Print
Conference & Workshop Materials
2005 Managing the NEPA Process for Complex Projects Workshop
Reference Materials
Roundtable Session # 1: Getting Started –
How to Lay the Foundation for a Successful NEPA Study
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
- 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)
- 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)
- FHWA Memorandum to Missouri Division, “Tiering of the I-60 Project” [PDF 51kb] (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] (Feb. 25, 2005) (outlines procedures for pre-NEPA agency coordination)
- 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]
Roundtable Session # 2: Creating Effective Frameworks
for Agency Coordination and Regulatory Compliance
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
- Maryland’s
Streamlined Environmental and Regulatory Process [PDF 20kb] – Flow Chart
(Jan. 2000) (includes “concurrence points”)
- FHWA-Indiana’s
Streamlined EIS Procedures [PDF 59kb] (July 2001) (includes non-binding “coordination
points”)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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]
Roundtable Session # 3: Writing Readable and Legally
Sufficient NEPA Documents
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
- CEQ Regulations,
40 CFR 1502, EIS Requirements [PDF 59kb] (page limits; clarity of writing; focus
on major issues)
- 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)
- 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]
Roundtable Session # 4: Public Involvement in a
Polarized Environment
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
- FHWA Guidance, “Civic Advisory Committees” [PDF 51kb]
- FHWA Guidance, “Open Forum Hearings/Open Houses” [PDF 62kb]
- FHWA Guidance, “Negotiation and Mediation” [PDF 68kb]
- UDOT, Mountain View Corridor – “Growth Choices Process” [PDF 479kb] – PowerPoint presentation
and “Vision” Agreement (collaborative process involving local governments,
transportation agencies, and stakeholder groups)
- 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-I-69 Newsletter-Field
Offices [PDF 2.08mb]
[back to top]