> Executive Order 13274
>
> Purpose and Need Work Group
>
> Baseline Report
>
> Revised Draft

March 15, 2005

**ICF Consulting conducted the research and prepared this draft report.
The report was reviewed by the Purpose and Need Work Group and
incorporates its comments and recommendations to the Task Force.**

**Acknowledgements**

This report was prepared under the direction of the Executive Order
13274 Purpose and Need Work Group, whose membership included the
following individuals.

Pamela Stephenson Federal Highway Administration, Work Group Chair

Dinah Bear Council on Environmental Quality

April Marchese Federal Highway Administration

Joseph Ossi Federal Transit Administration

Christopher VanWyk Federal Transit Administration

Lynne Pickard Federal Aviation Administration

Michon Washington Federal Aviation Administration

Joseph Burns US Fish and Wildlife Service

Ann Campbell Environmental Protection Agency

Tonya Code Environmental Protection Agency

James Gavin Environmental Protection Agency

Jennifer Moyer US Army Corps of Engineers

Charles Kirk Stark US Army Corps of Engineers

Ellen G LaFayette US Forest Service

The report was prepared by the following ICF Consulting staff:

Alan Summerville Senior Vice President

Michael Grant Project Manager

Brantley Fry Senior Associate

Todd Stribley Senior Associate

Neil Sullivan Senior Associate

**Table of Contents**

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[1. Purpose of Report 7](#purpose-of-report)

[2. How Laws and Regulations Address Purpose and Need Statements
7](#how-laws-and-regulations-address-purpose-and-need-statements)

[3. Challenges Associated with Developing Purpose and Need Statements
10](#challenges-associated-with-developing-purpose-and-need-statements)

[3.1 Crafting a Purpose and Need Statement
11](#crafting-a-purpose-and-need-statement)

[3.1.1 Characteristics of Good Purpose and Need Statements
12](#characteristics-of-good-purpose-and-need-statements)

[3.1.2 Appropriate Complexity and Length of a Statement
12](#appropriate-complexity-and-length-of-a-statement)

[3.1.3 Scope of the Statement 15](#scope-of-the-statement)

[3.1.4 Justification Supporting the Purpose and Need
17](#justification-supporting-the-purpose-and-need)

[3.1.5 Relationship to Transportation Planning Process
18](#relationship-to-transportation-planning-process)

[3.1.6 Evolving / Iterative Process for Developing the Statement
21](#evolving-iterative-process-for-developing-the-statement)

[3.1.7 Examples of Well-Crafted Purpose and Need Statements
22](#examples-of-well-crafted-purpose-and-need-statements)

[3.2 Purpose and Need Integration/Coordination with Other Laws
23](#purpose-and-need-integrationcoordination-with-other-laws)

[3.2.1 Deference to Lead Agency 23](#deference-to-lead-agency)

[3.2.2 NEPA/404 Merger Process 25](#nepa404-merger-process)

[3.3 Economic Development as part of the Transportation Purpose and Need
29](#economic-development-as-part-of-the-transportation-purpose-and-need)

[3.3.1 Appropriate Use of Economic Development in the Purpose and Need
Statement
29](#appropriate-use-of-economic-development-in-the-purpose-and-need-statement)

[3.3.2 Range of Alternatives that Should be Considered
31](#range-of-alternatives-that-should-be-considered)

[3.3.3 Concerns About Addressing Indirect Effects
32](#concerns-about-addressing-indirect-effects)

[4. Existing Guidance and Training on Purpose and Need Statements
32](#existing-guidance-and-training-on-purpose-and-need-statements)

[4.1 Guidance Documents 33](#guidance-documents)

[4.1.1 Federal Guidance 33](#federal-guidance)

[4.1.2 State-level Guidance 33](#state-level-guidance)

[4.2 Available Training Programs 34](#available-training-programs)

[4.3 Guidance and Training Needs 34](#guidance-and-training-needs)

[5. Recommendations for Next Steps 35](#recommendations-for-next-steps)

[Appendix A: Laws and Implementing Regulations, and Executive Orders
37](#appendix-a-laws-and-implementing-regulations-and-executive-orders)

[Appendix B: 1](#appendix-b)

[Agency Interview Discussion Questions
1](#agency-interview-discussion-questions)

[Appendix C: List of EISs Reviewed 1](#appendix-c-list-of-eiss-reviewed)

[Appendix D: Case Law 1](#appendix-d-case-law)

[Appendix E: Sample Purpose and Need Statements
1](#appendix-e-sample-purpose-and-need-statements)

[Appendix F: Guidance Documents 1](#appendix-f-guidance-documents)

[Appendix G: Training Courses 1](#appendix-g-training-courses)

# Executive Summary {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

This report presents baseline information developed for the Purpose and
Need Work Group to report to the Task Force established under the
Executive Order (EO) 13274, *Environmental Stewardship and
Transportation Infrastructure Project Review.* At the conclusion of the
report are the Work Group's recommendations for next steps for Task
Force consideration.

The identification and documentation of the purpose and need for a
proposed transportation infrastructure project are important components
of environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) and under certain other environmental laws and regulations. This
report is intended to provide an understanding of requirements and
resources relevant to purpose and need statements and of the associated
challenges. While the great majority of transportation projects do not
experience problems related to purpose and need, there have been
sufficient instances of problems and project delays attributed to
purpose and need to frustrate applicants and agencies, and to warrant
further examination and corrective action.

The report presents a summary of laws, regulations, and executive orders
that are related to purpose and need for transportation projects, as a
foundation for understanding the roles and responsibilities of Federal
agencies and how agencies interact on purpose and need. The report
identifies challenges and impediments that may result in agency
disagreements and project delays, based on a review of a sample of
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), analysis of case law, and
discussions with agency practitioners. The report also identifies
attributes of good purpose and need statements and opportunities for
improvements. Finally, the report contains information on guidance
documents and selected training programs, including an assessment of
guidance and training needs.

**Laws, Regulations, and Executive Orders**

Laws, executive orders, and regulations do not appear to conflict or
call for different approaches to the formulation or content of purpose
and need statements. The 404(b)(1) Guidelines issued under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, for permits by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
for discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United
States, including wetlands, is the only requirement outside of NEPA that
specifically calls for the development of a purpose statement. Other
laws, regulations, and executive orders identified in the report may
indirectly affect purpose and need. Section 4(f) of the Department of
Transportation Act, for example, imposes a substantive duty to determine
there is no feasible and prudent alternative, which implicitly requires
a robust project purpose and need to justify the determination.

Various agency responsibilities play a role in the Federal scrutiny
applied to purpose and need. Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the obligation to review
and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major Federal
actions, and EPA's implementing guidance includes EPA's review of the
technical adequacy and accuracy of the methodology used to demonstrate
the need for a project in cases where this affects the identification of
reasonable and feasible alternatives. Other instances arise due to
agency statutory responsibilities for protecting particular resources.
Resource agencies take a harder look to be satisfied that a project's
purpose and need provides a reasonable justification for potential
adverse effects on protected resources.

While impediments to purpose and need statements and the disagreements
that sometimes arise among Federal agencies do not appear to stem from
differences or conflicts written into the underlying laws, multiple laws
do assign to different Federal agencies environmental review and
permitting responsibilities that either explicitly or implicitly include
purpose and need considerations. In turn, these multiple agency
responsibilities sometimes result in different agency interpretations of
how a purpose and need statement should be scoped and written to meet
statutory requirements, what the statement should include, and whether
the statement for a particular project is justified and described
appropriately. Interlocking Federal agency responsibilities can
frustrate agencies and applicants alike when conflicting views of
purpose and need for an individual transportation project cause long
delays, extra work, and interagency disagreements that are aired in a
contentious public arena.

**Challenges Associated with Developing Purpose and Need Statements**

The challenges identified in the baseline report are categorized under
three subheadings:

1\) crafting a purpose and need statement, 2) purpose and need
integration/coordination with other laws, and 3) economic development as
part of the transportation purpose and need.

[Crafting a Purpose and Need Statement]{.underline}

Issues that sometimes arise relate to the appropriate complexity and
length of a purpose and need statement, the proper scope of purpose and
need (e.g., a narrow statement versus a broad need statement), and the
justification supporting purpose and need.

A good purpose and need statement should be concise, easy to read,
readily understandable, and focus on the essential needs and goals of
the project which generally relate to transportation issues (e.g.,
mobility, capacity, safety, reliability). It should be supported by data
justifying the need and should focus on the transportation problem
without being so narrowly focused that it constrains the range of
reasonable alternatives. Overly long and rambling statements muddy the
purpose and need and confuse reviewers. They may also heighten suspicion
that wordiness masks a weak project purpose and need.

Transportation agencies and resource agencies may add environmental
elements to purpose and need statements as desired goals or benefits of
the proposed project, without making them part of the stated purpose.
While environmental protection in general or protection of a particular
resource is important for any project and is the reason environmental
reviews are required, an environmental protection goal should not be
part of the purpose and need statement unless it is a primary purpose of
a transportation project (e.g., FAA has authority to approve grants for
airport noise projects, so noise mitigation would be a primary purpose
in such a case).

The scope of the purpose and need statement is important. Resource
agencies have expressed concern that transportation agencies are too
narrowly focused on the proposed project solution and define purpose and
need accordingly. Broader purpose and need statements might allow for a
wider range of reasonable alternatives. For example, it makes a
difference if the need is for improved ground transportation from Point
A to Point B, instead of the more specific need for a highway. Similar
examples can be provided for major airport infrastructure projects. On
the other hand, transportation agencies find that very broad definitions
of purpose and need, as well as wide-ranging alternatives, are usually
not within the range of what is reasonable, feasible, or prudent. At the
same time, broader scope should not be neglected where it is
appropriate. There is fertile ground for improved interagency guidance
on the proper scoping of purpose and need, including when statements are
too narrow and when broader statements are unreasonable.

[Purpose and Need Integration/Coordination with Other Laws]{.underline}

FHWA and FTA have issued a joint legal memorandum and guidance (February
2005) that present how the transportation planning process can be linked
with the NEPA decision making process, especially for purpose and need
statements and alternative development. The transportation planning
process and the NEPA process work in harmony when the planning process
provides the basis or foundation for the purpose and need statement in a
NEPA document. To the extent regional or systems-level analyses and
choices in the transportation planning process help to form the purpose
and need statement for a NEPA document, such planning products should be
given great weight by FHWA and FTA, consistent with Congressional and
Court direction to respect local sovereignty in planning.

In addition to NEPA, DOT and other Federal agencies are responsible for
complying with other environmental laws that have requirements
influencing purpose and need. These include, but are not limited to, the
Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, etc. Interagency
disagreements over purpose and need can occur as agencies view projects
through the lens of their particular interests and strive to comply with
multiple laws as individually interpreted by the different agencies.
Questions arise about the appropriate level of discretion for a lead
agency, the underlying need for a proposed action, and the appropriate
level of review by and authority of resource agencies. The most common
disagreements are between DOT agencies and the resource agencies that
have jurisdiction over a potentially affected resource.

The deference due to the lead agency and the responsibility of the lead
agency in the development of project purpose and need has received
recent attention. Vision 100---Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
signed into law in December 2003, directly addresses this issue by
establishing a coordinated environmental review process for airport
capacity enhancement projects and designated aviation safety and
security projects. Agencies participating in such a coordinated
environmental review process are directed by law to be bound by the
project purpose and need as defined by the Secretary of Transportation
with respect to any environmental review, analysis, opinion, permit,
license, or approval.

In 2003, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in a letter exchange
with DOT addressed agency deference for the NEPA process. According to
the 2003 letter from CEQ's James Connaughton to Secretary Mineta, "Joint
lead or cooperating agencies should afford substantial deference to the
DOT agency's articulation of purpose and need." FTA/FHWA guidance issued
in 2003 expands on some of the points made in the letter from CEQ by
stating that other Federal agencies should only raise questions
regarding DOT's purpose and need statements when those questions relate
to substantive or procedural problems important to that agency\'s
independent legal responsibilities.

However, there still remain outstanding questions about the practical
application of deference as agencies carry out their environmental
review and permit responsibilities at the project level. Interagency
guidance offering more practical details on deference, perhaps using
case study examples, would be useful.

The report cites the NEPA/404 merger process as an example of how the
NEPA environmental review process can be consolidated with another
requirement, obtaining a permit for discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the U.S., under Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act. This has proved to be a useful and fairly efficient approach for
many highway projects, where Section 404 purpose and need issues are
most commonly encountered. However, experience in some states is mixed
and there continues to be rough spots. Under NEPA, a purpose and need
statement should be written broadly enough to support a reasonable range
of alternatives. Under Section 404, a project purpose statement must
support an evaluation of "practicable" alternatives. "Reasonable" and
"practicable" are defined by the regulations implementing NEPA and
Section 404, respectively. Ideally, to streamline the environmental
review process, the alternatives considered under NEPA would satisfy
Section 404 requirements. In practice, this does not always happen, for
example, because the NEPA project purpose and need statement, from which
project alternatives are identified, is developed before the Section 404
permitting process is initiated. As a result, the alternatives
considered under NEPA may be different than those considered during the
Section 404 environmental review process. Problems arise when the least
environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the aquatic
environment, as identified under Section 404, was not included in the
NEPA evaluation of alternatives. While merger agreements get all
decision makers to the table early, which is helpful in understanding
the overall purpose and need for the transportation project, it is also
important to identify aquatic resources involvement as early as
possible. This allows for a Section 404 project purpose statement to be
identified in a timely fashion that results in an analysis of
alternatives complementary to the NEPA analysis.

An issue worthy of further exploration is the extent to which
differences in the application of NEPA and Section 404 by Federal
agencies actually drive differences in approaches to purpose and need.
It can be problematic for a project, as well as confusing and
frustrating for an applicant, if a Section 404 project purpose is
different from the transportation purpose of the lead agency and leads
to different alternatives that may not address the key transportation
needs.

[Economic Development as part of the Transportation Purpose and
Need]{.underline}

Although not a common occurrence, the inclusion of economic development
as a sole purpose and need can be controversial and raise uncertainties
for both the transportation agency and resource agencies. In these
cases, the primary issue is the question of whether or not economic
development is an appropriate justification for transportation projects.
It is not a primary or sole justification used for airport or transit
infrastructure projects. Other issues involve the range of alternatives
(especially non-transportation), and the degree of examination of
indirect impacts associated with secondary development. Conflicts may
also arise when economic development is considered as part of a project
purpose and need and further examination of these cases is warranted.

**Guidance and Training**

While various individual agency guidance materials and a number of
training courses include purpose and need, they do not specifically
address how to manage the cross-agency purpose and need concerns
identified by agencies and applicants, and described in this baseline
report. Individual agency interpretative guidance on purpose and need,
in fact, appears to be a contributing factor to a stovepipe approach
that can lead to disconnects and disagreements among Federal agencies.

**Recommendations**

Based on the information compiled in this baseline report and building
upon the existing guidance issued by CEQ in 2003 and Vision 100
legislation as appropriate, the Purpose and Need Work Group recommend
additional work in order of priority that should be endorsed and
promoted by the Task Force agencies.

1.  That additional investigation should focus on the extent to which
    Federal agency interpretations and applications of laws and other
    requirements within their jurisdiction are causing purpose and need
    conflicts, the key drivers of the conflicts (e.g., different
    approaches to purpose and need under NEPA and Section 404), and
    options for avoiding or resolving conflicts. Case studies of
    previous projects that experienced substantial problems may be used
    to identify areas that need particular attention. Case studies of
    complex or controversial projects that successfully avoided
    conflicts at purpose and need may also illustrate good practices of
    where the process worked well.

2.  That additional guidance should be developed to clarify the roles of
    lead transportation agencies and other engaged agencies in achieving
    purpose and need statements for transportation projects that give
    appropriate deference to transportation agencies so that projects
    are not subjected to long delays as agencies grapple with
    differences. When dealing with deference, it is important to
    maintain the integrity of other agencies' responsibilities and to
    comply with all applicable environmental requirements. Case studies
    may also be useful for this task.

3.  That the Work Group begin to develop interagency guidance addressing
    the need for responsibly scoped, concise, and clearly written
    purpose and need statements. The guidance should include examples of
    appropriate and well-crafted purpose and need statements. The
    guidance should also provide advice on what special considerations
    apply, if any, in two circumstances: 1) if economic development is
    the sole purpose and need for a project; and 2) when economic
    development is considered as part of the purpose and need for a
    project.

# Purpose of Report

This report presents baseline information developed for the Purpose and
Need Work Group established under Executive Order (EO) 13274,
*Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project
Reviews.*  This document is designed for the EO Task Force and for
practitioners in transportation and resource agencies to provide a
baseline understanding of requirements and resources relevant to purpose
and need statements, challenges being faced that sometimes lead to
project delays, and mechanisms to improve the development of purpose and
need statements. Drawing on the results of literature reviews, reviews
of environmental impact statements (EISs), and discussions with over 40
practitioners (federal transportation agencies, federal resource
agencies, state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning
organizations, and consultants), the report describes laws and
regulations, case law, guidance documents, and selected training
available relevant to purpose and need. It is organized in three main
sections:

1.  *How Laws and Regulations Address Purpose and Need Statements
    (Section 2)* -- This section presents a summary of laws,
    regulations, and executive orders as they relate to project purpose
    and need for transportation projects, as a basis for understanding
    the roles and responsibilities of Federal agencies in the context of
    these requirements.

2.  *Challenges Associated with Developing Purpose and Need Statements
    (Section 3)* -- This section provides a summary of key issues and
    impediments faced when developing purpose and need statements, based
    on a review of EISs, analysis of case law, and discussions with
    practitioners. This section is organized around three issues
    identified in the Purpose and Need Work Group's Work Plan: 1)
    crafting a purpose and need statement; 2) purpose and need
    integration/coordination with other laws, and 3) economic
    development as part of the purpose and need. It identifies
    attributes of good purpose and need statements and opportunities to
    improve development of such statements.

3.  *Guidance Materials and Training Programs (Section 4)* -- This
    section contains information on guidance documents and selected
    training programs relevant to purpose and need. It also includes an
    assessment of guidance and training needs, based on discussions with
    staff from Federal, State, and local agencies.

The report concludes with *Recommended Next Steps (Section 5)* for Task
Force review.

# How Laws and Regulations Address Purpose and Need Statements

The Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for
implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1502.13) require a brief discussion of
"purpose and need" of a proposed action in order to provide context and
understanding of alternatives developed. The regulations state that the
purpose and need statement "shall briefly specify the underlying purpose
and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives
including the proposed action." The purpose and need statement is
essentially the foundation of the NEPA decision-making process. It
provides the rationale and justification for undertaking a major federal
action. It also affects the range of alternatives to be studied, and
ultimately, the selected alternative. The purpose and need and the
alternatives are weighed against potential environmental impacts in
agency environmental reviews and decision-making processes.

The DOT is the "lead federal agency" under NEPA for transportation
projects that it funds or approves, and as such, has the responsibility
to define the purpose and need. At the same time, DOT and other federal
agencies may have responsibilities under other laws and regulations that
relate to the purpose and need statement.

Having a well-justified purpose and need is vital to meeting the
requirements of several laws and regulations, including Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303), Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act. Although the development of a purpose and need statement is not
specifically addressed in some of these law and regulations, several of
them have requirements regarding the consideration of alternatives,
which in turn, requires a well-defined project purpose and need
statement to frame the development of alternatives. Without a
well-defined and justified purpose and need, it will be difficult to
determine which alternatives are reasonable, prudent and practicable,
and it may be impossible to dismiss the no-build alternative. *Appendix
A* includes a summary description of all laws, regulations, and
executive orders identified that that relate to the development of
purpose and need statements. These include the following:

-   Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers is responsible for defining the purpose of the project in
    consideration of issuance of a permit for discharge of dredged or
    fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.
    The project purpose is used for evaluating practicable alternatives
    under the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the substantive
    environmental criteria used in evaluating such discharges. The
    Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines requires the Corps to prepare the
    project purpose statement; determine if there are alternatives to
    first avoid, and then minimize adverse impacts to aquatic resources;
    and select the least environmentally damaging practicable
    alternative (LEDPA). The Corps permit regulations (33 CFR 320-331)
    state that, as a general matter, the Corps assumes that proposed
    projects are economically viable and that there is need for a
    project. However, the regulations also state that the Corps may
    question the need for the project from the public interest
    perspective, if circumstances warrant it. Under its CWA Section 404
    authorities, EPA is responsible for the development and
    interpretation of the environmental criteria used by the Corps in
    evaluating permit applications and maintains a review and comment
    role in the issuance of Section 404 permits.

-   Under Section 4(f), DOT may not approve the use of land from a
    significant publicly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife
    and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site unless a
    determination is made that: (i) There is no feasible and prudent
    alternative to the use of land from the property; and (ii) The
    action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the
    property resulting from such use.

-   Under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, EPA has the obligation to
    review and publicly comment on the environmental impacts of major
    federal actions including actions that are the subject of EISs.
    According to EPA guidance on its review responsibilities, as part of
    its review, EPA may comment on the technical adequacy and accuracy
    of the methodology used to demonstrate the need of the project in
    cases where this affects the identification of reasonable and
    feasible alternatives.

-   Under Section 106 Regulations of the National Historic Preservation
    Act, SHPO/THPOs, Indian tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations,
    other consulting parties, and organizations and individuals who may
    be concerned with the possible effects of an agency action on
    historic properties should be prepared to consult with agencies
    early in the NEPA process, when the purpose of and need for the
    proposed action as well as the widest possible range of alternatives
    are under consideration. (36 CFR 800.8(a)(2))

-   Executive Order 11990 on Wetlands directs agencies to avoid to the
    extent possible the long and short term adverse impacts associated
    with the destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct
    or indirect support of new construction in wetlands wherever there
    is a practicable alternative.

-   Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, as amended by
    Executive Order 12148, directs agencies, in furtherance of NEPA, the
    National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 and the Flood Disaster
    Protection Act of 1973, to avoid to the extent possible the long and
    short term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and
    modification of floodplains and to avoid direct or indirect support
    of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable
    alternative.

The various laws, regulations, and executive orders do not appear to
conflict with NEPA in regard to how purpose and need statements should
be written or what content should be included in order to comply with
legal requirements. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines are the only
regulations outside of NEPA's implementing regulations that specifically
call for development of a purpose statement. In accordance with the
Application for Department of the Army Permit (33 CFR 325), block 19,
Project Purpose, and its associated instructions, the applicant must
"Describe the purpose and need for the proposed project. What it will be
used for and why? Also include a brief description of any related
activities to be developed as the result of the proposed project. Give
the approximate dates you plan to begin and complete all work." All the
other laws, regulations, or executive orders primarily relate to
examination and selection of alternatives for the project, which in
turn, must rely on a valid and supported purpose and need statement.

As a result, it appears that any impediments to developing purpose and
need statements, and disagreements that sometimes arise among Federal
agencies do not stem from differences or conflicts in the underlying
laws. However, multiple laws do assign to different Federal agencies
environmental review and permitting responsibilities that either
explicitly or implicitly include purpose and need considerations. In
turn, these multiple agency responsibilities sometimes result in
different agency interpretations of how a purpose and need statement
should be scoped and written to meet statutory requirements, what the
statement should include, and whether the statement for a particular
project is justified and described appropriately. Interlocking Federal
agency responsibilities can frustrate agencies and applicants alike when
conflicting views of purpose and need for an individual transportation
project cause long delays, extra work, and interagency disagreements
that are aired in a contentious public arena.

Disagreements sometimes engender disputes over the roles and
responsibilities of resource agencies with respect to the purpose and
need statement, and to what extent they should defer to the lead
transportation agency. There have been recent efforts both within the
executive and legislative branch to address this issue. In 2003, CEQ
issued a letter addressing the deference that should be afforded by
joint lead or cooperating agencies to DOT on transportation projects in
the NEPA process. Joint FTA/FHWA guidance, also issued in 2003, expands
on some of the points in the CEQ letter.

Vision 100---Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, signed into law in
December 2003, directly addresses this issue by establishing a
coordinated environmental review process for airport capacity
enhancement projects and designated aviation safety and security
projects. Agencies participating in such a coordinated environmental
review process are directed by law to be bound by the project purpose
and need as defined by the Secretary of Transportation with respect to
any environmental review, analysis, opinion, permit, license, or
approval.

There still remain outstanding questions about the practical application
of deference as agencies carry out their environmental responsibilities
at the project level.

# Challenges Associated with Developing Purpose and Need Statements

The Purpose and Need Work Group identified three issues as potential
sources of interagency disagreement and delay in the environmental
review process related to purpose and need:

1)  *Crafting a Purpose and Need Statement* -- Questions often arise
    regarding what information and justification should be included in a
    purpose and need statement, and how broad or narrow the scope should
    be in order to satisfy the requirements of the NEPA and other laws.

2)  *Purpose and Need Integration/Coordination With Other Laws***.** As
    noted earlier, in addition to NEPA, DOT is responsible for complying
    with environmental laws that have particular requirements governing
    purpose/need and alternatives, and other Federal agencies also have
    responsibilities under NEPA and other environmental laws that bear
    on transportation projects. Agency disagreements over project
    purpose and need can result in disparate judgments on reasonable
    alternatives, and different agency judgments on alternatives that
    need to be considered to comply with applicable laws can raise basic
    questions on project purpose and need.

3)  *Economic Development as part of the Transportation Purpose and
    Need.* There is confusion over the identification of economic
    development as part of the purpose and need for a transportation
    project.

This section discusses each of these issues, and other related
observations regarding the state of the practice related to purpose and
need statements, drawing from a review of case law, discussions with
NEPA practitioners from both DOT and resource agencies (see *Appendix B*
for a list of discussion questions), and through a review of
transportation related EISs (see *Appendix C* for a list of EISs
reviewed). It discusses common characteristics of purpose and need
statements and characteristics that transportation and resource agency
staff agree make for a good purpose and need statement. It also
addresses the NEPA/404 merger process, and how this has worked to
resolve or create challenges in regard to developing purpose and need
statements.

Throughout this discussion, it is important to note that while DOT and
resource agency staff indicated that they do encounter impediments on
some projects, many of the staff members stated that purpose and need
statements are not a source of project delay for most projects. The
projects that do encounter impediments tend to be large and
controversial, and may have notable effects on wetlands, threatened or
endangered species, or land use. In general, FTA projects tend to have
fewer interagency disagreements associated with purpose and need
statements than FAA and FHWA projects, likely because transit projects
typically occur in built environments with comparatively less impact on
regulated natural resources (e.g., wetlands or threatened or endangered
species) than highway or aviation projects, and tend to face less
controversy regarding evaluation of alternatives compared to other
transportation projects.

## Crafting a Purpose and Need Statement

Questions often arise regarding what information should be included in a
purpose and need statement in order to satisfy the requirements of NEPA
and other laws. Issues that sometimes arise relate to: (1) the
appropriate complexity and length of a purpose and need statement, (2)
the scope of the statement (e.g., a narrow statement versus a broad
statement), and (3) the justification supporting the purpose and need,
among other issues.

In addition to DOT, purpose and need statements for transportation
purposes are shaped by the State departments of transportation (State
DOTs), metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), and transit and
airport authorities that propose projects. For highway projects, FHWA
and the State DOTs tend to work as a team in preparing the purpose and
need statement, with the State DOT usually crafting the statement and
FHWA reviewing and advising on the statement. The level of involvement
of the FHWA staff varies by project. For airport projects, FAA is a
granting agency that reviews the purpose and need statement provided by
an applicant (i.e., sponsor of a public use airport) in comparison to
FAA's forecast of aviation need. FAA must be satisfied and take
responsibility for the purpose and need statement in the NEPA document.

Some uncertainties or problems that have been encountered in the
development of purpose and need statements may relate to poor
understanding of characteristics of good purpose and need statements by
project sponsors or others. In other cases, there are interagency
disagreements about how the purpose and need is defined.

### Characteristics of Good Purpose and Need Statements

Practitioners generally agree on characteristics that make a good
purpose and need statement:

-   The statement should be concise, easy-to-read, and readily
    understandable.

-   It should focus on essential needs and goals for the project, which
    generally relate to transportation issues (e.g., mobility, safety,
    reliability); it should be careful to delineate other desirable
    elements (e.g., environmental protection, scenic improvements) as
    separate from the purpose and need.

-   It should be supported by data that justifies the need. The data may
    be included in a discussion of background, as an appendix or on file
    in the administrative record.

-   It should focus on the problems that need to be addressed, and for
    which a proposed project is being considered, (e.g., the purpose is
    to improve safety along a highway segment that has a high accident
    rate), and should not be written in a way that focuses on the
    solution or too narrowly constrains the range of alternatives (e.g.,
    the purpose is to widen the highway).

Although these characteristics seem "common sense", purpose and need
statements often fall short in some of these areas, particularly
regarding the length and complexity of the statement. The discussion
below describes some of the common problems encountered and some of the
opportunities for improvement.

### Appropriate Complexity and Length of a Statement

One of the larger problems with purpose and need statements (and some
would say with EISs in general) is their length and complexity. Many
purpose and need statements for proposed transportation projects are
over ten pages long and encompass a wide range of different purposes and
needs, making it difficult for the public and resource agencies to
discern the core needs motivating the proposed project. Although the
purpose and need statement is designed to provide a concise description
to the public and decision makers about why the project is being
proposed, it often becomes difficult to identify the primary need if a
wide range of needs are discussed.

The following is a brief summary of the purpose and need statements from
EISs reviewed for this report:

-   FTA -- Of eight EISs reviewed, the purpose and need statements
    tended to be long (more than 10 pages) with detailed background and
    historical information.

-   FAA -- Of six EISs reviewed, the purpose and need statements tended
    to focus on the role of FAA to approve or not approve the proposal
    brought before the Agency by a project sponsor (e.g., airport
    authority); the statements focused on safety considerations, airport
    capacity, airspace constraints, and noise issues associated with the
    proposals.

-   FHWA -- Of the 17 EISs reviewed, the length of the purpose and need
    statements varied from 5 to 32 pages. Most of these documents had a
    brief purpose statement followed by a detailed and much more lengthy
    need statement.

The general consensus among DOT and resource agency staff members
participating in discussions was that the purpose and need statement
should be concise, meaning no more than about one page in length,
although it could be supported by a discussion of background/context or
more detail on the problems being addressed. Recent guidance documents
from CEQ and FHWA call for the development of a short statement.
According to a letter from James Connaughton of CEQ to DOT Secretary
Mineta (May 2003), the purpose and need statement should "typically be
only one or two paragraphs long." In its Joint Guidance on Purpose and
Need, FHWA and FTA acknowledge, "While a short purpose and need
statement may not be possible for a few transportation projects, every
effort should be made to develop a concise purpose and need statement
that focuses on the primary transportation challenges to be addressed."

Common problems occur when purpose and need statements do not focus on
the primary purpose and need for a project and mix secondary goals and
objectives with the purpose and need. Some of the FHWA EISs that were
reviewed included a discussion of all possible elements that can be
considered benefits of the project rather than addressing the main need.
Extraneous information can lead to imprecise, long, and confusing
purpose and need statements. Such statements are perceived by some
resource agencies as not disclosing the underlying need and either
purposely or inadvertently clouding the issues that form the basis for
the proposed action.

Sometimes jargon and complex language also make the statement difficult
to read. Staff charged with writing the purpose and need statement need
to know how to write clearly and in simple terms. The statement needs to
be written for the general public, and not use overly complex
terminology. The CEQ NEPA regulations require agencies to write
documents in plain English and make them accessible to the general
public. Lengthy and disorganized purpose and need statements hinder both
public and resource agency understanding of the need for and purpose of
a proposed transportation project. Without a clear understanding of the
primary purpose and need, resource agencies will sometimes provide
comments on possible alternatives that do not always match the DOT
agency's desired range of alternatives based on the primary need.

The general consensus among the agency staff members participating in
the discussions is that the purpose and need for a project should focus
on the primary transportation problem(s) and goal for the project. It
should lay out clearly:

1)  the "purpose," which states why the project is being proposed and
    articulates the positive outcomes that are intended;

2)  

Typically, the purpose and need statement should be preceded by a
background section that provides the context and sets the stage for the
purpose and need statement. Such information could include information
on the long-range transportation plans that were used to support the
purpose and need, background on an existing facility, or the role and
authority of the agency.

Following the purpose and need statement, a section on "desirable"
outcomes that are not the central purpose can be identified. The
discussion of secondary goals and objectives should be distinct from the
purpose and need. These attributes should not be used as the main factor
in determining which alternatives should be analyzed or carried forward
but can be used in order to support selection of a preferred
alternative. Staff members suggested that safety, mobility, and capacity
should usually be the main purposes of transportation projects, and that
clearly identifying the essential needs rather than a long list of
desirable attributes would provide for a clear and concise purpose and
need statement.

Several examples of muddied purpose and need statements were provided by
practitioners. For instance, one State DOT staff person described a
project where safety was clearly the primary purpose of a highway
improvement project, but the purpose and need was expanded to include
other issues. In this case, the facility was in a mountainous area on a
roadway with a high rate of crashes and serious fatalities, including
conflicts between personal vehicles and 18-wheeler trucks. Based on
input from environmental and community groups, the desire for
recreational opportunities for hikers and bicyclists in the area also
made its way into the purpose and need statement. This created problems
because each of the alternatives being developed then included
hiker/biker trails, even though incorporating such facilities into the
terrain and maintaining the focus on safety would be extremely
difficult. Ultimately, the purpose and need was revised to recognize the
core need of the project was safety and other aspects fell in the
category of "desirable" attributes or objectives.

Another individual described a project to replace a crumbling bridge in
the vicinity of a historically important and heavily used state park.
Although the primary purpose of the project was clearly to make the
bridge safe, preservation of the park also made its way in as part of
the purpose and need statement. In this case, it took six months of
discussions to reach agreement on the purpose and need, which ultimately
included twelve objectives related to preservation of the park. In this
case, agency negotiations were perceived as adding delay in a case where
the primary purpose and need was clear and should have been simple to
develop.

For certain projects, environmental protection may be the primary
purpose. For example, FAA has legislative authority to fund airport
noise compatibility projects and certain airport emissions projects.
However, for the bulk of transportation projects, most staff across
federal agencies agreed that although environmental protection and
community enhancement are important goals, these issues should not be a
part of the purpose and need statement itself. This approach is
supported by guidance documents from Utah and Oregon DOTs that promote
inclusion of a goals and objectives section that can include information
beyond the core purpose and need.

### Scope of the Statement 

Disagreements can sometimes arise regarding the scope of the statement
and its degree of specificity. This problem sometimes arises if the
purpose and need statement is written too narrowly focusing on the
solution rather than the problems that the proposed action is designed
to address.

Court decisions indicate that the purpose and need for a proposed
project cannot be defined in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one
alternative would accomplish the goals of the project (*City of New York
v. U.S. Department of Transportation,* 715 F.2d 732 (2^nd^ Cir 1983),
appeal dismissed 465 U.S. 1055 (1984)). In *Citizens Against Burlington
v. Busey*, 938 F.2d 190, 198 (DC Cir 1991), the Court ruled that an
agency "may not define the objectives of its action in terms so
unreasonably narrow that only one alternative...would accomplish the
goals of the agency\'s action, and the EIS would become a foreordained
formality. Nor may any agency frame its goals in terms so unreasonably
broad that an infinite number of alternatives would accomplish these
goals and the project would collapse under the weight of the
possibilities."

Courts typically defer to agency judgment in defining goals of proposed
projects so long as the statement is reasonable. The court in *Trout
Unlimited v. Morton*, 509 F. 2d 1276 (9^th^ Cir. 1974) found that an
agency need not consider all of the possible alternative actions in the
environmental analysis; it is only required to look at those that are
reasonable in light of the project's stated purpose. In *Citizens
Against Burlington v. Busey*, 938 F.2d 190, 199 (DC Cir 1991), the Court
ruled that the decision focused on whether or not to approve an airport
plan, and not on the applicant's rational for selecting which airport to
expand. The D.C. Circuit stated that "NEPA commands agencies to discuss
alternatives to the proposed 'major Federal actions . . . and not to
alternatives to the applicant\'s proposal.'"(See *Appendix D* for a
summary of case law addressing purpose and need.)

In some cases, resource agencies have expressed concern that
transportation agencies are too narrowly focused on solutions that
address only one mode, or fail to recognize options that do not involve
development of infrastructure. For instance, FHWA may be proposing a
highway project, but some resource agency staff feel that the project
purpose and need statement should be written in a way that allows
non-highway infrastructure alternatives, such as consideration of
transit, demand management, and improved transportation system
management. For example, rather than stating that "the purpose of the
proposed project is to expand highway capacity from point A to point B"
a broader statement may read "the purpose of the proposed project is to
improve mobility of people, goods, and services between point A and
point B." Broader statements might allow for alternatives to highway
capacity, such as providing enhanced transit services and demand
management to improve mobility and reduce congestion, or reducing speed
limits to improve safety.

Transportation agency staff acknowledge the difficulty of examining
multi-modal alternatives and options that extend beyond infrastructure
development. Development of multi-modal alternatives is often
challenging or nonproductive due to the obstacles in responding to a
transportation demand with an alternate modal solution. The
transportation agency view is that very broad definitions of purpose and
need, as well as wide-ranging alternatives, are usually not within the
range of what is reasonable, feasible, or prudent---but broader scope
should not be neglected where it is appropriate. Institutional factors
can also play a role, given the modal structure of most transportation
authorities and agencies, and the expertise of staff involved in the
study. An example of a NEPA document considering multimodal alternatives
is a Federal Railroad Administration's EIS that looked at building a
high speed rail system through most of California. In this case, the
purpose and need statement was written broadly enough to allow for the
consideration of alternatives in the EIS that involved a combination of
airport and highway expansion to move people between the various
locations studied for the rail system. The nature of a high-speed rail
system is somewhat unique. Most surface transportation projects come out
of a long-range planning process, and the modal option is already
determined by the time a project is going through an EIS.

FHWA staff sometimes struggle to resolve issues regarding the proper
scope of the purpose and need statement and consideration of broader
alternatives with resource agencies. In an attempt to resolve these
issues when they involve cooperating agencies, FHWA has consulted with
the CEQ on the deference that should be provided to the lead Federal
agency in the preparation of the purpose and need statement during the
NEPA process. Also, FHWA/FTA encourage the transportation planning
process for long range plans to review different modes of transportation
and link the various modes of transportation. In some metropolitan
areas, the highway agencies are trying to engage the resource agencies
in the transportation planning process so that they have earlier input
on purpose and need statements.

Similarly, for FAA projects that involve siting new airports or
increasing major airport capacity, resource agencies sometimes perceive
that FAA purpose and need statements are too narrowly focused. They
would like to see statements that allow for a broader range of
alternatives, such as expansion of a different airport or alternate
airport locations. However, FAA's view is that far-reaching alternatives
are not usually reasonable when evaluated in light of a thorough
knowledge of aviation factors, the growing national and international
demand for air transportation, practical and environmental expansion
constraints of other airports, and the inability of such alternatives to
be implemented. For airport projects, the purpose and need and range of
alternatives are also constrained by the nature of the mode (i.e.,
alternative airports are extremely difficult to locate and to finance)
and the lack of alternative project applicants, which are generally
local airport authorities and air service providers. FAA conducts
discussions to educate FAA project staff of the concerns of the resource
agencies, as well as to educate the staff of the resource agencies of
the aviation factors and extent of authority of FAA.

### Justification Supporting the Purpose and Need 

Data to support the stated need for a project is important in order to
justify the need and ensure greater interagency and public understanding
of why the project is being proposed. The inclusion of vague or suspect
information into a purpose and need statement and the lack of data were
identified as deficiencies that sometimes lead to interagency
disagreement and/or project delays. As an example, one FHWA staff person
identified a project where safety was initially identified as a project
purpose, but the accident data did not support the need. As a result,
the statement was revised to focus on economic development.

One point of disagreement that sometimes occurs regarding justification
for a purpose and need statement is the use of local plans and zoning.
Resource agencies in some cases are uncomfortable when DOT agencies use
these documents as justification for a project's need since a
jurisdiction may have re-zoned an area to make way for and support
future development that is contingent on a highway project. Therefore,
using the local planning documents to support the need for a project may
create a self-fulfilling prophesy. In such cases, the resource agencies
may note that it was the highway project that caused the rezoning or
expected development. Transportation agencies, on the other hand, feel
that they must rely on the local land use plans as a baseline for growth
that is expected or desired for a region.

[]{.mark}

Aviation forecasting data is usually an important input into
demonstrating the need for an airport project. For FAA projects,
resource agency staff indicated that they sometimes question whether FAA
performs its own analysis of the forecast data provided by an applicant,
as such data are often the basis for the purpose and need statement. FAA
staff indicated that they do independently analyze the data provided by
an applicant, and a review of airport EISs found that FAA typically
includes an extensive background discussion within the purpose and need
section that clarifies the role, authority, and procedure implemented by
FAA in preparing an EIS, which includes a review of planning and
forecast data provided by an applicant in comparison with FAA's own
data. FAA performs additional analysis, as necessary to be satisfied
that the underlying support for the purpose and need of a proposed
project is sound. In cases where FAA and the project sponsor disagree on
the forecast data that underlies the need for a project, the difference
of opinion is normally resolved based on further analysis. Both the FAA
and sponsor positions may be presented in the EIS. In a few rare cases
where FAA did not find sufficient aviation need to support a grant and
there were no environmental or other reasons to prohibit the project,
FAA, approved the airport layout plan to allow the sponsor to implement
the project with its own funds, but did not commit Federal financial
resources to implement the project.

### Relationship to Transportation Planning Process

FHWA and FTA have issued a joint legal memorandum and guidance (February
2005) that present how the transportation planning process can be linked
with the NEPA decision making process. Most of the remainder of this
section is excerpted from the legal memorandum from D.J. Gribbin, Chief
Counsel of FHWA to Cindy Burbank and David Vossolo.

[]{.mark}

The transportation planning process and the NEPA process work in harmony
when the planning process provides the basis or foundation for the
purpose and need statement in a NEPA document. To the extent regional or
systems-level analyses and choices in the transportation planning
process help to form the purpose and need statement for a NEPA document,
such planning products should be given great weight by FHWA and FTA,
consistent with Congressional and Court direction to respect local
sovereignty in planning.

[]{.mark}

The transportation planning process required by 23 U.S.C. 134 and 135
and 49 U.S.C. 5303-5306 sets the stage for future development of
transportation projects. As part of the transportation planning process,
States and local metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) must develop
long-range transportation plans to address projected transportation
needs. In addition, they must create transportation improvement programs
(TIPs or STIPs), which identify a list of priority projects to be
carried out in the next three years to implement the plan. To receive
Federal funding, transportation projects must come from a TIP or STIP.
As a result, much of the data and decision making undertaken by state
and local officials during the planning process carry forward into the
project development activities that follow the TIP or STIP. This means
that the planning process and the environmental assessment required
during project development by the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4231 *et seq.*) should work in tandem, with the
results of the transportation planning process feeding into the NEPA
process. Congress has put great emphasis on the transportation planning
process for shaping transportation decisions, and has retained and
refined that emphasis in surface transportation law over decades.

Transportation agency staff and others indicated that ideally, the
purpose and need for highway and transit projects should come out of the
long-range transportation planning process. That is the point at which
systemwide needs are analyzed and projects are moved forward for
programming. In practice, though, the environmental analyses produced
during the NEPA process are sometimes disconnected from the analyses
used to prepare transportation plans, transportation improvement
programs, and supporting corridor or subarea studies. Analyses and
decisions occurring during transportation planning can be ignored or
redone in the NEPA process, resulting in a duplication of work and
delays in implementation of transportation projects. However,
transportation practitioners acknowledge that the hand off between
planning and project development is not often done well and resource
agencies may not accept planning decisions and analysis for use in NEPA.

The Major Investment Study (MIS) process was supposed to help create the
linkage between long-range planning and project development by requiring
an MIS study to be conducted as part of the metropolitan planning
process. The MIS focused on a single major investment or corridor and
involved identification of a "locally preferred alternative." In
practice, however, when an MIS was conducted prior to NEPA, the results
often did not transfer directly to the NEPA document, and when the MIS
was conducted during the NEPA process, little value was added. As a
result, the MIS requirement was eliminated by Congress in TEA-21.

For studies, analyses or conclusions from the transportation planning
process to be used in the NEPA process, they must meet certain standards
established by NEPA. This is because the information and products coming
from the planning process must be sufficiently comprehensive that the
Federal government may reasonably rely upon them in its NEPA analysis
and documentation. Transportation planning processes vary greatly from
locality to locality. Some transportation planning processes will
already meet these standards, while others might need some modification
to do so. The purpose and need statement in a NEPA document is where the
planning process and the NEPA process most clearly intersect. A sound
planning process is a primary source of the project purpose and need. It
is through the planning process that state and local governments
determine what the transportation needs of an area are, which of
transportation needs they wish to address, and in what time frame they
wish to address them. Indeed, that is what the law requires from the
planning process and actually prevents projects that do not come from
the planning process from going forward.

[]{.mark}

The purpose and need statement, at a minimum, is a statement of the
transportation problem to be solved by the proposed project. It is often
presented in two parts: broad goals and objectives, and a description of
the transportation conditions (congestion, safety, etc.) underlying the
problem. The long-range transportation plan also includes goals and
objectives similar to "purpose and need" but on a broader scale, since
it typically covers a wider area and spans at least twenty years. These
goals and objectives are often identified through extensive public
outreach, sometimes called "visioning" or "alternative futures"
exercises. The purpose and need statement for a transportation project
should be consistent with and based on the goals and objectives
developed during the planning process.

[]{.mark}

Getting input from Federal agencies as transportation goals and
objectives are developed during the planning process is advisable and
would be consistent with the cooperative relationship envisioned by
statute and reinforced by courts. Such participation would give Federal
agencies a better insight into the needs and objectives of the locality
and would also provide an important opportunity for Federal concerns to
be identified and addressed early in the process. These concerns could
include issues that might be raised by Federal agencies in considering
permit applications for projects designed to implement the
transportation plan. However, the responsibility for local planning lies
with the metropolitan planning organization or the State, not the
Federal government.

[]{.mark}

In many cases, the goals and objectives in the transportation plan are
supported by a needs assessment and problem statement describing current
transportation problems to be addressed. Although the goals and
objectives in the long-range transportation plan will be broader than
what is appropriate for a specific project, they can be the foundation
for the purpose and need to be used in a NEPA document. For example,
they can be used to generate corridor-level purpose and need statements,
during planning, for use in NEPA documents**.** The challenge is to
ensure what comes from the long-range transportation plan is not so
general as to generate a range of alternatives that are not responsive
to the problem to be solved.

Despite the challenges, there are several examples of innovative
approaches to better tie the project purpose and need to work coming out
of the planning phase. For example:

-   In the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) prepared by the
    Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the metropolitan
    planning organization for the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a one
    to two sentence purpose and need statement for each project included
    in the TIP. The statement identifies the primary goals (e.g.,
    safety, capacity), and can be used as a good starting point in
    developing the purpose and need for a project as part of the NEPA
    process.

-   North Carolina DOT developed purpose and need guidelines for
    developing planning-level purpose and need statements for projects
    that have received transportation planning assistance by the
    Statewide Planning (SWP) Branch of NCDOT. This effort aims to more
    efficiently transition from transportation planning to project
    planning. Planning level purpose and need statements will only
    include information that is typically generated during the systems
    planning process, and will be used to develop project level purpose
    and need statements that are sufficient to comply with NEPA.

-   Caltrans' *Purpose and Need Team Final Report and Recommendations*,
    dated July 2003, explains how quality purpose and need statements
    are developed and refined iteratively from planning through project
    approval. According to the document, broad participation from many
    functional units as members of the Project Development Team, and
    data retention and transmission, are key factors in the successful
    development and refinement of sound purpose and need statements. The
    purpose and need within a specific corridor is further refined in
    the Transportation Concept Report, and during the Project Initiation
    Document (PID) phase, the purpose and need for individual projects
    is developed based on the earlier system or corridor planning.
    Project purpose and need takes its final and most refined form
    during the Project Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED)
    phase.

-   The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) developed the Idaho
    Corridor Planning Guidebook (1998), which describes how to conduct
    transportation corridor planning to integrate transportation
    planning with land-use planning, and to coordinate local and state
    transportation planning efforts. Chapter 5 of the guidebook focuses
    on establishing a statement of purpose and need, and identifying the
    goals for the corridor, which could then be used to support project
    purpose and need in the NEPA process.

For FAA projects, the planning process is performed by the airport
operator, typically local or regional airport authorities. Airport
master plans, which are funded by FAA grants and involve FAA
technically, rely heavily on the forecasted operations (flights) at a
particular airport or for a particular region. These master plans are
used to develop proposed airport expansion projects. Planning on a
larger scale may also be undertaken to evaluate the need for the
development of a new airport. Planning studies provide information that
feeds into project purpose and need statements.

### Evolving / Iterative Process for Developing the Statement 

Several transportation practitioners described the purpose and need
statement as something that can evolve from planning through the project
development process, as new information is collected and developed. They
noted that the statement does not need to be static. It can be and
should be reexamined, and the lead agency should be fluid enough to
consider changes to the purpose and need. Several transportation agency
staff identified examples of cases where the purpose and need changed as
a project matured.

This approach is consistent with FHWA's document, "The Importance of
Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents" (September 18, 1990), which
states:

> The purpose and need section of the project may, and probably should,
> evolve as information is developed and more is learned about the
> project and the corridor. For example, assume that the only known
> information with regard to purpose and need is that additional
> capacity is needed between points x and y. At the outset, it may
> appear that commuter traffic to a downtown area is the problem and
> only this traffic needs to be served. A wide range of alternatives may
> meet this need. As the studies progress, it may be learned that a
> shopping center, university, major suburban employer, and other
> traffic generators contribute substantially to the problem and require
> transportation service. In this case, the need is further refined so
> that not only commuter trips but also student, shopping, and other
> trips will be accommodated.
>
> These refinements would clearly reduce and limit the number of
> alternatives which could satisfy the project\'s purpose and need,
> thereby reducing the number and range of reasonable, prudent and
> practicable alternatives. If an alternative is suggested that does not
> serve the university or other traffic generator, and such service is a
> vital element of the project, the alternative may be eliminated from
> future study since it does not meet the need for the project.

Resource agencies, however, sometimes are skeptical of changes in the
purpose and need for a project, since it appears that the need is being
crafted to fit the project rather than the other way around. This can
lead to disagreement or lack of trust between the resource agency and
the DOT agency. Disagreements sometimes occur if the purpose and need
statement was revised to reflect local land use plans that have changed
over time, particularly if there are questions about induced growth due
to the project and if it appears that land use plans were revised to
reflect the transportation project.

Several states recommend use of an iterative process to develop the
project purpose and need. For example, as noted earlier, Caltrans'
*Purpose and Need Team Final Report and Recommendations*, explains how
quality purpose and need statements are developed and refined
iteratively from planning through project approval. It explains how the
purpose and need for a project evolves from system or corridor planning
through the Project Initiation Document (PID) phase, through the Project
Approval and Environmental Document (PA&ED) phase. During PA&ED,
Environmental Planning prepares the environmental document that publicly
discloses the intent and the supporting evidence for the project. By the
end of PA&ED the purpose and need has been finalized.

As another example of an interactive process, Oregon developed the
Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for
Streamlining (CETAS). The agreement was approved in April 2001 by ten
agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the US Army Corps of Engineers,
the US Environmental Protection Agency, the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and several state
resource and regulatory agencies. Agencies scope projects to determine
if they should follow the Major Transportation Projects Agreement, a
part of the CETAS which guides the review of projects likely to require
an Environmental Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement. At
monthly meetings, agencies receive project briefings and concur on
Purpose and Need, Range of Alternatives, Criteria for Selection, and
Preferred Alternative. Once concurrence is reached, issues are not
revisited unless major changes occur, such as ODOT project changes or
new endangered species listings. Scoping projects standardizes the
review process, keeping agencies on track and allowing time and
resources to be used efficiently on projects with significant
environmental impacts.

### Examples of Well-Crafted Purpose and Need Statements

*Appendix E* provides two examples of statements from highway EIS that
generally follow the characteristics of good purpose and need
statements. Many of the other EISs reviewed for this report contained
some characteristics of good statements but fell short in some areas. It
would be useful to collect additional examples to highlight good
practices for a range of different types of highway, transit, and
airport projects.

> []{.mark}
>
> []{.mark}

## Purpose and Need Integration/Coordination with Other Laws 

As noted earlier (in Section 2), in addition to NEPA, DOT is responsible
for complying with environmental laws that have requirements influencing
purpose and need and alternatives. Equally important, DOT is responsible
for its own statutory responsibilities for safety, mobility, economic
productivity and security, all of which influence purpose and need.
Other Federal agencies also have responsibilities under NEPA and other
environmental laws (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, Endangered
Species Act, Historic Preservation Act) that bear on transportation
projects.

Interagency disagreements over purpose and need can occur as agencies
strive to comply with multiple laws as interpreted by the different
agencies. Agency disagreements on a transportation project's purpose and
need can result in disparate judgments on the range of reasonable
alternatives that would satisfy the purpose and need. Likewise,
different agency judgments on alternatives that need to be considered to
comply with applicable laws can raise basic questions on project purpose
and need. Questions about the appropriate level of discretion for a lead
agency in the development of a purpose and need statement, the
underlying need for a proposed action, the appropriate level of review
by and authority of resource agencies, and the appropriate level of
consideration to state/local zoning, fiscal, land use and other policies
have been a source of disagreement and delay.

Questions arise most often on highway projects where 404 permits must be
issued, and where the Army Corp has the ability to approve or deny
permits to discharge fill into waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
For transit and airport projects, 404 permit issues centering on purpose
and need are less numerous than for highway projects, and only
encountered on a small proportion of their proposed projects. However,
when permit issues do occur, they can have sizeable repercussions in
terms of interagency conflicts, disparate Federal messages to applicants
and the public, and delays. For highway projects, in order to reduce
duplication and potential delays associated with development of
divergent NEPA purpose and need statements and Section 404 project
purpose statements, a number of states have implemented NEPA and 404
merger agreements. The 404 merger agreements call for the concurrent
completion of the NEPA document and the 404 permit application for FHWA
projects. However, in some cases, the NEPA/404 merger process has also
led to disagreements as the merger process calls for concurrence on the
project purpose and need.

This section summarizes observations on issues associated with the
discretion of the lead Federal agency in responding to comments on the
purpose and need statement by resource agencies, and issues that have
arisen where a NEPA/404 merger process has been implemented.

### Deference to Lead Agency

Disagreements sometimes have occurred between the DOT agencies and the
resource agencies with jurisdiction by law over a potentially affected
resource. On the one hand, the DOT agencies have statutory mission to
improve the nation's transportation system and have authority as the
lead agency for the NEPA document of a transportation project, with the
technical expertise to define the transportation purpose and need for
the project. On the other hand, the resource agencies have statutory
authority to protect their respective resources (e.g., EPA reviews the
adequacy of EISs under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and has other
authority under the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, the USACE and EPA
have the authority to protect waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, USFWS has authority under the Endangered Species
Act, etc).

The resource agencies often see the purpose and need in advance of the
Draft EIS (e.g. during scoping or during regulatory consultations), and
view their review of the purpose and need statement as one of their
primary opportunities to help frame the alternatives under
consideration. Alterations of the purpose and need statement proposed by
a resource agency are often designed to provide additional alternatives
that would potentially avoid or minimize the adverse impact on a
protected resource. This, in turn, can be a source of disagreement
between agencies if there are divergent opinions on how the purpose and
need should be framed.

Questions about the role and responsibilities of agencies in crafting a
purpose and need statement have sometimes been at the center of
disagreements. In response to critical comments on purpose and need
statements, DOT staff often noted that resource agencies do not have
transportation mission responsibility or the technical expertise to
comment on the underlying needs analysis and that comments are sometimes
unsubstantiated. Many DOT staff indicated that the development of the
purpose and need statement should be a solely DOT agency function and
that the resource agencies should not question the purpose and need
statement. Other DOT staff acknowledged the desire of resource agencies
to comment on purpose and need statements for proposed actions that may
have significant effects on natural resources and other areas. Comments
provided by resource agencies tend to question the underlying need for
the action and highlight the value of the resource under their
protection in relation to the need for the action, e.g. preserving
wildlife habitat or corridors versus the need to build a new or bigger
road to reduce traffic. Many of the resource agency staff emphasized the
importance of their input into purpose and need statements as part of
the NEPA process and meeting their statutory requirements.

Resource agencies sometimes act as cooperating agencies. Given questions
about the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies in the
development of the purpose and need statement, DOT Secretary Mineta
requested clarification from CEQ regarding cooperating agencies.
According to the 2003 letter from CEQ's James Connaughton to Secretary
Mineta, for the NEPA process, "Joint lead or cooperating agencies should
afford substantial deference to the DOT agency's articulation of purpose
and need." The 2003 joint FTA/FHWA guidance addresses some of the points
made in the letter from CEQ:

> Due to the deference afforded the lead agency in developing the EIS,
> other Federal agencies should only raise questions regarding DOT's
> purpose and need statements when those questions relate to substantive
> or procedural problems (including omission of factors) important to
> that agency\'s independent legal responsibilities. Such questions
> should be raised immediately, and, if necessary, elevated to higher
> level decision-makers within both the DOT and the commenting agency.
>
> For proposed transportation actions where other Federal agencies do
> not have separate decision making responsibilities, FHWA or FTA has
> the sole authority and responsibility for defining the purpose and
> need statement. While it is entirely appropriate for other agencies to
> comment on the purpose and need statement, both during early
> coordination and in response to the draft environmental impact
> document, other agencies cannot require FHWA or FTA to alter the
> purpose and need statement.

In the case of airport projects, when resource agencies have questioned
the FAA's purpose and need statements, FAA works with those agencies to
better explain the aviation factors, rationale for the airport
development, and their statutory authority and role in airport
development. New provisions in FAA's Vision 100 legislation give the
Secretary of Transportation additional authority to be the final arbiter
of the purpose and need for airport capacity enhancement projects and
designated aviation safety and security projects, as described in
Section 2 of this report.

###  {#section .unnumbered}

### NEPA/404 Merger Process

#### Background on the Merger Process {#background-on-the-merger-process .unnumbered}

The NEPA/404 merger process is designed to consolidate the environmental
review process associated with documents prepared under NEPA and
individual permits prepared under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
The consolidation of the environmental review process is designed to
expedite the overall environmental review process by concurrently
preparing the NEPA document and the Section 404 permit application. FHWA
pursued the merger agreements with the states, EPA, USACE and other
parties as the majority of the FHWA projects involve waters of the U.S.,
including wetlands. The merger process mostly affects FHWA, because FAA
and FTA are not included as signatories in the merger agreements, as
noted below.[^1] As of September 2002, 29 states had adopted agreements
to merge the FHWA NEPA process and the CWA permitting process (Section
404) administered by the USACE with oversight by EPA.

The merger agreements tend to have three or four concurrence points
including:

1.  Purpose and Need Statement

2.  Alternatives Carried Forward (analyzed in EIS)

3.  Selection of Preferred Alternative under NEPA and Least
    Environmental Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) under Section
    404 of the CWA

4.  Impact Minimization (note, this is sometimes included with number 3
    and termed "mitigation plan")

These concurrence points are considered sequentially, with each point
building upon the previous one. At each concurrence point, a signatory
to the merger agreement is able to review the items associated with each
concurrence point and provide comments. Included with each merger
agreement is a dispute settlement process. The design of the merger
agreements anticipates that concurrence at each concurrence point will
be achieved. However, in more controversial projects, the probability of
non-concurrence may increase. Therefore, a process is needed to resolve
disputes at any one of the concurrence points when one or more agencies
do not concur. Merger agreements in Illinois, Iowa, and Nebraska specify
that for such situations, within 30 days of a finding of non-concurrence
at one of the designated points, the FHWA and state DOT will meet with
the agencies involved to determine the direction for resolution of the
dispute. The direction for resolution will be agreed upon through
consensus of the agencies involved.

Depending on the specific merger agreement for dispute resolution or
non-concurrence, the NEPA document or Section 404 permit process may
continue whether or not attempts to reach concurrence are successful.
However, if the dispute remains unresolved, any agency in
non-concurrence retains the option to elevate its concerns through
existing, formalized dispute elevation procedures. This will encourage
all participating agencies to very carefully consider and accommodate
the concerns raised by the resource agencies prior to finalization of a
NEPA document and submission of a Section 404 permit application.

#### Issues Faced in the Merger Process {#issues-faced-in-the-merger-process .unnumbered}

In general, practitioners involved in the NEPA / 404 Merger Process
state that the process, as intended, has helped to expedite the
environmental review process by ensuring that concurrence on purpose and
need occurs during the early phases of EIS development. Since the
purpose and need statement is the foundation for the identification and
selection of alternatives for consideration, this avoids potential
backtracking and aids in defining practicable alternatives to meet the
requirements of a Section 404 permit.

DOT agency and resource agency staff generally indicated that although
there may be a period of learning how the process works and how to work
with DOT and resource agency staff, after a NEPA / 404 merger process
has been active for a few years, it becomes a fairly effective process.
Such efficiencies result primarily from the establishment of working
relationships, and understanding the values and meeting the expectations
of the resource and DOT agencies. One of the most commonly cited
benefits of the merger process is increased communication and
understanding of issues, which enables issues to be addressed
cooperatively and early on.

Resource agency staff and other stakeholders indicated that early
participation in project planning has proven to be effective in the
early identification and resolution of project issues. FHWA staff
indicated that a benefit from merger agreements has been that the
process gets the agencies involved and achieves concurrence at key
points in the process, which eliminates having to revisit issues that
were agreed upon previously. For some USACE districts, the merger
agreement has streamlined the process by concentrating the issues at one
meeting rather than several time-consuming reviews and also has helped
reduce redundancy. One of the clearest benefits to project development
comes from improved communication, which can help to ensure that
environmental concerns are addressed early and help to strengthen
environmental stewardship; these issues are most often raised during
consideration of project alternatives.

On the other hand, in some cases, agencies have found that the merger
process can create some of its own difficulties. Concerns expressed by
transportation agency staff regarding the merger process seem to
primarily relate to three issues: 1) allowing too much transportation
decision making authority to resource agencies; 2) elevating
404/wetlands issues above other environmental and community concerns;
and 3) delay associated with gaining concurrence with all parties
involved in the agreement.

In some cases, DOT staff members have indicated that they believe the
404 merger agreements have provided resource agency staff too much
authority in crafting the purpose and need of a transportation project.
Since the merger process requires concurrence of all parties involved,
some transportation agencies have felt that it gives resource agencies
an opportunity to question purpose and need even when concerns do not
relate to the 404 permit. Some DOTs perceived that resource agency staff
sometimes attempt to control the process (e.g., stop a highway project
from proceeding or advance an environmental agenda) through objections
to the purpose and need statement. In cases where broader environmental
concerns are being raised, philosophical differences regarding the need
for the highway project versus other non-highway alternatives can lead
to delay, which works against the goal of the merger process itself.

Without the merger agreement, resource agencies would comment on the
purpose and need statement, but need not concur. In such cases, recent
guidance by FHWA/FTA based on consultation with CEQ, indicates that
cooperating agencies should give substantial deference to the DOT in
defining the transportation project purpose and need. However,
unresolved issues may resurface later during the environmental review
process (e.g., during the public comment period of an EIS). Addressing
resource agency comments on purpose and need later in the process could
lead to project delays that merger agreements were intended to minimize.
With the merger process, more time may be required to craft the purpose
and need statement. For instance, staff from Caltrans indicated that the
merger process often requires a large amount of back and forth
discussions and negotiation in order to come to agreement on the purpose
and need. Without the merger agreement, this staff indicated that
Caltrans would consult with the agencies, but would not expend as much
time and resources in negotiation.

Some states have chosen not to participate in the merger process. For
example, Texas DOT has signed a merger agreement but chose not to
implement the merger process since it prefers to have the resources
agencies comment on the purpose and need statement, without the
responsibility of concurrence. Caltrans staff suggested the merger
agreement should be applied more selectively and depend on the project
scope and possible size of impacts. Small and medium-size projects, for
instance, may not need to go through the NEPA/404 merger agreement since
the purpose and need, alternatives, and impacts are more
straightforward. In general, staff members indicated that the
development of alternatives, rather than the development of a project
purpose statement is more challenging and controversial. However, the
merger process sometimes can slow down the process by requiring
discussion and negotiation at each point, and issues relating to
alternatives often come up early in discussion of purpose and need.

Another issue faced in the NEPA / 404 Merger Process relates to
differences in how the NEPA purpose and need is defined in relation to
the Section 404 project purpose. Under NEPA, a purpose and need
statement should be written broadly enough to support a "reasonable"
range of alternatives. Under Section 404, a project purpose statement
must support an evaluation of "practicable"alternatives. "Reasonable"
and "practicable" are defined by the regulations implementing NEPA and
Section 404, respectively. Ideally,

to streamline the environmental review process, the alternatives
considered under NEPA would satisfy Section 404 requirements. In
practice, this does not always happen, for example, because the NEPA
project purpose and need statement, from which project alternatives are
identified, is developed before the Section 404 permitting process is

initiated. As a result, the alternatives considered under NEPA may be
different than those considered during the Section 404 environmental
review process. Problems arise when the least environmentally damaging
practicable alternative (LEDPA) to the aquatic environment, as
identified under Section 404, was not included in the NEPA evaluation of
alternatives. Therefore, while a merger agreement gets all the decision
makers to the table early, which is helpful in developing understanding
of the overall purpose and need for the transportation action, it is
also important to identify aquatic resource involvement as early as
possible. This allows for a Section 404 project purpose statement to be
identified in a timely fashion and results in an analysis of
alternatives complementary to the NEPA analyses.

An issue worthy of further exploration is the extent to which
differences in the application of NEPA and Section 404 by Federal
agencies actually drive differences in approaches to purpose and need.
It can be problematic for a project, as well as confusing and
frustrating for an applicant, if a Section 404 project purpose is
different from the transportation purpose of the lead agency and leads
to different alternatives that may not address the key transportation
needs.

At least one State DOT indicated that the Army Corps in some cases wants
to include its project purpose in the NEPA purpose and need statement.
This can be problematic if the Section 404 project purpose focuses on
water resource issues and does not really address the key needs
associated with the proposed transportation project. Since several State
DOTs indicated that some resource agencies have tried to incorporate
environmental goals into the purpose and need statement, it appears that
additional guidance and training may be needed regarding the proper
scope of the statement and roles in the NEPA/404 merger process.

[]{.mark}

## Economic Development as part of the Transportation Purpose and Need 

The inclusion of economic development as a purpose and need can be
controversial, and raise uncertainties both for the transportation
agency proposing the project and for resource agencies that review the
statement. Uncertainties generally relate to three issues:

1)  Questions about whether economic development is an appropriate
    justification for transportation projects, given limited analytical
    information about whether a transportation project can actually
    fulfill the stated purpose and deliver on its promises of economic
    development;

2)  Questions about the range of alternatives that should be considered,
    and specifically, whether non-transportation options should be
    examined; and

3)  Questions about the extent to which indirect impacts associated with
    secondary development must be examined, and how to address all of
    the development-related impacts given other statutory requirements.

In cases where economic development is not the primary purpose and need
but is one of several goals, questions have also sometimes arisen over
how, and whether, the DOT is presenting economic development within the
purpose and need statement.

Throughout this discussion, it is important to note that inclusion of
economic development in the purpose and need statement is not a common
occurrence. Based on discussions with agency staff, it appears that
economic development has been used as the primary purpose and need in
only a few EISs, and has appeared more often as a secondary goal or
ancillary benefit. Projects where economic development is the primary
purpose were usually highway projects in rural areas. Agency staff from
both FTA and FAA indicated that they cannot fund or advance projects
with economic development as the sole stated purpose and need; they must
have a primary transportation need. However, FAA will acknowledge the
economic development goals of an applicant for an airport project, and
so economic development goals have been incorporated into the purpose
and need statement for some airport projects.

### Appropriate Use of Economic Development in the Purpose and Need Statement

Although most transportation projects stem from a transportation-related
need (e.g., congestion problems, lack of access, safety problems),
transportation agencies recognized that economic development can be the
primary purpose and need for highway projects in rural areas, and for
certain projects mandated by Congress. Justifying these projects on the
basis of a transportation problem would simply not be possible, since
data would not substantiate a traffic or safety problem. In these cases,
the transportation needs are inextricably linking to the underlying need
for economic development in economically depressed or underutilized
areas.

Several examples of highway projects where economic development was a
key component of the project purpose and need were noted, including:

-   I-73 in Southwestern Virginia (Martinsville to Roanoke)

-   Mon-Fayette Highway in Southwestern Pennsylvania

-   Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway in Pennsylvania

One of the challenges faced by transportation agencies is that it is
often difficult to analytically demonstrate that a transportation
project will result in the economic development that it is intended to
bring. Resource agency staff may not be comfortable with research
available linking road building with economic development and may want
to see more data. Consequently, transportation agency staff have
sometimes been placed in an awkward position of defending a highway
project for economic development purposes that were pushed by local
governments or Congress. Such projects and the political pressure that
sometimes accompanies those projects can pose a challenge for both DOT
and resource agencies in terms of defining an adequate purpose and need
statement.

DOT and resource agency staff generally agreed that economic development
should not be included in the purpose and need statement unless it is
the primary reason for proposing the project. Inclusion of economic
development in the statement is not useful if development is simply a
goal or would result from the implementation of the project, but not the
primary justification for a project. In these cases, inclusion of
economic development in the purpose and need statement can create
confusion among the public and resource agency staff. Some staff said
that economic development should be more appropriately considered
ancillary benefits, not as the purpose and need for a transportation
project.

In response to concerns of this nature, for example, on the I-69 EIS, in
Texas, the document was revised to say that the project will 'enhance'
economic development, but the focus of the purpose and need statement is
on transportation needs. Also, for the Kentucky TransAmerica Corridor
(Future I-66) project, FHWA and Kentucky DOT are making an effort to
distinguish "needs" from "benefits." In crafting the purpose and need
statement, FHWA and Kentucky DOT have decided that the project's
purposes are transportation-related but that economic development will
be a benefit to many communities in the corridor.

Although this approach seems agreeable to most agency staff, some
resource agency staff felt that DOT agencies take pains to justify
projects on the basis of transportation needs, even when economic
development is a primary motivator. As a result, there is some
perception, rightly or wrongly, that economic development is being given
less profile than it should be as a motivator for the project, and that
a more open and forthright discussion of economic development as one of
the purposes for the project should be included to better inform the
public and decision makers about why the project is being proposed.

### Range of Alternatives that Should be Considered

One of the most difficult issues raised when economic development is a
primary purpose and need for a project is what range of alternatives
should be examined. Specifically, should non-transportation
infrastructure strategies be examined? If the primary need does not
relate to transportation system function, but economic conditions,
perhaps options such as education programs, workforce training, etc.
could help to address some of the underlying causes. Some resource
agency staff felt if economic development really is the need, the
highway agency proposing the project should examine other ways to
stimulate development. This is problematic from the perspective of FHWA
due to limitations in expertise on non-transportation strategies and its
inability to fund non-transportation projects.

There is some recognition among all agency staff that it would be very
difficult for FHWA to analyze broad alternatives beyond transportation
projects. However, examining some of the issues surrounding regional
economic development strategies at the planning phase could help to
identify whether the transportation project really does help to meet the
need and what other actions are necessary or might be more effective.
Understanding the region's economic development strategy helps in
determining the extent to which the strategy is reliant on improvements
to the transportation infrastructure system. Thus, exploring the
economic development potential of a transportation project early in the
environmental review and planning process can support the development of
a more substantiated purpose and need statement.

As depicted in the figure below, a region's economic development
strategy defines the economic sectors that will serve as the primary
focal points for development (such as agriculture, manufacturing,
telecommunications, etc.). Once a region has identified those sectors
(based on indicators such as comparative advantage), transportation and
other infrastructure needs can be assessed, specific investments can be
identified, alternative investments can be weighed against one another,
and the economic development impacts of alternatives can be determined
by demonstrating the reliance of specific development initiatives on
highway improvements and/or by investigating the incremental benefits
that can be accrued from investments in highways. This approach allows
for a more direct link between specific development initiatives and
highway needs, and can supplement analyses that are based on more
conventional approaches such as benefit-cost analysis.

### Concerns About Addressing Indirect Effects

Indirect and cumulative effects to resources from development need to be
addressed under NEPA regulations regardless of the project purpose.
Including economic development in the purpose and need statement can
raise questions about the level of analysis that should be devoted to
indirect environmental effects associated with the proposed action. If
the purpose and need statement is based on economic development, the
NEPA document should be specific in stating where the economic
development is expected to occur and what environmental impacts are
expected from the secondary development. However, as noted in the
Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group Baseline Report, many EISs
historically have not provided detailed analyses of indirect impacts.
When economic development is part of the stated purpose and need,
limited analyses of indirect impacts are perceived by some resource
agencies as a substantial weakness that needs to be addressed. This has
been an issue on both highway and airport projects.

[]{.mark}

[]{.mark}

# Existing Guidance and Training on Purpose and Need Statements

## Guidance Documents

While the laws, regulations, and Executive Orders do not provide
significant detail on how a purpose and need statement should be
developed, there is some guidance on the subject. *Appendix F* contains
a bibliography of some NEPA guidance that includes modules on purpose
and need statements.

### Federal Guidance

There are several Federal-level guidance documents focused on the
purpose and need statement within NEPA documents in Appendix F. These
guidance documents address issues such as the content of the purpose and
need statement and agency roles and responsibilities in the development
of purpose and need statements. For instance, in 1990, FHWA developed a
paper on "The Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental
Documents", which describes basic elements of a purpose and need
statement, and includes a list of items which may assist in the
explanation of the need for the proposed action, such as an explanation
of project status, transportation demand, modal interrelationships, and
social demands or economic development. EPA's guidance on "Policy and
Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment"
provides information on EPA's role and responsibilities for reviewing
the technical adequacy and accuracy of the EIS\'s methods for estimating
the need for the proposed action in cases where this affects the
definition of reasonable and feasible alternatives.

Correspondence between DOT Secretary Mineta and James Connaughton of CEQ
in May 2003 focused on the issue of the appropriate exercise of
authority by lead and cooperating agencies in determining purpose and
need for the NEPA process. This document, in turn, was followed by the
FTA-FHWA "Joint Guidance on Purpose and Need," which addressed the
points made in the letter from James Connaughton, such as how much
deference should be given to DOT's articulation of purpose and need by
joint lead or cooperating agencies and when it is appropriate for such
agencies to raise questions about DOT's purpose and need statements. The
guidance concentrates on the deference that should be given to lead
agencies by cooperating agencies in the development of purpose and need
statements, and also provides guidance on appropriate statement length,
style, and scope.

### State-level Guidance

Several State DOTs have also developed guidance documents focused on the
purpose and need statement, and generally focus on the form and content
of the purpose and need statement. For instance, Utah and Oregon have
produced similar documents that defined "purpose," "need," and "goals
and objectives." The definitions are explicit in that the "goals and
objectives" section is the only appropriate place for project elements
beyond the identified state transportation issues, such as environmental
protections, and that the purpose and need should be reserved for the
expression of and supporting evidence for a transportation problem.

The State-level guidance documents also offer specific advice on the
process of crafting the purpose and need statement. For instance, the
Caltrans "Purpose and Need Team Final Report and Recommendations"
presents examples of helpful information sources to reference when
developing supporting information for purpose and need statements (e.g.,
Regional Transportation Plans, California Transportation Plan, and
Statewide and Federal Systems & Designations). North Carolina DOT's
guidance provides an example outline of a purpose and need section
(i.e., Introduction, Summary of Need, Summary of Purpose, Background
Information, Roadway Conditions, Safety Analysis, System Linkages, and
Social and Economic Conditions), and then details what each element in
the outline should contain.

## Available Training Programs

In addition to guidance documents, training programs can be important in
helping to communicate the concepts and approaches outlined in guidance
documents into practices. A compilation of training courses relevant to
purpose and need is included in *Appendix G*. The compilation includes
information on topics covered in each course, course duration, target
audience, locations, and contact information.

This compilation serves two roles: 1) it can be made available to staff
in State DOTs, FHWA, State and Federal resource agencies, and
consultants to raise their awareness of the various training
opportunities available; and 2) the Task Force can use the information
in order to identify opportunities for interagency coordination or
adoption of training programs and to help ensure that any new guidance
or recommendations that come from the Task Force can be incorporated
into relevant training programs.

Discussion of purpose and need is generally included in general or
introductory NEPA courses, and typically appears to consume between five
and ten percent of the course content. Consequently, there appears to be
relatively little formal training available regarding development of the
NEPA purpose and need statements for transportation projects, or for
coordination between the NEPA purpose and need and the Section 404
project purpose statement.

[]{.mark}

## Guidance and Training Needs

DOT and resource agency staff generally indicated that there is not a
need for formal training programs dedicated solely to the purpose and
need statement, but several staff indicated that new Federal guidance
and related improved training modules within courses would be helpful to
clarify issues related to crafting a purpose and need statement.

Specifically, it would be helpful to have more clear guidance on how to
write a purpose and need statement clearly. The existing guidance
documents may be a source of confusion on this point, with some staff
interpreting the guidance as encouraging discussion of a wide range of
needs. According to the 1990 FHWA paper on "The Importance of Purpose
and Need in Environmental Documents":

> The purpose and need should be as comprehensive and specific as
> possible. For example, rather than simply stating that additional
> capacity is needed between two points, information on the adequacy of
> current facilities to handle the present and projected traffic, (e.g.,
> what capacity is needed and the level of service for the existing and
> proposed facilities) should be discussed. Other information on factors
> such as safety, system linkage, social demands, economic development,
> and modal interrelationships, etc., that the proposed project will
> attempt to address, should be described as fully as possible.

Similarly, the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A (1987) seems to imply
that a wide range of different factors should be discussed in the
purpose and need statement. It contains a list of nine items "which may
assist in the explanation of the need": 1) Project Status, 2) System
Linkage, 3) Capacity, 4) Transportation Demand, 5) Legislation, 6)
Social Demands or Economic Development, 7) Modal Interrelationships, 8)
Safety, and 9) Roadway Deficiencies.

The range of factors that are listed in these documents may be
responsible for some of the confusion regarding the extent to which a
wide variety of goals should be incorporated into the purpose and need
statement. Some staff members noted that FHWA guidance documents are
probably being misinterpreted by some as implying that all of these
factors should be addressed and described in the purpose and need
statement, thereby contributing to long and confusing discussions of
purpose and need.

The 2003 joint FHWA/FTA guidance states that "The purpose and need
statement should be as concise and understandable as possible....
\[E\]very effort should be made to develop a concise purpose and need
statement that focuses on the primary transportation challenges to be
addressed." However, several state DOT and other staff indicated that it
would be helpful to have more specific guidance related to crafting a
quality purpose and need statement. They pointed out that it would be
particularly helpful to identify lessons learned in crafting a purpose
and need statement, and to document examples of good purpose and need
statements.

# Recommendations for Next Steps

Based on the information compiled in this baseline report and building
upon the existing guidance issued by CEQ in 2003 and Vision 100
legislation as appropriate, the Purpose and Need Work Group recommend
additional work in order of priority that should be endorsed and
promoted by the Task Force agencies.

1.  That additional investigation should focus on the extent to which
    Federal agency interpretations and applications of laws and other
    requirements within their jurisdiction are causing purpose and need
    conflicts, the key drivers of the conflicts (e.g., different
    approaches to purpose and need under NEPA and Section 404), and
    options for avoiding or resolving conflicts. Case studies of
    previous projects that experienced substantial problems may be used
    to identify areas that need particular attention. Case studies of
    complex or controversial projects that successfully avoided
    conflicts at purpose and need may also illustrate good practices of
    where the process worked well.

2.  That additional guidance should be developed to clarify the roles of
    lead transportation agencies and other engaged agencies in achieving
    purpose and need statements for transportation projects that give
    appropriate deference to transportation agencies so that projects
    are not subjected to long delays as agencies grapple with
    differences. When dealing with deference, it is important to
    maintain the integrity of other agencies' responsibilities and to
    comply with all applicable environmental requirements. Case studies
    may also be useful for this task.

3.  That the Work Group begin to develop interagency guidance addressing
    the need for responsibly scoped, concise, and clearly written
    purpose and need statements. The guidance should include examples of
    appropriate and well-crafted purpose and need statements. The
    guidance should also provide advice on what special considerations
    apply, if any, in two circumstances: 1) if economic development is
    the sole purpose and need for a project; and 2) when economic
    development is considered as part of the purpose and need for a
    project.

# Appendix A: Laws and Implementing Regulations, and Executive Orders {#appendix-a-laws-and-implementing-regulations-and-executive-orders .unnumbered}

+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| **Laws    | * |        | **Summary**              | **Relation to      |
| and       | * |        |                          | Purpose and Need** |
| Impl      | A |        |                          |                    |
| ementing\ | g |        |                          |                    |
| Reg       | e |        |                          |                    |
| ulations, | n |        |                          |                    |
| and\      | c |        |                          |                    |
| Executive | y |        |                          |                    |
| Orders**  | * |        |                          |                    |
|           | * |        |                          |                    |
+===========+===+========+==========================+====================+
| **General |   |        |                          |                    |
| Laws and  |   |        |                          |                    |
| Regu      |   |        |                          |                    |
| lations** |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| National  |   | CEQ    | NEPA declares it a       | The statement      |
| Envi      |   |        | national policy to       | shall briefly      |
| ronmental |   |        | encourage productive and | specify the        |
| Policy    |   |        | enjoyable harmony        | underlying purpose |
| Act:      |   |        | between man and the      | and need to which  |
|           |   |        | environment and promote  | the agency is      |
| 42 U.S.C. |   |        | efforts to better        | responding in      |
| 4321-4335 |   |        | understand and prevent   | proposing the      |
|           |   |        | damage to ecological     | alternatives       |
| 40 CFR    |   |        | systems and natural      | including the      |
| Part 1500 |   |        | resources important to   | proposed action.   |
|           |   |        | the nation. Agencies are | (Sec. 1502.13)     |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | required to prepare a    |                    |
| 771       |   |        | detailed environmental   |                    |
|           |   |        | impact statement for any |                    |
| 49 CFR    |   |        | major Federal action     |                    |
| 520       |   |        | significantly affecting  |                    |
|           |   |        | the environment. The Act |                    |
|           |   |        | also establishes the     |                    |
|           |   |        | Council on Environmental |                    |
|           |   |        | Quality to review        |                    |
|           |   |        | government policies and  |                    |
|           |   |        | programs for conformity  |                    |
|           |   |        | with NEPA.               |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Executive |   | EPA,   | Requires each Federal    | Relates to         |
| Order     |   | All    | agency to make achieving | selection of an    |
| 12898 --  |   | Ag     |                          | alternative, which |
| Federal   |   | encies | environmental justice    | in turn depends on |
| Actions   |   |        | part of its mission by   | a well-justified   |
| to        |   |        | identifying and          | purpose and need   |
| Address   |   |        | addressing, as           | statement.         |
| Envi      |   |        | appropriate,             |                    |
| ronmental |   |        | disproportionately high  |                    |
| Justice   |   |        | and adverse human health |                    |
| in        |   |        | or environmental effects |                    |
| Minority  |   |        | of its programs,         |                    |
| Po        |   |        | policies, and activities |                    |
| pulations |   |        | on minority populations  |                    |
| and       |   |        | and low-income           |                    |
| L         |   |        | populations in the       |                    |
| ow-Income |   |        | United States.           |                    |
| Po        |   |        |                          |                    |
| pulations |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| **Trans   |   |        |                          |                    |
| portation |   |        |                          |                    |
| Laws and  |   |        |                          |                    |
| Regu      |   |        |                          |                    |
| lations** |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Trans     | D |        | TEA-21 builds on the     | Provides general   |
| portation | O |        | initiatives established  | objectives for     |
| Equity    | T |        | in the Intermodal        | transportation     |
| Act for   |   |        | Surface Transportation   | projects. May be   |
| the 21st  |   |        | Efficiency Act of 1991   | used to support    |
| Century   |   |        | (ISTEA), which was the   | the purpose of a   |
| of 1998   |   |        | previous major           | project.           |
| (TEA-21)  |   |        | authorizing legislation  |                    |
| and       |   |        | for surface              |                    |
|           |   |        | transportation. This new |                    |
| I         |   |        | Act combines the         |                    |
| ntermodal |   |        | continuation and         |                    |
| Surface   |   |        | improvement of current   |                    |
| Trans     |   |        | programs with new        |                    |
| portation |   |        | initiatives to meet the  |                    |
| E         |   |        | challenges of improving  |                    |
| fficiency |   |        | safety as traffic        |                    |
| Act of    |   |        | continues to increase at |                    |
| 1991      |   |        | record levels,           |                    |
| (ISTEA)   |   |        | protecting and enhancing |                    |
|           |   |        | communities and the      |                    |
| 23 U.S.C. |   |        | natural environment as   |                    |
| 10        |   |        | we provide               |                    |
| 3(i)(13)\ |   |        | transportation, and      |                    |
| 23 U.S.C. |   |        | advancing America's      |                    |
| 1         |   |        | economic growth and      |                    |
| 33(b)(11) |   |        | competitiveness          |                    |
|           |   |        | domestically and         |                    |
| 16 U.S.C. |   |        | internationally through  |                    |
| 1261      |   |        | efficient and flexible   |                    |
|           |   |        | transportation.          |                    |
| 23 CFR    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 771       |   |        | The National Intermodal  |                    |
|           |   |        | Transportation System    |                    |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | shall:                   |                    |
| 777:      |   |        |                          |                    |
| M         |   |        | Consist of all forms of  |                    |
| itigation |   |        | transportation in a      |                    |
| of        |   |        | unified, interconnected  |                    |
| Impacts   |   |        | manner, including the    |                    |
| to        |   |        | transportation systems   |                    |
| Wetlands  |   |        | of the future, to reduce |                    |
| and       |   |        | energy consumption and   |                    |
| Natural   |   |        | air pollution while      |                    |
| Habitat   |   |        | promoting economic       |                    |
|           |   |        | development and          |                    |
|           |   |        | supporting the Nation\'s |                    |
|           |   |        | preeminent position in   |                    |
|           |   |        | international commerce.  |                    |
|           |   |        | Include a National       |                    |
|           |   |        | Highway System which     |                    |
|           |   |        | consists of the National |                    |
|           |   |        | System of Interstate and |                    |
|           |   |        | Defense Highways and     |                    |
|           |   |        | those principal arterial |                    |
|           |   |        | roads which are          |                    |
|           |   |        | essential for interstate |                    |
|           |   |        | and regional commerce    |                    |
|           |   |        | and travel, national     |                    |
|           |   |        | defense, intermodal      |                    |
|           |   |        | transfer facilities, and |                    |
|           |   |        | international commerce   |                    |
|           |   |        | and border crossings.    |                    |
|           |   |        | Include significant      |                    |
|           |   |        | improvements in public   |                    |
|           |   |        | transportation necessary |                    |
|           |   |        | to achieve national      |                    |
|           |   |        | goals for improved air   |                    |
|           |   |        | quality, energy          |                    |
|           |   |        | conservation,            |                    |
|           |   |        | international            |                    |
|           |   |        | competitiveness, and     |                    |
|           |   |        | mobility for elderly     |                    |
|           |   |        | persons, persons with    |                    |
|           |   |        | disabilities, and        |                    |
|           |   |        | economically             |                    |
|           |   |        | disadvantaged persons in |                    |
|           |   |        | urban and rural areas of |                    |
|           |   |        | the country. Provide     |                    |
|           |   |        | improved access to ports |                    |
|           |   |        | and airports, the        |                    |
|           |   |        | Nation\'s link to world  |                    |
|           |   |        | commerce. Give special   |                    |
|           |   |        | emphasis to the          |                    |
|           |   |        | contributions of the     |                    |
|           |   |        | transportation sector to |                    |
|           |   |        | increased productivity   |                    |
|           |   |        | growth. Social benefits  |                    |
|           |   |        | must be considered with  |                    |
|           |   |        | particular attention to  |                    |
|           |   |        | the external benefits of |                    |
|           |   |        | reduced air pollution,   |                    |
|           |   |        | reduced traffic          |                    |
|           |   |        | congestion and other     |                    |
|           |   |        | aspects of the quality   |                    |
|           |   |        | of life in the United    |                    |
|           |   |        | States. Must be operated |                    |
|           |   |        | and maintained with      |                    |
|           |   |        | insistent attention to   |                    |
|           |   |        | the concepts of          |                    |
|           |   |        | innovation, competition, |                    |
|           |   |        | energy efficiency,       |                    |
|           |   |        | productivity, growth,    |                    |
|           |   |        | and accountability.      |                    |
|           |   |        | Practices that resulted  |                    |
|           |   |        | in the lengthy and       |                    |
|           |   |        | overly costly            |                    |
|           |   |        | construction of the      |                    |
|           |   |        | Interstate and Defense   |                    |
|           |   |        | Highway System must be   |                    |
|           |   |        | streamlined. Be adapted  |                    |
|           |   |        | to \`\`intelligent       |                    |
|           |   |        | vehicles\'\',            |                    |
|           |   |        | \`\`magnetic levitation  |                    |
|           |   |        | systems\'\', and other   |                    |
|           |   |        | new technologies         |                    |
|           |   |        | wherever feasible and    |                    |
|           |   |        | economical, with benefit |                    |
|           |   |        | cost estimates given     |                    |
|           |   |        | special emphasis         |                    |
|           |   |        | concerning safety        |                    |
|           |   |        | considerations and       |                    |
|           |   |        | techniques for cost      |                    |
|           |   |        | allocation.              |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        | Calls out Wetlands       |                    |
|           |   |        | Mitigation Banks: Sec.   |                    |
|           |   |        | 1006-1007                |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Vision    | D |        | Vision 100 continues the | Broad mandate for  |
| 100-      | O |        | requirement dating from  | agencies to be     |
| --Century | T |        | 1970 aviation            | bound by the       |
| of        |   |        | legislation that the     | Secretary's        |
| Aviation  |   |        | Secretary may approve an | determination of   |
| Reauth    |   |        | application for funding  | purpose and need   |
| orization |   |        | for an airport           | for projects       |
| Act       |   |        | development project      | specified for the  |
| (Vision   |   |        | involving the location   | coordinated        |
| 100)      |   |        | of an airport, runway,   | environmental      |
|           |   |        | or major runway          | review process in  |
| 49 U.S.C. |   |        | extension that has a     | Vision 100. No     |
| 47171(j)  |   |        |                          | specific mention   |
|           |   |        | significant adverse      | of purpose and     |
| 49 U.S.C. |   |        | effect on natural        | need for new       |
| 47106     |   |        | resources (including     | airport, runway,   |
| (c)(1)(C) |   |        | fish and wildlife,       | or major runway    |
|           |   |        | natural, scenic, and     | extension          |
|           |   |        | recreation assets, water | projects; it is a  |
|           |   |        | and air quality, or      | compliance issue   |
|           |   |        | another factor affecting | that may influence |
|           |   |        | the environment) only    | the selection of   |
|           |   |        | after finding that no    | an alternative.    |
|           |   |        | possible and prudent     |                    |
|           |   |        | alternative to the       |                    |
|           |   |        | project exists and that  |                    |
|           |   |        | every reasonable step    |                    |
|           |   |        | has been taken to        |                    |
|           |   |        | minimize the adverse     |                    |
|           |   |        | effect.                  |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        | New provisions in Vision |                    |
|           |   |        | 100 establish an         |                    |
|           |   |        | expedited, coordinated   |                    |
|           |   |        | environmental review     |                    |
|           |   |        | process for airport      |                    |
|           |   |        | capacity projects at     |                    |
|           |   |        | congested airports and   |                    |
|           |   |        | certain aviation safety  |                    |
|           |   |        | and security projects    |                    |
|           |   |        | designated by the FAA    |                    |
|           |   |        | Administrator. With      |                    |
|           |   |        | respect to these         |                    |
|           |   |        | categories of projects,  |                    |
|           |   |        | a Federal or State       |                    |
|           |   |        | agency that is           |                    |
|           |   |        | participating in the     |                    |
|           |   |        | coordinated              |                    |
|           |   |        | environmental review     |                    |
|           |   |        | process shall be bound   |                    |
|           |   |        | by the project purpose   |                    |
|           |   |        | and need as defined by   |                    |
|           |   |        | the Secretary for any    |                    |
|           |   |        | environmental review,    |                    |
|           |   |        | analysis, opinion,       |                    |
|           |   |        | permit, license, or      |                    |
|           |   |        | approval that must be    |                    |
|           |   |        | issued by the agency,    |                    |
|           |   |        | notwithstanding any      |                    |
|           |   |        | other provision of law.  |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Trans     | D |        | The Section 4(f)         | Relates to         |
| portation | O |        | legislation provides     | selection of an    |
| Act       | T |        | protection for publicly  | alternative, which |
| (Section  |   |        | owned parks, recreation  | in turn depends on |
| 4(f)):    |   |        | areas, historic sites    | a well-justified   |
|           |   |        | (regardless of           | purpose and need   |
| 49 U.S.C. |   |        | ownership), wildlife     | statement in order |
| 303       |   |        | and/or waterfowl refuges | to assess feasible |
|           |   |        | from conversion to a     | and prudent        |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | transportation use. The  | alternatives.(     |
| 771.135   |   |        | Federal Highway          |                    |
|           |   |        | Administration (FHWA)    |                    |
|           |   |        | may not approve the use  |                    |
|           |   |        | of land from a           |                    |
|           |   |        | significant publicly     |                    |
|           |   |        | owned park, recreation   |                    |
|           |   |        | area, or wildlife and    |                    |
|           |   |        | waterfowl refuge, or any |                    |
|           |   |        | significant historic     |                    |
|           |   |        | site unless a            |                    |
|           |   |        | determination is made    |                    |
|           |   |        | that:                    |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        | i\) There is no feasible |                    |
|           |   |        | and prudent alternative  |                    |
|           |   |        | to the use of land from  |                    |
|           |   |        | the property; and (ii)   |                    |
|           |   |        | The action includes all  |                    |
|           |   |        | possible planning to     |                    |
|           |   |        | minimize harm to the     |                    |
|           |   |        | property resulting from  |                    |
|           |   |        | such use. (Sec.          |                    |
|           |   |        | 771.135(a))              |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| **Air,    |   |        |                          |                    |
| Land, and |   |        |                          |                    |
| Water     |   |        |                          |                    |
| Laws and  |   |        |                          |                    |
| Regu      |   |        |                          |                    |
| lations** |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Clean Air | E |        | The primary objective of | No specific        |
| Act (as   | P |        | the Clean Air Act is to  | mention of purpose |
| amended), | A |        | establish Federal        | and need.          |
| Trans     |   |        | standards for various    |                    |
| portation |   |        | pollutants from both     | EPA's review of an |
| C         |   |        | stationary and mobile    | EIS focuses on the |
| onformity |   |        | sources and to provide   | adequacy of the    |
| Rule:     |   |        | for the regulation of    | EIS and the impact |
|           |   |        | polluting emissions via  | evaluation.        |
| 23 U.S.C. |   |        | state implementation     |                    |
| 109(j)    |   |        | plans. In addition, the  |                    |
|           |   |        | amendments are designed  |                    |
| 42 U.S.C. |   |        | to prevent significant   |                    |
| 7521 (a)  |   |        | deterioration in certain |                    |
|           |   |        | areas where air quality  |                    |
| S         |   |        | exceeds national         |                    |
| anctions: |   |        | standards, and to        |                    |
|           |   |        | provide for improved air |                    |
| 42 U.S.C. |   |        | quality in areas which   |                    |
| 7509,     |   |        | do not meet Federal      |                    |
| sec.179   |   |        | standards                |                    |
| (b) sec.  |   |        | (\"nonattainment\"       |                    |
| 110 (m)   |   |        | areas).                  |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
| (P.L.     |   |        | Section 309 of the CAA   |                    |
| 101-549)  |   |        | directs EPA to review    |                    |
|           |   |        | and comment on both the  |                    |
| 40 CFR 93 |   |        | adequacy of the analysis |                    |
|           |   |        | and the environmental    |                    |
|           |   |        | impacts of certain       |                    |
|           |   |        | federal actions,         |                    |
|           |   |        | including those subject  |                    |
|           |   |        | to NEPA's EIS            |                    |
|           |   |        | requirement, and to make |                    |
|           |   |        | those reviews public.    |                    |
|           |   |        | Under section 309, EPA   |                    |
|           |   |        | evaluates both the       |                    |
|           |   |        | nature of the impacts    |                    |
|           |   |        | and the sufficiency of   |                    |
|           |   |        | the environmental        |                    |
|           |   |        | analysis. If the         |                    |
|           |   |        | proposing agency (the    |                    |
|           |   |        | \"lead\" agency) does    |                    |
|           |   |        | not make sufficient      |                    |
|           |   |        | revisions and the        |                    |
|           |   |        | project remains          |                    |
|           |   |        | environmentally          |                    |
|           |   |        | unsatisfactory, EPA may  |                    |
|           |   |        | refer the matter to the  |                    |
|           |   |        | President\'s Council on  |                    |
|           |   |        | Environmental Quality    |                    |
|           |   |        | for mediation.           |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| W         | D |        | DOI and USDA to review   | Relates to         |
| ilderness | O |        | every roadless area of   | selection of an    |
| Act:\     | I |        | 5,000 or more acres and  | alternative, which |
| 16 U.S.C. | a |        | every roadless island    | in turn depends on |
| 1131-1136 | n |        | (regardless of size) and | a well-justified   |
|           | d |        | determine its            | purpose and need   |
| 36 CFR    | U |        | suitability and          | statement.         |
| 293:      | S |        | establish restrictions   |                    |
| Wild      | D |        | on activities that can   |                    |
| erness\-- | A |        | be undertaken on a       |                    |
| primitive |   |        | designated area.         |                    |
| areas\    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 43 CFR    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 19;       |   |        |                          |                    |
| W         |   |        |                          |                    |
| ilderness |   |        |                          |                    |
| Pres      |   |        |                          |                    |
| ervation, |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
| 43 CFR    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 8560:     |   |        |                          |                    |
| M         |   |        |                          |                    |
| anagement |   |        |                          |                    |
| of        |   |        |                          |                    |
| D         |   |        |                          |                    |
| esignated |   |        |                          |                    |
| W         |   |        |                          |                    |
| ilderness |   |        |                          |                    |
| Areas\    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 50 CFR    |   |        |                          |                    |
| 35:       |   |        |                          |                    |
| W         |   |        |                          |                    |
| ilderness |   |        |                          |                    |
| pre       |   |        |                          |                    |
| servation |   |        |                          |                    |
| and       |   |        |                          |                    |
| m         |   |        |                          |                    |
| anagement |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Wild and  | D |        | Establishment of a       | Relates to         |
| Scenic    | O |        | National Wild and Scenic | selection of an    |
| Rivers    | I |        | Rivers System for the    | alternative, which |
| Act:\     | a |        | protection of rivers     | in turn depends on |
| 16 U.S.C. | n |        | with important scenic,   | a well-justified   |
| 1271-1287 | d |        | recreational, fish and   | purpose and need   |
|           | U |        | wildlife, and other      | statement.         |
| 36 CFR    | S |        | values. Rivers are       |                    |
| 297: Wild | D |        | classified as wild,      |                    |
| and       | A |        | scenic or recreational.  |                    |
| Scenic    |   |        | The Act designates       |                    |
| Rivers    |   |        | specific rivers for      |                    |
|           |   |        | inclusion and prescribes |                    |
|           |   |        | the methods and          |                    |
|           |   |        | standards by which       |                    |
|           |   |        | additional rivers may be |                    |
|           |   |        | added. The Act contains  |                    |
|           |   |        | procedures and           |                    |
|           |   |        | limitations for control  |                    |
|           |   |        | of lands in Federally    |                    |
|           |   |        | administered components  |                    |
|           |   |        | of the System and for    |                    |
|           |   |        | disposition of lands and |                    |
|           |   |        | minerals under Federal   |                    |
|           |   |        | ownership. Hunting and   |                    |
|           |   |        | fishing are permitted in |                    |
|           |   |        | components of the System |                    |
|           |   |        | under applicable Federal |                    |
|           |   |        | and state laws.          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Executive | A |        | Directs agencies in      | Relates to         |
| Order     | l |        | furtherance of the       | selection of an    |
| 11990:\   | l |        | National Environmental   | alternative, which |
| P         | A |        | Policy Act of 1969, in   | in turn depends on |
| rotection | g |        | order to avoid to the    | a well-justified   |
| of        | e |        | extent possible the long | purpose and need   |
| Wetlands  | n |        | and short term adverse   | statement in order |
|           | c |        | impacts associated with  | to assess          |
| 23 CFR    | i |        | the destruction or       | practicable        |
| 777       | e |        | modification of wetlands | alternatives.      |
|           | s |        | and to avoid direct or   |                    |
| DOT Order |   |        | indirect support of new  |                    |
| 5660.1A   |   |        | construction in wetlands |                    |
|           |   |        | wherever there is a      |                    |
|           |   |        | practicable alternative. |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Section   | U |        | The Act prohibits the    | Relates to         |
| 10 of the | S |        | construction of any      | selection of an    |
| Rivers    | A |        | structure or dredging in | alternative, which |
| and       | C |        | navigable waterways of   | in turn depends on |
| Harbors   | E |        | the U.S. without a       | a well-justified   |
| Act of    | , |        | permit from the Corps.   | purpose and need   |
| 1899:\    | U |        | Administration of        | statement.(        |
| 33 U.S.C. | S |        | section 10 for bridges   |                    |
| 401       | C |        | and causeways has been   |                    |
|           | G |        | delegated to the Coast   |                    |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | Guard.                   |                    |
| 650,      |   |        |                          |                    |
| Subparts  |   |        | The Fish and Wildlife    |                    |
| D & H     |   |        | Coordination Act         |                    |
|           |   |        | provides authority for   |                    |
| 33 CFR    |   |        | the U.S. Fish and        |                    |
| 114-115   |   |        | Wildlife Service to      |                    |
|           |   |        | review and comment on    |                    |
|           |   |        | the effects of proposed  |                    |
|           |   |        | federal activities on    |                    |
|           |   |        | fish and wildlife.       |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Federal   | U |        | The Clean Water Act,     | The permit         |
| Water     | S |        | among other things,      | required under     |
| Pollution | A |        | authorizes Federal       | Section 404 of the |
| Control   | C |        | financial assistance for | Act requires the   |
| Act       | E |        | municipal sewage         | development of a   |
| (1972),   | , |        | treatment plant          | project purpose    |
| as        | E |        | construction and creates | statement. Section |
| amended   | P |        | varioys programs         | 404 requires       |
| by the    | A |        | designed to enhance and  | alternatives       |
| Clean     | , |        | restore water quality.   | analysis, and the  |
| Water Act | S |        | The latter programs      | selection of the   |
| (1977 &   | t |        | include permitting       | least              |
| 1987):\   | a |        | programs for discharges  | environmentally    |
| 33 U.S.C. | t |        | of dredged or fill       | damaging           |
| 1251-1376 | e |        | material under Section   | practicable        |
|           |   |        | 404, which is            | alternative        |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | administered by the Army | (LEDPA).           |
| 650       |   |        | Coprs of Engineers and   |                    |
| Subpart   |   |        | the States; the national | Thus in its        |
| B, 771    |   |        | pollutant discharge      | consideration of   |
|           |   |        | elimination system       | project purpose    |
| 33 CFR    |   |        | (NPDES) program          | and alternatives,  |
| 209,      |   |        | administered by EPA and  | the Section 404    |
| 320-323,  |   |        | the States under section | permit program     |
| 325, 328, |   |        | 402, ocean discharges    | considers many of  |
| 329       |   |        | regulated under Section  | the same factors   |
|           |   |        | 403, the total maximum   | as NEPA.           |
| 40 CFR    |   |        | daily load program       |                    |
| 121-125,  |   |        | (TMDL) and water quality |                    |
| 129-131,  |   |        | standards programs under |                    |
| 133,      |   |        | Section 303.             |                    |
| 135-136,  |   |        |                          |                    |
| 230-231   |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
| DOT Order |   |        |                          |                    |
| 5660.1A   |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Executive | A |        | Directs agencies, in     | Relates to         |
| Order     | l |        | furtherance of the       | selection of an    |
| 11988:    | l |        | National Environmental   | alternative, which |
| F         | A |        | Policy, the National     | in turn depends on |
| loodplain | g |        | Flood                    | a well-justified   |
| Ma        | e |        |                          | purpose and need   |
| nagement, | n |        | Insurance Act of 1968    | statement in order |
| as        | c |        | and the Flood Disaster   | to assess          |
| amended   | i |        | Protection Act of 1973,  | practicable        |
| by        | e |        | in order to avoid to the | alternatives.      |
| Executive | s |        | extent possible the long |                    |
| Order     |   |        | and short term adverse   |                    |
| 12148     |   |        | impacts associated with  |                    |
|           |   |        | the occupancy and        |                    |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | modification of          |                    |
| 650,      |   |        | floodplains and to avoid |                    |
| Subpart A |   |        | direct or indirect       |                    |
|           |   |        | support of floodplain    |                    |
| 23 CFR    |   |        | development wherever     |                    |
| 771       |   |        | there is a practicable   |                    |
|           |   |        | alternative.             |                    |
| DOT Order |   |        |                          |                    |
| 5650.2    |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Safe      | E |        | The Act, establishes a   | Relates to         |
| Drinking  | P |        | Federal program to       | selection of an    |
| Water     | A |        | monitor and increase the | alternative, which |
| Act:      |   |        | safety of the nation's   | in turn depends on |
|           |   |        | drinking water supply.   | a well-justified   |
| 42        |   |        | The SDWA authorizes the  | purpose and need   |
| U.S.C.§   |   |        | U.S. Environmental       | statement.         |
| 300f et   |   |        | Protection Agency (EPA)  |                    |
| seq.,     |   |        | to set and implement     |                    |
| 6939b     |   |        | health-based standards   |                    |
|           |   |        | to protect against both  |                    |
| 15 U.S.C. |   |        | naturally occurring and  |                    |
| § 1261 et |   |        | man-made contaminants in |                    |
| seq.      |   |        | drinking water. The EPA  |                    |
|           |   |        | is also responsible for  |                    |
| 40 CFR    |   |        | assessing and protecting |                    |
| 141-143   |   |        | drinking water sources;  |                    |
|           |   |        | protecting wells and     |                    |
|           |   |        | collection systems;      |                    |
|           |   |        | making sure water is     |                    |
|           |   |        | treated by qualified     |                    |
|           |   |        | operators; ensuring the  |                    |
|           |   |        | integrity of             |                    |
|           |   |        | distribution systems;    |                    |
|           |   |        | and making information   |                    |
|           |   |        | available to the public  |                    |
|           |   |        | on the quality of their  |                    |
|           |   |        | drinking water.          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| Farmland  | N |        | Minimize impacts on      | Relates to         |
| P         | R |        | farmland and maximize    | selection of an    |
| rotection | C |        | compatibility with state | alternative, which |
| Policy    | S |        | and local farmland       | in turn depends on |
| Act of    |   |        | programs and policies.   | a well-justified   |
| 1981:\    |   |        |                          | purpose and need   |
| 7 U.S.C.  |   |        |                          | statement.         |
| 4         |   |        |                          |                    |
| 201-4209\ |   |        |                          |                    |
| \         |   |        |                          |                    |
| 7 CFR 658 |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| *         |   |        |                          |                    |
| *Wildlife |   |        |                          |                    |
| Laws and  |   |        |                          |                    |
| Regu      |   |        |                          |                    |
| lations** |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| E         | U |        | The Act provides broad   | Relates to         |
| ndangered | S |        | protection for species   | selection of an    |
| Species   | F |        | of fish, wildlife and    | alternative, which |
| Act of    | W |        | plants that are listed   | in turn depends on |
| 1973:\    | S |        | as threatened or         | a well-justified   |
| 16        | , |        | endangered in the U.S.   | purpose and need   |
| U.S.C.    | N |        | or elsewhere. Provisions | statement.(        |
| 1531-1543 | O |        | are made for listing     |                    |
|           | A |        | species, as well as for  | All Federal        |
| 7 CFR 355 | A |        | recovery plans and the   | departments and    |
|           |   |        | designation of critical  | agencies shall     |
| 50 CFR    |   |        | habitat for listed       | seek to conserve   |
| 17, 23,   |   |        | species. The Act         | protected species, |
| 81, 222,  |   |        | outlines procedures,     | and use their      |
| 225-227,  |   |        | described in the next    | authorities to     |
| 402, 424, |   |        | paragraph, for Federal   | further the goals  |
| 450-453   |   |        | agencies to follow when  | of the ESA.        |
|           |   |        | taking actions that may  | Federal agencies   |
|           |   |        | affect listed species.   | must ensure that   |
|           |   |        | The Act also provides    | activities that    |
|           |   |        | exemptions and           | they undertake or  |
|           |   |        | exceptions for           | permit do not      |
|           |   |        | scientific research,     | jeopardize the     |
|           |   |        | enhancement of species,  | continued          |
|           |   |        | and incidental takes.    | existence of any   |
|           |   |        | The Endangered Species   | protected species  |
|           |   |        | Act also is the enabling | or destroy or      |
|           |   |        | legislation for the      | adversely modify   |
|           |   |        | Convention on            | critical habitat.  |
|           |   |        | International Trade in   |                    |
|           |   |        | Endangered Species of    |                    |
|           |   |        | Wild Fauna and Flora,    |                    |
|           |   |        | commonly known as CITES. |                    |
|           |   |        |                          |                    |
|           |   |        | All other Federal        |                    |
|           |   |        | agencies, in             |                    |
|           |   |        | consultation with and    |                    |
|           |   |        | with the assistance of   |                    |
|           |   |        | the Secretary, also must |                    |
|           |   |        | use their authorities in |                    |
|           |   |        | furtherance of the       |                    |
|           |   |        | purposes of the Act by   |                    |
|           |   |        | carrying out programs    |                    |
|           |   |        | for the conservation of  |                    |
|           |   |        | listed species. All      |                    |
|           |   |        | Federal agencies, in     |                    |
|           |   |        | consultation with and    |                    |
|           |   |        | with the assistance of   |                    |
|           |   |        | the Secretary, must      |                    |
|           |   |        | insure that any action   |                    |
|           |   |        | authorized, funded or    |                    |
|           |   |        | carried out by the       |                    |
|           |   |        | agency (agency action)   |                    |
|           |   |        | is not likely to         |                    |
|           |   |        | jeopardize the continued |                    |
|           |   |        | existence of an          |                    |
|           |   |        | endangered or threatened |                    |
|           |   |        | species, or result in    |                    |
|           |   |        | destruction or adverse   |                    |
|           |   |        | modification of a        |                    |
|           |   |        | critical habitat of a    |                    |
|           |   |        | species.                 |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| *         |   |        |                          |                    |
| *Cultural |   |        |                          |                    |
| Laws and  |   |        |                          |                    |
| Regu      |   |        |                          |                    |
| lations** |   |        |                          |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+
| National  | A |        | The National Historic    | Relates to         |
| Historic  | C |        | Preservation Act (NHPA)  | selection of an    |
| Pre       | H |        | created the Advisory     | alternative, which |
| servation | P |        | Council on Historic      | in turn depends on |
| Act:      |   |        | Preservation (ACHP), an  | a well-justified   |
|           |   |        | independent Federal      | purpose and need   |
| 16 U.S.C. |   |        | agency, to advise the    | statement.         |
| 470 et    |   |        | President and Congress   |                    |
| seq.      |   |        | on matters involving     | *Consulting party  |
|           |   |        | historic preservation.   | roles.*            |
| 36 CFR    |   |        | Under Section 106,       | SHPO/THPOs, Indian |
| 800       |   |        | Federal agencies are     | tribes, and Native |
| (Section  |   |        | required to take into    | Hawaiian           |
| 106       |   |        | account the effects of   | organizations,     |
| Reg       |   |        | their undertakings on    | other consulting   |
| ulations) |   |        | properties eligible or   | parties, and       |
|           |   |        | listed in the National   | organizations and  |
|           |   |        | Register of Historic     | individuals who    |
|           |   |        | Places, and to afford    | may be concerned   |
|           |   |        | the ACHP a reasonable    | with the possible  |
|           |   |        | opportunity to comment   | effects of an      |
|           |   |        | on actions that may      | agency action on   |
|           |   |        | affect such properties.  | historic           |
|           |   |        |                          | properties should  |
|           |   |        | The regulations define   | be prepared to     |
|           |   |        | how Federal agencies     | consult with       |
|           |   |        | meet Section 106         | agencies early in  |
|           |   |        | statutory                | the NEPA process,  |
|           |   |        | responsibilities. The    | when the purpose   |
|           |   |        | section 106 process      | of and need for    |
|           |   |        | seeks to accommodate     | the proposed       |
|           |   |        | historic preservation    | action as well as  |
|           |   |        | concerns with the needs  | the widest         |
|           |   |        | of Federal undertakings  | possible range of  |
|           |   |        | through consultation     | alternatives are   |
|           |   |        | among the agency         | under              |
|           |   |        | official and other       | consideration.     |
|           |   |        | parties with an interest | (Section           |
|           |   |        | in the effects of the    | 800.8(a)(2))       |
|           |   |        | undertaking on historic  |                    |
|           |   |        | properties, commencing   |                    |
|           |   |        | at the early stages of   |                    |
|           |   |        | project planning.        |                    |
+-----------+---+--------+--------------------------+--------------------+

# Appendix B:  {#appendix-b .unnumbered}

# Agency Interview Discussion Questions  {#agency-interview-discussion-questions .unnumbered}

1.  Are there purpose and need statements that you think of as good
    examples?

-   Why do you think they were good (e.g., appropriate length; inclusion
    of data on existing conditions or future no-build conditions that
    support the statement of need; inclusion of secondary goals and
    objectives; considerations relevant to using the purpose and need as
    the benchmark in developing alternatives; considerations relevant to
    using the purpose and need in evaluating alternatives).

-   Are there situations where these characteristics would be less
    beneficial or problematic? If so, explain.

-   For DOT agencies: are there any examples of purpose and need
    statements with a modal choice such as Traffic Demand Management and
    Traffic System Management?

2.  Are there examples of purpose and need statements that you think
    could have been improved and/or were challenged (successfully or
    unsuccessfully) during the environmental review process or during
    litigation? Please explain why.

-   Are there situations where these characteristics would have been
    more beneficial or advantageous? If so, explain.

-   Were there attributes that could have been improved to make the
    purpose and need statement more defensible and if so what were they?

3.  *For FHWA only:* how well does the transportation planning process
    provide the background information on project need?

-   What type of record is used in the linkage of planning and project
    need, i.e., public input, environmental factors, etc?

4.  *For FHWA only:* is the State DOT transportation planner involved in
    the development of purpose and need statements?

-   What improvements should be made to link transportation planning and
    the development of purpose and need statements for NEPA?

5.  Are you aware of the FHWA/FTA Interim Guidance on purpose and need
    statements?

-   How has this guidance affected the development and coordination of
    purpose and need statements?

6.  Do the states that you work with have a NEPA/404 merger agreement?

-   If yes, how does it address purpose and need coordination?

-   If not, do you believe an agreement would be useful for coordination
    of project purposes for 404/NEPA?

7.  *For DOT agencies:* what is your role in the development of a
    purpose and need statement? For example, are you responsible for the
    development of the statement, are you typically consulted regarding
    specific elements of the purpose and need statement, or do you
    typically review and comment on purpose and need statements?

8.  *For DOT agencies:* who else in your agency is involved in preparing
    or reviewing purpose and need statements and when do those reviews
    occur?

9.  *For regulatory agencies:* do DOT agencies ask you to review purpose
    and need statements before they begin the NEPA process, during
    scoping, or after the Draft EIS is issued?

10. Provide examples of interagency coordination (both successful and
    challenging) during the development of purpose and need statements
    in order to help us pinpoint impediments and successful techniques
    for overcoming them.

-   *For DOT agencies:* do you typically consult with regulatory
    agencies during the development of a purpose and need statement, and
    if so, which agencies and what type of information or support do you
    request? Do regulatory agencies frequently request that you provide
    more information? What type of information?

11. *For DOT agencies:* if there are impacts to wetlands involved in the
    proposed project, in relation to the development of the NEPA purpose
    and need statement, when do you consult with the USACE so that they
    can develop the project purpose under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean
    Water Act?

-   Is EPA also consulted regarding to the project purpose under section
    404? If so, when do you consult EPA?

 

12. *For the USACE and EPA:* are you able to use language from the NEPA
    purpose and need statements to develop (if it's the Corps) or review
    (if it's EPA) the project purpose statements under Section 404(b)(1)
    of the Clean Water Act?

13. In your opinion does the NEPA purpose and need statement and the
    alternatives derived from it typically provide the boundaries of
    Section 404(b)(1) project purpose statement and the subsequent
    selection of Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative
    (LEDPA)? Why or why not? Please provide examples.

14. Are there any laws, regulations, formal policy statements, technical
    guidance documents, or case law that you rely on when developing or
    reviewing purpose and need statements? For example, FHWA Guidance
    for Developing Purpose and Need Statements, or state DOT Purpose and
    Need Guidelines.

-   Have you developed or do you follow a particular approach to
    resolving conflicts that arise during the development of purpose and
    need?

15. Do you feel there is a need for additional guidance to aid in the
    development of purpose and need statements?

16. Is there any training available that covers transportation purpose
    and need exclusively (not likely) or within a general NEPA course or
    other broader curriculum that you have found useful?

17. Have you prepared or have you been involved in projects where
    economic development has been the primary project purpose?

-   If so, how was this presented in the analysis of project need and
    the subsequent development of alternatives?

-   What specific concerns were raised, if any, by the use of economic
    development as the purpose?

18. To what extent, if at all, should purpose and need statements
    reflect natural resource law or other guiding policy or mandates?

> Are there any issues related to purpose and need that we have not
> discussed today that you would like to discuss

# Appendix C: List of EISs Reviewed {#appendix-c-list-of-eiss-reviewed .unnumbered}

**Executive Order 13274 -- Interagency Transportation Infrastructure\
Streamlining Task Force**

**Review of EISs for Purpose and Need and Indirect\
and Cumulative Impacts**

The following list of EIS documents were reviewed for both Purpose and
Need and for Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. The selection of EISs for
review was based on the recommendations of Agency staff (FAA, FHWA, and
FTA), and for EPA OFA, the selection was based on the issues addressed
in the EIS, e.g. Section 404 permits or projects that crossed National
Forests. Additionally, EISs that were litigated and were included in the
case law summary were also identified as a priority for review.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Location**   **Title**                                         **Date**
  -------------- ------------------------------------------------- -----------
  **EPA -- OFA** Final EIS -- Colorado Forest Highway 80, Guanella Aug. 2002
                 Pass Road, Colorado                               

                 Final EIS - U.S. 287/26 Improvements Project,     Oct 2003
                 Moran Junction to 12 miles west of Dubois through 
                 Bridger-Teton and Shoshone National Forests,      
                 Wyoming                                           

                 Draft EIS - Reference Post 13 Interchange and     Sept 2002
                 City Road Project, Washington County, UT          

                 Draft Supplemental EIS -- U.S. 189, Utah Valley   Sept 2002
                 to Herber Valley Widening and Realignment, Utah   
                 and Wasatch Counties, Utah                        

                 Draft EIS and 4(f) Evaluation -- Improvements to  Oct 2003
                 I15 from 31^st^ Street to 2700 North, Weber       
                 County, Utah                                      

                 Final EIS and Section 4(f) Statement -- Wyoming   Sept 2003
                 Forest Highway 4, U.S. 212 Beartooth Highway,     
                 Park County, Wyoming                              

                 Final EIS - MO-19, MO-107, and U.S. 54            June 2002
                 Improvements and Extensions, U.S. 61 near Bowling 
                 Green and New London, Pike, Monroe, Ralls, and    
                 Audrain Counties, Missouri                        

                 Final EIS -- Louisiana I Improvements Golden      Oct 2002
                 Meadow to Prot Fourchon                           

                 Final EIS - U.S. 67 (FAP 310) Between             May 2002
                 Jacksonville and Macomb; Morgan, Cass, Schuyler,  
                 and McDonough Counties, Illinois                  

                 Final EIS and Final Section 4(F) Statement; South June 2002
                 and East Beltways, Lincoln, Nebraska, Project No. 
                 DPU-3300(1)                                       

                 Final EIS - WV 65 Corridor G to Naugatuck, Mingo  May 2002
                 County, West Virginia - Federal Project No.       
                 STP-0065 (008) EQ, State Project No. U230-65-7.74 
                 02                                                

                 Final EIS - State Route 120 Oakdale Expressway    Sept 2002
                 Project, City of Oakdale, California              

                 Draft SEIS -- Jamestown Bridge Replacement        Feb 2003
                 Project, Rhode Island                             

                 Draft EIS -- Interstate 15 Corridor, Montana City Feb 2003
                 to Lincoln Road, Montana                          

                 Final EIS -- East Harrison County Connector, I-10 Jan 2003
                 to U.S. 90, Harrison County, Mississippi          

                 Draft EIS -- Fairfield to Dupuyer Corridor Study  Aug 2002
                 in Teton and Pondera Counties (between            
                 Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National    
                 Park), Montana                                    

  **FTA**        Draft SEIS - MTA New York City Transit Second     March 2003
                 Avenue Subway, New York                           

                 Final EIS - New Britain-Hartford Busway\          Dec 2001
                 New Britain, Newington, West Hartford, and        
                 Hartford, CT                                      

                 Draft EIS - Central Link Light Rail Transit       Dec 1998
                 Project between North Seattle and the City of Sea 
                 Tac, Washington                                   

                 Final EIS -- LA Eastside Corridor, Los Angels     Jan 2002
                 County, California                                

                 Draft EIS -- Permanent WTC Port Authority         May 2004
                 Trans-Hudson (PATH) Terminal                      

                 Draft EIS -- Weber County to Salt Lake City       April 2004
                 Commuter Rail Project, Utah                       

                 Draft EIS -- MTA Long Island Railroad East Side   May 2000
                 Access, New York                                  

                 Draft EIS -- Fulton Street Transit Center, New    May 2004
                 York                                              

  **FAA**        Final EIS - Establishment of air cargo hub,       May 1990
                 Toledo Express Airport, Toledo, Ohio              

                 Final SEIS -- Indianapolis international airport  March 2001

                 Final EIS for the proposed runway 5L/23R,         Nov 2001
                 proposed new overnight express air cargo sorting  
                 and distribution facility, and associated         
                 developments at Piedmont Triad International      
                 Airport (PTIA), North Carolina                    

                 Draft EIS - Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky          July 2000
                 International Airport, Construction of new and    
                 expansion of existing runway and support          
                 facilities, Ohio                                  

                 Final EIS - Disposal and Reuse of Homestead Air   Feb 1994
                 Force Base, Florida                               

                 Final EIS - Master Plan Development and FAR Part  Nov 1999
                 150 Noise Compatibility Update, Charlotte Douglas 
                 International Airport, Charlotte, NC              

  **FHWA**       Final EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation - I-69      Dec 2003
                 Evansville to Indianapolis, Indiana Tier 1        
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

#  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

#  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

# Appendix D: Case Law {#appendix-d-case-law .unnumbered}

**Summary of Purpose and Need Cases**

For the case law review, a search was conducted within LexisNexis[^2],
an electronic database of state and Federal case law and court
documents, for cases relevant to the purpose and need of transportation
projects. This search was supplemented by reviews of relevant legal
texts, specifically, Daniel Mandelker's NEPA Law and Litigation, and
Roger Findley and Daniel Farber's Cases and Material on Environmental
Law, as well as the NEPAnet Case Law Review, an environmental case law
source compiled by the National Association of Environmental
Professionals. Finally, Work Group members were asked to contribute any
known legal decisions that had not been covered by the other case law
sources.

The attached table includes cases where the courts considered issues
related to NEPA purpose and need statements for transportation projects.
The table, while comprehensive, is not exhaustive in that it does not
include every case related to these issues. The table is organized
chronologically and includes the case titles and citations, identifies
the Federal litigants, and summarizes the issues and holdings of each
case.

The following bullets highlight the key themes derived from the case
law.

-   Generally, agencies need follow only a "rule of reason" in preparing
    an environmental impact statement. This rule of reason governs both
    which alternatives the agency must discuss, and the extent to which
    it must discuss them. The agency bears the responsibility for
    defining at the outset the objectives of an action.

-   The purpose and need for a proposed project may not be defined
    either in terms so unreasonably narrow that only one alternative
    would accomplish the objectives of the agency\'s action or in terms
    so unreasonably broad that an infinite number of alternatives would
    accomplish those objectives.

-   Courts have held that an agency need not consider all of the
    possible alternative actions in the environmental analysis, but is
    only required to look at those that are reasonable in light of the
    stated purpose and need of the project. Courts defer to agency
    judgment in defining objectives of proposed projects as long as the
    statement is reasonable.

-   Courts will examine on the adequacy of data used to support the
    purpose and need of the proposed project. For example, a single
    forecast used to support the project need may not rely on the
    assumption that the project will be completed, thereby creating a
    self-fulfilling prophecy for the proposed project. Courts also
    examine whether the consideration of alternatives is adequate to
    support the purpose and need of the proposed project.

-   Some courts use a broader approach to assess an agency's purpose and
    need statement finding that NEPA requires courts to evaluate the
    "alternative means to accomplish the general goal of an action...not
    the alternative means by which a particular applicant can reach his
    goals." Using this approach, a court may look beyond the project's
    stated purpose and focus on the project's general goal or statutory
    objective.

+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| *        |          |                       |                       |
| *Purpose |          |                       |                       |
| and      |          |                       |                       |
| Need**   |          |                       |                       |
+==========+==========+=======================+=======================+
| **Case   | *        | **Issue**             | **Holding**           |
| Title    | *Federal |                       |                       |
| and      | Lit      |                       |                       |
| Ci       | igants** |                       |                       |
| tation** |          |                       |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Trout    | DOI      | Trout Unlimited       | The court ruled in    |
| U        |          | alleged that the EIS  | favor of the DOI and  |
| nlimited |          | for the Teton Dam and | stated that the       |
| v.       |          | Reservoir project was | "range of             |
| Morton,  |          | inadequate because it | alternatives that     |
| 509 F.2d |          | failed to adequately  | must be considered    |
| 1276     |          | discuss alternatives. | need not extend       |
| (9^th^   |          |                       | beyond those          |
| Cir.     |          |                       | reasonably related to |
| 1974)    |          |                       | the purposes of the   |
|          |          |                       | project." The primary |
|          |          |                       | purposes of the       |
|          |          |                       | project are to        |
|          |          |                       | control flooding in   |
|          |          |                       | the Lower Teton       |
|          |          |                       | Valley and to provide |
|          |          |                       | a source of           |
|          |          |                       | irrigation water, and |
|          |          |                       | the secondary         |
|          |          |                       | purposes are to       |
|          |          |                       | provide               |
|          |          |                       | hydro-electric power  |
|          |          |                       | and recreational      |
|          |          |                       | benefits. The EIS     |
|          |          |                       | considered various    |
|          |          |                       | alternatives to meet  |
|          |          |                       | the stated purpose    |
|          |          |                       | and the court stated  |
|          |          |                       | that the range of     |
|          |          |                       | alternatives          |
|          |          |                       | considered by the EIS |
|          |          |                       | was adequate and that |
|          |          |                       | compliance with NEPA  |
|          |          |                       | has been achieved.    |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| City of  | DOT      | City of New York sued | The court decided in  |
| New York |          | because EA/FONSI did  | favor of DOT. The     |
| v.       |          | not include, as an    | purpose and need was  |
| United   |          | alternative, barging  | to establish national |
| States   |          | radioactive materials | levels of public      |
| De       |          | around NY city.       | safety for the        |
| partment |          |                       | transport of          |
| of       |          |                       | hazardous materials,  |
| Transpo  |          |                       | not for how to        |
| rtation, |          |                       | transport the         |
| 715 F.2d |          |                       | radioactive material. |
| 732 (2d  |          |                       | Therefore, it was not |
| Cir.     |          |                       | necessary for DOT to  |
| 1983),   |          |                       | consider alternatives |
| appeal   |          |                       | involving other modes |
| di       |          |                       | of transportation     |
| smissed, |          |                       | (e.g., such as the    |
| 465 U.S. |          |                       | \"barging\"           |
| 1055     |          |                       | alternative proposed  |
| (1984)   |          |                       | by plaintiffs). In    |
|          |          |                       | reaching its          |
|          |          |                       | decision, the Court   |
|          |          |                       | relied on the fact    |
|          |          |                       | that the legislative  |
|          |          |                       | authority under which |
|          |          |                       | DOT was acting        |
|          |          |                       | directed DOT to       |
|          |          |                       | establish national    |
|          |          |                       | safety regulations    |
|          |          |                       | for transporting      |
|          |          |                       | hazardous materials   |
|          |          |                       | on [each]{.underline} |
|          |          |                       | mode of               |
|          |          |                       | transportation.       |
|          |          |                       | Consistent with the   |
|          |          |                       | legislative           |
|          |          |                       | direction, DOT issued |
|          |          |                       | regulations           |
|          |          |                       | establishing safety   |
|          |          |                       | standards for         |
|          |          |                       | transporting          |
|          |          |                       | hazardous materials   |
|          |          |                       | on highways           |
|          |          |                       | (regulations relating |
|          |          |                       | to other modes were   |
|          |          |                       | to be drafted later). |
|          |          |                       | The Court also        |
|          |          |                       | observed that, since  |
|          |          |                       | DOT had conducted an  |
|          |          |                       | Environmental         |
|          |          |                       | Assessment concluding |
|          |          |                       | in a Finding of No    |
|          |          |                       | Significant Impact,   |
|          |          |                       | it was permitted to   |
|          |          |                       | consider a narrower   |
|          |          |                       | range of alternatives |
|          |          |                       | than othwerwise would |
|          |          |                       | have been required if |
|          |          |                       | the action would have |
|          |          |                       | caused a significant  |
|          |          |                       | impact. Finally, the  |
|          |          |                       | Court took into       |
|          |          |                       | account that the      |
|          |          |                       | proposed regulations  |
|          |          |                       | allowed consideration |
|          |          |                       | of locally-tailored   |
|          |          |                       | environmental         |
|          |          |                       | alternatives (like    |
|          |          |                       | the barging           |
|          |          |                       | alternative proposed  |
|          |          |                       | for NYC) at a later   |
|          |          |                       | date.                 |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| R        | DOT --   | Selection of highway  | The court ruled in    |
| esidents | FHWA     | alternative not       | favor of the FHWA and |
| in       |          | prejudiced by         | stated that a         |
| Protest  |          | emphasis on           | reasonable            |
| of I-35E |          | transportation goals. | alternative is one    |
| v. Dole, |          |                       | which will effectuate |
| 583 F.   |          |                       | the purposes of the   |
| Supp.    |          |                       | project....If an      |
| 653 (D.  |          |                       | alternative does not  |
| Minn.    |          |                       | implement the         |
| 1984)    |          |                       | purposes of the       |
|          |          |                       | project, it certainly |
|          |          |                       | is not reasonable and |
|          |          |                       | no purpose would be   |
|          |          |                       | served by requiring a |
|          |          |                       | detailed discussion   |
|          |          |                       | of its environmental  |
|          |          |                       | effects since the     |
|          |          |                       | alternative will      |
|          |          |                       | never be              |
|          |          |                       | adopted....While it   |
|          |          |                       | is true that it is    |
|          |          |                       | not permissible to    |
|          |          |                       | define the goals in   |
|          |          |                       | such a manner so as   |
|          |          |                       | to preordain the      |
|          |          |                       | outcome,              |
|          |          |                       | the...selection of    |
|          |          |                       | criteria must be      |
|          |          |                       | given some            |
|          |          |                       | weight....Since a     |
|          |          |                       | reasonable            |
|          |          |                       | alternative is one    |
|          |          |                       | which serves the      |
|          |          |                       | underlying goals of a |
|          |          |                       | project...and the     |
|          |          |                       | project under         |
|          |          |                       | consideration         |
|          |          |                       | involved              |
|          |          |                       | transportation, it is |
|          |          |                       | only natural that     |
|          |          |                       | transportation        |
|          |          |                       | policies would        |
|          |          |                       | predominate. As noted |
|          |          |                       | above, it would not   |
|          |          |                       | serve any interest to |
|          |          |                       | conduct a detailed    |
|          |          |                       | environmental         |
|          |          |                       | analysis of a         |
|          |          |                       | corridor that is not  |
|          |          |                       | feasible.             |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Van      | USACE    | The plaintiffs argued | The court ruled       |
| Abbema   |          | that the USACE        | against the USACE,    |
| v.       |          | environmental         | vacated the grant of  |
| Fornell, |          | analysis for a        | the permit and        |
| 807 F.2d |          | proposed coal         | remanded for          |
| 633      |          | transport facility    | reconsideration of    |
| (7^th^   |          | was inadequate        | economic factors      |
| Cir.     |          | because it failed to  | involved in the       |
| 1986)    |          | consider various      | public interest       |
|          |          | alternatives.         | review and further    |
|          |          |                       | consideration of the  |
|          |          |                       | economics of the      |
|          |          |                       | alternatives. The     |
|          |          |                       | court stated that the |
|          |          |                       | "evaluation of        |
|          |          |                       | 'alternatives'        |
|          |          |                       | mandated by NEPA is   |
|          |          |                       | to be an evaluation   |
|          |          |                       | of alternative means  |
|          |          |                       | to accomplish the     |
|          |          |                       | general goal of an    |
|          |          |                       | action; it is not an  |
|          |          |                       | evaluation of the     |
|          |          |                       | alternative means by  |
|          |          |                       | which a particular    |
|          |          |                       | applicant can reach   |
|          |          |                       | his goals." The court |
|          |          |                       | found that the        |
|          |          |                       | proposal's "general   |
|          |          |                       | goal is to deliver    |
|          |          |                       | coal from mine to     |
|          |          |                       | utility. In some      |
|          |          |                       | discussion of         |
|          |          |                       | alternatives to the   |
|          |          |                       | proposal, the USACE   |
|          |          |                       | has suggested that an |
|          |          |                       | alternative may not   |
|          |          |                       | be feasible at least  |
|          |          |                       | partly because the    |
|          |          |                       | applicant does not    |
|          |          |                       | own the necessary     |
|          |          |                       | land or perhaps       |
|          |          |                       | cannot gain access to |
|          |          |                       | it. The fact that     |
|          |          |                       | this applicant does   |
|          |          |                       | not now own an        |
|          |          |                       | alternative site is   |
|          |          |                       | only marginally       |
|          |          |                       | relevant (if it is    |
|          |          |                       | relevant at all) to   |
|          |          |                       | whether feasible      |
|          |          |                       | alternatives exist    |
|          |          |                       | the applicant\'s      |
|          |          |                       | proposal."            |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Sierra   | DOT --   | Plaintiffs sought an  | The court found in    |
| Club v.  | FHWA     | injunction against    | favor of the          |
| Marsh,   |          | the construction of a | plaintiffs and        |
| 714      |          | marine dry cargo      | granted the           |
| F.Supp.  |          | terminal because the  | injunction. The court |
| 539 (D.  |          | FHWA failed to        | stated that "In order |
| Me 1989) |          | consider certain      | for an environmental  |
|          |          | alternatives. The     | impact statement to   |
|          |          | FEIS identified "the  | be more than an       |
|          |          | 'general goals' of    | exercise in frivolous |
|          |          | the project as '1)    | boilerplate the       |
|          |          | creat\[ion of\] a     | concept of            |
|          |          | modern, efficient     | alternatives must be  |
|          |          | cargo facility that   | bounded by some       |
|          |          | will enhance the      | notion of             |
|          |          | economic              | feasibility. The      |
|          |          | competitiveness of    | feasibility component |
|          |          | central Maine         | is concerned with     |
|          |          | industries, and 2)    | whether a particular  |
|          |          | provi\[sion of\]      | alternative can meet  |
|          |          | additional employment | the goals of the      |
|          |          | in a region of the    | proposed action." The |
|          |          | State where chronic   | court found that the  |
|          |          | unemployment is a     | "central project      |
|          |          | significant problem.' | goals identifiable in |
|          |          | The FEIS further      | the present FEIS      |
|          |          | identifie\[d\] seven  | contemplate an        |
|          |          | 'public purpose       | efficient marine dry  |
|          |          | objectives' the State | cargo (containerized  |
|          |          | of Maine considers in | and neo-bulk)         |
|          |          | its evaluation of     | terminal in the       |
|          |          | cargo port facility   | Searsport area, to    |
|          |          | investments."         | compete with modern   |
|          |          |                       | dry cargo terminals   |
|          |          |                       | in the region,        |
|          |          |                       | capable of handling   |
|          |          |                       | the kinds of cargo    |
|          |          |                       | which would enhance   |
|          |          |                       | the competitiveness   |
|          |          |                       | of Maine industries,  |
|          |          |                       | particularly the wood |
|          |          |                       | products industry and |
|          |          |                       | other basic Maine     |
|          |          |                       | industries (e.g.,     |
|          |          |                       | agriculture and       |
|          |          |                       | fishing). Although    |
|          |          |                       | MDOT amply            |
|          |          |                       | demonstrates that it  |
|          |          |                       | 'desires' a terminal  |
|          |          |                       | facility capable of   |
|          |          |                       | expansion to six      |
|          |          |                       | berths, unless its    |
|          |          |                       | preferences bear a    |
|          |          |                       | rational relationship |
|          |          |                       | to the technical and  |
|          |          |                       | economic integrity of |
|          |          |                       | the project they      |
|          |          |                       | would not warrant the |
|          |          |                       | exclusion of some     |
|          |          |                       | otherwise 'reasonable |
|          |          |                       | alternative' from     |
|          |          |                       | analysis under NEPA.  |
|          |          |                       | A project\'s          |
|          |          |                       | principal goals must  |
|          |          |                       | override the stated   |
|          |          |                       | preferences of the    |
|          |          |                       | applicant for         |
|          |          |                       | purposes of NEPA\'s   |
|          |          |                       | 'reasonable           |
|          |          |                       | alternatives'         |
|          |          |                       | analysis." The court  |
|          |          |                       | further states that   |
|          |          |                       | the "evaluation of    |
|          |          |                       | alternatives mandated |
|          |          |                       | by \[NEPA\] is to be  |
|          |          |                       | an evaluation of      |
|          |          |                       | alternative means to  |
|          |          |                       | accomplish the        |
|          |          |                       | general goal of an    |
|          |          |                       | action; it is not an  |
|          |          |                       | evaluation of the     |
|          |          |                       | alternative means by  |
|          |          |                       | which a particular    |
|          |          |                       | applicant can reach   |
|          |          |                       | his goals."           |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| North    | DOT --   | The North Buckhead    | The court ruled in    |
| Buckhead | FHWA     | Civic Association     | favor of the FHWA and |
| Civic    |          | claimed that the EIS  | stated that Federal,  |
| Ass      |          | was inadequate        | state, and local      |
| ociation |          | because the FHWA      | officials complied    |
| v.       |          | failed to consider    | with Federally        |
| Skinner, |          | all reasonable        | mandated regional     |
| 903 F.   |          | alternatives.         | planning procedures   |
| 2d 1533  |          |                       | in developing the     |
| (11^th^  |          |                       | need and purpose      |
| Cir      |          |                       | section of EIS for a  |
| 1990)    |          |                       | proposed multi-lane   |
|          |          |                       | highway with a median |
|          |          |                       | designed to handle    |
|          |          |                       | heavy rail mass       |
|          |          |                       | transit. The Federal  |
|          |          |                       | agencies consulted    |
|          |          |                       | and cooperated with   |
|          |          |                       | local authorities and |
|          |          |                       | there was no evidence |
|          |          |                       | in the record to      |
|          |          |                       | indicate that the     |
|          |          |                       | FHWA officials acted  |
|          |          |                       | arbitrarily in        |
|          |          |                       | certifying the        |
|          |          |                       | project. The court    |
|          |          |                       | recognized that       |
|          |          |                       | Federal agencies      |
|          |          |                       | should respect the    |
|          |          |                       | role of local and     |
|          |          |                       | state authorities in  |
|          |          |                       | the transportation    |
|          |          |                       | planning process and  |
|          |          |                       | appropriately reflect |
|          |          |                       | the results of that   |
|          |          |                       | process in the        |
|          |          |                       | Federal agency\'s     |
|          |          |                       | NEPA analysis of      |
|          |          |                       | purpose and need. The |
|          |          |                       | court also said that  |
|          |          |                       | a discussion of       |
|          |          |                       | alternatives that     |
|          |          |                       | only partly meet      |
|          |          |                       | purpose and need but  |
|          |          |                       | have less             |
|          |          |                       | environmental         |
|          |          |                       | impacts, allows       |
|          |          |                       | decision makers to    |
|          |          |                       | evaluate trade-offs.  |
|          |          |                       | However, such a       |
|          |          |                       | discussion was not a  |
|          |          |                       | necessity in this     |
|          |          |                       | case.                 |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Citizens | DOT --   | The FAA considered    | The court ruled in    |
| Against  | FAA      | only the alternatives | favor of the FAA and  |
| Bur      |          | of approving the plan | upheld the FAA's      |
| lington, |          | and doing nothing,    | approval of the       |
| Inc. v.  |          | rather than the       | airport expansion     |
| Busey,   |          | possibility of        | project, where the    |
| 938 F.2d |          | expanding the airport | FAA considered only   |
| 190, 198 |          | in other ways,        | the alternatives of   |
| (D.C.    |          | changing the flight   | approving the plan    |
| Cir      |          | patterns, or          | and doing nothing,    |
| 1991)    |          | expanding other       | rather than the       |
|          |          | airports. FAA defined | possibility of        |
|          |          | the goal for the      | expanding the airport |
|          |          | action as "helping to | in other ways,        |
|          |          | launch a new cargo    | changing the flight   |
|          |          | hub in Toledo and     | patterns, or          |
|          |          | thereby helping to    | expanding other       |
|          |          | fuel the Toledo       | airports. "The goals  |
|          |          | economy." The FAA     | of an action delimit  |
|          |          | then eliminated all   | the universe of the   |
|          |          | alternatives that did | action's reasonable   |
|          |          | not promote that      | alternatives."        |
|          |          | goal. This narrow     | Therefore, the court  |
|          |          | definition of purpose | held that an agency   |
|          |          | was upheld as         | "may not define the   |
|          |          | reasonable because    | objectives of its     |
|          |          | the EIS explained why | action in terms so    |
|          |          | the agency eliminated | unreasonably narrow   |
|          |          | the other             | that only one         |
|          |          | alternatives. The     | alternative from      |
|          |          | reasoning put forth   | among the             |
|          |          | in the explanation    | environmentally       |
|          |          | fully supported the   | benign ones in the    |
|          |          | FAA's decision to     | agency's power would  |
|          |          | evaluate only the     | accomplish the goals  |
|          |          | preferred alternative | of the agency\'s      |
|          |          | and the no action     | action, and the EIS   |
|          |          | alternative.          | would become a        |
|          |          |                       | foreordained          |
|          |          |                       | formality. Nor may    |
|          |          |                       | any agency frame its  |
|          |          |                       | goals in terms so     |
|          |          |                       | unreasonably broad    |
|          |          |                       | that an infinite      |
|          |          |                       | number of             |
|          |          |                       | alternatives would    |
|          |          |                       | accomplish these      |
|          |          |                       | goals and the project |
|          |          |                       | would collapse under  |
|          |          |                       | the weight of the     |
|          |          |                       | possibilities."       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| G        | DOT --   | The Dallas-Fort Worth | The court ruled in    |
| rapevine | FAA      | Airport sought funds  | favor of the FAA and  |
| v.       |          | from the FAA to build | found that the FAA    |
| United   |          | two new airport       | acted properly in     |
| States   |          | runways, two new      | considering the       |
| Dep't of |          | terminal buildings,   | sponsor\'s goals when |
| Transp., |          | and other facilities  | evaluating the        |
| 17 F.3d  |          | in order to           | alternative courses   |
| 1502     |          | accommodate increased | of action and gave    |
| (D.C.    |          | airport demand.       | reasoned              |
| Cir.     |          | Petitioners argued    | consideration to      |
| 1994),   |          | that FAA improperly   | off-site              |
| cert.    |          | defined the purpose   | alternatives.         |
| denied,  |          | of the project and    |                       |
| 115 S.   |          | that consideration of |                       |
| Ct. 635  |          | alternatives was      |                       |
| (1994).  |          | circumscribed by the  |                       |
|          |          | stated purpose.       |                       |
|          |          | Specifically,         |                       |
|          |          | petitioners           |                       |
|          |          | challenged FAA\'s     |                       |
|          |          | determination that    |                       |
|          |          | the project\'s        |                       |
|          |          | purpose included the  |                       |
|          |          | economic development  |                       |
|          |          | of the Dallas-Fort    |                       |
|          |          | Worth area on the     |                       |
|          |          | grounds that          |                       |
|          |          | consideration of such |                       |
|          |          | a purpose was         |                       |
|          |          | inappropriate.        |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Laguna   | DOT --   | An expert affiliated  | The court ruled in    |
| Gr       | FHWA     | with the plaintiff    | favor of the FHWA and |
| eenbelt, |          | organization          | stated that expert    |
| Inc. v.  |          | submitted comments on | proposal for smaller, |
| United   |          | the proposed project. | four-lane alternative |
| States   |          | The EIS rejected the  | to proposed toll road |
| Dep't of |          | proposal for a        | was properly rejected |
| Transp., |          | four-lane highway     | in the EIS as not     |
| 42 F.3d  |          | because the proposal  | reasonably related to |
| 517      |          | would not meet the    | the purposes of the   |
| (9^th^   |          | project's goal of     | project.              |
| Cir.     |          | reducing traffic      |                       |
| 1994)    |          | congestion, even if   |                       |
|          |          | expert's special      |                       |
|          |          | pricing mechanisms    |                       |
|          |          | were used.            |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Clairton | DOT --   | Plaintiffs asserted   | The court ruled in    |
| Spo      | FHWA     | that the FHWA failed  | favor of the FHWA and |
| rtsmen's |          | to fully consider an  | found that the        |
| Club v.  |          | alternative to the    | rejected alternative  |
| Penn     |          | route ultimately      | was not considered a  |
| sylvania |          | chosen. They argue    | reasonable            |
| Turnpike |          | that the alternative  | alternative to meet   |
| Comm'n,  |          | they cite is          | the project area      |
| 882 F.   |          | reasonable on a       | transportation needs  |
| Supp.    |          | variety of grounds:   | of solving            |
| 455, 476 |          | it is less expensive  | congestion, safety    |
| (W.D.    |          | than the preferred    | and access problems   |
| Pa.      |          | alternative; it will  | in the project area.  |
| 1995)    |          | preserve farmland; it | The court held that   |
|          |          | will reduce the       | it has no power to    |
|          |          | danger from mine      | choose the FHWA's     |
|          |          | subsidence; it may    | transportation goals. |
|          |          | reduce the loss of    | Given the FHWA's      |
|          |          | residents and         | transportation goals  |
|          |          | businesses from the   | to solve congestion,  |
|          |          | metropolitan area; it | safety, and access    |
|          |          | would fare better on  | problems, the         |
|          |          | a cost-benefit        | rejected alternative  |
|          |          | comparison of         | to the selected       |
|          |          | transportation        | highway construction  |
|          |          | projects in the       | project was not a     |
|          |          | region; and would     | reasonable            |
|          |          | avoid disrupting an   | alternative, and      |
|          |          | adjacent town. Having | therefore was not     |
|          |          | these reasonable      | required to be        |
|          |          | qualities, they       | considered in detail. |
|          |          | contend, it was       | The court deferred to |
|          |          | unreasonable for the  | the agency's decision |
|          |          | FHWA not to consider  | in choosing the       |
|          |          | it in detail.         | transportation goals. |
|          |          | Plaintiffs also argue |                       |
|          |          | that the FHWA         |                       |
|          |          | improperly confined   |                       |
|          |          | the goals of the      |                       |
|          |          | project to a small    |                       |
|          |          | geographic area       |                       |
|          |          | rather than the       |                       |
|          |          | region as a whole.    |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Sierra   | DOT --   | Plaintiffs argue that | The court rules in    |
| Club v.  | FHWA     | the stated objectives | favor of the          |
| United   |          | in the FEIS are       | plaintiff and stated  |
| States   |          | excessively narrow.   | that these goals      |
| Dep't of |          | For example, the      | could only be         |
| Transp., |          | final impact          | satisfied by the      |
| 962 F.   |          | statement asserts     | proposed tollroad.    |
| Supp.    |          | that the project\'s   | Numerous alternatives |
| 1037     |          | objectives include:   | could satisfy some of |
| (N.D.    |          | (1) providing a       | the FHWA's            |
| Ill.     |          | "north-south          | objectives. For       |
| 1997)    |          | transportation        | example, a rail       |
|          |          | corridor linking      | system could          |
|          |          | Interstate Route 55   | alleviate many of the |
|          |          | and Interstate Route  | identified problems   |
|          |          | 80\", and (2)         | to some degree. The   |
|          |          | completing a project  | final impact          |
|          |          | that has been \"an    | statement simply      |
|          |          | element of regional   | concludes that such   |
|          |          | and county            | alternatives do not   |
|          |          | transportation plans  | meet the objectives   |
|          |          | for over thirty       | as well as the        |
|          |          | years." FHWA argued   | tollroad. Given that  |
|          |          | that FEIS relies on   | the rejection of      |
|          |          | broader objectives    | alternatives was      |
|          |          | when analyzing and    | based in large part   |
|          |          | ultimately dismissing | on these broader and  |
|          |          | various alternatives  | more general          |
|          |          | to construction,      | objectives, this      |
|          |          | including the need to | court cannot conclude |
|          |          | improve local travel, | that the FEIS's       |
|          |          | accommodate           | description of        |
|          |          | increasing freight    | objectives is         |
|          |          | demand, relieve       | excessively narrow.   |
|          |          | congestion at         |                       |
|          |          | critical locations on | However, the FEIS     |
|          |          | the interstate        | contains a            |
|          |          | system, provide a     | socioeconomic         |
|          |          | north-south           | forecast that assumes |
|          |          | transportation        | the construction of a |
|          |          | corridor, accommodate | highway such as the   |
|          |          | shifting locations of | tollroad and then     |
|          |          | employment; and       | applies that forecast |
|          |          | enhance community     | to both the build and |
|          |          | linkage.              | no-build              |
|          |          |                       | alternatives. The     |
|          |          | Plaintiffs also       | result is a forecast  |
|          |          | argued that even if   | of future needs that  |
|          |          | the FEIS's            | only the proposed     |
|          |          | description of the    | tollroad can satisfy. |
|          |          | project\'s purposes   | As a result, the FEIS |
|          |          | is not excessively    | creates a             |
|          |          | narrow, the general   | self-fulfilling       |
|          |          | objectives upon which | prophecy that makes a |
|          |          | FHWA relies are not   | reasoned analysis of  |
|          |          | supported by the      | how different         |
|          |          | available evidence.   | alternatives satisfy  |
|          |          | As a result,          | future needs          |
|          |          | plaintiffs argue that | impossible.           |
|          |          | there was no rational | Therefore, the court  |
|          |          | basis for analyzing   | found that the EIS    |
|          |          | alternatives to the   | was inadequate.       |
|          |          | tollroad.             |                       |
|          |          | Specifically,         |                       |
|          |          | plaintiffs point out  |                       |
|          |          | that FHWA relied on a |                       |
|          |          | single population     |                       |
|          |          | forecast and that the |                       |
|          |          | forecast was used to  |                       |
|          |          | analyze the build and |                       |
|          |          | no-build scenarios.   |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Alaska   | DOT --   | Alaska Center for the | The court ruled in    |
| Center   | FHWA     | Environment           | favor of FHWA and     |
| for the  |          | challenged the        | found that FHWA's     |
| Env      |          | decision to construct | definition of purpose |
| ironment |          | and fund a road from  | for joint             |
| v.       |          | Portage to Whittier,  | state-Federal         |
| Arm      |          | Alaska. Pursuant to a | transportation        |
| brister, |          | joint state-Federal   | project, to meet      |
| 131 F.3d |          | transportation        | demand access to      |
| 1285     |          | project, the FHWA     | remote community, and |
| (9^th^   |          | approved the          | its analysis of       |
| Cir.     |          | construction of the   | alternatives to       |
| 1997)    |          | road and agreed to    | building road across  |
|          |          | provide funding for   | protected             |
|          |          | the construction.     | recreational areas,   |
|          |          |                       | including improved    |
|          |          |                       | rail system, did not  |
|          |          |                       | violate NEPA.         |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Carme    | DOT --   | The EIS for the       | The court ruled in    |
| l-by-the | FHWA     | proposed project      | favor of the FHWA on  |
| --Sea v. |          | stated that "The      | the agency's          |
| U.S.     |          | purpose of the        | alternative analysis, |
| DOT, 123 |          | project is to relieve | stating that the      |
| F.3d     |          | current traffic       | range of alternatives |
| 1142     |          | congestion, lessen    | analyzed in the EIS   |
| (9^th^   |          | emergency vehicle     | for the proposed      |
| Cir.     |          | response time, reduce | highway construction  |
| 1997)    |          | crossing conflicts at | project satisfied     |
|          |          | local intersections   | NEPA, notwithstanding |
|          |          | and driveways,        | challengers' claim    |
|          |          | improve safety,       | that only one         |
|          |          | ameliorate air        | alternative met       |
|          |          | quality, and bring    | project goals. Each   |
|          |          | the rural road        | alternative achieved  |
|          |          | character back to the | goals to some degree, |
|          |          | local area."          | no one alternative    |
|          |          |                       | fulfilled all goals   |
|          |          |                       | completely, and the   |
|          |          |                       | proposals considered  |
|          |          |                       | spanned the spectrum  |
|          |          |                       | of reasonable         |
|          |          |                       |                       |
|          |          |                       | alternatives. The     |
|          |          |                       | court held that the   |
|          |          |                       | agency did not define |
|          |          |                       | its objectives in     |
|          |          |                       | unreasonably narrow   |
|          |          |                       | terms.                |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Morongo  | DOT --   | The EA discussed a    | The court ruled in    |
| Band of  | FAA      | number of             | favor of the FAA and  |
| Mission  |          | alternatives that     | found that the EA was |
| Indians  |          | would have bypassed   | adequate because the  |
| v.       |          | the Morongo           | alternative flight    |
| Federal  |          | reservation, but      | paths were infeasible |
| Aviation |          | found them unsuitable | and did not meet the  |
| Admin.,  |          | for accomplishing the | project objectives.   |
| 161 F.3d |          | primary purpose of    |                       |
| 569,     |          | the project, which    |                       |
| 579-580  |          | was to define a new   |                       |
| (9^th^   |          | airspace sector.      |                       |
| Cir.     |          |                       |                       |
| 1998)    |          |                       |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| City of  | DOT --   | The City of           | The court ruled in    |
| Al       | FHWA     | Alexandria challenged | favor of the FHWA and |
| exandria |          | the FHWA's compliance | found that the        |
| v.       |          | with NEPA in its      | 10-lane               |
| Slater,  |          | approval of plans to  | river-crossing        |
| 198 F.3d |          | replace the Woodrow   | alternative was not a |
| 862      |          | Wilson Memorial       | "reasonable           |
| (D.C.    |          | Bridge, which         | alternative." The     |
| Cir.     |          | connects Virginia and | reasonableness of an  |
| 1999)    |          | Maryland over the     | alternative is judged |
|          |          | Potomac River. The    | in light of the       |
|          |          | City argued that a    | objectives of the     |
|          |          | 10-lane river         | Federal action. A     |
|          |          | crossing was a        | Federal agency can    |
|          |          | reasonable            | properly exclude      |
|          |          | alternative that      | those alternatives    |
|          |          | should be considered  | that do not bring     |
|          |          | in the EIS.           | about the ends of the |
|          |          |                       | Federal action. The   |
|          |          |                       | court also found that |
|          |          |                       | the purpose and need  |
|          |          |                       | were particular and   |
|          |          |                       | focused on traffic    |
|          |          |                       | needs projected for   |
|          |          |                       | the year 2020, and    |
|          |          |                       | the 10-lane           |
|          |          |                       | alternative did not   |
|          |          |                       | fit those needs.      |
|          |          |                       | Upholding             |
|          |          |                       | transportation and    |
|          |          |                       | safety objectives for |
|          |          |                       | new bridge and        |
|          |          |                       | rejecting argument    |
|          |          |                       | that agency should    |
|          |          |                       | have prioritized      |
|          |          |                       | environmental goals.  |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| City of  | DOT --   | Plaintiff's           | The court ruled in    |
| B        | FAA      | challenged the FAA's  | favor of the FAA and  |
| ridgeton |          | statement of purpose  | found that the FAA    |
| v.       |          | because the FAA based | data supported the    |
| Slater,  |          | its goal of           | need for such a       |
| 212 F.3d |          | "independent          | system because it     |
| 448      |          | simultaneous arrival  | revealed the          |
| )8^th^   |          | capacity in bad       | beneficial impacts    |
| Cir.     |          | weather" in part on   | that the system would |
| 2000)    |          | data regarding        | have on foul weather  |
|          |          | arrival delays.       | delays.               |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| North    | DOT --   | The plaintiffs argued | Although the court    |
| Carolina | FWHA     | that the stated need  | found that the        |
| Alliance |          | for the proposed      | purpose of            |
| for      |          | project rested on     | circumferential       |
| Transp.  |          | inaccurate            | highway project to    |
| Reform   |          | information. The FHWA | connect the roadways  |
| v.       |          | stated that the       | was entirely          |
| United   |          | purpose of the        | reasonable and was    |
| States   |          | western section of a  | properly stated as    |
| Dep't of |          | beltway project was   | one of several more   |
| Transp., |          | to provide a          | general goals for the |
| 151 F.   |          | continuous            | western section, the  |
| Supp.2d  |          | north-south           | court ruled in favor  |
| 661      |          | connecting road that  | of the plaintiffs     |
| (        |          | would link the        | because inaccurate    |
| M.D.N.C. |          | existing radial       | data was included to  |
| 2001)    |          | roadways.             | support need. The     |
|          |          |                       | court held that an    |
|          |          |                       | EIS based on          |
|          |          |                       | "inaccurate data      |
|          |          |                       | might sway members of |
|          |          |                       | the public to support |
|          |          |                       | a project they would  |
|          |          |                       | otherwise oppose if   |
|          |          |                       | they were given       |
|          |          |                       | accurate              |
|          |          |                       | information."         |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Friends  | DOT --   | Plaintiffs challenged | The court found in    |
| of the   | FTA      | the EIS for a         | favor of the FTA and  |
| Monorail |          | proposed light rail   | dismissed the suit on |
| v. USA,  |          | for the Sound Transit | the basis that the    |
| No       |          | Link in Washington    | purpose and need of   |
| C00-852Z |          | State on the basis    | the proposed light    |
| (W. D.   |          | that it did not       | rail was adequately   |
| Wash.    |          | consider monorail     | defined so that an    |
| March    |          | technology as an      | analysis of the       |
| 30,      |          | alternative.          | monorail technology   |
| 2001)    |          |                       | as an alternative was |
|          |          |                       | not necessary.        |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Davis v. | DOT --   | Plaintiffs argued     | The court ruled in    |
| Mineta,  | FWHA     | that the scope of the | favor of the          |
| 302 F.3d |          | proposed project was  | plaintiffs and found  |
| 1104     |          | so narrowly defined   | that the purposes and |
| (10^th^  |          | that it eliminated    | needs of the Project  |
| Cir.     |          | reasonable            | were so narrowly      |
| 2002)    |          | alternatives.         | construed as to       |
|          |          |                       | mandate the extra     |
|          |          |                       | capacity only at the  |
|          |          |                       | preferred             |
|          |          |                       | alternative. This     |
|          |          |                       | narrow definition is  |
|          |          |                       | contrary to the       |
|          |          |                       | mandates of NEPA. The |
|          |          |                       | record before the     |
|          |          |                       | court suggested       |
|          |          |                       | potentially viable    |
|          |          |                       | alternatives of       |
|          |          |                       | expanding traffic     |
|          |          |                       | capacity that were    |
|          |          |                       | not adequately        |
|          |          |                       | analyzed in the EA.   |
|          |          |                       | The decision stated   |
|          |          |                       | that courts will      |
|          |          |                       | uphold an agency's    |
|          |          |                       | discussion of         |
|          |          |                       | alternatives if the   |
|          |          |                       | judges believe the    |
|          |          |                       | statement of purpose  |
|          |          |                       | and need was          |
|          |          |                       | sufficiently broad so |
|          |          |                       | that it does not      |
|          |          |                       | foreclose             |
|          |          |                       | consideration of      |
|          |          |                       | reasonable            |
|          |          |                       | alternatives.         |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Route 9  | DOT --   | The legal fund argued | The court ruled in    |
| Op       | FHWA     | that the EIS was      | favor of the FHWA and |
| position |          | inadequate, as it did | found that the agency |
| Legal    |          | not consider a true   | determination was     |
| Fund v.  |          | upgrade to the        | based upon            |
| Mineta,  |          | existing two-lane     | consideration of the  |
| 213 F.   |          | route, by widening    | relevant factors and  |
| Supp.2d  |          | shoulders, realigning | there was no clear    |
| 637      |          | curves, and adding    | error of judgment.    |
| (N.D. W. |          | turn lanes to improve |                       |
| Va.      |          | traffic operations    |                       |
| 2002)    |          | and address roadway   |                       |
|          |          | deficiencies. The     |                       |
|          |          | administrative record |                       |
|          |          | showed the agencies   |                       |
|          |          | did consider the      |                       |
|          |          | upgrade alternatives  |                       |
|          |          | suggested, and found  |                       |
|          |          | they would not meet   |                       |
|          |          | the project purposes  |                       |
|          |          | and need. They did an |                       |
|          |          | extensive             |                       |
|          |          | alternatives          |                       |
|          |          | evaluation and        |                       |
|          |          | considered all        |                       |
|          |          | relevant factors as   |                       |
|          |          | required by NEPA.     |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Alliance | DOT --   | The EIS states that   | The court found in    |
| for      | FAA      | the purpose and need  | favor of the FAA. The |
| Legal    |          | for the airport       | court stated that the |
| Action   |          | expansion project is  | statement of a        |
| v. FAA,  |          | to build a cargo hub  | project's purpose and |
| No.      |          | at PTIA with          | need is left to the   |
| 02-1062  |          | parallel, widely      | agency's expertise    |
| (4^th^   |          | spaced, 9,000-foot    | and discretion, and   |
| Cir.     |          | runways. Opponent     | courts will defer to  |
| 2003)    |          | claims that this      | the agency if the     |
|          |          | statement defines the | statement is          |
|          |          | project's goals too   | reasonable. The       |
|          |          | narrowly, allowing    | reasonableness of a   |
|          |          | them to be set by     | given statement of    |
|          |          | what FedEx (and the   | purpose and need      |
|          |          | Airport Authority,    | depends first on the  |
|          |          | which actually        | nature of the         |
|          |          | submitted the         | proposed Federal      |
|          |          | proposal) wanted from | action. The agency    |
|          |          | the project. This     | need not consider all |
|          |          | narrow statement of   | of the possible       |
|          |          | purpose and need led  | alternative actions   |
|          |          | the agency to         | in the EIS; it is     |
|          |          | consider only         | only required to look |
|          |          | alternatives that met | at those that are     |
|          |          | FedEx's needs. The    | reasonable in light   |
|          |          | ALA argues that the   | of the project's      |
|          |          | FAA should have       | stated purpose.       |
|          |          | started with a        |                       |
|          |          | broader statement     |                       |
|          |          | that reflected the    |                       |
|          |          | general goal of       |                       |
|          |          | building a cargo hub  |                       |
|          |          | to serve the          |                       |
|          |          | mid-Atlantic region.  |                       |
|          |          | A broader statement   |                       |
|          |          | would have prompted   |                       |
|          |          | consideration of a    |                       |
|          |          | wider variety of      |                       |
|          |          | alternatives.         |                       |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Citizens | DOT --   | Plaintiffs alleged    | The court found in    |
| Advocate | FHWA     | that the Final EIS    | favor of the FHWA and |
| Team, et |          | for a proposed bridge | ruled that EIS does   |
| al. v.   |          | project failed to     | not need a detailed   |
| USDOT,   |          | provide a detailed    | analysis of           |
| et al.,  |          | assessment of         | growth-inducing       |
| No. 02 C |          | growth-inducing       | impacts, because the  |
| 5962,    |          | impacts.              | projected impacts at  |
| (N. D.   |          |                       | issue are consistent  |
| Il.      |          |                       | with the overall      |
| 2004)    |          |                       | purpose and need for  |
|          |          |                       | the project, which    |
|          |          |                       | focuses on relieving  |
|          |          |                       | traffic congestion    |
|          |          |                       | and enhancing         |
|          |          |                       | development along the |
|          |          |                       | corridor of the       |
|          |          |                       | proposed project.     |
+----------+----------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

# Appendix E: Sample Purpose and Need Statements {#appendix-e-sample-purpose-and-need-statements .unnumbered}

**Example from**

**Vermont Agency of Transportation Project Development Process, Appendix
D: Purpose and Need Statements**

**Purpose**

The purpose of Ryegate TH3 9443 is to enhance mobility from the farm to
US 302 and to improve safety on Town Highway 50.

**Need**

The mobility and safety performance of Town Highway 50 is considered
deficient based on highway alignment, structural capacity, and location.
The following deficiencies define the need for the facility improvement:

1\) Highway Alignment

The current intersection with US 302 has limited sight distance which is
below the levels recommended by the Vermont State Standards An analysis
of the accident history indicates a relationship exists between the
accidents documented and the limited sight distance.

2\) Structural Capacity

The bridge on TH 50 is subject to substructure scouring which severely
limits the capacity of the bridge.

3\) Location

A portion of the TH, including the bridge, is within the flood plain of
the Wells River. During high water, the access to the farm is cut off
since the road and bridge are submerged. High water causes erosion to
the road and damages the bridge, and also provides an unsafe condition
for motorists traveling the road during these conditions.

**SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct & Seawall Replacement Project,**

**Draft Environmental Impact Statement, March 2004.**

**Prepared by Federal Highway Administration, Washington State
Department of Transportation, and City of Seattle.**

**PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT**

**Introduction: Function and Role of the Alaskan**

**Way Viaduct Corridor and Alaskan Way Seawall**

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Washington State

Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of Seattle (City)

are proposing major improvements to the Alaskan Way Viaduct

Corridor and to the Alaskan Way Seawall. Both the Alaskan Way

Viaduct Corridor and the Alaskan Way Seawall are located in downtown

Seattle, King County, Washington. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor

extends from approximately Spokane Street on the south to north of the

Battery Street Tunnel. The Alaskan Way Seawall extends from South

Washington Street to Bay Street along Elliot Bay on Puget Sound.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor (part of SR 99) and Interstate 5 (I-5)

are the two primary north-south routes to and through downtown

Seattle. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor currently carries about

110,000 vehicles a day and serves both through trips and trips accessing

the downtown business district. The Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor pro-

vides the quickest and most convenient route to and through downtown

Seattle for communities located to the northwest and southwest of

downtown. The Corridor plays a vital role in freight mobility, providing

a major truck route through downtown, and providing access to the

Ballard-Interbay and greater Duwamish manufacturing and industrial

centers. The Corridor also serves as a transit route for local and
express

bus service.

The section of the Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor between Spokane

Street and South Holgate is a limited-access facility, operating with
sig-

nalized intersections and driveways. This portion of the Alaskan Way

Viaduct Corridor currently operates adequately because the signalized

segments effectively regulate traffic volumes. Congestion that currently

develops is typically the result of incidents or back-ups at access
ramps.

The Alaskan Way Seawall consists of various types of construction, the

majority of which was completed in 1934 extending from Madison Street

to Bay Street. This portion uses vertical piles and a horizontal timber-

relieving platform to hold the vertical face of the Seawall in place.
Most

of the remainder of the wall south of Madison was constructed in 1916.

The Seawall supports Alaskan Way (the surface street) and a variety of

utilities. The fills retained by the wall provide lateral support for
some

of the foundations of the Alaskan Way Viaduct as well as the founda-

tions for some nearby buildings. Alaskan Way includes King County

Metro\'s Waterfront Streetcar, which provides trolley access to the

International District, Pioneer Square, various Seattle waterfront loca-

tions along Elliott Bay and Myrtle Edwards Park. Alaskan Way also pro-

vides access to Colman Dock, which supports vehicle and passenger

ferry service to Bainbridge Island and Bremerton, and passenger ferry

service to Vashon Island.

**Purpose of the Proposed Action**

The purpose of the proposed action is to provide a transportation
facili-

ty and seawall with improved earthquake resistance that maintains or

improves mobility and accessibility for people and goods along the
exist-

ing Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor.

**Need for the Proposed Action**

The Alaskan Way Viaduct and Alaskan Way Seawall are both at the end

of their useful life. Improvements to both are required to protect
public

safety and maintain the transportation corridor. Because these
facilities

are at risk of sudden and catastrophic failure in an earthquake, FHWA,

WSDOT and the City of Seattle seek to implement these improvements

as quickly as possible. WSDOT and the City of Seattle have identified
the

following underlying needs the project should address:

**Safety**

*Seismic Vulnerability*

The ability of the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Alaskan Way Seawall to

withstand earthquakes needs to be improved. The Alaskan Way Viaduct

is vulnerable to earthquakes because of its age, design and location.

Built in the 1950\'s, the Alaskan Way Viaduct is past the halfway point
in

its 75-year design life and does not meet today\'s seismic design stan-

dards. Additionally, the soils around the foundations of the Alaskan Way

Viaduct consist of former tidal flats covered with wet, loose fill
material.

The Alaskan Way Seawall holds these soils in place along the majority

of the Alaskan Way Viaduct corridor, which is also vulnerable to

earthquakes.

WSDOT studies in 1995 and 1996 concluded that the soils on which

the Alaskan Way Viaduct is constructed are vulnerable to soil liquefac-

tion and may lose their ability to support the structure. Studies
conclud-

ed that if an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 or higher occurred close

to Seattle, the Alaskan Way Viaduct could be rendered unusable or

even collapse.

The 1996 WSDOT study also demonstrated that the Alaskan Way

Seawall, which holds the waterfront soils in place, could fail if the
soils

liquefy. If the Alaskan Way Seawall fails, the liquefied material may

spread laterally to the west and into Elliot Bay jeopardizing nearby
facili-

ties and structures.

The February 28, 2001 Nisqually earthquake (magnitude 6.8, located 35

miles from Seattle and deep below the surface) caused moderate damage

to the Alaskan Way Viaduct. The structure was closed for inspection

and repairs intermittently for several days over a period of several

months. The extent of damage and loss of the heavily traveled corridor

heightened awareness of the need for immediate improvements to the

corridor. A Structural Deficiency Report was prepared after the earth-

quake and it concluded that continued reliance on the existing viaduct
is

not prudent.

Following the Nisqually earthquake, field investigations and
liquefaction

analyses were performed for a portion of Alaskan Way (the surface

street) where settlements of the roadway had occurred. These investiga-

tions concluded that a portion of the loose fills below the relieving
plat-

form liquefied and settled in areas where the Seawall structure has been

heavily damaged by Marine borer activity. It is possible that fill in
other

locations along Alaskan Way may have begun to liquefy, even though

there is no other evidence of widespread roadway settlement.

*Traffic Safety*

Traffic safety along the Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor needs to be

improved. Traffic accident data for the years 1998 through 2000 indicate

that high levels of traffic accidents occur in some portions of the
Alaskan

Way Viaduct Corridor. The southbound and northbound lanes of SR 99

in the Battery Street tunnel had 124 and 84 accidents, respectively.

These were the highest numbers of accidents among all street segments

recorded by the City in those three years. In addition, the following
four

segments in the Alaskan Way Viaduct section of SR 99 had unusually

high numbers of traffic accidents: the northbound segment from the 1st

Avenue on-ramp to the Seneca Street off-ramp (77 accidents), the south-

bound segment from the Columbia Street on-ramp to the 1st Avenue

off-ramp (67 accidents), the southbound segment from the South

Lander Street to the West Seattle on-ramp (43 accidents), and the north-

bound segment from the Seneca off-ramp to the Western Avenue off-

ramp (35 accidents). WSDOT designates the Battery Street Tunnel and

the northbound and southbound lanes near the 1st Avenue ramp as

High Accident Locations (HALs).

*Roadway Design Deficiencies*

The Alaskan Way Viaduct Corridor does not meet current roadway

design standards and has several types of deficiencies, which need to be

improved.

The lane width provided on the Viaduct does not meet current design

requirements. The existing lane striped widths are 10-feet. The standard

lane width for this type of facility is 12-feet. Narrow lane width
affects

roadway capacity and operating speeds as well as safety. In addition,
sub-

stantial sections of the Viaduct have minimal or no shoulders. The stan-

dard shoulder widths for a divided multi-lane facility are 10-feet to
the

right of traffic and 4-feet to the left of traffic. Additional width is

required if there is a traffic barrier, bridge column and retaining
walls.

Lack of shoulders or non-standard shoulder width can severely affect

operations of the roadway as well as the safety of the roadway.

The on- and off-ramps of the Viaduct also do not reflect current design

standards. The existing ramp configurations do not provide adequate

sight distance; gore area, and ramp taper rate. Reduced sight distance

affects the ability of drivers to enter, drive upon, and exit the
roadway

safely. The current geometry does not provide long enough acceleration

and deceleration lanes. Short acceleration and deceleration lane lengths

affect the ability of drivers to enter and exit the freeway system
safely.

Gore area is the refuge area for drivers when they want to make correc-

tions to their decision to exit or not to exit the freeway. By not
providing

the gore area, drivers lose decision time to make such corrections and

hence impact safety. Substandard ramp tapers do not provide drivers

with adequate length to exit and enter into freeway traffic.

**System Linkage**

Another need served by the project is for an integrated regional trans-

portation system. The WSDOT is currently planning to extend SR 509

south from its current terminus near South 188th Street to connect with

I-5 and improve access to and from communities south of Seattle-

Tacoma International Airport. SR 509 connects to SR 99 at the First

Avenue S. Bridge, and serves as a major route from the south to down-

town Seattle and nearby port facilities and industrial areas.

Changes proposed, as part of the SR 519 Intermodal Access Project in

the vicinity of Safeco Field would improve east-west connections

between the waterfront and I-5 and I-90, both of which are principal
cor-

ridors in the regional transportation system. Traffic from the I-5 and
I-90

freeways heading for the downtown waterfront, stadium area, and Port

and ferry terminals currently crosses the Burlington Northern Santa Fe

(BNSF) mainline railroad track at-grade on South Royal Brougham Way.

The SR 519 Intermodal Access Project will provide grade-separated

crossings of the BNSF on both South Atlantic Street and South Royal

Brougham Way and improve surface street connections from Alaskan

Way to the Colman Dock ferry terminal. Phase 1 (Atlantic Street Bridge

and Alaskan Way South Surface Street Improvements) is currently under

construction, with completion projected for 2003.

Washington State Ferries are a division of the State Department of

Transportation, and the ferry system is part of the state highway
system.

The Colman Ferry Dock connects downtown Seattle with ferry service to

Bremerton, Bainbridge Island, and passenger ferry service to Vashon

Island. Over 10 million passengers and 3 million vehicles currently use

these ferries annually. Service expansion to Kingston and Southworth is

included in the State\'s long-range plans for the ferry system.

As part of implementing the South Lake Union neighborhood plan,

the City is currently exploring options for improving mobility in the

area, including east-west mobility between SR 99 and I-5. The City is
also

planning to widen the Spokane Street Viaduct. The Spokane Street

Viaduct provides the major link between I-5 and West Seattle (via the

West Seattle Bridge). The major transit route from West Seattle to

downtown Seattle is by way of the West Seattle Bridge and the Alaskan

Way Viaduct.

**Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety and Accessibility**

Bicycle and pedestrian safety, mobility, and accessibility need to be
main-

tained or improved as part of the surface improvements to Alaskan Way

and connecting streets. The Seattle waterfront is the center for
Seattle\'s

well-developed comprehensive Urban Trails System. Regional trails from

the north, east and west converge on Alaskan Way. Every day, thou-

sands of tourists, recreational walkers and joggers, shoppers,
bicyclists,

ferry users and office workers utilize Alaskan Way.

**GOALS AND OBJECTIVES**

In addition to the project purpose and need, the following goals and
objectives will guide project development.

**Seattle\'s Plans for the Downtown Waterfront**

Improvements to the Alaskan Way Viaduct and Alaskan Way Seawall

need to be integrated with and supportive of existing activities and
land

use plans for the Seattle waterfront. The Seattle downtown waterfront

has been transformed from its origins as a working waterfront, charac-

terized by shipping, warehouse and industrial uses, to an important area

for tourism and recreation. The central waterfront now has a vibrant

mix of uses which include office, retail, hotel, residential, conference

center, aquarium, museum, parks, cruise ship terminal, ferry terminal,

and various types of commercial and recreational moorage. Land use

plans and policies for downtown Seattle and the waterfront which will

guide improvements in the Corridor include: improving pedestrian and

bicycle access to and along the waterfront; providing for views of
Elliott

Bay and the mountains and waters beyond; physically and visually recon-

necting the waterfront to the rest of downtown; providing increased

opportunities for public access to and enjoyment of the waterfront; and

encouraging use of Alaskan Way for local rather than through travel.

**Plans for Habitat Improvement**

The existing Alaskan Way Seawall provides poor habitat for chinook

salmon (listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act) and

other marine species. Reconstruction of the Alaskan Way Seawall offers

an opportunity to improve habitat where practicable and feasible.
Elliott

Bay is an important link for juvenile salmon migrating from the

Duwamish River toward the Pacific Ocean. The vertical bulkheads of the

Alaskan Way Seawall and other features of the waterfront provide mini-

mal habitat for the numerous young chinook and chum salmon that

migrate across the Seattle waterfront to the north shore of Elliott Bay

during their critical rearing period. Mitigation plans for project
impacts

to threatened and endangered species will address potential means of

enhancing habitat.

# Appendix F: Guidance Documents {#appendix-f-guidance-documents .unnumbered}

**[FEDERAL]{.underline}**

**FAA. (2004). FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures. June 8, 2004.**

This FAA Order provides agency-wide policies and procedures for
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other
environmental laws and requirements. It includes instructions on purpose
and need and on alternatives. FAA's guidance states that the purpose and
need section of an environmental document presents the problem being
addressed, how the alternatives would resolve the problem, and the
benefits of the federal action. It distinguishes between the need for
the proposed action and the desires or preferences of the agency or
applicant, and essentially provides the parameters for defining a
reasonable range or alternatives to be considered. Appendix D of the
Order provides more specific guidance on the aviation streamlining
process legislatively established in Vision 100, including new
provisions under which other agencies are bound by the Secretary's
determination of purpose and need for certain airport capacity and
aviation safety and security projects.

Available at:

<http://www.aee.faa.gov/aee-200/1050-1E/1050-1E.htm>

**FAA. (2004). Draft FAA Order 5050.4B, National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) Implementing Instructions for Airport Projects. Issued for
comment December 16, 2004.**

This draft Order updates FAA Order 5050.4A, October 8, 1985. It is
consistent with FAA's agency-side Order 1050.1E, but provides more
detailed environmental guidance for airport projects.

Available at:

<http://www.faa.gov/arp/environmental/5050_4B/Index.cfm>

**Connaughton, James L. CEQ Guidance. Letter in response to May 6, 2003
letter from Secretary Mineta: May 12, 2003**.

> This three-page letter from James L. Connaughton addresses the
> appropriate exercise of authority by lead and cooperating agencies in
> determining the purpose and need. The letter notes that the lead
> agency has the authority for and responsibility to define the
> \"purpose and need\" for purposes of NEPA analysis, but that in
> situations involving two or more agencies that are making a decision
> on same proposed action, it is prudent to jointly develop a purpose
> and need statement that can be utilized by both agencies. The letter
> also touches on the role of joint lead or cooperating agencies on
> transportation projects, and the need for these agencies to defer to
> DOT's "articulation of purpose and need. 49 U.S.C. §101(b)(5)".
>
> Available at:
>
> [http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/All+Documents/EFE6B59BE347825685256D8900722F05/\$FILE/CEQ%20Guidance%20Letter%20from%20Connaughton.pdf](http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/All+Documents/EFE6B59BE347825685256D8900722F05/$FILE/CEQ Guidance Letter from Connaughton.pdf)

**EPA. Policy and Procedures for the Review of Federal Actions Impacting
the Environment, October 3, 1984.**

> This manual establishes policies and procedures for carrying out the
> Environmental Protection Agency\'s (EPA\'s) responsibilities to review
> and comment on Federal actions affecting the quality of the
> environment. It contains a section on the purpose and need statement,
> which states: "\[T\]he reviewer may comment on the technical adequacy
> and accuracy of the EIS\'s methods for estimating the need for the
> proposed action in cases where this affects the definition of
> reasonable and feasible alternatives. Within the context of reviewing
> purpose and need, the EPA may also comment on the economic
> justification of the project, and the relationship between the lead
> agency\'s economic analysis and any unquantified environmental
> impacts, values, and amenities. The comments may also address the
> technical validity and adequacy of the supporting data for the EIS\'s
> economic analyses."

**FHWA and FTA. Joint Guidance on Purpose and Need. July 23, 2003.**

> This memo from FHWA addresses the above May 12 letter from Mr.
> Connaughton. It clarifies some of the points made in the original
> letter, such as how much deference should be given to DOT's
> articulation purpose and need by joint lead or cooperating agencies
> and when it is appropriate for such agencies to raise questions about
> DOT's purpose and need statements. The memo also makes clear that for
> proposed transportation actions where other Federal agencies do not
> have separate decision-making responsibilities, FTA or FHWA has the
> sole responsibility for defining the purpose and need statement and
> cannot be required to alter the statement by other agencies. The memo
> also addresses protocol for situations where DOT is not the sole
> agency responsible for decision-making with respect to the proposed
> action, and provides guidance on appropriate statement length, style,
> and scope.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/Gjoint.htm>

**FHWA. "Transportation Decision making: The Importance of Purpose and
Need in Environmental Documents." September 18, 1990**

> This paper examines the role of the purpose and need section in an
> EIS. FHWA contends that the purpose and need section may be the most
> important chapter of an EIS because it explains to the public why the
> agency is proposing to spend large amounts of taxpayers\' money on a
> proposed action, while at the same time causing significant
> environmental impacts. The web page reviews the consideration of
> alternatives, the basic ingredients of purpose and need, and using
> purpose and need in decision-making. The page also provides a list of
> items which may assist in the explanation of the need for the proposed
> action, such as an explanation of project status, transportation
> demand, modal interrelationships, and social demands or economic
> development.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/tdmneed.htm>

**FHWA. Technical Advisory T 6640.8A. "Guidance for Preparing and
Processing Environmental and Section 4(F) Documents." October 30,
1987.**

> This technical advisory provides guidance to FHWA field offices and to
> project applicants on the preparation and processing of environmental
> and Section 4(f) documents. Part of the document discusses the purpose
> and need statement, which emphasizes that this section of the
> environmental document should "clearly demonstrate that a 'need'
> exists and should define the 'need' in terms understandable to the
> general public." It includes a list of items which may assist in the
> explanation of the need for the proposed action: project status,
> system linkage, capacity, transportation demand, legislation, social
> demands or economic development, modal interrelationships, safety, and
> roadway deficiencies.

**Hogarth, William T., NOAA. Memorandum for NOAA Regional
Administrators: Guidance for Developing Environmental Impact Statements
for Essential Fish Habitat per the AOC v. Daley Court Order.**

> This memorandum provides detailed guidance for developing EISs for the
> essential fish habitat (EFH) fishery management plan (FMP) amendments
> affected by the September 14, 2000 AOC v. Daley court order. The
> guidance addresses major issues related to developing the EISs, but it
> is not a substitute for other applicable references such as CEQ
> regulations for implementing NEPA, CEQ's Forty Most Asked Questions
> Concerning the National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, and
>
> NOAA Administrative Order 216-6 ("Environmental Review Procedures for
> Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act").

**[STATE]{.underline}**

**Caltrans. (2003). Caltrans Purpose and Need Team Final Report and
Recommendations**.

> This report was prepared by the Purpose and Need Team at CALTRANS, and
> examines ways to improve the process of preparing well-defined purpose
> and need statements for transportation projects. It lays out the
> findings of this Team; proposes improvement strategies proposed and
> means to implement them; and introduces several products that the Team
> developed to help others prepare purpose and need statements. The
> recommendations discussed fall into seven categories: education and
> training; documentation; resources/funding; continuity; roles and
> responsibilities; information sources and guidance; and process.
> Implementation plans and schedules accompany the recommendations.
> Tools developed by the Team include matrices, flowcharts, and acronym
> lists.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/downloads/general/PN_Report.pdf>

**Florida Department of Transportation. (2003). Project Development and
Environment Manual, Part II Chapter 5: Purpose of and Need for Action.**

> This chapter of the Florida DOT Project Development and Environment
> manual discusses the role of the purpose and need section of a NEPA
> document, and what it should contain. The chapter is divided into
> sections such as Area Wide Needs, System Linkage, Transportation
> Demand, Federal State or Local Government Authority, and Modal
> Relationships for example. The chapter outline is based on FHWA
> Technical Advisory T6640.8A, but there is some Florida-specific
> information on Levels of Service (LOS) standards.

Available at:

> [http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/updated/PART%202,%20CHAPTER%205.pdf](http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/updated/PART 2, CHAPTER 5.pdf)

**Idaho Transportation Department Division of Transportation Planning.
(1998). Idaho Corridor Planning Guidebook, Chapter 5: Review the
Corridor Boundary, Develop a Statement of Purpose and Need, and Identify
Goals for the Corridor.**

> This guidebook is designed to assist Idaho Transportation Department
> (ITD) staff, in close cooperation with local governments, to develop
> plans for transportation corridors. The long-range planning process
> described in the guidebook is designed to integrate transportation
> planning with land-use planning, and to coordinate local and state
> transportation planning efforts. Chapter 5 of the guidebook focuses on
> establishing a statement of purpose and need, and identifying the
> goals for the corridor. Examples of purpose and need statements are
> presented.
>
> Available at:

<http://www.itd.idaho.gov/planning/reports/corrplan/coorguid.pdf>

**North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Statewide Planning
Branch. (2000). *Purpose and Need Guidelines***

> This document introduces North Carolina's plan to provide planning
> level purpose and need statements for projects that are within study
> areas that have received transportation planning assistance by the
> Statewide Planning (SWP) Branch of NCDOT. This effort aims to more
> efficiently transition from transportation planning to project
> planning. Planning level purpose and need statements will only include
> information that is typically generated during the systems planning
> process, and will used to develop project level purpose and need
> statements that are sufficient to comply with NEPA. The document
> contains an outline of elements that may be addressed in a purpose and
> need statement and a description of the type of information that may
> be included, a summary of procedures for coordination among various
> NCDOT branches, and excerpts of relevant FHWA guidance.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.ncdot.org/planning/statewide/PN-report-8-29dist.doc>

**Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). (2002). Purpose and Need
Statements: Instructions for ODOT Projects**

> This guidance document from ODOT provides background on purpose and
> need sections of NEPA documents, cites legal guidance on purpose and
> need statements, and offers instructions on writing the purpose and
> need statement. The guidance clearly states that the project purpose
> should be expressed in a single sentence, and that the goals and
> objectives section is the only appropriate place for issues "beyond
> the state transportation issue", such as environmental quality and
> pedestrian-friendly downtown areas.

**Texas Department of Transportation. (Accessed 2004). Suggested EA
Outline, Purpose and Need.**

> The suggested EA outline is a two-page document. The purpose and need
> section identifies five main topics that the purpose and need section
> of an EA should address. There are very brief descriptions of each
> section.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.dot.state.tx.us/env/pdf/resources/EAoutline.pdf>

**Utah Department of Transportation. (2004). UDOT Guidance on "Purpose
and Need" Statements**.

> This web page by the Utah Department of Transportation addresses the
> background behind the requirement to have purpose and need statements
> in environmental documents, the legal guidance on the issue, protocol
> for preparing purpose and need statements, including information to
> include. The site also provides sources of information such as UDOT's
> Operational Safety Reports and information on specific projects.
>
> Available at:
> <http://www.dot.state.ut.us/download.php/tid=288/UDOT_Guidance_on_Purpose_and_Need_Statements.pdf>

**Vermont Agency of Transportation. (Accessed 2004). Project Development
Process, Appendix D: Purpose and Need Statements.**

> This project Development Process is intended for use on those
> Federally-Aided projects for which the NEPA document is anticipated to
> be a Categorical Exclusion only. Projects requiring an Environmental
> Assessment or an Environmental Impact Statement will follow a similar,
> but different, process. The Vermont Agency of Transportation notes in
> this three-page appendix that purpose and need statements are the crux
> of the Project Definition Phase. The agency stresses that a purpose
> and need statement needs to be written to state the problems of the
> transportation facility and the goal for that facility rather than
> describe the author\'s recommended solution. The agency also
> recommends that the reader should be presented with sufficient
> material to understand the needs and goals of the project and then
> logically reach the same conclusion as reached during the Project
> Definition Phase. While this appendix refers to FHWA's seven-page
> memorandum on the purpose and need for environmental documents, the
> agency acknowledges that its scoping reports are not true
> environmental documents, but that there are similarities between the
> two.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.aot.state.vt.us/progdev/sections/pdmanual/11Purpos.htm>

**Washington Department of Transportation. (2004). The Environmental
Procedures Manual.**

> The Environmental Procedures Manual (EPM) provides guidance for
> complying with Federal, state, and local environmental laws and
> regulations during the planning, designing, constructing, and
> maintaining of transportation facilities in Washington State. The
> manual applies to facilities that are owned and operated by the
> Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT): the state
> highway system, ferry system, state owned airports, state-sponsored
> rail system, and maintenance facilities. Cities, counties, other local
> agencies and private transportation entities may also use the EPM for
> guidance on their transportation facilities, either voluntarily or as
> required under WSDOT's Local Agency Guidelines. Purpose and need
> statements are addressed briefly, with the guidance advising that they
> should clearly demonstrate that a "need" exists and should define the
> "need" in terms understandable to the general public.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/fasc/EngineeringPublications/Manuals/EPM/EPM.htm>

**The following documents contain general NEPA guidance, but not
specific techniques or methods for preparing purpose and need
statements.**

> **NOAA. (1999.) NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6, "Environmental
> Review Procedures for Implementing the National Environmental Policy
> Act". May 20, 1999.**
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.nepa.noaa.gov/NAO216_6_TOC.pdf>
>
> **NOAA (1983.) Departmental Administrative Order (DAO) 216-6,
> "Implementing the National Environmental Policy Act". March 10,1983.**
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.osec.doc.gov/bmi/daos/216-6.htm>
>
> **Stanton, Robert. (2001). National Park Service Director's Order #12:
> Conservation Planning, Environmental Impact Analysis, and
> Decision-making. January 8, 2001.**
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder12.html>
>
> **DOE. (1998). Environmental Impact Statement Summary Guidance**.
>
> Available at:
>
> <http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/summguid.pdf>
>
> **DOE. (1997.) Environmental Impact Statement Checklist**.
>
> Available at:

<http://tis.eh.doe.gov/nepa/tools/guidance/eischk2.pdf>

# Appendix G: Training Courses {#appendix-g-training-courses .unnumbered}

**National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Courses Related to Purpose
and Need**

Identified courses that include modules focused on purpose and need are
identified below. General NEPA courses that only include mention of
purpose and need are not included.

Following this listing, a description of each course is provided,
identifying topics covered, availability of course materials, course
duration, eligibility, target audience, logistics, and contact
information. This information was developed based on available
information on each course and is subject to change.

*Duke University*

[Preparing and Documenting Environmental Impact
Analyses](#Preparing_documenting)

[Implementation of NEPA](#Implementation)

[Making the NEPA Process More Efficient: Scoping and Public
Participation](#making_nepa_efficient)

*Environmental Training & Consulting International*

[Essentials for the NEPA Practitioner](#Essentials)

*U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
National Highway Institute*

[NEPA and Transportation Decision-making](#Tranportation)

*U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA
Academy*

[Introduction to NEPA Requirements and Procedures]{.underline}

*U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service*

[NEPA/NFMA Forest Plan Implementation Training Course](#NEPA_NFMA)

*USDA Graduate School*

[NEPA: Policy, Procedure and Science/Art]{.underline}

*Airport Consultants Council Institute*

[NEPA Back to Basics]{.underline}

*The Shipley Group*

[NEPA Compliance Training]{.underline}

[Transportation, NEPA and Decision-making]{.underline}

[]{#Preparing_documenting .anchor}**Preparing and Documenting
Environmental Impact Analyses**

*Duke Environmental Leadership Program*

<http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/del/shortcourses/courses/envimpact.html>

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

**Purpose and need is discussed for 2.5 of 24.5 hours.**

-   how to prepare, document, coordinate and review information required
    by NEPA

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Course materials only available through registration for the course.

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   3.5 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   Novice NEPA writers or reviewers

-   Entry and junior level Federal agency professionals

-   Contractors

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Durham, NC

> \* Custom onsite classes also available for parties of 10 or more \*

-   Offerings: Annually

-   Cost: \$990 (\$1090 after deadline)

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Ray Clark, lead instructor for NEPA certificate program: (202)
    544-8200; <rayclark@clarkgroupllc.com>

-   Deb Hall, contact at DEL office: (919) 613-8700; <dwhall@duke.edu>

[]{#Implementation .anchor}**Implementation of NEPA**

*Duke Environmental Leadership Program*

<http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/del/shortcourses/courses/NEPAimplementation.html>

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

**Purpose and need is covered for 3 of 31.5 hours.**

-   brief history of land-use regulation in the United States

-   detailed reviews of legislative history and intent of NEPA, overview
    of Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations

-   integrating NEPA into agency decision-making

-   role of the public, scoping, public involvement programs

-   limitations of actions a Federal agency may take during the NEPA
    process

-   alternative approaches to holding large public meetings

-   comparison of agencies implementing regulations

-   methods for conducting environmental impact analyses

-   alternatives to a proposed action

-   determining "significances"

-   socio-economic impact assessment

-   ecological risk assessment

-   environmental justice, tribal issues

-   mitigating environmental impacts

-   records of decision, case study

-   NEPA case law

-   current issues in NEPA

-   emerging technology

-   litigation risks and consequences and how to avoid them

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Not available without registering for the course

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   4.5 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   Mid-level and senior project managers who are involved with
    streamlining the environmental permitting process for Federal
    facilities and Federal regulatory activities and preparing and
    reviewing environmental assessments, environmental impact
    statements, and other NEPA analyses

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Durham, NC

> \* Custom onsite classes also available for parties of 10 or more \*

-   Offerings: Annually

-   Cost: \$1050 (\$1150 after deadline)

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Ray Clark, lead instructor for NEPA certificate program: (202)
    544-8200; <rayclark@clarkgroupllc.com>

-   Deb Hall, contact at DEL office: (919) 613-8700; <dwhall@duke.edu>

**Making the NEPA Process More Efficient: Scoping and Public
Participation**

*Duke Environmental Leadership Program*

[Link to Course Description](#DEL_Scoping_PI_Description)

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

**Purpose and need comprises approximately 2 of 17.5 hours of the
course.**

-   scoping and public involvement

-   interagency coordination/paralleling requirements

-   scoping for temporal and spatial boundaries

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Course not currently scheduled; when scheduled, course materials
    will only be available through registration for the course.

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   2.5 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   Not specifically mentioned

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Durham, NC

> \* Custom onsite classes also available for parties of 10 or more \*

-   Offerings: Annually

-   Cost: \$670 (\$750 after deadline)

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Ray Clark, lead instructor for NEPA certificate program: (202)
    544-8200; <rayclark@clarkgroupllc.com>

-   Deb Hall, contact at DEL office: (919) 613-8700; <dwhall@duke.edu>

[]{#Essentials .anchor}**Essentials for the NEPA Practitioner**

*Environmental Training & Consulting International*

<http://www.envirotrain.com/nepatoolbox.html>

**1 of 14 agenda items in the course related to purpose and need.**

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   NEPA overview

-   how the NEPA process works

-   initial scoping

-   identifying significant issues

-   developing appropriate alternatives

-   creating effective public involvement strategies

-   the relationship of NEPA to other environmental requirements (e.g.,
    cultural resources management and Endangered Species Act)

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Not available without registering for the course

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   2 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   Line, project, and environmental managers responsible for NEPA
    compliance

-   Staff writers and editors who prepare EAs/EISs

-   Resource and technical specialists who contribute to NEPA analyses

-   Interdisciplinary team leaders and members

-   Environmental contractors and consultants

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Onsite training only, call for information

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Leslie Wildeson: (720) 859-0380; info@envirotrain.com

[]{#Tranportation .anchor} **NEPA and Transportation Decision-making**

*U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration,
National Highway Institute*

<http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=117>

**Approximately 1 out of 19.5 hours of the course content related to
purpose and need.**

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   Council on Environmental Quality\'s and FHWA\'s regulations and
    guidance for implementing NEPA and Section 4(f) of the Department of
    Transportation Act

-   initiatives for interagency coordination and streamlining the
    project development process including those provisions contained in
    TEA-21

-   public involvement

-   Title VI/ Environmental Justice

-   FHWA\'s policy for mitigation and enhancement

-   the role of transportation in achieving sustainable development

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Course materials are available online at
    <http://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/tutorials/index.htm> as part of
    a NEPA and transportation project development tutorial

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   3 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   FHWA employees

-   State DOT employees (including consultants acting on behalf of the
    State)

-   Federal and State environmental resource agency employees

-   Local government and MPO employees who participate in the
    transportation decision-making process

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Varies depending upon request. Some example cities include

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Baton Rouge, LA; Washington, DC; Anchorage, AK; Olympia, WA;
    Sacramento, CA; Montpelier, VT; King of Prussia, PA

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Offerings: Annually, varies depending upon request

-   Cost: \$400

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Lamar Smith, Course Lead: (202) 366-8994

[]{#NEPA_NFMA .anchor}**Introduction to NEPA Requirements and
Procedures**

*U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, FAA
Academy*

<http://www.academy.faa.gov/catalog/html/12000.htm>

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   The course provides FAA employees with the general knowledge to
    analyze and document the environmental impact of projects and to
    reach conclusions and make recommendations based on the
    environmental analysis.

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Coursework not available prior to class

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   2 weeks

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   FAA employees

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   FAA employees

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Oklahoma City

-   Offerings: Annual

-   Cost: Travel/per diem

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Contact your LOB training coordinator

**NEPA/NFMA Forest Plan Implementation Training Course**

*U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service*

<http://www.fs.fed.us/emc/nepa/includes/ftcp1.html>

**1 of 18 agenda items in the course related to purpose and need.**

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   introduction to the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and NEPA

-   Forest Service-specific public involvement concepts

-   building a project record for environmental analysis

-   the development of a proposed action statement, purpose and need
    statement, and a clear statement of the scope of the decision
    framework

-   introduction to project records

-   definitions and concepts relating to environmental effects

-   scoping and the roles of the responsible official and the ID team

-   NEPA documentation requirements

-   content requirements for an Environmental Assessment (EA),
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and associated decision
    documents

-   NEPA significance criteria

-   alternatives

-   environmental effects analysis

-   monitoring requirements under NFMA and NEPA

-   response to comments

-   decisions and notifications

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Course materials are not available without registering for the
    course; however, a detailed course outline is available online at
    the link provided above.

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   4 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to non-Forest Service personnel at the discretion of each
    regional office. Region 5 regularly welcomes people from outside the
    Forest Service.

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   USDA Forest Service line officers responsible for decisions

-   People who participate on and are consultants to interdisciplinary
    (ID) teams that conduct environmental analyses

-   Employees from other Federal and State agencies

\* A general understanding of the NEPA process and natural resource
management experience is recommended, but not required. \*

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: The course was developed by the Forest Service's
    Washington office, but is offered by regional offices.

-   Offerings: Frequently January -- March of each year at regional
    offices

-   Cost: Variable

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

-   Joe Carbone, Ecosystem Management Coordination Staff: (202)
    205-0884; <jcarbone@fs.fed.us>

**NEPA: Policy, Procedure and Science/Art**

*U.S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School*

<http://www.grad.usda.gov/cgi-bin/course/show>

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   Philosophy and practice of ecological theory and discussion of
    contemporary challenges in effective implementation of NEPA

-   Proper development and filing of Environmental Assessments, Findings
    of no Significant Impact, and Environmental Impact Statements.

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Contact the Graduate School for course information, School ID \#
    ENVS4435E

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   10 weeks, night course

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   NEPA Practitioners

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Washington Metropolitan area

-   Offerings: View the Term course schedule at www.grad.usda.gov

-   Cost: Contact USDA Grad School for pricing

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

Contact USDA Grad School for further information

**NEPA Back to Basics**

*Airport Consultants Council Institute*

[http://www.ACConline.org](http://www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov/coursedesc.asp?coursenum=117)

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   Fundamentals of NEPA

-   NEPA history and evolution

-   20 impact areas including noise, air and water quality

-   Review of the FAA Order 1050.1E

-   Students will work through an EA and EIS

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Coursework is not available prior to class

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   3-4 days

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   Airport consultants

-   Airport environmental managers

-   FAA and state agency representatives

-   New environmental specialists and those who have not been in the
    trenches of environmental projects

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Washington, DC

-   Offerings: Annually, May 2005 and January 2006

-   Cost: Contact ACC for cost information

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

Anthony Mavrogiannis 703-683-5900

**NEPA Compliance Training**

*The Shipley Group*

[http://www.shipleygroup.com](http://www.shipleygroup.com/)

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   Executive Overview of the NEPA Process: Learn the basics of the NEPA
    Process

-   How to Manage the NEPA Process and Write Effective NEPA Documents:
    Learn the NEPA process start to finish, including how to prepare
    documents that are legally sufficient

-   Reviewing NEPA Documents: For decision makers or other reviewers,
    learn what to look for and how to judge quality in a NEPA document

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Coursework is not available prior to class

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   3-4 days, depending on the class

-   

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all (individual open enrollment and group/agency offsite
    enrollment are available)

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   NEPA Practitioners

-   Decision-makers

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Various locations, check open enrollment training calendar

-   Offerings: Throughout the year, check open enrollment calendar for
    dates

-   GSA Cost: Range from \$795 to \$995 depending on the number of days
    offered

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

Sid Allen, Director of Environmental Training 1-888-270-2157 or email:
<Shipley@shipleygroup.com>

**Transportation, NEPA and Decision-Making**

*The Shipley Group*

[http://www.shipleygroup.com](http://www.shipleygroup.com/)

**[Areas Covered]{.underline}**

-   NEPA principles as they apply to the development of transportation
    projects

-   NEPA umbrella concept in transportation decision-making

-   Reasoned, collaborative process when developing and evaluation
    alternatives

-   Balancing an array of interests and values in making transportation
    decisions

-   Explain the roles and responsibilities and list the milestones in
    the transportation planning process

-   Environmental streamlining, concepts of leadership, stewardship, and
    conflict resolution in managing the NEPA process

**[Course Materials]{.underline}**

-   Coursework is not available prior to class

**[Duration]{.underline}**

-   3-4 days, depending on the class

-   

**[Eligibility]{.underline}**

-   Open to all (individual open enrollment and group/agency offsite
    enrollment are available)

**[Target Audience]{.underline}**

-   NEPA Practitioners

-   Resource Specialists

-   DOT professionals and engineers

-   Decision-makers

**[Logistics]{.underline}**

-   Location: Various locations, check open enrollment training calendar

-   Offerings: Throughout the year, check open enrollment calendar for
    dates

-   GSA Cost: Range from \$795 to \$995 depending on the number of days
    offered

**[Contact Information]{.underline}**

Sid Allen, Director of Environmental Training 1-888-270-2157 or email:
<Shipley@shipleygroup.com>

#  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

[^1]: For FTA and FAA, 404 permit issues focusing on purpose and need
    were not identified as commonly affecting the NEPA process, as is
    the case for highway projects. Although FTA is signatory to a
    NEPA/404 Merger agreement in Region 9, this is an option with
    limited applicability, because FTA's transit projects typically do
    not involve waters of the U.S. The FAA does experience aquatic
    resources or wetlands on airports and encourages and implements
    early consultation with resource agencies. The FAA supports
    concurrent NEPA and 404 processes, but does not use a formal merger
    process. Airport sponsors sometimes prefer to wait until late in, or
    even after, FAA's NEPA process to initiate the Section 404
    permitting because of the uncertainty over the proposed project's
    footprint.

[^2]: The query used the following key words: National Environmental
    Policy Act; transportation; airport; runway; highway; interstate;
    bridge; rail; transit; purpose and need.