| Roundtable Session # 1: Getting Started – Laying the Foundation for a Successful NEPA Study |
|
Suggested Issues for Discussion
Planning-NEPA Linkage
- What is the ideal relationship between the planning process and the NEPA process? What is the reality in your State?
- Is it ever appropriate to resolve major project issues – such as mode choice, facility type, and general location – in the planning process? If so, how can this be done?
- Does the planning process in your State typically result in a preliminary statement of purpose and need for a major project? Does it typically result in a range of alternatives? If so, how “firm” are those decisions?
- Have you attempted to analyze environmental issues – e.g., secondary and cumulative impacts – at a broad regional level in the planning process? If so, any lessons learned?
- For major projects, what type of preliminary study, if any, do you typically prepare before starting the NEPA process? (for example, a “corridor study” or “feasibility study”) What does this pre-NEPA study involve, and how does it differ from a NEPA study?
- Who should lead the preparation of pre-NEPA studies for major transportation projects? Is this primarily a State DOT responsibility or an MPO responsibility (for projects in metropolitan areas)? Should FHWA/FTA be involved at all at this stage?
- What is the appropriate role for environmental resource agencies (Federal and State) in pre-NEPA activities involving major transportation projects? What are the most effective ways for achieving effective involvement by resource agencies at this stage?
- Should funding agreements be used to support participation by resource agencies at the pre-NEPA stage? What are the pros and cons of this approach?
- Should preliminary studies be done “under the NEPA umbrella” – for example, by preparing a tiered EIS for a lengthy corridor, or by doing an “EA/corridor study” as is done in Indiana?
Data Collection and Model Development
- What type of information can/should be collected before the NEPA process begins?
- What technical tasks – e.g., developing or adapting traffic models – can/should be completed before the NEPA process begins?
- What other technical work can be completed before NEPA begins, in order for the process to move more quickly once the process is under way?
Agency Relationships and Coordination
- What level of coordination with resource agencies should take place before initiating a major project study?
- Does it make sense to discuss specifics – e.g., schedule, methodology – before kicking off the study? How much can realistically be resolved before the study begins?
- Have you had experience negotiating “partnering agreements” or “streamlining agreements” with agencies for specific projects? Were those agreements developed before or during NEPA? What were the lessons learned?
Public Outreach
- Are there preliminary steps that should be taken, before starting NEPA, to build public awareness of the project? To gather public opinion?
Reference Materials
- FHWA/FTA Guidance, “Linking the Transportation Planning and NEPA Processes” [PDF 67kb] (Feb. 2005) (provides support for greater reliance on planning-level studies and decisions)
- Excerpts from Section 6001 of SAFETEA-LU [PDF 48kb]
- FHWA Memorandum to Colorado Division, “NEPA Analysis for Toll Roads” [PDF 47kb] (Oct 15, 2004) (allows non-tolled alternatives to be eliminated based on pre-NEPA studies)
- FHWA Memorandum to Missouri Division, “Tiering of the I-70 Project” [PDF 22kb] (June 18, 2001) (discusses procedures for tiering long corridor projects)
- Florida DOT, “Florida’s ETDM Process: Efficient Transportation Decision Making While Protecting the Environment” [PDF 452kb] (2003) (outlines procedures for pre-NEPA agency coordination)
- FHWA, Indiana Division, “Streamlined EIS Procedures” [PDF 42kb] (July 2001) (Excerpts) (outlines procedure involving an “EA/Corridor Study” for consideration of multiple projects in a corridor prior to initiating an EIS)
- NCHRP 541, “Consideration of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning” summary [PDF 2.3mb]
- Executive Order 13274, “Integrated Planning Workgroup Report” [PDF 861kb] executive summary
- State Wildlife Action Plan Materials [PDF 305kb]
- Step Up, Phase I Report [PDF 1.20mb]
- Colorado Transportation - Environment Resource Council (TERC) Report. [PDF 13kb]
- Fountain Creek Watershed: A Regional Partnership of the Pikes Peak and Pueblo Area Council of Governments [PDF 432kb]
- North Carolina Department of Transportation Integration of Planning and Project Development Project Description [PDF 17kb]
[back to top]
|
| Roundtable Session # 2: Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU – Using the New Streamlined Process for EIS Projects to Support Efficient and Effective Decision Making |
|
Presentations
Changes in SAFETEA-LU, Pamela Stephenson (PDF 209kb)
Suggested Issues for Discussion
Project Initiation
- When should the project initiation notice be submitted? At the time of the NOI? Earlier? If so, how much earlier?
- How should the guidance address this issue? How specific should the guidance be?
Agency Roles
- What is the significance of designation as a “joint lead agency” in the Section 6002 process? Does this involve any change in existing relationships? When the law calls for an action to be taken by the lead agency, who is actually responsible – the Federal lead agency, the State or local joint lead agency, or both jointly?
- Who should be designated as a participating agency?
- What is the difference between a “participating agency” and a “cooperating agency”? What is the best way to explain this new concept (“participating agency”) to resource agencies and the public?
- What have you heard from resource agencies so far about the Section 6002 process? What are their expectations and concerns? How can they best be addressed?
Purpose and Need; Range of Alternatives
- How do you expect to satisfy the requirement to provide an “opportunity for involvement” by resource agencies and the public in determining the purpose and need and range of alternatives?
- In your State, is this coordination already occurring as part of the scoping process, a NEPA-404 merger process, or some other process? Or is this a new step?
- What type of documentation would you expect to prepare at these coordination points? For example, would you circulate a draft P&N chapter of the EIS? Or something more condensed?
- How should comments received at these points be addressed? Should the responses be provided in “real time”? Or just addressed in the DEIS itself?
Methodology and Level of Detail
- What type of collaboration is needed among lead agencies in determining the methodology and level of detail for analyzing alternatives?
Preferred Alternative
- When does it make sense to develop a preferred alternative to a higher level of detail, as allowed by Section 6002?
- What opportunities are provided by this new provision? What are the potential pitfalls associated with it?
Issue Resolution
- What information must be provided to participating agencies, early in the process, in order to assist them in identifying any “issues of concern”?
- What is the best way to respond if a participating agency identifies an “issue of concern”?
- When does it make sense to request a dispute resolution meeting?
Non-EIS Projects
- When does it make sense to apply the Section 6002 process for non-EIS projects?
- If a project begins as an EA, and later transitions to an EIS, how should the requirements of Section 6002 be satisfied? Is it necessary to backtrack?
Agency Funding Agreements
- What effect does Section 6002 have on existing agency funding agreements?
- What effect does Section 6002 have on the development of new agency funding agreements?
Ongoing Studies
- When does it make sense to apply the Section 6002 process to ongoing studies? If that is done, is some formal notification needed? How should that be done?
- If you are transitioning an ongoing study to the Section 6002 process, should you “backtrack” and cover steps that would have occurred earlier in the process if Section 6002 had been followed from the beginning?
Reference Materials
- SAFETA-LU, Section 6002 [PDF 48kb] (full text)
- AASHTO Summary of Section 6002 [PDF 45kb] (bullets from Oct, 2005 annual meeting)
- FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on Implementation of SAFETEA-LU Environmental and Planning Provisions [PDF 93kb] (Sept. 2, 2005)
- FHWA 180 Day Statue of Limitations Guidance [PDF 1.20mb]
[back to top]
|
| |
| Roundtable Session # 3: Innovative Approaches to Improving NEPA Document Quality and Strengthening Legal Sufficiency – A Dialogue Among Practitioners |
|
Suggested Issues for Discussion
Document Quality and Readability
- 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., more white space, greater use of graphics, color, “magazine-style” page layout?
- Are new document formats well-received by resource agencies? What are some ways to increase comfort-level?
- How do you determine what level of detail goes in the main document vs. the appendices?
- The task team presents this as a starting place. Do you feel we’ve covered new ground? What’s missing?
Legal Sufficiency of NEPA Documents
- Do you see a tension between improving readability and maintaining legal sufficiency? Or do you see these as complementary goals?
- On a practical level, how do you balance these concerns?
- If you have used innovative document formats, what types of concerns have been raised about legal sufficiency?
Education and Training
- What types of education and training programs have you found to be most effective?
- Does your State require certification or training for consultants who prepare NEPA documents? Is this type of requirement worthwhile?
Reference Materials
- Work Team Report on Improving Document Quality and Readability and Questionnaire Document 1 [PDF 673kb] | Document 2 [PDF 17kb]
- Work Team Report on Legal Sufficiency [PDF 444kb]
- Work Team Report on Education and Training in NEPA Document Preparation and Appendixes
- PowerPoint Presentation – Improving Document Quality and Readability [PDF 35kb]
- PowerPoint Presentation – Legal Sufficiency [PDF 660kb]
- PowerPoint Presentation – Education and Training in NEPA Document Preparation [PDF 250kb]
[back to top]
|
| |
| Roundtable Session # 4: Staying Ahead of the Curve – Effective Tools to Support NEPA Practitioners |
|
 |
| |
| Context Sensitive Solutions |
|
