Environmental Review Toolkit
NEPA and Project Development

NEPA Documentation

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

NEPA requires Federal agencies to prepare environmental impact statements (EISs) for major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. An EIS is a full disclosure document that details the process through which a transportation project was developed, includes consideration of a range of reasonable alternatives, analyzes the potential impacts resulting from the alternatives, and demonstrates compliance with other applicable environmental laws and executive orders. The EIS process in completed in the following ordered steps: Notice of Intent (NOI), draft EIS, final EIS, and record of decision (ROD).

The NOI is published in the Federal Register by the lead Federal agency and signals the initiation of the process. Scoping, an open process involving the public and other Federal, state and local, agencies, commences immediately to identify the major and important issues for consideration during the study. Public involvement and agency coordination continues throughout the entire process. The draft EIS provides a detailed description of the proposal, the purpose and need, reasonable alternatives, the affected environment, and presents analysis of the anticipated beneficial and adverse environmental effects of the alternatives. Following a formal comment period and receipt of comments from the public and other agencies, the FEIS will be developed and issued. The FEIS will address the comments on the draft and identify, based on analysis and comments, the "preferred alternative".

FHWA's Technical Advisory (T6640.8A) provides detailed guidance on the preparation of the NOI, the scoping process, and the information that should be included in the EIS. The following is a brief summary of the major EIS sections:

Purpose and Need. The Purpose and Need Section of an EIS is one of the most important and should therefore be clear and well documented. The purpose and need drives the development of the range of alternatives. Some of the common needs include transportation demand, safety, legislative direction, urban transportation plan consistency, modal interrelationships, system linkage, and the condition of an existing facility.

Alternatives. The Alternatives Section describes the process that was used to develop, evaluate, and eliminate potential alternatives based on the purpose and need of the project. The discussion should include how alternatives were selected for detailed study, the reasons why some alternatives were eliminated from consideration and describe how the alternatives meet the need for the project and avoid or minimized environmental harm. In developing alternatives the requirements of 23 CFR 771.111(f), which states that projects must connect logical termini, have independent utility, and not restrict the consideration of future transportation alternatives are important considerations.

In the draft EIS, all reasonable alternatives should be discussed at a comparable level of detail. There is no requirement at this stage to have a "preferred" alternative. However, if an official position has been taken on one of the alternatives, it can be stated. The final EIS must identify and describe the preferred alternative and the basis for that decision. At this stage in the process, no final decision can be made.

The "no-build" alternative is always included as a benchmark against which the impacts of other alternatives can be compared. As part of the no-build alternative, short-term minor reconstruction, such as safety upgrading and maintenance, can be considered. In addition, Transportation System Management must also be included as an alternative and can include high-occupancy vehicle lanes, ridesharing, signal synchronization, and other actions. Where appropriate, mass transit options should also be considered.

Affected Environment. This section provides information on the existing resources and condition of the environment. Generally this section should focus on the important issues in order to provide an understanding of the project area relative to the impacts of the alternatives. The affected environment should discuss, commensurate with the importance of the potential impacts, the existing social, economic, and environmental settings surrounding the project. It should also identify environmentally sensitive features in the project corridor.

Environmental Consequences. This describes the impacts of project alternatives on the environment and documents the methodologies used in evaluating these impacts. Information in this section is used to compare project alternatives and their impacts. This section should describe in detail both the impacts of the proposed action and the potential measures that could be taken to mitigate these impacts. Mitigation must be considered for all impacts, regardless of their significance. Environmental impacts should be discussed in terms of their context and intensity.

Comments and Coordination. The EIS must summarize the scoping process, the results of any meetings that have been held, and any comments received during preliminary coordination. Between the draft and final EIS, the state department of transportation and FHWA must consider and respond to all substantive comments received on the draft EIS, including those from public hearings. The final EIS must include copies of the comments received and the agency's responses. If comments are voluminous, they may be summarized. If the EIS was changed in response to comments, changes should be referenced in the responses.

List of Preparers. This section includes a list of the individuals primarily responsible for preparing the EIS or technical reports. Preparers are identified by name, qualifications, expertise, experience, and professional discipline.

Record Of Decision (ROD)

The ROD is the final step in the EIS process and may not be issued sooner than 30 days after the approved final EIS is distributed nor 90 days after the Draft EIS is circulated.

The ROD identifies the selected alternative, presents the basis for the decision, identifies all the alternatives considered, specifies the "environmentally preferable alternative," and provides information on the adopted means to avoid, minimize and compensate for environmental impacts.

For questions or feedback on this subject matter content, please contact Harold Peaks. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator.

HEP Home Planning Environment Real Estate

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000