Appendix A to Part 450 - Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes
23:1.0.1.5.11.5.1.1.14 : Appendix A
Appendix A to Part 450 - Linking the Transportation Planning and
NEPA Processes Background and Overview
This Appendix provides additional information to explain the
linkage between the transportation planning and project
development/National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. It
is intended to be non-binding and should not be construed as a rule
of general applicability.
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 environmental 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
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), or planning-level
corridor/subarea/feasibility studies. 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 Issues,” “Substantive Issues,” and “Administrative
Issues”).
I. Procedural Issues 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, State DOT, or public transportation operator 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”
collectively means the U.S. Department of Transportation and a
State or local governmental 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, 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.
4. What is the procedure for using decisions or analyses from the
transportation planning process?
The lead agencies jointly decide, and must agree, 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 decisions by the lead agencies 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., those of 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.
II. Substantive Issues General Issues To Be Considered 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
transportation planning process related to land use, economic
development, transportation costs, and network expansion consistent
with those to be used in the NEPA 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 those 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 and the
public during NEPA scoping?
• During 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?
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.
23 U.S.C. 139(f), as amended by the SAFETEA-LU Section 6002,
provides 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 (e.g.,
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 during NEPA scoping and 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 decision-making
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?
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 the first-tier EIS evaluates
general travel corridors, modes, and/or packages of projects 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
project or series of projects. Subsequently, second-tier NEPA
review(s) of the resulting projects would be performed in the usual
way. The first-tier EIS uses the NEPA process as a tool to involve
environmental, regulatory, and resource agencies and the public in
the planning decisions, as well as to ensure the appropriate
consideration of environmental factors in these planning
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
planning study.
Alternatives 10. In the context of this Appendix, what is the
meaning of the term “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 or the “Least Environmentally Damaging
Practicable Alternative” under the Clean Water Act.
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?
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 its start. 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 (e.g., 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.
Development of planning Alternatives Analysis studies, required
prior to MAP-21 for projects seeking funds through FTA's Capital
Investment Grant program, are now optional, but may still be used
to narrow the alternatives prior to the NEPA review, just as other
planning studies may be used. In fact, through planning studies,
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. 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?
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
participating 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 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.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 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?
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) Geographic information system (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, special area
management 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 or current
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?
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.
Environmental Mitigation 15. How can planning-level efforts best
support advance mitigation, mitigation banking, and priorities for
environmental mitigation investments?
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.
III. 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), National Highway System (NHS), STP, and Equity
Bonus); and
• FTA planning and research funds (49 U.S.C. 5303), 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?
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?
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 and its successor in SAFETEA-LU
section 6002 speak 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
2015), over 200 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 work plans have
evolved to describe performance objectives, as well as specific
roles and responsibilities related to new streamlining initiatives.
Some States have improved collaboration and efficiency 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?
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.
IV. Additional Information on This Topic
Valuable sources of information are FHWA's environment Web site
(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/index.htm) and FTA's
environmental streamlining Web site
(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??????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
(www.transportation.environment.org).