility

The Program & Project Action Responsibility (P&PAR) Table is a composite list of Program and Project Actions that provide stewardship for the Federal-aid Highway Program (FAHP). As a reminder, the FAHP is a state administered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

Table 3.1-2 Planning & Air Quality P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Actions / Remarks
Air Quality
CMAQ funds eligibility determination	FHWA HQ CMAQ guidance memo 10/31/06	As requested by State	Planning Division Director	Environment	NMDOT develops and FHWA reviews for eligibility
CMAQ funds report (UPACS*)	FHWA HQ CMAQ guidance memo 10/31/06	Annually by Feb 1st	Planning Division Director	Environment	FHWA develops and inputs into UPACS
Discretionary funds application (FHWA)	FHWA HQ memo soliciting applications	Periodic (usually annually, date varies)	Engineering Program Manager	Planner	NMDOT develops and submits to FHWA
Functional classification of highways/streets	23 CFR 470.105, 470.115	As needed or as revised by State	STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops and submits to FHWA for approval
Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Payment Certification	23 CFR 669.7	Annually by July 1	NMDOT	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Heavy Vehicle Use Tax Payment Review	23 CFR 669.21 & FAPG NS 23 CFR 669	Every 3 years	NMDOT	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Obligated Projects Annual List	23 CFR 450.332	Annually, no later than 90 days after September 30th.	STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs
Planning Certification (FHWA/FTA TMA)	23 CFR 450.334	Every 4 yrs.	Planning Division Director	Planner	FHWA / FTA review and certify the review
Highway
Air Quality Agency agreements (MPO/State)	23 CFR 450.314	As needed or revised by MPO / State in conjunction with conformity determination	Planning Division Director	Planner	MPO / NMDOT submit to FHWA / FTA
Boundary Changes (Metro planning area)	23 CFR 450.312	As needed / revised by MPO/State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Certification of MPO planning process (MPO/State)	23 CFR 450.334	Required with every STIP amendment	STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs
Fuel report (PR 511M) prepared monthly	Chapter 2 of FHWA Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics	Monthly. Also, a review of Motor Fuel Data reporting is done every 3 years.	NMDOT	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Highway statistics reports (various)	FHWA Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics	Most annually, one biennially (per FHWA guidance)	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Highway taxes and fees report	FHWA HQ memo of request	Periodic (usually biennially)	NMDOT	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
HPMS data review (UPACS*)	FHWA HPMS Field Manual	Annually	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
HPMS data submission (UPACS*)	FHWA HPMS Field Manual	Annually by June 15th	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Interstate additions & revisions	23 CFR 470.111, 115	As requested by State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organizations (MPO) Designation and Re-designation	23 CFR 450.310	As needed / revised by MPO / State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
Mileage Certification Public roads	23 CFR 460.3 & FAPG NS 23 CFR 460	Annually by June 1st	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs
Motor Fuel Tax (MFT) Evasion Project funds request	FHWA HQ memo soliciting applications	Periodic (usually annually)	NMDOT	Planner	NMDOT reports and submits to FHWA
NHS revisions	23 CFR 470.113, 115	As requested by State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs
PM2.5 and Mobile Source Air Toxics	MOMOS February 3, 2006 and March 29, 2006. 71 FR. 12468. 23 CFR 771.129	As needed	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops; FHWA concurs
SPL/PL program performance/expenditure reports	23 CFR 420.117	Annually by Sept. 30	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits; FHWA reviews
SPR & PL funded work programs; Unified Planning Work Program for Transportation Management Areas (TMA) LTAP Work Plan and budget	23 CFR 450.308	Annually by May 15	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops and submits; FHWA / FTA review and approve
State certification of their planning process	23 CFR 450.218	Required with every STIP amendment	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
State PL funds formula	23 CFR 420.109	As needed or as revised by State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
State planning process (Public Involvement Process or PIP)	23 CFR 450.210(a)(2)	As needed or as revised by State	STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops FHWA/FTA receive for informational purposes
TIP and corollary STIP amendments for attainment areas	23 CFR 450.324 – 330	Required with every STIP amendment	STIP Coordinator & Plng Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
TIP conformity determination for non-attainment	23 CFR 450.324, 330	Every 2 years	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
Transportation plan for attainment metropolitan areas	23 CFR 450.322	Every 4 yrs. or in conjunction with conformity reviews	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
Tribal Government Consultation process	23 CFR 450.210(c)	As needed or as revised by State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits and FHWA approves
Twenty (20) Yr. Statewide Transportation Plan (Long Range Transportation Plan)	23 CFR 450.214	As needed	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT develops (at a minimum updated after Census taken)
Urban area boundaries	23 CFR 470.105	As needed or as revised by State	Planning Division Director	Planner	NMDOT submits to Governor for Approval; sends to FHWA
Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement certification	23 CFR 657.13	Annually by Jan 1	Department of Public Safety	Planner	NMDOT ensures DPS reports and submits to FHWA
Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement plan	23 CFR 657.11	Annually by July 1, w/approval by Oct 1	Department of Public Safety	Planner	NMDOT ensures DPS reports and submits to FHWA

3.1.5 Planning and Air Quality Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators to assess health of NMDOT’s Planning and STIP Development Program:

3.1.5(a) Percent of State & Local Projects Obligated in STIP year Programmed	3.1.5(b) Percent of projects obligated by quarter (goal FFY Q1-Q3 60%, Q4-40%) To Be Developed

3.1.5(c) Cost growth during planning stage	(Intentionally left blank)
To Be Developed	(Intentionally left blank)

3.2.0 ENVIRONMENT

The Environmental Program is based on policy guidance from both NMDOT and FHWA. The national commitment to the environment was formalized through the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). NEPA establishes a national environmental policy and provides a framework for environmental planning and decision-making. NEPA directs FHWA and NMDOT, when developing projects or issuing permits, to conduct environmental reviews that consider potential impacts on the environment by the proposed actions. The NEPA process consists of a set of fundamental objectives that include interagency coordination and cooperation and public participation in planning project development decision-making.

3.2.1 Environmental Program Method of Operation

For the environmental function, FHWA maintains ultimate responsibility and approval authority for all activities requiring Federal actions. Interagency coordination and stewardship are maintained through routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contact normally occurs between FHWA Environmental Program Manager (ENV PM), FHWA Operations Engineers (OEs), and NMDOT Environmental Design Division personnel (NMEDD). The NMEDD, FHWA ENV PM, and OEs assist in coordinating interagency approvals for various environmental resources impacted by projects.

Environmental considerations affect virtually all aspects of transportation. Coordination and interaction with other disciplines is necessary to administer the environmental program. Communication is imperative to successfully ensuring State-wide consistency in intergovernmental working relationships. The NMDOT and FHWA personnel must communicate through appropriate channels within organizations and between organizations. Critical times of communications may occur requiring an urgency that entails adjusting usual protocols or chain of command. Examples might be: public health concerns, declared emergencies, critical safety issues, or violations of permits. Timely reactions by personnel are crucial to positive outcomes.

In the environmental functional area, there are several diverse factors that influence the quality of the products and services delivered. The environmental certification is the documentation verifying the decision-making process that ultimately leads to a final design. There are three levels of documentation associated with the NEPA certifications performed for Federal Aid transportation projects:

Categorical Exclusion (CE) – This is the lowest level of environmental documentation approximately 96% of project NEPA certifications are approved with this level of documentation. With the Programmatic Agreement for Categorical Exclusions dated February 8, 2006, these CE projects may be administered by a CE Checklist or a simple one to two page narrative depending on the scope of work.
Environmental Assessment (EA) – This is the tool used for decision-making and eventual environmental certification for projects when it is not immediately known if significant impacts exist. The certification of an EA is a signed Finding Of No Significant Impacts (FONSI). Historically, the New Mexico Division processes between seven to ten EA/FONSI documents per year. This number should decrease with the National endeavor to complete environmental documentation at the lowest level possible, meaning more CE documents. If an EA would determine that significant impacts cannot be mitigated or there is significant controversy, the highest level of environmental documentation is used, an Environmental Impact Statement.
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) – This document is used for the most complex projects and it is known that impacts cannot be completely mitigated or there is controversy at a level indicating a formal public processes at a National stage is necessary to provide the most transparent picture of the decision-making process. An EIS has not been completed by the NM Division in several years. One EIS document is expected in the next three years. This is the Paseo de Onate corridor and bridge in Espanola.

There are many environmental laws summarized under the umbrella documentation of NEPA. The impacts governing these particular laws are summarized and certified under NEPA documentation:

The Endangered Species Act – This law is typically coordinated with our partners at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and considers impacts to plant and animal populations threatened with extinction.
The National Historic Preservation Act – This law is typically coordinated with our partners at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP). This law focuses on considerations on understanding, recording, and preserving history, emphasizing important and notable events and materials.
The Clean Water Act – This act is typically coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the New Mexico Environment Department (NMED) and focuses on maintaining clean water.
The Clean Air Act – This act is typically coordinated with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the NMED and focuses on assuring improved air quality.

In addition these three factors are important aspects of NEPA. First, the timely delivery of specific environmental activities is critical to advancing transportation projects toward successful completion. For NMDOT staff specialists, project compliance activities should be completed on or ahead of the established schedule date. All NEPA documents should be completed in time for review and approval by FHWA prior to the scheduled project advertisement date.

Second, NMDOT’s public involvement procedures should conscientiously solicit the views of all affected public and should be implemented in accordance with Executive Order 12898 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994 – Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The effectiveness of this program can be measured by the number and general tone of both positive and negative public comments received on the environmental documents.

Third, FHWA and NMDOT should constantly strive to improve the existing working relationships with the many resource protection agencies involved in the environmental functional area (the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the N. M. Historic Preservation Division of the N.M. Office of Cultural Affairs, the N. M. Department of Game and Fish, the N. M. Environment Department, etc.).

3.2.2 Environmental Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.2-1 Environmental CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	BUREAU	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Location Study Procedures	NMDOT (Chief Engineer	August 2000	Design Bureau	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	Hard Copy	23 CFR 771
NM DO Environmental Program Guidance & Procedures	FHWA NMDOT	February 2006	NMDOT Division Office	FHWA Division Administrator	Hard Copy	23 CFR 771
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion	Design	February 2006	NMDOT Environmental Bureau	FHWA Division Administrator / Bureau Chief	Hard Copy	23 CFR 771.117

3.2.3 Environmental Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The FHWA and NMDOT review all environmental documents. The FHWA attends public hearings and other project development meetings on a review-level and as-needed basis. The NMDOT is the primary project level administrator. Both agencies monitor news articles to assess the quality of work being planned and developed by NMDOT. In addition to internal coordination, NMDOT and FHWA will work with other State and Federal reviewing agencies, Native American entities, local and regional governments and the general public to ensure that their views on the environmental function are considered in developing areas for quality improvement.

Under this Stewardship Agreement, NMDOT and FHWA personnel work together as partners to continually review, evaluate, and improve the environmental program. The main emphasis areas of the Agreement are strengthening the environmental function by sharing information and correcting identified weaknesses. The NMDOT’s Environmental Design Division and FHWA’s ENV PM will host routine meetings for Department, Division, and appropriate resource agency personnel to share information, improve the quality and consistency of the environmental documents, and instill an environmental ethic throughout the agency.

Information that documents the environmental program will be kept current as information sources permit. The NMDOT’s Location Study Procedures will be revised and improved on a resource-by-resource basis as necessary and appropriate. The MOU/MOA documents will be regularly reviewed and updated as necessary. The FHWA’s Environmental Program Guidance and Procedures and Programmatic Categorical Exclusions process agreement will be updated as according to need.

The Division Office maintains full authority over any NEPA documentation higher than the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). Oversight is provided through program and process reviews. Routine aspects of the environmental program may be selected at random and analyzed each year. Problems that arise are also diagnosed and addressed as they are identified.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

Program / Project Reviews, Certification Review – describe the methods and anticipated frequency of oversight actions on projects and programs use by both the Division Office and SDOT (Process Review, Program / Product Evaluations, Peer Reviews, etc.)

3.2.4 Environmental Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.2-2 Environmental P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Approval / Remarks
Categorical Exclusions	23 CFR §771.117	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Class of document determination	23 CFR §771.115-119	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Endangered Species Act Section 7	50 CFR 402; Dispute Resolution Process	As needed or required	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Environmental Assessment	23 CFR §771.119	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) - draft	23 CFR §771.123	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Environmental Program Manager or Area Engineer
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Final	23 CFR §771.125	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Division Administrator
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) written re-evaluations	23 CFR §771.129	If no action is taken within 3 years after final EIS As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Environmental Program Manager
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)	23 CFR §771.121	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6(f)	36 CFR 59	As needed or required	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Noise Abatement	23 CFR 772; 06/12/95 HQ memo	As needed or required	Environment/ Design	Environmental Coordinator	FHWA approves SDOT' noise abatement policy
Noise walls reporting	23 CFR §772	Annually by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau
Notice of Intent filing	23 CFR §771.123	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Programmatic Environmental Reports (PER)	Section 106 of National Historic Preservation Act	Monthly	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	NMDOT submits to State Historic Preservation Officer
Public involvement	23 CFR 771.111(h)(1)	As revised by State	Environment/ Design/Project Management	Environmental Program Manager	NMDOT submits to FHWA
Record of Decision (ROD)	23 CFR §771.127	30 days after publishing final EIS As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Division Administrator
Resource Identification & Agency Coordination Section 4(f) programmatic Section 4(f) individual Section 106 evaluation and consultation Clean Water Act Tribal Government Consultation	FHWA Technical Advisory T.A. 6640-.8A 23 CFR §771.135	As submitted by NMEDB	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Rivers and Harbors Act (Bridge Permits) Section 9	23 CFR 650 Subpart H; 33 CFR 114 & 115	As needed or required	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Threatened & Endangered Species Expenditures Annual Reporting	Endangered Species Act (ESA)	Annually	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau
Tribal Government Consultation	36 CFR 800.16(m)	As needed or required	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Approval by FHWA Program Manager or Area Engineer
Wetland Impacts and Mitigations reporting	23 CFR §777	As required	Environmental Bureau	Environmental Program Manager	Submitted by NMDOT to Environmental Bureau

3.2.5 Environmental Performance/Compliance Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Environmental Program:

The following table below corresponds to the Environmental Assessments completed since the Federal Fiscal Year 2009 to Present Day (24MAY12). This information is taken from FHWA’s Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). We currently show a trend of fewer EA documents. It is anticipated that we will move closer to a point where it is a rare exception that of our environmental documentation is completed with a NEPA document higher than a Categorical Exclusion (CE). This is a reflection of the type of project scope as well as a conscious effort to simplify the documentation with a philosophy focusing on the CE Checklist.

Date: 10/18/2012	EA Summary Report
	Completed Projects
	10/1/2008 to 9/30/2012

Report Parameters:	State: NM
	FONSI Date: Range: 10/1/2008 to 9/30/2012

Summary Report:
	Total number of EAs Approved during this period:	28
	Average Number of months from Availability/Approved Date initiated to FONSI Date:	7
	Median Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	3
	Shortest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	1
	Longest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	59

Detailed List of EAs:
	* - This project has had a dormancy period.

Project Name	State	Availability/Approved Date	FONSI Date	Approval Length Month
			FONSI Date
NM 41 Galisteo	NM	5/2/2012	9/5/2012	4
I-40/Rio Puerco Interchange	NM	4/20/2012	6/6/2012	1
Double Eagle Airport Access	NM	3/30/2012	6/26/2012	2
I-25/US 550 Interchange Project	NM	9/1/2011	2/25/2012	5
Strauss Road/ Dona Ana Co. RD A-107	NM	5/26/2011	8/5/2011	2
I-25/Engler Road Grade Separation	NM	5/24/2011	9/9/2011	3
NM 599/Jaguar Drive Interchange	NM	7/30/2010	10/21/2010	2
Jemez Springs Bridge Replacements	NM	7/6/2010	9/1/2010	1
NM 58 Ponil Creek	NM	6/28/2010	8/11/2010	1
US 70, Portales	NM	6/14/2010	7/30/2010	1
Santo Domingo NM 22	NM	1/8/2010	2/10/2010	1
Pinon Hills/CR 3900 - County Project	NM	10/28/2009	3/1/2010	4
Eagle Draw Bridge	NM	8/28/2009	12/31/2009	4
Bayard Street	NM	8/24/2009	10/6/2009	1
Del Rey Boulevard	NM	6/30/2009	8/6/2009	1
I-10 / I-25 Interchange	NM	5/20/2009	6/25/2009	1
NM 2, Dexter	NM	4/8/2009	7/30/2010	15
Grand Avenue	NM	3/16/2009	8/6/2009	4
I-10 Corridor Texas State Line to Las Cruces	NM	3/6/2009	4/27/2009	1
I-10 / NM 404 Interchange Reconstruction	NM	1/27/2009	8/18/2009	6
Aztec East Arterial	NM	1/13/2009	4/10/2009	2
Canal Street	NM	10/14/2008	2/23/2010	16
Rail Runner I-25/NM 599 Station	NM	10/1/2008	12/5/2008	2
Canal Street Carlsbad	NM	6/4/2008	2/23/2010	20
West College Boulevard Extension	NM	5/12/2008	3/16/2009	10
I-40/Rio Grande River Pedestrian Bridge	NM	8/17/2007	11/14/2008	15
I-25 - Tramway to Bernalillo - CN G2a13	NM	4/20/2007	4/20/2009	24
*US 380	NM	11/20/2001	10/16/2009	59

Date: 10/18/2012	EA Summary Report
	Completed Projects
	01/01/2011 to 10/18/2012

Report Parameters:	State: NM
	FONSI Date: Range: 01/01/2011 to 10/18/2012

Summary Report:
	Total number of EAs Approved during this period:	6
	Average Number of months from Availability/Approved Date initiated to FONSI Date:	3
	Median Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	3
	Shortest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	1
	Longest Number of months from Availability/Approved Date to FONSI Date:	5

Detailed List of EAs:
	* - This project has had a dormancy period.

Project Name	State	Availability/	FONSI Date	Approval
		Approved		Length
		Date		Month

NM 41 Galisteo	NM	5/2/2012	9/5/2012	4
I-40/Rio Puerco Interchange	NM	4/20/2012	6/6/2012	1
Double Eagle Airport Access	NM	3/30/2012	6/26/2012	2
I-25/US 550 Interchange Project	NM	9/1/2011	2/25/2012	5
Strauss Road/ Dona Ana Co. RD A-107	NM	5/26/2011	8/5/2011	2
I-25/Engler Road Grade Separation	NM	5/24/2011	9/9/2011	3

3.3.0 RIGHT-OF-WAY

The Right-of-Way Program (ROW) has overall responsibility for the acquisition, management, and disposal of real property on FAHP projects. The acquisition of private property for public use is governed by a host of State and Federal rules and regulations. This responsibility includes assuring that acquisition and disposals are made in compliance with the legal requirements of the State and Federal laws and regulations.

3.3.1 Right-of-Way Method of Operation

The FHWA’s relationship with NMDOT’s ROW Program has historically been a very close working relationship that strives to identify best practices and training opportunities, and maintain good communications.

The ROW operation, from the FHWA perspective includes providing the maximum delegation of authority to NMDOT. This offers the greatest possible innovation and flexibility to administer the ROW Program in New Mexico. Therefore, NMDOT ROW operations manual, known as the Right of Way Handbook, is a regulatory requirement, and an important tool.

Coordination and oversight of the ROW program are maintained between FHWA and NMDOT through meetings; routine contacts in person; in writing (letters and emails), and through telephone calls. The primary communication is normally held between NMDOT’s ROW personnel and FHWA’s ROW Program Manager (RWPM).

In circumstances where all necessary ROW for a federal-aid project has not been acquired, the ROW may be cleared for construction by use of a Conditional Clearance Certification. Determination by FHWA to accept the Conditional ROW Clearance Certification, allowing the NMDOT to move forward with advertisement for construction bid is based on an analysis of the risk to the project and the federal-aid program.

3.3.2 Right-of-Way Method Control Standards / Documents

Manuals (Handbooks) submitted to FHWA for approval – The FHWA’s approval is by letter or by stamping; some type of communication from FHWA back to NMDOT is expected. It is assumed that new editions and major revisions will be submitted for approval. Minor revisions do not need to be explicitly approved by FHWA, but can fall into the second category on the table below.

Table 3.3-1 ROW CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	BUREAU	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Access Management Manual	Traffic	September 2001	Traffic	NMDOT	Hard Copy	State Law
ROW Handbook,	ROW	approved Jan 2011	ROW	FHWA	http://dot.state.nm.us/Infrastructure/ROW_Handbook.pdf	23 CFR 710.201

3.3.3 Right-of-Way Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

A program implementation review is performed in four functional areas within NMDOT ROW process documented in FHWA approved NMDOT ROW Handbook, Title 23 CFR, Title 49 CFR part 24.

First, a ROW plan review is held at the beginning of the appraisal process to determine the adequacy of the ROW plans and reduce the potential for possible plan revisions during the appraisal process.
Second, all appraisals are reviewed by NMDOT staff to provide assurance that all State and Federal laws are complied with in the appraisal function.
Third, all acquisition and relocation determinations are approved by NMDOT ROW staff prior to making an offer to the land owner and/or displaced person.
Fourth (and finally), a checklist is used with each settlement package to make sure that all matters affecting title have been taken care of prior to closing.

Quality assurance reviews of critical areas will be made on a rotational basis based on the risk assessment made by NMDOT ROW personnel and FHWA Division ROW Program Manager.

The program and risk assessment is analyzed through the FHWA’s Division’s Yearly Unit Plan Activities. The conclusions of this assessment are discussed with the NMDOT ROW Bureau Chief.

Through the risk assessment analysis (or as designated by Division / Agency) a joint determination is made with the NMDOT ROW Bureau Chief on which areas to conduct an in-depth Program/Project review for the respective current fiscal year.

3.3.4 Right-of-Way Method Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.3-2 ROW P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
Access Break / ROW Disposal authorization request (if not on Interstate system and fair market value charged)	23 CFR 710.409	As needed	Property Access Management	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA concurs in action
Access Break / ROW Disposal authorization request (if on Interstate system or fair market value not charged)	23 CFR 710.401 & 409	Project by project	Property Access Management	Right of Way Program Manager	All approval for access breaks and disposal actions at less than FMV require FHWA approval
Acquisitions, Appraisals, and Relocations	49 CFR part 24; Uniform Act	All Federal-aid projects	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	ROW BC approves activities
Approve Hardship and Protective Buying	23 CFR 710.503	As needed	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA reviews and approves as needed
Authorize Right-of-Way activities	23 CFR 710.503	As needed	Funding Control	Right of Way Program Manager/FHWA Area Engineer	NMDOT funding control submits to FHWA for approval
Develop ROW oversight agreement	23 CFR 710.201(i)	Updated as needed	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA reviews and approve jointly with NMDOT as needed
Early Acquisitions	23 CFR 710.501	As requested	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	Submit request to FHWA for concurrence
Federal land transfers	23 CFR 710.601	When requested	Relocation Specialty Unit	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA reviews and submits to resource agency for consent to appropriate
FHWA Annual Acquisition and Relocation Statistics Previous form FHWA 1434, 1424	FHWA Order 6540.1	Annually by Nov. 15	Relocation Specialty Unit	Right of Way Program Manager	NMDOT submits completed form to FHWA
Functional Replacement	23 CFR 710.509	Project by project	Relocation Specialty Unit	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA reviews and approves
Local Public Agency Oversight	23 CFR 710.201(h)	As needed	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	DOT is responsible for oversight of T/LPA ROW activities on federal-aid projects
Outdoor Advertising policies and procedures revisions	23 CFR 750.304	As needed or submitted by State	ODA Unit Supervisor (Maintenance Bureau)	Right of Way Program Manager	This unit has been moved to the Maintenance Bureau. No longer responsibility of ROW. FHWA reviews and approves
Railroad Agreement Alternate Procedure	23 CFR 646.220	As required	Transit and Rail	FHWA Area Engineer	FHWA reviews and approves
Requests for credits toward the non-federal share of construction costs for early acquisitions, donations or other contributions applied to a project	23 CFR 710.501	As needed	Funding Control	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA approves or rejects
Requests for waivers of Federal Regulations	23 CFR 1.9	As needed or as submitted by State	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager /DA	FHWA DA approves or rejects
ROW Conditional Clearance Certification	23 CFR 635.309	Project by Project	Chief Engineer	Right of Way Program Manager /Area Engineer	FHWA reviews and approves or rejects
ROW Plan Authorization	23 CFR 710.201 (i)	Project by Project	Right of Way Bureau Chief	RWPM/Area Engineer	NMDOT Lands and Survey reviews and approves
State ROW Handbook Certification	23 CFR 710.201	Every 5 years beginning 1/01/2001	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	NMDOT is required to administer the ROW program according to the approved Handbook
State ROW Handbook Updates	23 CFR 710.201(c)(3)	As needed or as submitted by State	Right of Way Bureau Chief	Right of Way Program Manager	ROW Handbook will be updated to reflect changes in State/Federal Law and regulations
Use of ROW Air Space authorization request (off Interstate system)	23 CFR 710.405	As needed	Property Access Management	Right of Way Program Manager	NMDOT takes action on request for lease of ROW with FHWA concurrence
Use of ROW Air Space authorization request (on Interstate system)	23 CFR 710.405	as requested	Property Access Management	Right of Way Program Manager	NMDOT takes action on request which requires FHWA approval
Utility Accommodation Policy	23 CFR 645.215	Adjusted as needed	Utility Unit	Right of Way Program Manager	FHWA review and approve as needed
Utility Cooperative Agreement	23 CFR 645.119	As needed	Utility Unit Supervisor	RWPM/Area Engineer	FHWA Reviews and approve

3.3.5 Right-of-Way Stewardship/Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Right-of-Way Program:

3.3.5(a) Percent of FAHP Utilizing a Conditional ROW Certification	3.3.5(b) Percent of Parcels Acquired Utilizing a Letter of Intent (LOI)

These results show that the Right of Way Bureau is certifying 60% of the projects with a final certification, meaning all property interests are secured. The projects included in the 40% were due to ROW process not being	A letter of intent (LOI) must be sent out to start the clock for the condemnation process therefore there is a point in the process where a letter of intent has to be sent. This letter can be a somewhat intimidating letter to the property owner and can make our negotiations a little more sensitive. Project production dates must be monitored closely, so that LOIs are sent in order to stay on schedule and meet the certification date. The 60% includes 5 different projects throughout the state.
3.3.5(c) Percent of Parcels Acquired Utilizing an Appraisal Waiver	3.3.5(d) Percent of Administrative Settlements Up to and including $2500 and Percent of Administrative Settlements Over $2500

Appraisal waivers can be prepared when the valuation of a parcel of land is not complicated (may not be complex or contain improvements or damages) and the value is known to be less than $10,000.00. The FHWA encourages the use of waivers because the waivers save both time and money. Due to the $10,000.00 threshold, there are limitations as to when waivers can be prepared. When NMDOT has rural projects the land is usually not as valuable monetarily, and more waivers can be prepared.	The $2,500 administrative settlement is a tool for the acquisition agents to use in the field thereby saving time and money. Any administrative settlement over $2,500 must have ROW upper management approval as well.

3.4.0 DESIGN

The purpose of the Project Development (Design) Program is to provide program level and project level federal oversight of project development / design. These phases span a period of time that begins with feasibility studies and ends with the completion of PS&E, resulting in a product that is buildable and biddable.

The major components at the program level are:

Development and implementation of state design policies (such as applications of Design Standards, Value Engineering, Interstate access control, etc.) and standards such as those contained in the Highway Design Manual
Development and implementation of roundabout, conformance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements, standard specifications and assistance in the consistent application of those policies and standards on projects from inception through construction

The major components at the project level are:

Review and approval of Interstate access requests and design exceptions, detailed design reviews and approval of PS&Es.

3.4.1 Design Method of Operation

Project Development at NMDOT is the responsibility of the Office of Infrastructure under the direction of the Chief Engineer which manages all aspects of Project Development beginning with programming the projects, preliminary and final design, design and development support and ending with PS&E. Project Development is managed either by the Regional Design Divisions and District Engineering Support personnel with the actual design completed with either internal design forces or consultant design support. The Office of Infrastructure provides engineering and development support through specialized bureaus including Traffic, Drainage, Bridge (structural), Pavement Design, Environmental Design, Consultant Management and PS&E.

3.4.2 Design Control Standards / Documents

Table 3.4-1 Design CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	BUREAU	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
A Policy on the Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, AASHTO	Office of Infrastructure	2011 6th Edition	Office of Infrastructure	Chief Engineer	Hard Copy	23 CFR 625.4
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA	Office of Infrastructure	2009	Office of Infrastructure	Chief Engineer	Hard Copy	Chapter 66,Article 7 NMSA 1978
Office of Infrastructure Design Directives	Office of Infrastructure	As needed	Chief Engineer	Chief Engineer	http://dot.state.nm.us/env/PSE/DesignDirectives.html	Department Policy

3.4.3 Design Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT is responsible for programming, development, letting and award of FAHP. The NMDOT is responsible for ensuring these projects are in conformity with AASHTO, NMDOT and FHWA design standards and specifications. The NMDOT will also staff adequate and qualified personnel to manage and deliver the Project Development Program.

The NMDOT uses design procedures that will ensure projects are designed in accordance with current and predicted traffic needs in a safe and cost effective manner. The NMDOT and FHWA will work cooperatively through the project development process to ensure projects meet the approved standards and specifications. On those occasions where design exceptions and variances are required, the NMDOT and FHWA will work together to develop mitigations in the design that meet the needs of the project and ensure the safe and efficient operation of the facility. Each bureau has their respective manuals in accordance with design deliverables.

The FHWA will monitor implementation, operation, and effectiveness of NMDOT’s project development process through process reviews by Program Area, FHWA participates as a member of project design teams through the Area Engineers, and are invited to attend bid review committee meetings as ad hoc members ( for technical assistance).

Coordination, oversight, and stewardship are maintained through meetings, and routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contacts are normally between the FHWA Area Engineer and NMDOT Project Development Engineers.

3.4.4 Design Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.4-2 Design P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
3R Program	23 CFR 625	As needed	Design/ Maintenance	National Programs	Design responsible for 3R Guidelines (Design Information Bulletin 79)
Approve addenda during advertising period	23 CFR 635.112	As needed	NMDOT Construction Liaison Engr. (CLE)	Area Engineer	Field Ops. / Area Engr. Review & approves; then CLE reviews and approves
Approve advertising period less than three weeks	23 CFR 635.112	As needed	Chief Engineer	Division Administrator	Approval by FHWA Division Administrator
Approve construction engineering by local agency	23 CFR 635.105	As needed	LGAU Manager	Area Engineer	Field Operations Area Engineer reviews and approves; SO District T/LPA POCs reviews and approves
Approve cost-effectiveness determinations for construction work performed by force account or by contract awarded by other than competitive bidding	23 CFR 635.104 &.204	As requested	Assistant District Engineer (construction)	Area Engineer	AE & ADE construction reviews and approves
Approve emergency determinations for contracts awarded by other than competitive bidding for consultant contracts	23 CFR 635.104 &.204	As needed	Chief Engineer	Area Engineer / Transportation Operations Engineer	CE & AE/TOE review and approve
Approve exceptions to maximum railroad protective insurance limits	23 CFR 646.111	As needed	Railroad Manager	Transportation Engineer	RR mgr. &TOE review and approve
Approve Federal Land Transfers	23 CFR 710 Subpart F	As needed	ROW Mgr.	Environmental Specialist	ROW & ES review & approve
Approve Hardship and Protective Buying (on Fed Aid Projects)	23 CFR 710.503	As needed	ROW Mgr.	ROW specialist	ROW & ROW review and approve
Approve preliminary plans for unusual structures	23 USC 109(a) and FHWA Policy	As Needed	PDE	Structural Engineer / Area Engineer	FHWA Structure Engineer Approves and State Bridge Engineer
Approve requests for credits toward the non-federal share of construction costs for early acquisitions, donations or other contributions applied to a project	23 CFR	As Needed	Engineer Program Manager	Division Administrator	Requires public interest finding for DA Approval
Approve use of consultants by utility companies	23 CFR 645.109(b)	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
Approve utility and railroad agreements	23 CFR 645.113 & 646.216	As needed	Rail Manager & ROW Mgr.	ROW specialist	RM, ROW Mgr. & ROW specialist review and approve
Authorize advertising for bids (FHWA authorization done via construction authorization)	23 CFR 635.112, 309	As needed	Authorization Engineer	Area Engineer	AE review and approve
Authorize Right of Way Activities (on Fed-Aid projects)	23 CFR 710.307	As needed	PDE	Area Engineer	AE review and approve; SO CLE review and approve
Concur in award of contract	23 CFR 635.114	As needed	SO = CLE	Area Engineer	FO AE; SO CLE review and approve
Concur in rejection of all bids	23 CFR 635.114	As needed	Chief Engineer	Division Administrator	Approval by FHWA Division Administrator
Concur in use of publicly furnished materials	23 CFR 635.407	As needed	Chief Engineer	Area Engineer	FO AE; SO CLE review and approve
Develop Project Scoping Report	23 CFR	As Needed	PDE	Area Engineer	District Engineer and State Regional Manager Approves
Identify / Approve innovative and Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects	in accordance with SEP-14 and SEP-15 (except those Design-Build projects that conform with 23 CFR 636)	As Needed	Chief Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer / Planning	Cabinet Secretary approves; TOE / Planning review and concur
Identify retaining right-of-way encroachments	23 CFR 1.23 (b) & (c)	As Needed	PDE	Area Engineer	Provide information to Right of Way
Identify the use of proprietary products, processes	23 CFR 635.411	As needed	PDE	Area Engineer	AE & PDE review and approve
Identify use of local force account agreements	23 CFR 635.104 & 204	As Needed	PDE	Area Engineer	AE & PDE review and approve
Identify use of publicly owned equipment	23 CFR 635.106	As Needed	PDE	Area Engineer	AE & PDE review and approve
Prepare plans, specifications and estimates	23 CFR 630.20	As Needed	PDE	Area Engineer	AE & PDE review and approve
Request advance construction and conversions	23 CFR 630.703 & 709	As Needed	Finance Manager	Area Engineer	AE & State Finance Manager review and approve
Request utility or railroad force account work	23 CFR 645.113 & 646.216	As Needed	Rail Manager & PDE	Area Engineer	AE & RM / ROW manager review and approve

3.4.5 Design Program Stewardship & Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Pavement Design and Materials Program:

The indicators listed below are in process and will be available at the end of FFY13.

3.4.5(a) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by number)	3.4.5(b) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by dollars)
	To Be Developed
3.4.5(c) Number of projects planned to let vs. number of projects let	3.4.5(d) Percent of Projects – Award within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate

	The statistics above have been generated by the Construction Bureau; however it would be better tracked and examined by Planning and Infrastructure.

3.5.0 CONSULTANT SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

FHWA does not have "direct" responsibility over consultant "selection" except in sole source consultant selection and consultants who serve in a managerial role. FHWA provides oversight through reviews, audits of the program, and approval/concurrence of procedures

3.5.1 Consultant Services Administration Method of Operation

NMDOT has the responsibility for documenting use of consultant services on Federal-aid projects. FHWA has the responsibility for approving the procedures. In the case of sole source consultant selection this is a FHWA responsibility as is consultants who serve in a managerial role. At this time NMDOT does not hire consultants to work in a managerial role.

The NMDOT through the Office of Infrastructure through the Regional Design, Engineering Support and Program Management Divisions determine the annual need for Consultant Services based on the Federal and State Transportation Program and availability of internal design resources. Once these needs have been determined the Consultant Management Unit (CMU) will work with the Regional Design Divisions and/or Engineering Support Managers to establish a budget based scope of each project. The CMU in cooperation with the Project Development Engineer (PDE) or the Engineering Support Manager will be responsible for preparing a Request for Proposal (RFP). Once the RFP is prepared the CMU will be responsible for the advertisement, consultant selection process and contract award process. Once the contract is executed the PDE or Engineering Support Manager is responsible the management of contract including ensuring the project remains on schedule, remains on scope and that all deliverables are received per the contract. The CMU is responsible for receiving and processing invoices. Amendments will be requested by the PDE as warranted and approved in accordance established NMDOT procurement procedures. The CMU will be responsible for processing the amendment.

The CMU will be responsible for maintaining a project file with all contract documents (including the RFP, negotiation documents, contract, and contract amendments), payment documentation, closeout documents, and any pertinent correspondence with between the NMDOT and the Consultant. Signature Flow:

3.5.2 Consultant Services Administration Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on FAH projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.5-1 Consultant Services Administration CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Consultant Services Procedures Manual & Handbook	Consultant Management Unit	April 26, 2006	Consultant Management Unit Manager	FHWA Area Engineer & NMDOT Chief Engineer	http://dot.state.nm.us/content/dam/nmdot/PM/CMU_manual.pdf	23 CFR 172.9 & NMAC
State Procurement Code	Procurement Services Bureau	Living Document Updated As Needed	State of New Mexico	Legislature	www.nmcpr.state.nm.us	NMAC
Design Directives	PS&E	2012	Office of Infrastructure	FHWA Area Engineer & NMDOT Chief Engineer	http://dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/design_directive This URL is not a working link	23 CFR 172.9

3.5.3 Consultant Services Administration & Methods of Oversight

As needed Program Reviews, Certification Review – Process reviews every two to three years to include contract management and documentation reviews to ensure the PDE’s and CMU are practicing appropriate contract management and complying with Federal regulations.

3.5.4 Consultant Services Administration Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.5-2 Consultant Services Administration P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Actions / Remarks
Approve consultant contract agreements (Federal non-Major projects)	23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-20-5	Chief Engineer, Deputy Secretary of PINF	CMU Manager	Area Engineer	NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection
Approve consultant contract agreements (PSA professional Services Agreement) and agreement revisions on Federal Major projects	23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-20-5	Chief Engineer, Deputy Secretary of PINF	CMU Manager	Area Engineer	NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection
Approve hiring of consultant to serve in a "management" role	23 CFR 172.9, FDM 8-5-55	N/A	N/A	N/A	This is NOT done in NM
Consultant Contract Selection	FDM 8-5-1	Per Approved Consultant RFP Schedule	Consultant Management Unit Manager	Area Engineer	NMDOT Administers consultant contract selections
Contracting Procedures	23 CFR 172.5 & 172.9	As needed	CMU Manager	Transportation Operations Engineer	NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection
Sole source Consultant Contract Selection	FDM 8-5-1(3)	As required	CMU Manger	Area Engineer	NMDOT Administers consultant contract selection; FHWA approves selection

3.5.5 Consultant Services Administration Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Consultant Services Administration Program:

3.5.5(a) Engineer Estimate vs. Final Contract Amount

Up until the middle of 2011, new and amended contracts were expected to be processed and finalized within 12 weeks. Since 2011, the process was reviewed and the time to process amended contracts was reduced to 6-10 weeks and the amended contracts reduced to 4-8 weeks. In CY11, new contracts were processed within the new timeline at a rate of 50% and amended contracts were processed at a rate of 83%, which indicates an improvement in processing time. In the newly established processes certain aspects of the process may vary slightly, depending on the funding source, which may affect the processing time.

3.6.0 PAVEMENT DESIGN AND MANAGEMENT

Pavement Management Program: The Pavement Management Program functions to implement the most cost effective surface treatment and pavement maintenance program possible. The primary function is to create planning tools to be utilized in development of the Department’s transportation system such that it meets the surface condition goals established by the Transportation Commission.

The primary products and function of the Pavement Management Program include:

Network level pavement management condition and funding recommendations,
Project level pavement management procedures,
Completion of the annual pavement surface condition survey and analysis of the results at both the network and region levels,
Quality assurance of condition data collection,
Provide project recommendations and report on percentage of projects constructed by Regions,
Provide training relevant to pavement management and preventive maintenance,
Provide technical expertise regarding improvements to procedures and policies relevant to pavement management
Review project pavement design for concurrence with NMDOT Standards

Concrete & Physical Properties Program: The mission of the Concrete and Physical Properties Program is to provide timely and accurate test results for concrete, aggregate, steel, and other construction and maintenance materials. This program provides statewide Portland cement concrete coordination through engineering and technical expertise that will assist the Districts in the development of NMDOT’s transportation system to meet the structural condition goals for bridges and FHWA New Mexico Division and NMDOT Stewardship and Oversight Agreement the surface condition goals for pavement.

Program consists of:
the concrete and steel testing unit, the aggregate testing unit, the pavement deflection and smoothness testing unit, the radiation safety unit, chemical unit, and engineering support.
The primary products include review of concrete mix designs, production and quality assurance testing, and concrete design specifications for aggregates and concrete.

Asphalt Program: The mission of the Asphalt Pavement Program is to provide timely and accurate asphalt mix and binder testing, ensure high quality of NMDOT asphalt mix and binder testing statewide, and provide engineering and technical expertise in the development, selection, application, construction, testing and maintenance of asphalt mix and binder materials that will assist the Districts in the development of NMDOT’s transportation system to meet the surface condition goals. The Asphalt Pavement Program consists of the Bituminous, the Flexible Pavement Laboratory, and the Asphalt Engineering Unit, in compliance with AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL) standards.

Products of this program include:

Production and assurance testing of asphalt mix and binder and the development of mix design
Specifications and testing procedures
QA testing of binders, development of binder specifications, including performance-graded binders, and mix verification of mix designs
Specifications for Hot Bituminous Pavement (HBP) reviewed and developed.

The Materials Bureau is responsible for ensuring quality in the products used for construction and maintenance of the transportation system. The Bureau is responsible for the specifications, test procedures, and associated testing of materials to ensure compliance with NMDOT standards and specifications and FHWA Regulations. The programs in this Bureau include Soils and Rock fall, Geotechnical Engineering, Concrete and Physical Properties, Asphalt Pavements, Pavement Management, and Pavement Design.

3.6.1 Pavement Design and Management Method of Operation

The USC Title 23 defines maintenance as, "...the preservation of the entire highway, including surface, shoulders, roadsides, structures, and such traffic-control devices as are necessary for safe and efficient utilization of the highway." Additionally, it requires a State transportation department to maintain, or cause to be maintained, each project constructed with FAHP funds; until such time that it no longer constitutes a part of the FAHP system. It is FHWA’s role to see that maintenance of FAHP projects is adequate, and to provide technical assistance in disseminating information on successful maintenance techniques.

The NMDOT and FHWA will work together as partners to continually review the materials, pavement, and geotechnical programs, verify procedures, and provide solutions to identified problem areas. This working relationship requires teamwork across functional boundaries in FHWA and NMDOT. The utilization of outside resources, such as industry groups and organizations, will be considered in this joint effort.

3.6.2 Pavement Design and Management Control Standards / Documents

Table 3.6-1 Pavement Design and Management CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Pavement Design Policy and Guidelines	NMDOT	07/21/ 2008, Updated Pending release FY 2013	Pavement Design Unit	NMDOT Chief Engineer and Pavement Design Unit Head	http://dot.state.nm.us/en/Infrastructure/Engineering_Support.html#a	23 CFR 626

3.6.3 Pavement Design and Management Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT Materials Quality Assurance Program (MQAP) is structured around 23 CFR § 637.207. NMDOT’s Quality Assurance Program applies to all projects that NMDOT constructs whether FAHP or non-FAHP. The NMDOT is responsible for development, implementation, and maintenance of its Materials Quality Assurance Program and FHWA oversees the MQAP for compliance to 23 CFR § 637.207.

The NMDOT is responsible for ensuring the construction operations and the materials incorporated into the construction work are controlled by sampling and testing are in conformity with the approved plans and specifications and ill also ensure adequate and qualified staff to maintain the Quality Assurance program.

The NMDOT uses the design procedure that is outlined in the NMDOT Pavement Design Guide to ensure pavements are designed in accordance with current and predicted traffic needs in a safe, durable and cost effective manner. The NMDOT will design and approve pavement designs and ensure the pavement designs are built to specifications. The FHWA will review and approve updates to NMDOT Pavement Design Guide as necessary.

The FHWA will promote improvements when deficiencies are identified or when new approaches or technologies are developed and will also provide oversight of construction materials, and compliance with Federal requirements on a State-wide basis. As a member of the Quality Assurance Steering Committee, FHWA will have ongoing involvement in the development and implementation of the MQAP and will monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the MQAP through process reviews.

The FHWA will monitor implementation, operation, and effectiveness of NMDOT’s pavement design through process reviews and also participates as a member of the State-wide Pavements Committee that oversees network pavement strategies.

Coordination, oversight, and stewardship are maintained through meetings, and routine contacts in person, by telephone, by electronic mail, and in writing, during the course of transacting normal business operations. Contacts are normally between the FHWA Materials Engineer and NMDOT Pavement and Materials staff.

FHWA and NMDOT will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure compliance with 23 CFR.

3.6.4 Pavement Design and Management Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.6-2 Pavement Design and Management P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Remarks
Independent Assurance Annual Report	23 CFR 637.207	Annually by March 1 (only required by systemic approach Albq. only)	QA / QC Engineer	Pavement Engineer	State QA/QC engineer reports to FHWA Pavement Engineer
Materials Acceptance – Quality Control / Quality Acceptance Program	23 CFR 637B	Updated as needed	Operations Director (or designee)	Pavement Engineer	Periodic updates to ensure compliance with construction program.
Materials Certifications	23 CFR 637 Appendix A	As needed on Federal-aid projects	CLEs	AE	CLE & AE review and approve
Pavement Condition Surveys	23 U.S.C. 116	Every two years	Maintenance State Maintenance Engineer?	Pavement Engineer	Pavement engineer reviews
Pavement Design Policy	23 CFR 626.3	As needed	Pavement design engineer	Pavement Engineer	NMDOT considers all alternatives when designing pavement surface.
Pavement Management System	23 CFR 500.106	As needed	State Maintenance Engineer? Maintenance	Pavement Engineer	State reports pavement condition; FHWA Pvt Engr reviews and forwards to HQ

3.6.5 Pavement Design and Management Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Pavement Design and Materials Program:

3.6.3(a) Percent of Miles Rated Good on Interstate and Non-Interstate	3.6.3(b) Percent of Pavement Miles Rated "Good"
	To Be Developed: % of miles rated good on NHS % of miles rated good on non-NHS % of miles rated good on local / collector routes
*FY11 Result is estimate based on average road deterioration per year
Indicator 3.6.3(c) Life Cycle of Pavement – Breakdown of Dollars spent by Maintenance Category	(Intentionally left blank)
To be Developed: Goal: spend $$’s in Routine / Preservation Routine (surface treatment) Preservation (chip seal) Minor Rehab (up to 2.5") Major Rehab (2.5 – 4") Reconstruction	(Intentionally left blank)

3.7.0 CONSTRUCTION & CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION

The FHWA is required to assure compliance with FAHP contract provisions on all projects that utilize Federal funds. Federal responsibility includes the inspection of construction projects utilizing FAHP funds. The primary purpose of FHWA review and administration in construction is to protect the public investment, assure effective quality controls, and to verify that the project is completed in accordance with the plans, specifications, and special provisions of the contract. ISTEA and TEA-21 allow the delegation of FHWA construction review, oversight and administration responsibilities, except those based on non-Title 23 CFR requirements to the State DOT. MAP-21 or SAFETEA-LU does not substantially change this delegation. The FHWA specific construction monitoring responsibilities include stewardship as indicated in Table 3.4-1.

3.7.1 Construction & Contract Administration Method of Operation

The FHWA’s Field Operations Section (FO) and NMDOT’s Construction Bureau have the primary responsibility for the stewardship and oversight for the design and construction programs for the FAHP in New Mexico. These programs constitute a major portion of the Federal funding that is distributed to the State.

The NMDOT is broken up into six geographical Districts:

District 1 – Deming
District 2 – Roswell
District 3 – Albuquerque
District 4 – Las Vegas
District 5 – Santa Fe
District 6 – Milan

There are three Design Regions:

North – Santa Fe
Central – Albuquerque
South – Las Cruces

The NMDOT Construction Bureau is led by the State Construction Engineer (CLE), 4 to 6 Construction Liaison Engineers and associated technical support staff. Each CLE has the oversight responsibility of at least one of the NMDOT’s districts and Regional Design Centers. Construction Liaison Engineer (CLE) – an individual employed by the New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) to oversee the design and construction program for a respective area, i.e. NMDOT District(s).
Each District is responsible for administering the construction and maintenance of construction projects within its boundaries. They are also responsible, in some form, to oversee the development of these projects.

Stewardship & Oversight regarding Local Government Projects will adhere to the Oversight Screening Criteria (see below).

Oversight Screening Criteria

Except as noted below, all projects oversight responsibilities will initially be assigned to the NMDOT and designated as State Assumed Projects. The NM Division Office may retain Project Oversight Responsibilities based on Significant Project Impacts or risks identified in the Division Office’s Annual Risk Assessment. In conjunction with the NMDOT, the Division Office may make a determination to retain project oversight responsibilities based on one or more of the following risk based criteria;

Projects of National/Regional Significance
- Federal/State/Local (PDN, Mesa Del Sol, etc.)
Projects in Support of National Program Goals (MAP 21)
- Safety
- Infrastructure Condition
- Congestion Reduction
- System Reliability
- Freight Movement and Economic Vitality
- Environmental Sustainability
- Reduced Project Delivery Delays
Projects with significant Environmental Impacts
- Increased Level of Environmental Review (EIS/EA)
- Natural Resources/Cultural Resources
- Public/Political Controversy
Projects Of Significant Complexity
- Design/Construction (Major Projects)
- Access Control Issues (Major IJRs)
- Innovative Contracting Techniques (CM/GC, Design/Build, etc.)
- EDC2 Initiatives

The Division Office may review and/or assume Project Oversight Responsibilities prior to or after any phase of the projects development or construction. At the request of the NMDOT the Division Office is prepared to provide guidance or technical assistance to any project regardless of project’s oversight designation.

Unless as otherwise noted above or as indicated on Table 3.7-2 Construction & Contract Administration P&PAR, the NMDOT will be responsible for the full oversight and stewardship of all Federal Aid Design and Construction projects. The NMDOT, through the State Construction Bureau and other associated program groups will ensure that all Federal Aid Design and Construction Projects are administered in accordance with all applicable State and Federal Regulations and Policies.

3.7.2 Construction & Contract Administration Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.7-1 Construction & Contract Administration CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Construction Guide	State Construction Bureau	1987 (Currently being updated)	NMDOT	NMDOT	Will be online once update completed	Construction procedures
Office Procedures (Manual) Guide	State Construction Bureau	2009 (Currently being updated) Should be ready for implementation by October 2012	NMDOT	NMDOT	Will be placed in internal drive/server for NMDOT use	Audit procedures consistency of project administration
Standard Specifications	State Construction Bureau	2007 (Currently being updated)	NMDOT	FHWA	Will have paper copies as well as online availability	23 CFR

3.7.3 Construction & Contract Administration & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT CLE’s, and the Districts/Regions will cooperate to ensure that process improvement activities are established and carried out for design and construction activities. The NMDOT will also staff adequate and qualified personnel to manage and deliver the Project Development Program. The FWHA OEs will be available to assist the NMDOT Construction Bureau by assisting in the development of training, providing technical assistance, and/or in any issues or conflicts encountered in the NMDOT’s Planning, Environmental, Design and Construction Programs.

Following are some of the cooperative process improvement activities:

Environmental Document/Process Inspections: Review environmental documents/process for NEPA compliance and evaluate how well they cover impacts.
Design Inspections: Inspections occur during PS&E and at 30%, 60%, and 90% of project completion.
Construction Inspections: Projects selected for inspections are selected through a random selection process.
Post-Construction Reviews: Post-Construction reviews will be conducted in all Districts each year on both full oversight and State administered projects by NMDOT in cooperation with FHWA.
Program Risk Assessment: Each OE evaluates their collateral duty program areas to assess risk to determine additional process improvement activities (i.e. process reviews and/or evaluative meetings).
FHWA Reviews are completed based on FHWA Strategic Plan of Oversight Initiative (POI):
- Program review is performed annually by FHWA
- Project level reviews:
  - May occur at any time during the construction phase (Initial, Intermediate, Final)
  - T/LPA projects are typically reviewed as follows:
    - NMDOT - Initial and Final
    - FHWA – 1 review
- Post Construction Review (per approved)
Traffic Control Reviews: The CLEs and OEs will conduct bi-annual traffic control reviews to monitor traffic control on construction projects to ensure compliance with established policies, procedures, and guidelines.

3.7.4 Construction & Contract Administration Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.7-2 Construction & Contract Administration P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
Addenda	23 CFR 635.112	Project Specific	Construction Engineer	Area Engineer	CLE or Area Engineer approves as needed
Advanced Construction (all projects)	23 CFR 630.705	As needed	N/A	Area Engineer	FHWA approves in FMIS
Bid Review Procedure	23 CFR 635.113	As updated	Construction Engineer	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed.
Buy America Waiver	23 CFR 635.410	As needed	N/A	Area Engineer	FHWA HQ approves
Changed Conditions Changes and Extra Work	23 CFR 635.120	Project Specific	CLE (construction liaison engineer)	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Claims	23 CFR 635.124	Project specific	Construction Engineer	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Claims (State-wide)	23 CFR 635.124	As Updated	Construction Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	FO (manager) reviews and approves
Concur in use of mandatory borrow / disposal sites	23 CFR 635.407	As needed	Construction Engineer	N/A	CE approves (project specific)
Concurrence in Award	23 CFR 635.114, 23 USC 112(d)	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Construction Inspections	23 USC 114	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Consultant Services	23 CFR 172	Project specific	Constructability Engineer	Area Engineer	Establish contract for district use
Consultant Services (State-wide)	23 CFR 172	As needed	Constructability Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	Establish contract for district use
Contract Time (State- wide)	23 CFR 635.121	As updated	Construction Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	CE approves
Defense Access Roads	23 CFR 660 Part E	As needed	N/A	Transportation Operations Engineer	When needed
Design Exceptions and Variances	23 CFR 625.3	As needed	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Design Reviews	23 CFR 625	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Design Standards	23 CFR 625	As needed	Construction Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	When needed
Emergency Repair / Projects	23 CFR 635.204	As requested	N/A	Area Engineer	When needed
Environmental Documents (Environmental Commitments required by design and constructed accordingly)	23 CFR 771	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Final Acceptance	49 CFR 18.50	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Labor Compliance	23 CFR 635.118	As needed	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Labor Compliance Policy	23 CFR 635.118, Davis-Bacon Act	As needed	Office of Equal Opportunity Programs	Civil Rights Specialist	Division office Civil Rights specialist manages program
Liquidated Damage Rates (project spec)	23 CFR 635.127	Project specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Liquidated Damage Rates (State-wide)	23 CFR 635.127	Every 2 years	Constructability Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	Constructability Engineer reviews and approves
Local Public Agency Oversight Policies and Procedures	23 CFR 635.105	As updated	District T/LPA POC	Area Engineer	FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Patented/Proprietary Products (project)	23 CFR 635.411	Project specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Patented/Proprietary Products (State-wide)	23 CFR 635.411	As needed	N/A	Transportation Operations Engineer	FHWA DA approval
Plans, Specifications, & Estimates (PS&E)	23 CFR 630.205	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Area Engr. or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Project Agreements	23 CFR 630 Subpart C	As needed	District Technical Support Engineer (TSE)	Area Engineer	Area Engr. District TSE reviews and approves as needed
Project Authorization	23 CFR 630.106 23 CFR 635 Subpart C	Project Specific	N/A	Area Engineer	Area Engr. review and approve
Railroad Agreement	23 CFR 646.216	Project by project	Rail and Transit Director	Area Engineer	When needed
Railroad Agreement Alternate Procedure	23 CFR 646.220	One time	Rail and Transit Director	Area Engineer	When needed
Scoping Reports	23 CFR 625	Project Specific	CLE	Area Engineer	CLE & AE concur
Termination of Contract	23 CFR 635.125	As needed	Cabinet Secretary	Transportation Operations Engineer	FHWA DA approves
Utility Accommodation Policy	23 CFR 645.215	When changes occur	Utility Section Manager	ROW specialist	Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed.
Utility Agreement Alternate Procedure	23 CFR 645.119	One time	Utility Section Manager	ROW specialist	Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed.
Value Engineering (project)	23 CFR 627	Project specific	CLE	Area Engineer	FHWA Field Ops or Area Engr.; or NMDOT CLE Reviews and approves as needed
Value Engineering (State-wide)	23 CFR 627	As updated	Chief Engineer	Transportation Operations Engineer	Field Ops and NMDOT review and approve as needed

3.7.5 Construction & Contract Administration Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Project Delivery Program:

3.7.5(a) Percent of Projects Completed On-Time	3.7.5(b) Final Construction Costs (less GRT) compared to Award Amount

Ninety-three percent of projects were completed on time for FFY12, an excellent indicator of NMDOT’s Design and Construction staff effectively managing time on construction projects.	Forty three percent of the projects NMDOT completed in FFY12 were below the awarded amount and thirty five percent of the projects NMDOT completed in FFY12 were zero to ten percent above the award amount. Only twenty-two percent of projects were more than 10% over the award amount. This result shows that NMDOT’s Design and Construction staff effectively manages funding on construction projects.
3.7.5(c) Percent of Projects – Final Construction Costs within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate	3.7.5(d) Percent of Projects – Final Construction Costs within +/- 10% Engineer Estimate

	The statistics above have been generated by the Construction Bureau; however it would be better tracked and examined by Planning and Infrastructure.
3.7.5(e) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by number)	3.7.5(f) Percent of total change orders attributed to "Design Oversight" (by dollars)

3.7.5(g) Change Orders Attributed to Design Oversight (By Dollar and Number)	3.7.5(h) Number and type of accidents occurring in NMDOT Work Zones
To Be Developed	To Be Developed

3.8.0 CIVIL RIGHTS

The purpose of the civil rights program is to ensure nondiscrimination in the Federal Aid Highway program. The FHWA New Mexico Division Office and the NMDOT are committed to the spirit and intent of civil rights regulations and, together, implement and enforce the required civil rights programs in all aspects of New Mexico’s multimodal transportation system. The NMDOT Office of Equal Opportunity Programs (OEOP) manages the external civil rights programs; and, in cooperation with the NMDOT Human Resources Division, manages the internal affirmative action program.

3.8.1 Civil Rights Method of Operation

The Civil Rights Program uses a Quality Control and Quality Assurance (QC/QA) approach, which relies on joint FHWA/NMDOT team reviews of program activities to accomplish oversight of the program.

The NMDOT, through its OEOP, ensures the USDOT/FHWA civil rights programs are implemented in accordance with all regulations and requirements. As a result, NMDOT, through its OEOP, protects individuals from and addresses instances of discrimination in all NMDOT programs and activities.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office works with OEOP and NMDOT Human Resources by providing technical assistance, expertise and oversight. FHWA maintains ultimate responsibility and approval authority for all activities.

3.8.2 Civil Rights Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.8-1 Civil Rights CS/D Chart (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
DBE Program Plan/Manual	OEOP	Revised May 2012	OEOP	DA	Hard Copy	49 CFR 26
Title VI Program Plan	OEOP	2011	OEOP	DA	Hard Copy/ NMDOT website	49 CFR 21; 23 CFR 200
Contractor Compliance Program Plan	OEOP	2012	OEOP	DA	Hard Copy	23 CFR 230
On-the-Job Training Program	OEOP	2011	OEOP	DA	Hard Copy	23 CFR 230
State Internal Equal Employment Opportunity Program	OEOP	November 2011	Human Resources	DA	Hard Copy	23 CFR 230
ADA Transition Plan	OEOP		OEOP	DA	Hard Copy	28 CFR 35
EEO/Civil Rights Field Procedures Manual	OEOP	June 2011	OEOP	OEOP	Hard Copy	49 CFR 26

3.8.3 Civil Rights Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT’s Civil Rights program is documented as follows:

DBE (Manual) Plan
Title VI Plan
EEO / Affirmative Action Plan
Contractor Compliance Program Including On the Job Training Program
On the Job Training Program
ADA Transition Plan
EEO/Civil Rights Field Procedures Manual

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office provides oversight of the NMDOT Civil Rights program to monitor its implementation and effectiveness and ensure compliance with federal regulations. In addition, the following tables delineate activities and reporting requirements along with the frequency of each.

FHWA Headquarters Civil Rights requires a triennial civil rights program assessment. This assessment is conducted by the FHWA New Mexico Division Office. Headquarters requires annual updates from NMDOT providing a status on areas identified as needing improvement and efforts to resolve issues.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Offices conducts program assessments to assess risk. Based on the findings, appropriate training and technical assistance is provided by the Civil Rights Specialist. Follow up reviews are conducts to confirm compliance.

The FHWA New Mexico Division Office and OEOP conduct program and project reviews to assess compliance by NMDOT project staff, sub recipients and contractors. OEOP has one full-time employee dedicated to projects reviews, training and technical assistance. Division Office staff conducts at least two project reviews each month and additional follow up reviews to confirm compliance.

3.8.4 Civil Rights Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.8-2 Civil Rights P&PAR Table (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
ADA complaint reports of investigation	28 CFR 35.190	As requested by FHWA	OEOP	State and Local Programs/National Programs/Civil Rights	Division Office reviews, FHWA HQ approves and issues finding
Annual Contractor Employment Report [Construction Summary of Employment Data (Form PR-1392)]	23 CFR 230.121(a)(3)	Annually by Sept 30	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ
DBE Program revisions	49 CFR 26.21(b)(2)	As needed	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and approves
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Contract Compliance review reports	23 CFR 230.409, 230.413(b)(1)(i)(D)	Upon completion by State	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
EEO Contractor Compliance Plan accomplishments and next year's goals	23 CFR 230, Subpart C, Appendix A, Part I, III	Annually by Oct. 1	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
Historically Black College & University / Minority Institutions of Higher Learning / Tribal Colleges and Universities Report	EO 12876	Annually by Nov 1	LTAP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ
On-the-Job-Training (OJT) goals & accomplishments	23 CFR 230.111(b)	Annually by Jan 30	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
Report on supportive services (OJT & DBE)	23 CFR 230.113(g), 230.121(e), 230.204(g)(6)	Semi annually	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
State Employment Practices Report (EEO-4)	23 CFR 230.311(a)(2)	Due by Aug. 15 every two years	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ
State internal EEO affirmative action plan (Title VII) accomplishments, next year's goals, & employment statistical data	23 CFR 230.311,	Annually by Oct. 1	Human Resources	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
State's Overall DBE Goal	49 CFR 26.45(f)(1)	Due by Aug 1 every three years	OEOP	Civil Rights	Also requires FHWA legal review and concurrence
Supportive services funds requests (OJT and DBE)	23 CFR 230.113 & 230.204	As requested by FHWA	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ for approval
Title VI Plan revisions, accomplishments and next year's goals	23 CFR 200.9(b)(10),	Annually by Oct. 1	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and approves
Uniform Report of DBE Commitments/Awards and Payments	49 CFR 26, Attachment 2	Semi-annually by June 1 and Dec. 1	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and submits to FHWA HQ
Setting Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Project Goals, as appropriate	49 CFR 26,	As appropriate	OEOP
Analysis of DBE Good Faith Efforts	49 CFR 26,	Upon submission by contractors	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Contractor Compliance Review Approval	23 CFR 230	As completed	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments
Approval of New OJT Programs	23 CFR 230	Upon submission by contractors	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and approves
Analysis of OJT Good Faith Efforts	23 CFR 230	Upon submission by contractors	OEOP	Civil Rights	Division Office reviews and comments

istered program in which FHWA provides oversight using a risk based approach. The "FHWA Contact" column’s purpose is to list the appropriate position for technical assistance.

3.8.5 Civil Rights Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Civil Rights Program:

3.8.5(a) Percent of DBE Participation on Federal-Aid Contracts	3.8.5(b) Number of employees in OJT programs attaining journeyman status (calendar year vs. number required by program).

The DBE goal has been exceeded for the past three Federal fiscal years. The DBE goal is a total State-wide goal for participation of DBEs on NMDOT Federally funded contracts (NMDOT Lead and Local Lead projects), and includes both race conscious and race neutral components. Race conscious goals of up to 7.5% are set on some projects, based on an analysis of the size and scope of the project and DBE availability for the types of work to be performed. Any DBE participation on contracts that does not have a race conscious goal or that exceeds a race conscious goal that is set, is race neutral participation. The goals are established using a methodology that includes, in part, reviewing NMDOT’s relevant market area, reviewing bidders for prior fiscal year and the number of bidders that are certified DBEs, and total dollars on construction and consulting projects for prior fiscal year. Prior to FFY11 this goal was annual; moving forward it is set tri-annually. The methodology and targeted performance requires FHWA approval.	The OJT Program goals were revised in 2011. The revision moved the OJT goal from a project based goal to a goal that measured the total number of trainees attaining journeyman status. Contractors that were awarded over $10 million in NMDOT construction contacts during state’s FY11 are required to graduate one trainee to journeyman status in the calendar year 2012. Contractors that do not meet the threshold of $10 million may still graduate a trainee and have it counted towards the OJT goal. Contactors may also have more than one trainee attaining journeyman status and have that number counted toward the goal in 2012. In 2012, the OJT Program goals called for seven employees to be trained to journeyman status. Six employees have or are projected to achieve journeyman status in 2012.

3.8.5(c) Percentage of companies who met assigned OJT goal.	3.8.5(d) Percentage of total compliance on program assessments (total number scored green).

This indicator measures the compliance level of contractors required to have a trainee attain journeyman status. In the state’s FY2011, seven contractors met or exceeded $10 million in NMDOT contact awards. These seven contractors are required to have one trainee attain journeyman status in the calendar year 2012. Six of the seven required contractors met the goal in 2012.	FHWA performs periodic Civil Rights program assessments which measures NMDOT’s compliance against a series of FHWA requirements for each program area. Each program area has a number of FHWA programmatic requirements, FHWA assess NMDOT’s level of compliance for each requirement. The result of the assessment will reflect a status of green (full compliance), yellow (partial compliance) or red (non-compliance) for each requirement. This indicator reflects each program area’s full compliance percentage. The graph above reflects NMDOT’s performance during FHWA’s program assessments in 2010 and 2011. FHWA has not finalized its 2012 program assessment and the data is based on NMDOT self-projection of compliance in the program areas. As a footnote, DBE Contract Compliance, DBE Certification, and OJT Contract Compliance were not formally assessed by FHWA in 2011.

3.9.0 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

Financial Management encompasses the entire FAHP from the authorization to proceed with any phase (Environment, ROW, preliminary engineering, construction, and debt retirement) through final voucher. Risk based reviews are performed in the areas of accounting programs and processes, at the headquarters, regional business offices and through project site visits. Monitoring obligation limitation and discussions on FAHP financing tools available are provided in an advisory role. FHWA reviews and provides input to internal and external audits performed by and for NMDOT to ensure eligibility of FAHP funds.

The New Mexico Department of Transportation (NMDOT) has a State Infrastructure Bank (SIB) loan Program and a Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicle (GARVEE) Program. These two innovative finance techniques are used to varying degrees with the GARVEE Program being the more active program. The SIB and GARVEE Programs are monitored through periodic reviews and annual reporting from NMDOT to the New Mexico Division Office as well as FHWA Headquarters where appropriate.

3.9.1 Financial Management Method of Operation

The FHWA and NMDOT personnel maintain a cooperative working relationship in the administration and review of financial management programs and processes. Communication and interaction between FHWA and NMDOT occur routinely for the exchange of information, coordination of activities, and the resolution of issues in the financial management areas of Accounting, Budget, Audit, Obligation Control, Systems Integrity and Control and Process Reviews.

3.9.2 Financial Management Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.9-1 Financial Management CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Desk Manual	Accounting Svc	6/30/12	Project Billing Supervisor	Accounting Svc. Mgr.	Network Drive	Internal Process
FHWA Billing Procedures	Accounting Services	Aug 2006	Office Chief Financial Officer	Assistant Accounting Svc. Mgr.	RASPS Help Menu	US Treasury Policy
DFA MAPS	DFA Financial Control	2011	DFA CAFR	DFA Comptroller	Online	State Statute
FIRE Regulation	FHWA (Financial Services Team)	11/10/08	FHWA Financial Services Team	FHWA Administrator	FHWA Web Site	FHWA FIRE Order 4560.1b

3.9.3 Financial Management Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The FHWA will monitor all financial management and accounting activities primarily through daily contacts and program level reviews to provide guidance and technical assistance in such areas as fiscal document processing, financial management and reimbursement issues. Input to State and NMDOT auditors in development of audit plans will be provided as requested. The FHWA has implemented the Financial Integrity Review and Evaluation (FIRE) Program (FIRE Order 4560.1B) that requires each FHWA Division Office to establish an effective program to ensure that FAHP funds are properly managed and effectively used in accordance with Federal policies, and that safeguards are in place to minimize fraud, waste, and abuse. The FIRE Program is a review and review program that each FHWA Division Office is required to perform in support FHWA’s annual certification of internal and financial controls to support the financial statements. In addition, the FIRE program ensures that proper internal controls are established and followed, with objectivity and a separation of financial duties in conducting the agency’s day-to-day operations. This program incorporates the following activities:

Financial Management Process Review – A comprehensive review of a key process or system employed by the State in managing FAHP funds. The topic will be chosen based on a risk assessment performed by FHWA.
Improper Payments Information Act Review – A review of payments made by a State on FAHP projects. The sample will be randomly chosen by FHWA Headquarters.
Quarterly Inactive Project Monitoring – A review of FAHP projects for which no costs have been billed to FHWA for a specified period. This activity is based on the requirements of 23 CFR Part 630 as amended by the Final Rule on Project Authorizations and Agreements published in the Federal Register on January 31, 2006.
Single Audit Finding Resolution Plan Review.

In addition, other reviews will be conducted as deemed necessary by FHWA or as requested by NMDOT. The FHWA will, to the maximum extent possible, utilize the work of State and NMDOT auditors to limit the scope of FHWA reviews.

3.9.4 Financial Management Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.9-2 Financial Management P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Approval / Remarks
10 yr. 20 yr. rule	23 CFR 630.112(c)(1&2)	Annually by July 31st	Funding Control	Finance Team	NMDOT will monitor to ensure PE/ROW projects do not exceed 10/20 year requirements specified in 23 CFR 630
Appropriations, Allotments, Obligations	31 USC 1341(a)(1)(A) & (B); 31 USC 1517(a)	As needed	Funding Control/STIP	Finance Team	NMDOT will monitor appropriations, allotments and obligations to ensure that all funding is used efficiently within each Quarter and use all Obligation Authority (OA) by the end of the year. FHWA will forward all funding notices and review
Audit Coordination FHWA Financial Statement Audit NMDOT External Audit Reviews NMDOT Internal Audit Reviews FHWA	FMFIA, OMB A-123, 127, GAAP, CFO Act of 1990;DOT Order 8000 1C, OMB A-87, 123, GAAP	As Needed	Accounting/OIG	Finance Team	NMDOT assures corrective action is taken to resolve audit findings and FHWA will monitor activities to ensure implementation.
Authorize current bill	49 CFR 18.20	Weekly/as requested	Funding Control/Accounting	Finance Team	NMDOT will ensure accounting system has ability to trace costs to invoice level and that adequate supporting documentation is maintained.
Billing Reviews	23 CFR 140 and 635.122	Quarterly	Local Assistance &Accounting	Financial Team	SDOT will provide all supporting documentation to include invoices, payroll, etc. FHWA will review and ensure costs reimbursed are eligible and accurate.
Develop Financial Plan for Federal Projects between $100 million to $500 million	23 U.S.C. 106(i)	When applicable	NMDOT	Finance Team	NMDOT send to transportation operations engineer and finance manager for review & approval
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act Assurance Statement (FHWA Certification)	Congressional Act 1982	Annually by Oct. 1	N/A	Finance Team/DA	The culmination of all FIRE activities.
FIRE – Grant Process Review	FIRE Order 4560.1B	Annually by June 1	NMDOT	Finance Team	Conduct Grants Management Reviews to ensure that Federal Funds are utilized in accordance with Federal Regulations
FIRE – Inactive Projects Review	FIRE Order 4560.1B	Quarterly	Funding Control	Finance Team	Monitor Inactive Obligations to ensure projects and dollars are reduced in accordance with 23 CFR 630.106
FIRE – Management Decision Letter on NMDOT Annual Financial Statement Audit findings if any	FIRE Order 4560.1B	Annually September 30th	Accounting	Finance Team	Management Decision on the Corrective Actions taken for findings in the Single Audit of NMDOT
Improper Payments Review	Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, PL No: 107-300	Yearly	Accounting	Finance Team	NMDOT will provide all required data collection form information to meet required deadlines and FHWA will review
Innovative Financing GARVEE (GRIP and Other Bonds)	GARVEE 23 CFR 122 & Memo HABF-40, March 2004; TIFIA 23 USC 181-189; SIB Guidance 9/97; AC NHS Act Section 308; Flexible Match 23 USC 323; Tapered Match TEA-21 Section 1302	As needed	Budgets	Financial Team	NMDOT will submit requests for Innovative Financing to FHWA for review and approval prior to project authorization
Project Authorizations, Modification & Voucher	23 CFR 630	As needed	Funding Control	Field Ops, Finance, Planning & Prog Mgmt. Team	NMDOT will submit electronic authorization via FMIS and provide all required supporting documentation to FHWA for review and approval.
Recovery Act Reporting	America Recovery And Reinvestment Act of 2009	Continuous	Various Offices	Finance Team	NMDOT will meet all reporting requirements including RADS and other continuous and ad-hoc requests
State Infrastructure Bank Report	SIB Guidance 9/97 & Coop Agreement	Annually by Dec. 31	Accounting	Finance Team	NMDOT will submit the annual SIB Report to FHWA not later than 12/31 of each year.
Transfer of funds as requested by State	23 USC 104 (c) and 119 (f)	As requested	Various Offices	Finance Team	NMDOT will submit funds transfer requests to FHWA as needed.

3.9.5 Financial Management Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following indicators will be reported on beginning in FFY13:

(received) Accrued unbilled Balances
(received) Inactive number of projects
(received) Inactive projects (dollar amount)

3.9.5(a) Number of Inactive Projects and the Dollar Amount of the Projects	Intentionally left blank
	Intentionally left blank

3.10.0 TRIBAL / LOCAL PUBLIC AGENCY (T/LPA)

Local Transportation Facilities - Local government’s construction projects in which NMDOT participates in the funding by allocation of Federal-Aid Highway Program funds, the NMDOT will review and assure local action for compliance with all requirements of Federal and State laws in accordance with Title 23. As stated, the NMDOT is not relieved of its responsibilities even though the project may be under the supervision of another public agency or organization. In accordance with 23 CFR 1.11, the NMDOT will ensure that the agency is well qualified and suitably equipped to perform the work. Title 23, U.S.C. does not recognize local entities as direct recipients of Federal-Aid funds. Accordingly, local agencies cannot take the place of NMDOT in the context of the FAHP. NMDOT is responsible for all requirements of the Federal-Aid program whether these requirements stem from Title 23 or non-Title 23 statutes. The program and project authority that FHWA has delegated to NMDOT does not authorize NMDOT to pass these responsibilities to the local agencies.

The language of Section §1904 of SAFETEA-LU is clear in its assignment of responsibility for locally administered projects to the States. Section §1904 states that the States shall be responsible for determining that sub-recipients of Federal funds have adequate project delivery systems for projects approved under this section; and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage such Federal funds. NMDOT needs to commit sufficient staff and other resources to project and program administration to ensure that all applicable state and Federal requirements are met and the work is accomplished efficiently. The same Section also states, that FHWA shall periodically review the monitoring of sub-recipients by the States. Local Government Projects will follow the process outlined in Appendix B.

Unless specified otherwise all:

Federally Funded Local Public Agency Projects are to be designated as State Administered
T/LPA Projects will be administered in accordance with the 2007 Tribal and Local Government Agency Handbook.

The NMDOT has the authority by legislation to provide Federal-aid Highway Program funds to sub-recipients to perform transportation related projects. A sub-recipient or Local Public Agency herein after referred to as T/LPA is the legal entity to which a sub award is made and which is accountable to the recipient for the use of the funds provided. FHWA and NMDOT do not recognize T/LPAs as direct recipients of Federal funds. The Federal funds for local aid projects are provided through the NMDOT. As a direct recipient of Federal funds, the NMDOT is ultimately responsible for ensuring that project sponsors comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

The NMDOT has been given the authority by legislation to provide Federal-aid Highway Program funds to

Local public agencies or sub (T/LPAs or municipalities) to perform the work herein after referred to as T/LPAs. Municipalities are not recognized direct recipients of Federal funds, the Federal funds for local aid projects are provided through the NMDOT. As a direct recipient of Federal funds, the NMDOT is ultimately responsible for ensuring that project sponsors comply with applicable Federal laws and regulations.

Additionally, MAP-21 (or Transportation bill: SAFETEA-LU Section 1904) has amended 23 USC 106 to hold the states accountable for assuring that municipalities utilizing Federal funds have adequate project delivery systems for projects and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage Federal funds.

Local lead federal aid highway projects are administered under the oversight of the Department, any T/LGA having a Project Agreement with the Department for Federal-aid funds. T/LPA are responsible for following procedures identified in the Local Tribal handbook and in the Project Agreement.

When Federal funds are to be used for local or tribal transportation projects, standard procedures, developed by the Department and/or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), govern project development and implementation activities.-- This handbook provides a step-by-step guide to project development, from the planning and programming process (i.e., the project’s inclusion into the STIP ~ Statewide Transportation Improvement Program) through the beginning of project to construction completion.

3.10.1 T/LPA Method of Operation

The flow chart on the following page is the minimum requirement for projects utilizing Federal-aid funds. However, sub-recipients may have policies, procedures, and regulations in excess of those established in 23 CFR 630 and 635.

3.10.2 T/LPA Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.10-1 Tribal / Local Public Agency CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Tribal and Local Government Handbook	Statewide Planning Bureau	10/2007	NMDOT	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://dot.state.nm.us/Local_Government_Agreement_Unit/ TLGA_HANDBOOK_October07.pdf	23 CFR
FHWA T/LPA Reference Guide	N/A	4/2011	FHWA	FHWA Office of Program Administration	https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/LPA/reference.cfm	23 CFR
NMDOT Spec Book	Construction Bureau	2007	NMDOT	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary (FHWA concurs)	http://dot.state.nm.us/Plans_Specs_Estimates/ 2007_Specs_for_Highway_and_Bridge_Construction.pdf	23 CFR 635
NMDOT T/LPA Website	NMDOT Statewide Planning Bureau	2012	NMDOT	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	http://dot.state.nm.us/Planning.html#LGAU	Department Website
NMDOT Single Audit Act Procedures Manual	OIG	Jan 2012	NMDOT	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	Hardcopy	OMB A-133 Single Audit

3.10.3 T/LPA Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The NMDOT has established internal handbooks, manuals, controls, and procedures to determine that a sub-recipient of federal funds is able to satisfy the following:

The sub-recipient has adequate project delivery systems and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage projects:
The sub-recipient is staffed and equipped to perform work satisfactorily and cost effectively, and that adequate staffing and supervision exists to manage the federal project(s): and,
Projects receive adequate inspection to ensure that projects are completed in conformance with approved plans and specifications.

The NMDOT requires through its T/LGA Handbook and Funding Agreement that the T/LPA allow the NMDOT to review and concur on all the T/LPA’s third party contractual commitments to include the use of consultants for engineering services and construction management, as provided under 23 CFR 635.105. The NMDOT Funding Agreement requires the T/LPA to designate a project manager as the single point of contact.

NMDOT has assigned Region T/LPA Coordinators at each of its three Regions to provide assistance and oversight of T/LPA projects during the project development phase. NMDOT has assigned T/LPA Coordinators at each of its six Districts to provide assistance and oversight during the construction phase. The Region T/LPA Coordinator and District T/LPA Coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the Region and District ARRA coordinators did). The T/LPA Coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart found in the T/LPA Manual.

For Authorization: Regional T/LPA coordinator must ensure that all project certifications (such as ROW, Utility, railroads, ITS, work zone, environmental) are in place. A 9 day letter will be submitted with the project packet, and should include all items listed on the FMIS checklist (previously provided). The Region must ensure that the T/LPA holds a PS&E for the project as required by CFR. The Region T/LPA Coordinator must review the design, estimate, and specifications (using either the NMDOT specifications or the T/LPA’s) during this time. The projects limits and scope of work must match all the certifications and the funding amount and scope of work on the Agreement must match the STIP.

For concurrence of Award: The Region T/LPA Coordinator must review bid tabulations and provide their concurrence or rejection to the T/LPA.

Once the project is awarded the District T/LPA Coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. T/LPA Coordinator should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA Coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The District T/LPA Coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist. District T/LPA Coordinator will have final authority to grant contract time extensions.

Final voucher and Final acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding District T/LPA Coordinator for review and approval. The District T/LPA Coordinator should perform a final inspection and final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project,

The NMDOT has clearly documented the approval and oversight process on locally administered projects, in the T/LGA Handbook, the Funding Agreement and various correspondence, checklists and informational documents submitted to the T/LPA during each phase of the Funding Agreement process. FHWA participates and provides language included in these documents. NMDOT will seek FHWA guidance and approval on subsequent revisions. NMDOT has designated staff at each of its three Regions and six Districts to provide assistance and oversight to the T/LPA during the project development, procurement, construction, project reporting, and close out stage to ensure the T/LPA complies with Federal laws, regulations and NMDOT policies. NMDOT staff provides oversight on the T/LPA’s procurement methods to ensure Federal requirements and language is included in T/LPA third party contracts. NMDOT will meet with FHWA partners annually to discuss current practices, areas of concern, and establish business service standards that would provide an expectation for how long it would take to provide reports, reviews and findings along with the expectation to implement corrective actions when necessary. NMDOT oversight includes, but is not limited to the following areas:

Consultant selection and management (Funding Agreement Section Four and T/LGA handbook pg. 27);
Environment (Funding Agreement Section Four and T/LGA Handbook pg. 31);
Design (Funding Agreement Section Four, Appendix C and T/LGA Handbook Chapter 4);
Civil Rights (Funding Agreement Section Eleven - Thirteen and T/LGA Handbook Chapter 10 & 11);
Financial management including audits and indirect cost allocation plans (Funding Agreement Section Three & Sixteen, Single Audit Act Procedures Manual);
Right-of-way (Funding Agreement Section Four and Appendix D and T/LGA Handbook Chapter 7);
Construction monitoring including Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QC/QA) (Funding Agreement Section Four and Appendix E); and,
Contract administration* (Funding Agreement Section Four and T/LGA Handbook Chapter 9)

*NMDOT ensures the T/LPA follows proper process and obtains concurrence from FHWA on contract procurement methods that do not follow the standard competitive bidding process.

FHWA conducts periodic audits of T/LPA projects and informs NMDOT of areas of concern and recommendations.

In the Funding Agreement NMDOT requires T/LPAs to use the following web based software paid for by NMDOT; LCPTracker for tracking labor compliance and B2GNow for tracking Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goals and the payments between the T/LPA and their contractor and sub-contractors. Both of these systems are utilized to track and report data to comply with the Federal Transparency Act (PL 109-282 (as amended by PL 110-252).

The NMDOT has developed a Single Audit Act Procedures Manual to provide basic information on the Single Audit process and requirements and to define responsibilities of the NMDOT to ensure sub-recipients comply with the Single Audit Act, and take corrective action when audit findings are identified. The manual will also assist NMDOT in determining if the sub-recipient has adequate project delivery systems and sufficient accounting controls to properly manage projects. Per the NMDOT Single Audit Act Procedures Manual, NMDOT Local Government Section will notify T/LPAs that they must submit their Annual Audit for review. The Local Government Section will perform a desk review of the annual audits to determine if T/LPA is considered a high or low risk audited as indicated in the independent auditor’s report. If the T/LPA is given a high-risk assessment, Local Government Section will establish a work plan. Local Government Section will notify the NMDOT’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) office if an internal audit is needed. NMDOT will also establish a policy to include imposing restrictions on audited T/LPAs that do not resolve administrative issues, audit findings, or questions within a specific period.

As part of POI FHWA will conduct reviews on a percentage of T/LPA projects as defined in FHWA strategic plan. FHWA will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure the program is performing in compliance with 23 CFR.

A major aspect of program implementation is the completion and acceptance of the T/LGA PS&E Checklist (Appendix E). Acceptance is as follows:

The District T/LPA coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the District ARRA coordinators did). District T/LPA coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart that I previously provided.

For Authorization: District T/LPA coordinator must ensure that all project certifications (such as ROW, Utility, railroads, ITS, work zone, environmental are in placed). It is suggested that just like with regular projects the local entity provides a nine day letter requesting FMIS approval. The project packet should include all items listed on the FMIS checklist (previously provided). The T/LPA coordinator must ensure that a PS&E is held for the project as required by CFR. At this PS&E the design, estimate, and specifications (either using the NMDOT specifications or the Local Entities) must be provided and reviewed. The projects limits and scope of work must match all those of the certifications and also the amount listed in the STIP.

For concurrence of Award: The T/LPA coordinator must review and bid tabulations and provide their concurrence or rejection to the T/LPA.

Once the project has been awarded the T/LPA coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. T/LPA coordinator should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The T/LPA coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist.

Final voucher and Final acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding AE for review and approval. The T/LPA coordinator should perform a final inspection and Final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project,

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

As part of POI FHWA will conduct reviews on a percentage of T/LPA projects as defined in FHWA strategic plan. FHWA will conduct periodic oversight reviews as needed to ensure program is performing in compliance with 23 CFR.

A major aspect of program implementation is the completion and acceptance of the T/LGA PS&E Checklist (Appendix E). Acceptance is as follows:

T/LPA consistency district wide – process for authorization in FMIS

The District T/LPA coordinator will provide the FHWA Area Engineer a copy of the final inspection report (as seen in Appendix C), a final acceptance letter form the District Engineer and copies of the entire COs to aid with the review for final voucher in FMIS.

Project final voucher (estimates will be submitted regularly) to avoid inactive

The District T/LPA coordinator shall require a monthly estimate form the T/LPA, unless otherwise stated in the agreement between the T/LPA and NMDOT.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

T/LPA Coordinator review

The Region and District T/LPA coordinator must ensure the projects are treated as any regular federal aid eligible project (just like the District ARRA coordinators did). The T/LPA coordinator must ensure to follow the project from cradle to grave. The project must follow all CFRS as stated in the flowchart found in the T/LPA Manual.

REGION T/LPA COORDINATOR: NMDOT has assigned Engineers at each of its three Regions to provide assistance and oversight of T/LPA projects during the project development phase.

For Authorization:

District T/LPA coordinator must ensure that all project certifications (such as ROW, Utility, railroads, ITS, work zone, environmental are in placed).
Like with regular projects the the T/LPA coordinator provides a nine day letter requesting FMIS approval.
The project packet should include all items listed on the FMIS checklist (previously provided).
The T/LPA coordinator must ensure that a PS&E is held for the project as required by CFR. At this PS&E the design, estimate, and specifications (either using the NMDOT specifications or the Local Entities) must be provided and reviewed.
The projects limits and scope of work must match all those of the certifications and also the amount listed in the STIP.

For Concurrence of Award:

The T/LPA coordinator must review and bid tabulations and provide their concurrence or rejection to the T/LPA.

DISTRICT T/LPA COORDINATOR: In addition, the NMDOT has assigned Construction Staff/ Engineers at each of its six Districts to provide assistance and oversight during the construction phase.

Project Oversight: Once the project has been awarded the T/LPA coordinator would be considered the AE overseeing the PM. He/she should review all changes to the contract and to the scope of work. T/LPA coordinator should also ensure that a tracking mechanism is in place to track time and days. The estimate should be turned in at a minimum once a month in order to ensure the project does not end up in the inactive list. The T/LPA coordinator should also verify all items in the joint NMDOT/FHWA project review checklist.

Final Voucher and Final Acceptance: The T/LPA must ensure a final package is turned in for final voucher to the corresponding AE for review and approval. The T/LPA coordinator should perform a final inspection and final inspection report to support his concurrence with closing the project.

3.10.4 T/LPA Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.10-2 Tribal / Local Public Agency P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
Addenda	23 CFR	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	DRE review & approve
Buy America Waiver	23 CFR 635.410	Every applicable project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	FHWA Division Administrator approval
Certificate of Compliance	23 CFR 640	Per Project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves
Certificate of Final Acceptance	23 CFR 635.126	Per Project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves
Change Orders	23 CFR 635.120	As applicable per project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves
Claims	23 CFR 635.124	As applicable per project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator Reviews & approves
Concurrent in Contract Award	23 CFR 635.114 23 USC 112(d)	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Region Design Reviews & concur
Consultant Scope of Services / Agreements	23 CFR 172	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA reviews & approves
Consultant Selection	23 CFR 172	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA reviews & approves
Design Approval	23 CFR 172 23 CFR 625	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA reviews & approves or Region Design Centers
Design Exceptions	23 CFR 625.3	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator
Design Plan / Package Submittals	23 CFR 172	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Regional Design Center Approves
Errors & Omissions (Deficiency Report)	23 CFR	As needed	District T/LPA coordinator	Area Engineer	District T/LPA coordinator review & approve
Interstate Access Modification	23 CFR 710.401	As needed	District Traffic Engineer	Area Engineer	FHWA Division Administrator approval
Major Scope Revision	23 CFR 450.216(9) (d)	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	District Eng.
Materials Certification	23 CFR 635.126	Every project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District Eng review & approve
NEPA Approvals	23 CFR 771	Every project	Environmental Section Manager	Environmental Coordinator	FHWA Environmental Specialist
Notification of Pre-construction Meeting	23 CFR 635	Every project	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA Coordinator
Project Authorization for Right of Way	23 CFR 713	Every project	ROW Manager	Area Engineer	FHWA AE
Project Authorization for Preliminary Engineering (NMDOT informally calls this the obligation date)	23 CFR 172	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Area Engineer approves
Project Authorization for Constriction	23 CFR 630.106 23 CFR 635 C	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Area Engineer approves
Project Scope / Concept	23 CFR 625	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA / Design Center
PS&E Approval	23 CFR 630.205	Every project	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Region Design Eng.
Public Interest Finding	23 CFR 635.411	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator / T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	Area Engineer approves
Public Interest Findings: Sole Source, Proprietary products, Local-Furnished / Designated Materials, Force Account Work completed by municipal forces	23 CFR 635.411	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator / T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	FHWA Division Administrator approval
Public Interest Findings; Buy America Waiver, Non-competitive bidding	23 CFR 635.410	As needed	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	Requires FHWA HQ approval
Rejection of Low Bidder and / or All Bidders	23 CFR 635.114(h)	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	Administrator approval
Suspension of Work	23 CFR 635.120(c)	As needed	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA
Termination	23 CFR 635.125	As needed	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	FHWA Division Administrator approval
Time Extensions	23 CFR 635.121	As needed	T/LPA District Coordinator	Area Engineer	District Engineer
Transportation Management Plans for Significant Projects	23 CFR	As needed	Planning	Planning	Region Planner
Value Engineering	23 CFR 627	As needed	Region T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA coordinator
Value Engineering Change Proposals	23 CFR 627	As needed	District T/LPA Coordinator	Area Engineer	T/LPA coordinator

3.10.5 T/LPA Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the T/LPA Program:

The follow indicators will be in place FFY13:

3.10.5(a) Single Audit Findings (as related to T/LPA’s)	3.10.5(b) Percent of projects obligated out of current STIP (Number of T/LPA projects obligated / Number of T/LPA projects in STIP [current year])
To Be Developed	Based on FY11 figures, 35 out of 64 T/LPA projects programmed in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) were obligated. 24 projects were re-programmed to a subsequent fiscal year and 5 projects were removed from the STIP.
3.10.5(c) Tabulation of project reviews: 2011, 2012, and 213 to see if there are any common or recurring issues or good practices.	(Intentionally left blank)
To Be Developed	(Intentionally left blank)

3.11.0 RESEARCH

The NMDOT Research Bureau is organizationally located under the Planning Division of the Office of Programs and Infrastructure. The Research Bureau manages an ambitious program of transportation research; development and technology transfer (RD&T). The program is supported through state and federal funds, and meets federal requirements as set forth in 23 CFR 420. Administration of the program is guided by a Research Oversight Committee (ROC), composed of the three NMDOT Deputy Secretaries and a representative from the Federal Highway Administration. The ROC establishes research priorities and authorizes specific research initiatives as proposed by key Department personnel during an annual Research Project Solicitation workshop, while Research Bureau staff manages daily operations. Chairpersons of a Research Advisory Committee (C-RAC) composed of Department employees appointed by a Deputy Secretary review and prioritize projects proposed by Department personnel. Independent Technical Panels are established for each project to develop problem statements, prepare Requests for Proposals, evaluate proposals and recommend consultants, guide the conduct of research and implement results. The process is designed to identify, prioritize and conduct high value RD&T initiatives that serve the strategic needs of the Department while incorporating a system of checks and balances to minimize the potential for undue influence by any person or group of persons.

3.11.1 Research Method of Operation

The role of FHWA in the management of research activities performed through the Research Bureau is to provide oversight of the transportation research program to ensure efficient and effective operations in compliance with governing regulations. The role of the NMDOT Research Bureau is to manage the daily operations of the research program. This includes effective contract oversight and management of research performed by consultants, efficient administration of available program budget, facilitation of the means to identify and prioritize research projects deemed to be of high value, performance of in-house research, contribution to research initiatives at the national level, deployment of innovative new technologies, and implementation of research findings and recommendations, in compliance with governing state and federal regulations.

3.11.2 Research Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.11-1 Research CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
Policies and Procedures Manual	Research	Jul 2009	Research Bureau	FHWA and NMDOT Cabinet Secretary	Hardcopy	23 CFR 420.209
Technical Panel Handbook	Research	Jul 2009	Research Bureau	Research Bureau Chief.	Hard Copy	23 CFR 420.209
Technology Transfer Guidelines	Research	Jul 2009	Research Bureau	FHWA and Research Bureau Chief	Hard Copy	23 CFR 420.209

3.11.3 Research Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

State-wide Planning and Research (SPR) Program:

Research Program Implementation

The requirements as embodied in 23 CFR 420 include management and administration of a State Planning and Research (SPR) Work Program, monitoring planning and research activities, submitting Performance and Expenditure reports, conducting peer exchanges, developing and managing an FHWA approved research and development management process, and maintaining program certification. The SPR Work Program consists of two parts; (1) Part I, Planning, which is prepared by NMDOT’s Planning Division and (2) Part II, Research, which is prepared by NMDOT’s Research Bureau. The NMDOT is responsible for preparation and overall coordination of the Work Program in accordance with 23 CFR 420. Amendments and revisions to the Work Program that document required changes are submitted periodically for approval by FHWA.

Method of Oversight

FHWA is represented on the Research Oversight Committee along with the three NMDOT Deputy Secretaries. This committee provides general oversight of the Research Bureau and approves project proposals generated by key Department staff through an annual Research Project Solicitation workshop. FHWA participates on many Technical Panels that guide the conduct of research from conception through implementation. FHWA reviews and approves detailed Annual Work Programs that serve as the binding scope of work for a given state fiscal year, as well as annual Performance and Expenditures reports that provide detailed information on the Research Bureau’s progress in meeting its goals and objectives. FHWA reviews and approves the Research Bureau’s policies and procedures manual on a bi-annual basis

Following are the methods of oversight used and frequency of each.

Through participation on the Research Oversight Committee (ROC), the FHWA Division Office is represented at two critical annual meetings. The first ROC meeting is conducted prior to the annual Research Project Solicitation (RPS) to discuss and establish research priorities. The second is conducted after projects proposed during the RPS have been reviewed and prioritized by chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee to approve or reject these projects for inclusion in the next Annual Work Program. The ROC may convene other meetings at any time as deemed necessary.
Annual Work Program – The FHWA Division Office reviews and approves the annual Research Work Program, which includes a detailed breakdown of specific projects, project costs by participation, a summary and status of ongoing projects, and a description of other activities by the Research Bureau including peer exchanges, bi-annual visits by the Transportation Research Board, management of the Bureau’s online resources and transportation library, in-house research, participation in national activities, and other activities planned during the program year. Included with the Annual Work Program is written certification by the NMDOT Cabinet Secretary or designee that NMDOT is in compliance with all requirements of governing regulations with respect to administration of the State’s Research, Development and Technology Transfer program.
Performance and Expenditures Report – The FHWA Division Office reviews and approves annual Performance and Expenditures (P&E) reports, which include a detailed description of the Research Bureau’s progress in meeting goals and objectives documented in the Annual Work Program. The P&E report provides a detailed status of ongoing projects including a breakdown of costs by category, project and federal participation. The P&E report also includes performance measures which serve as an indicator of the success of the research program.
Operational Procedures – The FHWA Division Office provides input and guidance in preparing revisions to the Research Bureau’s policies and procedures manual. This manual serves to comply with the requirements of 23 CFR 420.209, and is jointly reviewed and approved on a bi-annual basis by FHWA and the NMDOT Cabinet Secretary.
Technical Panels – FHWA Division Office staff serve as subject matter experts on many of the Technical Panels established for each research project. Technical Panel members contribute to developing problem statements and Requests for Proposals, participate in contractor selection and contract negotiation, attend quarterly progress meetings, review project deliverables, and contribute to implementation of research findings and recommendations. By serving on Technical Panels, the FHWA Division Office provides guidance and oversight at every step of the process.

3.11.4 Research Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.11-2 Research P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Actions / Remarks
RD&T Work Program	23 CFR 420.207	Annually by July 1	Research Bureau Chief	Research Engineer	FHWA approval required
Certification of compliance with federal regulations governing administration of the RD&T Work Program	23 CFR 420.209	Annually by July 1	NMDOT Cabinet Secretary or designee	Research Engineer	Must be submitted to FHWA along with the Annual Work Program
Meeting of Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee	23 CFR 420.209	3rd Quarter of each State FY	Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator	Research Engineer	Meeting to review and prioritize projects proposed during the RPS
P&E Report	23 CFR 420.117	Annually by September 30	Research Bureau Chief	Research Engineer	FHWA approval required
Quarterly Progress Reports and Meetings with Contractors		State Fiscal Quarter	Research Bureau Project Managers	FHWA staff assigned to research project Technical Panels	Quarterly reports and meetings to review progress toward meeting project goals
Research Advisory Committee Meeting	23 CFR 420.209	2nd Quarter of each State FY	Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator	Research Engineer	Meeting to present proposed research projects to Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee
Research Oversight Committee Meeting	23 CFR 420.209	2nd Quarter of each State FY	Department Deputy Secretaries	Research Engineer	Meeting to discuss Department needs and to set strategic priorities
Research Oversight Committee Meeting	23 CFR 420.209	3rd Quarter of each State FY	Department Deputy Secretaries	Research Engineer	Meeting to review projects prioritized and recommended by Chairpersons of the Research Advisory Committee for inclusion in the next Annual Work Program
Research Peer Exchange	23 CFR 420.209	No less frequently than every five years	Research Bureau Chief	Research Engineer
Research Project Solicitation	23 CFR 420.209	2nd Quarter of each State FY	Research Bureau Engineering Coordinator	Research Engineer	Workshop to identify problems and recommend research projects

3.11.5 Research Performance/Compliance Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Research Program:

3.11.5(a) Percent of Recommendations implemented or adopted within two (2) years of final research report	3.11.5(b) Percent of Available Research Budget Expended

Of twenty one (21) projects completed since FY08, eighteen (18) of these have been implemented to at least 75%, for an implementation rate of 86%. Some projects have been terminated after finding that the course of research was unproductive, for example, a study of pavement life expectancy was terminated after it was found that records of maintenance history were insufficient to support project objectives. Other projects are in various stages of implementation and have yet to be fully implemented. The implementation rate reported for any program year will therefore be less than 100%.	Funding for supplemental projects was established in FY12 in the amount of $1,800,000 from available SPR Part I budget. Seven new supplemental projects were authorized for FY12, and one conventional project in the FY12 Work Program was approved for partial funding using this budget. Of the four projects that proceeded in FY12, $1,004,350 of available funding of $1,162,500 was obligated or expended for a program total of 86%. The balance of this funding is available for projects to be administered through this program in FY13.
3.11.5(c) Percent of projects in work plan actually contacted	3.11.5(d) Percent of projects on-time and on-budget

All of the supplemental projects and conventional projects as documented in the Work Program and Work Program amendments which were not withdrawn or deferred until FY13 were contracted for a program rate of 100%.	100% of Research Bureau contracted projects were on time and on budget as documented in professional services agreements and contract amendments.

3.12.0 SAFETY PROGRAM

The Department of Transportation administers the State’s Traffic Safety Program. Both FHWA and NHTSA provide oversight, technical assistance, and funding to the DOT to develop, implement, and manage projects aimed at reducing motor vehicle related crashes, injuries, and deaths. The DOT Safety Program is based on the four E’s of safety; Engineering, Education, Enforcement, and Emergency Medical Services. Using these proven concepts, all three agencies work in cooperation with other State, county and local partners to direct funding and programs to areas with the greatest need based on problem identification from the most current crash data available. Specific goals, objectives, and performance measures are developed and documented in several required safety plans prepared by the DOT and approved by FWHA and NHTSA.

3.12.1 Safety Program Method of Operation

DOT is required to prepare, implement, and update several safety plans and reports. Through a Federally approved process, the following plans and reports are developed by DOT and submitted for approval to FHWA and NHTSA as specified below:

New Mexico Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan (CTSP) – This plan is commonly referred to in other State’s as the Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This plan is the overall safety plan for the State and includes both Engineering and Behavior safety initiatives. This is approved by FHWA.
Highway Safety and Performance Plan – This plan is the State’s behavioral safety plan based on available crash data and is approved by NHTSA on an annual basis.
Highway Safety Improvement Program Annual Reports – These reports are prepared annually for the Section 148 (hazard elimination) portion, the High Risk Rural Road Program portion, the Section 130 portion (Railway – Highway Grade Crossing Safety Program) portion, and the Transparency Report portion of the New Mexico Highway Safety Improvement Program. Together these reports constitute documentation of the total effort to implement the State’s engineering type stand-alone safety countermeasure projects program, based on available crash data, safety studies, and other data evidence. These reports are approved by FHWA.
Annual Work Program – This plan is the State’s planning work program that includes some safety initiatives both at the State and local levels. This plan is approved by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).
Transparency Report – 5% most severe safety needs locations based on past 5 calendar years of Fatal and Serious injury crash history and a summary of all safety behavioral projects.

Once these plans and reports are developed and approved, the DOT implements and manages the projects and programs outlined in the plans in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws and regulations. Activities consist of components of planning, implementation, evaluation and reporting of safety programs and projects. This involves safety program support for problem identification, design, construction, maintenance, and technical assistance for NMDOT, FHWA, NHTSA, FTA, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Federal Railroad Administration, and local governments.

The DOT created the Transportation Safety Management Team (TSMT) that consists of a variety of State and Federal stakeholders and partners. The TSMT meets regularly and provides input and technical assistance in the development and revisions to the CTSP. The TSMT plays an important role in keeping the CTSP current and ensuring that all of the safety plans are incorporated into the CTSP.

The NMDOT and FHWA will meet semi-annually to discuss the progress in each of the items described in table 3.3-1. The NMDOT will continue to invite and encourage the FHWA to attend the Comprehensive Transportation Safety Plan (CTSP) Leadership meetings that are held quarterly.

3.12.2 Safety Program Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.12-1 Safety CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
HSIP Policy and Procedures Manual	Traffic Technical Support Bureau	June 2010	Traffic Technical Support Bureau	FHWA Safety Engineer	Hardcopy (and electronic file) at Traffic Technical Support Bureau	FHWA Office of Safety Guidance
Traffic Safety Division Policy and Procedures Manual	Traffic Safety Division	2011	Traffic Safety Division	NHTSA	Hard Copy/ NMDOT website	Recommended by NHTSA
Planning Division Policy and Procedures Manual	Planning Division	Under Development	Planning Division	FHWA reviews	Will be available by hard copy and website	Recommended by FHWA
Highway Safety Manual	Traffic Technical Support Bureau	June 2010	Traffic Technical Support Bureau	FHWA Safety Engineer	Hardcopy (and electronic file) at Traffic Technical Support Bureau	FHWA Office of Safety Guidance

3.12.3 Safety Program Implementation & Methods of Oversight

The overall program oversight is the DOT, FWHA, NHTSA and other Federal partner’s (everyone’s) responsibility. Through periodic meetings and reviews, the FWHA is involved in decision making and oversight of the HSIP program and other engineering safety initiatives lead by the DOT. NHTSA conducts yearly visits and periodically accompanies DOT staff on quality assurance site visits. In addition, NHTSA conducts a formal Program Review once every 3 years FHWA is an invited participant. If needed program reviews can be conducted more frequently. At the State level, the HSIP is overseen by the Program Management Division, Traffic Technical Support Bureau, by the State Traffic Engineer, assisted by the Safety Project Engineer with input and discussion from the Traffic Safety Division and other parts of the DOT. The behavioral safety program is overseen by the Traffic Safety Division which includes yearly site visits, quarterly reporting requirements, and performance measures which are included in contractual relationships. The planning safety aspects are overseen by the Planning Division through the review of the quarterly Program and Expenditure Reports. It is Federal, State, and local team effort to assure that funding is spent as efficiently and productively as possible, while following all applicable State and Federal guidelines.

3.12.4 Safety Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.12-2 Safety P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
402 Highway Safety Plan	12/22/99 guidelines, TEA-21, 2001	July 1	Traffic Safety Division Director	National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)	Traffic Safety Division coordinates with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) for review and approval
Transparency Report (5% Report)	23 USC 148(c)(1)(D)	Annually by August 31	Safety Project Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	NMDOT submits online to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews (HSIP)
Drug offender DL revocation or suspension certification by Governor	23 USC 159, 23 CFR 192.5	Annually by Jan 1	Traffic Safety Division Director	FHWA Safety Engineer	Traffic Safety Division submits to FHWA annually
Drug offender driver’s license suspension law & enforcement certification	23 USC 159, 23 CFR 192.5	Annually by Jan 1	Traffic Safety Division Director	FHWA Safety Engineer	Traffic safety Division coordinates with Governor's office for certification
Highway Safety Improvement Program, including HES Program, Safety Programs, High Risk Rural Roads Program, and 5% Reporting	23 CFR 924.15 SAFETEA-LU 23 USC 148	Annually by Aug. 31	Safety Project Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	NMDOT submits to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews
MUTCD Adoption and New Mexico Supplement	23 CFR 655.603	As Needed	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	NMDOT submits to FHWA’s Safety Office (HQ’s); FHWA Division office reviews
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program	23 CFR 652	As needed	Traffic Operations/ Local Assistance	National Programs	Includes the non-motorized transportation pilot program
Repeat Offender	23 CFR 1275; 23 USC 164	Annually when funds are released	NMDOT Secretary	FHWA NM Division Administrator	Safety Traffic Director sends letter to FHWA when funds are released
Repeat Offender law	23 USC 164, 1406	Annually when funds are released	NMDOT Secretary	FHWA NM Division Administrator	Safety Traffic Director sends letter to FHWA when funds are released
Roadside Hardware	FHWA July 25, 1997 Policy Memo re: NCHRP Report 350	As needed	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	AASHTO Manual for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) is the new state of the practice for the crash testing of safety hardware devices for use on the National Highway System (NHS). It updates and replaces NCHRP Report 350
Seat belt law	23 CFR 1215.6	Annually (each fiscal year)	Traffic Safety Division Director	FHWA Safety Engineer	FHWA receives annual summary at conclusion of legislative session to ensure still in effect
Strategic Highway Safety Plan	23 CFR 924	Every 3rd year	Safety Project Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer reviews and approves
Temporary Traffic Control Devices Final Rule Compliance	23 CFR 630	As needed	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance.
Work Zone Safety and Mobility Final Rule compliance	23 CFR 630	Continuous	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance.
Work Zone Safety Process Review of Effectiveness	23 CFR 630.1010, Subparts J & K	Annually by Sept. 30	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	FHWA prepares and submits reports to HQ’s annually
Worker Visibility Final Rule Compliance	23 CFR 634	Continuous	State Traffic Engineer	FHWA Safety Engineer	State Traffic Engineer certifies in compliance
Zero tolerance law & enforcement certification	23 CFR 1210.5	Update as amended	Traffic Safety Division Director	FHWA Safety Engineer	FHWA receives annual summary at conclusion of legislative session to ensure still in effect

3.12.5 Safety Program Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Safety Program:

3.12.5(a) Annual Number of Fatalities on New Mexico Roads	3.12.5 (b) Annual Statewide fatality Rate per Vehicle Miles Traveled on New Mexico Roads

From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 0.18 people killed in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled on New Mexico public roads. The linear trend-line shows the overall decrease in the fatality rate over the past five years.	The number of crash-related injuries remained generally the same from 2007 to 2011. There was a minor increase in injuries in 2010 that causes the linear trend-line to be slightly increasing. Injuries are crash-related incapacitating injuries (A) and visible injuries (B).
3.12.5(c) Annual Injuries (A & B) on New Mexico Roads	3.12.5 (d) Annual Statewide fatality Rate per Vehicle Miles Traveled on New Mexico Roads

From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 1.69 injured people in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The trend-line shows this decrease but the 2010 rate makes the linear trend-line more steeply decrease.	From 2007 to 2011, there was a slight decrease of 1.69 injured people in crashes per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. The trend-line shows this decrease but the 2010 rate makes the linear trend-line more steeply decrease
3.12.5(e) Percent of HSIP Funds Obligated	3.12.5 (f) Improvement in assessment scores associated with implementation of proven safety counter measures:
To Be Developed	To Be Developed
3.12.5(f) Number of miles installed median barriers on multilane highways	3.12.5(g) Number of miles installed longitudinal shoulder rumple strips on rural roadways
To Be Developed	To Be Developed

3.13.0 STRUCTURES

NMDOT and FHWA ensure that structures are properly designed, constructed, and maintained throughout the State. These structures include: bridges which span over 20 feet, luminaries, traffic signal poles, overhead sign structures, retaining walls, and tunnels. NMDOT Bridge Bureau develops and publishes structural designs, policies, standards and specifications. They also provides other vital services such as bridge management and inspection, fabrication inspection, construction assistance, bridge rating, coordination of scour evaluations, and bridge permitting analysis for oversize and overweight loads.

3.13.1 Structures Method of Operation

NMDOT Bridge Bureau is responsible for providing final bridge or other structural design documents for all projects. All designs will be in accordance with NMDOT’s structural design policies and are stamped by a registered professional engineer prior to commencement. As requested by FHWA, NMDOT will provide to FHWA all survey reports, hydraulic reports, geotechnical reports or other information. FHWA will provide comments on design documents as necessary, and NMDOT will provide written responses to comments when required. The oversight of the Structures (Bridge) program area will be based on risk and / or random sampling of projects.

The Bridge Bureau is responsible for ensuring that NMDOT is compliant with the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS). NMDOT inspections are performed at the District level. Overall program management is managed from the General Office. Policies and procedures are implemented from the General office with input from the Districts and from FHWA. The Bridge Bureau, with input from the district level, will provide yearly prioritization lists for structure preventative maintenance, structure rehabilitation and structure replacements. NMDOT’s Bridge Bureau, Drainage Bureau and Geotechnical section will meet with FHWA at regular intervals for discussions on NBIS issues.

3.13.2 Structures Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.13-1 Structures CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	BUREAU	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY
Bridge Design
NMDOT Bridge Design Guide	Bridge	2005	NMDOT	NMDOT	Y
AAASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, 6th edition	Bridge	2012	AASHTO	AASHTO	Y
Bridge Construction
NMDOT Standard Specifications for Highway and Bridge Construction	Construction	2007	NMDOT	NMDOT	Y
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Construction Specifications	Construction	2010	AASHTO	AASHTO	Y
NMDOT Construction Manual	Construction	1987	NMDOT	NMDOT	Y
Bridge Management
National Bridge Inspection Standards	Bridge	2012	FHWA	FHWA	Y
FHWA Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges	Bridge	1995	FHWA	FHWA	Y
AASHTO The Manual for Bridge Evaluation	Bridge	2011	AASHTO	AASHTO	Y
FHWA Safety Inspection of In-Service Bridges	Bridge	2012	FHWA	FHWA	Y
AASHTO Guide Manual for Bridge Element Inspection	Bridge	2011	AASHTO	AASHTO	Y
NM Bridge Design Guide	Bridge	2005	NMDOT	NMDOT	Y
NMDOT Quality Assurance Plan	Bridge	2012	NMDOT	NMDOT	Y

3.13.3 Structures Implementation & Methods of Oversight

NMDOT Bridge Bureau will provide a Quality Assurance review of all structure designs. All final plans are reviewed by FHWA prior to project letting.

On bridge construction,NMDOT and FHWA monitor project performance based on project schedules, project budgets, severity of change orders and final project acceptance. NMDOT is required to perform project audits on all construction projects. NMDOT and FHWA provide final project reviews for all projects.

The Bridge ManagementNBIS compliance is measured through the NBIS Metrics. NMDOT is responsible for scheduling an annual NBIS District review with the assistance of FHWA as outlined in the Bridge Management Quality Assurance and Quality Control Plan. FHWA provides an annual NBIS performance report.

Program / Risk Assessment are typically conducted annually to:

NBIS Annual Review
Reduce the risk of infrastructure failure through the effective use of inspection, maintenance, and management techniques for highway assets.
Comply with FHWA Agency programs such as the New National Bridge Inspection Program Oversight Process 2013 target completion date (NBIS Metrics).
Evaluate percent of deck area on deficient bridges.
Analyze load ratings through to completion (2016).

3.13.4 Structures Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.13-2 Structures P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT / Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
Bridge/Structural Design Review	23 CFR 650	Monthly	State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	Reviews are completed monthly; in addition every 2 yrs. an in depth report is prepared by FHWA and signed by NMDOT
Bridge Management System (BMS)	23 CFR 500.107	Yearly (submitted between Sep – Dec)	Bridge Management Engineer	Bridge Engineer	NBIS Review prepared by FHWA
Bridge Construction, Geotechnical, Hydraulics Review	23 CFR 650	Monthly	State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	Reviews are completed monthly; in addition every 2 yrs. an in depth report is prepared by FHWA and signed by NMDOT
Construction inspections	FAPG G 6042.8	As needed	District Construction Engineer assists State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT
Highway Bridge funding eligibility determinations	23 CFR 650 Subpart D	Project by project	Bridge Management assists State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT
Highway Bridge funding Unit Cost submittal & NBI tape submittal	23 CFR 650 Subpart D	Annually by April 1	State Bridge Engineer assists State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	QA / QC Structures conducted independently by FHWA & NMDOT
NBIS Review State-wide report	23 CFR 650 Subpart C	Annually Mar 31	Bridge Management Engineer	Bridge Engineer	Random list generated from FHWA HW’s on what to review then the FHWA Division Office prepares and submits
PS&E reviews (non-exempt projects)	23 CFR 630, 23 USC 106, and W.O. 11/13/98 memo	Project by project	State Construction Engineer	Bridge Engineer	FHWA and NMDOT review as needed

3.13.5 Structures Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The following performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the Structures Program:

3.13.2(a) Percent of Apportioned Bridge Funds Obligated

3136.2(b) Percent of Non-Deficient Bridges on NHS and Non-NHS Routs

The New Mexico Department of Transportation distributes federal and state funds to the Districts based on distribution formulas. NMDOT prioritizes these funds based on their needs, mainly:

Condition.
Capacity.

With limited funding at this time, NMDOT is focusing on system preservation efforts.

Bridge funds are further prioritized on bridge conditions and other bridge needs. Data is queried from the PONTIS database and structurally deficient bridges are identified. These lists are then prioritized by bridge sufficiency rating. Sufficiency ratings take into account several key aspects of a bridges health, such as: structural integrity, functional status and essentiality for public use. Six lists are generated for each District; Interstate Bridges, US Highway Bridges, NM Route Bridges, Culverts, Scour Critical Bridges and Locally Owned Bridges. Bridges that are candidates for minor rehabilitation and preventative maintenance projects are also identified. NMDOT has been successfully targeting these bridges during the last 10 years which has led to fewer bridges becoming Structurally Deficient. This strategy has enabled NMDOT to decrease the number of structurally deficient bridges and the square footage of structurally deficient bridges significantly.

The Districts and the Bridge Bureau go over each list and factor in items such as District priorities, essentiality for oversize/overweight routing, corridor planning, future growth, public concerns, etc. The Districts determine their STIP priorities based on these lists.

The NMDOT has made significant progress towards eliminating structurally deficient bridges. Many of these bridges have been rehabilitated with the use of BR funds. NMDOT has also used BR funds on preventative maintenance projects to prevent good bridges from deteriorating into deficient categories. Several Districts, most notably D-6, have aggressively targeted reducing their number of structurally deficient bridges and have been extremely proactive in the implementation of preventative maintenance projects.

3.13.2(c) Percent of Completed Plan of Action for Scour Critical Bridges

3.13.5 (d) Percent Compliance Completing Routing Inspections on Schedule

An image with bar graph depicting status of completed plans of actions for scour critical bridges in New Mexico: In 2012, of all bridges, 75 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges with unknown foundations, 100 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges coded 3 or less, 100 percent have completed POAs. Of the bridges coded 6, 4 percent have completed POAs.

NMDOT has 104 bridges coded as 6 (no scour calculation has been performed) which will require a significant effort for analysis. Further involvement by Drainage Bureau, Geotechnical Bureau and by the Districts will be required. Of these bridges 4 have completed POA’s. After the initial review, each of the bridges will have a monitoring POA implemented until the bridge is analyzed for scour. This will be NMDOT’s main scour priority.

The NMDOT and FHWA’s Bridge Engineer spent a significant amount of time reviewing all of the bridges coded as "3 or less" or "Unknown Foundation" and developed POA’s for these bridges. This included all state owned and locally owned bridges. NMDOT has completed 100% of the Plans of Action (POA’s) for these bridges. POA recommendations include:

Monitoring bridge during regularly scheduled bridge inspections
Monitoring bridge during high water events
Scour mitigation efforts needed
Further drainage analysis required

These bridges were further categorized into 3 categories;

Tier 1Low Level Risk
Tier 2Medium Level Risk
Tier 3High Level Risk

Tier 3 bridges will have a full scour analysis performed and Tier 1 and Tier 2 bridges will have a less intensive scour analysis performed.

NMDOT is currently 97% compliant on completing routine inspections on schedule and is 100% compliant on completing inspections on Fracture Critical Bridges. NMDOT is near completion of creating Fracture Critical Inspection Procedures and policy has been to inspect all Fracture Critical Bridges on a 12 month frequency, which includes a "hands-on" inspection of all tension members on bridges without individual inspection plans being performed. NMDOT has completed approximately 60% of inspection plans for individual bridges.

Indicator 3.13.5 (e) Percent of Load Ratings Completed

Indicator 3.13.5 (f) Percent of dollars obligated on Bridge Construction projects vs. dollars obligated on Bridge Maintenance projects

An image with bar graph depicting status of bridge load rating on New Mexico bridges: In 2012, of the total 2050 bridges, 1150 have been load rated. Of the 771 NHS bridges, 727 have been load rated. Of the 1279 non-NHS bridges, 423 have been load rated. Of the 1509 state-owned bridges, 1126 have been load rated. Of the 541 non-state-owned bridges, 24 have been load rated.

To Be Developed

Current-year Progress – The current progress meets the proposed schedule shown in the Action Plan (complete 150 load ratings in CY 2012).

National Highway System (NHS) bridges – This category is largely completed (94%). The remaining bridges in this category include unique bridges that require special analysis (see below), bridges currently under construction or recently rehabilitated & structurally deficient bridges (see below).

State-owned, Non-NHS bridges – Current efforts are being concentrated in this subgroup; 80% are completed or in review.

Non State-owned bridges – This subgroup remains a low priority while the Department’s effort is concentrated on State-owned bridges.

Unique Bridges – The analysis & rating of sixteen cast-in-place box girder bridges (both NHS & non-NHS bridges) is being performed by consultant. Rigid frame structures will be assigned for rating in the near future.

Structurally Deficient Bridges – The Department has an in-house program for this category. Procedures require field review by a Bridge Engineer & documentation of load rating recommendations based on the observed bridge conditions. This program is ongoing.

Culverts – The Department recently developed culvert load ratings charts for new standard culvert designs. This will provide a convenient method in the future to rate new culverts.

Field Methods to Physically Load Rate Concrete Bridges without Plans – The Department is moving forward with a research project to test & develop field load testing methods. The results of the project will provide a valuable alternative for obtaining bridge load ratings where the usual methods (analytical) cannot be performed due to lack of bridge documentation. It is anticipated that load testing will be required for a significant number of locally owned bridges where plan data does not exist.

Load Rating: Plan of Corrective Action is on schedule. Completed 100% ON-SYSTEM, completed 20% OFF-SYSTEM, and Plan of Corrective Action will be complete on March 14, 2014.

3.14.0 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS (INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS) PROGRAM

MAP-21 in effect today continues what SAFETEA-LU established two major program areas regarding ITS. One is the development of a National ITS Program Plan and the other is the development of a Real-Time System Management Plan. The legislation requires that the National ITS Program Plan:

Develops goals, objectives and timelines in specified program/functional areas
Specifies how funds used for operational tests are to be carried out
Identifies how ongoing ITS research shall be conducted, Advisory Committee structure, representation and reporting
Requires research regarding ITS vehicles and infrastructure systems
Establishes priority areas and performance metrics
Requires that applicable National Architecture and Standards be used
Establishes a road weather research and development program

The legislation for the Real-Time Management Plan requires the development of a real-time system management information program to provide traffic and travel conditions on major highways and data exchange formats.

The overall purpose of the ITS Program is to explore new technologies, applications and concepts that may enhance the intelligent transportation system through strategic alliances with other States, agencies and the private sector. In addition, this program is responsible for enhancing the environment for commercial and non-commercial vehicle operations using the State's transportation system. This is accomplished while meeting the goals of the ITS Program, which are to improve safety, reduce traffic delays, increase the ITS system reliability, and enhance information covering mobility options.

3.14.1 Traffic Operations (ITS) Method of Operation

Continued growth in the urban areas on the transportation system in New Mexico has advanced to the degree that congestion, weather and traffic related incidents have impacted the operational efficiency of the system. The NMDOT and FHWA are committed to maintaining an acceptable level of operation on the Interstate System. The NMDOT will lead the effort to develop, deploy and operate ITS and undertake incident management strategies and operations to maximize the efficiency, and safety of the transportation system.

The NMDOT and FHWA will establish the ITS Steering Committee comprised of 2 District Engineers, FHWA ITSPM and the Highway Operations Engineer. The ITS Bureau Chief and the District Three Traffic Engineer will serve as operators and advisors for ITS to the committee. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) will serve as an advisor and support of the ITS operations. The committee shall meet at a minimum of once per year to assess the past progress, review the annual program plan and review the performance indicators.

The NMDOT shall maintain and update a State-wide ITS Architecture Plan in compliance with Title 23 CFR § 940 with concurrence by FHWA. The FHWA will have oversight of the ITS development and deployment. ITS projects shall be developed consistent with the State Architecture Plan (NMDOT) and have a Systems Engineering Analysis performed and submitted for FHWA concurrence. The ITS program shall be managed utilizing asset management principles including inventory, condition, performance and projected replacement of the equipment.

3.14.2 Traffic Operations (ITS) Control Standards / Documents

The following Control Standards / Documents (CS/D) chart lists NMDOT approved manuals, standards, processes, and operating agreements that are either formally approved by FHWA or endorsed by FHWA for use on Federal-Aid projects. Some of these manuals are followed, but do not need any action by FHWA and are denoted in the chart.

Table 3.14-1 Traffic Operations (ITS) CS/D (Update: October 2012)
DESCRIPTION	AGENCY	LAST UPDATE	OWNER	APPROVER	AVAILABILITY	BASIS
DMS Operational Guidelines	NMDOT-ITS	9/2012	Manager ITS Operations	Cabinet Secretary	http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html	MUTCD Compliance
Statewide Architecture	NMDOT-ITS	9/2012	Manager ITS Operations	FHWA ensures in place	http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html	23 CFR 940
AMPA (Albq. Planning Area)	NMDOT-ITS & MRCOG	12/2011	Manager ITS Operations & MRCOG	FHWA ensures in place	http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html	23 CFR 940
Santa Fe Architecture	NMDOT-ITS	12/2011	Manager ITS Operations	FHWA ensures in place	http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html	23 CFR 940
Las Cruces Architecture	NMDOT-ITS	2008	Manager ITS Operations	FHWA ensures in place	http://www.dot.state.nm.us/content/nmdot/en/ITS.html	23 CFR 940
Farmington Architecture	Farmington MPO	In Process	Manager ITS Operations	FHWA ensures in place	Hardcopy (Farmington MPO)	23 CFR 940

3.14.3 Traffic Operation (ITS) Implementation & Methods of Oversight

By January 15th each year, NMDOT shall prepare an annual ITS work plan for the upcoming year. The plan shall include a summary of the progress of the past year and identify the anticipated program for the following year, including performance indicators.

The NMDOT and FHWA shall also conduct FHWA’s Traffic Incident Management Self-Assessment annually, by the end of July, to identify opportunities for continuous improvement. These opportunities will be included in the following years work plan.

The NMDOT shall develop performance indicators, measured on a quarterly basis, as part of the work plan which shall include the following:

ITS system development and deployment progress
Effectiveness of the ITS system operation
Response time of the incident management operation

The NMDOT shall develop and implement an ITS Project Certification for compliance with the systems engineering requirements for all projects pursuant to Title 23 CFR § 940.11. The certification shall become part of the project development process and the responsibility of the Project Development Engineer (PDE) with FHWA concurrence.

Program and risk assessments are reviewed as needed as well as bi-annually through standardized methods established by the Division Office Program Analyst.

3.14.4 Traffic Operations Program & Project Action Responsibility

Table 3.14-2 Traffic Operations (ITS) P&PAR (Update: October 2012)
Activity	Authority	Frequency / Due	NMDOT / Contact	FHWA Contact	Action / Remarks
Conformity with National ITS Architecture	23 CFR 940.5	ITS projects using Highway Trust	Manager ITS Operation	ITS Engineer	NMDOT prepares document; FHWA concurs
Congestion Management System	23 CFR 500.109	As needed/revised by MPO/State	Congestion Management Process sub-committee	State Planner	FHWA ensures that CMP plan is in place
Incident Management	23 CFR 500	Quarterly	District Traffic Operation	State Planner to HQ’s	NMDOT prepares document
Incident Management Assessment	23 CFR 500	Annually by June 1	Traffic & ITS Operations	ITS Engineer	FHWA interviews NMDOT departmental process & FHWA prepares report
ITS Regional Architecture	23 CFR 940.9	Project by project	Manager ITS Operation	ITS Engineer	NMDOT prepares document; FHWA concurs
Project Administration - ITS	23 CFR 940.13	Project by project	Manager ITS Operation	ITS Engineer	NMDOT ensures that projects meet state and federal standards
Regional (and statewide) Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Architecture Maintenance	23 CFR 940.9	As needed	Manager ITS Operation	ITS Engineer	NMDOT ensures compliance of the Architecture
Systems Engineering Analysis Implementation	23 CFR 940.11	As needed	Manager ITS Operation	ITS Engineer	Ensuring that ITS standards meet interoperability
Traffic Engineering and Analysis	23 CFR 940.11	As required	State Traffic Engineer	ITS Engineer	NMDOT ensure project documentation meets requirements
Traffic Operations Performance Data	23 CFR 500	Semi Annually	Traffic Operations	National Programs	Move to Safety
Traffic Surveillance and Control	23 CFR 655.411	Design / Elias Steve Egan			Submitted with w/PS&E submission (full oversight projects)
Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement certification	23 CFR 657.13	Annually by Jan 1	Traffic Operations	National Programs	SAFETY – DPS
Vehicle Size & Weight enforcement plan	23 CFR 657.11	Annually by Oct 1	Traffic Operations	National Programs	SAFETY – DPS
Work Zone Safety Assessment	---	Annually by June 1

3.14.5 Traffic Operations (ITS) Stewardship / Oversight Indicators

The ITS Bureau is directly responsible to report on the following performance measures. These performance indicators will be used to assess the health of the ITS Program:

These performance measures evaluate three elements. Incident response and clearance times, number of incidents that resulted in a road closure in the Albuquerque area of greater than 90 minutes, and the percentage of ITS projects in the Bureau’s annual goals and objectives that were completed within their targeted time frame. The measurements are tracked from the beginning of the calendar year (January) to the end of the calendar year (December). Information for 2012 is year-to-date (YTD). Last quarter is not yet available; therefore, the standard deviation for each parameter was established. If the difference between the mean and this year’s YTD measurements is more than the standard deviation, we would expect to meet that specific goal.

Indicator 3.14.3(a) Performance Average: Time, Time at Incident, Overall Time	Indicator 3.14.3(b) Number of Closures lasting more than 90 minutes

Response and Clearance times should be at or lower than the combined mean of all previous years. 2012 performance measure target was 27.05 minutes. The mean for the combined four years was 30.892. Standard deviation from the mean was 1.89 minutes. The difference between 2012 YTD and the mean (3.84) is more than the standard deviation (1.89). Target was fulfilled.	Percentage of completed targets should be at or lower than the combined mean of all previous years. The following tracks that from 2007 to 2012. Because it’s YTD, a quarter is still outstanding. Using a straight line weighting, we expect probably 2 more events to occur this year, bringing the estimated number of events to be 9. Performance Measure Target for 2012 (7 YTD+ 2 anticipated or a weighted value of 9 full road closures) was less than the combined average over the previous years (12 full road closures). Target was met.
Indicator 3.14.3(c) Percent of ITS Projects Completed	(Intentionally left blank)
	(Intentionally left blank)
Every year the ITS Bureau establishes its annual goals and objectives. Within it are projects that are designed to meet each of the District’s ITS needs, as defined in their respective ITS plans. These projects have been categorized as near-term projects (those that are expected to be completed within a 3-month time period), mid-term projects (those that are expected to be completed within a 6-month time period), long-term projects (those that are expected be completed by year’s end) and extended-term projects (those that are expected to go beyond a year for completion). This year there was a total of 39 projects, 12 as near-term, 8 as mid-term, 13 as long-term, and 6 as extended term. All near-term projects have been completed. Four (4) of the twelve (12) were completed within the 3-month target window; six (6) were completed within four (4) months (first week in April); one (1) was completed within five (5) months; and one (1) was completed within six (6) months. Of the eight (8) mid-term projects, four (4) have been completed, three (3) within the six-month target window, one (1) within eight (1) months. The remaining four (4) are in progress. Three (3) of these are expected to be completed by the end of September (9-month window); the remaining mid-term project will (installation of network switch) is expected to be completed before year’s end. It is in the controlled ‘burn-in’ phase, required for ensured reliability. Of the thirteen (13) long-term projects (once again, those that are to be completed within a year’s time frame), two (2) have been completed. We expect to complete three (3) of the remaining eleven (11) within the remainder of the calendar year. The remaining nine (9) are expected to be re-classified as extended-term projects. Of the six (6) extended-term projects, two (2) are expected to be completed within this calendar year. The remaining four (4) are anticipated to begin after the new year, and come into next year’s annual goals and objectives as near-term projects. The biggest gap is with the shift associated with the nine (9) long-term projects. A variety of issues attributed to this. Some of the projects have proved problematic in the lack of a communications infrastructure in the installation area (we typically use outside, private networks such as AT&T, Verizon, and regional internet service providers). When we established the projects, we anticipated service areas were going to be extended. This did not occur. We also faced an issue with the availability of qualified installation personnel. There are a limited number of providers in the Albuquerque area, and they are also being used for city and county projects. This created a demand with limited supply. Another contributing factor of this year’s performance versus previous years is that we previously had access to on-call task-driven professional service contracts to assist on project design. That option was not available to us this year. It required us to rely on internal capacity for ITS projects, which in turn resulted in unavoidable delay. This year is a 50% year, meaning we cannot expend our budget beyond the corresponding percentage of the term of the fiscal year (cannot spend more than 50% before being halfway through the fiscal year). Our annual goals and objectives are established for a calendar year. To that end, most of our earlier projects (near-term and mid-term) were completed within anticipated targets. The long-term targets were compromised by this and a recent back-log (4 months) of manufacturing deliveries for ITS equipment. The effective window for installation after delivery is reduced from a 4-5 month window to two (2) months. And finally, though the number of projects is relatively consistent with previous years, the complexity and content of this year’s goals and objectives created a more ambitious agenda.	(Intentionally left blank)

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

Return to top

Page last modified on January 31, 2017