 |
 |
|
|
|
 |
| FHWA Knowledge Tools |
Help |
|
|
Transportation Planning and NEPA Linkages
|
|
|
A member of our staff recently participated in the March 19 "Let's talk Planning" videoconference. I was unfortunately unable to participate. A major focus of this viedoconference appeared to be an increased emphasis on a consideration of fiscal realities in the planning and NEPA process. What particularly caught my eye was a statement that "NEPA approvals should only be given for those projects that have independent utility and logical termini, while contributing to the function of the overall project." Was the intention of this comment to limit NEPA reviews/approvals more to specifically identified projects in the STIP/TIP, rather than broader planning corridors? If so, doesn't this affect our ability to consider the broader environmental implications of such projects in the NEPA process? How do we draw the line between approving programmed projects which will actually be built and considering the impacts of possible follow on projects in a corridor?
I also was not able to participate, but as one of the states that some of the new guidance was based on, thought I would add my 2 cents. The key word in the quote is "approvals" - what we have done on a number of occations is do an EIS or EA for the overall project, but only do the ROD or FONSI on the portion that is on the STIP/TIP. That way you can evaluate the broad environmental implications, but only decide on what has funding.
Another 2 cents - with the recent PEL focus, the broader implications might be better addressed in a planning study, and have the NEPA focus on what is in the STIP/TIP, rather than doing a large NEPA study with a focused decision document.
Thanks for the response. How would Colorado handle CE's since the review/approval is the same. In my state, we have an agreement between FHWA and the State DOT which allows a certain type of CE for capacity expansions in urban planning areas. If there is only one programmed project (with independent utility and logical termini) in a corridor planned ultimately for long range improvement but with no other financial committments, should the CE approval be just for the programmed project?
I agree a lot of this is solved if the broad environmental concerns/constraints are evaluated in the planning document so NEPA can focus on the projects in the TIP/STIP
CEs only look at what has funding - but we don't use CEs for capacity expansions (except on rare occasions). If the project has independent utility and logical termini, you wouldn't be "required" to look at the larger corridor.
I do not understand how can we "do an EIS or EA for the overall project, but only do the ROD or FONSI on the portion that is on the STIP/TIP." Do we still have to show Independent Utility and Logical termini for the approved section of the project. Do you have an example EA?
Both the project approved by the FONSI or ROD and the larger project have logical termini and independent untility. For example, one of the projects we are working on is an EIS on I-25 from Denver to Fort Collins (about 60 miles) - the overall project has logical termini and independent utility, but there are smaller projects (of varying sizes) within that area that also have logical termini and independent utility. (yes, we could have also gone the Tiered EIS route, but we didn't in this case) For what it is worth, the CO Division is discouraging the use of "phased" decisions - we would rather see the state look at the larger issues in a tiered document or in a planning study.
|
|
|
|
|
This page last updated on 02/12/2009 01:14:48 AM |
United States Department of Transportation -- Federal Highway Administration
Information accessibility is important to us. If you have any problems accessing
information on this site, please contact for assistance.
To view PDF files, you need the Acrobat® Reader®
|
