1. 1 Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference August 27, 2006 Michael Culp FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review Michael.culp@dot.gov 202-366-9229

2. 2 Strengthening Planning and NEPA Linkages NEPA, permitting, and planning How to do it: Analysis tools and data Inter-agency coordination Planning process changes Planning products that can be used in NEPA

3. 3 Essential Elements of NEPA impacts Assessment of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a proposed action or project alternatives Analysis of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project, based on the applicants defined purpose and need for the project mitigation Consideration of appropriate impact mitigation: avoidance, minimization and compensation Interagencyparticipation Interagency participation: coordination and consultation Public involvement Public involvement including opportunities to participate and comment Documentation Documentation and disclosure

4. TransportationResource Agency System-level Planning Project-level Decision Integrated Planning, Consultation Linking Planning and NEPA Impact Analysis, Review System-level Planning Project-level Decision

5. 5 Planning, Project Development, and Implementation Linkages Level of Activity Implementation Planning NEPA / Preliminary Engineering Design and Construction Early Concept “A Seamless Process”

6. 6 Linking Planning and NEPA: Connecting SAFETEA-LU Sections Section 6001 Coordination with land and resource agencies, others Consideration of land use, resource concerns in the planning process Section 6002 Early coordination with resource agencies, other stakeholders for process improvement and higher predictability Linking Planning and NEPA Mechanisms and tools for coordination Planning products for use in NEPA

7. TransportationResource Agency System-level Planning Project-level Decision Integrated Planning, Consultation Linking Planning and NEPA Impact Analysis, Review System-level Planning Project-level Decision 6001 6002 2005 Guidance

8. 8 Reviews and Permitting: Who’s Who US Environmental Protection Agency US Army Corps of Engineers US Fish and Wildlife Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Fisheries Service State Historic Preservation Officer

9. 9 Reviews and Permitting: Some Topics Covered Relevant Law or ProcessTopics Covered Clean Air Act Air quality (Conformity, Air Toxics) Endangered Species Act - Section 7Plant and animal habitat Clean Water Act - Section 404 Waterways, including wetlands; water quality National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 Historic and cultural resources DOT Section 4(f) Use of public use lands/ cultural resources for projects

10. 10 Planning Analysis link to NEPA During planning and programming, consider NEPA principles in planning analysis: Land use Economic performance Natural resources Air quality Water quality Community quality of life Travel performance Planning analysis tools and approaches, (e.g., context- sensitive solutions, scenario planning, community impact analysis, travel and land use forecasting) Can result in planning products for ‘hand-off’

11. 11 Getting Started: What is Entailed? Data and Analysis Tools Inter-Agency Coordination Decision Process Opportunities

12. 12 Data and Analysis Tools Obtaining data: from who? State DOT (Environmental Section) State department of environmental quality State fish and game department (State Wildlife Action Plans) Federal agencies: USACE, FWS Land use and land management agencies US Geological Survey Non-profit organizations: NatureServe

13. 13 Data and Analysis Tools (cont’d) What is to be done with the data? Comparing (a la SAFETEA-LU) Sharing Issues: Don’t necessarily need GIS to compare inventories, although helpful Some information cannot be shared with the public Continual updating of data by ‘experts’ or ‘owners’

14. 14 Inter-Agency Coordination Agencies are currently set up for project reviews (implication – some adjustments needed to involve agencies in transportation planning) Potential solutions Staff funding Standing inter-agency meetings Formal agreements to specify coordination procedures and responsibilities (MOA, MOU)

15. 15 Models of Coordination Group by Topic Physical Boundaries Level of Government Opportunistic (State GIS Council) Live vs. Virtual Government vs. Non-Government conveners

16. 16 Decision Process Opportunities Is the current process documented clearly? When can NEPA and permitting stakeholders become involved? Can some analysis be conducted, decisions be made in planning? NEPA principles used in analysis ‘Hand-Off’ products Design guidelines developed Potential mitigation activities and areas considered

17. 17 Planning ‘Hand-Off’ Products Purpose and need statements Scoping and alternatives identification Evaluation and/or elimination of alternatives Indirect and cumulative impacts assessment Exploration of potential mitigation opportunities Preparatory analyses for permitting

18. TransportationResource Agency System-level Planning Project-level Decision Integrated Planning, Consultation Linking Planning and NEPA Impact Analysis, Review System-level Planning Project-level Decision

19. 19 Thank You!