Appendix A--Linking
the Transportation Planning and NEPA
Processes
General
Issues To Be Considered
Affected
Environment and Environmental Consequences
Post and view comments on the Background and Overview Section
For 40 years, the Congress has directed that federally-funded
highway and transit projects must flow from metropolitan and
statewide transportation planning processes (pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306). Over the years, the Congress has
refined and strengthened the transportation planning process as the
foundation for project decisions, emphasizing public involvement,
consideration of environment and other factors, and a Federal role
that oversees the transportation planning process but does not
second-guess the content of transportation plans and programs.
Despite this statutory emphasis on transportation planning, the
environmental analyses produced to meet the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4231 et
seq.) have often been conducted de novo, disconnected from the
analyses used to develop long-range transportation plans, statewide
and metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs/TIPs),
planning-level corridor/subarea/feasibility studies, or FTA's
planning Alternatives Analyses. When the NEPA and transportation
planning processes are not well coordinated, the NEPA process may
lead to the development of information that is more appropriately
developed in the planning process, resulting in duplication of work
and delays in transportation improvements.
The purpose of this Appendix is to change this culture, by
supporting congressional intent that statewide and metropolitan
transportation planning should be the foundation for highway and
transit project decisions. This Appendix was crafted to recognize
that transportation planning processes vary across the country. This
document provides details on how information, analysis, and products
from transportation planning can be incorporated into and relied
upon in NEPA documents under existing laws, regardless of when the
Notice of Intent has been published. This Appendix presents
environmental review as a continuum of sequential study, refinement,
and expansion performed in transportation planning and during
project development/NEPA, with information developed and conclusions
drawn in early stages utilized in subsequent (and more detailed)
review stages.
The information below is intended for use by State departments
of transportation (State DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs), and public transportation operators to clarify the
circumstances under which transportation planning level choices and
analyses can be adopted or incorporated into the process required by
NEPA. Additionally, the FHWA and the FTA will work with Federal
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies to incorporate the
principles of this Appendix in their day-to-day NEPA policies and
procedures related to their involvement in highway and transit
projects.
This Appendix does not extend NEPA requirements to
transportation plans and programs. The Transportation Efficiency Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
specifically exempted transportation plans and programs from NEPA
review. Therefore, initiating the NEPA process as part of, or
concurrently with, a transportation planning study does not subject
transportation plans and programs to NEPA.
Implementation of this Appendix by States, MPOs, and public
transportation operators is voluntary. The degree to which studies,
analyses, or conclusions from the transportation planning process
can be incorporated into the project development/NEPA processes will
depend upon how well they meet certain standards established by NEPA
regulations and guidance. While some transportation planning
processes already meet these standards, others will need some
modification.
The remainder of this Appendix document utilizes a ``Question
and Answer'' format, organized into three primary categories
(``Procedural,'' ``Substantive,'' and ``Administrative Issues'').
Post a comment on the Procedural Questions Section
1. In what format should the transportation planning information be
included?
To be included in the NEPA process, work from the transportation
planning process must be documented in a form that can be appended
to the NEPA document or incorporated by reference. Documents may be
incorporated by reference if they are readily available so as to not
impede agency or public review of the action. Any document
incorporated by reference must be ``reasonably available for
inspection by potentially interested persons within the time allowed
for comment.'' Incorporated materials must be cited in the NEPA
document and their contents briefly described, so that the reader
understands why the document is cited and knows where to look for
further information. To the extent possible, the documentation
should be in a form such as official actions by the MPO and/or
correspondence within and among the organizations involved in the
transportation planning process.
2. What is a reasonable level of detail for a planning product that is
intended to be used in a NEPA document? How does this level of detail
compare to what is considered a full NEPA analysis?
For purposes of transportation planning alone, a planning-level
analysis does not need to rise to the level of detail required in
the NEPA process. Rather, it needs to be accurate and up-to-date,
and should adequately support recommended improvements in the
statewide or metropolitan long-range transportation plan. The
SAFETEA-LU requires transportation planning processes to focus on
setting a context and following acceptable procedures. For example,
the SAFETEA-LU requires a ``discussion of the types of potential
environmental mitigation activities'' and potential areas for their
implementation, rather than details on specific strategies. The
SAFETEA-LU also emphasizes consultation with Federal, State, and
Tribal land management, wildlife, and regulatory agencies.
However, the Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) ultimately will be judged by the standards
applicable under the NEPA regulations and guidance from the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ). To the extent the information
incorporated from the transportation planning process, standing
alone, does not contain all of the information or analysis required
by NEPA, then it will need to be supplemented by other information
contained in the EIS or EA that would, in conjunction with the
information from the plan, collectively meet the requirements of
NEPA. The intent is not to require NEPA studies in the
transportation planning process. As an option, the NEPA analyses
prepared for project development can be integrated with
transportation planning studies (see the response to Question 9 for
additional information).
3. What type and extent of involvement from Federal, Tribal, State, and
local environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies is needed in the
transportation planning process in order for planning-level decisions
to be more readily accepted in the NEPA process?
Sections 3005, 3006, and 6001 of the SAFETEA-LU established
formal consultation requirements for MPOs and State DOTs to employ
with environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the
development of long-range transportation plans. For example,
metropolitan transportation plans now ``shall include a discussion
of the types of potential environmental mitigation activities and
potential areas to carry out these activities, including activities
that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the
environmental functions affected by the [transportation] plan,'' and
that these planning-level discussions ``shall be developed in
consultation with Federal, State, and Tribal land management,
wildlife, and regulatory agencies.'' In addition, MPOs ``shall
consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies responsible
for land use management, natural resources, environmental
protection, conservation, and historic preservation concerning the
development of a long-range transportation plan,'' and that this
consultation ``shall involve, as appropriate, comparison of
transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps, if
available, or comparison of transportation plans to inventories of
natural or historic resources, if available.'' Similar SAFETEA-LU
language addresses the development of the long-range statewide
transportation plan, with the addition of Tribal conservation plans
or maps to this planning-level ``comparison.''
In addition, section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU established several
mechanisms for increased efficiency in environmental reviews for
project decision-making. For example, the term ``lead agency'' means
the U. S. Department of Transportation and, if applicable, any State
or local government entity serving as a joint lead agency for the
NEPA process. In addition, the lead agency is responsible for
inviting and designating ``participating agencies'' (i.e., other
Federal or non-Federal agencies that may have an interest in the
proposed project). Any Federal agency that is invited by the lead
agency to participate in the environmental review process for a
project shall be designated as a participating agency by the lead
agency unless the invited agency informs the lead agency, in
writing, by the deadline specified in the invitation that the
invited agency: (a) Has no jurisdiction or authority with respect to
the project; (b) has no expertise or information relevant to the
project; and (c) does not intend to submit comments on the project.
Past successful examples of using transportation planning
products in NEPA analysis are based on early and continuous
involvement of environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies.
Without this early coordination, environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies are more likely to expect decisions made or
analyses conducted in the transportation planning process to be
revisited during the NEPA process. Early participation in
transportation planning provides environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies better insight into the needs and objectives of
the locality. Additionally, early participation provides an
important opportunity for environmental, regulatory, and resource
agency concerns to be identified and addressed early in the process,
such as those related to permit applications. Moreover, Federal,
Tribal, and State, and local environmental, regulatory, and resource
agencies are able to share data on particular resources, which can
play a critical role in determining the feasibility of a
transportation solution with respect to environmental impacts. The
use of other agency planning outputs can result in a transportation
project that could support multiple goals (transportation,
environmental, and community). Further, planning decisions by these
other agencies may have impacts on long-range transportation plans
and/or the STIP/TIP, thereby providing important input to the
transportation planning process and advancing integrated decision-
making.
Transportation planning products can provide watershed and
landscape-level approaches to mitigation that address indirect and
cumulative impacts, which must be considered under NEPA. Such broad
scale approaches focus on the natural resources within a particular
ecosystem or watershed and look at the most critical or high quality
resources, rather than focusing narrowly on mitigating at the direct
location of impact. Techniques have been developed to better avoid,
minimize, and mitigate these impacts, as well as the impacts of past
infrastructure projects, on a project-specific basis. However, the
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts used may not always
provide the greatest environmental benefit, or may do very little to
promote ecosystem sustainability. To address concern, the FHWA and
seven other Federal agencies produced Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem
Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. (See http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ecological.pdf.) Eco-Logical
encourages Federal, State, tribal and local partners involved in
infrastructure planning, design, review, and construction to use
flexibility in regulatory processes. Employing available planning
resources such as each State's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy, Eco-Logical puts forth the conceptual groundwork for
integrating plans across agency boundaries, and endorses ecosystem-
based mitigation--an innovative method of mitigating infrastructure
impacts that cannot be avoided.
The FHWA has emphasized that wetland and natural habitat
mitigation measures, such as wetland and habitat banks or statewide
and regional conservation measures, are eligible for Federal-aid
participation when they are undertaken to create mitigation
resources for future transportation projects. In its March 10, 2005,
memorandum on Wetland and Natural Habitat Mitigation, the FHWA
clarified that, to provide for wetland or other mitigation banks,
the State DOT and the FHWA Division Office should identify potential
future wetlands and habitat mitigation needs for a reasonable time
frame and establish a need for the mitigation credits. The
transportation planning process should guide the determination of
future mitigation needs.'' (See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/wethabmitmem.htm.)
4. What is the procedure for using decisions or analyses from the
transportation planning process?
The FHWA and the FTA, as the lead Federal agencies, will have
the final say on what processes and consultation techniques are used
to determine the transportation planning products that will be
incorporated into the NEPA process. At a minimum, a robust scoping/
early coordination process (which explains to Federal and State
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies and the public the
information and/or analyses utilized to develop the planning
products, how the purpose and need was developed and refined, and
how the design concept and scope were determined) should play a
critical role in leading to informed FHWA/FTA decisions on the
suitability of the transportation planning information, analyses,
documents, and decisions for use in the NEPA process. As part of a
rigorous scoping/early coordination process, the FHWA and the FTA
should ensure that the transportation planning results are
appropriately documented, shared, and used.
5. To what extent can the FHWA/FTA provide up-front assurance that
decisions and additional investments made in the transportation
planning process will allow planning-level decisions and analyses to be
used in the NEPA process?
There are no guarantees. However, the potential is greatly
improved for transportation planning processes that address the ``3-
C'' planning principles (comprehensive, cooperative, and
continuous); incorporate the intent of NEPA through the
consideration of natural, physical, and social effects; involve
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies; thoroughly
document the transportation planning process information, analysis,
and decision; and vet the planning results through the applicable
public involvement processes.
6. What considerations will the FHWA/FTA take into account in their
review of transportation planning products for acceptance in project
development/NEPA?
The FHWA and the FTA will give deference to decisions resulting
from the transportation planning process if the FHWA and FTA
determine that the planning process is consistent with the ``3-C''
planning principles and when the planning study process,
alternatives considered, and resulting decisions have a rational
basis that is thoroughly documented and vetted through the
applicable public involvement processes. Moreover, any applicable
program-specific requirements (e.g., the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality Improvement Program or the FTA's Capital Investment
Grant program) also must be met.
The NEPA requires that the FHWA and the FTA be able to stand
behind the overall soundness and credibility of analyses conducted
and decisions made during the transportation planning process if
they are incorporated into a NEPA document. For example, if systems-
level or other broad objectives or choices from the transportation
plan are incorporated into the purpose and need statement for a NEPA
document, the FHWA and the FTA should not revisit whether these are
the best objectives or choices among other options. Rather, the FHWA
and the FTA review would include making sure that objectives or
choices derived from the transportation plan were: Based on
transportation planning factors established by Federal law; reflect
a credible and articulated planning rationale; founded on reliable
data; and developed through transportation planning processes
meeting FHWA and FTA statutory and regulatory requirements. In
addition, the basis for the goals and choices must be documented and
included in the NEPA document. The FHWA/FTA reviewers do not need to
review whether assumptions or analytical methods used in the studies
are the best available, but, instead, need to assure that such
assumptions or analytical methods are reasonable, scientifically
acceptable, and consistent with goals, objectives, and policies set
forth in long-range transportation plans. This review would include
determining whether: (a) Assumptions have a rational basis and are
up-to-date and (b) data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques
are reliable, defensible, reasonably current, and meet data quality
requirements.
Post and view comments on Question #7: General issues
7. What should be considered in order to rely upon transportation
planning studies in NEPA?
The following questions should be answered prior to accepting
studies conducted during the transportation planning process for use
in NEPA. While not a ``checklist,'' these questions are intended to
guide the practitioner's analysis of the planning products:
How much time has passed since the planning studies and
corresponding decisions were made?
Were the future year policy assumptions used in the
NEPA study related to land use, economic development, transportation
costs, and network expansion consistent with those developed and
used in the transportation planning process?
Is the information still relevant/valid?
What changes have occurred in the area since the study
was completed?
Is the information in a format that can be appended to
an environmental document or reformatted to do so?
Are the analyses in a planning-level report or document
based on data, analytical methods, and modeling techniques that are
reliable, defensible, and consistent with that used in other
regional transportation studies and project development activities?
Were the FHWA and FTA, other agencies, and the public
involved in the relevant planning analysis and the corresponding
planning decisions?
Were the planning products available to other agencies
at NEPA scoping?
At NEPA scoping, was a clear connection between the
decisions made in planning and those to be made during the project
development stage explained to the public and others? What was the
response?
Are natural resource and land use plans being informed
by transportation planning products, and vice versa?
Post comments on Questions #8 and #9: Purpose and Need
8. How can transportation planning be used to shape a project's purpose
and need in the NEPA process?
A sound transportation planning process is the primary source of
the project purpose and need. Through transportation planning, State
and local governments, with involvement of stakeholders and the
public, establish a vision for the region's future transportation
system, define transportation goals and objectives for realizing
that vision, decide which needs to address, and determine the
timeframe for addressing these issues. The transportation planning
process also provides a potential forum to define a project's
purpose and need by framing the scope of the problem to be addressed
by a proposed project. This scope may be further refined during the
transportation planning process as more information about the
transportation need is collected and consultation with the public
and other stakeholders clarifies other issues and goals for the
region.
Section 6002 of the SAFETEA-LU also provided additional focus
regarding the definition of the purpose and need and objectives. For
example, the lead agency, as early as practicable during the
environmental review process, shall provide an opportunity for
involvement by participating agencies and the public in defining the
purpose and need for a project. The statement of purpose and need
shall include a clear statement of the objectives that the proposed
action is intended to achieve, which may include: (a) Achieving a
transportation objective identified in an applicable statewide or
metropolitan transportation plan; (b) supporting land use, economic
development, or growth objectives established in applicable Federal,
State, local, or Tribal plans; and (c) serving national defense,
national security, or other national objectives, as established in
Federal laws, plans, or policies.
The transportation planning process can be utilized to develop
the purpose and need in the following ways:
(a) Goals and objectives from the transportation planning
process may be part of the project's purpose and need statement;
(b) A general travel corridor or general mode or modes (i.e.,
highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) resulting from
planning analyses may be part of the project's purpose and need
statement;
(c) If the financial plan for a metropolitan transportation plan
indicates that funding for a specific project will require special
funding sources (e.g., tolls or public-private financing), such
information may be included in the purpose and need statement; or
(d) The results of analyses from management systems (e.g.,
congestion, pavement, bridge, and/or safety) may shape the purpose
and need statement.
The use of these planning-level goals and choices must be
appropriately explained in the NEPA document.
Consistent with NEPA, the purpose and need statement should be a
statement of a transportation problem, not a specific solution.
However, the purpose and need statement should be specific enough to
generate alternatives that may potentially yield real solutions to
the problem at-hand. A purpose and need statement that yields only
one alternative may indicate a purpose and need that is too narrowly
defined.
Short of a fully integrated transportation decisionmaking
process, many State DOTs develop information for their purpose and
need statements when implementing interagency NEPA/Section 404
process merger agreements. These agreements may need to be expanded
to include commitments to share and utilize transportation planning
products when developing a project's purpose and need.
9. Under what conditions can the NEPA process be initiated in
conjunction with transportation planning studies?
Post comments on Questions #8 and #9: Purpose and Need
The NEPA process may be initiated in conjunction with
transportation planning studies in a number of ways. A common method
is the ``tiered EIS,'' in which general travel corridors, modes,
and/or packages of projects are evaluated at a planning level of
detail, leading to the refinement of purpose and need and, ideally,
selection of the design concept and scope for a subsequent project
or series of projects. The tiered EIS uses the NEPA process as a
tool to involve environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies and
the public in these decisions, as well as to ensure the appropriate
consideration of environmental factors in these planning-level
decisions.
Corridor or subarea analyses/studies are another option when the
long-range transportation plan leaves open the possibility of
multiple approaches to fulfill its goals and objectives. In such
cases, the formal NEPA process could be initiated through
publication of a NOI in conjunction with a corridor or subarea
study. Similarly, some public transportation operators developing
major capital projects perform the planning Alternatives Analysis
required for funding under FTA's Capital Investment Grant program
found in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e) within the NEPA process and
combine the planning Alternatives Analysis with the draft NEPA
document.
10. In the context of this Appendix, what is the meaning of the term
``alternatives?''
Post comments on Questions 10, 11, and 12: Alternatives
This Appendix uses the term ``alternatives'' as specified in the
NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14), where it is defined in its
broadest sense to include everything from major modal alternatives
and location alternatives to minor design changes that would
mitigate adverse impacts. This Appendix does not use the term as it
is used in many other contexts (e.g., ``prudent and feasible
alternatives'' under Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, the ``Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable
Alternative'' under the Clean Water Act, or the planning
Alternatives Analysis in 49 U.S.C. 5309(d) and (e)).
However, as early as possible in the transportation planning
stage of any project, a determination should be made as to whether
the alternatives to be considered will need to be used to satisfy
multiple statutory and regulatory requirements that will be
addressed during the subsequent project development process as an
integral part of the NEPA process. If so, during transportation
planning, the alternatives chosen for consideration and the analysis
of those alternatives should reflect the multiple objectives that
must be addressed. For example, if a potential project would require
a Section 404 permit, ideally there would be coordination with the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and some level of agreement from
the COE that the alternatives considered are broad enough to allow
for the ultimate development of a Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative. In this case, screening of alternatives for
the presence of important wetlands based on geographic information
systems (GIS) or other planning-level data sources would be
appropriate to support this early determination.
11. Under what circumstances can alternatives be eliminated from
detailed consideration during the NEPA process based on information and
analysis from the transportation planning process?
Post comments on Questions 10, 11, and 12: Alternatives
There are two ways in which the transportation planning process
can begin limiting the alternative solutions to be evaluated during
the NEPA process: (a) Shaping the purpose and need for the project;
or (b) evaluating alternatives during planning studies and
eliminating some of the alternatives from detailed study in the NEPA
process prior to the start of the project-level NEPA process. Each
approach requires careful attention, and is summarized below.
(a) Shaping the Purpose and Need for the Project: The
transportation planning process should shape the purpose and need and, thereby, the range of reasonable alternatives. With proper documentation and public
involvement, a purpose and need derived from the planning process
can legitimately narrow the alternatives analyzed in the NEPA
process. See the response to Question 8 for further discussion on
how the planning process can shape the purpose and need used in the
NEPA process.
For example, the purpose and need may be shaped by the
transportation planning process in a manner that consequently
narrows the range of alternatives that must be considered in detail
in the NEPA document when:
(1) The transportation planning process has selected a general
travel corridor as best addressing identified transportation
problems and the rationale for the determination in the planning
document is reflected in the purpose and need statement of the
subsequent NEPA document;
(2) The transportation planning process has selected a general
mode (i.e., highway, transit, or a highway/transit combination) that
accomplishes its goals and objectives, and these documented
determinations are reflected in the purpose and need statement of
the subsequent NEPA document; or
(3) The transportation planning process determines that the
project needs to be funded by tolls or other non-traditional funding
sources in order for the long-range transportation plan to be
fiscally constrained or identifies goals and objectives that can
only be met by toll roads or other non-traditional funding sources,
and that determination of those goals and objectives is reflected in
the purpose and need statement of the subsequent NEPA document.
(b) Evaluating and Eliminating Alternatives During the
Transportation Planning Process: The evaluation and elimination of
alternatives during the transportation planning process can be
incorporated by reference into a NEPA document under certain
circumstances. In these cases, the planning study becomes part of
the NEPA process and provides a basis for screening out
alternatives. As with any part of the NEPA process, the analysis of
alternatives to be incorporated from the process must have a
rational basis that has been thoroughly documented (including
documentation of the necessary and appropriate vetting through the
applicable public involvement processes). This record should be made
available for public review during the NEPA scoping process.
See responses to Questions 4, 5, 6, and 7 for additional
elements to consider with respect to acceptance of planning products
for NEPA documentation and the response to Question 12 on the
information or analysis from the transportation planning process
necessary for supporting the elimination of an alternative(s) from
detailed consideration in the NEPA process.
For instance, under FTA's Capital Investment Grant program, the
alternatives considered in the NEPA process may be narrowed in those
instances that the planning Alternatives Analysis required by 49
U.S.C. 5309(e) is conducted as a planning study prior to the NEPA
review. In fact, the FTA may be able to narrow the alternatives
considered in detail in the NEPA document to the No-Build (No
Action) alternative and the Locally Preferred Alternative.
Alternatives must meet the following criteria if they are deemed
sufficiently considered by a planning Alternatives Analysis under
FTA's Capital Investment Grant program conducted prior to NEPA
without a programmatic NEPA analysis and documentation:
During the planning Alternatives Analysis, all of the
reasonable alternatives under consideration must be fully evaluated
in terms of their transportation impacts; capital and operating
costs; social, economic, and environmental impacts; and technical
considerations;
There must be appropriate public involvement in the
planning Alternatives Analysis;
The appropriate Federal, State, and local
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies must be engaged in
the planning Alternatives Analysis;
The results of the planning Alternatives Analysis must
be documented;
The NEPA scoping participants must agree on the
alternatives that will be considered in the NEPA review; and
The subsequent NEPA document must include the
evaluation of alternatives from the planning Alternatives Analysis.
The above criteria apply specifically to FTA's Capital
Investment Grant process. However, for other transportation
projects, if the planning process has included the analysis and
stakeholder involvement that would be undertaken in a first tier
NEPA process, then the alternatives screening conducted in the
transportation planning process may be incorporated by reference,
described, and relied upon in the project-level NEPA document. At
that point, the project-level NEPA analysis can focus on the
remaining alternatives.
12. What information or analysis from the transportation planning
process is needed in an EA or EIS to support the elimination of an
alternative(s) from detailed consideration?
Post comments on Questions 10, 11, and 12: Alternatives
The section of the EA or EIS that discusses alternatives
considered but eliminated from detailed consideration should:
(a) Identify any alternatives eliminated during the
transportation planning process (this could include broad categories
of alternatives, as when a long-range transportation plan selects a
general travel corridor based on a corridor study, thereby
eliminating all alternatives along other alignments);
(b) Briefly summarize the reasons for eliminating the
alternative; and
(c) Include a summary of the analysis process that supports the
elimination of alternatives (the summary should reference the
relevant sections or pages of the analysis or study) and incorporate
it by reference or append it to the NEPA document.
Any analyses or studies used to eliminate alternatives from
detailed consideration should be made available to the public and
affected agencies during the NEPA scoping process and should be
reasonably available during comment periods.
Alternatives passed over during the transportation planning
process because they are infeasible or do not meet the NEPA
``purpose and need'' can be omitted from the detailed analysis of
alternatives in the NEPA document, as long as the rationale for
elimination is explained in the NEPA document. Alternatives that
remain ``reasonable'' after the planning-level analysis must be
addressed in the EIS, even when they clearly are not the preferred
alternative. When the proposed action evaluated in an EA involves
unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available
resources, NEPA requires that appropriate alternatives be studied,
developed, and described.
13. What types of planning products provide analysis of the affected
environment and environmental consequences that are useful in a
project-level NEPA analysis and document?
Post comments on Questions #13 and #14: Environmental Consequences
The following planning products are valuable inputs to the
discussion of the affected environment and environmental
consequences (both its current state and future state in the absence
of the proposed action) in the project-level NEPA analysis and
document:
Regional development and growth analyses;
Local land use, growth management, or development
plans; and
Population and employment projections.
The following are types of information, analysis, and other
products from the transportation planning process that can be used
in the discussion of the affected environment and environmental
consequences in an EA or EIS:
(a) GIS overlays showing the past, current, or predicted future
conditions of the natural and built environments;
(b) Environmental scans that identify environmental resources
and environmentally sensitive areas;
(c) Descriptions of airsheds and watersheds;
(d) Demographic trends and forecasts;
(e) Projections of future land use, natural resource
conservation areas, and development; and
(f) The outputs of natural resource planning efforts, such as
wildlife conservation plans, watershed plans, and multiple species
habitat conservation plans.
However, in most cases, the assessment of the affected
environment and environmental consequences conducted during the
transportation planning process will not be detailed enough to meet
NEPA standards and, thus, the inventory and evaluation of affected
resources and the analysis of consequences of the alternatives will
need to be supplemented with more refined analysis and possibly
site-specific details during the NEPA process.
14. What information from the transportation planning process is useful
in describing a baseline for the NEPA analysis of indirect and
cumulative impacts?
Post comments on Questions #13 and #14: Environmental Consequences
Because the nature of the transportation planning process is to
look broadly at future land use, development, population increases, and other growth
factors, the planning analysis can provide the basis for the
assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts required under NEPA.
The consideration in the transportation planning process of
development, growth, and consistency with local land use, growth
management, or development plans, as well as population and
employment projections, provides an overview of the multitude of
factors in an area that are creating pressures not only on the
transportation system, but on the natural ecosystem and important
environmental and community resources. An analysis of all reasonably
foreseeable actions in the area also should be a part of the
transportation planning process. This planning-level information
should be captured and utilized in the analysis of indirect and
cumulative impacts during the NEPA process.
To be used in the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts,
such information should:
(a) Be sufficiently detailed that differences in consequences of
alternatives can be readily identified;
(b) Be based on current data (e.g., data from the most recent
Census) or be updated by additional information;
(c) Be based on reasonable assumptions that are clearly stated;
and/or
(d) Rely on analytical methods and modeling techniques that are
reliable, defensible, and reasonably current.
15. How can planning-level efforts best support advanced mitigation,
banking, and priorities for environmental mitigation investments?
Post and view comments on Question #15
A lesson learned from efforts to establish mitigation banks and
advance mitigation agreements and alternative mitigation options is
the importance of beginning interagency discussions during the
transportation planning process. Development pressures, habitat
alteration, complicated real estate transactions, and competition
for potential mitigation sites by public and private project
proponents can encumber the already difficult task of mitigating for
``like'' value and function and reinforce the need to examine
mitigation strategies as early as possible.
Robust use of remote sensing, GIS, and decision support systems
for evaluating conservation strategies are all contributing to the
advancement of natural resource and environmental planning. The
outputs from environmental planning can now better inform
transportation planning processes, including the development of
mitigation strategies, so that transportation and conservation goals
can be optimally met. For example, long-range transportation plans
can be screened to assess the effect of general travel corridors or
density, on the viability of sensitive plant and animal species or
habitats. This type of screening provides a basis for early
collaboration among transportation and environmental staffs, the
public, and regulatory agencies to explore areas where impacts must
be avoided and identify areas for mitigation investments. This can
lead to mitigation strategies that are both more economical and more
effective from an environmental stewardship perspective than
traditional project-specific mitigation measures.
Post and view comments on Administrative Issues
16. Are Federal funds eligible to pay for these additional, or more in
depth, environmental studies in transportation planning?
Yes. For example, the following FHWA and FTA funds may be
utilized for conducting environmental studies and analyses within
transportation planning:
FHWA planning and research funds, as defined under 23
CFR part 420 (e.g., Metropolitan Planning (PL), Statewide Planning
and Research (SPR),
Transportation Program (STP), and Equity Bonus); and
FTA planning and research funds (49 U.S.C. 5303 and 49
U.S.C. 5313(b)), urban formula funds (49 U.S.C. 5307), and (in
limited circumstances) transit capital investment funds (49 U.S.C.
5309).
The eligible transportation planning-related uses of these funds
may include: (a) Conducting feasibility or subarea/corridor needs
studies and (b) developing system-wide environmental information/
inventories (e.g., wetland banking inventories or standards to
identify historically significant sites). Particularly in the case
of PL and SPR funds, the proposed expenditure must be closely
related to the development of transportation plans and programs
under 23 U.S.C. 134-135 and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306.
For FHWA funding programs, once a general travel corridor or
specific project has progressed to a point in the preliminary
engineering/NEPA phase that clearly extends beyond transportation
planning, additional in-depth environmental studies must be funded
through the program category for which the ultimate project
qualifies (e.g., NHS, STP, Interstate Maintenance, and/or Bridge),
rather than PL or SPR funds.
Another source of funding is FHWA's Transportation Enhancement
program, which may be used for activities such as: Conducting
archeological planning and research; developing inventories such as
those for historic bridges and highways, and other surface
transportation-related structures; conducting studies to determine
the extent of water pollution due to highway runoff; and conducting
studies to reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while
maintaining habitat connectivity.
The FHWA and the FTA encourage State DOTs, MPOs, and public
transportation operators to seek partners for some of these studies
from environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies, non-
government organizations, and other government and private sector
entities with similar data needs, or environmental interests. In
some cases, these partners may contribute data and expertise to the
studies, as well as funding.
17. What staffing or organizational arrangements may be helpful in
allowing planning products to be accepted in the NEPA process?
Post and view comments on Administrative Issues
Certain organizational and staffing arrangements may support a
more integrated approach to the planning/NEPA decision-making
continuum. In many cases, planning organizations do not have
environmental expertise on staff or readily accessible. Likewise,
the review and regulatory responsibilities of many environmental,
regulatory, and resource agencies make involvement in the
transportation planning process a challenge for staff resources.
These challenges may be partially met by improved use of the outputs
of each agency's planning resources and by augmenting their
capabilities through greater use of GIS and remote sensing
technologies (see http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/ for additional
information on the use of GIS). Sharing databases and the planning
products of local land use decision-makers and State and Federal
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies also provide
efficiencies in acquiring and sharing the data and information
needed for both transportation planning and NEPA work.
Additional opportunities such as shared staff, training across
disciplines, and (in some cases) reorganizing to eliminate
structural divisions between planning and NEPA practitioners may
also need to be considered in order to better integrate NEPA
considerations into transportation planning studies. The answers to
the following two questions also contain useful information on
training and staffing opportunities.
18. How have environmental, regulatory, and resource agency liaisons
(Federally- and State DOT-funded positions) and partnership agreements
been used to provide the expertise and interagency participation needed
to enhance the consideration of environmental factors in the planning
process?
Post and view comments on Administrative Issues
For several years, States have utilized Federal and State
transportation funds to support focused and accelerated project
review by a variety of local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies.
While Section 1309(e) of the TEA-21 spoke specifically to
transportation project streamlining, there are other authorities
that have been used to fund positions, such as the Intergovernmental
Cooperation Act (31 U.S.C. 6505). In addition, long-term, on-call
consultant contracts can provide backfill support for staff that are
detailed to other parts of an agency for temporary assignments. At
last count (as of 2003), 246 positions were being funded. Additional
information on interagency funding agreements is available at:
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/igdocs/index.htm.
Moreover, every State has advanced a variety of stewardship and
streamlining initiatives that necessitate early involvement of
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies in the project
development process. Such process improvements have: Addressed the
exchange of data to support avoidance and impact analysis;
established formal and informal consultation and review schedules;
advanced mitigation strategies; and resulted in a variety of
programmatic reviews. Interagency agreements and workplans have
evolved to describe performance objectives, as well as specific
roles and responsibilities related to new streamlining initiatives.
Some States have improved collaboration andefficiency by co-locating environmental, regulatory, and resource
and transportation agency staff.
19.What training opportunities are available to MPOs, State DOTs,
public transportation operators and environmental, regulatory, and
resource agencies to assist in their understanding of the
transportation planning and NEPA processes?
Post and view comments on Administrative Issues
Both the FHWA and the FTA offer a variety of transportation
planning, public involvement, and NEPA courses through the National
Highway Institute and/or the National Transit Institute. Of
particular note is the Linking Planning and NEPA Workshop, which
provides a forum and facilitated group discussion among and between
State DOT; MPO; Federal, Tribal, and State environmental,
regulatory, and resource agencies; and FHWA/FTA representatives (at
both the executive and program manager levels) to develop a State-
specific action plan that will provide for strengthened linkages
between the transportation planning and NEPA processes.
Moreover, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service offers Green
Infrastructure Workshops that are focused on integrating planning
for natural resources (``green infrastructure'') with the
development, economic, and other infrastructure needs of society
(``gray infrastructure'').
Robust planning and multi-issue environmental screening requires
input from a wide variety of disciplines, including information
technology; transportation planning; the NEPA process; and
regulatory, permitting, and environmental specialty areas (e.g.,
noise, air quality, and biology). Senior managers at transportation
and partner agencies can arrange a variety of individual training
programs to support learning curves and skill development that
contribute to a strengthened link of the transportation planning and
NEPA processes. Formal and informal mentoring on an intra-agency
basis can be arranged. Employee exchanges within and between
agencies can be periodically scheduled, and persons involved with
professional leadership programs can seek temporary assignments with
partner agencies.
Transportation planning and NEPA courses offered by various
agencies and private sources have been compiled as part of the
Executive Order 13274 (Environmental Stewardship and Transportation
Infrastructure Project Reviews) workgroup efforts. This list is
posted at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/index.htm.
IV. Additional Information on This Topic
Valuable sources of information are FHWA's environmental
streamlining Web site (http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/index.htm) and FTA's environmental streamlining Web site (http://http://www.environment.fta.dot.gov). Another source of information and case studies is NCHRP Report 8-38 (Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning), which is available at http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+8-38.
In addition, AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence Web site is
continuously updated with news and links to information of interest
to transportation and environmental professionals (http://www.transportation.environment.org).