23 CFR 667 Resiliency Requirements on Federal Aid Projects

The 23 CFR 667 requirement is a federal regulation mandating state and local agencies to conduct periodic evaluations of their transportation facilities that have been repeatedly damaged by emergency events, such as natural disasters or catastrophic failures.

The regulation enacting resiliency requirements to federal projects was enacted in 2016 as part of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) and applies to facilities on the National Highway System (NHS). The FAST Act then supplemented the MAP-21 resiliency requirements with added provisions to protect critical transportation infrastructure to projects on the federal-aid roadway system.  The result of these two Acts is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations under 23 CFR 667.

The purpose of project evaluations on the federal-aid roadway system is to ensure local agencies managing federal-aid roads with locations of repeated disaster damage are identifying and considering reasonable alternatives to their project scopes that may reduce the need for future repairs, protect public safety, protect the environment, while still meeting their transportation needs.

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) create and maintain the Sites of Repeated Disaster Damage (SORDD) table and the subsequent 23 CFR 667 Resiliency Evaluation Certification on federally funded projects.  Caltrans maintains the SORRD table, which is located on the Division of Local Assistance (DLA) Emergency Relief (ER) program web page.  The table is updated after every ER eligible disaster event, to determine if any new locations should be added to the table.  A minimum of once, every four years, the entire table is reviewed and updated as needed.

Note: “repeatedly damaged facilities” are roads, highways, and bridges that have required repair and reconstruction activities on two or more occasions due to natural disasters or catastrophic failures resulting in emergencies declared by the Governor of the State or the President (23 CFR 667.1). For purposes of 23 CFR part 667 evaluations, a catastrophic failure is a sudden failure of a major element or segment of a road, highway, or bridge due to an external cause (23 CFR 667.3). The failure must not be primarily attributable to gradual and progressive deterioration or lack of proper maintenance (23 CFR 667.3).

Please refer to the link here for FHWA Questions and Answers Regarding Implementation of 23 CFR Part 667.Accordion text body will be here.

Achieving compliance with 23 CFR 667 involves a streamlined three-step procedure, outlined as follows:

  1. Evaluate - Conduct an initial assessment of the proposed project to identify any sites with repeated disaster damage.
    1. If repeated disaster damage sites are present within the project limits, explore reasonable alternatives to address the root cause.
    2. If no such sites are identified, no further alternatives need to be considered.
  2. Document - Record the evaluation process, including the consideration of alternatives if applicable. Maintain this documentation in the project folder for reference.
  3. Report - Be prepared to furnish this documentation to FHWA and Caltrans upon request. FHWA conducts regular reviews and reports to Congress on this compliance requirement.

These steps must be completed for all FHWA federal-aid projects before:

  • The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) includes the project's Right-of-Way (RW) and Construction (CON) phases in the Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP)/Federal State Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP).
  • Caltrans authorizes federal funding for the project's RW and CON phases.

Each step is described in more detail below:

  1. Evaluate

    Evaluation involves determining if there are repeated disaster damage sites within the proposed project limits by cross-referencing the project location with the Sites Of Repeated Disaster Damage (SORDD) list.  If such sites are found, explore reasonable alternatives to address the root cause of the repeated damage.

    The 23 CFR 667 regulation requires the evaluation and consideration of alternatives to be completed before the following project milestones are reached:

  • National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process completion.
  • Selection of the project’s “preferred alternative.”
  • Authorization of federal funding for Right-of-Way (RW) and Construction (CON) phases of work.

    In evaluating the project, agencies are encouraged to consider using a Benefit-Cost (B-C) Analysis.  Links to FHWA templates and guidance for the FHWA Discretionary programs are provided below, which may be used for this purpose. Keep in mind, the 23 CFR 667 requirement is to consider alternatives, and implementation is not mandatory. It is important to adequately document the evaluation and consideration of alternatives effort, so it can be later shown the project complied with 23 CFR 667.

  1. Document

    Once the Evaluation is completed, it is important to retain documentation of the Evaluation and result in the project files.  This shows FHWA, and other auditing agencies, the project followed the process and thus complies with the 23 CFR 667 requirements.  These documents may be required by the MPO or Rural RTPA before they program the project's Right-of-Way (RW) and Construction (CON) phases into the FTIP/FSTIP, as required by 23 CFR 667.  Please note, failure to provide adequate documentation for compliance with the 23 CFR 667 Resiliency Requirements may result in loss of federal funding for the project.

  2. Report

Per 23 CFR 667, FHWA will conduct periodic reviews of the 23 CFR 667 compliance on local agency, RTPA, and MPO projects. 

For this reason, it is essential that administering agencies (i.e., local agencies, MPOs, and rural RTPAs, as applicable) of federally funded projects located on the federal-aid roadway system maintain documentation that would demonstrate project compliance with 23 CFR 667 requirements. This documentation must be maintained and provided, upon request, to FHWA and Caltrans.  FHWA will use the information requested as part of their compliance review and assessment, which is required under 23 CFR 667.9(b).  The FHWA review encompasses evaluating performance, considering results during project development, and overall project outcomes. Regular audits ensure ongoing compliance. Non-compliance with this regulation could result in loss of federal funds for the delinquent project and may inhibit the local agency's ability to secure federal funds for future FHWA funded projects.

All federally funded road and bridge projects must comply with the 23 CFR 667 Resiliency requirements, with only a few limited exceptions.  Theses exceptions are:

  1. Road and bridge projects on a Federally Owned (FO) or Tribe owned roadway (FO roads are typically owned and maintained by a federal agency; examples include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, etc.).
  2. Emergency Opening repairs (EO) on Emergency Relief (ER) funded projects.  (ER program project’s Permanent Repairs being administered under the regular ER process are not exempt from the 23 CFR 667 Requirement).

The Permanent Repair (PR) portion of ER projects is not exempt and must comply with 23 CFR 667 requirements.  Although ER projects are exempt from the FTIP/FSTIP programming requirement, ER projects must still comply with 23 CFR 667 prior to completing NEPA document, selecting a preferred alternative, and receiving federal funding for the PR RW and CON phases of work.  If you have any questions on whether an ER project is exempt from the 23 CFR 667 process, please contact your assigned District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE).

For more information concerning SORDD List, Forms, and Process contact:

Daniel Karavan

Emergency Relief and Other Federal Programs Coordinator

Office of Federal Programs

Division of Local Assistance

California Department of Transportation

For more information concerning FTIP/FSTIP Compliance contact:

Peter Kang

FSTIP Coordinator

Office of Federal Programming & Data Management

Division of Financial Programming


Also, please feel free to send comments regarding this web site to the DLA Webmaster.