Training and Workshops: Presentations
Planning and Environment Linkages: Overview and Implications of SAFETEA-LU
Environmental Provisions and Final Regulations for Planning
Michael Culp
FHWA
Slide 2: Transportation - Resource Agency
"…the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation efforts used may not always provide the greatest environmental benefit, or may do very little to promote ecosystem sustainability."
Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Infrastructure Projects
Image:
Diagram depicting four spheres aligned in two rows and two columns. The two spheres in the top row represent system-level planning. The two spheres in the bottom row represent project-level decisions. The spheres in the left column represent Transportation agencies. The spheres in the right column represent Resource agencies. The spheres in the top row are linked by Integrated Planning, Consultation covered in S-LU 6001. The spheres in the left column are linked by Linking Planning and NEPA covered in Guidance/Appendix A. The Spheres in the bottom row are linked by NEPA, Environmental Review Process, covered by S-LU 6002.
Slide 3: Required in Long Range Plans
- Consultation "with State and local agencies responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation"
- Requires consultations to compare transportation plans to (as appropriate):
- Conservation plans or maps
- Inventories of natural or historic resources
[see 23 CFR 450.214(i) and 450.322(g)]
Slide 4: Required in Long Range Plans
- Mitigation Discussion
- Types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out activities
- "…including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan"
To be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies
Policy, plan and/or strategic-levels
Allows States/MPOs to establish reasonable timeframes for performing consultation
[see 23 CFR 450.214(j) and 450.322(f)(7)]
Slide 5: Participation Plan - required
- MPO shall develop a participation plan in consultation with interested parties [see 23 CFR 450.316(a)]
- Minimum 45-day comment period
- Adequate, timely public notice and reasonable access
- Employ visualization techniques
- Information available in electronic formats
- Meetings at convenient and accessible
- State public involvement process similar [see 23 CFR 450.210]
Back to top
Slide 6: Transportation - Resource Agency
Image:
Diagram depicting four spheres aligned in two rows and two columns. The two spheres in the top row represent system-level planning. The two spheres in the bottom row represent project-level decisions. The spheres in the left column represent Transportation agencies. The spheres in the right column represent Resource agencies. The spheres in the top row are linked by Integrated Planning, Consultation covered in S-LU 6001. The spheres in the left column are linked by Linking Planning and NEPA covered in Guidance/Appendix A. The Spheres in the bottom row are linked by NEPA, Environmental Review Process, covered by S-LU 6002.
Slide 7: § 450.212 & 318: Transportation planning studies and project development - voluntary
Fulfills Congressional Requirement (§ 1308, TEA-21)
- Results or decisions in corridor or sub-area studies may be used in NEPA
- Purpose and need or goals & objective statement(s)
- General travel corridor, general mode, definition
- Preliminary screening of alternatives and elimination of unreasonable alternatives
- Basic description of the environmental setting
- Preliminary identification of environmental impacts and environmental mitigation
Slide 8: § 450.212 & 318: Transportation planning studies and project development (cont) - voluntary
- Studies may be incorporated directly or by reference, if:
- NEPA lead agencies agree that it will help in evaluation and analysis in the NEPA
- Systems-level, corridor, or sub-area planning studies are conducted with
- Involvement of appropriate agencies
- Public review
- Reasonable opportunity to comment on planning process or studies
- Documentation is identifiable and available for scoping process
- Review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate
- Integration may be accomplished through tiering
Slide 9: Linking Planning and NEPA: Appendix A - voluntary
- Based on original guidance and legal opinion (Feb, 2005)
- Provides further clarification of 450.212 and 318
- Contains guidance on procedural, substantive, and administrative issues
- Voluntary
- Planning varies across the country
- Does not NEPA-ize Planning
Slide 10: Legal Guidance
Slide 11: Planning Rule Text
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm
Slide 12: Transportation - Resource Agency
Image:
Diagram depicting four spheres aligned in two rows and two columns. The two spheres in the top row represent system-level planning. The two spheres in the bottom row represent project-level decisions. The spheres in the left column represent Transportation agencies. The Spheres in the bottom row are linked by NEPA, Environmental Review Process, covered by S-LU 6002. They are highlighted. The spheres in the right column represent Resource agencies. The spheres in the left column are linked by Linking Planning and NEPA covered in Guidance/Appendix A. The spheres in the top row are linked by Integrated Planning, Consultation covered in S-LU 6001.
Slide 13: 10 Relevant 6002/ERP/23 CFR 771 Provisions
- Opportunity for Involvement
- Purpose and need
- Range of alternatives
- Final 6002 Guidance specifically mentions "opportunities" may be given in the planning process - references LP&N guidance
- NPRM of 23 CFR 771.111 included a cross-reference to planning regulation re: linking planning and NEPA
Funding assistance to affected State and Federal Agencies
Back to top
Slide 14: How does 6001/Planning Reg./6002 work together?
- Planning as the basis for NEPA
- Better relationships, increased trust with resource agencies, throughout the decision-making process
- Early, informed decisions reduce project delivery delays within the ERP and minimize duplication of effort
- Agencies work collaboratively to ensure early consideration given to multiple goals
- Thoughtful and diligent management of the planning and NEPA processes can make a difference
Slide 15: Transportation - Resource Agency
Image:
Diagram depicting four spheres aligned in two rows and two columns. The two spheres in the top row represent system-level planning. The two spheres in the bottom row represent project-level decisions. The spheres in the left column represent Transportation agencies. The spheres in the right column represent Resource agencies. The spheres in the left row are linked by Linking Planning and NEPA covered in Guidance/Appendix A. The spheres in the top row are linked by Integrated Planning, Consultation covered in S-LU 6001. The Spheres in the bottom row are linked by NEPA, Environmental Review Process, covered by S-LU 6002. All the connections are highlighted.
Slide 16: Related Efforts: Executive Order 13274
- Established Work Groups to focus on:
- Purpose and Need
- Indirect and Cumulative
- Integrated Planning (IPWG)
- All baseline reports and findings reference planning level consideration/links as good/best practice
- IPWG will soon post case studies (including STEP-UP, Riverside)
- IPWG will soon conduct state of the practice and best practice review of Tiering, Corridor and Sub Area studies
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/workgroups.htm
Slide 17: Related Efforts: Eco-Logical
- Eco-Logical encourages flexibility in regulatory processes
- Lays conceptual groundwork for integrating plans across agency boundaries
- Endorses ecosystem-based planning and mitigation
Signatory Agencies:
- BLM, EPA, FHWA, NOAA Fisheries Service, NPS, USACE, USFS, USFWS
Image:
Graphic shows cover of Ecological handbook
Slide 18: Other related efforts
- State Wildlife Action Plans
- Environmental GIS Work
- Green Infrastructure/Strategic Conservation Planning
Slide 19: Feedback so far
From Transport. Planners:
- Need more guidance
- Lack of examples
- Mitigation?
- Flexibility is good
- Not another planning requirement
- Need training
From Resource agencies:
- Great opportunity
- Don't have the resources
- Early input may effect ability to make decisions later
- Need training
- How to be useful, provide valuable input
Back to top
Slide 20: Case Studies
Slide 21: Case Study - Consultation Riverside County Integrated Project
- Integrated planning initiative
- Coordination among FHWA, USACE, USEPA, USFWS, USFS, Caltrans, CRA, Governor's Office of Planning, etc…
- Plans included:
- County General Plan
- Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
- Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP)
- CETAP used RCIP effort to inform Tiered EIS process
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_studies.asp
Slide 22: Case Study - Mitigation SEMCOG
- Potential impact analysis for sensitive resources considered for the RTP
- Area definition and resource mapping, data integration
- Created guidelines for mitigation
- Guidelines established for consideration of specific resources, in consultation with Fed & State agencies
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_studies.asp
Slide 23: Potentially Impacted Woodlands
Image:
Graphic shows map depicting pavement project, woodlands, and potentially impacted woodlands.
Slide 24: Case Study - Linking Planning and NEPA STEP-UP
- Strategic Transportation, Environmental and Planning Process for Urban Places (STEP-UP)
- STEP-UP is a partnership among CDOT, FHWA, USEPA Region 8 and NFRMPO
- Includes several components:
Slide 25: Planning and Environment Linkages website
Image:
Screenshot of Planning and Environmental Linkages website
Slide 26: Planning and Environment Linkages website
http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/index.asp
Michael Culp
Michael.culp@dot.gov
202-366-9229
Slide 27: Undeveloped Environmental Resources
Image:
Map 1: depicts undeveloped environmental resources in 2005
Map 2: depicts undeveloped environmental resources in 2035
Slide 28:
Image:
Bar graph titled "Resource Reviewer Overall Mean Change in Streamlining From 2003 to 2006". The graph depicts resource reviewer ratings by region in 2003 and 2006.
Slide 28:
Image:
Bar graph titled "Transportation Reviewer Overall Mean Change in Streamlining From 2003 to 2006". The graph depicts transportation reviewer ratings by region in 2003 and 2006.
Back to top
|
Training & Workshops