Topics of on-going and new interest to DOT’s

Represented in AASHTO’s Standing Committee on the Environment

Subcommittee on Environmental Process

Snowbird, Utah

June 9 -11, 2004

Topic and Questions
/ Activity Suggestions – Work Plan – Team Members /
Schedule
A. Streamlining and Time to Complete NEPA Process
A1. What is happening with FHWA’s efforts to shorten NEPA EIS and ROD times? How can the state DOTs help?
Issues to Consider:
  • Uniform Milestones and Start Time
  • Define the goal – aggregate, not per document
  • Predictability vs. schedule
  • Tiered EIS (pros and cons) and better coordination with agencies
  • State Goals reflecting Vital Few Goals (ask states to be part of goal setting process)
  • Account for offline delays, state process delays
  • Minimal Data Standards
  • Document quality issues related to processing time
  • Ways to shorten review times (review parts rather than whole document)
  • Budget and plan for QA/QC
  • Better record keeping to identify causes of delay/conflict
/ State by state analysis and direction from FHWA Headquarters on application of streamlining approaches (e.g. programmatics, CE)
Review surveys/studies on causes of unanticipated delays
Center for E.E. – Coordination and assignment tbd
Follow-up: Kris and Tim Hill
Team:
Brent Jensen
Janice Osadczuk / For Report:
Dec. 2004
A2. Are Negotiated NEPA Project Timelines happening? What information can FHWA and the state’s share in order to strengthen the use of this tool? / Medium
A3. What is the state of play under the President’s Executive Order on Streamlining? Is useful experience emerging? Are new projects going to be put on the streamlining “fast track?” Does my state want a project in play? How can my state get a project in play? / Medium/Low
Categorical Exclusions – Rewrite of Regulations / Revisit after reauthorization
The NEPA Umbrella: Folding permitting and other processes into NEPA
  • Critical path management for state programs
  • Concurrent processes
  • Streamlining framework
/ LONG RANGE PLANNING
Interpretation of Case Law – perceptions and impacts on NEPA process / Follow-up on NCHRP study
B. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts
B1. Can states better understand what the “rules” are at FHWA and EPA headquarters and in the regional/divisional offices for EPA reviewers of EIS sufficiency on secondary impacts and on cumulative impacts? /
  • Definitions, Commonalities

B2. What resource agency judgments are being made about “mitigation” for secondary impacts? Cumulative impacts? Are they reasonable? Where can standards be found? How is FHWA trying to play on this issue? What state-by-state experience will be helpful to other states?
B3. What information about projects’ successes and failures from state-to-state would be most useful in equipping your DOT to better navigate these shoal waters? Are “good practices” emerging? New guidance? Court decisions?
B4. How can respect be built at EPA for state and local decision-making on growth and land use policies? Should EPA give deference to local/state decision-making? What is FHWA’s role when local/state policy-making conflicts with EPA reviewer viewpoints on sufficiency?
B5. There are so many positions on induced growth? Where does a state DOT find the best information it can to address this issue in a reasonable and defensible way? Do we need a literature search and advocacy tools? Are there means that FHWA can help with to deal with this arena of controversy? / High
C. Scoping and Purpose and Need
C1. Where will the reauthorization debate on this issue leave us? What can be learned from that debate that will help state DOT’s? If reauthorization fails to end all disputation in this area, what administrative solutions have been proffered by USDOT/FHWA and how can they be used by state DOT’s.
  • Focus effort with federal agencies, communication strategy
  • What is FHWA intent as lead agency?
  • Formulate organizational opinion and request
  • Better guidance on p&N and scoping
  • Federal Streamlining Task Force work – review upcoming report
  • Issues beyond broad deference
  • How to address additional federal actions
  • Corps and permits
  • Examples of good statements
  • Economic development component
  • Administrator’s P&N Guidance – how is it being applied and what is the application to 404 actions
  • How to address agency comments on elements of P&N
  • Tiered EIS issues
/ Communication Strategy:
At time of implementation and next steps, will need a strategy.
More information sharing on activities ongoing.
Federal Task Force Strategy:
Who should researchers talk to on each of the Working Group subjects? Select SCOE members with applicable experience, issues.
FHWA and Work Group leaders to share information and updates with SCOE chairs.
Tiered EIS Strategy:
D. Alternatives Analysis
D1. What’s the current “ask” for the analysis of “multi-modal transportation alternatives” in development and assessment of alternatives impacts? What methods and experiences can state DOT’s share to best equip themselves to deal with this issue? Are new tools needed? What and who would be involved in their development?
  • Relationship to purpose and need
  • Traffic modeling going from vehicle-based models to person-based models
/ Medium
D2. The majority of state DOTs work involves highways, and most state DOTs environmental staff is concentrated within the highway part of the organization. Our federal counterparts, as well as environmental and permitting agencies, are most familiar with highway work. How do we move to an organization that effectively considers multi-modal transportation alternatives from a NEPA perspective? / Medium
D3. CSS which can include multi-modal alternatives is becoming a more common way DOTs are doing business. How are multi-modal alternatives incorporated in DOTs’ CSS processes? /

Low/Medium

F. NEPA Integration with Endangered Species Act and Other Laws
F1. FHWA recently declared that any required ESA Section 7 consultation must be completed prior to issuance of a ROD on an FHWA EIS. What are the implications of this approach for state DOT projects. Can FHWA be given a better appreciation of the issue this ruling presents for FHWA’s own “streamlining” performance objectives? What successful practices and characteristic pitfalls are arising in this area? What can state’s share about how to make this process work? /

Medium

F2. There is a lot of information on wildlife crossing information, but nothing that ties it together into a good guidance document. In addition, there needs to be more of a consideration of wildlife passages for more common species, other than threatened and endangered and large game species. / Medium
F3. NHPA Section 106 review of contractor-selected borrow sites and staging areas: lack of clear guidance from FHWA on whether Sec. 106 review (including literature searches and ground surveys) is required or not. There is a lack of clear guidance from FHWA on implementation of federal law on federal aid projects creates confusion in project development and poses a risk for the DOT. / Medium/Low
F4. Federal fish services (FWS & NOAA-Fisheries) attempting to impose separate stormwater management requirements and water quality monitoring requirements on projects, through ESA Section 7 consultations, irrespective of the Clean Water Act and state stormwater regulations. This action creates a double standard for stormwater management, one to satisfy Clean Water Act/state stormwater regulation, and one to satisfy ESA, which creates lack of predictability in project development and higher costs. / Low/Medium
G. General Resource Agency Relationships in NEPA and Environmental Permitting
G1. Where are the problems that characteristically create and consume non-value added (“nva”) bureaucratic efforts anywhere in this arena, i.e., at their agency or ours? What practices and experiences can states share to help others to reduce nva bureaucratic activity? Can guidance or good practice models be offered? /

Medium

G2. What is the pro and con experience of DOT funding of resource agency positions to help address staffing shortfalls and increase the quality and timeliness of the assessment/permitting process? / Medium/Low
G3. How can we improve function and productivity of programs that place personnel at resource agencies (“Liaison Positions”)? / Low/Medium
H. Quality of Environmental Documentation
H1. New developments in “sufficiency:” how does the state DOT environmental employee understand, explain and guide the work of those around her on this question? Do we need to know about new court cases? Practice guidelines? Can the “sufficiency” decision be left to the EIS preparer consultants who are charging by the page, or the hour? Who advises you and your DOT fellow DOT managers and executives on the “sufficiency” legal standard? / Medium/High
H2. What about the EPA rating system? Does this system work? Are practices available to make it work better? Are there examples around the country of especially good or bad experience in this area? / Low
H3. The “reader friendly EIS” movement: could this be real? What innovations and experiments are being taken around the country? How is FHWA reacting? Citizens? Resource agencies? The Public? Are “reader friendly” EIS style guides emerging that would be useful to others? / Medium/High
H4. What’s happening on the quality of NEPA documents question? Research and investigative efforts? Collaborations with other industry groups? What are the expected outputs? When? How will they affect the state of practice in states across the country? Will any guidance that can be relied upon be forthcoming? Is SCOE participating in an effective way? / High
I. State DOT Administration of Their NEPA EIS Activities
I1. In-house vs. consultant division of labor in the NEPA process. What are the competing considerations? When is one the right answer? When the other? / Low/Medium
I2. How much does NEPA compliance cost in dollars and time? Are there any national benchmarks and comparisons that can be useful in getting at appropriate and customary levels of effort?
  • Delay costs, mitigation costs in NEPA
  • Need information and data rather than anecdotes
  • Look at “routine” rather than exceptional projects
  • Share information with other agencies on cost of response to comments
  • Disclose costs associated with tasks, phases of work as a streamlining/scoping tool
  • Demonstrate investment in resources by
/ FHWA mini-workshop with NCHRP study staff and others to identify applicable case studies or other approaches.
Long Range / Medium
I3. What are the successful models for the state DOT to integrate the professions of planner, environmentalist and designengineer in the conduct of the NEPA analysis? / Medium/Low
J. Environmental Justice
J1. Are state DOT’s adequately equipped to deal with the fundamental conceptual issues as they emerge from NEPA and the Civil Rights Act? What does “environmental justice” mean? What does “environmental justice” require? What is an “environmental justice community,” if indeed the term is useful in the handling of a state DOTs environmental justice responsibilities? Are there commonly met misconceptions about the meaning and requirements of “environmental justice” about which state DOTs need better information? How can FHWA help? / Low
J2. Do states need annotated sources of information and expertise on environmental justice issues? Who has that information? How can it best be packaged and distributed to state DOTs. / Low
J3. What is happening in the “environmental justice” arena in states across the country? What practices and experiences are worth sharing to help strengthen state DOT’s capabilities in discharging their environmental justice responsibilities? / Medium
J4. What seem to be successful models across the country for state’s organization of their environmental justice work within the structure of their departments? What patterns of success and difficulty have state DOT’s found in working with FHWA and EPA on environmental justice issues? / Low
K. Other Environmental Geotechnical/Hydrology Issues
K1. Discovery during construction of unsuspected karst topography: what is appropriate course? What can be learned from and exchanged from the experience of the states? /

Low

K2. FEMA considers highways and bridges within floodplains as "structures" subject to restriction by their statutes. FEMA prefers replacement bridges within the footprint of any existing bridge (making it difficult to maintain traffic over any old bridge until a new one is erected). Flood buyout lands also may have outdoor recreation use, and hence raise possible Section 4(f) issues. FEMA approval may also require amendments through the FEMA Washington Office, with attendant design, acquisition and deeding problems. What is the precise impact and scale of this issue around the states? What can be done with FHWA to facilitate suitable and reasonable solutions? / Low
L. Noise
L1. What is the current state of practice surrounding the FHWA noise wall standards? Is this an area of controversy? Are there areas of practice or guidance that the states need attention to in this area? If so, how can these areas best be presented to FDGWA for action? /

Low

L2. Technical issues around highway impact noise modeling for national parks and other recreational areas: does work need to be done in this area? / Low
L3. Do state DOT environmental professionals need more information on quiet pavements? Are quiet pavements emerging as a mitigation strategy/requirement, and if so, what experience can states generally gain about recent experience in states where this is happening? / Medium/Low
M. Emissions: Air Toxics
M1. FHWA is undertaking a research effort related to air toxics issues on transportation projects. There are many unknowns in dealing with this subject at both the regional and project level. Are air toxics issues being raised on project environmental documents? Other than the case in Las Vegas, have other States experienced challenges by community activists, environmentalists, project opponents on this issue? /

Low/Medium

M2. MOBILE6 has been out for over two years. It predicts higher emissions in the short term and lower emissions in the long term compared to the previous model. What are the state’s experiences? Are the short-term high emissions predictions causing a problem? Is the complexity and the amount of the model inputs causing a problem? / Medium/Low
N. Emissions: Greenhouse Gases
N1. What is the fundamental body of knowledge that state DOT environmental professionals must have on transportation’s role in generation of greenhouse gases? What knowledge should they have about greenhouse gas reduction strategies from vehicle technologies? /

Low

N2. Around the country, how are state DOT’s responding to various state and regional strategies for greenhouse gas reductions? / Low
N3. What are state DOT environmental professionals doing and saying with regard to agency greenhouse gas inventories and reductions; what practices are developing around the country with respect to incorporation of hybrid or other fuel efficient vehicles into DOT fleets? What is the current state of thinking in state DOT’s on use of low sulfur fuel in the fleet diesel component? Ultra low sulfur fuel? Biodiesel? Have greenhouse gas emissions goals been set internally or by directive? / Low
O. Emissions: Construction Equipment and Other Off-Road Impacts
  • O1. Off-road equipment has had little if any emission controls until recently. This type of equipment can be highly polluting, however there are available technologies that reduce emissions. Are States experiencing a push to use cleaner fuels and/or emission control devices for construction equipment on State DOT construction contracts? This can be an issue on transportation projects that are subject to general conformity requirements.
/ Low/Medium
P. Construction Practices Generally
P1. Borrow sites and Waste sites. What is working and what is not? What issues are states having? / Medium/Low
P2. What advances have been made in materials recycling, including asphalt? Are more states doing this? What is the latest research showing? /

Medium

Q. NHPA Section 106 Issues/ Section 4 (f)
Q1. Section 106 is increasingly extending its potential coverage to roads, highways, bridges and other structures owned and administered by state DOTs. What is the status of the “Historic Interstate” issue? Is there anything that DOT’s should be doing now to address this issue- if reauthorization does not? Without the FHWA PA (which reportedly ensures “no adverse effect” determinations when undertakings affect the interstate system), adverse effects will be determined, triggering 4(f) evaluations. What successes and problems are emerging around the country on this issue? Is FHWA an effective player when the highways and structures involved form part of the interstate highway system? / High
Q2. Historic contexts for linear resources (e.g. railroads, canals, etc.); Guidance and training is needed on the use of historic contexts to streamline the Section 106 process. / Medium/High
Q3. More and more projects around the country are becoming involved with significant archaeological investigations and recoveries. These projects often involve complicated negotiations among FHWA and the State Historical Preservation Office under Section 106 that can often involve other resource agencies (e.g., Army Corps of Engineers), Tribes, local governments and state DOTs. What management tools are available to state DOT’s to navigate these issues and assure that archaeological work only presents reasonable time and cost burdens on project delivery? What is being done to address shrinking SHPO staff and funding and the relative inexperience of shrinking DOT staffs? / Medium