|
What is the Five Step Process for an EIS?
1. Scoping
Scoping is the first step in the EIS process.
Scoping is an open process involving the
public, communities, concerned organizations, and state and
federal agencies. Its purpose is to identify the major and
important issues that should be considered in the EIS, including
current and future transportation problems. Scoping also identifies
possible options for addressing transportation problems, which
should be studied in the EIS. The result of this phase is
a Scoping Memorandum that records and responds to all comments
and serves as the work plan for the EIS. Public and agency
involvement will continue throughout the EIS process.
The process for the Circ-Williston EIS goes
well beyond the single scoping meeting required by federal
regulations. Three public scoping open houses [link to public
meetings page] will be held to provide an opportunity for
the public to learn about the EIS study and share their views
on the study and the issues and transportation alternatives
it should consider. VTrans is also meeting with a state and
federal inter-agency group and developing cooperating agency
agreements to provide input during scoping and subsequent
phases of the study. Major goals of scoping include the following:
- Determine the scope of work necessary
to examine and evaluate significant issues in the EIS;
- Define the Purpose and Need of the project
in detail;
- Establish a long list of transportation
improvement alternatives to be considered in the study;
- Identify issues that must be studied;
- Define the responsibilities of the lead
and cooperating agencies in carrying out the NEPA process;
- Identify other pertinent environmental
review and consultation requirements so that they may be
undertaken at the same time as, or integrated with, the
EIS
- Outline a schedule for preparation
of the EIS in relationship to the VTrans/FHWA decision-making
schedule.
(back to top)
2. Screening a Long List of Potential
Project Alternatives
The consideration of all reasonable project
alternatives is required by National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and provides opportunities to avoid environmental
impacts. At the same time, all of the alternatives must meet
the Purpose and Need of the project.
The purpose and need statement describes
the basis for undertaking a project with taxpayers' money.
The purpose describes the objectives of the project: what
problem or problems will the project solve? The need explains
the current issues driving the project: what are the safety,
economic, and/or operational issues in the current situation?
A clear purpose and need statement explains why the expenditure
of funds is necessary and worthwhile.
After the purpose and need statement has
been defined, project alternatives can be developed to address
the project objectives. If an alternative does not meet the
project purpose and need, or if it is clearly not feasible
or has clearly unacceptable impacts, it is dropped from further
consideration. If an alternative contributes to the project’s
purpose and need but is not in itself sufficient to meet these
objectives, it may be retained and combined with other potential
alternatives; an example might be pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
The project purpose and need drives the
alternatives analysis, impact analysis, and ultimate selection
of a transportation alternative. Council of Environmental
Quality regulations require that an EIS consider the "no-action"
(also called “no-build”)alternative as well as
“action” or “build” alternatives,
and requires evaluation of “all reasonable alternatives."
The Circ Williston EIS will therefore consider a broad range
of alternatives identified during scoping as the first step
in project planning.
(back to top)
3. Analyzing Environmental Impacts
of a Short List of Potential Project Alternatives
The short list of project alternatives identified
through the screening process will be studied in detail in
the Draft EIS (DEIS). These alternatives will be subject to
the intensive studies defined by project scoping and carried
out within the framework of NEPA and Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) guidelines for an EIS. The impact analysis will cover
direct impacts, indirect impacts, construction-period impacts,
and cumulative impacts of the project on the environment.
Cumulative impact analysis considers the project in combination
with all other planned or foreseeable projects; in the case
of Circ-Williston, improvements outside the project area such
as Circ-Colchester would be part of the cumulative analysis.
Specific methodologies, as approved by FHWA
after input from cooperating agencies and the public, will
be used to analyze impacts relative to particular resources.
In the event that unavoidable significant adverse effects
on any environmental resources are identified, analyses must
include proposals to minimize or compensate for those impacts;
such proposals are known as “impact mitigation”.
NEPA also requires analysis of the relationship between local
short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and
enhancement of long-term productivity, as well as evaluation
of any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources
associated with the proposed action.
(back to top)
4. Preparation of the Draft EIS
The FHWA has well-established guidelines
for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act in
terms of both process and content of the EIS document. These
guidelines include a detailed outline of topics that form
the sections of the EIS. As noted under Scoping, the intent
of NEPA is to focus on significant issues and avoid detailed
study of topics having no issues or impacts. Therefore, the
actual contents of the DEIS and amount of detail provided
under each topic will vary greatly with each project. The
content of a “typical” EIS, however, is presented
below, as outlined in the FHWA Technical Advisory T 6640.8A
(October 30, 1987), Guidance for Preparing and Processing
Environmental and Section 4(f) Documents.
These contents show the large span of resource
topics and considerations normally evaluated in an EIS associated
with FHWA-funded transportation projects. The contents also
reflect the numerous mandates of NEPA – to identify
the project purpose and need, to consider numerous alternatives,
to evaluate a range of impacts, to integrate regulatory coordination
within the document, to include concerns and comments identified
by stakeholders, and to inform officials and citizens of the
project.
| Typical
Contents of EIS Documents under FHWA Regulations |
| A. Cover Sheet |
B. Summary |
C. Table of Contents
|
D. Purpose of and
Need for Action |
E. Alternatives
|
F. Affected Environment
|
| G. Environmental
Consequences |
| |
1. Land Use Impacts |
| |
2. Farmland Impacts |
| |
3. Social Impacts |
| |
4. Relocation Impacts |
| |
5. Economic Impacts |
| |
6. Considerations Relating
to Pedestrians and Bicyclists |
| |
7. Air Quality Impacts |
| |
8. Noise Impacts |
| |
9. Water Quality Impacts |
| |
10. Permits |
| |
11. Wetland Impacts |
| |
12. Water Body Modification
and Wildlife Impacts |
| |
13. Floodplain Impacts |
| |
14. Wild and Scenic Rivers |
| |
15. Coastal Barriers |
| |
16. Coastal Zone Impacts |
| |
17. Threatened or Endangered
Species |
| |
18. Historic and Archeological
Preservation |
| |
19. Hazardous Waste Sites |
| |
20. Visual Impacts |
| |
21. Energy |
| |
22. Construction Impacts |
| |
23. Relationship of Local Short-term
Uses vs. Long-term Productivity |
| |
24. Irreversible and Irretrievable
Commitment of Resources |
| H. List of Preparers |
| I. List of Agencies,
Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Statement
are Sent |
| J. Comments and
Coordination |
| K. Index |
| L. Appendices |
(back to top)
At the Draft EIS stage, the results of the
detailed impact studies are compared to each other and to
the no-action alternative. As the DEIS objectively presents
the results of the detailed impact analyses for each alternative,
it also provides a framework to make these comparisons. The
DEIS therefore provides the necessary information for the
next step in project decision-making, to be expressed in the
Final EIS (FEIS): identifying a preferred alternative.
Once compiled and approved by FHWA, the
DEIS document is filed with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) for Federal Register publication and copies are distributed
and made available to federal, state, and local agencies,
private organizations, and members of the public. A minimum
45-day comment period follows, during which any party may
submit comments. Toward the beginning of the comment period,
a public hearing is scheduled, at which comments can be submitted
in hand-written and/or verbal formats.
The extent and nature of the comments received
on the DEIS will drive the level of effort and areas of focus
of the next stage of NEPA documentation, the FEIS. Comments
may reveal the need for new or clarifying information and/or
may bring to light new issues that were not identified in
the DEIS but that need to be addressed to fully understand
the project’s effects on the environment.
(back to top)
5. Response to Comments and Preparation
of Final EIS (FEIS) With Preferred Alternative
After the DEIS comment period has closed,
preparation of the FEIS may begin. Based on the comments received
on the Draft EIS, a preferred alternative may be selected
from those analyzed, possibly with modifications to reduce
impacts or increase effectiveness; in some cases if may even
be appropriate to introduce a new alternative at this stage
if none of the alternatives analyzed are satisfactory.
The format of the FEIS parallels that of
the DEIS, but the FEIS contains reference to and justification
of the preferred alternative, updated information on the affected
environment, any changes in the assessment of impacts, proposed
mitigation measures, wetland and floodplain findings (pursuant
to Executive Orders), the results of coordination, comments
received on the DEIS, and responses to these comments. The
hearing record and comments received are printed in the FEIS
with specific responses to every comment.
Similar to the DEIS, after completion and
approval of the FEIS, copies of the approved document are
distributed and made available to federal, state, and local
agencies, private organizations, and members of the public
who provided substantive comments on the DEIS or who requested
a copy. Distribution must be made before or at the same time
that the document is filed with EPA for Federal Register publication.
Distribution is followed by a minimum 30-day review period,
after which the ultimate decision about the future of the
project can be made. This decision is formalized in a Record
of Decision (ROD) put forth by the FHWA. The ROD explains
the reasons for the project decision as completely as possible,
based on the information contained in the EIS.
(back to top)
|