• 2005 Agenda [PDF 28kb]
• Managing the NEPA Process for Complex Projects – An Overview [PDF 65kb]
• Getting Started – How to Lay the Foundation for a Successful NEPA Study [PDF 2.73mb]
• Writing Readable and Legally Sufficient NEPA Documents
• Public Involvement in a Polarized Environment
  

Reference Materials

• Roundtable Session # 1: Getting Started –  How to Lay the Foundation for a Successful NEPA Study
• Roundtable Session # 2: Creating Effective Frameworks for Agency Coordination and Regulatory Compliance
• Roundtable Session # 3: Writing Readable and Legally Sufficient NEPA Documents
• Roundtable Session # 4: Public Involvement in a Polarized Environment

Suggested Issues for Discussion

• What actions should be taken before NEPA begins?  What actions should be taken only after NEPA is formally under way?
• In particular, how should the planning process be used?  What can realistically be achieved in the planning process for a complex project that faces potential litigation?
• When is a tiered EIS appropriate for a large project, instead of a pre-NEPA planning study?
• How involved should FHWA and other federal agencies be in the pre-NEPA stage?
• What are the “must do” items during the pre-NEPA stage – in other words, what is the bare minimum that should be in place before NEPA begins?

Reference Materials

1. FHWA/FTA Legal Memorandum, “Integration of Planning and NEPA Processes” [PDF 73kb] (Feb. 22, 2005) and FHWA guidance, “Linking the Transportation Planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Processes” [PDF 69kb] (Feb. 22, 2005) (provides support for greater reliance on planning-level studies and decisions)
2. FHWA Memorandum to Colorado Division, “NEPA Analysis for Toll Roads” [PDF 73kb] (Oct 15, 2004) (allows non-tolled alternatives to be eliminated based on pre-NEPA studies)
3. FHWA Memorandum to Missouri Division, “Tiering of the I-60 Project” [PDF 51kb] (June 18, 2001) (discusses procedures for tiering long corridor projects)
4. Florida DOT, “Florida’s ETDM Process: Efficient Transportation Decision Making While Protecting the Environment” [PDF 452kb] (Feb. 25, 2005) (outlines procedures for pre-NEPA agency coordination)
5. FHWA, Indiana Division, “Streamlined EIS Procedures (July 2001) (Excerpts) outlines procedure involving an “EA/Corridor Study” [PDF 51kb] for consideration of multiple projects in a corridor prior to initiating an EIS

[back to top]

Suggested Issues for Discussion

• What is the most effective approach for managing agency relationships – a formal MOU that establishes expectations and deadlines, or a more informal approach?  What are the pros and cons of each approach?
• Are “concurrence points” (as in the MATE process) helpful?  If so, at what point should project sponsors seek concurrence?  From which agencies?
• How should timeframes for agency reviews be established?  As part of a comprehensive agreement that addresses other issues, such as methodology and data needs? Or as a standalone agreement on project schedule?  Or just determined informally?
• What are the pros and cons of “priority project” designation (under E.O. 13274)? 
• Would the procedures contained in the House and Senate bills help to streamline the process?  What are the pros and cons of each approach?

Reference Materials

1. Maryland’s Streamlined Environmental and Regulatory Process [PDF 20kb] – Flow Chart (Jan. 2000) (includes “concurrence points”)
2. FHWA-Indiana’s Streamlined EIS Procedures [PDF 59kb] (July 2001) (includes non-binding “coordination points”)
3. CEQ-USDOT Correspondence - Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents for Transportation Projects [PDF 395kb] (May 2003) (calls for “substantial deference” to lead agency’s decision on purpose and need)
4. FHWA-FTA Memorandum, “Guidance on ‘Purpose and Need'” [PDF 167kb] (July 2003) (discourages “concurrence” points except for agencies with jurisdiction over the project – e.g., Corps)
5. FHWA Guidance, “Questions and Answers Regarding the Environmental Vital Few Goal of Negotiated Timeframes” [PDF 43kb] (2003) (calls for “negotiated” timeframes for completing NEPA process)
6. House and Senate Reauthorization Bills (HR 3550 and S 1072) – Environmental Streamlining Provisions; Agency Coordination Requirements (2004) (require agency coordination and public involvement on P&N and range of alternatives)

[back to top]

Suggested Issues for Discussion

• Does increased readability require new skill sets in the project team – e.g., technical writers, technical editors, graphic artists? 
• Does increased readability require new document formats – e.g., larger size, greater use of color, “magazine-style” page layout? 
• Are new document formats well-received by resource agencies?  Will agencies be satisfied if the technical information they need is largely confined to appendices?
• Should innovative document formats be used only for uncontroversial projects?  Or should they also be used for projects that face high potential for litigation? 
• What does it really take to make a document more readable?  What is the additional cost?  What is the impact on project schedules? 

Reference Materials

1. CEQ Regulations, 40 CFR 1502, EIS Requirements [PDF 59kb] (page limits; clarity of writing; focus on major issues)
2. NCHRP Report, 25-25(1) , “Synthesis of Data Needs for EA and EIS Documentation: A Blueprint for NEPA Document Content” [PDF 1.28mb] (Jan. 2005) (suggests new “blueprint” involving changes to standard format of EIS)
3. FHWA and Washington State DOT, Alaskan Way Viaduct DEIS [PDF 88kb] (Excerpts [PDF 13kb] ) (oversize pages, Q&A format for all text, numerous graphics, unconventional chapter structure)

[back to top]

Suggested Issues for Discussion

• How can the project team most effectively engage the general public – not just the well-organized groups?
• Should public meetings primarily be used to give information to the public?  Or as an opportunity for the project team to receive information from the public? 
• Are community advisory committees (or working groups, focus groups, etc.) effective public involvement tools in a polarized environment?  How should a project sponsor respond if key interest groups refuse to participate?
• In a polarized environment, should public meetings and public hearings be led by a member of the project team?  Or by a neutral third party? 
• What limits can be imposed to maintain order and security at a public meeting or hearing while respecting the free-speech right to protest? 
• What are the proper protocols for releasing study data when the DEIS is still a “work in progress”?

Reference Materials

1. FHWA Guidance, “Civic Advisory Committees” [PDF 51kb]
2. FHWA Guidance, “Open Forum Hearings/Open Houses” [PDF 62kb]
3. FHWA Guidance, “Negotiation and Mediation” [PDF 68kb]
4. UDOT, Mountain View Corridor – “Growth Choices Process” [PDF 479kb] – PowerPoint presentation and “Vision” Agreement (collaborative process involving local governments,  transportation agencies, and stakeholder groups)
5. U.S. District Court decision in US-95 case in Nevada [PDF 22kb] – Excerpt (raises questions about use of open house format for public hearings)
6. 6-I-69 Newsletter-Field Offices [PDF 2.08mb]

[back to top]