INITIAL STUDY / ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT …dot.alaska.gov/stwddes/desenviron/assets/docs/... · Web viewThe process for identifying and assessing effects to historic properties is

Highlighted notes indicates “holes” or questions.Brown Text indicates the guidance material still has to be written, the language that you see is a leftover example from another state and still needs to be processed.

APPENDIX B

B.1 Appendix B Content Overview

B.2 Environmental Assessment a) Overviewb) Processing

c) Guidance

B.3 Environmental Assessment Contents i. Document Cover

ii. Signature Pageiii. Summary (optional)

iv. Table of Contents (figures and tables are to be included within the text where referenced)

v. EA ChaptersChapter 1 Purpose and NeedChapter 2 Alternatives Chapter 3 Environmental ConsequencesChapter 4 Impacts, Mitigation, Commitments, and Permits Needed Chapter 5 Comments and CoordinationChapter 6 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (if applicable)Chapter 7 List of Preparers

vi. Referencesvii. List of Abbreviated Terms viii. Appendices

B.3 Decision Documenti. EA FONSI

ii. Section 4(f) Statement

EA Appendix B Draft 1-19-06 1

B.1 Appendix B Content Overview

Use the outline that follows in preparing your Environmental Assessments (EA). Each category provides, as appropriate, a description of the processing steps, regulatory setting, guidance on content requirements, necessary analysis, and appropriate documentation for an EA, and the decision documents Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and Final Section 4(f) Concluding Statement. This appendix supplements the Alaska Environmental Procedures Manual, and should be used with other appropriate environmental and regulatory guidance necessary to address the impact categories (e.g., Threatened and Endangered Species, Section 106, Wetlands).

B.2 Environmental Assessment

a) Overview An EA is prepared when: (1) the action does not qualify as a Categorical Exclusion

nor does it clearly require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), or (2) when FHWA believes that an EA will assist in determining the need for an EIS. Therefore, the EA addresses those resources, which have potential for being significantly impacted.

The EA is to be a concise document and not contain lengthy descriptions or detailed information. It should incorporate by reference and summarize background data and technical analyses to support the concise discussions of the alternatives and their impacts.

b) Processing Laurie PreparingFLUSH TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DETAIL ON PUBLIC/AGENCY INVOLVEMENT AND REVIEW, AND REVISED EA AND FONSI: EA is circulated, notice of availability published, offer public hearing, and establish comment period. After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, DOT&PF and the Federal Highway Administration prepare responses to comments.

At this point the options are: (1) FHWA may sign a FONSI, give environmental approval to the proposed project; (2) undertake additional environmental studies, revise and recirculate the EA; (3) determine if an EIS is required; or (4) abandon the project. If the FONSI is signed and funding is appropriated, DOT&PF can design and construct all or part of the project.

Per FHWA Order H1710.4 Chapter 5 Publications and Printing Handbook, 7.b.1. Government Agencies. If the contractor preparing the FHWA publication is a State, Federal,

or local governmental agency, the agency's seal or logo may appear to the right or directly below the DOT seal, if the agency so requests.

2. Private Contractors. Names of private contractors are not permitted on the covers of FHWA publications. The contractor's name may be placed on the title page or a Technical Report Documentation Page.


3. Employees. Bylines are not permitted for the sole purpose of giving credit to any author or an FHWA employee.

c) Guidance: • FHWA Transportation Decisionmaking, Public Involvement Overview

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpubinv2.htm

• FHWA Transportation Decisionmaking, Public Involvement and its Role in Project Developmenthttp://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpi_p_d.htm

• FHWA/FTA Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decision-makinghttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/pittd/cover.htm

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpi_p_d.htm

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmpubinv2.htm

i. Document Cover

PROJECT NAMEFEDERAL AND STATE PROJECT NUMBERS

Environmental Assessment and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

orwith Finding of No Significant Impact

with Final Section 4(f) Statement

Prepared by theU.S. Department of Transportation

Alaska Division Office of theFederal Highway Administration

and theDepartment of Transportation and Public Facilities

May 2003


ii. Signature Page

[Project Name][Federal and State Project Numbers]

Environmental Assessment [or Revised Environmental Assessment]Submitted pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c)

by theU.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administrationand the

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

[List any Cooperating Agencies]

This action complies with Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice; Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, Executive Order 12088, Pollution Control; Executive Order 13112, Noxious Weeds; and Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice; and Executive Order 12372, Intergovenmental Coordination.

______________ _____________________________________________________ Date of Recommendation ADOT&PF [Name Region] Pre-Construction Engineer

ISN’T THIS THE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COORDINATOR?

______________ _____________________________________________________ Date of Approval Alaska Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration

The following persons may be contacted for additional information concerning this document:

[Name, responsible for environmental oversight] [Name][Title] Regional Environmental CoordinatorFHWA, Alaska Division ADOT&PFP.O. Box 21658 [Mailing Address]Juneau, Alaska 99802 [City, Alaska Zip Code](907) [Phone Number] (907) [Phone Number]

[Brief Description of the Project, including the length, number of lanes, and major structures.]

Comments on this draft are due by [DATE] and should be sent to:



iii. Summary Laurie to do. The summary is optional and brief – give a blurb.

vi. Table of Contents

The document should be reader friendly, written to the general public and not to professional planners and engineers. When difficult terms or concepts cannot be easily explained in the body of the text or replaced by another word, use footnotes or include a glossary to explain the meaning of the term or phrase using common language.

A table of contents is included with the EA (and Section 4(f) Evaluation and will vary depending on the document). Lists of figures, tables, and abbreviated terms are included.

Figures (i.e., maps, photographs, and other illustrations) are to be simple and informative. Acknowledge any source material. Every figure is to be cited in the text and appear on the page immediately following its first citation. Number the figures sequentially according to each chapter and section.

Tables are to be simple and self-explanatory. A table must stand-alone and the information presented be relevant to the document. The text should not duplicate the data given in the table, but summarize the pertinent points. Every table is to be cited in the text and follow its first citation. Number the tables sequentially according to each chapter and section.

The list of abbreviated terms defines all abbreviations and acronyms used in the document and serves as a reference to provide understanding of abbreviated terms. Limit the use of abbreviated terms because the environmental documents are written for the public.

Each chapter or section begins on the odd-numbered (right-hand) page. When a chapter or a section ends on an odd-numbered page, leave the following page blank. Blank pages are counted but do not show a page number. No blank insert page is needed if the chapter or section ends on an even-numbered page.

v. Chapters

Chapter 1 Purpose and NeedChapter 2 Alternatives

2.1 No Build Alternative 2.2 Alternatives Considered but Dismissed 2.3 Build Alternative(s)


Chapter 3 Environmental Consequences For each relevant section below, discuss regulatory setting, affected environment, impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, construction related, and cumulative), and avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures and permitting requirements. List applicable technical reports along with their completion dates.

3.1 Human Environment 3.1.1 Land Use

• 3.1.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use• 3.1.1.2 Consistency with State and Local Plans 3.1.1.2.1 Coastal Zone • 3.1.1.3 Parks and Recreation• 3.1.1.4 Growth3.1.2 Community Impacts • 3.1.2.1 Government to Government Consultation • 3.1.2.2 Community Character and Cohesion• 3.1.2.3 Right of Way and Relocations• 3.1.2.4 Environmental Justice3.1.3 Economic3.1.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities 3.1.5 Visual/Aesthetics3.1.6 Historic Preservation3.1.7 Subsistence

3.2 Physical Environment3.2.3 Noise3.2.4 Air Quality3.2.5 Hazardous Waste/Materials

3.3 Natural Environment3.3.1 Water Quality3.3.2 Wetlands, Waters of the U.S.3.3.3 Floodplains and Hydrology3.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers

3.4 Biological Environment3.4.1 Natural Communities3.4.2 Wildlife, Marine Mammals, and Migratory Birds 3.4.3 Anadromous and Resident Fish 3.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species3.4.5 Invasive Species

3.5 Construction Impacts (optional placement)

3.6 Cumulative Impacts (optional placement)


Chapter 4 Impacts, Mitigation, Commitments, and Permits Needed

Chapter 5 Comments and Coordination

Chapter 4 Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation (if applicable)

Chapter 7 List of Preparers

vi. References

vii. List of Abbreviated Terms

viii. Appendices


B.3.5 Environmental Assessment (EA) Chapters

Chapter 1 Purpose and NeedThe Purpose and Need section is very important because it frames the process for the alternatives to be considered and analyzed, and the ultimate selection. The project “need” is the problem or transportation deficiency that the project was initiated to address. The project “purpose” is a set of objectives the project intends to meet. The Purpose and Need statement must be broad enough to allow for consideration of more than one solution but specific enough to focus on the range of alternatives. This will allow consideration of alternate alignments, and design variations.

The Purpose and Need section should be as comprehensive and specific as possible. Information on factors such as safety, system linkage, social demands, and economic development that the proposed project is to address should be described as fully as possible. This will assist to identify and refine the alternatives to be analyzed, and protect viable alternatives. Solutions that satisfy the conditions can be more readily identified and narrowly limited if the purpose of and need for the proposed project are rigorously defined.

As information is developed and more is learned about the project, the purpose and need may evolve. The EA needs to only carry one build alternative, but may include others if they meet the Purpose and Need. Refinements will reduce and limit the number of alternatives that satisfy the project’s purpose and need, thereby reducing the number and range of reasonable, prudent, and practicable alternatives. If an alternative does not serve a vital project element, it may be eliminated from further study since it does not meet the need for the project.

For more information on Purpose and Need go to: FHWA memo on Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents, Sept. 18, 1990,

see: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmneed.htm FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Oct. 30, 1987, see:

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on Purpose and Need, August 21, 2003

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/interim.htm

A. FormatThe length and organization of the purpose and need discussion is determined by the complexity and nature of the proposed project. Keep in mind that this section establishes why DOT&PF proposes the improvement and is the foundation for the build alternative(s). Clearly establish the rationale for pursuing the action and show that the proposed action is consistent with local transportation, comprehensive, and land use planning.

Include the amount and quality of documentation justifying the reason for the proposed project. The purpose and need section should be the strongest section of


http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/interim.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmneed.htm

the document, because the project concepts are developed to address community, social, and economic needs related to transportation. Transportation is, therefore, a part of the overall solution. In failing to establish a sound purpose and need, the EA is weakened as a decision-making document, reducing the credibility of the alternative(s) proposed.

• Introduction: Begin the Purpose and Need section with a brief introduction that describes the existing facility (if any), the project background and history (including funding and programming – specifically state that the project is included in the Statewide Transportation Improvement Plan [STIP] or Transportation Improvement Program [TIP]), and describe the proposed action. Include a project location map and/or project vicinity map that clearly identifies the limits of the project and the project footprint.

• Outline the purpose of the project: The project purposes are specific objectives of the build alternative(s), and are used as the decision factors for comparing alternatives and selecting the preferred alternative. The purpose is a proposed solution to the problem or deficiency identified in the need statement. It is important to ensure that the purpose is:o Consistent with transportation goals and objectives (e.g., mobility, safety,

capacity).o A reasonable expenditure of public funds (e.g., benefit: cost).o Broad enough to allow reasonable range of alternatives.o Is achievable and unbiased.

Some examples of purpose are:o Provide congestion relief to improve traffic.o Be consistent with existing and planned local development. o Provide alternative vehicular access.o Help achieve the goals of a local transportation plan(s).o Provide a balanced circulation system and reduce out of direction travel.

Do not make the purpose so narrow that only one solution is considered:

If the "need" is for additional capacity, don’t write the purpose is “to widen the highway.” Write that the purpose is “to relieve traffic congestion.” This allows the project team to consider access control alternatives. Don’t write that the purpose of the project is “to build a new bridge due to the piers being undermined by wave action.” Write the purpose of the project is “to protect the bridge from being undermined by wave action.” This allows the project team to consider rip-rap, clear span bridge, and/or moving the location of the bridge farther inland.

• Discuss the need for the project: The need, or the transportation problem/deficiency that the DOT&PF and FHWA are responding to, should be quantified to the extent possible. Together with the purpose, the statement of


need allows the DOT&PF to focus the range of alternatives. Consider the alternatives as being the different ways to meet the underlying need.

Some examples of need:o A growing use of the local street circulation system for regional trips, leading

to congestion of many streets and out of direction travel (increased travel distance).

o Increasing congestion on the highway system.o Extensive existing and approved planned development that generates

additional trips.o Inadequate access to the area. o Increased traffic accidents associated with congestion and use of local streets

for regional trips.

The following lists the types of information and data found in the purpose and need. This may be developed under specific subheadings for clarity, such as the following:o Capacity, Transportation Demand, and Safety

a. Describe existing and traffic capacity and level of service b. List regional population/traffic forecasts c. Identify projected (20-year design) capacity needs, queue and delay,

and/or level of service (LOS “C” or better is the FHWA standard for future improvements)

d. Identify system safety needs° Describe existing accident rate° Describe the projected accident rate without project° Compare the existing and projected accident rates without the project

to the statewide average° Explain what is needed to improve safety

o Roadway Deficienciesa. Describe operational deficiencies (i.e., substandard geometrics,

inadequate cross sections)b. Identify structural limitations (load limits)c. Discuss maintenance problemsd. Explain what is needed to correct deficiencies

o Social Demands or Economic Developmenta. Discuss existing land use plans b. Identify projected land use plan changesc. Explain what is needed to correct deficiencies

o Legislationa. Describe any federal, State, or local government mandates (e.g.,

Congressional Earmarks, demonstration projects, TIFIA loans, bonds or sales tax projects)


b. Summarize federal, State, or local government support for proposed action

B. Independent Utility and Logical TerminiWhen discussing purpose and need, ensure that the discussion is consistent with independent utility and logical termini. A problem of segmentation may arise if a transportation need extends throughout an entire corridor, but environmental issues and transportation need are inappropriately discussed for only a segment of the corridor.

FHWA regulations (23 CFR 771.111 (f)) require that the action evaluated:• Connect logical termini and be of sufficient length to address environmental

matters on a broad scope• Have independent utility or independent significance (be usable and be a

reasonable expenditure even if no additional transportation improvements in the area are made)

• Not restrict consideration of alternatives for other reasonably foreseeable transportation improvements.


Chapter 2 AlternativesThis section is the heart of the EA or EIS. DETERMINE IF WE ARE COMBINING OR BREAKING THE TWO APART WITH THE GUIDANCE. The Alternatives Section should present the environmental impacts of the alternatives in comparative form, based on the information and analysis presented in the Environmental Consequences Section, to define the issues and provide a basis for an informed decision. The Alternatives Section must be more information and guidance on Alternatives go to:

Guidance• FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8a

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/techadvs/t664008a.htm Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning the Council of Environmental Quality

(CEQ) NEPA Regulations. The first seven questions deal with various aspects of alternatives development, analysis, and documentation.http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/40p1.htm

CEQ 40 Frequently Asked Questions, Answers to 1-10, Range of Alternatives http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/regs/40/1-10.HTM#1

FHWA Environmental Guidebook, Development and Evaluation of Alternativeshttp://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmalts.htm

• FHWA Development and Evaluation of Alternativeshttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmental/alts.htm

A. FormatAccording to FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A, this section should discuss the No-Build Alternative and the build alternative(s) being considered. The CEQ NEPA regulations also encourage the identification of a preferred alternative, should more than one build alternative be advanced.

The Alternatives Section must address solving the transportation problem(s) identified in the Purpose and Need Section. It must be demonstrated when the proposed solution(s) cannot feasibly be accomplished due to corridor constraints. If Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, FHWA must be consulted and concur on the justification that the proposed facility will adequately meet future needs.

All reasonable, viable alternatives should be developed at a comparable level of detail within the EA. However, an EA does not need to evaluate all reasonable alternatives for the project, as required for an EIS. The EA can be limited to the build alternative and the No-Build Alternative, although it is advisable on certain EA projects to evaluate more than one build alternative if there is potential to encounter a fatal flaw (e.g., community opposition, wetlands or Section 4(f) impacts) so that a build alternative can be carried forward for selection.

In those cases where build alternatives involve Section 4(f), the Executive Orders on Wetlands (E.O. 11990) and Floodplains (E.O. 11988), and the Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, there are other more stringent avoidance and minimization requirements. To address these requirements and conclusively demonstrate that some alternatives


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmental/alts.htm

are not prudent or practicable, a well-justified Purpose and Need statement is vital. Such alternatives may not be reasonable project alternatives in the overall project context, but still must be considered to meet the applicable requirements. Such alternatives normally would be included in the Environmental Consequences Section unless they are considered reasonable alternatives, in which case they would appear in this section.

B. Alternatives Section Example OutlineThis section should contain the following headings. Make sure that the names or assigned number/letter identifiers of the various alternatives are distinct, and consistent throughout the document, so that it is not confusing.

1. No-Build Alternative (required for all documents)

2. Alternatives Considered but Dismissed (if any)

3. Build Alternative(s) (one or more)

4. Comparison of Build Alternatives (only if more than one build alternative)

5. Preferred Alternative (if identified , this may become the Selected Alternative for the FONSI)

The Alternatives Section should provide a clear understanding of each alternative and provide the reader with a general understanding of each alternative's effects on its surroundings or the community. The project corridor and each alternative should be briefly described using maps, plans, typical cross-sections and profiles, or other visual tools. A clear, non-technical description of each alternative should include the project concept, location, termini, costs, status of right-of-way needs, and any features that clarify differences among alternatives. Discuss utility relocations, borrow and fill sites, staging areas, proposed access, etc. as applicable to the project.

Information that is pertinent in the Alternatives Section discussions includes:• Design features of the existing facility and the reasonable alternatives

o Overall project length, and if project is phased, the segment lengthso Levels of service (LOS) for existing and design year conditions per each

alternative o Average daily traffic (ADT) under existing conditions and design year traffic

per each alternative o Typical sections (showing number and widths of lanes and shoulders, right-of-

way [ROW], etc.) of the existing facility and proposed alternatives o Intersection and access improvementso Any non-motorized (pedestrian and bicycle) facilities

The advantages and disadvantages of each alternativeo Costs


o ROW acquisition, including drainage and retention area needs, and temporary construction easements

o Number of residential and business relocationso Relationship of project to any special or significant natural or historic features o Potential for Section 4(f) involvemento Potential impacts on floodplains, wetlands, and fish and wildlife

1. No-Build AlternativeThe No-Build Alternative means doing nothing beyond normal maintenance operations in the proposed project area through the project’s design year (generally a projection of 20 years or more). This alternative is to be considered through the public review phase, and the effects of not implementing the proposed project evaluated to explain the impacts of the No-Build Alternative on the environment and surroundings.

The No-Build Alternative can serve two purposes. It may be a reasonable alternative for projects where the impacts are great and the need is relatively minor. Usually it provides a baseline to compare effects associated with the build alternatives. These effects can be both beneficial and adverse. Adverse effects can be tied to inability to meet the project Purpose and Need, and might include deteriorating level of service, impacts to water quality, and ongoing maintenance concerns.

2. Alternatives Considered but DismissedThese alternatives are those that do not meet the Purpose and Need of the project and were therefore rejected. This subsection states the reasons for rejecting these alternatives. It is important to be as specific on the rationale for generating, evaluating, and dismissing alternatives. It is not necessary to discuss the dismissed alternatives with the greater detail as provided for the build alternatives subsection. For these alternatives, the level of detail should be sufficient for the reader to understand why the dismissed alternative is not reasonable (or prudent or practicable).

3. Build Alternative(s)These are the viable build alternatives that are being considered for further evaluation because they meet the Purpose and Need of the project. All of the reasonable alternatives are described and evaluated to the same level of detail. If an alterative is recommended, it is identified as the Preferred Alternative.

As a general rule, an alternative should be not included in the analysis as a reasonable alternative if it does not satisfy the purpose and need for the project. There are times however when an alternative that is not reasonable is included, and this is usually based an agency request or due to public expectation. When this occurs, provide a clear explanation on why the alternative is not reasonable (or prudent or practicable), why it is being analyzed in detail, and that because it is not reasonable it will not be selected.


Describe the major project features. Each reasonable alternative should have sufficient detail to allow the reader to evaluate its merit. This may require varying amounts of information and this is important for projects when more than one reasonable alternative is being evaluated.

The following information should be included for each reasonable alternative: A summary of any studies, assumptions, and methods used Sufficient supporting information or results of analyses to establish the

reasonableness of the conclusion about impacts Discussion of mitigation measures Discussion, evaluation, and resolution of important issues on each alternative,

and identification of unresolved issues and the efforts made to resolve them.

4. Comparison of Build Alternatives (for projects with more than one build alternative)

This subsection compares the No-Build Alternative and the build alternatives. Include an introduction or overview that briefly discusses the development of

the various reasonable alternatives. Consider using a subheading “Common Design Features of the Alternatives”

when the build alternatives share common design features (such as interchanges, pullouts and pathways) so that these features do not have to be repeated under each alternative description.

The discussion is limited to a concise summary in an evaluation table. The Environmental Consequences discussion is the place for the more detailed scientific analysis of the environmental effects of each of the alternatives. Redundancy between these sections should be minimized. If the impacts of all the alternatives are identical, the analysis should be labeled “All Build Alternatives” rather than repeating the same information for each one.

5. Preferred AlternativeA Preferred Alternative must be in the EA. The analysis presented must be objective and not biased to support a Preferred Alternative. The FONSI will identify the Selected Alternative.

C. Disclosure criteria for selecting a Preferred Alternative (if more than one is carried forward)The following list provides regulation and guidance criteria used by decision makers to identify the Preferred Alternative, which should be used to rate or screen reasonable build alternatives. The criteria are not equal and they are heavily weighted in favor of avoiding Section 4(f) properties and ”Waters of the U.S.” Identify alternative(s) that: • Best meet the project’s Purpose and Need• Are the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA)

pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 404(b)(1) guidelines


• Are the Environmentally Preferred Alternative in accordance with CEQ• Avoid use of Section 4(f) properties unless there are no prudent and feasible

alternatives• Are feasible to build• Are affordable or can be financed over an acceptable period• Meet the needs or objectives of social, economic and environmental concerns• Have the most public acceptance• Best fit the long term vision, community plans, and reasonable transportation

needs• Meet the project’s purpose and need while having the least environmental impact


Chapter 3 Environmental ConsequencesFollowing is a list of potential sections for the EA. The EA only needs a full text discussion of those sections that are relevant to the project.

Not relevant sections such as farmlands and coastal barriers should be listed as not relevant and not carried further. Insert the following text box summary statement at the beginning of Chapter 3:

The above statement should precede discussions of relevant sections. On a project by project basis, new subjects may be required to fully disclose the impacts. In such a case add sections as necessary (i.e., Navigation, Utilities, Emergency Management Services, Geology/Soils).

Relevant section discussed should include the following subheadings: Regulatory Setting (if applicable)

The regulatory setting language was developed to communicate to the public why issues are being analyzed. Cut and paste the regulatory setting language in the text box into the environmental document.

Affected EnvironmentThe Affected Environment section provides a concise description of the existing social, economic, and environmental setting of the area affected by the No-Build and build alternatives. Identify all environmentally sensitive locations and natural and community features. However, because of confidentiality, do not identify the specific locations of historic properties.

Data development and analysis in this section should be in proportion to the significance of the impacts that will be discussed later in the document. That is, background material should be identified and briefly summarized. Where a detailed understanding of the impacts of the proposed action on the affected environment and community is warranted, then the information provided should be as specific as


The text box language for each section is found below.

As part of the scoping and environmental analysis conducted for the project, the following environmental resources were considered but no potential for adverse impacts to these resources was identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these resources in this document. Farmlands Coastal Barriers Etc.

[List sections and briefly (in one or two sentences) describe why there is no potential for adverse impacts. Cite technical studies as appropriate.]

possible. If other supporting data exist that would help define the importance of an issue, append that material or reference it appropriately. Use graphics, if possible, to help define the affected area.

ImpactsDiscuss the impacts of the No-Build Alternative and each build alternative. Note: This includes permanent, temporary (usually construction impacts), direct and indirect impacts. Construction impacts and cumulative impacts may be discussed under each resource or in separate sections at the end of the chapter. Cross-reference between sections as appropriate.

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation MeasuresWhen writing the environmental document, treat “mitigation” and “mitigate” in regulatory language. Address all other measures in the framework of avoidance or minimization measures. If these measures vary for each alternative, discuss what measures are proposed for each alternative.


3.1 Human Environment 3.1.1 Land Use

3.1.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use3.1.1.2 Consistency with State and Local Plans 3.1.1.2.1 Coastal Zone3.1.1.3 Parks and Recreation

3.1.1.4 Growth

3.1.1.1 Existing and Future Land Use

GuidanceDescribe the existing land use in the project area. Land use types include: residential, commercial and/or industrial, recreational, institutional and/or public services, community and/or emergency services, transportation, utilities, and undeveloped land. Discuss commute patterns, housing prices, and job information as relevant.

Also discuss proposed future land use, any current development trends in the vicinity or community at large, and whether or not the proposed action will contribute to obtaining the land use patterns planned by the community. Provide a cross-reference to the Growth section as applicable. Discuss how the project will or will not assist the borough and the State in meeting its growth management objectives as set out in the applicable comprehensive plan and local land use and transportation plans.

Provide a map showing existing and planned land use in the project vicinity.

An example table provides the following information:• Type of development• Jurisdiction• Use and size of development• The status of development (i.e., existing, under construction, or proposed)

Name Jurisdiction Use and Size StatusFred Meyer City of Soldotna 1 commercial lot on 14

acresCurrently in planning development.

Kenai River Estates Kenai Peninsula Borough

60 single family dwellings on 60 acres, with open space, and 2 boat launches

Construction to be completed in 20010.

Soldotna Creek Park

Kenai River Special Management

Recreational park improvements: river access stairs, trail and

Under construction, to be completed in 2005.


Name Jurisdiction Use and Size StatusArea light penetrating

boardwalk

• Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development. This Alaska Community Plans Inventory site provides a list of and linkage specific to community and regional plans links and contact informationhttp://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_Plans.cfm

• NCHRP Project 25-25(3) “Handbook on Integrating Land Use Consideration into Transportation Projects to Address Induced Growth” http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/reference/boilerplate/Attachments/$file/25-25(3)_FR.pdf

3.1.1.2 Consistency with State and Local Plans

Guidance• Provide a subheading for each plan.• The project’s consistency with the following types of plans needs to be

considered and discussed as pertinent:o Transportation Planso Local Planso Specific development proposals (specific planning area maps)o Coastal Zone Management Program

Project's Consistency With Land Use Planning. The land use section must describe the State and local government plans and policies regarding land use controls and community growth management in the project area. This discussion should entail a brief overview of existing land use and growth management planning. It should further show how that planning effort merges with the planning effort of DNR.

Finally, assess and evaluate the consistency of the proposed action and its alternatives with the comprehensive development plans adopted by local governments. In discussing the consistency of the proposed action with local planning, you must evaluate how the development of various alternatives will directly affect local zoning, where zoning is applicable, and contribute to land use change in the project area.

Local Land Use and Transportation Plan.• Review applicable local land use and transportation plans.• Coordinate as necessary with the local planning authority. For example,

would there be community changes in land use as a result of the proposed


http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/reference/boilerplate/Attachments/$file/25-25(3)_FR.pdf

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_Plans.cfm

action, or would the local government have to revise its local land use plans to accommodate the proposed action?

Land Use and Secondary Development. Discuss the impacts of the proposed action in acting as a catalyst in promoting land use policies and directing community development patterns. Discuss, to the fullest possible extent, any foreseeable secondary social, economic, and environmental impacts caused by induced development resulting from the proposed transportation improvement. Include the following discussions in this evaluation:

• How the alternative(s) under consideration will stimulate low-density, energy-intensive development in outlying areas.

• If applicable, how the secondary impacts resulting from the project will be adverse or beneficial to the community.

In evaluating the potential for secondary impacts, the analyst must take into consideration such factors as:

• Regional economic impacts; and• The effects of the project on tax revenues, public expenditures,

employment opportunities, accessibility to retail markets, and retail sales

Describe any mitigation measures proposed.

3.1.1.2.1 Coastal Zone

If the proposed project is located within the coastal zone, include the following language and discuss the location of the project with respect to the coastal zone and regulatory jurisdiction (include map if available), anticipated impacts within the coastal zone (summarize and cross-reference other sections as appropriate), consistency of the project with the management program and any needed permits and approvals:

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceAll projects located in the coastal zone must be found consistent with the Alaska Coastal Management Program (ACMP). Transportation projects that require a coastal zone consistency review must meet the following criteria:

1. Be located in the ACMP boundary


The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 as amended (16 USC 1451 et. seq) is the primary federal law enacted to preserve and protect coastal resources. The CZMA sets up a program under which coastal states are encouraged to develop coastal management programs. States with an approved coastal management plan are able to review federal permits and activities to determine if they are consistent with the state’s management plan. The Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting has oversight of and implements the Alaska Coastal Management Program (11 AAC 110).

2. Use or plan to use federal funds in developing the project, regardless of funding phase.

3. Require one or more federal permits, or more than one State permit.

Alaska Coastal Management Program, Alaska Department of Natural Resources Office of Project Management and Permitting website home page for laws and regulations, coastal zone boundary maps, and the coastal project questionnaire.

http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us

Affected EnvironmentThe regional environmental coordinator should determine if the project is within or affects Alaska’s coastal zone. The statewide standards (6 AAC 80) and coastal district enforceable policies of ACMP provide direction for coastal resources and uses, such as: coastal development (whether a project is water-dependent or water-related); habitats (such as wetlands, tideflats, or streams); air, land, and water quality; transportation and utility routes and facilities; mining; subsistence, recreation designations, geophysical hazard areas, and historical and archaeological resources.

1. Determine if the project is located within the ACMP boundaries. http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/GIS/boundary.htm

2. If the boundary maps are not available, contact the Department of Natural Resources (DNR)/Office of Project Management Planning (OPMP).

3. If the project is located within the State ACMP, determine if the project is located within an approved Local Coastal District. There are 35 Coastal Districts. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/resources/coastalzone.pdf

ImpactsBased on the above criteria, federally funded DOT&PF projects located within the ACMP must be reviewed for consistency.

1. Some projects may be exempt from further coastal consistency review requirements. Review the ABC List (Classification of State Agency Approvals) to determine if a project is “categorically” approved without conditions (A List), listed as general concurrence (B List), or requires individual consistency (C List). http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Clawhome/ABClist/ABClisthome.htm

2. Review the local district management plan and evaluate preliminary consistency. http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us//Explore/alldistEPS.html

3. The formal coastal consistency review process determines if project meets the statewide standards and coastal district polities. It also serves as the review process for agency permits. Fill out the Coastal project questionnaire to determine permitting

requirements and coordinating permit agencies


http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/resources/coastalzone.pdf

http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/

Coordinating permitting agency receives packet. If project requires permits from two or more state agencies, or a permit from a federal agency, then submit CPQ packet to OPMP. A completed application packet includes: the signed CPQ and copies of any necessary State and/or federal permit applications. http://www.alaskacoast.state.ak.us/Projects/pcpq3.html

50-day Coastal Consistency review starts once CPQ application received by the review coordinating agency has been determined to be complete and public notices have been issued.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures1. Determine project consistency after review of comments from state and federal

resource agencies, local coastal district, and the public. After receiving review comments, the coordinating agency resolves issues

that were raised. The proposed consistency determination may include stipulations that modify the project to bring it into compliance with the ACMP. These stipulations or conditions are attached to permits issued for the project.

Final consistency determination, permits can now be approved and most State agencies issue permits within 5 days.

2. The regional environmental coordinator will make a consistency recommendation to FHWA in accordance with 6 AAC 50. The FHWA determination will be made after coordination with state and federal resource agencies, affected federally recognized tribes, local coastal communities, and interested parties.


3.1.1.3 Parks and Recreational Facilities

Regulatory Setting

Section 4(f) of the 1966 Department of Transportation Act (Title 49 USC 303) provides that special considerations be made regarding the “use” of any publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife/waterfowl refuge, or historic property that is either on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. These properties are called “Section 4(f) properties.” This law applies only to DOT actions. Other implementing regulations are 23 CFR 771.135. Under Section 4(f), the FHWA and other USDOT agencies cannot approve the use of land from a publicly owned park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site, unless a determination is made that:• There is no feasible and prudent alternative to suing the property; and• The proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property

resulting from such use.

Include as applicable:

Section 6(f) authority is vested in the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (Title 16 USC 2509), under Public Law 88-578. The Act created a grants-in-aid fund “to assist in preserving accessibility to all citizens of the United States…such quality and quantity of outdoor recreation resources as may be available and are necessary and desirable for individual active participation” … “to strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the United States”. In Alaska, the L&WCF grant program is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) through DNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation (DPOR).

The intent of LWCF is to protect land used for outdoor recreational purposes. The L&WCF stipulates that any land planned, developed or improved with L&WCF funds cannot be converted to other than outdoor recreational use unless replacement land of at least equal fair market valued and reasonably equivalent usefulness is provided. Anytime a transportation project will cause such a conversion, regardless of funding source, such replacement land must be provided.

GuidanceSection 4(f)Section 4(f) “use” of a property requires a demonstration that there is no feasible and prudent alternative; if there is none, then the project must include all possible planning to


minimize harm to the Section 4(f) property. “Use” is defined as a permanent easement, fee taking, or “constructive use” of a Section 4(f) property.

A Section 4(f) Evaluation is prepared when a project uses land protected by Section 4(f) and requires coordination with the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and requires FHWA legal council to provide a Legal Sufficiency determination. See Appendix E, General Guidance on Preparing Section 4(f) Documents, of this manual for processing guidance of the Section 4(f) Evaluation.

May want to put this in Chapter 4 If use of a Section 4(f) property is minimal, it may qualify for one of four Nationwide Programmatic Section 4(f)s that do not require DOI consultation. Information on Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluations can also be found in Appendix E of this manual.

Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges Historic Sites Historic Bridges Bikeways or Walkways

Section 6(f) Want to say that the 6(f) will be documented here and included in Chapter 4 Section 4(f)Generally, grants under Section 6(f) stipulate that the entire park will be considered as covered under the conversion restriction, even though the grant may have been for only a small part of the park. The actual grant agreement will typically have a legal description of the land covered, and may be reviewed to make this determination.

Any time land subject to Section 6(f) is acquired, the Section 6(f) procedural requirements must be satisfied. Easements allowing the transportation agency to enter the property to undertake maintenance, slope easements, etc., which do not involve converting land to a non-outdoor recreation use are not subject to Section 6(f) requirements. See Appendix E, General Guidance on Preparing Section 4(f) Documents, of this manual for Section 6(f) processing guidance.

When project development occurs within the Section 6(f)(3) boundary of the park, DPOR typically has several concerns that will need to be addressed: • No existing recreational opportunities are displaced, but if that is planned, they need

to be replaced with alternative recreational opportunities that can be demonstrated to be a need in the community.

• Any vegetation or development within the park area that is disturbed by the construction must be returned to at least its pre-disturbed state prior to completion of the project.

• Any development must meet current federal handicapped accessibility standards.

Generally, any federally funded transportation project requiring the conversion of recreational or parkland covered by Section 6(f) will also involve Section 4(f). Therefore the Section 4(f) Evaluation should reflect the coordination and agreements entered into as part of completing DOT&PF’s Section 6(f) responsibilities.


Other Guidance• FHWA, Environmental Guidebook Section 4(f)

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/v2ch15.htm

• FHWA, Section 4(f) Policy Paper March 1, 2005http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.htm

• Alaska DNR Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Land and Water Conservation Grant Programhttp://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/grants/lwcf.htm

• National Park Service, Land and Water Conservation Fundhttp://www.nps.gov/lwcf/

NPS: L&WCF Grants in Aid Manual 1991 http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf

DOT&PF and the Alaska Division FHWA have developed programmatic Section 4(f) for Public Parks, Recreation Lands, and Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges. The template checklist is at:

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/resources.shtml

Affected EnvironmentDescribe any parks and recreational facilities within the project vicinity, including equestrian trails, recreational bikeways, and other recreational trails and facilities in this section of the document. Briefly state whether the proposed project would use a Section 4(f) park or recreational facility. If the proposed project would use a Section 4(f) resource, refer the reader to the Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Determine whether LWCF was used to acquire or develop the park and/or the facility. If so, Section 6(f) applies and the project must develop a written plan to demonstrate that the Section 6(f) replacement land is acceptable.

ImpactDiscuss how the proposed project (each alternative) would impact the facilities.FLUSH OUT – SEE GLENN 35-109 FOR AN OUTLINE OF THE SECTION 6F AND AGREEMENTS For the Glenn Highway 35-109, I included a Section 6(f) Conversion section that preceded the Coordination section within the actual Section 4(f) Evaluation.

As required by Section 6(f) of L&WCF, substitution of other property of at least equal fair market value and of reasonably equivalent recreation usefulness and location will be provided to DPOR to replace the land converted from park use by the proposal. The Department proposes to replace the converted land with the existing highway right-of-way to be abandoned. The DPOR has also identified in-holdings within the present park boundaries, which may be suitable replacement parcels.



http://www.nps.gov/ncrc/programs/lwcf/manual/lwcf.pdf

http://www.nps.gov/lwcf/

http://www.dnr.state.ak.us/parks/grants/lwcf.htm

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/4fpolicy.htm


A preliminary “opinion of value” of the existing highway ROW, which is proposed as the replacement parcel and the potential conversion parcel, is included within Appendix D. An appraisal, meeting the requirements of Section 6(f), will be conducted on replacement and conversion parcels during the Design Phase of the project after the Federal Highway Administration grants authority to appraise and acquire.

If the appraisal indicates that the replacement parcel(s) is not of at least fair market value and of reasonably equivalent recreation usefulness and location, then additional replacement property will have to be identified and provided.

Avoidance, Minimization, and MitigationDiscuss any proposed measures to avoid, minimize or mitigate impacts.FLUSH OUT OUTLINE OF THE SECTION 6F AND AGREEMENTS


3.1.1.4 Growth

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceDiscuss the effect of each alternative(s) on growth and development. The Growth section of the environmental document discusses the relationship between the proposed transportation project and growth within the project area. The relationship of the project can be characterized in a variety of ways: being responsive or reactive to both planned and unplanned growth; facilitating planned growth; or inducing unplanned growth. The growth section of the environmental document must consider the beneficial and adverse effects of both types of growth.

Local governments should determine their own level or rate of growth. The DOT&PF then, subject to available resources and in cooperation with local and private entities, may provide transportation facilities and services needed to accommodate such growth.

Discuss local (village, city, and/or borough) planning documents. Cross-reference the discussion of state, regional, and local plans found in the existing and future Land Use section.


The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, require evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of all proposed federal activities and programs. This provision includes a requirement to examine indirect consequences, which may occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the future. The CEQ regulations, 40 CFR 1508.8, refer to these consequences as secondary impacts. Secondary impacts may include changes in land use, economic vitality, and population density, which are all elements of growth.

3.1.2 Community Impacts 3.1.2.1 Government to Government 3.1.2.2 Community Character and Cohesion 3.1.2.3 Relocations 3.1.2.4 Environmental Justice

3.1.2.1 Government to Government

Regulatory Setting

The United States government has a unique relationship with Indian and Alaska Native Tribes as set forth in the Constitution of the United States, treaties, statutes, court decisions, Executive Orders, and memoranda. This legal status creates an important requirement that the federal government must consult directly with Tribal governments when contemplating actions that may affect Tribal lands, resources, members, and welfare.

Executive Order (EO) 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments (November 6, 2000), sets forth guidelines for all federal agencies to (1) establish regular and meaningful consultation and collaboration with Indian Tribal officials in the development of federal policies that have Tribal implications; (2) strengthen the United States government-to-government relationships with Indian Tribes; and (3) reduce the imposition of unfounded mandates upon Indian Tribes.

Per Administrative Order (AO) No. 186, dated September 29, 2000, the State of Alaska recognizes and respects the governmental status of the federally recognized Tribes within the boundaries of Alaska. AO 186 establishes State policy to work on a government-to-government basis with Alaska’s sovereign Tribes. State policy was furthered on April 11, 2001, with the Millennium Agreement between the Federally Recognized Sovereign Tribes of Alaska and the State of Alaska. The Agreement provides a framework to establish constructive and meaningful government-to-government relationships and implementation procedures.


GuidanceRegulations implementing NEPA at 40 CFR 1507.7 require federal agencies to invite Tribes to participate in the scoping process on projects or activities that affect them. Many federal statues specifically recognize the obligation of the federal government to consult with Tribal officials on a government-to-government basis. Similarly, other federal statues and their implementing regulations (e.g., National Environmental Policy Act, Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and American Indian Religious Freedom Act) lay the basis for recognizing Tribal sovereignty through a consultation process. Consultation is also vital for such issues that include Environmental Justice, Subsistence, and Community Cohesion (also discussed within the Environmental Consequences Section of this manual).

The following background is to help understand the complexity of government-to-government consultation with Tribes in Alaska.

• Native SovereigntyIndian and Alaska Native Tribes have a special status as sovereign governments recognized by the United States federal government as having the power to self-govern on their lands under federal law. Special rights of Tribes are based on treaties, acts of Congress, actions taken by the Executive Branch of the federal government, while others are clarified by federal court rulings. This unique legal status creates an important requirement that the federal government must consult directly with Tribal governments when contemplating actions that may affect Tribal lands, resources, members, and welfare.

The sovereignty that Indian Tribes possess is inherent; it comes from the Tribe itself and existed before the founding of the United States. Under federal law, Tribal sovereignty is subject to certain limits placed by Congress and the federal courts. The relationship between Tribes and the federal government is described as government-to-government. This means that federal agencies are not to treat Indian Tribes as part of the general public or special interest group. The relationship between the Tribes and the states can also be described as government-to-government.

The cornerstone of the government-to-government relationship is the federal government’s trust responsibility to Indian Tribes. Under the trust doctrine, the federal government has obligations of responsibility and trust that require agencies as they fulfill their overall missions to ensure the protection of Tribal interests. Federal officials are to discharge the federal government’s trust with good faith and fairness when dealing with Indian Tribes. While the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is the agency with the lead role in carrying out the trust responsibility, courts have ruled that other federal agencies also have trust obligations to Indian Tribes.

• Federally Recognized Tribes


Indian Tribe means an Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist pursuant to the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 USC 479a.

In Alaska there are 229 federally recognized Tribes (represented by Indian Reorganization Act [IRA] Councils and Traditional Tribal Councils) and one federal Indian reservation (Metlakatla Indian Community of Annette Island). A list of recognized Tribes is published annually in the Federal Register under the heading "Native Entities Within the State of Alaska Recognized and Eligible to Receive Services from the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs."

IRA Councils are formed under the provisions of the IRA of 1934, as amended in 1936 to include Alaska Natives with the notion that Native Tribes are customarily associated with a community. In order to organize under IRA provisions, a Tribe must adopt a constitution and by-laws, which must be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and be ratified by Tribal members through an election conducted by the Department of Interior (DOI). Traditional Councils have not formally organized under federal law and are self-described local governments that have traditionally exercised government powers in Native communities.

• Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) of 1971 (43 USC Section 1601) ANCSA extinguished Native land claims to most of Alaska in exchange for about one-ninth of the State's land plus $962.5 million in compensation. ANCSA established 12 regional (with a 13th “Outside”) corporations and nearly 200 local village corporations to which the compensation was conveyed. By conveying Native land title to regional and village corporations formed under Alaska State law, ANCSA changed the relationship between Natives and the land from co-ownership of shared lands to corporate shareholding (i.e., land ownership based on a corporate model that bypassed Tribal [IRA and Traditional Councils] governments).

Native corporations under ANCSA do not take the place of Tribal governments in Alaska. ANCSA did not extinguish Tribal status. However, the United States Senate approved FY2004 Omnibus Appropriations (House Bill HR 2673) instructs the Office of Management and Budget to consult with the for-profit ANCSA corporations on the same basis as Indian Tribes under EO 13175, enhancing the political and legal status of Alaska Native corporations. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.2673 • Indian Country in AlaskaIndian Country (18 USC 1151) has to do with jurisdiction and three types are defined (1) all lands within the limits of any Indian reservation under United States federal government jurisdiction, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and including any rights-of-way running through the reservation; (2) all dependent Indian communities (having federal set aside land and federal superintendence) within the United States’ borders; and (3) all Indian allotments, the Indian title to which have not been extinguished, including rights-of-way running through the same.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:H.R.2673

Indian Country is land held in trust by the United States for the benefit of a Tribe or Native individual. Except for the Metlakatla Reservation, ANCSA extinguished reservations in Alaska and instituted corporations established under State law. As a result, most land previously recognized as Tribal is not considered Indian Country. Since corporations formed under State law own the land, the land is not set aside exclusively for the use of Tribes, nor is it under federal superintendence. Land conveyed to an ANCSA corporation under ANCSA and then conveyed to a Tribal government does not become Indian land because of Tribal government ownership, and therefore the land does not meet criteria for Indian Country designation.

There is Tribal land in Alaska that is still considered Indian Country: the Metlakatla Indian Community Federal Reservation on Annette Island; individual Native Allotments obtained under the Alaska Allotment Act of May 17, 1906 (Chapter 2469); and Townsite Lots conveyed to Tribal governments under the Native Townsite Act of August 2, 1956 (Public Law 931, Chapter 891).

• Consultation with Tribal GovernmentsAs defined in ADOT&PF Tribal Consultation Policy and Procedure 01.03.010, Government-To-Government Regulations with the Federally-Recognized Tribes of Alaska, March 18, 2002:

“Consultation” means the timely process of meaningful inter-government dialogue between departmental divisions and/or offices and federally-recognized tribes in Alaska regarding a proposed departmental action(s) that significantly or uniquely affects a tribe(s). When assessing what action will be subject to consultation, the department shall take into account the cultural and traditional activities of the tribe that could be significantly or uniquely affected by the proposed action, as well as any relevant state and/or federal law. “Consultation” may take place by in-person meeting, teleconference, videoconference, and exchange of written documents, email, or other means appropriate to the circumstances.

Many federal statutes and state laws require government and agencies to inform the public about their actions, and to provide opportunities for concerned members of the public to express their views. In addition to requirements imposed by statutes, rules issued by federal agencies can impose requirements to provide opportunities for public involvement, such as CEQ regulations to implement NEPA.

Tribal consultation differs from public participation in that it is the exchange of ideas, not simply providing information. Although there is no standard definition of consultation, it generally means more than providing information about agency plans and allowing concerned people to comment, but it does not mean that consulting parties have power to stop a federal agency action by withholding consent.

In its guidelines for federal agency historic preservation programs, the National Park Service provides one definition of consultation: the process to seek, discuss, and


consider the views of others, and, where feasible, seek agreement with them on how historic properties should be identified, considered, and managed. This definition is also incorporated in the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations dealing with consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• ADOT&PF Policy and Procedure 01.03.010, Government-To-Government Regulations with the Federally-Recognized Tribes of Alaska, March 18, 2002. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/admsvc/pnp/assets/chapt_1/01_03_010.pdf

The following outlines ADOT&PF Procedural Steps 1 through 5, modified here to include FHWA participation. The Regional Environmental Coordinator coordinates the government-to-government consultation through FHWA. ADOT&PF’s role and authority in the consultation process of the project is determined during the initiation of the effort.

Step 1. Notice to Affected Tribe. Make a good faith effort to notify the Tribe(s) at the earliest practicable time of proposed departmental actions that affect the Tribe(s).

• Early in the project development, compile a draft of the project scope, including the area of potential effect.

• Make a preliminary determination on whether the proposed project has potential to impact Tribal interests (i.e., lands, resources, members, or welfare).

• Create a contact list of Tribes (BIA recognized Tribes and ANCSA for-profit village and regional corporations) of the geographic area potentially having interest in the project.

The following sources provide information on federally recognized Tribes. Note that information may be out of date, incomplete, or missing, and should be verified.

• Native American Consultation Database (NACD) is a listing of federally recognized Tribes that have indicated interests in specific geographical areas. The NACD is updated a couple of time throughout the year.http://web.cast.uark.edu/other/nps/nacd/

• American Indian Heritage Foundation, American Indian Resource Directory for Alaska Native Villageshttp://www.indians.org/Resource/FedTribes99/Region1/region1.html

• Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) federally recognized Tribe list that is updated annuallyhttp://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs

Step 2. Dissemination of Information. At the outset of the consultation process, prior to the first consultation, FHWA, or ADOT&PF acting on behalf of FHWA, provides the affected Tribe(s) with sufficient information about the proposed action to ensure that the Tribe(s) can properly assess and respond.


http://www.doi.gov/bureau-indian-affairs

http://www.indians.org/Resource/FedTribes99/Region1/region1.html

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/admsvc/pnp/assets/chapt_1/01_03_010.pdf

• Contact leaders of the Tribe(s), and village and regional corporations (identified in Step 1) to determine their interest and if they know of other Tribes that may have an interest.

• Transmit a copy of the proposed project plan, relevant information, and request a consultation.

Step 3. Identification of the Participants. FHWA, and/or ADOT&PF acting on behalf of FHWA, and the affected Tribe(s) will identify their respective representatives for the consultation process. Consultations and meetings will be arranged with the Tribal contacts.

Step 4. Authorized Initiators. Any ADOT&PF or FHWA representative with decision-making authority regarding an action that affects a Tribe(s) is authorized to initiate a request for consultation with the affected Tribe(s). ADOT&PF and FHWA will likewise accept an unsolicited request for consultation from any representative of a Tribe who has decision-making authority on behalf of that Tribe.

Step 5. Consultation Process. FHWA, and/or ADOT&PF acting on behalf of FHWA, will at the beginning of the consultation work with the affected Tribe(s) to develop a mutually agreed upon list of participants, establish a timeline, and establish the method and frequency of communication to be used during the consultation. • At the conclusion of the consultation, FHWA, and/or ADOT&PF acting on behalf of

FHWA will notify the Tribe(s) of any final decisions on a proposed action within a reasonable time period and prior to the time that the decision takes effect, unless extraordinary or emergency circumstances preclude it.

• Project consultation concludes when a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), resolution, or agreement on mitigation of impacts to Tribal interests is reached.

Other Guidance• Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs: Government-to-Government

Consultation Policy or contact the BIA directly at (202) 208-3711.http://www.DOI.gov/oait/docs/g2gpolicy.htm

• Guide on Consultation and Collaboration with Indian Tribal Governments and the Public Participation of Indigenous Groups and Tribal Members in Environmental Decision Making, prepared by the National Environmental Justice Advisory Council Indigenous Peoples Subcommittee, May 2005.

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/ips_consultation_guide.pdf

• FHWA Historic Preservation website for Tribal Issues that includes: Tribal Consultation and Coordination guidance and information and Best Practiceshttp://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/tribal.htm#consult

• ADOT&PF Environmental Standards Resources website for Agreements (2001 Millennium Agreement, AO 186, and ADOT&PF Policy on Government-to-Government Relations


http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/histpres/tribal.htm#consult

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/ej/ips_consultation_guide.pdf

http://www.doi.gov/oait/docs/g2gpolicy.htm


• ADOT&PF Civil Rights Office website for Tribal Consultationhttp://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/index.shtml

• University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, Alaska Natives and American Indians: Index to Resources http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/index.html

• University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, Alaska Native Sovereignty http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/ak_sovereignty.html

• University of Alaska Anchorage Justice Center, Alaska Native Tribal Governments http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/ak_tribalgovt.html

3.1.2.2 Community Character and Cohesion

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceCommunity character and cohesion are subtle, often hard-to-identify qualities. Develop a community profile, a summary of the social and economic characteristics of the area.

The discussion in the environmental document should focus on the effects of each alternative on the community’s character (“setting”) and on the cohesiveness of the community and/or segments within the community. Pay particular attention to areas of the community that have elderly persons, particularly traditional Elders, disabled persons, transit-dependent individuals and minority groups.

Give consideration to:


The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA), established that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(2)). The Federal Highway Administration in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C. 109(h)) directs that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest. This requires taking into account adverse environmental impacts, such as, destruction or disruption of human-made resources, community cohesion and the availability of public facilities and services.

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/ak_tribalgovt.html

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/ak_sovereignty.html

http://justice.uaa.alaska.edu/rlinks/natives/index.html

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/index.shtml


• Increasing or decreasing public access• Dividing neighborhoods• Separating residences from community facilities• Growth• Changes in quality of life• Increasing urbanization or isolation

Determine demographic characteristics, economic base, location of community facilities, and other relevant characteristics. Sources of data can be found at: • U.S. Census Bureau

http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html

• Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development: Community Database Onlinehttp://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

• Federal Highways has published two excellent documents: Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportationhttp://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmcia.htm

3.1.2.3 Relocations

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceCoordinate with the engineering manager and Right-of-Way Section to determine if additional right-of-way (ROW) is necessary for the proposed improvements. Additional ROW includes temporary and permanent easements and interagency land transfers.


The DOT&PF Relocation Assistance is based on the Federal Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (as amended) and Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 24. The purpose is to ensure that persons displaced as a result of a transportation project are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably so that such persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole.

All relocation services and benefits are administered without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000d, et seq.).

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmcia.htm

http://www.dced.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm


Affected EnvironmentProvide the following:

• An estimate of the number of households to be displaced, including the family characteristics (e.g., minority, ethnic, handicapped, elderly, large family, income level, and owner/tenant status).

• A comparison of available (decent, safe, and sanitary) housing in the area with the housing needs of those displaced.

• A discussion of affected neighborhoods, public facilities, nonprofit organizations, and families having special composition (e.g., ethnic, minority, elderly, handicapped, or other factors) that may require special relocation considerations, and the measures proposed to resolve these relocation concerns.

• The measures DOT&PF will take where the existing housing inventory is insufficient, does not meet relocation standards, or is not within the financial capability of the displaced persons.

• An estimate of the numbers, descriptions, types of occupancy (owner/tenant), and sizes (number of employees) of businesses to be displaced.

• A statement that (1) the acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and (2) relocation resources are available to all residential and business relocates without discrimination.

ImpactsThe regional right-of-way chief will provide the environmental coordinator with a copy of the Conceptual Stage Relocation Study. The study is critical in understanding the right-of-way and relocation impacts of alternatives on the community locally and at-large. It is a major contributor to the social and economic impacts discussion of the environmental document and provides a broad collection of data dealing with the human and economic elements of the project.

1. If a Conceptual Stage Relocation Study is prepared for the project by the Right-of-Way Section, summarize those findings in the EA and then incorporate the document by reference.

2. List all of the proposed acquisitions in a table, separated into residential and business, and by full or partial acquisition. Whenever possible, use tables.

3. Discuss the availability of replacement housing, which must be decent, safe, and sanitary.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation MeasuresThe environmental and right-of-way staffs should work closely in the development of this section. A discussion of Last Resort Housing is required and generally limited to an estimate of the number of households that will likely require Last Resort Housing and the inclusion of the following standard paragraph:


Comparable replacement housing for sale and rent is available in [City]. However, there may be some last resort rent supplements and last resort replacement housing payments necessary. Last resort housing payments would be used in order to place the relocatees in decent, safe, and sanitary housing, if necessary. Should last resort housing be constructed, the housing would be available before the displacees are required to vacate their dwellings. There are numerous residential lots available for new construction within the [City] area. Lot sizes range from _______ square feet to _______ square feet and are priced from $ _______ to $ _______.

The DOT&PF will ascertain exactly how many households actually require last resort housing or rent supplements during the development of the Relocation Needs Assessment Survey during the right-of-way acquisition phase of project development.

3.1.2.4 Environmental Justice

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceConsistent with the DOT&PF Title VI Work Plan, the Project Manager (or Regional Environmental Coordinator) will notify the Title VI Specialist during project scoping to determine any potential for Title VI Issues. Projects with Title VI issues will involve the Title VI Specialist in the development and review of the environmental document.

For projects that have such potential and a public hearing is being scheduled, the Title VI Specialist will either attend the hearing or review hearing records to identify and address any Title VI issues that might arise. The Project Manager (or Regional


All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, signed by President Clinton on February 11, 1994. This Executive Order directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or environment of minority and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Low income is defined based on the Department of Health and Human Services poverty guidelines.

All considerations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes have also been included in this project.

Environmental Coordinator) will decide whether the services of an interpreter will be required for hearings that have Title VI issues.

Information regarding public hearing attendance and any Title VI issues that arise will be recorded on the Title VI Report, located at the end of the Environmental Justice Section or at http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-report.pdf. Completing the Report will be the responsibility of the Title VI Specialist, if in attendance, or the Project Manager (who will provide a copy, along with the public hearing sign-in sheet, to the Title VI Specialist). The Report will be appended to the environmental document and any pertinent Title VI information included in the environmental document. During the development of the project, and depending on the issues at hand, it can be beneficial to create a Citizen Advisory Group (CAG) to help bring the impacted community into the project development process. Refer to the DOT&PF Title VI Work Plan, Part II.C(3a)(c) Public Involvement for additional guidance. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-wkpln.pdf• If the build alternative will cause disproportionate impacts to the protected

populations, follow the steps in the FHWA Guidance on Environmental Justice (12/2/1998), located athttp://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/6640_23.htm

Item #5d(d) in the Guidance describes under what conditions a project may go forward despite its disproportionate impact on protected populations. One such condition is the “extraordinary magnitude” of project costs for other alternatives, which is why costs are calculated in the previous step.

• The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office maintains a Title VI and Environmental Justice web page at: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/tvi.shtml

• The DOT&PF Civil Rights Office maintains a Tribal Consultation web page at: http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/tribal.shtml

• The DOT&PF Work Plan to implement Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (updated March 20, 1998)http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-wkpln.pdf

Affected EnvironmentBegin with the following statement:


This project has been developed in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 and EO 12898.

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-wkpln.pdf

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/tribal.shtml

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/tvi.shtml

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/orders/6640_23.htm

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-wkpln.pdf

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/cvlrts/forms/tvi-report.pdf

Project analysis will follow the guidance contained in the FHWA Interim Guidance for Addressing Environmental Justice to ensure all pertinent points have been covered. For the environmental document:

1. Identify whether there are any minority or low-income populations in the project area.• The US Census provides median income, housing and ethnic information to

the “block” level. Use the interactive maps at the website to navigate, starting at: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_langen

• Once you have identified the tracts or block groups or whatever geographic unit you are using, return to the Gateway 2000 section (at http://www.census.gov/main/www/cen2000.html) and choose American Fact Finder, or go directly to http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet

• Select “Tables” for the unit. Note that it takes 2-3 years after completion of a decennial census before all data are available. Generally, economic indicators and median income are among the last information tabulated in detail; ethnicity data are available earlier.

2. If no low-income or minority populations have been identified, summarize in the environmental document all the efforts undertaken to identify such populations and conclude the section with the following language:

Impacts3. If there are low-income or minority populations in the project area, determine if

there are disproportionately high and adverse impacts to those populations. Consider and discuss the following in the environmental document:• The beneficial and adverse impacts on the overall population and on minority

and low-income populations or communities, in particular, need to be addressed.

• If the project is on a new alignment, the decision-makers may need to take another look at alternatives, or even explore alternatives not already considered. Look at the overall project impacts and determine whether disproportionate (not zero) impacts on low-income and minority populations occur.

• Typically, impacts that may be disproportionate are relocations and temporary, partial takings for construction easements. If these impacts appear to affect lower-income/minority households more, calculate the costs of avoidance alternatives (see next bullet).


No minority or low-income populations have been identified that would be adversely affected by the proposed project as determined above. Therefore, this project is not subject to the provisions of E.O. 12898.

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/BasicFactsServlet


http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ThematicMapFramesetServlet?_lang=en

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures4. If the build alternative(s) does not cause disproportionate impacts to the protected

populations, include the following statement:

3.1.3 Economic

GuidanceDescribe the existing economic traffic generators in the project area that exert travel demands on the proposed facility. This includes businesses, neighborhoods, existing and future land use plans, recreational facilities, shopping centers, and new developments (economically oriented or residentially based) that could increase travel demand on the proposed facility and, as a consequence, increase capacity demands and safety demands.

Provide a map of the project area that identifies these generators in relation to the proposed project and a table or listing of future development in the corridor (or refer to developments is already included in Section 3.1.1 Land Use) to help the reader understand the community growth potential.

For most transportation projects, with no discernable effect on the local economy, discussion on this topic should be brief and largely extrapolated from existing documentation. However, some of the larger projects may well have important effects on the local economy of a neighborhood or community.

The Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic Development has several web-based resources that may be useful in analyzing economic (and social) impacts. Alaska Community Advocacy for numerous community, regional, and

statewide database links http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/

Alaska Economic Information System for detailed economic and employment data, and demographics of Alaska geographic census areas.

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/AEIS_Home.htm

Alaska Community Database Online http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm


Based on the above discussion and analysis, the [XYZ Alternative(s)] will not cause disproportionately high and adverse effects on any minority or low-income populations as per E.O. 12898 regarding environmental justice.

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_COMDB.htm

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/AEIS/AEIS_Home.htm

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/

Alaska Community Plans Inventory http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_Plans.cfm

Federal Highway Administration, Planning and Economic Development http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/econdev/

“Using Empirical Information to Measure the Economic Impact of Highway Investments,” March 2001, prepared by Economic Development Research Group, Inc., for FHWA

http://www.edrgroup.com/hwy-impact.html

FHWA publications on community impacts resources that can be ordered but are not available on the web: Community Impact Mitigation Handbook. Publication No. FHWA-PD-98-024

(May 1998). Community Impact Assessment, A Quick Reference for Transportation,

Publication No. FHWA-PD-96-036 (September 1996).

“Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects,” 2001, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 456:

http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa.nsf/All+Documents/4D0F777FF27859AB85256C7C004FF4D9/$FILE/nchrp_rpt_456-a.pdf

“Assessing the Social and Economic Effect of Transportation Projects,” February 2001, NCHRP Project B25-19:

http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w31.pdf

Affected EnvironmentDescribe the existing local and project specific economy. Delineate the affected environment for the proposed project, depicting the land, buildings, and other features that may be subject to project effects.

Choosing the affected environment, appropriate study area depends on the type of project being analyzed and where it is located. An impact area for highway intersections or interchanges likely is more limited as development will tend to occur at accessible points at and near the intersections. If a project is exclusively located within a community, the community may be the study area. Delineation of the affected environment will generally encompass community facilities, school districts, census tracts, and community planning areas.

ImpactsDiscuss how the project will or will not assist the community and/or borough in meeting its economic management objectives. Generally in project assessment, the economic development analysis compares a no-build or baseline scenario to one or more build alternative scenarios. Impacts are often forecast 20 years or more into the future.


http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w31.pdf



http://www.edrgroup.com/hwy-impact.html

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/econdev/

http://www.commerce.state.ak.us/dca/commdb/CF_Plans.cfm

Describe impacts to the local economy and long-term impacts, which may lead to economic loss of business and employment. Under NEPA implementing relocations, social and economic impacts of transportation projects must be assessed and documented. Relocation policy is provided in the Uniform Relocation Assistance and real Property Acquisition Act. Should relocations be identified, include the following statement:

Foreseeable economic impact discussions may include: The economic impacts on the regional and/or local economy such as

development, tax revenues and public expenditures, employment opportunities, accessibility, and retail sales.

Impacts on the economic vitality of existing highway-related businesses (e.g., gasoline stations and motels) and the overall local economy.

Impacts of the proposed action on established business districts, and any opportunities to minimize or reduce such impacts by the public and/or private sectors.

The following questions are provided to help understand how the proposed action affects the community, and to identify types of impacts to analyze: • Business and Employment Impacts: Will the proposed action encourage

businesses to move to the area, relocate to other locations within the area, close, or move outside the area?

• Short-term Impacts: How is the local economy affected by construction activities? Are there both positive (jobs generated) and negative (detours and loss of access) impacts?

• Business Visibility: Will the proposed action alter business visibility to traffic-based businesses? How will visibility and access changes alter business activity?

• Tax Base: What is the effect on the tax base (from taxable property removed from base, changes in property values, changes in business activity)?

• Property Values: What is the likely effect on property values caused by relocations or change in land use?

3.1.4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities

Regulatory Setting


The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) directs that full consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during the development of federal-aid highway projects (see 23 CFR 652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered in all federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the facility. Per 23 USC 109(n), DOT&PF has given full consideration of bicycle accommodations and is providing reasonable alternatives for the bicycling public.

The DOT&PF and FHWA are committed to carrying out the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by building transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. The same degree of convenience, accessibility, and safety available to the general public will be provided to persons with disabilities.

The acquisition and relocation program will be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, and relocation resources will be made available to all residential and business relocatees without discrimination.

GuidanceDemonstrate that DOT&PF has fully considered pedestrians and bicycles and has actively coordinated with local government bicycle/pedestrian agencies and public interest groups to understand and meet, where feasible, community needs.

When the solution identified by local government differs with the build alternative, DOT&PF must resolve with the local government the difference in meeting user needs and document that resolution in this section. The bicycle and pedestrian facilities proposed by DOT&PF must be consistent with local planning to the maximum possible extent.

The DOT&PF must comply with FHWA bicycle policy.

Affected Environment• Discussion of pedestrian and bicyclist facilities should provide the following: If

the community has planned for a bicycle and pedestrian facility along this project corridor, then identify the transportation plans that contain the proposed facilities and identify the types of facilities planned by the community.

• If a bicycle plan does not exist (or bicycle element in the case of a comprehensive plan) then discuss the facility based on the types of bicycle traffic plan) then discuss the facility based on the types of bicycle traffic generators in the project are and the types of user demands expected.

• Identify any local governmental agencies or community interest groups supporting the development of bicycle and pedestrian facilities on the project.

• If the project area contains an existing bicycle facility, describe the type of existing facility and the impacts to that facility. If this facility is a part of an existing bicycle system, also address the impact on the system.


ImpactsState what type of facility is to be provided, its logical termini, and its interfacing with other bicycle routes. The discussion should also specify that the facility will be designed in accordance with the Alaska Preconstruction Manual and the American Association for State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Standards.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation MeasuresDemonstrate coordination with local government and public interest groups. The facility must be consistent with local bicycle planning as shown in local transportation plans or elements of local comprehensive plans and found acceptable by the local governing body. The Comments and Coordination section must also document this coordination effort.

3.1.5 Visual/Aesthetics

Regulatory Setting

Guidance The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects provides guidance on

how to conduct a visual assessment for federal or federal-aid highway projects. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/roadside/pdf/fhwavia.pdf

FHWA Environmental Guidebook, Aesthetics: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/v2ch1.htm

Affected EnvironmentDescribe the existing visual or aesthetic values from two perspectives: 1) the view from the road, and 2) the view of the road. The view from the road is from the user’s perspective and leaves a lasting impression of the community, area, or region on the visitor as well as on the residents. The view of the road by the resident contributes to the feeling of community value and pride.

Discuss the aesthetics of the area. This generally depends on the activity, exposure and sensitivity of road users and viewers. There are areas that are generally recognized as critical or sensitive. These include:


The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended (NEPA) establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S.C. 4331(b)(2)). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway administration in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C. 109(h)) directs that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.


http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/eesc/design/roadside/pdf/fhwavia.pdf

Residential areas Areas of recognized beauty (local, state, national) Parks and recreation areas Historic or other culturally important resources Landscapes (i.e., mountain ranges and water bodies)

To document these features, the regional environmental coordinator should obtain community input into the process.

Identify if there are officially designated scenic highways in the project corridor. • Alaska’s Scenic Byways are identified and described at

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/scenic/index.shtml

The Scenic Byways Program is a community-based program administered through FHWA to recognize, protect, and promote America’s most outstanding roads. If the proposed project is within the boundaries of a scenic corridor protection program, the environmental document must discuss whether the project is consistent with that program.

The Scenic Byways Program was established in 1991 under the Intermodal Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) (23 U.S.C. 101(g)) and strengthened in 1998 with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Under the program, certain roads are recognized as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads for their outstanding qualities. There are no state restrictions, and there is only one requirement of national scenic byways: new billboard construction is prohibited on interstate, National Highway System, and federal-aid primary highways. For Alaska, this is not an issue because billboards were banned in 1998.

Keep??? For National Scenic Byway designation, a road or highway must meet at least one of the six scenic byways intrinsic qualities (archaeological, cultural, historic, natural, recreation, and scenic). For All-American Road designation, the road or highway must satisfy at least two of the intrinsic qualities. Definitions of Intrinsic Qualities and Route Significance are found at:http://www.bywaysonline.org/program/iq.html.

Alaska Scenic Byways are:• Marine Highway (Inside Passage, Southcentral and Cross Gulf Routes,

Southwest and Aleutian Island Routes) (This route is a National Scenic Byway.)• Dalton Highway • Glenn Highway (This route is a National Scenic Byway between Anchorage and

Little Nelchina River (MP 135).)• Haines Highway• Parks Highway• Richardson Highway• Seward Highway (This route is an All-American Road.)• Sterling Highway


http://www.bywaysonline.org/program/iq.html

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/scenic/index.shtml

• Steese Highway• Taylor Highway and Top of the World Highway• Alaska Railroad

ImpactsThe discussion should address the visual impacts of a proposed facility as expressed by a community as being important through their local comprehensive plan, legislation, local designation, surveys, or ordinances.

The visual impact analysis should contain the following information:• Viewer and/or viewer groups that would be impacted most by the project• The visual impacts of the project on these resources and viewers

The volume and type of information necessary to summarize these concerns will vary from project to project.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation MeasuresVisual impacts can be mitigated through a variety of actions in design, construction, and maintenance. Some of the more common measures include location, alignment, use of color, unique or significant construction materials, landscaping, screening, incorporation of architectural features, and earthwork. Locate highway corridors to avoid or minimize impact on visual resources that are controversial or exceptional.

The removal of the natural or existing vegetation is the most noticeable visual impact of a project and must be held to a minimum to achieve community acceptance. Clearing only what vegetation is necessary for the construction can eliminate or reduce the need to mitigate. However, you must consider proper sight distances, clear zones, and horizontal clearance requirements.

Address the incorporation of context-sensitive solutions in the proposed project. For information on context-sensitive solutions, please see FHWA’s context-sensitive website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/index.htm).

3.1.6 Historic Preservation

Historic properties are defined by the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as amended) as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

Regulatory Setting


The National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (NHPA) sets forth national policy and procedures regarding "historic properties," which are districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or considered eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Section 106 of NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on such properties, following regulations issued by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR 800).

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/index.htm

Include as applicable:

GuidanceSection 106 of the NRHP pertains to actions or undertakings performed, assisted, permitted, or licensed by a federal agency. The process for identifying and assessing effects to historic properties is provided in 36 CFR Part 800.

The FHWA is the lead federal agency in the Section 106 process and must demonstrate compliance for all federal agency actions involved in the project. The FHWA should provide the results of Section 106 compliance to other agencies (e.g., U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)) as necessary.

The Department of Natural Resources, Office of History and Archaeology, has incorporated the Section 106 process into the state’s historic compliance review program (AS 41.35.070 Preservation of Historic, Prehistoric, and Archeological Resources threatened by Public Construction). The compliance review program is ultimately overseen by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). Cultural resource assessments should be conducted by professionals meeting at least the minimum criteria for archaeologists, historians, architectural historians, and other professionals set forth in “Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines” (Federal Register, 1983, Vol. 48, No. 190, Pages 44738-44739).

Initiate Consultation with Section 106 Consulting Parties Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and any other consulting parties (e.g., Indian tribes and Certified Local Governments).

DOT&PF and the Alaska Division FHWA have developed Section 106 Templates for project consultation with Tribes and SHPO, and determinations of eligibility and finding of effect:



The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) addresses the rights of lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to Native American human remains and certain cultural items with which they are affiliated, and directs federal agencies and federally assisted museums to identify and repatriate the cultural affiliation of Native American human remains and related cultural items in holdings or collections under their possession or control.


Establish Area of Potential Effect (APE). The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the project, is determined by FHWA in coordination with the Regional Environmental Coordinator in consultation with SHPO. The APE is the “geographic area(s) within which the proposed undertaking may cause changes in the character or use of historic properties listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR 800.2(c)).”

In defining the APE, consider the full range of possible project impacts, both direct and indirect. Direct impacts include destruction in all or part of the historic property. Indirect impacts can include noise and visual effects.

The APE is not considered commensurate with project right-of-way limits, particularly in regard to the assessment of historic structures that may be affected by the build alternative(s). The APE should include temporary construction easements, temporary access roads, borrow sites, disposal areas, and project related staging sites.

Identification of Historic Properties. Based on the nature of the proposed transportation project activities and the results of the initial coordination with the SHPO, the regional environmental coordinator in consultation with FHWA will determine the level of historic property inventory and documentation required. Levels of effort can range from a records review at the Alaska Office of History and Archaeology (OHA) of the Alaska Heritage Resources Survey (AHRS) files that may include a reconnaissance survey to a more intensive survey supported by background research. Survey requirements will generally depend on right-of-way needs, extent of ground disturbing activities, and projections of the potential impacts of the proposed project on historic properties. Three options are available:• No inventory required (Exemption per 36 CFR Part 800.3(c)) • Records Review with or without reconnaissance survey because the project has

low potential to effect historic properties.• Prepare a Historic Properties Inventory when project has potential to effect

historic properties.

Historic Properties Inventory. The inventory is a detailed, organized, and suitably illustrated document divided into a number of topical sections. • The nature of the undertaking• The project location and parameters• The APE for the project• The purpose of the assessment survey• Archaeological and historic context overviews• Research design• Survey methodology• Survey results• Site evaluation• Recommendations• Appendices (as needed)


Determinations of Eligibility To be considered eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places, a property must not only be shown to be significant under the National Register criteria, but it also must have integrity. The evaluation of integrity must be grounded in understanding a property's physical features and how they relate to its significance. The seven aspects of integrity are:• Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place

where the historic event occurred.• Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure,

and style of a property.• Setting: the physical environment of a historic property.• Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a

particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.

• Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory.

• Feeling: a property's expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time.

• Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property.

The FHWA must apply the National Register Criteria of Significance to determine the possible eligibility of each resource for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. The criteria are: a. Properties that are associated with events that have made a significant

contribution to the broad patterns of our historyb. Properties that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.c. Properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or

method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

d. Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Determinations of eligibility are made by a FHWA after reviewing recommendations of DOT&PF and the qualified historic preservation professional. Determinations are submitted to SHPO for concurrence. If there is failure to agree, the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places makes the final decision.

• National Park Service, National Register Bulletin #15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_6.htm

Affected Environment Provide one of the following two statements. In the Comments and Coordination section of the document, discuss the coordination efforts related to the inventory process.


http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/nrb15_6.htm

1. No Historic Properties

2. Historic Properties IdentifiedDescribe historic properties listed or determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places within the APE, including their significance.

Note: It is an accepted policy at both the federal and State level to not include the actual location of archaeological sites in public documents.

ImpactsAssessment of Impacts to National Register PropertiesOnce the property has been determined to be listed or eligible for the National Register, assess any impacts to the property. The impacts to be assessed may include: • Change of access (pedestrian and vehicular)• Noise or vibration• Change in landscaping• Change in aesthetic qualities• Right-of-way acquisition

Apply the Criteria of Effect and Adverse Effect• An understanding has an effect on a historic property when the undertaking may

alter characteristics of the property that may qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. For the purpose of determining effect, alteration to features of the property’s location, setting, or use may be relevant depending on a property’s significant characteristics and should be considered.

• An undertaking is considered to have an adverse effect when the effect on a historic property may diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association. Adverse effects on historic properties include, but are not limited to:o Physical destruction, damage, or alternation of all or part of the property.o Isolation of the property from, or alteration of, the character of the property’s

setting when that character contributes to the property’s qualification for the National Register.


No historic properties were identified per 36 CFR Part 800, nor are any expected to be encountered during subsequent project development. The Federal Highway Administration, after consultation with SHPO, has determined that no historic properties listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be effected. The SHPO concurrence letter [date] is included in Appendix _____. Or The project is exempt for 36 CFR Part 800.3(c)).

o Introduction of visual, audible, or atmospheric elements that are out of character with the property or alter its setting.

During the consultation meeting between FHWA, SHPO, and DOT&PF, when the criteria of effect are applied, three decisions can be reached. Document the one appropriate for the project. • No effect: When a no effect decision is made and no disagreement officers,

document the decision.• No adverse effect: When an effect is found but after application of the criteria of

adverse effect and the unanimous decision that the effect is not adverse, document the decision.

• Adverse effect: When the effect is determined to be adverse and no disagreement occurs, the agencies proceed to the development of an MOA (see below).

When there is a finding of No Effect, include the following statement:

When there is a finding of No Adverse Effect, include the following statement:

When there is a finding of No Adverse Effect, include the following statement:

When there is a finding of Adverse Effect, include the following statement:


In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 CFR, Part 800, [number of sites] were identified, which were determined eligible for listing on (or listed on) the National Register of Historic Places (see _____). Through the application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect, FHWA in consultation with SHPO determined that (describe here the impact that was found to be an effect) did not constitute an adverse effect on the (or any of the) properties (see ______). FHWA has determined that no historic properties would be effected.

Through the application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect, FHWA in consultation with SHPO concluded that the project would have an adverse effect on the historic property(s). A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed based on this finding, and signed by FHWA and SHPO, and concurred in by DOT&PF [and other Section 106 consulting parties as appropriate] (see appendix ___).

Through the application of the Criteria of Adverse Effect, FHWA in consultation with SHPO determined that [describe the effect that was determined not to be adverse] did not constitute an adverse effect on the historic property(s).

If there is any “taking” of a historic property you must initiate the Section 4(f) process. An exception to the Section 4(f) process would be an archaeological site determined significant under criterion (d) because of the data it contains.

Findings of effect are made by a FHWA after reviewing recommendations of DOT&PF and the qualified historic preservation professional. Findings are submitted to SHPO for concurrence. If there is failure to agree, the Advisory Council on Historic Properties (ACHP) makes a recommendation to FHWA, who then issues the final decision.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation MeasuresThe Section 106 consulting parties determine mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects. FHWA will prepare a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) among FHWA, SHPO, and DOT&PF for formal signature.

Contents of the MOA will vary depending on the historic property involved. The MOA should specify that: FHWA involvement in the project • The project’s adverse effect on the historic property(s)• The ACHP consultation procedures have been followed • The consulting parties agree that undertaking the project in accordance with the

procedure described in the MOA will satisfactorily mitigate any adverse effects

The MOA should clearly describe the action to be taken to mitigate the adverse effect. It should be specific about the relevant issues in terms of the adverse effect, such as distance, dimensions, locations, and materials.

Other Guidance The MOA process is shown in a flow chart at ACHP’s website: http://www.achp.gov/regsflow.html

The ACHP website for Section 106 in generalhttp://www.achp.gov/

• The National Park Service website for Register Criteria, guidance, bulletinshttp://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/index.htm

3.1.7 Subsistence

Regulatory Setting


http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/publications/index.htm

http://www.achp.gov/

http://www.achp.gov/regsflow.html

Section 810(a) of the Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 USC Section 3120) signed into law in 1980 requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed as part of any federal agency determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands.” Subsistence uses are defined in this title as the “customary and traditional uses by rural Alaska residents of wild, renewable resources for direct personal or family consumption as food…[for] handicrafts…for barter, or sharing…and for customary trade.”

The State of Alaska also regulates subsistence activities, formally established by statute in 1978 (AS 16.05.090, AS 16.05.094, and AS 16.05.258). Alaska Natives and non-Natives may hunt and fish for subsistence if they live in rural areas. The regulations apply to federal public lands only, including lands managed by USF&WS, NPS, BLM, and USDA Forest Service.

Guidance Alaska National Interest Land Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1980

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/anilca/toc.html

ANILCA Title VIII – Subsistence Management and Use Findings http://www.r7.fws.gov/asm/anilca/title08.html

Federal Subsistence Management Program (multi-agency effort: USF&WS, USFS, NPS, BIA, and BLM).

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/index.htm

Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence Home Page http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/

ADF&G Community Profile Database website that contains the database and list of subsistence research publications.

http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/publctns/techpap.cfm

Affected EnvironmentThe regional environmental coordinator should determine if the project is located within federal public lands and identify the corresponding Alaska subsistence management unit(s). If it is on federal public lands, an ANILCA Section 810 analysis of subsistence impacts must be prepared and appended to the EA. Briefly describe the federal public lands and subsistence management unit(s), with a boundary map, and identify (1) the subsistence fish and wildlife resources, (2) what subsistence activities are available, and (3) the management intent of the public lands.

Federal Public Land Maps are available at the USF&WS Federal Subsistence Management Program.


http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/geninfo/publctns/techpap.cfm

http://www.subsistence.adfg.state.ak.us/

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/index.htm

http://www.r7.fws.gov/asm/anilca/title08.html

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/anilca/toc.html

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/law.cfm?ma=1

Customary and traditional use determinations are listed along with seasons and harvests in each of the 26 subsistence management units within Alaska. Refer to the unit maps for the area in which you wish to check on land status. This site also provides general information on subsistence regulations.

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/law.cfm?wcr=1

ImpactsSection 810(a) of ANILCA requires that an evaluation of subsistence uses and needs be completed as part of any federal agency determination to “withdraw, reserve, lease, or otherwise permit the use, occupancy, or disposition of public lands.” ANILCA requires that this evaluation include findings related to three specific issues:(1) The effect of such use, occupancy, or disposition on subsistence uses and

needs;(2) The availability of other lands for the purposes sought to be achieved; and(3) Other alternatives that would reduce or eliminate the use, occupancy, or

disposition of public lands needed for subsistence purposes.

For each alternative, the assessments consider five possible impact categories that could restrict the use of resources for subsistence:• A decline in the population or amount of harvestable resources,• Changes in the geographic distribution of subsistence resources• Competition for potential subsistence resources,• Disturbance of subsistence activities, and• Constraints on access to subsistence resources.

The criteria used to evaluate impacts on subsistence use consider both type and magnitude of effect. Impacts within these categories would fall below the “may” significantly restrict threshold if the action may result in:• No (or a slight) reduction in the abundance of harvestable resources; • No (or occasional) redistribution of these resources; • No effect (or slight inconvenience) on the ability of harvests to reach and use

active subsistence harvesting sites; and • No substantial increase in competition for harvestable resources.

Conversely, restrictions would reach the “may” significantly restrict threshold if the action may result in large reductions in the abundance of harvestable resources, major redistributions of those resources, substantial interference with harvester access to active subsistence sites, or a major increase in competition for subsistence resources.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures


http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/law.cfm?wcr=1

http://alaska.fws.gov/asm/law.cfm?ma=1

If an evaluation of the three specific issues concludes that an action “would significantly restrict subsistence uses,” ANILCA Section 810 (a)(3)(A), (B), and (C) requires the head of the lead federal agency to:• Notify the appropriate State agency (ADF&G Division of Subsistence), local

committees, and regional councils (established under 16 USC Section 3115);• Give notice of and hold a hearing in the vicinity of the area involved; and• Determine that: (1) such restriction to subsistence is necessary and consistent

with sound management principles for use of the public lands in question, (2) the proposed activity will involve the minimal amount of public lands necessary to accomplish its purposes, and (3) reasonable steps will be taken to minimize adverse impacts on subsistence uses and resources.

3.2 Physical Environment3.2.1 Noise3.2.2 Air Quality3.2.3 Geology/Soils/Seismic/Topography3.2.4 Hazardous Waste/Materials

3.2 Physical Environment

3.2.1 Noise

Regulatory Setting

Activity Category

NAC, Hourly A- Weighted Noise Level, Dba Leq(h)

Description of Activities


The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 provides the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The intent of this law is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment.

For highway transportation projects with FHWA involvement, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and the associated implementing regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations contain noise abatement criteria that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The noise abatement criteria differ depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the criterionfor residences (67 dBA) is lower than the criterion for commercial areas (72 dBA). The following table lists the noise abatement criteria.

A 57 Exterior

Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary significance and serve an important public need and where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the area is to continue to serve its intended purpose

B 67 Exterior

Picnic areas, recreation areas, playgrounds, active sport areas, parks, residences, motels, hotels, schools, churches, libraries, and hospitals.

C 72 Exterior Developed lands, properties, or activities not included in Categories A or B above

D -- Undeveloped lands.

E 52 InteriorResidence, motels, hotels, public meeting rooms, schools, churches, libraries, hospitals, and auditoriums

Guidance• The guiding document for the analysis and abatement of highway traffic noise will be

Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and AbatementPolicy and Guidance (FHWA, June 1995).http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/polguid.pdf

Additional FHWA guidance is provided in Highway Traffic Noise in the Unitied States Problem and Response (April 2000)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm

• Additional relevant information describing the evaluation and abatement of traffic noise is presented in the document, "Guide on Evaluation and Abatement of Traffic Noise" (AASHTO, 1993).

• DOT&PF has adopted the Noise Abatement Policy (March 1996), which incorporates criteria for providing noise abatement measures on federal-aid highway construction and improvement projects. http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/procedures/noiseabate0396.pdf

Determination of existing and predicted noise levels must be consistent with methods established in 23 CFR 772 for Type I and Type II projects. The DOT&PF policy applies only to Type I proposed highway construction and improvement projects, where a highway is constructed on a new location, an existing highway is physically altered with substantial changes resulting to the horizontal or vertical alignments, or the number of through-traffic lanes is increased. DOT&PF does not have a Type II (retrofit) program to provide noise abatement measures on existing state highways.


http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/procedures/noiseabate0396.pdf

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/assets/pdf/procedures/noiseabate0396.pdf

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/probresp.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/polguid.pdf

In an effort to prevent future traffic noise impacts on currently undeveloped lands, and to maintain compatibility between highways and future development, DOT&PF will inform local officials within whose jurisdiction the highway project falls of the best estimation of future noise levels for both developed and undeveloped properties in the project area.

Identify land uses and sensitive noise receptors, particularly areas of frequent human use that would benefit from reduced noise levels. Select measurement locations and times so that the range of values will be representative of the area(s) of interest. Noise sensitive areas, including schools, hospitals, residential areas, and other locations identified by resident or agency participation, will be included in the study scope. Locations for existing noise level determinations will vary with the scope of the individual project, but in general will extend from the projected right-of-way line to a point of minimal noise impact.

Identify whether the project will result in a noise impact.• Measure existing noise at receptors during highest traffic noise hour.• Model future noise levels for the No-Build Alternative and each build alternative.

(Use design year traffic that is at least 20 years from the end construction.) • Determine if there is a substantial increase (10 dBA) in noise with the project and/or

whether the noise approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria. If the answer is yes to either, then there is a noise impact.

If there is a noise impact, abatement must be considered. Commercial properties must be considered even though it is DOT&PF’s policy to not build noise barriers for commercial properties.

Determine whether proposed abatement is reasonable and feasible completing the DOT&PF Noise Abatement Recommendation Checklist as follows:

ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIESNOISE ABATEMENT RECOMMENDATION CHECKLIST

Project Name: Preparer:Project No:

Receiver Name /Description

1. Does a noise impact exist or is one predicted to occur in the design year?Yes _______ No_______

If no, then noise abatement is not recommended. Proceed to decision segment of form.

2. Is the receiver a use typically defined within Land Use Category A and/or B in the FHWA noise abatement criteria?Yes _______ No_______


If no, then noise abatement is not recommended. Proceed to decision segment of form.

3. Is the receiver in an area of development where there is rapidly changing land use? Yes _______ No_______

If yes, then noise abatement is not recommended. Proceed to decision segment of form.

4. Can effective noise barriers be constructed that provide a minimum 5 dBA reduction in noise levels?Yes________ No _______

If no, abatement measures are not feasible and are not recommended at this site. Proceed to decision segment of this form.

5. Can effective noise barriers be constructed without creating a safety hazard to users and residents, and without interfering with operations and maintenance of the highway facility?Yes________ No_______

If no, abatement measures are not feasible and are not recommended at this site. Proceed to decision segment of this form. If yes, then continue filling in the form to determine the reasonableness of abatement measures.

REASONABLENESS DETERMINATION

Reasonableness Factors YES NO

(A) Cost Per Benefited Residence _______ _______

Total Barrier Cost -- #of benefited residences > $ 25,000 _______ _______If yes, go to I below.If no, go to II and continue analysis.

I. Substantial TALK TO BILL Noise Impact

(a) noise increase at least 10 dBA _______ _______

(b) build at least 5 dBA > no build – NOT IN FED POLICY _______ _______

If either (a) or (b) is yes, go to II, continue analysis. If not, noise abatement measures are not considered reasonable; go to decision.

II. Additional Factors _______ _______

(B) Residents' Desires _______ _______


(C) Development vs. Timing _______ _______

(D) Development existence _______ _______

(E) Build level 65 dBA _______ _______

(F) Build level 5 dBA greater than existing _______ _______

(G) Build level 3 dBA greater than no build _______ _______

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS:

DECISION

Are abatement measures feasible? Yes______ No_______Are abatement measures reasonable? Yes______ No_______

REASONS FOR DECISION

Affected Environment

PULL NOISE ANALYSIS FROM NORTH POLE – TABLE WITH HIGHLIGHTED RECEIVERS THAT HAVE THRESHOLD EXCEDANCES AND MAPS

ImpactsA noise impact occurs when the future noise level with the project results in a substantial increase in noise level (defined as a 10 dBA or more increase) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria. Approaching the noise abatement criteria is defined as coming within 2 dBA of the threshold.

Identify and compare the noise levels for the existing conditions, the No-Build Alternative design year, and the build alternative(s) design year. Bold or highlight any approach or exceed levels according to their dBA noise abatement criteria of each Activity Category shown above.

Identify the property locations on a map of the build alternative(s).

Avoidance or Abatement MeasuresDo not use the words mitigate or mitigation in the noise section of environmental documents. FHWA prefers the terms abate, abatement, or attenuate, attenuation.

If it is determined that the project will have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures must be considered and discussed within this portion of the environmental document. Abatement must be considered for all noise impacts regardless of whether the policy indicates they will be built. See Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and AbatementPolicy and Guidance (FHWA, June 1995).


Can we abate noise given the conditions of a specific location? Is the ability to reduce noise limited by factors such as topography, access requirements for driveways or ramps, the presence of local cross streets, or other noise sources in the area? A proposed noise barrier must achieve a minimum of 5 decibels of attenuation.

Abatement measures are evaluated to determine whether they are feasible and reasonable. The DOT&PF’s Noise Abatement Policy sets forth the criteria for determining when an abatement measure is reasonable and feasible:

Feasibility deals primarily with engineering considerations. Give preliminary and final design consideration to safety and maintenance, and remain consistent with the following general AASHTO design principles:

1. A noise barrier should be located beyond the recover zone of the traveled way. If a noise barrier is within 9 meters of the traveled way, a traffic barrier may be warranted.

2. A noise barrier should not block the line of sight between vehicles and intersecting roadways or on/off ramps.

3. Avoid protrusions on a noise barrier near a traffic lane.

4. Avoid facings on a noise barrier that can become dislodged during an accident or facings that create excessive glare.

5. Provide access to all sides of the noise barrier to allow for maintenance operations.

6. Base minimum setback distances and placement of noise barriers located at on/off ramps and intersections on stopping sight distance, which depends on driver reaction time and deceleration rate.

7. Consider maintenance factors relating to replacement if materials damaged by impact, cleaning the noise barrier, and maintenance associated with adjoining landscapes when determining feasibility.

If a proposed noise barrier creates a safety hazard or poses potential maintenance complications, it is not feasible.

Reasonableness is a more subjective criterion than feasibility. It implies that you applied common sense and good judgment in arriving at a decision. Reasonableness should be based on a number of factors, not just one criterion. Include the following in determining reasonableness for noise barriers:

1. Amount of noise reduction provided

2. Number of people protected

3. Cost of abatement

4. Views of affected residents


5. Future absolute traffic noise levels

6. Difference between the existing and future traffic noise levels

7. Difference between the future traffic noise levels for the No-Build and the build alternative(s)

8. Amount of development that occurred before and after the initial construction of the highway

9. Extent to which zoning or land use is changing

10.Effectiveness of land use controls implemented by local officials to prevent incompatible development

Reasonableness will be determined based on the following factors:• Once the construction of a noise barrier has been determined feasible, DOT&PF

will determine whether its construction is reasonable by considering a wide range of criteria as stated below. The DOT&PF will complete its Noise Abatement Measure Recommendation Checklist and document a reasonableness in the project file. Regional environmental coordinator, with concurrence from design personnel, will normally make the decision to implement a noise barrier. The recommendation will be made in writing in the appropriate environmental document that will be forwarded to FHWA for review and approval.

• The noise barrier cost is no more than $25,000 per residence. This is determined by counting all residences (including owner-occupied, rental units, mobile homes) that would benefit from the noise barrier in any subdivision and/or given development, and dividing that number into the total cost of the noise abatement measure. A "benefited" residence is any residence that receives a minimum positive noise benefit, regardless of whether or not they were identified as impacted. Each unit in a multi-family building will be counted as a separate residence. Preliminary or final design engineers will provide actual barrier cost. This cost determination shall be applicable to cases where a "substantial" noise impact (10 dBA increase or 2 dBA approach criteria) will occur.

• In the event that the noise barrier cost is greater than $25,000 per residence, the cost will be considered reasonable only if noise impact will be substantial. To satisfy this criteria, you must show that the predicted (design year) increase is at least 10 dBA over existing noise levels or that the predicted build will exceed the No-Build noise levels by at least 5 dBA.

• Most residents who would be affected by traffic noise from the project, and who would benefit from the noise barrier construction want a noise barrier. DOT&PF will consider that request if the local government and/or community council puts it in writing. "Impacted


residences" are those residences in a subdivision or a development where traffic noise approaches or exceeds the noise abatement criteria or where there is a substantial increase in noise as a result of the project.

• The sensitive receivers predated initial highway construction: "Most" impacted homes were built before initial construction of the highway. The date of development is an important part of the determination of reasonableness. We give more consideration to developments that were built before the highway. In this case, "most" will be defined as at least 50 percent.

• The sensitive receivers have been in place for at least 10 years: "Most" impacted homes have existed for at least 10 years. We give more consideration to residents who have experienced traffic noise impacts for long periods of time. In this case, "most" will be defined as at least 50 percent.

• The future build noise levels are at least 65 dBA. Give more consideration to areas with higher absolute traffic noise levels. Absolute noise levels typically found along highways, 65 to 75 dBA, are deemed undesirable and cause complaints from adjacent residents. In general, the higher the absolute noise, the more complaints.

• The future build noise levels are at least 5 dBA greater than the existing noise levels. Give greater consideration to areas with larger increases over existing noise levels. This gives more consideration to projects for highways in new locations and major reconstruction than it does to projects of smaller magnitude. A 3 dBA increase is barely perceptible, a 5 dBA increase is readily perceptible, and a 10 dBA increase doubles the perceived loudness.

• The future build noise levels are at least 3 dBA greater than the future No-Build noise levels. Give greater consideration to areas where larger changes in traffic noise levels are expected to occur if the project is constructed than if it is not.

• It is DOT&PF’s policy that noise barriers are not constructed for Land Use categories C and D that include but are not limited to industrial and commercial uses and undeveloped lands, unless it is necessary to protect adjacent sensitive uses (Land Use categories A and B). Undeveloped lands will include those lands for which a building permit has not been obtained by the date that the environmental document is signed. Existing building permits may be considered to address these criteria during the preparation of the environmental document.


• It is DOT&PF’s policy that noise barriers are not constructed where land use is changing rapidly and there are no local zoning or ordinances to control the new development of noise-sensitive land uses adjacent to transportation corridors. An exception would be considered for area with long-term established sensitive uses (i.e., residential subdivision, etc.) where the local government has agreed in writing to measures to prohibit the development of non-sensitive land uses within and adjacent to those sensitive land uses.

Record the analysis as down in the following example table:

Summary Results of the Noise AnalysisReceptor # and Location

Existing dBA

Predicted dBA No Build

Predicted dBA Build

Activity Category Abatement Criterion

Predicted dBA with Abatement

Feasible and Reasonable

#1A Street

62 64 70 (B;Residential) 67

-8 = 62 Yes

#17C Street

66 68 75 (C; Commercial) 70

-7 = 68 No

#393rd Street

64 66 73 (D; Undeveloped Lands) -- --

No

Where noise abatement may be included in the project include a map showing receptors and proposed wall/berm locations and the following statement:


Based on the studies completed to date, DOT&PF and FHWA intend to incorporate noise abatement in the form of a barrier(s) [or berm(s)] at ______________, with respective lengths and average heights of _____________. Calculations based on preliminary design data indicate that the barrier(s) [or berm(s)] will reduce noise levels by 5 to __ dBA for ____residences at a cost of _________. If during final design conditions have substantially changed, noise abatement may not be necessary. The final decision of the noise abatement will be made upon completion of the project design and the public involvement processes.

3.2.2 Air QualityLaurie will write this – the following is from another state example

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceWriting the environmental document: List applicable technical report(s) along with completion date(s).1. Discuss the general climatic and meteorological conditions in the study area.

Prevailing winds, inland/coastal influences, etc.2. Regional Air Quality Conformity

For federal or joint projects, the air quality analysis and technical report must comply with the federal Clean Air Act (see Chapter 11 of the Standard Environmental Reference for detailed information) and the environmental document must contain a regional and a project level air conformity statement, unless the project is exempt (see 40 CFR 93, 126-128). Note: Most projects requiring an EA will not be exempt.


The Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 is the federal law that governs air quality. This law sets standards for the quantity of pollutants that can be in the air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). Standards have been established for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) and particulate matter that is 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM10).

Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, the U.S. Department of Transportation cannot fund, authorize, or approve Federal actions to support programs or projects that are not first found to conform to the Clean Air Act requirements. Conformity with the Clean Air Act takes place on two levels—first, at the regional level and second, at the project level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved.

Conformity at the project-level is also required. Again the pollutants of concern are: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3) and particulate matter that is 10 microns in diameter or smaller (PM10). If a region is meeting the standard for a given pollutant, then the region is said to be in “attainment” for that pollutant. If the region is not meeting the standard, then it is designated a “non-attainment” area for that pollutant. Areas that were previously designated as non-attainment areas but have recently met the standard are called “maintenance” areas. If a project is located in a non-attainment or maintenance area for a given pollutant, then additional air quality analysis and reduction measures in regard to that pollutant is required. This is most frequently done for CO and PM10.

The proposed project must match the design and scope of the project as described in the most recent STIP TIP. The wording of the regional air quality conformity statement must be as follows:

The (INSERT TITLE AND YEAR) Regional Transportation Plan (include amendment number if applicable) was found to conform by [INSERT METROPLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) OR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCY (RTPA)] on DATE, and FHWA and FTA adopted the air quality conformity finding on DATE. The project is also included in (INSERT MPO OR RTPA) financially constrained YEAR Regional Transportation Improvement Program (include amendment number if applicable), pages #. The (INSERT MPO OR RTPA AND YEAR) Regional Transportation Improvement Program was found to conform by FHWA and FTA on DATE. The design concept and scope of the proposed project is consistent with the project description in the YEAR RTP, the YEAR RTIP and the assumptions in the MPO’S OR RTPA’S regional emissions analysis.

[Note: The above conformity statement is needed for all projects, even if the project is in an attainment area. However, if the project is located in an area of total attainment, no project level conformity analysis is needed.]

3. Project Level Conformity• List the applicable standard and attainment status of the area for each

pollutant. This can be done in a table.

Criteria Pollutant Federal Standard (NAAQ) Federal Attainment Status

Carbon Monoxide (CO) 35 ppm (1 hour avg.)

9 ppm(8 hour avg.)

Maintenance

Particulate Matter (PM10)

150 g/m3 (annual arithmetic mean)

Non-Attainment

• As stated above, if a project is located in a non-attainment or maintenance area for a given pollutant, then additional air quality analysis and reduction measures in regard to that pollutant is required. This “hot spot” analysis is most frequently done for CO and PM10.a. Include a map showing the project alternatives and receptor sites used

for any needed CO or PM10 hotspot analysis. Also, include the location of the air district monitoring stations used to establish background concentrations.

b. For each “non-attainment” or “maintenance” pollutant, the environmental document must summarize the following information from the air quality technical report: Briefly describe the analysis process.


State any assumptions made for the purposes of doing the analysis.

Provide results of the analysis and a comparison of the impacts and the proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures for each alternative.

State conclusions regarding whether the project will cause any exceedances.

4. Other Issues to Considera. Construction Impacts. If construction impacts are being discussed under

each resource heading instead of in a separate section, then temporary air quality impacts from construction activities need to be discussed here.


3.2.4 Hazardous Waste/Materials

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceAs discussed in the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A, dated October 30, 1987, the following is provided:

Hazardous waste sites are regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The location of permitted and nonregulated hazardous waste sites


The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as Superfund, is to clean up contaminated sites so that public health and welfare are not compromised. RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous wastes. Other federal laws include: Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992 Clean Water Act Clean Air Act Safe Drinking Water Act Occupational Safety & Health Act (OSHA) Atomic Energy Act Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)

In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order 12088, Federal Compliance with Pollution Control, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.

Hazardous waste in Alaska is regulated primarily under the authority of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and Division of Spill Prevention and Response regulations ACC 18 Chapters 75 and 78. Other Alaska laws that affect hazardous waste are specific to handling, storage, transportation, disposal, treatment, reduction, cleanup and emergency planning.

Worker health and safety and public safety are key issues when dealing with hazardous materials that may affect human health and the environment. Proper disposal of hazardous material is vital if it is disturbed during project construction.

http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/general/orientat

should be identified. Coordination with the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) will identify known or potential hazardous waste sites. If known or potential waste sites are identified, the locations should be clearly marked on a map showing their relationship to the build alternatives. If a known or potential hazardous waste site is affected by a build alternative(s), information about the site, the potential involvement, impacts, public health concerns, and the proposed mitigation measures should be discussed in the environmental document.

When preparing the Hazardous Waste/Materials section, the Phase I Site Assessment will provide the information needed for the Affected Environment.

If contamination is known to be substantial, a detailed Phase 2 site investigation and proposed cleanup plan will be prepared during the environmental phase, that will require coordination with ADEC and possibly EPA. The Phase II Site Assessment will provide the information needed for the Impacts.

If there is a potential of encountering contamination during construction, the Phase 2 site investigation can be delayed to the Design Phase when the Corrective Action Plan is prepared for DEC approval unless the information is necessary to compare alternatives. The Corrective Action Plan will provide the information needed for the Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation Measures.

When writing the environmental document List the Phase I Site Assessment and if needed the Phase II Site Assessment

and Corrective Action Plan, with completion date(s). Describe the type and scope of site assessments and investigations conducted. Summarize the findings of the site assessments or investigations for each build

alternative considered: type of contaminant, level of contamination, and extent in relationship to the project.

Discuss coordination with DEC, and if necessary EPA. Discuss justification for avoiding or not avoiding known or suspected hazardous

material contamination within the preferred alternative or corridor alignment. Include a rough estimate of the additional cost of avoiding, reducing, or

remediating hazardous waste (both in dollars and time). Summarize efforts to avoid or minimize involvement with known or suspected

hazardous material contamination sites during construction. State any required special considerations, contingencies, or provisions to handle

known or suspected hazardous material contamination during right-of-way negotiation and acquisition, property management, design, and/or construction.



Phase I Site Assessment Report: • Ownership and Land Use: Identify the current legal owner and previous

owners of every property on each alignment. Idneitfy the current and previous users of each property and the type of business conducted. This information should be available through local, borough, or state records. The purpose is to evaluate the potential for encountering contamination from current and previous land uses.

• Contaminants: Identify potential contaminants associated with each type of business that is or has been conducted on the property. For example, gasoline, oil solvents, and underground storage tanks would be expected at a gasoline service station; cleaning fluids and solvents would be expected at a dry cleaning operation.

• Enforcement Agencies: Obtain from state and (if needed) federal agencies (DEC and EPA) information on past, present, and future enforcement that could affect the proposed project. Useful records in regulatory agency files include compliance inspection reports, enforcement notices, contamination assessment reports, Correction Action Plans (CAPs), etc.

• Aerial Photos: Obtain aerial historic photos of the land being evaluated for different years. Comparison of photos provides valuable information about changes in land use. Stereoscopic evaluation of reasonable equality photos can identify sources of potential contamination, such as landfills, lagoons, storage areas, drums, tanks, landscaping, and even ground staining from spills. The evaluation of aerial photos can identify potential problem areas that could be overlooked on the ground.

• Determination of Potential Contamination: Each property within and/or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way limits must have a conscious determination of the contamination potential. All properties should be assigned a rating as follows:

1. No Potential. After a review of all available information, there is nothing to indicate contamination would be a problem. It is possible that contaminants have been handled on the property; however, all information (DEC reports, monitoring wells, water and soil samples, etc.) indicate no problems. Examples of operations that may receive this rating are: • A gas station that has been closed and has a closure assessment or

contamination assessment documenting that there is no contamination remaining.

• A wholesale or retail outlet that handles hazardous materials in sealed


containers that are never opened while at this facility. Such as spray cans of paint at a drugstore.

2. Low Potential. The former or current operation has a hazardous waste generator identification number, or deals with hazardous materials; however, based on all available information, there is no reason to believe there would be any contamination. This is the lowest possible rating for a gasoline station operating within current regulations.

3. Medium Potential. There are indications (reports, Notice Of Violations, etc.) of known soil and/or water contamination and that the problem does not need remediation, is being remediated, or that continued monitoring is required. The complete details of remediation requirements are important to determine what the Department must do if it were to acquire the property. Make a recommendation for each property falling into this category on its acceptability for use within the proposed project, what actions might be required if the property is acquired, and the possible alternatives if there is a need to avoid the property.

4. High Potential. There is a high potential for contamination. Phase II Site Assessment will be required to determine the actual presence and/or levels of contamination and the need for remedial action. Include a recommendation on further assessment. Properties that were previously used as gasoline stations and have not been evaluated or assessed would probably receive this rating.

ImpactsPhase II Site Assessment Report This may be necessary but not required for FONSI. The first step is to verify the presence of contamination. Assess properties that are known to have existing contamination to identify the type, amount, and area of contamination. OUTLINE WHAT IS IN THE CONTRACT SOS FOR PHASE II – DETERMINE EXTENT OF NEEDED INFORMATION – THIS MAY BE BEST JUST AS A REFERENCE…

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or MitigationThere is a commitment to do the Corrective Action Plan (CAP) but typically this is not developed until design. Where the project would impact the contamination, a CAP is developed to remediate the contaminated site(s). The plan conforms to the requirements of and be approved by DEC and as necessary EPA.

Guidance:• Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Contaminated Sites Program for

databases contaminated sites and underground storage tanks (USTs)/leaking USTs to identify known or potential hazardous waste sites http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/db_search.htm


http://www.dec.state.ak.us/spar/csp/db_search.htm

1.3 Natural Environment1.3.1 Water Quality1.3.2 Wetlands, Waters of the U.S.1.3.3 Floodplains and Hydrology1.3.4 Wild and Scenic Rivers

3.3.1 Water Quality

Regulatory Setting


The evaluation of water quality impacts focuses on two areas: surface water and groundwater. The surface water evaluation should identify and document water quality issues to produce designs that are in compliance with the goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended, Public Law 92-500, and the Alaska State Water Quality Standards.

Section 401 of CWA requires a water quality certification from ADEC when a project: 1) requires a federal license or permit (a Section 404 permit is the most common federal permit for DOT&PF projects), or 2) will result in a discharge to waters of the United States.

Section 402 of CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States.

Some construction activities may require an individual construction permit. All DOT&PF projects that disturb one acre or more are subject to the construction general permit require a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), while all other projects require a Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) . Subject to the DOT&PF’s review and approval, the contractor prepares both the SWPPP and the ESCP. The ESCP and SWPPP identify construction activities that may cause pollutants in storm water and measures to control these pollutants. Since neither the ESCP nor the SWPPP are prepared at this time, the following discussion focuses on anticipated pollution controls.

The groundwater evaluation, in coordination with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other regulatory agencies, will be carried out consistent with the Safe Drinking Water Act, as amended, Public Law 93-523. This act requires groundwater quality to be maintained in a manner that is reasonably expected to protect human health, the environment, and groundwater resources. Federal regulations for groundwater can be found in Federal Public Law Sections 1424(e) and 1427 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Additional laws regulating water quality include the Pollution Prevention Act. The objective of the act is to provide guidance for developing comprehensive solutions to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution of waters of the United States.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec1/ch1fedlaw/chap1.htm#Ch1PPA1990

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec1/ch1fedlaw/chap1.htm#Ch1PPA1990

Per CWA Section 303(d), Water Quality Standards and Implementation Plans, each state shall identify those waterbodies for which Section 301(b)(1)(A) and (B) required effluent limitations are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters. Each state shall also establish a priority ranking that takes into account the pollution severity and the potential uses of such waters.

Alaska’s impaired waterbodies that do not attain the water quality standard are listed in Waterbody Category 5. This category constitutes the CWA Section 303(d) list of water impaired for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s) for which one or more Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) that will achieve water quality standards or a waterbody recovery plan is needed to attain water quality standards. A TMDL is a quantitative assessment of water quality problems, contributing sources, and load reductions or control actions needed to restore and protect individual waterbodies.

• Alaska’s impaired waterbodies (Section 303(d) list) are identified in Alaska's Nonpoint Source Pollution Strategy, Volume 1: Strategy Document, Prepared by ADEC, Sept 2000. http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/pdfs/npsstrategy%20final.pdf

• Impaired Waters in Alaska, the Section 303(d) list can be found on the DOT&PF Environmental Standards webpage:http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/resources.shtml

• The DEC webpage contains Alaska’s 2002 303(d) list of impaired waters as part of the 2002/2003 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report (pages 53-64)http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wqsar/pdfs/finali%20integrated%202002-2003%20report.pdf

• Alaska’s criteria for attainment and impairment determinations for residual criterion within Alaska’s water quality standards (18 AAC 70) are available at:http://www.state.ak.us/dec/title18/title18.htm#70

Section 402 of CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit system for the discharge of any pollutant (except dredge or fill material) into waters of the United States. Storm Water Discharges are also addressed through Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) of urbanized areas. Under the NPDES storm water program, operators of MS4s must develop a storm water management program and require authorization to discharge pollutants under an NPDES permit. The Bureau of the Census recognizes only two municipalities, Anchorage and Fairbanks, in Alaska as urbanized areas and thus qualified for this program.

• DEC webpage for Storm Water Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s)http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/stormwater/sw_municipal.htm


http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/stormwater/sw_municipal.htm

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/title18/title18.htm#70

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wqsar/pdfs/finali%20integrated%202002-2003%20report.pdf




http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/pdfs/npsstrategy%20final.pdf

• EPA webpage for NPDES MS4 Program http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm

GuidanceThe environmental impact of highway storm water runoff on surface and groundwater has been an issue of national concern for many years. Numerous studies and research conducted by the FHWA and EPA have determined that untreated storm water runoff from highways is a major contributor of pollution and can adversely affect a receiving water body. As a result of increasing national and local interest along with strengthening federal laws, state statutes regulate quantity and quality of storm water.

Alaska DEC, Division of Water, manages a Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program. Along with CWA Section 402, this is the guiding framework to prevent adverse effects of storm water runoff from DOT&PF’s roadways and facilities. Overall, the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program to protect water resources and public health from non-point sources of pollution by:

Preventing stormwater pollution of water bodies by approving construction site plans.

Ensuring wetland fills do not adversely affect water quality. Reviewing timber harvest plans and performing related field inspections for

forestry operations. Reviewing construction plans and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans for

storm water discharges from industrial and construction sites. Identifying State water quality priorities and needs Establishing a schedule for developing recovery plans on impaired water bodies. Providing pass-through funding and technical assistance to municipalities, local

groups, and other state agencies involved in water quality projects. Responding to public concerns and complaints on local water quality issues.

The DEC Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program webpage is: http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/

Contact the FHWA Office of Project Development and Environmental Review to obtain a copy of the following documents:

The National Highway Runoff Data and Methodology Synthesis (2003) Guidance Manual for Monitoring Highway Runoff Water Quality (2001) Evaluation and Management of Highway Stormwater Runoff (1996) Retention, Detention, and Overland Flow for Pollutant Removal from Highway

Stormwater Runoff, Volumes I and II (1996) Best Management Practices for Erosion and Sediment Control (1995) • FHWA Environmental Guidebook, Water Quality and the Clean Water Act:

Regulations, FHWA Policy and Guidance, and EPA Policy and Guidance.http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/V1ch12.htm



http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/V1ch12.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/h2o_abs.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/h2o_abs.htm

http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://ma.water.usgs.gov/fhwa/default.htm

http://www.state.ak.us/dec/water/wnpspc/

http://cfpub2.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/munic.cfm

The Water Quality section identifies the watersheds, the receiving water, and applicable storm water regulations affecting the project. Describe receiving water bodies listed in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and their beneficial uses, existing water quality, project-related storm water discharges and quality, and potential storm water impacts to water quality of receiving waters. The discussion should also identify any locations where roadway runoff or other non-point source pollution may have an adverse impact on sensitive water resources such as water supply reservoirs, ground water recharge areas, and high quality streams. ImpactsEstimate project ground disturbance acreage and indicate whether any was previously permitted.

The majority of the discussion on impacts relating to water quality will be qualitative in nature. Areas with established Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) may require a quantitative analysis as well. Potential water quality impacts include concentrations of any of the following types of pollutants entering surface or groundwater: total suspended solids, nutrients (nitrogen/phosphorous), pesticides, metals, pathogens, litter, biochemical oxygen demand and total dissolved solids.

• EPA Region 10 Total Maximum Daily Load Program is located at:http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/TMDLs/TMDL+Program

If the project is located within a principal or sole source aquifer, the regional environmental coordinator will consult with the EPA. The EPA, in response to scoping, should request coordination with DOT&PF under Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The EPA should also outline any concerns about protection of the primary drinking water source within a community. There are currently no designated sole source aquifers in Alaska.

• Current status of sole source aquifers is provided via the EPA Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program homepage, National Summary of Sole Source Aquifer Designationshttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/sumssa.html

• Additional status is located at Designated Sole Source Aquifiers, EPA Region 10 http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg10.html

Wellhead protection areas were authorized by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. If the proposed build alternative(s) impacts these areas, it should document that it complies with the approved state wellhead protection plan. Currently there is no approved wellhead protection program in place for Alaska.

• An overview on Wellhead Protection is provided via the EPA, Protecting Local Ground Water Supplies Through Wellhead Protection EPA 570/9-91-007, May 1991.


http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/ssa/reg10.html

http://www.epa.gov/safewater/swp/sumssa.html

http://yosemite.epa.gov/R10/WATER.NSF/TMDLs/TMDL+Program

http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/offices/water/whpgread.pdf

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation MeasuresReference and generally describe the Best Management Practices (BMPs) and implementation procedures as the appropriate measures to reduce project-related storm water quality impacts. Specific BMPs to lessen potential impacts will be identified during Design.

Avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures for water quality generally are derived from an approved set of Best Management Practices (BMPs). BMPs are divided into four categories (Pollution Prevention, Treatment, Construction, and Maintenance). Treatment BMPs (i.e., biofiltration strips or swales, sediment detention basins, and infiltration basins) should be included in the mitigation.

Other Guidance• FHWA Environmental Guidebook, Water Quality and the Clean Water Act: Regulations,

FHWA Policy and Guidance, and EPA Policy and Guidance.http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/V1ch12.htm

• DOT&PF Environmental Standards Page has several Storm Water links that include: National Construction General Permit and General Permit Requirements, Impaired Waters in Alaska (303(d)) List, Waters with Approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), and Best Management Practices Section.http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/reousrces.shtml

• EPA Safe Drinking Water Acthttp://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.html


http://www.epa.gov/safewater/sdwa/index.html

http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwddes/dcsenviron/reousrces.shtml

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/V1ch12.htm

http://www.epa.gov/r10earth/offices/water/whpgread.pdf

3.3.2 Wetlands, Waters of the U.S. Regulatory Setting

SEE IF THIS DUPLICATES THE BOXThe USDOT in implementing EO 11990 set forth its policy on wetlands in USDOT Order 5660.1A, Preservation of the Nation's Wetlands, dated August 24, 1978, which is "to assure the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the nation's wetlands to the fullest extent practicable during the planning, construction, and operation of transportation facilities and projects. New construction in wetlands shall be avoided unless there is no practicable alternative to the construction and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such construction. In making a finding of no practicable alternative, economic, environmental, and other factors may be taken into account. Some additional cost alone will not necessarily render alternatives or minimization measures impractical since additional cost would normally be


Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal level, the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is the primary law regulating wetlands and waters. The Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Waters of the United States include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, a three-parameter approach is used that includes the presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils subject to saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be present, under normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the Clean Water Act.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a regulatory program that provides that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USCOE) with oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) serve in an advisory role to USACE with respect to potential wildlife or threatened and endangered species issues as authorized in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 1934, as amended.

The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency, such as the Federal Highway Administration, cannot undertake or provide assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: 1) that there is no practicable alternative to the construction and 2) the proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm

recognized as necessary and justified to meet national wetland policy objectives."

GuidanceThe DOT&PF and FHWA use the following definitions for wetlands:Some of this guidance may be better folded into the subheadings as it is pretty lengthy.

1. Wetlands, as defined by U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) Order 5660.1A, are "lowlands covered with shallow and sometimes temporary or intermittent waters. This includes, but is not limited to, swamps, marshes, bogs, sloughs, potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, tidal overflows, estuarine areas, and shallow lakes and ponds with emergent vegetation. Areas covered with water for such a short time that there is no effect on moist-soil vegetation are not included in the definition, nor are the permanent waters of streams, reservoirs, and deep lakes."

2. Wetlands, as defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and as used by USACE in administering the Section 404 permit program, include: “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions."

Both definitions include three basic elements for identifying wetlands: 1) hydrology, 2) vegetation, and 3) soils.

In carrying out USDOT Order 5660.1A, FHWA has implemented its wetland policy through Technical Advisory T6640.8A, October 30, 1987, which provides guidance on the preparation of environmental documents, including the assessment of project impacts on wetlands. The Technical Advisory prescribes a wetland evaluation methodology that is reorganized here to fit this manual’s format:

Affected Environment: • The identification of all wetland involvements along a project corridor• An evaluation of the function/value of each wetland site• An evaluation of the uniqueness of each wetland site• An evaluation of the significance of each wetland site

Impacts: • An evaluation of project impacts on each wetland site• An evaluation of all project alternatives including avoidance alternatives

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation: • An evaluation of the reasonableness of mitigation measures proposed to reduce

adverse impacts• An evaluation of all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands• A formal wetlands finding stating that no practical alternatives to the wetland taking

exist, if such is the case

The USFWS Classification System (Cowardin, et al. 1979) should be used as the standard for wetland identification. The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET II),


developed by USACE is used to evaluate the functions and values of each wetland. A USACE-approved hydrogeomorphic (HGM) evaluation model may also be used. For smaller projects or for minimal wetlands impacts “Best Professional Judgment” (BPJ) is often used as an effective means for wetlands evaluation.

Delineate each wetland according to the Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USACE, 1987). Boundaries may be delineated by best professional judgment with the aid of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps, National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil surveys, aerial photos, and field observation. You must document the method used to delineate the wetlands.

The EPA and USACE Memorandum of Agreement (55 CFR 48; March 12, 1990) defines three types of mitigation: avoidance, minimization, and compensation. Employ the three types in sequence. Compensatory mitigation includes actions such as wetland preservation, restoration, enhancement, or creation.

USDOT Order 5660.1A specifically directs that avoidance and minimization be the first measures employed. While DOT&PF and FHWA have the authority to restore and enhance existing wetlands and to create new wetlands, these do not counterbalance the adverse effects on wetlands that are avoidable or satisfy USDOT policy for the preservation of wetlands pursuant to USDOT Order 5660.1A.

If, after careful consideration, you have determined that the no-build and the avoidance alternatives are not practical, FHWA will support and fund reasonable levels of compensation to mitigate the portion of the impact that remains after minimization, as per the Federal Highway Environmental Policy Statement of April 20, 1990. All funding for environmental mitigation must be based on scientifically valid analysis and must show documented support of how the cost was determined to mitigate the adverse impact.

Federal participation, as described in 23 CFR 777.11, will be based on “BPJ as to the appropriate extent of replacement, using the best available and appropriate scientific tools for wetland evaluation and impact assessment."

Federal funding for off-site mitigation is permitted in all cases where it can be shown that it is a necessary and reasonable expenditure. Off-site mitigation should have a direct correlation between the wetland functions that will be adversely affected and the mitigation option selected. Ideally, the replacement wetland should be located in the same watershed or tidal regime. Wetland functions gained from the mitigation proposal should approximate the lost values as closely as possible. Where out-of-kind mitigation is proposed, it must be clearly supported through documentation by the appropriate permitting agencies. Any compensatory mitigation proposed by the regional environmental coordinator must be consistent with the Department’s mitigation policies and directives.


SOMETHING ABOUT THIS IS THE AGREED UPON PROCEDURES

Permit Process AccordCorps of Engineers

Federal Highway AdministrationDepartment of Transportation and Public Facilities

Meeting of December 17, 1992[Accord formally signed by the three agencies at the meeting]

To streamline the NEPA and permit review process an accord has been reached on the following:

1. Simultaneous draft 404(b)(1) Public Notice and Draft Environmental Document Notice will be issued.

2. Coordinate mailing list as part of the scoping process.3. DOT&PF will call COE to Technology Transfer (T2) mailing list.4. COE will add DOT&PF to COE training list.5. Draft 404(b)(1) analysis will be added to EA/EIS documents.6. Provide permit modifications by submission of as-builts for decrease in used

water of the United States.7. Stress early preapplication coordination and project manager identification by

COE and DOT&PF.8. Semi-annual project forecast meetings will be help October/November and

April/May – including construction.9. DOT&PF prepares Jurisdictional Determinations (JD) for COE approval.10.COE will be invited to attend Preconstruction Conferences.11.The above points will be presented to the sister Federal/State agencies for their

consideration of participation.

WETLANDS FINDING – is an appendixPotential wetland involvements are summarized in the NEPA document. A formal wetlands finding is required for all projects. In reaching this finding, the DOT&PF administrative record should document the evaluation of alternatives and measures to minimize harm for these actions.

Summarize the wetland impacts and any proposed mitigation. The alternatives discussion and comparison including the alternatives considered but dismissed is the key component to the Wetlands Finding. All measures to avoid and minimize wetlands impacts must be disclosed. When no practicable alternatives exist to the proposed taking of wetlands, the EA/FONSI must contain the finding required by EO 11990 and by DOT Order 5660.1A. The finding must be contained in a section or paragraph titled "Wetlands Finding." This section must discuss the following and reference the detailed discussion in the text as appropriate:

1. Reference Executive Order 11990,

2. A discussion of the basis for the determination that there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action (involving wetlands),


3. A discussion of the basis for the determination that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm in wetlands, and

4. A concluding statement as follows:

Based on the above consideration, we have determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed new construction in wetlands and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use.

Guidelines in FHWA publication, “A Guide to Wetland Functional Design” (1990). GET LINK in determining the appropriate mitigation.

Affected EnvironmentIf there is no wetland involvement on a project, use the following statement to document compliance in the document and the FONSI:

The proposed improvements do not take any wetlands, and, therefore, Executive Order 11990 does not apply.

Using the Wetland Delineation/Assessment/Finding, provide a summary description of all wetland systems in the project vicinity (i.e., size and function), introduce the fundamental characteristics of the wetland systems, and provide a map showing the relationship of the project. Discuss the importance of the wetlands identified to the surrounding biological

community. Use the T&E Biological Assessment and technical wildlife studies as appropriate. This includes consideration of:

• Primary functions of the wetlands (e.g., flood control, wildlife habitat, erosion control, etc.)

• Relative importance of these functions to the total wetland resources of the area

• Other factors, such as uniqueness, that may contribute to the wetland's importance

Potential wetland involvements must also be identified in the scoping notice and the public hearing advertisement.

Impacts A description of the impacts of each viable alternative on the wetlands identified,

including the area impacted per site (both directly affected by dredge and fill and indirectly affected by project activities) and the potential loss of wetland function.


This includes evaluation of:• Effects on the stability and quality of the wetlands• Short-term and long-term effects on the wetlands• Significance of any wetland loss on primary functions and values

A table summary of the impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S., by drainage location and impact type (permanent, temporary, direct, indirect), should be included to aid reviewers. This information should be summarized for each alternative discussed in the document so comparisons can be readily made. A text discussion should also be provided.

Avoidance, Minimization, and MitigationIdentify and evaluate all alternatives that would avoid wetland impacts. Discuss how all practicable measures to minimize harm to the affected wetland have been included in the proposed alternative(s). If a given minimization measure is not practicable, justify in detail how the cost, performance, socioeconomic impacts or other factors would make the measure impracticable.

Design considerations to reduce impacts should be described as avoidance and minimization measures. Any remaining impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized must be addressed with a conceptual mitigation plan that discusses potential compensatory mitigation activities.

All mitigation measures proposed must be related to the actual adverse functional impact caused by the project as identified by the wetland functional assessment or BPJ. Consider the following: Functional capacity of the impacted wetlands Potential for functional improvement to the mitigation site Environmental, social, and economic costs to the community Value of affected wetlands Abundance of the wetlands in the project area or watershed

For impacts that cannot be mitigated on site, consider the following: Restoration of disturbed wetlands. Enhancement of existing wetlands. Creation of new wetlands from upland areas.

All mitigation should be summarized at the end of the section. Mitigation commitments must be reiterated in the FONSI. Include a discussion of coordination with USACE, USFWS, EPA, NMFS and other agencies on the proposed avoidance and minimization activities and conceptual mitigation measures to limit adverse impacts.

Regarding mitigation of impacts, FHWA's policy is contained in 23 CFR 777.11, as amended, and in the Environmental Policy Statement issued on April 20, 1990. FHWA will "fully participate in the costs of environmental mitigation for project impacts that are necessary to satisfy federal law while ensuring that mitigation necessitated by state law


and all environmental enhancement measures represent a reasonable expenditure of highway funds," as per the FHWA Environmental Policy Statement.

Mitigation policy in 23 CFR 777.11(f) states that "the reasonable cost of acquiring lands, or interests therein, to provide replacement lands with equivalent wetlands functions for privately owned wetlands that are directly affected by a federal-aid highway project is eligible for federal participation." However, any compensatory mitigation must be consistent with the DOT&PF October 9, 2001, Compensatory Mitigation Approval Directive. It states, in part that compensatory mitigation, which includes in-lieu fees, may be approved as follows:

1. Design manager is authorized to approve on-site compensatory mitigation (including material site restoration).

2. Preconstruction engineer will approve all off-site compensatory mitigation estimated at less than $250,000.

3. Chief engineer will approve all in-lieu fee mitigation, as well as off-site compensatory mitigation estimated at $250,000 or more.”

DO WE WANT TO KEEP? The following is an example for this section:"In accordance with EO 11990, we have given wetlands special consideration in developing and evaluating alternates for the proposed action. As discussed, there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action that would avoid impacting wetlands. The recommended alternate will unavoidably impact approximately 28 total acres of wetlands along a 4-mile section of the project. We have developed a wetland mitigation plan (see ____) to include all practicable measures to minimize harm to these wetlands. This wetlands mitigation plan contains roadway alignment considerations, considerations for preserving wetlands within the right-of-way, a reduced median width, steeper side slopes, a re-vegetation plan, and several measures, including weir-controlled culverts, which will be designed to enhance sheet flow in the wetland systems, thus allowing approximately 50 acres of presently stressed wetlands to become more productive estuarine habitat.

“Based on the above consideration, we conclude that there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed new construction in wetlands and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the wetlands that may result from such use."

Public Notice of Wetland InvolvementIn compliance with Executive Order 11990, the public hearing advertisement for projects must include a statement informing the public of any wetland involvement on a project. In addition, the public hearing presentation made by the Department must also mention any wetland involvement for a project, to increase public awareness of wetland impacts and invite public comment.

Finding of No Significant Impact When there is no practicable alternative to an action that involves new construction in wetlands, the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) must contain the "Wetlands


Finding" required by EO 11990 and USDOT Order 5660.1A. The FONSI must contain in summary form the following information from the Wetlands Finding:

1. A reference to EO 11990

2. A discussion of the basis for the determination that there are no practicable alternatives to the proposed action

3. A discussion of the basis of the determination that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands.

4. A standard concluding statement as follows:

Based on the above considerations, we have determined that there is no practicable alternative to the proposed construction in wetlands and that the proposed action includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that may result from such use.

Other Guidance:• The USFWS Classification System (Cowardin, et al. 1979) developed for the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service for standard wetland identification can be accessed at:http://www.npwrs.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm

The Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands (USACE, 1987) can be accessed at:

http://www.wetlands.com/pdf/89manv3b.pdf

3.3.3 Floodplains and Hydrology

Regulatory Setting


Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable alternative. The Federal Highway Administration requirements for compliance are outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart A.

In order to comply, the following must be analyzed: The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments Risks of the action Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values Support of incompatible floodplain development Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any

beneficial floodplain values impacted by the project.

The 100-year floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” An encroachment is defined as “an action within the limits of the 100-year floodplain.”

http://www.wetlands.com/pdf/89manv3b.pdf

http://www.npwrs.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm

Guidance Hydraulic information for the EA is provided in the Floodplains and Hydrology Section prepared by a registered engineer, who has hydraulics expertise. If there is: 1) significant encroachment on a floodplain; 2) inconsistency with existing watershed and floodplain management programs; or 3) uncertainty exists as to what impacts will occur, then a Floodplain Evaluation Report must be prepared.

Affected Environment List applicable technical report(s) along with completion date(s).1. Where applicable, the affected environment section should include a description

of the existing floodplain; its natural and beneficial values and policies; procedures and orders relating to hydraulics.

2. The base 100-year floodplain can be described using Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps, National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) maps or other maps developed by the highway agency, which must be included in the document. If the NFIP maps do not exist, the agency must develop the needed maps so the floodplain can be identified.

Impacts If an increase in the base floodplain elevation is anticipated, a hydraulic computer model must be run to establish the amount of increase in order to determine the floodplain encroachment impacts.

“Significant encroachment” as defined at 23 CFR 650.105 is a highway encroachment and any direct support of likely base floodplain development that would involve one or more of the following construction or flood related impacts: a significant potential for interruption or termination of a transportation facility that

is needed for emergency vehicles or provides a community's only evacuation route

a significant risk (to life or property), or a significant adverse impact on natural and beneficial floodplain values

In addition, this section should include a summary of any coordination with local, state and federal water resources and floodplain management agencies (especially the Federal Emergency Management Agency) because of encroachment on a regulatory floodway, increase in the base flood elevation and any subsequent actions such as the need for a floodplain map revision.

NOTE: Executive Order 11988 requires that when a floodplain risk assessment is prepared, the public must be given the opportunity for early review and comment. A reference to encroachments on the base floodplain must be included in public notices and any encroachments must be identified at public hearings.


http://www.fema.gov/library/eo11988.shtm

Avoidance, Minimization and/or Mitigation MeasuresMeasures to minimize floodplain impacts (basins, changes to the number of drainage inlets, etc.) may be considered as part of the design of the project and included in the project description section of the EA.

Measures to avoid the floodplain (selection of alternate sites for improvements, elevated structures, etc.) may be discussed in the Alternatives section. Reference to the Water Quality section may provide measures to lessen some impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

Only Practicable Finding: This section is only required in the final environmental document when there is a significant encroachment into the floodplain.

If the preferred alternative causes significant encroachment in the floodplain, then a finding must be made that it is the only practicable alternative as required by 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. The finding should refer to Executive Order 11988 and 23 CFR 650, Subpart A. It should be included in a separate subsection entitled "Only Practicable Alternative Finding" and must be supported by the following information: The reasons why the proposed action must be located in the floodplain The alternatives considered and why they were not practicable

A statement indicating whether the action conforms to applicable State or local floodplain protection standards. Standard concluding language is provided below.

Based on studies carried out by DOT&PF on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration, no practicable alternative to the proposed alternative exists (23 CFR 650, Subpart A). All other potential alternatives are not possible within reasonable natural, social, and economic constraints. In addition, all measures to minimize potential harm within the floodplain, consistent with regulations issued in accord with Section 2(d) of Executive Order 11988 have been taken. Further, a public notice, as required by Executive Order 11988, has been circulated containing an explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in the floodplain.

Other Guidance Need to get web links Revised Guidance on Co-operating Agencies (March 1992) Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing

Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987 (FHWA)National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 4001 et seq.)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/chapters/v1ch6.htm

3.3.3 Wild and Scenic Rivers


http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/chapters/v1ch6.htm

http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/goodbye.cgi?url=http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/ch50.html

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec1/ch1fedlaw/ch1_content.htm#6640



http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/vol2/doc11a.pdf

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/23cfr650_03.html

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/23cfr650_03.html

Regulatory Setting

Guidance

The Secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior has designated and is administering Wild and Scenic Rivers under one of the following classifications:

• Wild River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible exept by trail with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America.

• Scenic River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads.

• Recreational River Areas: Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible by roads or railroads, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may have undergone some impoundments or diversion in the past.

Agencies responsible for managing listed or studied rivers include the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USF&WS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). Document all coordination, consultation, and correspondence with the responsible federal land managing agency and summarize the results of the consultation in the environmental document in this section and in the Comments and Coordination section. All letters should be included within the appendix.Section 4(f) Applicability: Section 4(f) applies to the portions of wild and scenic rivers that are being used, or designated on an approved land management plan for use as a park, recreation area, wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or for historic preservation. Section 4(f) does not apply unless specific land uses, as identified in Section 4(f), exist on those portions of the land needed for highway purposes. Designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not in itself invoke Section 4(f) in the absence of specific Section 4(f) land use categories. The FHWA has sole responsibility for determining Section 4(f) applicability.


Projects affecting Wild and Scenic Rivers are subject to the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 USC 1271). The Wild and Scenic Rivers Assessment process was promulgated by presidential directive dated August 2, 1979, "Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails"; Council of Environmental Quality Memorandum dated August 10, 1980, "Interagency Consultation to Avoid or Mitigate Adverse Effects of Rivers in the Nationwide Inventory"; and Federal Register, Volume 47, Number 173 dated September 7, 1982, "National Wild and Scenic Rivers System-Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility, Classification, and Management of River Areas."

Existing EnvironmentThe first step is to determine whether or not the project will be located within the boundaries of a river listed as wild, scenic, or recreational (review National Park Service list for Alaska). http://www.nps.gov/rivers/wildriverslist.html

The regional environmental coordinator will determine if the project is within the boundaries of the rivers as listed in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers for Alaska. Each river has defined limits, though not necessarily the entire river, for inclusion in this inventory.

If a project is adjacent to or crosses a designated river, provide aerials depicting alternatives with conceptual right-of-way limits to the federal land managing agency. The federal land managing agency will respond within 30 days. Any response received from federal land managing agency should be resolved and discussed.

For the category of Wild and Scenic Rivers, include one of the following standard statements or documentation is to be included:

Rivers Not Listed On The Alaska Rivers Inventory. For projects involving rivers not included on the Alaska Rivers Inventory, include the following standard statement.

Impacts

Rivers Listed On The Alaska Rivers Inventory Without Impacts. For projects involving rivers included on the Alaska Rivers Inventory that have no impacts on the river, include the following standard statement:

Rivers Listed On The Alaska Rivers Inventory With ImpactsFor projects involving rivers listed on the Alaska Rivers Inventory with impacts, assess and include the following: 1. State the name and description of the inventory river.

2. Describe the surrounding environment.


The [Name of River] is not listed in the National Park Service Alaska Rivers Inventory and, therefore, the coordination requirement for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act does not apply to this project.

The [Name of River] is listed in the National Park Service Alaska Rivers Inventory for Wild and Scenic Rivers. After coordination with the [Name of federal land managing agency (i.e., National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, or US Forest Service)], FHWA has determined that the project will not have an impact on the [Name of River].

3. Describe the river's usage.

4. Identify any impacts on natural, cultural, and recreational values on each side of the river from the riverbank inland one-fourth of a mile. Examples of adverse impacts would be: • Alteration of the free-flowing nature of river.• Alteration of the setting.• Deterioration of water quality.

Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures1. State alternatives and designs considered that can avoid or minimize harm.

2. Address measures to mitigate harm.

3. Determine if the project's impacts will foreclose the designation of the river as wild and scenic.

4. Adopt and summarize a monitoring and enforcement program, where applicable, for any mitigation listed in the environmental document.

Get a Determination Example – See Taylor Highway Project


3.4 Biological Environment3.4.1 Natural Communities 3.4.2 Wildlife, Marine Mammals, and Migratory Birds3.4.3 Anadromous and Resident Fish3.4.4 Threatened and Endangered Species3.4.5 Invasive Species

3.4.1 Natural CommunitiesLaurie will write this – need to pull something together…Regulatory Setting

GuidanceTIE THIS INTO THE SPORT FISH WILDLIFE CONSERVATION STATEWIDE STRATEGY BECAUSE WE LIKE THE WAY IT IS SET UP – DEVELOP THIS AND THE NEXT 3 CHAPTERS SO THAT IT RELATES TO THE DRAFT STRATEGYTHINK LANDSCAPE CONCEPTS – CHECK OUT PHIL’S DOCUMENT FOR SOME LANGUAGE

Affected EnvironmentPREPARE A TABLE WITH HABITAT TYPES – AND THIS WILL ESTABLISH PARAMETERS FOR THE FOLLOWING CHAPTERS -

Examples of habitat types that could be discussed here include: intertidal salt marshes, coastal rainforests, alpine tundra, bogs, wet meadows, black spruce forests, willow-grass riparian, and bluejoint-fireweed meadows.

ImpactsAvoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation


This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual plant or animal species. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors [include fish passage as appropriate] and habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value.

Habitat areas that have been designated as critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed above in the Threatened and Endangered Species section [##]. Wetlands and other waters are also discussed above in the preceding section [##].

Discuss habitat not listed as critical habitat under Federal Endangered Species Act or not discussed under the Wetlands and Waters Section.

For each habitat type, discuss the potential direct and indirect impacts (and cumulative impacts if not discussed in a separate section) and any proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures.

Discuss, as appropriate, habitat fragmentation, potential impacts to wildlife corridors and/or fish passage and proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures.

Discuss issues such as migration routes, fish passage, wildlife corridors, concentrations of animal strikes on the roadway, and habitat fragmentation. Regulatory agencies are likely to raise concerns over these issues, so discuss them in the environmental document as applicable.

ADD TO NATURAL COMMUNITIES “PLANT SPECIES”

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceList applicable technical report(s) along with completion date(s).

This section of the document presents a broader view of special-status plant species than the more focused discussion found in the Threatened and Endangered Species section. As noted above, special-status plants are afforded varying levels of regulatory protection. If a species is listed or proposed for listing, formal consultation must be initiated with USFWS, as applicable under state law. Informal consultation should be conducted when plants are considered candidate species or species of special concern. Informal consultation is especially important because non-listed species can sometimes become listed as a project is being planned, designed, or constructed, and the regulatory agencies may impose new requirements on the project.


The highest level of regulatory protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA). Please see the Threatened and Endangered Species Section in this document for detailed information regarding these species. candidate species

The regulatory requirements for ESA can be found at United States Code 16 (USC), Section 1531, et. seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402.

The document writer should be working with the project biologist throughout the project development process. The biologist will request species lists, and will document all surveys, consultation, and proposed avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures.

Provide all the necessary information on plants species for the preparation of the EA, including affected environment, environmental consequences, and avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures. When writing the environmental document, summarize the information and incorporates the NES by reference as needed.

Keep in mind that some local governments, special districts, and other land-management agencies may identify certain species of plants as important, although they may not be protected by USFWS. These plants should be discussed in this section along with avoidance, minimization, or compensation measures proposed for impacts to these species.


3.4.2 Wildlife, Marine Mammals, and Migratory Birds Laurie will writeRegulatory Setting

Guidance

• GET WEBSITES FOR T&E LISTING, MIGRATORY BIRDS, SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN, MARINE MAMMALS – NOAA? – SUCH AS BELUGA FOR DEPLETED

• SPECIFIC LANQUAGE FOR REGS AND ACTS THEMSELVES – AND WEBSITES

• PROCESSING, CONSULTATION, AND REVIEW REQUIREMENTS

Affected Environment• HABITAT DELINEATORS PER TYPE OF SPECIES – SUCH AS COASTAL

RAINFORESTS, INTERTIDAL ZONES, ETC.• A LIST OF ALL SPECIES, STATUS, AND HABITAT REQUIREMENTS • PREPARE A TABLE WITH THE SPECIES, SCIENTIFIC AND COMMON

NAMES, - IT COULD FOOTNOTE LOCATION OF T&E THAT COULD BE LOCATED ELSEWHERE IN THE DOCUMENT – MAY INCLUDE HABITAT TYPES, ETC. – CHUGACH FOREST HAD SOMETHING LIKE THIS FOR THEIR FOREST PLAN.


Many federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) are responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with wildlife not listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed above.

Federal laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following:CITE THE SPECIFIC REGS

National Environmental Policy Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Marine Mammal Protection Act

Include and discuss as applicable. In addition to state and federal laws regulating impacts to wildlife, there are often local regulations that need to be considered when developing projects. If work is being done on federal land (BLM or Forest Service, for example), then those agencies’ regulations, policies, and Habitat Conservation Plans are followed.

Impacts

• For each species included in this section, discuss THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS – T&E SPECIES WILL BE COVERED IN THE FOLLOWING CHAPTER:

• ANY PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS – AND/OR SPECIFIC REGULATORY LANGUAGE?

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation

3.4.3 Andromous and Resident Fish Laurie is writing, to include EFH

Regulatory SettingGuidanceAffected EnvironmentImpactsAvoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation


3.4. Threatened and Endangered Species Laurie will write this Regulatory Setting

DO WE CONSIDER ANY DEPLETED, CANDIDATE SPECIES IN THIS SECTION – BECAUSE THEY COULD BE LISTED BEFORE THE PROJECT IS DONE – OR DO WE LEAVE IT IN THE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS?

GuidanceThreatened or endangered (T&E) species are species of plants and animals that are formally listed as endangered under the ESA. The DOT&PF is required to determine if the proposed projects will involve—and possibly affect—proposed or listed species or their critical habitat.

The environmental document writer should be consulting with the project biologist throughout the documentation and consultation processes. Together, they should develop and outline a tentative schedule of the processes. This is especially important as T&E consultation is often a critical path item for the project approval/environmental document stage of the project development process.

Remember for projects requiring a federal permit or with FHWA involvement, Section 7 consultation must be conducted. Consultation under Section 10 of ESA is not an acceptable substitute.

Affected EnvironmentImpactsAvoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation


The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): United States Code (USC), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402. This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway Administration, are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 is a Biological Opinion or an incidental take permit. Section 3 of ESA defines take as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct.”

The writer should also include a summary of the federal consultation process (Section 7 consultation) as well as information on any incidental take permit. Include a summary of the status of consultation to date. Correspondence must include a copy of a recent (not older than 2 years) species list(s) requested for the proposed project.

This section on T&E species should be focused on only ESA issues.

In most cases, where federally listed species are involved, the biologist will complete a Biological Assessment (BA). The BA is written under the direction of the federal agency having jurisdiction over the species, usually the Fish and Wildlife Service or NOAA Fisheries. The BA should provide all the necessary information on federal endangered species for the preparation of the EA, including affected environment, environmental consequences, and avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures. The writer then summarizes the information and incorporates the BA by reference as needed.

3.4.5 Invasive Species

Regulatory Setting

GuidanceINDICATE IF THERE ARE ANY LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND/OR PROCEDURES, AND COORDINATION

• FHWA Guidance on Invasive Species—http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/vegmgt/invasive.htmGET BOTH LISTS FOR NOXIOUS AND INVASIVE – WEB SITES LINKS

• U.S. Forest Service, Selected Invasive Plants of Alaska 2004 booklethttp://www.fs.fed.us/r10/spf/fhp/weed_book/inv_plant_pocguide.htm

• Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management webpagehttp://www.cnipm.org/index.html

• ADF&G Invasive Species in Alaskahttp://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/invasive/invasive.php


On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States. The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Federal Highway Administration guidance issued August 10, 1999 directs the use of the state’s noxious weed list to define the invasive plants that must be considered as part of the NEPA analysis for a proposed project. REGS FOR NOXIOUS PLANTS…

http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/special/invasive/invasive.php

http://www.cnipm.org/index.html

http://www.fs.fed.us/r10/spf/fhp/weed_book/inv_plant_pocguide.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/vegmgt/invasive.htm

Affected Environment1. Identify and quantify any existing invasive species within the project area. Note:

Invasive species include wildlife as well as plants.

Impacts2. Discuss the potential of the project to promote or inhibit the spread of invasive

species.3. Provide a statement indicating that invasive species will not be used in any

landscaping needed for the project.

Example: “None of the species on the Alaska list of noxious weeds is currently used by DOT&PF for erosion control or landscaping in XYZ.”

Avoidance, Minimization, and MitigationDiscuss measures that will be used to combat invasive species. Examples of measures include this sample text:

In compliance with the Executive Order on Invasive Species, E.O. 13112, and subsequent guidance from the Federal Highway Administration, the landscaping and erosion control included in the project will not use species listed as noxious weeds. In areas of particular sensitivity, extra precautions will be taken if invasive species are found in or adjacent to the construction areas. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and eradication strategies to be implemented should an invasion occur.

3.5 Construction Impacts (Optional Placement)

If construction impacts have not been discussed above and/or the project is likely to have numerous construction impacts, consideration should be given to having a separate construction impact section. Potential items to discuss include: construction phasing/schedule/work hours, noise, air quality (dust), access issues (pedestrian, cyclists), detours, emergency vehicle access and traffic delays. Remember to discuss proposed borrow/fill and optional disposal sites. Also, identify and assess impacts associated with the staging and storage of equipment. List applicable technical report(s) along with completion date(s).

Other Guidance CHECK THIS OUT AND SEE IF THERE IS ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN USE FROM OTHER SOURCES Designated Fill/Disposal, Memorandum by Karla Sutliff, http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/memos/disposal/DisposalSiteMemo.pdf

Disposal Site Quality Team Final Report. This report addresses FHWA policies on


http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/memos/disposal/DisposalSiteMemo.pdf

disposal, staging, and borrow areas, including plant sites, contractor yards, and access roads. Download the PDF file (Warning - large file - 18 MB). The team recommended a new policy and modification of existing guidance.


http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/memos.htm

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/memos/disposal/DisposalSiteQualityTeamFinalReport.pdf

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/pear/PEARManual.pdf

3.6 Cumulative Impacts (Optional Placement)

Regulatory Setting

Federal indirect and cumulative impact requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process were established in 1978 with the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act. The definition of cumulative impacts, under NEPA, can be found in 40 CFR, Section 1508.7 of the CEQ Regulations.

Cumulative impacts are those that result from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, combined with the potential impacts of this project. A cumulative effect assessment looks at the collective impacts posed by individual land use plans and projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor, but collectively substantial impacts taking place over a period of time.

Cumulative impacts to resources in the project area may result from residential, commercial, industrial, and highway development. These land use activities can degrade habitat and species diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of migration corridors, and changes in water quality. They can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, housing availability, and employment.

GuidanceThe FHWA NEPA implementing regulations, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR Part 771), do not explicitly address cumulative impacts. However, the adoption of NEPA principles and the process established in the CEQ regulations as the means of project development and environmental decisionmaking is apparent in these procedures.

The degree to which indirect and cumulative impacts need to be addressed in an EA depends of the potential for the impacts to be significant and will vary by resource, project type, geographic location, and other factors. One of the primary purposes of an EA is to help FHWA decide whether an EIS is needed and, therefore, should address only those resources or features that have the likelihood to be significantly impacted. The level of analysis and documentation required for a specific EIS is primarily dependant on the potential for the action to cause adverse or significant environmental impacts and will vary by resource, project type, geographic location, and other factors. This issue of cumulative impacts should be addressed with other agencies and NEPA participants during early coordination activities or scoping.


Under NEPA, an EIS also is to include “the relationship between local short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity;” and “any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented.”

• Relationship between Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity Discuss in general terms the relationship of local short-term impacts and use of resources, and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. The discussion might recognize that alternatives other than “no action” would have similar impacts. The discussion should point out that transportation improvements are based on state and/or local comprehensive planning which considers the need for present and future traffic requirements within the context of present and future land use development. In such a situation, one might then conclude that the local short-term impacts and use of resources by the proposed action is consistent with the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity for the local area, state, or region.

• Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Discuss in general terms the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources resulting from the proposed action. This general discussion might recognize that the alternatives would require a similar commitment of natural, physical, human, and fiscal resources. An example of such discussion is given online at the FHWA web site cited above.

Analysis RequirementsA cumulative impacts analysis should identify the area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; other actions – past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable – that have or are expected to have impacts in the same area; the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate.

Federal agencies should take a reasonable hard look at their proposals in light of available information, analysis and the potential for environmental impacts in making informed decisions to implement an action or alternatives. General statements about “possible” effects and “some risk” do not constitute a “hard look” absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided. In taking a hard look agencies are not required to evaluate every conceivable indirect or cumulative impact of the proposed action. The threshold question for determining the scope of the hard look for indirect and cumulative impacts analyses is whether the impacts are “reasonably foreseeable” and should be considered with the direct impacts of the proposed action.

Factors that indicate that an action or project is “reasonably foreseeable” for the purposes of cumulative impacts analysis include: whether the project has been federally approved, whether there is funding pending before any agency for the project, and whether there is evidence of active preparation to make a decision on alternatives to the project.


The CEQ guidance, Questions and Answers About the NEPA Regulations, also referred to as Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations, 46 Fed. Reg. 18026 (March 23, 1981) discusses the meaning of “reasonably foreseeable.” The EIS must identify all the indirect effects that are known, and make a good faith effort to explain the effects that are not known but are “reasonably foreseeable (40 CFR Section 1508.8(b). The CEQ definitions of indirect effects and cumulative impacts both use the term "reasonably foreseeable" to describe what actions and impacts must be assessed.

Courts have defined "reasonably foreseeable" as an action that is ”sufficiently likely to occur, that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in making a decision.” Courts have also recognized that “An environmental impact is considered 'too speculative' for inclusion in an EIS if it cannot be described at the time the EIS is drafted with sufficient specificity to make its consideration useful to a reasonable decisionmaker.”

In addition to NEPA, other statutes require federal agencies to consider indirect and cumulative effects of transportation improvement projects, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, the regulations implementing the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reviews NEPA documents under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act. It is strongly recommended that DOT&PF follow the EPA approach to carry out cumulative impact analysis so that the assessment of impacts is focused on specific issues that are critical in EPA’s review. The subsequent six steps follow EPA guidance.

Affected Environment1. Identify/define the project-specific resources that warrant a cumulative effect

analysis.

Depending on the project, various resources may have different degrees of impacts, ranging from no impact to a significant impact. Remember that the analysis should be commensurate with the project’s impacts and the resources affected.• A cumulative resource analysis should be conducted on resources with a

determination of less than significant with mitigation incorporated, potentially significant, or significant.

• For biological species, a cumulative impact analysis should be conducted for each resource with a determination of likely to adversely affect.

• In addition, a cumulative impact analysis should be conducted for any resource considered sensitive or controversial by the public, local government, resource agencies, or special interest groups.

2. Define the specific cumulative impact study area for each resource analysis.


A logical resource area must be defined for consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects for each resource discussed in the cumulative impact analysis. The area will vary in size and shape depending on the resource. Consider how far reaching would an impact to the specific resource of concern occur from the project. • For example, the resource area to consider for noise impacts could logically be

confined to projects that would occur adjacent to or within a limited distance of the highway corridor (depending on the setting). If the project would only affect sensitive receptors within one-half mile of the highway, developments or other projects within one-half mile would be a logical resource area to consider for the cumulative impact analysis.

• Conversely, an example resource area for a sensitive wildlife species could be as large as the watershed that you are working in.

Establishing the resource area for consideration of cumulative impacts is a critical step in the analysis. Think of the functions of the ecological system or community that may be affected and how a project impact may affect the function of that system, and for how far and how long. A common shortcoming of cumulative impact analysis is that it did not consider a large enough area. In many cases, the analysis should use an ecological region boundary that focuses on the natural units that make up the resources of concern. It is important to not limit the area to be analyzed too much, but also crucial to not try to analyze too large of an area.

3. Locate and identify any and all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that would impact that resource. Include non-transportation projects as well as other transportation projects.

Research to determine past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects needs to be conducted to find as many projects as possible that have affected or may affect the resource(s) being considered. It is important to consider whether the environment has been degraded, and if so, to what extent; if ongoing activities in the area are causing impacts; and future trends for activities and impacts in the area. The approximate timeframe for a reasonably foreseeable future project is generally equal the length of time that the impact from the proposed project would be felt by the resource being impacted. If an impact is permanent and would occur to a resource indefinitely, a timeframe of 20 years is recommended for analysis.

The analysis should include the use of trends information and interagency analyses on a regional basis to determine the combined effects of past, present, and future actions (EPA, 1999). However, if after thorough investigation, a particular impact is found to be too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of that project or its impact (CEQA Guidelines, 15145. Speculation). Lastly, analysis should only consider those past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects that incrementally contribute to cumulative impacts on a resource affected by the proposed project. Projects affecting other


resources, or that have cumulatively insignificant effects on the impact being discussed, do not add value to the analysis (EPA, 1999).

Once a list of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects has been created, obtain specific information for as many of the projects as possible. Information can be obtained from sources such as environmental documents or notices of preparation that have been written for projects, building permit applications, or zoning change amendments. Explicitly state in the environmental document the sources consulted and that these sources were all the resources reasonably available at the time. If information could not be found on a given development project, state that an attempt was made to find that information but that it was not available.

Impacts4. Identify the impacts to the resource from the other projects.

Specific details of the impacts to resources from the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects identified in the resource areas may not be known, although knowledge of the area will help identify which resources may be affected. If assumptions are made at this step be sure to track what they are. Often there are no distinct right answers when conducting such analysis, however, evaluators must be able to follow the logic used to reach conclusions.

Some projects will have specific information obtained from an environmental document. Some projects may have nothing more than a two-line project description, and for these projects assumptions will have to be made on what the impacts may be from the project. A windshield survey of a potential project area can help to predict what impacts could result from a project and help solidify any assumptions. When in doubt, it is probably better to assume that a resource being analyzed will be impacted by a potential project rather than not. By assuming the worst and being able to conclude that either a cumulative impact is not occurring to the resource or that the project will not significantly contribute to a cumulative impact to the resource in question, will provide a stronger case if the conclusions are challenged.

Impacts and Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures5. Identify the impacts and the approved avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation

measures to the resource from the currently proposed project.

By now, the environmental impact analysis of the currently proposed project should already be complete. However, knowing whether the resource being analyzed is healthy, declining, or destroyed is necessary to determine the significance of any added impacts from the proposed project. The impact used in cumulative impact analysis is the net impact (i.e., impact minus minimization and/or mitigation). To


fully offset the impact, there is no contribution to cumulative impacts from the project.

6. Determine: (1) if there is currently a cumulative impact to the resource in the resource analysis area; and (2) if the impacts from the currently proposed project would contribute to that impact and, if so, at what level.

Make a determination/conclusion after gathering all of the information has been gathered and the impacts from all of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects (including the proposed project) on the resources have been analyzed. There is no easy way to explain how to make the correct determination. Hopefully, the analysis done will lead to a conclusion that can be justified based on the facts. In the end, the conclusions are largely based on perspective, and the way that the analysis and facts are presented, and the ultimate conclusions must be logical.

Other Guidance• U.S. DOT Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project

Reviews Executive Order 13274 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group Draft Baseline Report March 15, 2005http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/icireport.htm

• A good overview of NEPA requirements and FHWA guidance is available at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/2nd_cml.htm

• FHWA issued interim guidance on indirect and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process on January 31, 2003.http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpactmemo.htm

• CEQ Handbook: Considering Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Protection Act (January 1997). The handbook includes an 11-step process for analyzing cumulative impacts. The handbook does not establish requirements for such analyses and should be viewed as guidance. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/chapters/v2ch6.htm

• Additional guidance is provided in the FHWA Memorandum: Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding the Consideration of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process (January 31, 2003).

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpactmemo.htm

• Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act. Council on Environmental Quality. January 1997. ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm


http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm




http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/2nd_cml.htm

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/icireport.htm

• Consideration Of Cumulative Impacts In EPA Review of NEPA Documents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities (2252A); EPA 315-R-99-002, May 1999 www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/nepa/index.html

• Environmental Protection Agency. May 1999. Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Federal Activities. http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf

• Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. NCHRP Report 403, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Prepared by the Louis Berger Group, 1998.

The report can be ordered at the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Bookstore: www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/

• Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. NCHRP Report 466, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Prepared by the Louis Berger Group, 2002. http://www4.trb.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf

• The Desk Reference can also be ordered online at the TRB Bookstore: www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/

Chapter 4 Impacts, Mitigation, Commitments, and Permits NeededFLUSH OUT FOR IMPACTS, MITIGATION AND COMMITMENTS

Include a brief summary of minimization and/or mitigation measures in the document. Address all other measures in the framework of avoidance or minimization measures.

Summary of ImpactsSummary of Mitigation and Environmental CommitmentsPermits and Approvals Needed List all permits and approvals that will be needed, including waters and wetland permits, threatened and endangered species approvals (biological opinions, determinations), freeway agreements, etc. Also, give the status of each approval.

Example:

The following permits, reviews, and approvals would be required for project construction:

Agency Permit/Approval StatusUnited States Fish and Section 7 Consultation for Non-jeopardy Biological


http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/

http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://www4.trb.org/trb/onlinepubs.nsf

http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/

http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/cumulative.pdf

http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/nepa/index.html

Wildlife Service Threatened and Endangered SpeciesReview and Comment on 404 Permit

Opinion issued on February 26, 1999.

United States Army Corps of Engineers

Section 404 Permit for filling or dredging waters of the United States.

Section 404 permit application appended to EA; Public Review Notice issued DATE is concurrent with EA review.

Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat Protection

Title 41 Permit for Anadromous Fish Stream involvement

Application for Title 41 Permit submitted on DATE.

Department of Environmental Conservation

Section 401 Water Quality Permit

Department of Natural Resources, Office of Project Management

Coastal Zone Consistency Determination


Chapter 5 Comments and CoordinationThis needs thorough review – it is borrowed from elsewhere and needs to be modified…

1. Public involvement and agency consultation and coordination efforts is to be summarized as following: • A bulletted list of scoping and project development meetings, notices,

correspondence, and field reviews. • Agency coordination organized specific to each agency in the order of

Cooperating Agencies (federal, State, and local), federal agencies, State agencies, and local agencies.

• Public involvement, to also include special interest groups. 2. The summaries will cite the appended more comprehensive documentation (i.e.,

notices, pertinent correspondence and meeting/telephone logs with agencies and the public) and as necessary specific document chapters or sections. It will also summarize the coordination process, including scoping, meetings, field reviews, and the key issues and pertinent information received.

Regulatory Setting

[Not Required]

Guidance1. Documenting Coordination

• Provide a brief introduction to this Chapter (sample text below)

“Early and continuing coordination with the general public and appropriate public agencies is an essential part of the environmental process to determine the scope of environmental documentation, the level of analysis, potential impacts and mitigation measures and related environmental requirements. Agency consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including: project development team meetings, interagency coordination meetings, (continue list as appropriate). This chapter summarizes the results of DOT&PF’s efforts to fully identify, address and resolve project-related issues through early and continuing coordination.”

• Discuss the scoping process (if formal scoping was done). Describe the process, including meeting dates, attendees, issues raised and comments received.

• Describe Consultation and Coordination with Public Agenciesa. State which public agencies were contacted during the project’s development,

for each agency: • Provide a chronology of all meetings, workshops, hearings, etc. that the

agency participated in (If this is an extensive list, it can be a combined list for all agencies and be moved to the back of the chapter.)


• Describe the results of the coordination to date; in other words, document critical decisions. If the agency has taken a position on the project or an issue associated with the project, state the agency’s position.

• Describe the status of any needed approvals or permits from the agencies.

Note: The level of detail provided for each item above should be commensurate with the controversy and complexity of the project.

b. Include correspondence with agencies, e.g. concurrence letters, etc. at the end of this Chapter. Larger approval documents such as the Biological Opinion, the MOA for cultural resources, etc. should be included in the back of the document as appendices.

• Discuss Public Participationa. Describe the public participation methods used for the proposed project.

Methods could include: citizen advisory committees, mailing lists, newsletters, newspaper notices/articles, public meetings/workshops, web-based information, etc. Include dates when applicable.

b. Describe the results of the public participation process—number of attendees, comments received, issues raised, etc.

c. If a public hearing was held provide:• Date, time and location of hearing• Type of hearing• Number of attendees• Number of written comments• Number of comments taken by court reporter• Summary of meeting outcome, issues raised, etc.

2. Comments and Responding to Comments

If comments are received on the EA during the public availability period and/or at the public hearing, the EA must be modified to reflect all substantive comments and responses to comments. [NOTE: Comments made by FHWA are not to be included in the document.] Comments and responses to comments can either be included in this chapter or as an appendix in the back of the document.

Be sure that comment letters and other comments are shared with FHWA and responses to comments are developed in coordination with FHWA.

• A response must be made to all substantive comments received on the EA. Options for responding include:a. Modifying the design of the proposed project and reflecting the modifications

in the documentb. Supplementing, improving or modifying the analysis in the EAc. Making factual corrections; and/or


d. Explaining why the comments do not warrant modification to the document and/or proposed project. If this is the case, the response should cite sources, authorities or reasons that support DOT&PF’s position.

• If changes are made to the text of the EA as a result of comments received, those changes must be marked in the margins of the document and the responses to comments should contain a reference to the document change.

• “Comment noted” is typically not an appropriate response to a substantive issue. Do not use “comment noted” as a way to avoid difficult issues. “Comment noted” is only appropriate when someone has expressed an opinion, such as “I don’t think this project is needed.” or “I support alternative XYZ,” or when there is simply no other response possible.

Responses to comments should address the issue or concern of the person who’s commenting and should be based on facts and/or reasoned judgment. In responding to comments, it is often necessary to engage other members of the internal project development team.

• Remember to deal sensitively with public comments. When responding to comments, keep in mind that the person cared enough about the issue to make a comment, a good response requires at least as much care.

• If numerous comments are received, the comments and responses may be summarized; however, comment letters from elected officials and federal, state, and local agencies and planning groups should always be included in their entirety in the document, along with appropriate responses.

• For purposes of an EA, comments received after the public availability period and up until the final NEPA decision document (FONSI) should also be addressed and considered (NEPA). Consult with the FHWA Transportation Engineer.


Chapter 6 – DRAFT SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION (IF APPLICABLE)

Signature Page Contents

U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration

[Draft or Final] Section 4(f) Evaluation

Submitted pursuant to 49 USC 303

[Project Name][Federal and State Project Numbers]

_______________ _________________________________________________ Date of Approval FHWA Division Administrator


Laurie is writing – don’t duplicate what is already in Section 4(f) of manualTHE SECTION 4F PIECE SHOULD HAVE OVERVIEW WITH OUR MANUAL REGULATORY AND GUIDANCE OUTLINE. Guidance SUMMARY OF PREPARATION STEPS AND REFERENCE READER BACK TO THE DETAILED APPENDIX E GUIDANCEWE HAVE A HO-BUNCH OF 4(F) STUFF THAT I HAVE PULLED – NEED TO CONDENCE FOR AN OVERVIEW

All historic properties within the Section 106 area of potential effects (APE) and all publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife refuges within any of the project alternatives should be analyzed to determine whether they are protected Section 4(f) resources. If the project would use a Section 4(f) resource, then include a Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. If a FONSI is warranted, the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation will be attached.

Regulatory Setting

Section 4(f) Evaluation Outlinei. Introductionii. Description of Proposed Project (include all alternatives)iii. List and Description of Section 4(f) Propertiesiv. Impacts to Section 4(f) Properties (discuss impacts caused by each alternative)


Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 U.S.C. 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.”

Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a transportation program or project . . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if:1. there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and2. the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the

park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture and Housing and Urban Development in developing transportation projects and programs which use lands protected by Section 4(f). If historic sites are involved, then coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer is also needed.

v. Avoidance Alternativesvi. Measures to Minimize Harmvii. Coordinationviii. Concluding statementix. Letters and Other Correspondence

viii. Concluding Statement

Include the concluding statement for each resource:

“Based on the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from [name the Section 4(f) property(ies)] and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to [name the Section 4(f) property(ies)] resulting from such use.”

Other Guidance GET WEB LINKS23 CFR 771.135: FHWA Environmental Impact and Related Procedures; Section 4(f)Technical Advisory T6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents, October 30, 1987 - Refer to Section IX - Section 4(f) Evaluations — Format and ContentSection 4(f) Policy Paper, September 24, 1987, Revised June 7, 1989 (FHWA)Section 4(f) Checklist (FHWA Western Resource Center)FHWA Interim Guidance, August 22, 1994. Applying Section 4(f) on Transportation Enhancement Projects and National Recreation Trail Projects


http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#interim



http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#4f

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#4fpp

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#4fpp

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#6640



http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#23cfr771

http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/special/ch204f/..%5C..%5C..%5Csec1%5Cch1fedlaw%5Cchap1.htm#23cfr771


Chapter 7 List of Preparers

This identifies the key personnel responsible to prepare or review the EA or EIS, including environmental, engineering, or other technical support studies. Personnel are listed in the following order: FHWA, DOT&PF, Cooperating Agencies (federal, State, and local), and consultants. Brief qualifications (education and professional discipline/years experience) are to be provided for each person. The responsibilities of each person should be identified under expertise applied. This information can be presented in tabular form.

List of PreparersExample

Name/Education Expertise Applied Professional Discipline/Experience

Federal Highway AdministrationJohn Doe FHWA Guidance and Area EngineerB.S. Civil Engineer Evaluation of EIS 25 years FHWA highway engineer-

ing and transportation planning

Sally Smith FHWA Guidance and Environmental and Realty OfficerB.S. Wildlife Science Evaluation of EIS 10 years FHWA environmental and

NEPA technical writing and review

Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (to include all functional groups)Jane Doe, P.E. Preliminary Design and Preliminary Design and Environ- M.S. Civil Engineering Document Review mental Supervisor

17 years ADOT&PF Design, 5 years

private consultant engineer

Win Doe, P.E. Preliminary Design, Project Manager B.S. Civil Engineering Project Management, and 11 years ADOT&PF Design

EIS Review

Joe Smith Environmental Reseach Environmental Analyst B.S. Civil Engineering and EIS Review 16 years ADOT&PF Environmental


Tom Jones, P.E. Conceptual Stage Relo- Right of Way Agent B.S. Civil Engineering cations Study 9 years ADOT&PF ROW

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersGeorge Smith Jurisdicational Wetlands Project Manager B.A. Environmental Studies Determination, Section 12 years USACEM.S. Botany 404/10 Permit Processing

Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Office of Habitat Management and PermittingMary Jones Fisheries Habitat Fisheries Biologist B.S. Marine Biology Analysis, Title 41 15 years ADNR/OHMP, 3 years

Permit Processing NOAA Fisheries

Consulting FirmHarry Jones, P.E. Project Management Senior Engineer M.S. Civil Engineering and EIS Review 7 years Consulting Firm engineer, 8 years ADOT&PF Design

Mary Smith EIS Preparation and Environmental Scientist B.S. Biology and Geology Noise Analysis 11 years Consulting Firm

Jane Doe, P.E. Archaeological and Archaeologist M.A. Archaeology Historic Sites Survey 27 years Consulting Firm

vi. ReferencesThe EA and EIS should cite references used to prepare the document. Citations include any technical studies that substantiate the analyses and conclusions, and other relevant sources, such as planning documents and pertinent scientific studies. Materials prepared by other agencies in compliance with other regulatory processes (e.g., a Biological Opinion) should be summarized in the body of the EA or EIS.

vii. List of Abbreviated TermsLOOK FOR A BLURB (INDICATE THAT THIS IS A 11X17 FOLDOUT SO TEXT IS VISIBLE TO READER)

viii. AppendicesAppendices contain detailed information that is not essential to a basic understanding of the document and the results obtained but that may be helpful to readers. Appendices help to streamline the content of the document. They should not contain unnecessary information. See 40 CFR 1502.18 for the regulatory definition of an appendix for environmental documents. All appendices must be called out in the narrative of the


document. They are lettered sequentially. You might also include an informal table of contents for the appendix on the first page. Otherwise, the text should follow the appendix title line. Types of technical studies include: Air Quality, Noise, Traffic, Relocation, Wetlands Functional Assessment, Biological Assessment, and Phase I and II Site Assessment. Section 106 reports should not be included unless approved by FHWA.


B.4 Decision Document

Decision documents record the reasons for selecting a particular alternative. For EAs, they provide the support for deciding that no significant impacts would result from the project. A Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is the decision document for an EA

i. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Processing Steps DOT&PF prepares a preliminary draft FONSI for FHWA that includes all

attachments. DOT&PF Preconstruction Engineer submits a letter request to FHWA (Division

Administrator or Environmental Program Manager) requesting a FONSI, accompanied by the preliminary draft FONSI.

FHWA approves FONSI DOT&PF prepares a Public Notice of availability (30-day minimum) for publication in

a local newspaper. FONSI does not need to be circulated, but is to be made available upon request. If a public hearing is determined as necessary, a 15-day advance Public Notice is required.

Contents1. “Finding of No Significant Impact”, “U.S. Department of Transportation of the Federal

Highway Administration”, Project Name, Project Numbers (federal/State)

2. Alternative selected and the following Formal Decision Language: “The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has conducted an independent review of the Environmental Assessment (EA) and DOT&PF responses to comments received on the EA, and has determined that the Preferred Alternative will not have a significant impact on the human environment. FHWA finds that the EA adequately and accurately discusses the need, environmental issues, and impacts of the proposed project, as well as the comments provided by the public and agencies during the EA review period. It complies with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice.

FHWA has determined that the EA provides sufficient evidence and analysis for determining that an Environmental Impact Statement will not be required. FHWA takes full responsibility for the accuracy, scope, and content of the attached EA.”

3. Description of the alternatives considered

4. Measures to Minimize Harm (i.e., avoidance, minimization, impacts, and mitigation)

5. Final Section 4(f) Concluding Statement (if applies)


“Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the [name of Section 4(f) Property] and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the properties from such use.”

6. Permits and special conditions

7. Public Hearing brief summary of major issues

8. FHWA Signature Line with date (Division Administrator or Environmental Program Manager)

9. Appendices that contain all comments received and responses. Attach entire Final Section 4(f) Evaluation (if applies) and any required Final MOAs completed with signatures (such as for Section 106). Any permits are also to be included.

ii. Section 4(f) Evaluation There is no separate Decision Document for the Section 4(f) Evaluation as there is for an EA or an EIS. The formal Section 4(f) decision is, as shown below, a Concluding Statement that is incorporated into the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.

“Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of lands from the [name of Section 4(f) Property], and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the properties resulting from such use.”

The Concluding Statement is placed in the closure Conclusion Section, following the Coordination Section at the end of the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.

Processing Steps DOT&PF has to request to FHWA that the property meets Section 4(f) requirements

– CHECK IF THIS IS A FORMAL VERSUS INFORMAL CONSULTATION Prepare preliminary document, reviewed by State and FHWA FHWA submits for legal sufficiency review Signed Draft Section 4(f) is submitted by FHWA via courier to DOI (18 copies) –

GET CORRECT ADDRESS (In addition, if DOA properties are involved [such as a National Forest] or housing developed by HUD, these Secretaries will also receive copies) EDRIE GET CITATION FOR MILITARY INVOLVEMENT

45-DAY REVIEW STUFF and INCLUDE A PUBLIC NOTICE EXAMPLE… Resolve any comments Prepare preliminary Final Section 4(f) Evaluation with Concluding Statement for

FHWA reviewFHWA submits for Legal Sufficiency and then signs the document
