Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portal
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Applications - Performance Measures
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
ENV-7
Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward
Description: This is a shared step between the NEPA and permitting processes which involves the approval of the alternatives that are suggested to be carried forward based on the application of the evaluation criteria and input from stakeholders. In order to meet permitting requirements the alternatives approved to be carried forward must include those that avoid and minimize impacts to natural resources to the greatest extent possible.
There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step. In order to effectively execute this key decision there is essential information created LRP-8 and COR-7 that informs this decision.
Purpose
To narrow the alternatives for detailed analysis. For permitting, alternatives should be narrowed to those that avoid and minimize resource impacts to the greatest extent practicable.
Outcome
Approved list of alternatives for detailed analysis.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
MPO |
Advisor |
Provides support on consideration of alternatives to be carried forward based on LRTP and/or corridor solutions considered; including documentation of alternatives eliminated. |
FHWA |
Decision Maker |
Approves the alternatives to be carried forward as meeting the purpose and need; agrees to the elimination of specific alternatives |
State DOT |
Decision Maker |
Ensures the selection of alternatives to be carried forward is defendable and well documented |
Resource Agency |
Decision Maker |
The USACE is a decision-maker approving Alternatives to be Carried Forward that meet NEPA, permitting and consultation requirements and that include/have not eliminated a potential LEDPA.
|
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Data | Identification of major conflicts between adopted land use plans and each alternative |
| Air Quality | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment | Analysis Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives | There is joint analysis that takes place between the IEF process and transportation decision making that informs the decision to approve alternatives to be carried forward: determine amount and relative degree of potential impacts of alternatives in relation to resource conservation priorities consistent with the evaluation criteria, methods and measures for ecological factors developed through ENV-5. |
| Analysis Between IEF Step 6 - Develop Crediting Strategy and ENV-7 | The crediting strategy developed in IEF Step 6 can be used to measure ecological impacts. | |
| Capital Improvement | None. | None. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
From Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-8 - Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario |
Documentation of the preferred plan scenario |
To provide information on the possible range of solutions in order to preclude inconsistencies with the region-wide multimodal improvements |
From Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-7 - Adopt Preferred Solution Set |
Information on the preferred solution set from the corridor planning process providing adopted project concept |
To incorporate the community’s recommended solution into the detailed analysis |
To Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-2 - Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue |
Project alternatives |
To trigger calculation of the range of costs for the potential project alternative in order to assess potential impact on LRTP fiscal constraint and the TIP |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Is there consensus on the alternatives to be carried forward? |
Questions about stakeholders |
No specific questions. |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are the remaining alternatives different enough to support a clear decision about the preferred alternative? |
How have the recommendations and rationales been documented? | |
What alternatives are recommended for elimination from further consideration? | |
What was the rationale for eliminating alternatives from further consideration? | |
Questions about other phases |
Are the remaining alternatives consistent with the preferred scenario or solution from long range and corridor planning? |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Have the alternatives to be carried forward been informed by ecological planning? |
Have we identified how each alternative will impact the ability to meet our goals with regard to conservation? | |
Which alternatives will minimize potential GHG impacts or maximize reduction of GHG emissions? | |
Which alternatives will support area plans that include a goal to reduce GHG emissions? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
None. |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
None. |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Preferred scenario in the LRTP | Programming |
No Specific Data |
Corridor Planning |
Preferred solution set in corridor planning |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use |
Major conflicts between adopted land use plans and each alternative | Air Quality |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment |
No Specific Data |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Assessment of how each alternative addresses the purpose and need of the project. | |
Comparison of alternatives across the evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures. | ||
Justification for the elimination of any alternatives. | ||
Assessment of whether the alternatives are feasible and rational. | ||
Detailed information associated with individual alternatives. | ||
Study area data. | ||
Amount and relative degree of potential impacts of alternatives in relation to resource conservation priorities, consistent with the evaluation criteria, methods and measures for ecological factors | ||
Data and tools necessary to support GHG analysis of alternatives | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Summary of feedback received from the stakeholders and justification for how that feedback was addressed. | |
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 |
Gathering |
Commenting Tools: Used to collect and consolidate public inputs on the NEPA process, to be included for consideration when choosing alternatives. Tool can also record responses to comments. |
GIS Tools: Used to gather spatial data on sensitive habitats and other natural resources. May include remote sensing tools such as aerial imaging. |
|
Decision Support Tools: Used to track progress in the NEPA study process to aid in decision-making. |
|
Field-level data: Used to supplement and enhance GIS-level data on sensitive habits, natural and community resources |
|
Analysis |
GIS Tools: Used to analyze and process data gathered through remote sensing. |
Sketch Planning Tools: Used to quickly outline potential alternatives. |
|
Communication |
Documentation Tools: Used to thoroughly document study and decision process for selecting alternatives |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||