|
Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program– Peer Roundtable Report –Linking Planning and NEPA
I. Summary and BackgroundThis Peer Roundtable was held as part of the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program, which is jointly sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The event was a session at the American Public Transportation Association's (APTA) 2005 Rail Transit Conference. It focused on linking the transportation planning process with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) website, NEPA requires integration of environmental values into decision-making through consideration of environmental impacts of and reasonable alternatives to proposed federal actions. As federal transportation spending follows local plans and decisions, local agencies must comply with NEPA throughout project development. If a transportation project is determined to have a significant environmental impact, a detailed statement known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. After a period of public review, the EIS can be approved by a record of decision (ROD) from a federal department of transportation agency, including the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). For this roundtable, Don Emerson and Diana Mendes served as facilitators. At the outset of the roundtable, attendees described their interests in attending the session:
Attendees discussed the concern that the NEPA process is not robust enough to address complex corridors with multimodal projects. It was stressed that NEPA requirements should be addressed early in a project's planning phase. Additionally, the context into which a project is built — more often than the project type — determines the course for NEPA. II. Linking Planning and NEPA: Towards Streamlined Decision-making (Don Emerson)Don Emerson gave a presentation that focused on the goal of streamlined decision-making and how linking planning and the NEPA process can help further this goal. Mr. Emerson described a project decision-making continuum that has four phases: Planning and Programming; Project Analysis/Refinement; Final Design; and Implementation. Mr. Emerson then discussed where NEPA requirements enter the decision-making continuum. NEPA requirements are often begun and completed in the second phase-the Project Analysis/Refinement phase. Mr. Emerson and attendees agreed that NEPA requirements should be considered from the beginning of the decision-making process and continue throughout the life of the project, including follow-up after implementation to ensure mitigation strategies promised as part of the ROD were carried out. The goal of linking planning and NEPA is to implement a more integrated approach to planning and environmental concerns. Currently, planning and NEPA requirements are addressed separately. Often, planning does not adequately recognize environmental factors. The result is that planning decisions must be revisited during the NEPA process, increasing the project costs and time to completion. Because of the disconnect between planning and NEPA, the public and elected officials can become impatient, confused, and frustrated. Mr. Emerson believes change will require a change in the transportation planning culture. This change can be achieved without regulation by using seminars and workshops. Mr. Emerson has led linking planning and NEPA workshops in the form of half day executive seminars or 3-day managers-level workshops. The result of these workshops is an Action Plan for change. The Action Plan is developed with a goal of parties improving their collaboration and data sharing. Mr. Emerson discussed his observations from the various workshops he has led. Mr. Emerson felt that many practitioners do not understand the NEPA process well or the flexibility they could have in linking planning and NEPA. Systems planning is often weak and the focus is more on project planning. Resource agencies are willing to participate in planning, but their staff time is limited. There is a general lack of understanding of "how much environmental analysis is enough" to support various decisions. Data sharing between different transportation planning organizations — e.g. state departments of transportation (DOTs) and MPOs — is often a shortcoming. Mr. Emerson has observed that state DOTs often seem more interested than transit agencies in linking planning and the NEPA process. Transit agencies may feel that they do not have to concern themselves as much with the NEPA process. However, Mr. Emerson stressed that transit agencies should address NEPA questions early in the planning process. Carmen Clark, who co-leads the workshops with Mr. Emerson, also discussed her observations. Ms. Clark agreed with Mr. Emerson about the lack of knowledge about the NEPA process among planning managers. Also, resource agency staff do not know about Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) or how a transportation project advances through the planning process to implementation. This ignorance from multiple parties leads to a lack of trust between individuals who could otherwise streamline both planning and NEPA. Information sharing between groups can result in an elevated level of trust. One issue that Mr. Emerson highlighted with linking planning and NEPA is the differences between FTA and FHWA project development processes. FTA through its alternatives analysis requirement for New Starts permits project sponsors to drop unreasonable alternatives prior to the formal notice of intent for the NEPA process. FHWA however traditionally leverages NEPA to consider all project alternatives. Mr. Emerson presented the following list of different FTA and FHWA approaches to the NEPA process:
III. Roundtable DiscussionDiana Mendes and Don Emerson facilitated a roundtable discussion after the initial presentation. Panelists were invited to share their experiences and attendees were invited to ask questions and offer comments and suggestions. The following summary covers the four primary areas of discussion. Responsibility for Linking Planning and NEPAAs described above, there are many issues that arise from separate planning and NEPA processes. The decision-making process can be slowed and become more costly. Linking planning and NEPA can help streamline overall project implementation. However, there is a question of who bears the responsibility for linking the planning and NEPA processes. Ms. Mendes raised this issue and facilitated discussion of it. Attendees offered a variety of opinions including that state DOTs and MPOs should be responsible for solving some of the issues surrounding separate planning and NEPA processes. Others felt that leadership within these agencies would need to prioritize linking planning and NEPA to solve the issues of separate processes. Some attendees commented that if local planners did link planning and NEPA, there would still be difficulty because the federal agencies approach the processes differently. Methods of Integration and Project ExamplesThe discussion focused on methods on linking planning and NEPA and project examples of integrated approaches. Attendees agreed that transportation should be viewed as a system consisting of all modes as opposed to transit versus highways. Panelist Toni Bates explained that San Diego has combined its transit agency with the MPO. The new agency has planning responsibilities for all modes of transportation in the region. Ms. Bates believes that a planning process can be developed that satisfies the ways both FTA and FHWA approach NEPA with the federal funding process for multi-modal projects. The panelists stressed that integration of planning and NEPA should be a collaborative and multi-agency approach. Panelist Ralph Jackson offered a project example from the Salt Lake City area. He described a light rail transit project and a highway project that had the same EIS document. In the Salt Lake City region, the NEPA process is completed for the entire regional plan which includes both highway and transit projects. Panelist Liz Rao described the Southeast Corridor Project in Denver for which transit was initially the preferred alternative. However, the highway alternative was reconsidered at a later date resulting in an integrated EIS. The transit project and the highway project also shared the right-of-way costs. Attendees agreed that formal case studies covering projects similar to those discussed above would be useful on how to apply NEPA requirements. Lessons learned and advantages and disadvantages would be useful in understanding how to implement the NEPA process. Different FTA and FHWA approachesThe group discussed the difference in the planning and NEPA processes for FTA funded transit projects and FHWA funded highway projects. The funding source affects the planning and NEPA processes because FHWA funding is formula funding and FTA provides discretionary grants that are highly competitive. FTA New Starts projects must compete for limited funds; thus the selection of the alternative is governed by the NEPA process, but also by its likelihood of meeting competitive cost-effective thresholds for all projects nationwide. Funding for FHWA is not competitive and FHWA designates money through formulas for specific purposes. Some attendees felt that linking planning and NEPA would be easier if FTA and FHWA had more integrated approaches. Transit agencies should then try to find commonality between FTA and FHWA decision processes and frameworks. However, some felt that transit agencies should be careful about promoting FHWA and FTA working together on NEPA requirements. Some flexibility could be lost because FHWA might control the process more if there were an integrated approach. NEPA PurposePanelists and attendees discussed the purpose of the NEPA requirements. Attendees felt that the purpose of NEPA is to serve as a decision-making tool. Ms. Mendes explained that NEPA documents are being used in ways that were never intended. The NEPA process has become too long, too complex, and too expensive. This is due to how courts have interpreted NEPA legislation. NEPA documents should be short and very high-level strategic documents produced for the public. Some attendees felt that NEPA must be part of the New Starts process, because transit agencies must choose projects that will receive funding and be affordable. However, others believed that funding issues should not be part of the NEPA process and that New Starts should be kept as a separate rating tool. IV. For More Information
V. Attachments/LinksAttendee List
Appendix AMr. Emerson presented a slide called the "NEPA Umbrella" that listed the legislation and other factors that the NEPA process must consider. The list includes the following:
 |
