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-8
Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation
Description: This is a formal approval point at which the Draft EIS, accompanied by conceptual mitigation, is approved and circulated for public review. At this key decision, land use partners indicate their support of any land use policy changes that would be required to implement the recommendations in the Draft EIS.
There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step.
Purpose
To endorse a draft EIS that is sufficient in content and that presents the trade offs in transportation, environment, and community interests. The Draft EIS is accompanied by conceptual mitigation strategies, incorporating an early mitigation strategy where one exists, and can be accompanied by a Section 404 permit application.
Outcome
An approved draft EIS and conceptual mitigation strategies that incorporate any early mitigation strategy.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Decision Maker |
Approves the release of the Draft EIS with conceptual mitigation for public comment |
MPO |
Advisor |
Provides information to support the release of the Draft EIS including important stakeholders and regional considerations |
Resource Agency |
Decision Maker |
USACE is a decision-maker - approving the DEIS and validating the sufficiency of any early mitigation strategy. |
State DOT |
Decision Maker |
Ensures the Draft EIS with conceptual mitigation meets federal requirements and is adequate for public review |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Decision | Endorse range of land use policy changes in support of Draft EIS alternatives, as required. • Purpose: Determine the willingness to change land use policy as it relates to Draft EIS alternatives. • Outcome: Commitment to implement changes to land use plans. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and ENV-5 | Ecological impacts for the alternatives carried forward to the DEIS. Mitigation needs and quantities for alternatives. | Analysis Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and ENV-8 | Develop cumulative effects scenarios. | Decision From IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives | Identified preferences regarding avoidance, minimization, and potential conservation and restoration investments. Identification and quantification of mitigation needs. Preferred alternative(s) from an ecological perspective. | Analysis Between IEF Step 6 - Develop Crediting Strategy and ENV-8 | The crediting strategy developed in IEF Step 6 can be used to measure ecological impacts and to identify the potential cost of anticipated mitigation needs. | Decision Between IEF Step 8 - Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management & Deliver Projects and ENV-8 | If a programmatic agreement, MOU or other strategy around advance mitigation had been reached/implemented through the integration of the IEF with long range planning or corridor planning, a decision is made, using the detailed information in the Draft EIS about impacts of alternatives and conceptual mitigation, as to whether any advance mitigation implemented per earlier agreements is sufficient, excessive or insufficient. This decision is made now in order to inform the selection of a preferred alternative. |
| Capital Improvement | Decision | Endorse range of capital improvement changes in support of Draft EIS alternatives, as required. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
| Economic Development | Data | Data needed to support evaluation of economic development impact | Analysis | Comparison of economic development related impact of alternatives carried forward to determine an approved draft EIS and conceptual mitigation strategy |
| Greenhouse Gas | Analysis | Evaluation of the relevant strategies with respect to the established targets for both the baseline and future year. | Data | Information about the level of GHG reduction, comparisons of potential reduction to baseline and targets, costs associated with alternatives, and other actions necessary to mitigate potential negative impacts, as applicable, to inform the selection of the preferred option. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
From Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-10 - Adopt LRTP by MPO |
Advance mitigation strategy and agreements from the adopted LRTP |
To inform conceptual mitigation incorporated in the Draft EIS |
From Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-9 - Adopt Priorities for Implementation |
Advance mitigation strategy and agreements from the Corridor Plan |
To inform conceptual mitigation incorporated in the Draft EIS |
From Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-9 - Approve STIP with respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint |
Funding for mitigation programmed in the STIP. |
To inform partners of the sufficiency of funds for avoidance, minimization and mitigation programmed in the STIP. |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Have partners been fully involved in the process? |
Questions about stakeholders |
Have stakeholders been fully involved in the process? |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Does the Draft EIS fully and accurately describe the process? |
Have the legal requirements been met? | |
How do the P3 Build Alternatives compare with each other and with the No-Build Alternative in terms of operational, financial, and revenue impacts? | |
Is there a preferred P3 alternative from a financing or revenue generation perspective? | |
What is the basis for the selection of the preferred alternative, if identified in the Draft EIS? | |
What potential negative impacts might arise from P3 alternatives and what mitigation actions must be taken? | |
Questions about other phases |
No specific questions. |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Based on comparing the economic development impacts, is there a preferred alternative? |
How do the Build Alternatives compare with each other and with the No-Build Alternative? | |
If an advance mitigation strategy was in place, has a determination been made as to whether that strategy was sufficient, excessive or insufficient? | |
Is there a preferred alternative from an ecological perspective? | |
What additional coordination efforts will be needed to support any desired method of GHG integration into long range plans? | |
What are the anticipated mitigation needs for each alternative? | |
What are the direct, indirect and cumulative ecological effects of each alternative? | |
What are the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of each alternative? Do land use goals and smart growth principles (as applicable) support and/or mitigate these impacts? | |
What are the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on GHG emissions of each alternative? | |
What are the economic development impacts of each alternative carried forward, considering all mitigation actions that will need to be taken for any adverse economic impacts? | |
What are the GHG-related comments on the DEIS, particularly as it relates to impact findings? | |
What are the pros and cons of each alternative relating to GHG emissions and all other impacts? | |
What implementation commitments are to be incorporated into the project relating to GHG emissions? | |
What opportunities exist for mitigating negative GHG emission changes? | |
What priority is placed on GHG emission reduction as a factor in the preferred alternative decision, both in the DEIS and in the received comments? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are there any potential problems or issues that you see? |
| Are there opportunities that you see to alleviate the problem or issue? |
| What do you think of the alternatives? Is there anything missing? What would you add? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| How has stakeholder input been incorporated? |
| What input did the stakeholder provide on these alternatives? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
None. |
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
No Specific Data | Programming |
No Specific Data |
Corridor Planning |
No Specific Data |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
No Specific Data | Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Preferred alternative from an ecological perspective |
Preferences regarding avoidance, minimization, and potential conservation and restoration investments |
Ecological crediting strategy |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
Economic Development |
Data needed to support evaluation of economic development impact |
Greenhouse Gas |
Descriptions of alternatives with respect to GHG reduction |
Methods and associated analysis inputs for assessment of alternatives |
Assessment of trade-offs between impacts |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Public involvement plan requirements for issue of the Draft EIS | |
Regulatory requirements. | ||
Ecological impacts for the alternatives carried forward to the DEIS | ||
Mitigation needs and quantities for alternatives | ||
Analysis of the operational, financial, and revenue impact of alternatives developed through P3 (estimated between ENV-7 and ENV-8). | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Perspective of partners and stakeholders. | |
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 |
Analysis |
Decision Support Tools: Used to combine GIS data with established project goals and evaluation criteria, for stakeholder review. |
Technical Analysis Tools: a broad range of tools to evaluate technical implications of project alternatives. |
|
Communication |
GIS Tools: Used to map jurisdictional boundaries, to clarify the decision-making roles of different stakeholder agencies. |
Visualization Tools: Used to display data in an easily digestible format, so stakeholders can make decisions in real time, "around the table." |
|
Documentation Tools: Used to communicate draft and finalized environmental documents to the public. Examples include the Federal Register. |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Streamlining a Bottleneck Project |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||