# Presentation: 690596

## Overview of SAFETEA-LU Sections 6001, 6002, 3005, and 3006TRB January 13, 2008

**Shari Schaftlein**
**FHWA**
**Project Development & Environmental Review**
**Washington, DC**
- _[Shari.Schaftlein@dot.gov](mailto:Shari.Schaftlein@dot.gov)__,  202-366-5570_

## Timing of SAFETEA-LU and Planning Rule

- SAFETEA-LU Passed August 10, 2005
- Planning NPRM Published June 9, 2006
- Final Rule Effective:  March 16, 2007
- SAFETEA-LU Compliance Date:  July 1, 2007
- ** Final rule incorporates changes since ISTEA (TEA-21, SAFETEA-LU) – not just “S-LU 6001”
-       http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm

## Transportation Decision-Making Continuum

**A single, well-defined outcome**

**Problems, many potential solutions**

**Decision Screens**

**Planning & Programming**

**Project Analysis/ Refinement**

**Final Design**

**Implementation**

**Notes:**
The slide initially appears with the “sieve” at the right. The “sieve” shows how decisions tend to move from the general to the specific.  At each level the sieve gets finer illustrating the smaller differences between alternatives.  Instructor should tell a story about going through a similar process when buying a house or other consumer item.  Try to involve the class by inviting similar stories.
With another mouse click the four boxes at the left appear.  Explain that these are the typical steps in transportation planning (although the names of the steps may differ from place to place).  The contents of each step are covered in subsequent slides, so hold off on describing the steps.
Instructors should ask the participants if their transportation planning process looks something like this.  Then ask resource agencies if they have any similar processes.  Try to elicit discussion on the sieve concept and how well it depicts the transportation planning and project development process.  Ask transportation and resource agencies if this is a logical model that we should strive to achieve.

## Transportation Planning, Programming, & NEPA

**Planning & Programming**

**Project Analysis/ Refinement**

**Final Design**

**Implementation**

_**Decisions**_
_**Long range plan (20+ yrs)**_
**   ****Problems to be solved**
**   ****Goals and policies**
**   ****Strategies**
**   ****Project concept &     ****	****scope**
_**Transportation Improvement Program **__**(min 4 yrs)**_
**   ****Priority projects**
**   ****Funding allocations**

**NEPA process  often starts here**

**Notes:**
Identify the kinds of decisions that are made in planning, emphasizing that projects are concepts at this point.

## Transportation

- Resource Agency

- System-level Planning

- Project-level Decision

- Integrated Planning, Consultation

- Linking Planning and NEPA

- NEPA, Environmental Review Process

- System-level Planning

- Project-level Decision

**S-LU 6001  23 CFR 450**

**S-LU 6002 23 CFR 771**

**23 CFR 450 Appendix A**

## SAFETEA-LU: Planning Factors

- Support the **economic vitality** of the metropolitan area (global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency)
- Increase the **safety** for motorized and nonmotorized users
- Increase the **security** for motorized and nonmotorized users
- Increase the **accessibility** and **mobility** of people and for freight
- Protect and enhance the **environment**, promote **energy conservation**, improve the **quality of life**, and promote **consistency between transportation improvements and** State and local planned growth and **economic development patterns**
- Enhance the **integration** and **connectivity** of the transportation system, across and **between modes**, for **people** and **freight**;
- Promote efficient **system management and** **operation**
- Emphasize the **preservation** of the existing transportation **system**.

**Notes:**
``(d) Scope of Planning Process.-- ``(1) In general.--Each State shall carry out a statewide transportation planning process that provides for consideration and implementation of projects, strategies, and services that will-- ``(A) support the economic vitality of the United States, the States, nonmetropolitan areas, and metropolitan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency; ``(B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; ``(C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; ``(D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and freight; ``(E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; ``(F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes throughout the State, for people and freight; ``(G) promote efficient system management and operation efficient system management and operation; and ``(H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. 

## Consultation – required

- Applies to metropolitan, statewide planning
- Directs agencies to “consult, as appropriate, with State and local agencies***** responsible for land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, conservation, and historic preservation”
- Requires consultations to, as appropriate:
- Compare transportation plans with State conservation plans or maps
- Compare transportation plans to inventories of natural or historic resources

- *for statewide planning, add “tribal agencies”

*[see 23 CFR 450.214(i) and 450.322(g)]*

## Environmental Mitigation - required

- Applies to metropolitan and statewide long-range plans
- Requires discussion of
- Types of potential environmental mitigation activities and potential areas to carry out activities
- “...including activities that may have the greatest potential to restore and maintain the environmental functions affected by the plan”
- To be developed in consultation with Federal, State, and tribal wildlife, land management, and regulatory agencies
- Policy, plan and/or strategic-levels
*[see 23 CFR 450.214(j) and 450.322(f)(7)]*

**Notes:**
Allows States/MPOs to establish reasonable timeframes for performing consultation.

## Participation Plan - required

- MPO shall develop a participation plan in consultation with _interested parties_ *[see 23 CFR 450.316(a)]*
- Minimum 45-day comment period
- Adequate, timely public notice and reasonable access
- Employ visualization techniques
- Information available in electronic formats
- Meetings at convenient and accessible
- State public involvement process similar *[see 23 CFR 450.210]*

## SAFETEA-LU Strengthens Linkages Among Decision Processes

**Transportation Systems Planning & Programming**
- Project locations
- Conceptual design

**Transportation Project Development**
- Environmental analysis and permitting
- Right-of-way
- Engineering design

**Other Planning Processes**
- Land use
- Watershed
- Habitat
- Cultural resources

**Notes:**
An common thread throughout the new provision, what is needed is better connections in and among planning and public participation, local planning, and project development processes – better connections between the considerations used in transportation systems planning and those used in transportation project development, as well as better connections between these transportation decision processes and other planning processes, including land use, watershed, habitat, and other resources.

Linking Planning and NEPA is about ways to foster stronger connections.

## Transportation

- Resource Agency

- System-level Planning

- Project-level Decision

- Integrated Planning, Consultation

- Linking Planning and NEPA

- NEPA, Environmental Review Process

- System-level Planning

- Project-level Decision

**S-LU 6001**

**S-LU 6002**

**23 CFR 450/ Appendix A**

## Linking Planning and NEPA: Appendix A - voluntary

- Based on original guidance and legal opinion (Feb, 2005)
- Provides further clarification of 450.212 and 318
-  Contains guidance on procedural, substantive, and administrative issues
-  Voluntary
-  Planning varies across the country
-  Does not NEPA-ize Planning

**Notes:**
Need to document the planning-level evaluation
Show that planning satisfied NEPA principles or can provide basis for further analysis
Public involvement
Involvement of appropriate resource agencies
May summarize and incorporate by reference in the NEPA document, as appropriate:
Purpose and Need
Affected Environment
Environmental Impacts
Indirect and Cumulative

## Legal Guidance

- Environment and Planning Linkage Processes Legal Guidance
- Released February 22, 2005 (will still stand)
- Provides legal background for LP&N Guidance, now 23 CFR 450.212, 318 &  Appendix A
-      _[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/plannepalegal050222.htm](http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/plannepalegal050222.htm)_
- Planning activities not considered a Federal action subject to review under NEPA
*                             **[see 23 CFR 450.222 and 450.336]*

## § 450.212 & 318: Transportation planning studies and project development - voluntary

- Results or decisions in corridor or sub-area studies may be used in NEPA
**Purpose and need** or goals & objective statement(s)
**General travel corridor**, general mode, definition
- Preliminary **screening of alternatives** and elimination of unreasonable alternatives
- Basic **description of the environmental setting**
**Preliminary** identification of **environmental impacts** and environmental **mitigation**

## Studies may be incorporated if:
NEPA lead agencies agree
Systems-level, corridor, or sub-area planning studies are conducted with
Involvement of appropriate agencies
Public review
Reasonable opportunity to comment on planning process or studies
Documentation is identifiable and available for scoping process
Review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate

- NEPA lead agencies agree
- Systems-level, corridor, or sub-area planning studies are conducted with
- Involvement of appropriate agencies
- Public review
- Reasonable opportunity to comment on planning process or studies
- Documentation is identifiable and available for scoping process
- Review of the FHWA and the FTA, as appropriate

- § 450.212 & 318: Transportation planning studies and project development (cont) - **voluntary**

**Notes:**
Integration may be accomplished through tiering

## How does 6001/Planning Reg./6002 work together?

**Planning as the basis** for NEPA
**Better relationships, increased trust** between agencies, throughout the decision-making process
- Early, informed decisions **reduce project delivery delays** and **minimize duplication of effort**
**Agencies work collaboratively** to ensure early consideration given to multiple goals (equity, safety, mobility...) – a balance
- Thoughtful and diligent **management** of the planning and NEPA processes **can make a difference**
**http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/section6002/**

## Relevant 6002/ERP/23 CFR 771 Provisions

- Defines an “Environmental Review Process” for transportation Projects
- Milestones, timeframes for reviews
- All agencies with interest to be invited to be “participating agencies, providing for:
- Early identification of issues of concern
- Input for purpose and need, range of alternatives
- Consultation for coordination plan and schedule
- Participating agencies, public to be involved early
- Final 6002 Guidance specifically mentions “opportunities” may be given in the planning process – references LP&N guidance
- Revision of 23 CFR 771.111 will include a cross-reference to planning regulation re: linking planning and NEPA
- Funding assistance to affected State and Federal Agencies

## FHWA’s Planning and Environment Linkages Initiative

- Aimed at state DOTs, MPOs
- Offers training, technology transfer, and focused technical assistance
- Promotes links between transportation, resource, land use planning
- Some ‘best practices’ now reinforced (required) by SAFETEA-LU provisions
- _[http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/index.asp](http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/index.asp)_

## PEL: An Integrated, Systems Perspective

- Land Use
- System

- Transportation
- System

- Water Resources
- System

- Other Natural,
- Cultural Resource
- Systems

**Integrated Approach**

- land
- development
- proposal

- road
- improvement
- proposal

- wetlands
- identification

- habitat or
- historic places
- to preserve

- opportunities to support multiple community goals and improve quality of life

**Notes:**
To illustrate more concretely:

In any area, multiple types of resources, can sort into systems:
land use and development
Transportation
Water
cultural resources
biological resources, and so on

systems managed, planned for by separate entities and processes,

But on the ground, all interact with each other – no distinction among jurisdiction or even discipline when systems interact

With integrated approach, opportunity to support multiple goals and address multiple systems.

Goal is to better coordinate and integrate how we plan and manage these systems.

## Feedback so far

- From Transport. Planners:
- Need more guidance
- How to engage
- Lack of examples
- Mitigation at planning level – How?
- Flexibility is good
- Need training

- From Resource agencies:
- Great opportunity
- Don’t have the resources
- Early input may effect ability to make decisions later
- Need training
- How to be useful, provide valuable input