**Questions and Answers Regarding the Consideration of**

**Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in the NEPA Process**

**[Introduction]{.underline}**

The FHWA and other Federal agencies' responsibility to address and
consider direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process
was established in the Council of Environmental (CEQ) Regulations for
Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act (40 CFR §§1500-1508). To provide the proper context on this
subject and to fully appreciate the discussion in these *Question and
Answers*, we first need to examine some basic principles of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S. C. 4321 et seq.).

In 1970, NEPA introduced a national environmental policy into the normal
business practices of the Federal government. The law intentionally
focused on Federal activities with respect to its goal for a sustainable
environment balanced with other essential needs of present and future
generations of Americans. NEPA did not alter the missions of Federal
agencies. Instead, it established a supplemental mandate for Federal
agencies to examine the potential environmental consequences of their
proposals, consult with other agencies, document the analysis, and make
the information available to the public prior to making a decision.

The environmental policy established in NEPA (*Section 101*) is
supported by a set of "action forcing" provisions (*Section 102*) that
form the basic framework of Federal decisionmaking known as the NEPA
process. While NEPA established the basic framework for integrating
environmental considerations into Federal decisions, it did not provide
the details of a process for Federal agencies to follow. Federal
implementation of NEPA was the charge of the CEQ, which interpreted the
law and addressed the action forcing provisions in the form of
regulations and guidance, the bulk of which is focused on the
preparation of environmental impact statements (EIS). CEQ defined
categorical exclusions (CE) and environmental assessments (EA) but the
specifics were left for the agencies to address in individual
supplemental regulation and guidance.

Decisions resulting from NEPA litigation have influenced the evolution
of NEPA implementation. While the general environmental protection
provisions of NEPA may seem explicit and clear to some, courts have
interpreted the mandates of the law as "procedural" rather than
"substantive", [Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens
Council]{.underline}, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). This means that NEPA
directs the way in which Federal Agencies must make decisions concerning
proposals that adversely impact the environment but does not require a
particular conclusion or direct what decision must be made. The courts
concluded that Federal agencies must 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 alternative, [Kleppe v. Sierra Club]{.underline},
427 U.S. 390 (1976). Inherent in the hard look provision is the
necessity to consider and examine the appropriate issues using the most
appropriate expertise and methodology available.

Understanding the basic intent of NEPA, the provisions of the CEQ
regulations, and the standards established in case law is essential to
overall NEPA compliance. Where indirect and cumulative impacts are a
concern it must also be recognized that other statutory or regulatory
mandates include secondary, indirect, and/or cumulative impact
requirements. This is briefly discussed in the answer to *Question 11*.
These terms have different meanings and procedural expectations, with
respect to other regulations and their subject resources, from those of
the overall NEPA process. Two examples include the regulations
implementing the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA). These differences are important in the NEPA
project development process and overall project decisionmaking process.
These *Questions and Answers* primarily address indirect and cumulative
impact considerations in the context of the NEPA process.

**[Questions and Answers]{.underline}**

1.  **How and where are direct, secondary, indirect, and cumulative
    effects and impacts defined?**

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR §§ 1500 -1508) define the impacts and
effects that must be addressed and considered by Federal agencies in
satisfying the requirements of the NEPA process. This includes direct,
indirect and cumulative impacts:

> **Direct effects** are caused by the action and occur at the same time
> and place. (40 CFR § 1508.8)
>
> **Indirect effects** are caused by the action and are later in time or
> farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.
> Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects
> related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population
> density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other
> natural systems, including ecosystems. (40 CFR § 1508.8)
>
> **Cumulative impact** is the impact on the environment, which results
> from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past,
> present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what
> agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other
> actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
> collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
> (40 CFR § 1508.7)

The terms "effect" and "impact" are used synonymously in the CEQ
regulations (40 CFR §1508.8). "Secondary impact" does not appear, nor is
it defined in either the CEQ regulations or related CEQ guidance.
However, the term is used in the FHWA's *Position Paper: Secondary and
Cumulative Impact Assessment In the Highway Project Development Process*
(April, 1992) but is defined with the CEQ definition of indirect impact
(40 CFR § 1508.8). Some authors on this subject have distinguished
secondary impacts from indirect impacts, while others; including the
FHWA have used the terms interchangeably. For purposes of this guidance,
secondary and indirect impacts mean the same thing.

2.  **Are there substantive differences between indirect impacts and
    cumulative impacts and requisite NEPA requirements?**

The terms indirect impact and cumulative impact are often used as if
they mean the same thing. However, there are important differences in
the meaning and requirements related to indirect impacts and cumulative
impacts in the NEPA process. Understanding the distinctions is the first
step to ensuring that the relative requirements are given appropriate
and adequate treatment in the NEPA process and subsequent environmental
documentation. The differences and relationships are highlighted in the
following discussion, examples, and figures.

A **cumulative impact** includes the total effect on a natural resource,
ecosystem, or human community due to past, present, and future
activities or actions of Federal, non-Federal, public, and private
entities. Cumulative impacts may also include the effects of natural
processes and events, depending on the specific resource in question.
Cumulative impacts include the total of all impacts to a particular
resource that have occurred, are occurring, and will likely occur as a
result of any action or influence, including the direct and reasonably
foreseeable indirect impacts of a Federal activity. Accordingly, there
may be different cumulative impacts on different environmental
resources. This is illustrated in Figure 1.

Cumulative impact analysis is resource specific and generally performed
for the environmental resources directly impacted by a Federal action
under study, such as a transportation project. However, not all of the
resources directly impacted by a project will require a cumulative
impact analysis. The resources subject to a cumulative impact assessment
should be determined on a case-by-case basis early in the NEPA process,
generally as part of early coordination or scoping.

Cumulative impact analysis may be thought of as a comparison of the
past, present, and reasonable foreseeable health or condition of a
specific resource as described in the following air quality example.

> The air quality of an area today is in a measurable condition,
> relative to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In the
> past, perhaps recently, the quality of the air may have been worse,
> the same, or better than it is today depending on a number of factors
> such as automobile use, industry, residential development
> (fireplaces), and climatic conditions. Each of these individual
> factors may have influenced the positive or negative change in the air
> quality of the area. The condition of the air today is the result of
> these factors, which constitutes the past effects of the cumulative
> impact question. Add the impacts of the proposed project, other
> occurring activities, and the positive and negative reasonably
> foreseeable impacts from any source (some of which may be indirect)
> and the result equates to the air quality cumulative impact.

In the NEPA process, a similar consideration or analysis would be
performed for other resources potentially impacted by the implementation
of a proposed project.

> Figure 1. Cumulative Impact Diagram

**Indirect impacts** as well as direct impacts, can be considered a
subset of cumulative impacts, as illustrated in Figure 1., but are
distinguished by an established cause and effect relationship to a
proposed Federal action, such as a transportation project.

Figure 2. is an illustration and comparison of the cause and effect
relationship of direct impacts and indirect impacts to a project action.
As the name implies, direct impacts are those that are actually caused
by project activities. Indirect impacts, on the other hand, are caused
by another action or actions that have an established relationship or
connection to the project. These induced actions are those that would
not or could not occur except for the implementation of a project. These
actions are often referred to as "but for" actions and generally occur
at a later time or some distance removed from the original action.

**Figure 2. Direct and Indirect Impact Diagrams**

From the CEQ definition we find that indirect effects "may include
growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in
the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related
effects on air and water and other natural systems, including
ecosystems" (40 CFR § 1508.8). The key words in this explanation are
"related" and "induced"*.*

Changes in land use patterns, growth or decline, in a given locale are
attributable to many circumstances, events, and activities including
Federal, non-Federal, and private actions. While transportation projects
are not the only or primary factor in possible land use changes, the
potential for certain transportation proposals to influence land use is
undeniable. The same is true for other infrastructure improvements such
as water supply, sewer, and/or utilities.

A proposal for a new alignment project in an area where no
transportation facility currently exists, or one that adds new access to
an existing facility may indicate the potential for project related
indirect impacts from other distinct but connected actions. Likewise,
the purpose and need of a proposed project that includes a development
or economic element might establish an indirect relationship to
potential land use change or other action with subsequent environmental
impacts. The potential relationship of a transportation proposal to
indirect impacts must be established on a case-by-case basis, early in
the NEPA project development process.

3.  The CEQ regulations define indirect and cumulative impacts to
    include the effects of "reasonably foreseeable" actions. How is
    "reasonably foreseeable" defined and related to indirect and
    cumulative impact analysis?

The determination or estimation of future impacts is essential to both
indirect and cumulative impact analysis. However, the focus must be on
reasonably foreseeable actions, those that are likely to occur or
probable, rather than those that are merely possible. For a better
understanding of what reasonably foreseeable means in NEPA analysis, we
turn our attention to court cases and decisions that have dealt with the
adequacy of reasonably foreseeable analysis in the NEPA process.

> In [Dubois v U.S. Dept. of Agriculture]{.underline}, 102 F.3d 1273,
> 1286 (1^st^ Cir 1996), the court concluded that when attempting to
> define indirect impacts, "the agency need not speculate about all
> conceivable impacts but it must evaluate the reasonably foreseeable
> effects of the proposed action."
>
> In [Sierra Club v. Marsh,]{.underline} 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir.
> 1992), the court reviewed the issue of whether a particular indirect
> (secondary) impact was "sufficiently likely to occur, that a person of
> ordinary prudence would take it into account in making a decision".

These cases indicate that indirect and cumulative impact analyses are
appropriately concerned with impacts that are sufficiently "likely" to
occur and not with the speculation of any impact that can be conceived
of or imagined.

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) (*40 Questions and
Answers),* discusses the meaning of reasonably foreseeable. The answer
to Question 18, in the CEQ guidance deals with the uncertainty of
indirect impacts. This guidance also applies to cumulative impacts,
since that definition uses the same reasonably foreseeable provision.
The guidance states:

"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 §1508.8(b)). In the example, if
there is total uncertainty about the identity of future land owners or
the nature of future land uses, then of course, the agency is not
required to engage in speculation or contemplation about their future
plans. But, in the ordinary course of business, people do make judgments
based upon reasonably foreseeable occurrences. It will often be possible
to consider the likely purchasers and the development trends in that
area or similar areas in recent years; or the likelihood that the land
will be used for an energy project, shopping center, subdivision, farm
or factory. The agency has the responsibility to make an informed
judgment, and to estimate future impacts on that basis, especially if
trends are ascertainable or potential purchasers have made themselves
known. The agency cannot ignore these uncertain, but probable, effects
of its decisions."

From this we find that reasonably foreseeable events, although still
uncertain, must be probable. This means that those effects that are
considered possible, but not probable, may be excluded from NEPA
analysis. There's an expectation in the CEQ guidance that judgments
concerning the probability of future impacts will be informed, rather
than based on speculation.

The confident prediction of reasonably foreseeable impacts requires
judgment based on information obtained from reliable sources.
Coordination with local land use agencies and officials, including the
review of adopted plans and similar instruments or documentation, if
available, are important in this regard. Surveys and consultation with
local landowners, developers, real estate agencies, or other individuals
with special expertise within the proximity of the project study area
can yield useful information. In a State, or region within a State,
where growth management laws exist, the restrictions and requirements of
those laws should be acknowledged and taken into consideration.

Potential changes in land use, development, or other reasonably
foreseeable actions are not easy to predict. Estimates may be arrived at
with surveys, discussions with appropriate local entities, the
examination of trends, the use of sophisticated computer models or other
appropriate methodology, such as the Delphi process. The Delphi method,
modified Delphi method, or other "expert panel" approaches have been
used to forecast reasonable foreseeable land uses for several recent
transportation studies.

These or other methodologies may be appropriate for a given study,
depending the type of project proposed, the geographic location, the
resources involved, and other determining factors. Other important
considerations include the existence of a formal planning process, local
zoning regulations, land use codes or regulations, and other land use
controls. Because project situations vary greatly, it is not possible to
recommend a single methodology or standard approach that will be
appropriate in every situation. This decision should be made on a
case-by-case basis during early coordination or scoping.

Considerations related to selection of the most appropriate supporting
methodology for a particular study should be coordinated with
cooperating agencies and participants in the NEPA process during early
coordination and scoping. Generally, the determination of an appropriate
methodology for a given situation and project, should not need to be
revisited, if the decision was made cooperatively and early in the NEPA
process. It is recommended that every effort be made to reach agreement
or consensus with project participants regarding the appropriate
methodology, but it must be understood that the final decision is the
responsibility of the lead agency. Courts in NEPA review have relied on
the expertise of the lead Federal agency and have given considerable
deference to their choice of technical experts and methodology, unless
it can be shown there were obvious errors and omissions in the data
supporting the agency's decision.

4.  **Since data and information is essential to determining reasonably
    foreseeable actions, what is our responsibility when specific
    essential information is unavailable or incomplete?**

The CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1502.22) address Federal responsibility in
situations where relevant information is either incomplete or
unavailable related to the preparation of environmental impact
statements:

a.  If the incomplete information relevant to reasonably foreseeable
    significant adverse impacts is essential to a reasoned choice among
    alternatives and the overall costs of obtaining it are not
    exorbitant, the agency shall include the information in the
    environmental impact statement.

b.  If the information relevant to reasonably foreseeable significant
    adverse impacts cannot be obtained because the overall costs of
    obtaining it are exorbitant or the means to obtain it are not known,
    the agency shall include within the environmental impact statement:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(1) a statement that such information is incomplete or unavailable;

(2) a statement of the relevance of the incomplete or unavailable
    information to evaluating reasonably foreseeable significant adverse
    impacts on the human environment;

(3) a summary of existing credible scientific evidence which is relevant
    to evaluating the reasonably foreseeable significant adverse impacts
    on the human environment, and

(4) the agency\'s evaluation of such impacts based upon theoretical
    approaches or research methods generally accepted in the scientific
    community. For the purposes of this section, \"reasonably
    foreseeable\" includes impacts which have catastrophic consequences,
    even if their probability of occurrence is low, provided that the
    analysis of the impacts is supported by credible scientific
    evidence, is not based on pure conjecture, and is within the rule of
    reason.

The incomplete or unavailable information provision is recognition of
the potential difficulty associated with obtaining essential and
credible data necessary to complete the analysis of certain types of
impacts in certain situations, especially for those actions that require
the preparation of an EIS.

In situations where specific data is not available or is incomplete,
this needs to be communicated to project participants and cooperating
agencies as early as possible. This will enhance the opportunity for
assistance in data collection and assist in reaching an understanding
with participants concerning the availability and acceptability of
relevant information.

5.  What does NEPA expect of Federal Agencies with respect to indirect
    and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process?

The NEPA legislation itself does not mention indirect or cumulative
impacts. The CEQ regulations address Federal agency responsibility
applicable to indirect and cumulative impacts considerations, analysis,
and documentation. We find reference to these impacts and requirements
in the definition of the *scope* of a proposal (40 CFR § 1508.25) and in
the content requirements for the *environmental consequences section* of
an environmental impact statement (EIS) (40 CFR § 1502.16).

The scope of an action (40 CFR §§ 1500.4, 1501.1, 1501.7, and 1508.25)
consists of the *range of actions* ([connected]{.underline} or [closely
related]{.underline}, [cumulative]{.underline}, and
[similar]{.underline} actions), *alternatives* ([no action]{.underline},
other [reasonable alternatives]{.underline}, and [mitigation
measures]{.underline}), and *impacts* ([direct]{.underline},
[indirect]{.underline} and [cumulative]{.underline} impacts) to be
considered in an EIS. For the study to be meaningful the project scope
must not be too broadly or too narrowly defined, nor should it be
focused on every issue that can be imagined but will likely have little
relevance or influence on the project and environmental decisions
contemplated in the NEPA study.

The environmental consequences section of an EIS (or EA) forms the
scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives and
includes discussion of the adverse impacts that cannot be avoided,
including direct and indirect impacts, to support the comparison of
alternatives (40 CFR § 1502.16). The CEQ regulations do not specifically
mention cumulative impacts in the analysis and comparison of
alternatives. Because direct and indirect impacts are caused by and
related to project implementation, respectively, they represent the more
substantive considerations in the alternatives development and analysis
process, beyond the full disclosure and "hard look" provisions of NEPA.

Court cases have focused on the NEPA requirements related to the
consideration and analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts. (see also
the cases cited in the answer to Question 3).

> Where cumulative impacts are concerned, one leading court in
> [Fritiofson v. Alexander]{.underline}, 772 F.2d 1225 (5^th^ Cir.
> 1985), addressed cumulative impact analysis using the following
> five-part evaluation:

1)  What is the geographic area affected by the project?

2)  What are the resources affected by the project?

3)  What are the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions
    that have impacted these resources?

4)  What were those impacts?

5)  What is the overall impact on these various resources from the
    accumulation of the actions?

> Other courts have held that an evaluation must occur in the EIS if
> there are cumulative impacts. [Muckleshoot Indian Tribe v. U.S. Forest
> Service]{.underline}, 177 F.3d 800 (9^th^ Cir. 2001); [Save the Yak v.
> Block]{.underline}, 840 F.2d 714 (9^th^ Cir. 1988).
>
> In [City of Carmel v. U.S. Dept. of Transportation]{.underline}, 123
> F.3d 1142 (9^th^ Cir. 1997) the court held that an EIS must
> \"catalogue adequately the relevant past projects in the area.\" It
> must also include a \"useful analysis of the cumulative impacts of
> past, present, and future projects.\" This means the EIS must analyze
> the combined effects of the actions in sufficient detail to be
> \"useful to the decisionmaker in deciding whether, or how, to alter
> the program to lessen cumulative impacts.\"

Indirect and cumulative impact requirements of the CEQ regulations
discussed here are generally related to actions requiring the
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). Indirect and
cumulative impact analysis for projects processed with an environmental
assessment (EA) or for categorical exclusion (CE) determinations should
be considered commensurate with the potential for the project to involve
these issues. Not all transportation project proposals will necessitate
the same degree of indirect or cumulative impact consideration,
analysis, or documentation as may be required and appropriate in an EIS.
This is further discussed in the answer to *Question 7*.

6.  **What are FHWA's specific policy and requirements regarding
    indirect and cumulative impact analysis in the NEPA process?**

The FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) NEPA implementing
regulations, Environmental Impact and Related Procedures (23 CFR § 771),
do not explicitly address cumulative or indirect impacts, with the
exception of the definition for categorical exclusions (23 CFR §
771.117), which addresses potential significant impacts from cumulative
CE actions. 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 FHWA
regulations supplement the CEQ regulations with a clear reflection of
NEPA's environmental policy and action forcing provisions in Section
771.105 Policy, Section 771.109 Applicability and responsibilities, and
Section 771.111 Early coordination, public involvement and project
development.

An appropriately thorough review of the probable direct and indirect
impacts of FHWA actions and documentation of other cumulative effects on
specific resources is essential to a reasoned and informed project
decision and will assist in attaining FHWA's environmental streamlining
and stewardship goals. Failing to adequately consider and document
environmental impacts, commensurate with the potential for them to
occur, can limit full compliance of essential NEPA requirements and
could have serious implications in the ultimate quality of project
decisions.

7.  **Are indirect and cumulative impact consideration, analysis, and
    documentation requirements the same for categorical exclusions,
    environmental assessments, and environmental impact statements?**

No. Categorical exclusions (CE) and environmental assessments (EA) are
intended for Federal agencies to comply with NEPA in those situations
where the proposed action does not warrant the preparation of a detailed
environmental impact statement (EIS). The consideration, documentation,
and analysis requirements vary in degree by class of action and should
be commensurate with the potential for adverse and significant impacts,
whether direct, indirect, or cumulative.

**Environmental impact statements** are the detailed documents required
by NEPA (Section 102(2)(c)) and are prepared for major Federal actions
that significantly impact the human environment (40 CFR §1508.11).
Because actions requiring EISs will have significant environmental
impacts, the consideration, analysis, and documentation of the
**appropriate** issues must be reasonably detailed and disclosed as
required by the CEQ regulations.

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. Actions processed with an
EIS need to be carefully evaluated during the scoping process to
determine the environmental resources, geographic boundaries, time
periods, and methodologies to be used in analyzing indirect and
cumulative effects.

**Categorical exclusions** apply to actions that do not have significant
environmental effects (40 CFR § 1508.4, 23 CFR § 771.117(a)). A CE is
not a document; it is a determination that an action is exempt from the
requirement to prepare an EIS. The FHWA/FTA regulation provides two
types of CEs based on the potential for adverse impacts (23 CFR §
771.117(c) and (d)). The level of detail required and documentation
necessary for a particular CE depends on the group the action falls
under. 23 CFR § 771.117(c) contains a list of 20 categories of actions
that, based on FHWA's experience, never or almost never cause
significant environmental impacts. These actions are automatically
classified as CEs, except where unusual circumstances exist, and do not
require the submittal of documentation to FHWA or individual approval.
However, other environmental mandates or regulations with separate
documentation requirements may apply.

The second list (23 CFR § 771.117(d)) includes 12 examples of actions
that have a higher potential for impacts, but still meet the criteria
for a CE. These types of actions are also based on FHWA's experience.
Due to the higher potential for impacts, these actions require the
submittal of appropriate documentation for the FHWA to determine if the
CE classification is proper. The level of detail and documentation
necessary should be commensurate with the action\'s potential for
adverse environmental impacts. Many State DOTs have developed individual
procedures that include acceptable level of detail and documentation
requirements for various types of actions and impacts.

Since projects approved with CEs are generally minor in nature and have
less than significant impacts, indirect and cumulative impacts
assessments will generally not be warranted. There may be exceptions,
which can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

**Environmental assessments** are prepared for actions that are not CEs
and do not clearly require the preparation of an EIS. One of the primary
purposes of an EA is to help the FHWA decide whether or not an EIS is
needed and, therefore, should address only those resources or features
that have the likelihood to be significantly impacted. The EA should be
a concise document that briefly provides sufficient evidence and
analysis for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact
statement or a finding of no significant impact. It should not contain
long descriptions, detailed information, or analyses (40 CFR §1508.9).

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. This issue should be addressed with other agencies and NEPA
participants during early coordination activities or scoping.

8.  **Is documentation of indirect and cumulative impacts really
    necessary and important?**

Yes. Documentation, while perhaps not the single most essential element
of the NEPA process, is important. As discussed in these *Questions and
Answers,* the bulk of the provisions in the CEQ regulations regarding
indirect and cumulative impact responsibilities are focused on adequate
documentation in environmental impact statements (EIS).

The FHWA *Technical Advisory, T6640.8a, Guidance for Preparing and
Processing Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents,* provides
recommendations on the content, format, and processing of environmental
impact statement (EIS) and environmental assessment (EA) documents. The
*Technical Advisory* does not specifically address cumulative impacts
and only discusses indirect impacts with respect to the farmlands,
social impacts, coastal barriers, and energy sections of the
environmental consequences chapter of an EIS (or EA). Nevertheless, the
document needs to present a reasonably complete and accurate picture of
the probable consequences involved in implementation of a proposed
project, commensurate with the potential for adverse impacts and
consistent with the provisions of the CEQ regulations.

The preparation of an environmental document not only addresses the
public disclosure requirement, it ensures that the decisionmakers at the
Federal, State and local levels will have adequate information to make
an informed decision. The environmental document may also provide a
basis for other decisionmakers, such as local officials, to understand
the related and potential results of one alternative over another and
take appropriate action to achieve environmentally desirable outcomes.

The environmental document, EIS or EA, may be the most visible, obvious,
and scrutinized element of the NEPA process and it provides evidence of
compliance with NEPA and other project development requirements. During
NEPA litigation, the environmental document and administrative record
will represent the proof of FHWA compliance with the NEPA process
requirements, related requirements, and legal standards.

# What is FHWA's legal authority to mitigate for environmental impacts identified in the NEPA process?

NEPA does not specifically require substantive mitigation for project
impacts; direct, indirect, or cumulative. [Robertson v. Methow Valley
Citizens Council]{.underline}, 490 U.S. 332, 350 (1989). However, the
CEQ regulations require that the environmental impacts statement include
consideration and discussion of possible mitigation for project impacts
(40 CFR §§ 1502.14((f), 1502.16(e-h), 1505.2(c), 1508.25(b)(3)).

Questions 19a. and 19b. of the *CEQ 40 Questions and Answers* provide
additional guidance on mitigation to be addressed and documented in the
EIS:

"The mitigation measures discussed in an EIS must cover the range of
impacts of the proposal. The measures must include such things as design
alternatives that would decrease pollution emissions, construction
impacts, esthetic intrusion, as well as relocation assistance, possible
land use controls that could be enacted, and other possible efforts."

"All relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the
project are to be identified, even if they are outside the jurisdiction
of the lead agency or the cooperating agencies, and thus would not be
committed to as part of the RODs of these agencies. This will serve to
alert agencies or officials who can implement these extra measures, and
will encourage them to do so. ... To ensure that environmental effects
of a proposed action are fairly assessed, the probability of the
mitigation measures being implemented must also be discussed. Thus the
EIS and the Record of Decision should indicate the likelihood that such
measures will be adopted or enforced by the responsible agencies."

Provisions regarding FHWA's legal responsibility and authority for
mitigating project impacts are found in FHWA's Environmental regulations
Section 771.105(d):

"Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts will be incorporated
into the action and are eligible for Federal funding when the
Administration determines that:

(1) The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result
    from the Administration action; and

(2) The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure
    after considering the impacts of the action and the benefits of the
    proposed mitigation measures. In making this determination, the
    Administration will consider, among other factors, the extent to
    which the proposed measures would assist in complying with a Federal
    statute, Executive Order, or Administration regulation or policy."

This provision reflects FHWA's responsibility to incorporate appropriate
mitigation into transportation projects and provide the funding
necessary to mitigate the impacts that are actually caused by FHWA
funded projects, provided the funding represents a reasonable public
expenditure. Other factors to be considered in this determination
include the resource impacted, the degree of harm to the resource by the
project, the ability of the proposed mitigation to address the impact,
whether or not the mitigation is possible, and if it is in the best
overall public interest (23 USC 109(h)).

Mitigation for two specific types of highway impacts is addressed in
separate FHWA regulations. 23 CFR § 777 addresses FHWA's authority for
replacement of the loss of wetlands, natural habitat area, or functional
capacity resulting from a Federal-aid project. 23 CFR § 772 deals with
the abatement of highway traffic noise impacts. Neither provision
specifically addresses mitigation for indirect or cumulative impacts of
transportation projects. Determinations of appropriate mitigation for
wetland impacts and highway noise abatement should be considered in the
context of FHWA's mitigation authority, policy and the specific
provisions of these subject regulations.

The FHWA and State DOTs may be called upon in some situations to make
difficult decisions regarding commitments of certain mitigation measures
that we do not have either the authority or responsibility to consider.
It may be necessary in these situations, for FHWA to remind others of
the lack of authority to commit Federal funds to the mitigation of
impacts not attributable to transportation projects or the actions of
others not within our direct control.

The complexity associated with the mitigation of indirect and cumulative
impacts is addressed in the FHWA *Position Paper: Secondary and
Cumulative Impact Assessment In the Highway Project Development
Process:*

"After the analysis is complete a valid question will remain: If a
proposed highway improvement is determined to cause potential secondary
and cumulative effects, what can and should be done to mitigate the
adverse impacts? This is a difficult question for which there are no
simple solutions. Consistent with existing FHWA regulations mitigation
proposals must be both reasonable and related to project impacts.
However, the opportunities for environmental enhancement that are now
available under the highway program may greatly expand our traditional
view of mitigation. Changing a proposed transportation improvement to
lessen its contribution of indirect impacts may likely result from a
combination of mitigation and enhancement measures that address
area-wide concerns, not just the immediate influence of the project.
Unfortunately, measures that would be appropriate to offset most future
developmental impacts in the area of a project often will be beyond the
control and funding authority of the highway program. In these
situations, the best approach would be to work with local agencies that
can influence future growth and promote the benefits of controls that
incorporate environmental protection into all planned development. "

In the spirit of environmental stewardship and support of FHWA's
strategic goal to "protect and enhance the natural environment and
communities affected by highway transportation", we should seek
opportunities to implement innovative measures that will help our
projects fit within the community and natural environment in which they
are located. An example of such an opportunity is the integration of
context sensitive design and solutions (CSS/CSD) within the NEPA and
project development process. The context sensitive solutions approach is
a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that involves all
stakeholders in the development of a transportation proposal so the
project will fit in with the physical setting and preserve scenic,
aesthetic, historic, and natural environmental resources, while
maintaining safety and mobility.

It is important that we understand how mitigation is defined in the NEPA
process. Replacement or compensation is the last of a sequence of
considerations that constitute the overall mitigation expectation of the
CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1508.20). Mitigation includes avoidance and
minimization of project impacts first. This hierarchy is often referred
to as "sequencing" and means that impact avoidance and minimization
measures should be considered early and as an integral component of the
alternatives development and analysis process. Replacement or
compensation for impacts are intended primarily to deal with residual
impacts that cannot be avoided or minimized.

Mitigation that is included, as a commitment in the environmental
document becomes an integral and essential part of the transportation
project decision. FHWA's responsibility regarding the implementation of
mitigation measures identified as commitments in environmental documents
is stipulated in 23 CFR § 771.109(b):

"It shall be the responsibility of the applicant, in cooperation with
the Administration, to implement those mitigation measures stated as
commitments in the environmental documents prepared pursuant to this
regulation. The FHWA will assure that this is accomplished as a part of
its program management responsibilities that include reviews of designs,
plans, specifications, and estimates (PS&E), and construction
inspections."

9.  What specific strategies are most effective in addressing indirect
    and cumulative impacts and streamlining the project development
    process?

Accurate environmental impact assessment is highly dependent on the use
of appropriate methodology. It is generally recognized among Federal
agencies and practitioners that specific methodologies for the
assessment of indirect and cumulative impacts, particularly for
predicting reasonable foreseeable impacts, are not as well established
or universally accepted as those associated with direct impacts, such as
traffic noise analysis and wetland delineation. Determining the most
appropriate technique for assessing indirect and cumulative impacts of a
specific project should include communication with the cooperating
agencies and NEPA participants (See 40 CFR § 1503.3). For this reason
and others, scoping and interagency coordination are important aspects
of the NEPA project development process where cumulative and indirect
impacts are a concern. Special attention should be given to these
activities to improve our ability to address cumulative and indirect
impact expectations and streamline project decisionmaking. Environmental
documentation is another area worth mentioning in this discussion. Small
improvements in the overall quality of environmental documents can pay
major dividends.

> **Scoping.** The CEQ handbook, *Considering Cumulative Effects Under
> the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)* and the *NCHRP Report
> 403, Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed
> Transportation Projects***.** *and NCHRP Report 466, Desk Reference
> for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation
> Projects* acknowledge the scoping process as essential to effectively
> incorporating indirect and cumulative effects into NEPA environmental
> assessment and analysis.
>
> Scoping is an early and open process for determining the scope of
> issues, actions, alternatives, and impacts to be addressed in the NEPA
> study (40 CFR § 1501.7). NEPA studies are intended to be meaningful
> and focused on decisionmaking, which means the project scope should
> not be too broadly or too narrowly defined. The scoping process is
> intended to focus attention on the real issues and de-emphasize
> consideration of minor issues. This will appropriately narrow the
> scope of the environmental analysis on the issues that will have an
> influence on the decision or deserve attention from an environmental
> stewardship perspective.
>
> The early participation of Federal, State agencies, local agencies,
> Indian Tribes, and in some cases the general public is essential to
> the NEPA process and should include attainment of the following
> outcomes and goals, especially where indirect and cumulative impacts
> are an issue. The items on the following list were derived from the
> CEQ cumulative impact guidance, NCHRP Report 403, the CEQ regulations,
> and the FHWA/FTA regulations. This list is provided as a guide:

-   Identification and agreement on the roles and responsibilities of
    participants and cooperating agencies in the project development
    process;

-   Identification of appropriate project study area;

-   Complete inventory of features, resources, ecosystems, and human
    communities of concern within the project study or influence area;

-   Clarification of major and important versus the minor issues
    associated with the proposed action and alternatives;

-   Identification of other actions impacting or potentially affecting
    the major resources, ecosystems, and human communities;

-   Definition of assessment goals, techniques, and methodology for
    analysis of identified potential effects;

-   Establishment of appropriate resource geographic and temporal
    boundaries related to the identified scope of analysis;

-   Identification of planning considerations in the local area,
    including directions and goals, land uses, and transportation plans
    for incorporation into the study

-   Identification of initial alternatives to the proposal and to avoid
    and minimize harm to the environment.

The results of early coordination and the scoping process, which
includes the definition of project scope (actions, alternatives and
impacts), decisions on appropriate assessment methodologies, the extent
or depth of analysis necessary, the timing of agency reviews, the
project schedule, as well as other agreements and expectations, must be
communicated to all involved agencies and the public as early as
possible. This information should be included in the environmental
document and administrative record. As lead Federal agency, FHWA should
take special efforts to ensure, before indirect and cumulative impact
studies are conducted, that cooperating agencies and key review agencies
not object to the scope of review, including the specific methodology to
be employed.

> **Key references on scoping and scope in the CEQ Regulations
> include:**
>
> 1500.4 Reducing paperwork
>
> 1500.5 Reducing delay
>
> 1501.7 Scoping
>
> 1501.8 Time limits
>
> 1502.7 Page limits
>
> 1502.16 Environmental consequences
>
> 1506.5 Agency responsibility
>
> 1508.25 Scope
>
> **Continued coordination.** The scoping process and early coordination
> should not be considered the only opportunity for agencies and the
> public to engage in the project study. Reasonable communication with
> cooperating agencies, participants, and the public, as appropriate,
> should be maintained throughout the project study. The need to revisit
> certain issues should be considered as additional or new information
> becomes available. Discussions concerning mitigation should commence
> as analysis and results allow. Every effort should be made to limit
> reconsideration or renegotiation of agreements with cooperating
> agencies and participants reached during scoping, such as the
> appropriate assessment methodology, temporal and spatial boundaries,
> and documentation review time frames.
>
> **Documentation.** While documentation is not the end-all-be-all of
> the NEPA process, it is important that we do a reasonably good job of
> communicating the purpose and need of the project; the values used to
> develop and compare alternatives; the results of analysis for direct,
> indirect impacts, and cumulative impacts; and mitigation as required
> by relevant regulation. An environmental impact statement (EIS), or in
> some cases an environmental assessment (EA), may be the most obvious
> and scrutinized part of the NEPA process. It provides evidence to the
> public and participating agencies of our commitment to, and
> satisfaction of the NEPA requirements. Environmental documentation
> must communicate clearly the results of project analysis and the
> subsequent decisions.
>
> We should be mindful of the fact that the adequacy of an EIS document
> is evidenced by a reasonably thorough discussion of the probable
> environmental consequences of a proposal. The format and content must
> provide for informed decisionmaking and fully discuss the analysis and
> reasoning in choosing a particular course of action over another.
> There is an established relationship between adequate documentation
> and the project scope, in terms of detail. The environmental document
> should focus on the important concerns as opposed to trivial and minor
> issues. If a topic doesn't add value to the project decision, the
> related decisions of other agencies, or promote full disclosure, then
> it should only be briefly discussed or in some cases not included all.

The following are suggestions for improving and reducing the length of
EIS documents taken from the CEQ regulations (40 CFR § 1500.4 Reducing
paperwork):

-   Set appropriate page limits (1501.7(b)(1) and 1502.7);

-   Prepare analytic rather than encyclopedic environmental impact
    statements (1502.2(a));

-   Briefly discuss the minor and less than significant issues
    (1502.2(b));

-   Write in plain language (1502.8);

-   Follow a clear format (1502.10);

-   Emphasize the portions of the environmental impact statement that
    are useful to decisionmakers and the public (1502.14 and 1502.15);

-   Reduce the emphasis on background material (1502.16);

-   Focus on the important environmental issues identified in the
    scoping process (1501.7);

-   Summarize the environmental impact statement (1502.12) and circulate
    the summary if the environmental impact statement is unusually long
    (1502.19);

-   Incorporate information and data by reference (1502.21);

-   Combine environmental documents with other documents (1506.4).

10. Do other Federal environmental requirements include consideration
    and analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts?

There are several environmental regulations, legislations, and
authorities, in addition to NEPA that include indirect and cumulative
impact requirements or general policies applicable to specific resource
considerations. The following list is for illustration purposes and is
not intended to be all-inclusive:

-   **The regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic
    Preservation Act (NHPA)** require the consideration of indirect and
    cumulative impacts when applying the criteria of adverse effect on
    historic properties (36 CFR §800.5(a)(1)) and delineating the area
    of potential effects (APE) (36 CFR § 800.16(d)).

-   **Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)** establishes a
    permitting program to regulate the discharge of dredged and filled
    material into waters of the United States, including wetlands*.* The
    basic requirement is 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. Wetland impacts must be avoided where
    practicable and minimized. Any remaining unavoidable impacts must be
    compensated for by restoration and creation. The **Section 404
    (b)(1) Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or
    Fill Material** (40 CFR § 230 subpart B) requires the CWA Section
    404 permitting authority to determine the potential short- or
    long-term effects by determining the nature and degree of effect the
    proposed discharge will have, individually and cumulatively
    (230.11(a)(b)(c)(e)). Cumulative (230.11(g)) and secondary
    (230.11(h)) effects on the aquatic ecosystem must be considered as
    part of the Section 404(b)(1) analysis. The US Army Corps of
    Engineers regulatory responsibilities related to the issuance of
    Section 404 permits are addressed at **33 CFR § 325, Processing of
    Department of the Army Permits.**

-   **The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Regulations on
    Floodplain Management and Protection of Wetlands** requires the
    identification of potential direct and indirect adverse impacts
    associated with the occupancy, modification, and development of
    floodplains and wetlands. Such identification of impacts shall be to
    the extent necessary to comply with the requirements of **Executive
    Order 11988** (May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26951) and **Executive Order
    11990** (May 24, l977, 42 F.R. 26961) to avoid floodplain and
    wetland locations unless they are the only practicable alternatives
    and to minimize harm to and within floodplains and wetlands (44 CFR
    § 9.10).

-   **50 CFR Part 402 Interagency Cooperation-Endangered Species Act of
    1973, as Amended** requires the evaluation of direct, indirect, and
    cumulative effects on listed species and designated critical habitat
    of proposed federal actions (402.12, 402.14). Cumulative effects are
    defined (402.2) as "those effects of future State or private
    activities, not involving Federal activities, that are reasonably
    certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action
    subject to consultation". Note that cumulative effects under ESA do
    not include past or future Federal actions. Indirect effects are
    included in the definitions (402.02) of [Action]{.underline},
    [Destruction or adverse modification]{.underline}, [Effects of the
    action]{.underline}, and [Jeopardize the continued existence
    of.]{.underline}

-   **The Farmland Protection and Policy Act implementing regulations, 7
    CFR Volume 6, Part 658** applies to Federal or Federally assisted
    projects that may directly or indirectly and irretrievably convert
    farmland that is defined as: 1) prime, 2) unique, 3) other than
    prime or unique that is of statewide importance, or 4) other than
    prime or unique that is of local importance, to nonagricultural use.

-   **FHWA Standards, 23 USC 109(l)(1)(b)** requires the evaluation of
    direct and indirect environmental and economic effects of any loss
    of productive agricultural land before the right-of-way on any
    Federal-aid highway can be used to locate a utility facility.

-   **The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA)** designated various
    undeveloped coastal barrier islands for inclusion in the Coastal
    Barrier Resources System. Areas so designated were made ineligible
    for direct or indirect Federal financial assistance that might
    support development, including flood insurance, except for emergency
    life-saving activities.

-   **Section 3-301(b) of Executive Order 12898 on Environmental
    Justice** states that whenever practicable and appropriate, Federal
    agency human health analyses must identify multiple and cumulative
    exposures to substantial environmental hazards.

11. **What indirect and cumulative impacts guidance and training are
    available?**

There are several references related to indirect and cumulative impacts
analysis and the NEPA process included in the attachment to these
*Questions and Answers*. They include the Federal guidance on cumulative
impacts issued by the Counsel on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), followed by the NCHRP reports for
considering indirect impacts in transportation projects. Brief summaries
of these documents are provided for information. FHWA's 1992, Position
Paper is included in this list. Another list includes procedures and
guidance developed by, or for specific State DOTs for indirect or
secondary and cumulative impact analysis in the transportation
decisionmaking process. Next is a list of currently available training
opportunities and a brief list of select methodologies for your
information. Additional information will be provided and maintained at
the Re:NEPA Community of Practice website (http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov).

**[Attachment - Indirect and Cumulative Impact References]{.underline}**

**[Federal Guidance]{.underline}**

-   **Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality, January 1997**

FHWA played a major role in the development of this 1997guidance, which
CEQ describes as a handbook. On October 23, 1997 FHWA distributed it to
its field offices. The subject memorandum encouraged FHWA and State
DOT's to use the handbook as a source of ideas for identifying and
evaluating situations where cumulative impacts are important
considerations. The handbook is recognized as a tool for practitioners
in examining and documenting the effects to social, economic, and
environmental resources. It outlines the general principles, presents
useful steps, and provides an overview of a number of methods for
conducting cumulative effects analysis. While, it is not formal
guidance, exhaustive, or definitive, it will assist in developing
study-specific approaches to cumulative impacts analysis.

> October 23, 1997 Memorandum, is available a the FHWA Environment
> Guidebook,
> [www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook)
>
> The handbook is available for downloading (in PDF) at the CEQ NEPANet
> website.
> [ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.htm](http://ceq.eh.doe.gov/nepa/ccenepa/ccenepa.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**

This guidance, while not expressly intended for Federal agencies use in
carrying out cumulative impact analysis, includes information pertaining
to the EPA's review of cumulative impact analysis in EISs. The guidance
is intended to assist EPA reviewers of NEPA documents provide accurate,
realistic, and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative
impacts focused on specific issues that are critical in EPA\'s review of
NEPA documents under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act.

> This document is available for downloading at the EPA NEPA website.
> [www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/nepa/index.html](http://www.epa.gov/Compliance/resources/policies/nepa/index.html)
>
> Information on the CAA 309 review process can be found at the
> following website.
> [www.epa.gov/compliance/about/nepa.html](http://www.epa.gov/compliance/about/nepa.html)

**[NCHRP Reports]{.underline}**

-   **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.**

This document presents the findings of research performed under NCHRP
Project 25-10, "Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed
Transportation Projects". The research was focused on various
perspectives of definition, identification, and assessment of indirect
effects on proposed transportation projects. The research included a
review of environmental policy and NEPA implementation resources of
transportation and environmental resource agencies, other related
documentation, relevant case law, published literature, and
environmental impact statements. Interviews with transportation and
resource agency personal involved in the preparation and review of EISs
were also included. The guidance establishes an analysis framework for
identification and assessment of indirect effects for transportation
projects.

> The report can be ordered online at Transportation Research Board
> (TRB) Bookstore:
> [www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/](http://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.**

This report is based on the results of research carried out under NCHRP
Project 25-10(02), \"Continuation: Estimating the Indirect Effects of
Proposed Transportation Projects.\" The objectives of this project
focused on the update of *NCHRP Report 403,* *Guidance for Estimating
the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects* and to provide
training materials related to the use of Report 403. The Desk Reference
contains a synthesis of regulations, case law, published literature, EIS
content, and practitioner experience in indirect effects analysis and
documentation. It discusses a framework for identifying and analyzing
indirect impacts of transportation projects. Appropriate tools and
techniques are also referenced. The Desk Reference is supported by a
course curriculum that provides instruction on applying the techniques
of Report 403.

> The Desk Reference is available (in PDF format) at the following
> website:
> [gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_466.pdf](http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?link=http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_466.pdf)
>
> The Desk Reference can be ordered online at Transportation Research
> Board (TRB) Bookstore:
> [www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/](http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/)

# [FHWA Guidance]{.underline}

-   Position Paper: Secondary and Cumulative Impact Assessment In the
    Highway Project Development Process. FHWA, 1992

The position paper represents the first and only formal guidance issued
by FHWA until the release of this interim guidance. It provides a basic
orientation to the subject and suggests a decisionmaking framework of 8
general concepts for incorporating secondary and cumulative impact
considerations into the highway project development process.

> Available at the FHWA Environmental Guidebook website
> [www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/index.htm](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/index.htm)
> or

**[State Procedures]{.underline}**

-   **Guidance for Assessing Indirect and Cumulative Impacts of
    Transportation Projects in North Carolina, November 2001**

> Contact: Gail Grimes,
> [ggrimes@dot.state.nc.us](../ggrimes@dot.state.nc.us%20) or
> 919-733-7844 ext. 323

-   **Maryland State's Highway Administration's Secondary and Cumulative
    Effects Analysis Guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements and
    Environmental Assessments**

> <http://www.sha.state.md.us/oppe/scea/index.htm>
>
> Contact: Gay Olsen,
> [golsen@sha.state.md.us](../golsen@sha.state.md.us) or 410-545-8504

-   **A Guidebook for Evaluating the Indirect and Cumulative Growth
    Impacts of Highway Improvements, Final Report, SPR 327, ECONortwest
    and Portland State University for Oregon Department of
    Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, April,
    2001**

> <http://www.odot.state.or.us/tddresearch/reports/guidebook.pdf>
>
> Contact: Alan R. Kirk, <Alan.R.Kirk@odot.state.or.usat> or
> 503-986-4130

-   **Secondary and Cumulative Environmental Impacts of Transportation
    Projects; Florida Atlantic University/Florida International
    University Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems,
    FL-ER-70-98**

> Contact: Win Lindeman,
> [win.lindeman@dot.state.fl.us](../win.lindeman@dot.state.fl.us%20) or
> 850-410-5886

-   **Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis for Project-Induced Land
    Development, Technical Reference Guidance Document, Wisconsin
    Department of Transportation.**

> Contact: Susan Fox,
> [susan.fox@dot.state.wi.us](../susan.fox@dot.state.wi.us) or
> 608-267-4473

**[Training]{.underline}**

# Environmental Impact Training (EIT) - Cumulative Effects Assessment 

# 

# This 3-day course focuses on the principles and practices for incorporating cumulative effects considerations in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. The substantive topics addressed include principles and procedures, determining spatial and temporal boundaries, defining baseline conditions, delineation of reasonably foreseeable future actions, use of methods for identifying cumulative effects, incorporating cumulative impact considerations in the scoping process, and examples of cumulative effects prediction methods. Special attention is given to case studies for defining lessons learned. Dr. Larry Canter and Dr. Sam Atkinson are the principal instructors. 

> Information: <http://www.eiatraining.com/index.htm>

## 

-   **Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc. - Conducting Quality
    Cumulative Impact Analyses under the National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA)**

## 

## This interactive 2-3 day workshop is highly tailored to the sponsoring Federal and State agency. The training focuses on conducting effective and practical NEPA cumulative impact analyses; selecting the proper scope of analysis; developing an appropriate baseline; and incorporating correct past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Participants systematically discuss cumulative impacts analysis cases within the framework of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, CEQ guidance, EPA guidance, and legal precedent. 

## 

> Information: Judith Lee, <Jleeeps@mchsi.com> at 563-332-6870.

-   **Duke University** - **Accounting for Cumulative Effects in the
    NEPA Process**

This two and one-half day workshop is a review of cumulative effects
concepts and principles, scoping techniques, baseline conditions,
information sources, and methods for effects identification and
prediction.

> Information: <http://www.env.duke.edu/cee/coursesNEPAeffects.html>

# NCHRP Report 466 Desk Reference for Estimation the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects and supporting slide presentation. 

# 

The Desk Reference mentioned above in guidance is supported by a
curriculum for providing instruction on the techniques of Report 403.
The report and supporting slide presentation should be of interest to
FHWA, State DOTs and others, as a resource for transportation planners
and engineers, environmental practitioners responsible for project
development and environmental impact analysis. The course curriculum is
free and available on the Internet. The Louis Berger Group authored the
NCHRP reports and delivered this training.

> Contact: Larry Pesesky, <lpesesky@louisberger.com> at 973-678-1960
> ext. 487
>
> Materials available at:
> [www.4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf](http://www.4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf).

-   **Workshop on Methods for Evaluating Secondary and Cumulative Land
    Use Impacts.**

The FHWA and the New England Region of the Environmental Protection
Agency are co-sponsoring one-day workshops that will present successful
methods used to evaluate secondary and cumulative land use impacts of
transportation projects. Included in the workshop will be a review of
the available methods, guidelines for selection of methods, and a case
study on expert panels. The initial offerings will be held February 25,
26, and 27, 2003 in Albany, NY, Hartford, CT, and Boston, MA,
respectively. Future course offerings will be considered

> Contact: Katherine Still, <still@pbworld.com>,

**[Select Related References]{.underline}**

-   U.S. EPA, 2000. Projecting Land-Use Change: A Summary of Models for
    Assessing the Effects of Community Growth and Change on Land-Use
    Patterns. EPA/600/R-00/098. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    Office of Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH. 260 pp.

> <http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity/tools/reportfinal3.pdf>

-   U. S. EPA, 2000. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical
    Review of the Interactions between Land Use, Transportation, and
    Environmental Quality.

> EPA/231/R-01/002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Development,
> Community, and Environment, Washington, DC 20460
>
> <http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/built.html>

-   The Use of Expert Panels in Analyzing Transportation and Land Use
    Alternatives. Transportation Research Board, National Research
    Council. Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc.
    for FHWA National Cooperative Highway Research Program. (Report
    Pending)

-   Land Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook. NCHRP Report 423A
    Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Prepared
    by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc., and Daniel K. Boyle
    of Transportation Management and Design. Prepared for FHWA National
    Cooperative Highway Research Program, 1999, 165pp.

> Available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Bookstore:
>
> [http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore](http://www.fta.dot.gov/cgi-bin/exitpage/go.pl?/cgi-bin/exitpage/go.pl?/cgi-bin/exitpage/go.pl?/cgi-bin/exitpage/go.pl?http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore)
>
> Website: <http://www.nas.edu/trb>

-   Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of
    Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456. Transportation Research
    Board, National Research Council. Prepared by David J. Forkenbrock,
    Public Policy Center, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA and Glen E.
    Weisbrod, Economic Development Research Group, Boston, MA Prepared
    for FHWA National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2001, 242pp.

> Available from the Transportation Research Board (TRB) Bookstore
> <http://www.nationalacademies.org/trb/bookstore/>
>
> Available online:
> <http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+25-19>

-   Issues in NEPA Litigation, William M. Cohen, Adjunct Professor and
    Consultant,\
    Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, DC

> <http://www.naep.org/NEPAWG/NEPA_Issues_1.html>

-   Toolbox for Regional Policy Analysis Website, Developed for the
    Federal Highway Administration, and Federal Transit Administration
    by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.

> <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/toolbox/index.htm>

-   FHWA Context Sensitive Solutions Website

> <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/102902.htm>

-   FHWA Flexibility in Highway Design Web Document

> <http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/flex/index.htm>