Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portals
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
ENV-1
Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review
Description: The scoping key decision is a crucial first step of the environmental review phase. Consensus is reached on the data, decisions and relationships that need to be considered, acquired or made throughout environmental review. The scope is informed by the adopted long range transportation plan and corridor plans as well as current information being developed from plans in process.
Relationships with planning partners are formed during scoping. TCAPP primarily addresses the role of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as the agency responsible for issuing permits under the Clean Water Act. However, relationships should be formed with all agencies who will be responsible for issuing permits for the proposed action at the federal and state levels or who have some degree of authority over the NEPA process. For example, if listed species are present in the vicinity of the project, informal consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) should be initiated. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews all actions requiring an environmental impact statement. The relationship with EPA within the NEPA process is also initiated at this key decision.
In addition to relationships, scoping is a time to begin identifying the process and methods that will be used for the environmental review.
There is information developed in Long Range Planning and Corridor Planning that informs this step.
Purpose
• To gather all readily available information to inform the development of the scope, approach, and timeframe.
• To meet the federal regulations for conducting scoping.
Outcome
• Agreement among planning partners on the overall approach, scope, and anticipated timeframe for the NEPA and permitting process.
• Information to create the notice of intent.
• Agreements between partners on participation.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Decision Maker |
Ensures that the environmental review process is inclusive, considers a wide range of options, and meets federal requirements |
MPO |
Advisor |
Provides support as needed for project scoping in the urban area based on regional information from the LRTP and the TIP |
Resource Agency |
Decision Maker |
The USACE is a decision maker, reaching consensus on a scope that is built on planning in the LRTP/corridor process, environmental planning, and sufficiently broad to consider all options. Identify and support the use of an ecological planning region, ecological goals and conservation priorities to the extent possible. Agree to work with transportation partners in a process that is streamlined by earlier agreements and actions. |
State DOT |
Decision Maker |
Ensures the project scope is comprehensive and inclusive of all interested parties |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Data | Local area plans or policies and zoning that identify land use related physical data, growth patterns and forecasts, goals, and partnerships for the study area that should be incorporated in the environmental review process. | Decision | • Purpose - To establish participation of land use stakeholder in the process. • Outcome - Participation of land use stakeholder in the process. |
| Air Quality Conformity | Data | Relevant data for air quality, including information about emissions budgets and potential partnerships |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data Between IEF Step 1 - Build & Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships & Vision and ENV-1 | Any relationships formed between resource agencies, conservation NGOs and transportation agencies as part of transportation planning or IEF Step 1 are recognized, reinforced and strengthened. Information about the ecological planning region identified at IEF Sub-step 1a is gathered and will inform the development of a study area at ENV-4. The ecological goal data from IEF Sub-step 1d is collected. This data should have been considered during scoping in long range planning and/or corridor planning, but partners can confirm that ecological goals were appropriately considered and can determine whether the data has been updated or if there is more specific information relevant to the project. | Decision Between IEF Step 1 - Build & Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships & Vision and ENV-1 | A joint decision is made between transportation and resource agency partners to work together to maximize the ecological benefit and regulatory process efficiencies that can be achieved. If an ecological plan has been completed, this decision could be to implement the agreements consistent with IEF Step 8 (Implement Agreements and Adaptive Management. Deliver Conservation and Transportation Projects). | Data From IEF Step 2 - Characterize Resource Status & Integrate Natural Environment Plans | Combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities. | Data From IEF Step 3 - Create Regional Ecosystem Framework | Combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities with transportation plan informed by long range planning and/or corridor planning. | Data From IEF Step 8 - Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management & Deliver Projects | Ecological plan and embedded regional ecosystem framework; vision and goals; evaluation criteria, methods and measures; crediting method; mitigation strategy. |
| Capital Improvement | Data | Capital improvement related data and partnerships for the study area that should be incorporated in the environmental review process. |
| Safety and Security | Data | Relevant data for safety and security, including information about relevant plans and potential partnerships |
| Human Environment | Data | Relevant data for human environment, including information about protected resources and potential partnerships |
| Economic Development | Data | • Economic development data (existing reports, information, and performance indicators) • Economic development planning stakeholders • Underlying "economic development philosophy" of the region and/or state | Analysis | Economic development related analysis from long range planning and corridor planning or an adopted land use or economic development plan. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Information about stakeholder interest in GHG, relevant policies and plans, and data availability for analysis. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
From Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-1 - Approve Scope of LRTP Process |
Relevant information in the long range plan scope; including potential stakeholders, available tools and data sources, known human and natural environmental considerations, and others |
To inform the scope of the environmental review and permitting process |
LRP-2 - Approve Vision and Goals |
The vision and goals of the LRTP |
To inform the scope of the environmental review and permitting process |
LRP-6 - Approve Strategies |
The approved range of strategies |
To provide a regional context of the range of strategies to inform the environmental review/ permitting phase |
LRP-10 - Adopt LRTP by MPO |
Relevant information from the adopted long range plan, including strategies and scenarios that were evaluated and eliminated |
To inform the scope of the environmental review and permitting process |
From Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-1 - Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process |
Relevant information in the corridor plan scope; including potential stakeholders, available tools and data sources, known human and natural environmental considerations, and others |
To inform the scope of the environmental review and permitting process |
COR-3 - Approve Goals for the Corridor |
The goals of the corridor plan |
To inform the scope of the environmental review and permitting process |
COR-4 - Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis |
Agreement between the partners as to the scope of environmental review and analysis to support the corridor planning process. |
To provide an understanding of the requirements and perspectives of the environmental planning partners |
COR-8 - Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures for Prioritization of Projects |
Priorities for implementation of the individual solutions contained in the preferred solution set |
To inform identification of logical termini, study area boundaries and potential sequencing of related projects. |
From Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-4 - Approve Project Prioritization |
Detailed information that informed the prioritization of this project, for example local support, project readiness, and cost sharing. |
To inform the establishment of logical termini with respect to the approach, scope, and timeframe. |
PRO-7 - Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP |
Funding and schedule provided by the adopted TIP |
To make a comparison between the TIP schedule and the estimated timeframe within the environmental review and permitting process. TIP project cost as a context to carry forward through environmental review and permitting. |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Are partners' roles and responsibilities clear? |
Is there a formal interagency conservation and transportation partnership agreement? | |
Questions about stakeholders |
Are all stakeholders aware that a P3 is either being considered or implemented? |
Have all private entities involved in the P3 project been identified and included? | |
How can we ensure participation and accountability from the private sector throughout the environmental review process? | |
How will potential private sector developers be involved in the NEPA and permitting processes? | |
Is there or will there be a formal pre-development agreement for a public-private partnership? If so, what should be the terms of a pre-development agreement? | |
What stakeholders should be included? Are participants' roles and responsibilities clear? | |
Who are our proponents and opponents? | |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are our tools up to date and sufficient for this process? |
Are there emerging issues that affect this corridor? | |
How were the termini identified? | |
Is the identified geographic area sufficient to analyze both direct and indirect effects? | |
Is the study process established to meet legal requirements? | |
Over what time frame is the P3 financing available? | |
What data are available? Are the data sufficient? | |
What is our time frame for construction? | |
What is our time frame for the environmental study? | |
What is the geographic footprint of the initial study area? | |
Questions about other phases |
Is information available from long range planning / corridor planning to inform the consideration of cumulative effects within the consideration of alternatives? |
Is the project description from previous planning / programming processes sufficiently detailed enough to get meaningful input but broad enough not to constrain the decision making process? | |
Is there information from long range planning, corridor planning, or programming related to a P3 arrangement? Information may include potential project impacts, financial implications, project scope, financial analyses, and timeframe? | |
What changes have occurred in the financial and revenue assumptions that make a P3 project attractive? | |
What does the long range and/or corridor plan say about this project? | |
What major changes have occurred since the LRTP and/or Corridor plan? | |
What plans and programs and linking documents from long range transportation planning and corridor planning are available? Are they carried forward in a consistent manner as tools or data sources? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are there adopted land development objectives exist in the area of influence that support the reduction of GHG? If so, how would the project impact those objectives? |
Are there GHG-related findings from long range planning, programming and/or corridor planning studies? | |
Are there jurisdictions in the region with GHG-related policies or targets? | |
Have land use patterns and growth forecasts been considered in defining the planning region? If so, is there information specific to the project area to consider? | |
How does the project relate to regional, state, or federal GHG-reduction policy/goals? | |
Is there agreement in the general area of the project with respect to economic and land use impacts? | |
Is there agreement in the region with respect to an underlying economic development philosophy or vision that the corridor plan supports? | |
Is there agreement on the planning region with respect to ecological assessment? | |
Is there an advance mitigation strategy in place for potential negative economic impacts? | |
Is there an advance mitigation strategy in place? | |
What are the other transportation projects and area plans that could influence future travel demand, movement patterns, and GHG emissions? | |
What data is available from local economic and financial investment plans and programs that support the development of a P3 project? | |
What is the lead agency's policy on assessing GHG emissions? What other federal, state, and local policies apply? | |
What local community, economic, and land use plans and programs are available as resources? | |
What plans and programs are available as resources? | |
What project features lend themselves to a potential change in GHG emissions and differences between alternatives from the perspective of traffic and other factors? | |
What relevant emission sources will be considered in the environmental review? Is a lifecycle emissions analysis for various project components warranted? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| How should we engage the public in these decisions? Who, of the public, should be involved? |
| What are the things you value and care about in and near the project area? |
| What are your concerns? |
| What data is necessary? |
| What information can you provide us? |
| Where and how do you define your community boundaries? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Have we conveyed information about a potential P3 project to stakeholders? What feedback have we received and how will it be incorporated? |
| How did we incorporate the stakeholders' input into the public involvement plan, scoping, and the rest of the project? |
| What information that the stakeholders provided is different from information in previous plans? If it is inconsistent, how are we going to address these inconsistencies? |
| What is the rationale for how we handled information from the stakeholders? How has this been communicated to the stakeholders? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
The extent of time that has passed since the LRTP update and what might have changed in that time. | Programming |
Data from the TIP/STIP, including the prioritization of projects and schedule, related projects, logical termini, and funding identified for the project. |
Analysis of financing and revenue potential of project (LRP-7) Programming project solution (PRO-4) |
Corridor Planning |
The extent of time that has passed since the corridor plan was adopted and what might have changed in that time. |
Transportation planning in the corridor area |
Corridor solution set evaluation (COR-7) |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Land use plans/goals/data (this could incorporate areas of controversy, socioeconomic, demographics, natural resource, land use, etc.) for the study area that should be incorporated in the environmental review process. | Local area plans or policies and zoning |
Air Quality Conformity |
Relevant data for air quality, including information about emissions budgets and potential partnerships |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Conservation planning (ecoregion, watershed) boundaries |
Relationships formed between resource agencies, conservation NGOs and transportation agencies |
Combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities |
Ecological plan and embedded regional ecosystem framework; vision and goals; evaluation criteria, methods and measures; crediting method; mitigation strategy |
Capital Improvement |
Project detail information from those projects currently in development or construction. |
Transportation planning ( city, county) |
Other capital improvement plans or development plans |
Safety and Security |
Safety and security plans and stakeholders: freight, emergency management, SHSP, etc. |
Relevant data for safety and security, including information about relevant plans and potential partnerships |
Human Environment |
Relevant data for human environment, including information about protected resources and potential partnerships |
Economic Development |
Economic development data, stakeholders and philosophy |
Greenhouse Gas |
GHG-related data from long range transportation plans, corridor plans and programming studies |
Travel forecasts used in previous studies |
Land use and economic development plans and objectives in the area of project influence |
Applicable GHG emission assessment policies |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Demographic data (Population, employment, special populations) | |
Multimodal data such as transit operating plans and schedules, bicycle and greenway plans | ||
Traffic count data, crash data, bridge data, and other engineering support data | ||
If PDA exists, relevant data from private sector stakeholder | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Emerging issues that may impact the project | |
Proponents and opponents of the project | ||
Summary of comments from the public | ||
Identified stakeholders to include in the process (including the full range of transportation, land use, environmental, community, and advocacy stakeholders as well as special needs or special interests including developers if the project could be developed through a P3.) | ||
Public involvement plan or policy | ||
Memorandum of Agreement or decision by stakeholders to participate | ||
From public private partnership |
No Specific Data | |
The following is a list of data needed to support the key decision. Practitioners collect this information for decision makers to consider. You may add to this list using the comment box at the bottom of the page. Supporting Tools and Technology | |
|---|---|
Category |
Detail |
Communication |
GIS Tools: Used to communicate geographical extent of project area, to aid decision-makers in reaching consensus on NEPA scope. |
Gathering |
Database Tools: Used to access past MPO certification reviews, for framing the current NEPA analysis. |
GIS Tools: Used to gather spatial data on study region to determine the appropriate scope of NEPA analysis. |
|
Information Seach Tools: Used to search for updates on emerging issues which may affect the NEPA analysis, including issues such as climate change or other topics that are new to the field. Can include internet tools such as Google Search. |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Streamlining a Bottleneck Project |
|
||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||