SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
The Role of the IRB An Institutional Review Board (IRB) is a review committee established to help protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects.
Advertisements

Metro Muncipal Agreement Program
Agenda Introduction Advisory Circular Changes Consultant Selection Procedures Contract Format and Provisions Methods of Contracting and Allowable Costs.
1 PENDING FERC ISSUES RELATING TO THE ALASKA NATURAL GAS TRANSPORTATION PROJECT Presentation by Karol Lyn Newman Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP November.
SAFETEA-LU’S EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR PROJECT DECISIONMAKING Final Guidance 11/15/06.
Introduction to EIS/EA Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Dept. of Transportation.
Step by Step Guide for Regulations S HELLY B EZANSON K ELLY O FFICE OF G ENERAL C OUNSEL S EPTEMBER 5, 2012.
Improvements to Project Development and Program Management of New Starts Projects FY 2008 Proposed Effective April 30, 2006.
Summary of NEPA and SEPA Coastal Engineering and Land Use Issues in North Carolina Greenville, NC January 13, 2009 Sean M. Sullivan.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing Fiscal Estimate.
Environmental Compliance Negotiating our way through the process…
40 CFR REGULATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS OF NEPA Legislative vs. Discretionary Timelines - Agency Requirements for Implementing.
Environmental Review: NEPA, TEPA and Tribes. NEPA – good and bad for Tribes Tribes can use as tool to slow, examine, participate in process and urge changes.
The Role of State, Local and Tribal Governments in the Federal NEPA Process Presented by Susan E. Bromm Director, Office of Federal Activities United States.
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century (MAP-21) – ROW Impacts Dianna Nausley, HQ RES Assistant Program Administrator Washington State Department.
FOIA and NEPA Federal Highway Administration Environmental Conference June 2006.
PUBLIC RECORDS DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCEDURE SCOTT R. SWIER ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL.
Area Commissions Purpose Area commissions are established to afford additional voluntary citizen participation in decision-making in an advisory.
Rail Freight Assistance Program (RFAP) S ETTING THE S TAGE FOR THE F UTURE Rail Transportation Assistance Program (Rail TAP) RFAC Meeting April 28, 2010.
NHPA, Section 106, and NEPA Highlights and Misconceptions.
Environmental Justice: Policies, Guidance, and Answers to Frequently Asked Questions FTA Region VII Civil Rights Training.
Wetlands Mitigation Policy Sudbury Wetlands Administration Bylaw April 27, 2015.
Negotiating the NEPA Maze: It Really Is Rocket Science Start.
Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Policy & Planning.
L O N G B E A C H, C A. Ryk Dunkelberg Barnard Dunkelberg & Company Roles Of Sponsor, Consultant and FAA During NEPA Process L O N G B E.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING Charles J. Randel, 1 III, Howard O. Clark, Jr., 2 Darren P. Newman, 2 and Thomas P. Dixon 3 1 Randel Wildlife Consulting,
1 Cooperating Agency and Coordination Training Washington State Association of Counties Friday, November 22, 2013 Victoria Barr, Oregon/Washington State.
THE FOUR STEP SECTION 106 PROCESS: AN INTRODUCTION TENNESSEE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE REVIEW AND COMPLIANCE SECTION All reproduction rights reserved.
Is NEPA Preventing Energy Development? Bryan Hannegan, Ph.D. Associate Director – Energy and Transportation White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Overview of SAFETEA-LU Sections 6001, 6002, 3005, and 3006 TRB January 13, 2008 Shari Schaftlein FHWA Project Development & Environmental Review Washington,
I Larry Heil, FHWA October 15, 2003 Environmental Streamlining.
1 Overview of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)  Objective: Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated Rulemaking Clarify the roles of NEPA and Negotiated.
Building Strong! 1 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program Kimberly McLaughlin Program Manager Headquarters Operations and Regulatory Community of.
Water Supply Planning Initiative State Water Commission November 22, 2004.
Agency Drafts Statement of Scope Governor Approves Statement of Scope (2) No Agency Drafts: Special Report for rules impacting housing
Mitigation in the Section 106 Process Dave Berwick Army Program Manager Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
CHAPTER 3 SCOPING AND AGENCY COORDINATION. Scoping - the procedure for determining the appropriate level of study of a proposed project/activity - process.
1 | US DOE Geothermal Programeere.energy.gov Public Service of Colorado Ponnequin Wind Farm Geothermal Technologies Program Regulatory Roadmap NEPA Historical.
Energy Exploration & Development On National Forest System Lands Barry Burkhardt
SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 “ Efficient Environmental Reviews for Project Decisionmaking”
Integrating Other Laws into BLM Planning. Objectives Integrate legal requirements into the planning process. Discuss laws with review and consultation.
Distinguishing: Clean Air Act, EPA Rules, Regulations and Guidance David Cole U.S. EPA, OAQPS Research Triangle Park, NC.
U N I T E D S T A T E S D E P A R T M E N T O F C O M M E R C E N A T I O N A L O C E A N I C A N D A T M O S P H E R I C A D M I N I S T R A T I O N State.
Programmatic Regulations PDT Workshop COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN April 18, 2002.
1 CEQA and CEQA-Plus Presented by Cookie Hirn, Lisa Lee, and Michelle Jones Regional Programs Unit July 2008.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission The Pre-Filing Process IRWA/AI January 13-14, 2009 IRWA/AI.
Linking Planning & NEPA Overview Mitch Batuzich FHWA Texas Division FHWA Texas Division April 17, 2007.
1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project.
Infrastructure Development Bill [B ] Submission by the Centre for Environmental Rights to Portfolio Committee on Economic Development 14 January.
1 CDBG and Environmental Review For Local Officials.
April 2006 Middle Fork Project Relicensing Process April 25, 2006
Environmental Assessment Act – Overview Environmental Media Group.
SAFETEA-LU: Environmental Provisions for Transportation Planning Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review
Environmental Commitments/Tracking. Environmental Commitments Federal Agencies Shall –Use all practicable means consistent with the requirements of.
Cooperating Agency Status Presented by Horst Greczmiel Associate Director, NEPA Oversight Council on Environmental Quality Washington, DC September 14,
CHAPTER 4 ALTERNATIVES. --- “The driving impetus for conducting environmental impact studies is to comparatively present the effects of proposed alternatives.
NRC Environmental Reviews for Uranium Recovery Applicants and Licensees James Park (301)
Federal Lands Highway Commitment to Excellence Environmental Concerns with Estimating TEA/TUG Conference Portland, Maine October 2006 Jack Van Dop Eastern.
Managing the Environmental & Project Development Process Presented by the Ohio Department of Transportation NEPA&CEQ.
Fixing American’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act and NEPA Section 1309 – Program for Eliminating Duplication of Environmental Reviews 23 USC 330 – CEQA/NEPA.
CEAA 2012 EA PROCESS OPTIONS OCTOBER 15, 2012
South Dakota State Historic Preservation Office and the Nebraska National Forests and Grasslands July 24, 2013 National Grasslands Visitor Center.
Texas Department of Transportation Corpus Christi District U.S. 181 Harbor Bridge Project Environmental Documentation and Schematic Development Public.
Executive Order Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews Priority Issues.
Integration of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) NEPA and NHPA A Handbook for Integrating NEPA and.
Monte Mills Alexander Blewett III School of Law University of Montana
Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality Water Resources Division
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
IS YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PREPARED
NEPA Assignment Program Overview
Presentation transcript:

SAFETEA-LU Efficient Environmental Review Process (Section 6002) Kelly Dunlap

Efficient Environmental Review Process Goal: Streamline the environmental process for transportation projects while ensuring early participation by public and interested agencies

Efficient Environmental Review Process Creates a new category of agencies—”participating agencies” Any federal or non-federal agency that may have an interest in the transportation project

Efficient Environmental Review Process Sec Cooperating agency. …means any Federal agency other than a lead agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal (or a reasonable alternative) for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment… a State or local agency of similar qualifications or, when the effects are on a reservation, an Indian Tribe, may by agreement with the lead agency become a cooperating agency

Efficient Environmental Review Process The efficient environmental review process defines the involvement of participating agencies and public in the environmental review process …and

Efficient Environmental Review Process Encourages and supports concurrent compliance of NEPA with other environmental laws and regulations, such as: Clean Water Act Section 401 & 404 Clean Water Act Section 401 & 404 Endangered Species Act (Federal and state) Endangered Species Act (Federal and state) Section 106 Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Historic Preservation Act

Efficient Environmental Review Process When does this new efficient environmental review process apply?

Efficient Environmental Review Process Process is mandatory for any EIS (environmental impact statement) level project with a Notice of Intent on or before August 10, 2005

Efficient Environmental Review Process Process is optional, at the discretion of FHWA, for any other project

Efficient Environmental Review Process How does this new process work?

Efficient Environmental Review Process Lead agency will determine the appropriate participating agencies and will invite/designate them to be part of the process Done in parallel with invitation to cooperating agencies

Efficient Environmental Review Process Participating agency must accept or decline by deadline (30 days).

Efficient Environmental Review Process If federal agency, then must decline in writing by stating: 1. Agency has no jurisdiction or authority 2. Agency has no expertise or relevant information, and 3. Agency does not intend to comment

Efficient Environmental Review Process Lead agency must develop a coordination plan (this can be done at a program level or for each individual project) Coordination plan may include schedule.

Efficient Environmental Review Process What’s in it for participating agencies?

Efficient Environmental Review Process As early as practicable, lead agency must involve participating agencies in: 1. Purpose and Need 2. Range of Alternatives By providing an opportunity to comment

Efficient Environmental Review Process However, the lead agency shall define the purpose and need and range of alternatives for the environmental document

Efficient Environmental Review Process Also, lead agency shall determine in collaboration with participating agencies the methodologies and level of detail for alternatives analysis

Efficient Environmental Review Process Lead agency shall make available to participating agencies as early as practicable: environmental and socioeconomic impacts within the project area and location of alternatives—can be done with GIS mapping environmental and socioeconomic impacts within the project area and location of alternatives—can be done with GIS mapping

Efficient Environmental Review Process Secretary (FHWA) shall ensure that project sponsor complies with all jointly made design and mitigation commitments

Efficient Environmental Review Process Includes provision to provide funding to agencies (including state agencies) and tribes for activities that meaningfully contribute to expediting the environmental process

Efficient Environmental Review Process What’s in it for the lead agency?

Efficient Environmental Review Process Participating agencies shall identify as early as practicable: any issues regarding project’s environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval any issues regarding project’s environmental and socioeconomic impacts that could substantially delay or prevent granting of permit/approval

Efficient Environmental Review Process Lead agency may also elect to develop the preferred alternative to a greater level of detail to assist in the development of mitigation measures (really helps both the lead and participating agency)

Efficient Environmental Review Process If federal participating agency does not issue or deny approval or permit by either: 1) 180 days after FHWA made final decision; or 2) 180 days after lead agency filed application or permit …then

Efficient Environmental Review Process Secretary (FHWA) must file an initial notice of failure of federal agency to make decision to both the Senate and the House..and shall do so every 60 days thereafter until all federal decisions are made

Efficient Environmental Review Process What’s in it for both the lead agency and participating agencies?

Efficient Environmental Review Process 180-day Statute of Limitations Bars lawsuits after 180-day clock runs Bars lawsuits after 180-day clock runs Applies to any final federal agency decision on transportation project Applies to any final federal agency decision on transportation project Publication in Federal Register starts the 180-day clock Publication in Federal Register starts the 180-day clock

Efficient Environmental Review Process Issue Resolution

Efficient Environmental Review Process At any time upon request of project sponsor or Governor, lead agency shall commence a meeting with participating agencies to resolve issues that could delay process or result in denial of permit or approval

Efficient Environmental Review Process If issue is not resolved with 30 days, lead agency shall notify: 1)Heads of participating agencies 2)Project sponsor 3)Governor 4)Senate and House and shall publish a notice of non- resolution in the federal register.

Efficient Environmental Review Process Summary Early coordination and early issue identification Early coordination and early issue identification Designed to benefit both the lead agency and the participating agencies Designed to benefit both the lead agency and the participating agencies