iii

HIGHWAY ENGINEERING HANDBOOKBuilding and Rehabilitating the Infrastructure

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E. EditorPresident

R. L. Brockenbrough & Associates, Inc.Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Third Edition

New York Chicago San Francisco Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan NewDelhi San Juan Seoul Singapore Sydney Toronto

iv

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication DataHighway engineering handbook : building and rehabilitating the infrastructure /Roger L. Brockenbrough, editor.—3rd ed.p. cm.Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 978-0-07-159763-0 (alk. paper)1. Highway engineering—United States—Handbooks, manuals, etc.I. Brockenbrough, R. L.TE23.H484 2009625.7—dc22 2009002381

Copyright © 2009, 2003, 1996 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. Except as permitted under the United States Copyright Act of1976, no part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a data base orretrieval system, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 DOC/DOC 0 1 5 4 3 2 1 0 9

ISBN 978-0-07-159763-0MHID 0-07-159763-8

Sponsoring EditorLarry S. HagerEditing SupervisorStephen M. SmithProduction SupervisorRichard C. RuzyckaProject ManagerAnupriya Tyagi, International Typesetting and CompositionCopy EditorSurendra Nath Shivam, International Typesetting and CompositionProofreaderRagini Pandey, International Typesetting and CompositionArt Director, CoverJeff WeeksCompositionInternational Typesetting and Composition

Printed and bound by RR Donnelley.

McGraw-Hill books are available at special quantity discounts to use as premiums and sales promotions, or for use incorporate training programs. To contact a special sales representative, please visit the Contact Us page atwww.mhprofessional.com.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Information contained in this work has been obtained by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (“McGraw-Hill”) fromsources believed to be reliable. However, neither McGraw-Hill nor its authors guarantee the accuracy or completeness ofany information published herein, and neither McGraw-Hill nor its authors shall be responsible for any errors, omissions,or damages arising out of use of this information. This work is published with the understanding that McGraw-Hill and itsauthors are supplying information but are not attempting to render engineering or other professional services. If suchservices are required, the assistance of an appropriate professional should be sought.

v

ABOUT THE EDITOR

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E., is an engineering consultant involved in the development of technicalinformation to facilitate improved designs. He is also the editor of McGraw-Hill’s Structural Steel Designer’sHandbook. Mr. Brockenbrough is a member of the AISC Specifications Committee, Chair of the AISICommittee on Specifications for the Design of Cold-Formed Steel Structural Members, a past member of theTransportation Research Board Committee on Subsurface Soil-Structure Interaction, a member of the ASTMCommittee on Corrugated Steel Pipe Specifications, and a Fellow and Life Member of ASCE. He wasrecently honored as a member of the Virginia Tech Civil and Environmental Engineering Academy ofDistinguished Alumni.

vii

CONTENTS

Contributors xiPreface to the Third Edition xiiiPreface to the Second Edition xvPreface to the First Edition xviiFactors for Conversion to SI Units of Measurement xix

Chapter1.

Environmental IssuesJames R. Brown and Samuel Less, AICP

1

1.1 Environmental Issues Affecting Highway Projects 2

1.2 Federal Requirements Governing Transportation Planning and theEnvironment

3

1.3 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) 5

1.4 Federal Requirements Governing Resource-Specific EnvironmentalAspects

23

1.5 Lead-Based Paint Removal 39

1.6 Resource Recovery and Use of Waste Material 52

Chapter2.

Highway Location, Design, and TrafficLarry J. Shannon, P.E.

67

2.1 Transportation Development Process 67

2.2 Geometric Design 76

2.3 Cross-Section Design 117

2.4 Intersection Design 147

2.5 Interchange Ramp Design 164

2.6 Collector-Distributor Roads 173

2.7 Multilane Ramp and Roadway Terminals and Transitions 175

2.8 Service Roads 181

2.9 Access to Public Roads 183

2.10 Driveway Design 183

2.11 The Cost of Congestion 195

2.12 Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems 197

2.13 High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes 199

2.14 Highway Construction Plans 209

2.15 References 221

Chapter3.

Pavement Design and RehabilitationAric A. Morse, P.E., and Roger L. Green, P.E.

223

3.1 Rigid Pavement 224

3.2 Flexible Pavement 232

3.3 Composite Pavement (Overlays) 233

3.4 Development of AASHTO Pavement Design Equations 233

3.5 Parameters for AASHTO Pavement Design 235

3.6 Rigid Pavement Design Procedure 257

3.7 Flexible Pavement Design Procedure 266

3.8 Pavement Management 270

viii

3.9 Methods of Pavement Rehabilitation 296

3.10 Pavement Preventive Maintenance 301

3.11 Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Pavements 306

3.12 Reference Material 309

Chapter 4. Bridge EngineeringWalter J. Jestings, P.E., and Mahir Sen, P.E.

311

4.1 Client-Consultant Relationship 311

4.2 Aesthetic Considerations 313

4.3 Bridge Design Specifications 313

4.4 Bridge Geometrics 314

4.5 Basic Bridge Materials 316

4.6 Bridge Deck Materials and Systems 321

4.7 Concrete Bridge Deck Design 323

4.8 Concrete Bridge Deck Construction 324

4.9 Concrete Bridge Deck Protection 325

4.10 Deck Surfaces and Deck Overlays 327

4.11 Selection of Materials for Main Superstructure Members 327

4.12 Corrosion Protection of New Steel Bridges 328

4.13 Weathering Steel 329

4.14 Deflection and Expansion Joints 330

4.15 Continuity and Jointless Bridges 335

4.16 Characteristics and Selection of Bridge Types 336

4.17 Determination of Span Lengths 344

4.18 Bridge Widening and Rehabilitation 344

4.19 Repainting of Existing Bridges 346

4.20 Deck Drainage 347

4.21 Bridge Bearings 348

4.22 Provision for Inspection of New Bridges 354

4.23 Scour 354

4.24 Seismic Design 356

Chapter 5. Culverts, Drainage, and Replacements for BridgesKevin E. White, P.E.

359

5.1 Hydrology 359

5.2 Design of Open Channels 371

5.3 Fundamentals of Open-Channel Flow 373

5.4 Design of Roadway Drainage 379

5.5 Hydraulic Design of Culverts 388

5.6 Culvert Types and Materials 403

5.7 Culvert Service Life 413

5.8 Structural Design of Drainage Pipes 418

5.9 Replacements for Bridges 459

5.10 Construction Methods 461

5.11 Inspection 464

5.12 Rehabilitation 470

Chapter 6. Safety SystemsRoger L. Brockenbrough, P.E.

473

6.1 Concepts and Benefits of Roadside Safety 473

6.2 Application of Clear Zone Concept to Slope and Drainage Design 475

6.3 Sign and Luminaire Supports and Similar Features 483

6.4 Warrants for Roadside Barriers 488

ix

6.5 Characteristics of Roadside Barriers 491

6.6 Selection of Roadside Barriers 499

6.7 Placement of Roadside Barriers 502

6.8 Upgrading Roadside Barrier Systems 506

6.9 Median Barriers 506

6.10 Placement of Barriers on Sloped Medians 515

6.11 Bridge Railings and Transitions 517

6.12 Barrier End Treatments and Crash Cushions 522

Chapter7.

Signing and Roadway Lighting

Part 1. SigningBrian L. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E.

533

7.1 Traffic Signing Needs 533

7.2 Crashworthy Concerns of Roadside Features 539

7.3 Design of Single-Mount Sign Supports 546

7.4 Slip Base Designs 562

7.5 Design of Multiple-Mount Sign Supports 566

7.6 Maintenance and Construction of Sign Supports 574

7.7 Fastening Sign Blanks on Single–Sign-Support Systems 588

7.8 Multiple–Sign-Mount Installation 594

7.9 Fastening Sign Blanks on Multiple–Sign-Support Systems 598

7.10 Guidelines for Multiple–Sign-Support Construction 602

7.11 Sign Vandalism Problems and Countermeasures 604

7.12 Maintenance of Traffic Signs 608

7.13 References on Signing 612

Part 2. Roadway LightingC. Paul Watson, P.E., Nelson Russell, P.E., and Brian L. Bowman,Ph.D., P.E.

615

7.14 Benefits and Fundamentals of Lighting 615

7.15 Facility and Area Classifications 618

7.16 Freeway Lighting Considerations 620

7.17 Streets and Highways Other Than Freeways 623

7.18 Tunnel Lighting 624

7.19 Roadway Rest Areas 626

7.20 Analytical Approach to Lighting Warrants 628

7.21 Types of Luminaires 628

7.22 High Mast Lighting 635

7.23 Roadside Safety 636

7.24 Pole Types 639

7.25 Electrical Hazard 640

7.26 Foundations 642

7.27 Bases 646

7.28 Construction Considerations 649

7.29 Acceptance Tests 651

7.30 Maintenance Considerations 652

7.31 Impact Performance Criteria 653

7.32 Structural Design 655

7.33 References on Lighting 655

Chapter8.

Retaining WallsA. J. Siccardi, P.E., and S. C. (Trever) Wang, Ph.D., P.E.

657

8.1 Earth Retaining Wall Classification 658

8.2 Earth Pressure Considerations and Determination 670

x

8.3 Foundation Investigations and Soils Analysis 681

8.4 Rigid Retaining Walls 690

8.5 Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls 698

8.6 Nongravity Cantilevered Wall Design 738

8.7 Anchored Wall Design 743

8.8 Soil Nailed Structures 749

8.9 Prefabricated Modular Walls 767

8.10 MSE Bridge Abutment Walls 767

8.11 Reference Material 772

Chapter 9. Noise BarriersJames J. Hill, P.E., and Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E.

775

9.1 Acoustical Concepts 776

9.2 Acoustical Standards and Design 777

9.3 Types of Noise Barriers 778

9.4 Noise Barrier Selection 779

9.5 Aesthetics 780

9.6 Safety Considerations 784

9.7 Maintenance Considerations 784

9.8 Project Development Steps 785

9.9 Structural Design 787

9.10 Foundation Design 791

9.11 Construction 792

Chapter 10. Value Engineering and Life Cycle CostHarold G. Tufty, CVS, FSAVE

797

10.1 FHWA Role in Value Engineering 797

10.2 AASHTO Role in Value Engineering 803

10.3 Value Engineering Job Plan Concept 808

10.4 Value Engineering Job Plan Detail 809

10.5 Fast Diagramming and the Job Plan 820

10.6 Cost Model 825

10.7 Worth Model 825

10.8 Considerations in Life Cycle Cost Analysis 826

10.9 Categories of Costs 828

10.10 Methods of Calculation 829

10.11 Examples of Successful VE Highway Studies 830

Index 835

xi

CONTRIBUTORS

Brian L. Bowman, Ph.D., P.E. Professor of Civil Engineering, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama(Chap. 7)

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E. President, R. L. Brockenbrough & Associates, Inc., Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania (Chaps. 6, 9)

James R. Brown National Director, Transportation Environmental Programs, HDR Engineering, Inc., NewYork, New York (Chap. 1)

Roger L. Green, P.E. Pavement Research Engineer, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio(Chap. 3)

James J. Hill, P.E. Structural Engineer, Consultant, Anoka, Minnesota (Chap. 9)

Walter J. Jestings, P.E. Formerly, Bridge Engineer, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas, Inc.,Atlanta, Georgia (Chap. 4)

Samuel Less, AICP Planning Director, Transportation Environmental Programs, HDR Engineering, Inc.,New York, New York (Chap. 1)

Aric A. Morse, P.E. Pavement Design Engineer, Ohio Department of Transportation, Columbus, Ohio(Chap. 3)

Nelson Russell, P.E. Manager, Electrical Department, Volkert & Associates, Mobile, Alabama (Chap. 7)

Mahir Sen, P.E. Professional Associate, PB Americas, Inc., Newark, New Jersey (Chap. 4)

Larry J. Shannon, P.E. Highway Technical Manager, ms Consultants, Columbus, Ohio (Chap. 2)

A. J. Siccardi, P.E. Formerly, Staff Bridge Engineer, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver,Colorado (Chap. 8)

Harold G. Tufty, CVS, FSAVE Editor and Publisher, Value Engineering and Management Digest,Washington, D.C. (Chap. 10)

S. C. (Trever) Wang, Ph.D., P.E. Senior Engineer, Colorado Department of Transportation, Denver,Colorado (Chap. 8)

C. Paul Watson, P.E. Formerly, State Electrical Engineer, Alabama Department of Transportation,Montgomery, Alabama (Chap. 7)

Kevin E. White, P.E. Principal Hydraulic Engineer, E. L. Robinson Engineering, Columbus, Ohio (Chap.5)

xiii

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION

Improvements in highway design methods and practices are reflected in this Third Edition of the handbook.The chapter on environmental issues has been updated throughout in view of ever-evolving regulations in thatarea. The chapter on highway design includes information from the latest AASHTO “Green Book.” The trendto replace bridges with spans up to about 60 ft (18 m) with stiffened special long-span corrugated steel andprecast concrete drainage structures is documented in the chapter on culverts. The chapter on safety systemsshows the trend to use median barriers over wider median widths than in the past. Metric units have beenadded throughout the text and in tables and figures wherever feasible.

The reader is cautioned that independent professional judgment must be exercised when information setforth in this handbook is applied. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability arising fromsuch use. Readers are encouraged to use the latest edition of referenced specifications and guides, becausethey provide more complete information and are subject to frequent change.

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E.

xv

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

This new edition of the handbook has been updated throughout to reflect continuing changes andimprovements in design trends and specifications. The chapter on bridge engineering has been revised toprovide more comprehensive treatment of this important topic. The chapter on culverts and drainage providesupdated hydraulic design information as well as the latest approved methods for the structural design ofconcrete, steel, and plastic pipes. The chapter on retaining walls has been expanded with new information onmechanically stabilized earth walls, including a section on bridge abutment walls. Significant new informationhas been added to the chapter on value engineering to reflect the current roles of the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA) and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Engineers(AASHTO); additional examples of applications have been included, too.

Regrettably, this edition of the handbook marks the passing of Kenneth Boedecker, a friend and colleagueactive in highway engineering applications for many years. His contributions, particularly in the developmentof improved specifications for drainage pipe and other products, are gratefully acknowledged.

Finally, the reader is cautioned that independent professional judgment must be exercised when informationset forth in this handbook is applied. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability arising fromsuch use. Readers are encouraged to use the latest edition of the referenced specifications, because theyprovide more complete information and are subject to frequent change.

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E.

xvii

PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION

The Highway Engineering Handbook has been developed by knowledgeable engineers to serve as acomprehensive reference source for those involved in highway design. This handbook is broad in scope,presenting information on topics ranging from environmental issues to value engineering, from the design ofculverts, lighting, and noise walls to the design of safety systems, retaining walls, and bridges. In addition,such fundamental subjects as location and pavement design are fully discussed.

This volume should be useful to a wide range of personnel involved in highway design and construction,including consulting engineers; engineers employed by departments of transportation in federal, state, andlocal governments; those involved with turnpike authorities; and engineering educators. Both experiencedpractitioners and serious students will find the information presented here useful and easy to apply. It shouldenable the engineer to create a design that fulfills the requirements of the highway user: a safe, smooth,durable, aesthetically pleasing, environmentally sensitive, and economical highway system.

Contributors to this handbook are experienced highway engineers, consultants, or educators. They areleading authorities in their subject areas. The guiding principle of this book is to present practical informationthat has direct application to situations encountered in the field. Efforts were made to coordinate theinformation with that of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).Metric units are used where feasible to ease the transition to that system.

The material in this book follows a logical sequence. It begins with a discussion of environmental issues, afundamental consideration in modern highway design. This is followed by a chapter on location, design, andtraffic that includes extensive examples of typical standard treatments. A subject critical to building andmaintaining durable systems, pavement design and rehabilitation, is then presented. Following this, aspects ofbridge engineering are discussed to aid in the selection of bridge type and material for a durable design. Theessentials of culvert design are then offered, as well as information on the various culvert types available.Next, a discussion of roadway safety addresses the latest options for providing for errant vehicles that leavethe traveled way. A wealth of information follows on signing and lighting highways, subjects that also areclosely related to highway safety. A comprehensive chapter next addresses the selection and design ofretaining walls and considers both generic and proprietary systems. Walls to reduce traffic noise and screenunsightly areas are then considered. Finally, a chapter on value engineering and life cycle cost presentsfundamental insights into these areas, as well as application examples, to encourage cost-effective design.

The contributors and editors are indebted to their colleagues and a variety of sources for the informationpresented. Credit is given in references throughout the text to the extent feasible.

The reader is cautioned that independent professional judgment must be exercised when information givenin this handbook is applied. Anyone making use of this information assumes all liability arising from such use.

Roger L. Brockenbrough, P.E.Kenneth J. Boedecker, Jr., P.E.

xix

FACTORS FOR CONVERSION TO SI UNITS OFMEASUREMENT

Multiply By To findLength: Inches (in) 25.400 Millimeters (mm) Feet (ft) 0.3048 Meters (m) Yards (yd) 0.9144 Meters (m) Miles (mi) 1.6093 Kilometers (km)Area:

Square inches (in2) 645.16 Square millimeters (mm2)

Square feet (ft2) 0.09290 Square meters (m2)

Square yards (yd2) 0.8361 Square meters (m2)

Square miles (mi2) 2.5900 Square kilometers (km2) Acres (ac) 0.4047 Hectares (ha)Mass: Ounces (oz) 28.350 Grams (g) Pounds (lb) 0.4536 Kilograms (kg) Tons, short (T) 0.9072 Megagrams (Mg), or tonnesVolume: Ounces, fluid (oz) 29.574 Milliliters (mL) Gallons (gal) 3.7854 Liters (L)

Cubic feet (ft3) 0.02832 Cubic meters (m3)

Cubic yards (yd3) 0.07646 Cubic meters (m3)Velocity: Miles per hour (mi/h) 1.6093 Kilometers per hour (km/h)Force: Pound (lb) 4.4482 Newton (N) Kip 4.4482 Kilonewton (kN)Stress:

Pounds per square inch (lb/in2) 6.8948 Kilopascal (kPa)

Kips per square inch (kips/in2) 6.8948 Megapascal (MPa)

Kips per square foot (kips/ft2) 47.880 Kilopascal (kPa)

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

James R. BrownNational Director

Transportation Environmental ProgramsHDR Engineering, Inc. New York, New York

Samuel Less, AICPPlanning Director

Transportation Environmental ProgramsHDR Engineering, Inc. New York, New York

Environmental concerns play a major role in the planning, design, construction, reha-bilitation, and maintenance of highways. This chapter provides an overview of the majorenvironmental concerns affecting highway projects and includes a summary of the federalenvironmental statutes, regulations, policies, and guidance material that must be addressedin their development.

Included is a detailed discussion of the requirements of the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 USC §4321 et seq., the key federal environmentalstatute affecting the development of highway projects. Provided is a thorough descrip-tion of the process and substance required to prepare environmental documents underNEPA, including environmental assessments (EA) and environmental impact statements(EIS).

This chapter also includes a summary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)requirements governing the planning and development of highway projects included inthe Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Transportation Equity Act—A Legacy forUsers (Public Law 109-59, “SAFETEA-LU”), and Section 4(f) of the Department ofTransportation Act of 1966 (Title 49 USC §1653(f), “Section 4(f)”). Also provided is anoverview of the major federal resource-specific environmental legislation and regulationsnot under the jurisdiction of DOT that highway planners and engineers must address duringproject development.

The chapter concludes with a thorough discussion of alternative means to remove lead-based paint from steel bridge structure, and the potential use of waste material in the con-struction and maintenance of highways, including the recycling of hazardous wastes withinhighway projects.

CHAPTER 1

1

1.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES AFFECTINGHIGHWAY PROJECTS

Highway projects have the potential to result in significant social, environmental, and eco-nomic effects and, as a consequence, are the subject of a broad range of environmental reg-ulation. Potential impacts include effects on

• Community cohesion

• Land use

• Minority and disadvantaged populations

• Surface and groundwaters

• Wetlands

• Coastal zone resources

• Navigable waters

• Wild, scenic, and recreational rivers

• Flood plains

• Water quality

• Important ecological resources, including wetlands and threatened and endangeredspecies

• Significant historic and archaeological resources

• Important visual resources

• Public parklands

• Utilities

• Prime agricultural lands

• Air quality

• Noise

• Energy

• Exposure to contaminated and hazardous materials

• Public health

Recent court rulings also suggest the need to consider potential effects on global climatechange and related ecological impacts.

The impacts of highway projects may be both temporary (short-term effects thatoccur during construction of a facility) and permanent (long-term effects resulting fromthe operation of a facility). Both short- and long-term impacts can be direct, indirect, orcumulative.

• Direct impacts are effects directly caused by an action that occur at the same time andplace and result from the direct use of land or resources.

• Indirect impacts are effects indirectly caused by an action and are later in time or fartherremoved in distance from the location of a facility, but which are still reasonably fore-seeable, including growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changesin the pattern of land use, population density, or growth rate.

• Cumulative impacts are impacts which result from the incremental impact of an actionwhen added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless

2 CHAPTER ONE

of what agency or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can resultfrom individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period oftime.

All of these effects must be considered in evaluating the environmental impacts of high-way projects.

1.2 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS GOVERNINGTRANSPORTATION PLANNING AND THE ENVIRONMENT

The following discussion is intended to provide an overview of the principal federalrequirements affecting the development and maintenance of highways. These includefederal laws, regulations, executive orders, agency advisories, policy memoranda, andguidance documents. Federal laws are enacted legislation that establish a set of rules orprinciples codified in the United States Code (USC). Federal regulations implement federallaws and are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). DOT and Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA are codified in 23 CFRPart 771 (United States Department of Transportation Environmental Impact and RelatedProcedures), and 40 CFR Parts 1500–1508 (Council on Environmental QualityRegulations Implementing NEPA). Environmental regulations have been promulgated byeach federal agency. These include regulations promulgated by DOT, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of the Interior (USDOI),the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), and canbe found in the CFRs of the specific agency having jurisdiction over the environmentalissue of concern.

In addition to NEPA and the resource-specific legislation summarized in Art. 1.3 ofthis chapter, there are a number of DOT requirements that affect the planning and envi-ronmental review of highway projects. These include

• Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC §303)

• The Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240)

• The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178)

• The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy forUsers (Public Law 109-59, “SAFETEA-LU”)

• The National Highway Designation Act of 1995 (Section 29 of USC Title 23)

Provided below are brief descriptions of each of these statutes.

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC §303, “Section4(f)”). Section 4(f) prohibits the administrator of the Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) from approving the use of land from a significant publicly owned park, recre-ation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any significant historic site for transporta-tion purposes unless a determination is made that

• There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the property.

• The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting fromsuch use.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 3

In addition, supporting information must demonstrate that there are unique problems orunusual factors involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties (“AvoidanceAlternatives”) or that the cost, social, economic, and environmental impacts, or communitydisruption resulting from such alternatives reach extraordinary magnitudes.

Section 6009(a) of SAFETEA-LU made the first substantive revision to Section 4(f)since its enactment in 1966. This section of SAFETEA-LU attempts to simplify the Section4(f) process for projects that have only de minimis impacts on resources protected bySection 4(f). Under the new provisions, once DOT determines that a transportation use ofa Section 4(f) resource results in a de minimis impact, analysis of avoidance alternativesis waived and the Section 4(f) process is deemed complete. Guidance for determining deminimis impacts to Section 4(f) resources was issued by FHWA and DOT on December 13,2005. Section 6009(c) of SAFETEA-LU requires DOT to conduct a study and issue a reporton the implementation of these new Section 4(f) provisions. The initial study and report isto address the first 3 years of its implementation.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-240,“ISTEA”). ISTEA was almost revolutionary in the breadth of how it looked at surfacetransportation, and the substantive role it played in regard to metropolitan planning orga-nizations, localities, and states. Covering the period 1992 through 1997, it restructured theFederal Aid Highway Program, and placed the emphasis on maintenance rather than whole-sale expansion of the highway network. In creating the Surface Transportation Program,ISTEA brought a new level of flexibility to the planning and implementation of highwayand transit projects.

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (Public Law 105-178, “TEA-21”).Enacted on June 9, 1998, TEA-21 authorized the Federal Surface TransportationProgram for highways, highway safety, and transit for the 6-year period, 1998–2003, andincreased the authorized funding level to $218 billion from $155 million under ISTEA.TEA-21 built upon ISTEA, allowing new initiatives, strengthening safety, and encour-aging flexibility in how to maximize performance of the transportation system.

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy forUsers of 2005 (Public Law 109-59, “SAFETEA-LU”). SAFETEA-LU built upon bothISTEA and TEA-21 included expanded programs in the areas of safety, equity, innovativefinancing, congestion relief, mobility and productivity, efficiency, and environmentalstewardship. Of particular relevance to the consideration of environmental concerns affect-ing the development and implementation of highway projects, it included a number ofchanges aimed at streamlining the environmental review process. A new category of“participating agencies” was added to provide state, local, and tribal agencies with a formalrole in the environmental review process, required that a schedule be defined for the partici-pation of agencies in the project review process, established a 180-day statute of limitationsfor lawsuits challenging federal agency approvals, allowed for broader state assumption ofresponsibilities for categorical exclusions from environmental review, exempted theInterstate System from Section 4(f) and National Historic Preservation Act requirements(although individual segments may receive protection), modified the requirements fordetermining whether the conformity of local and statewide transportation plans conform tothe Federal Clean Air Act, and, as previously discussed, included tightly circumscribedexemptions from “Section 4(f)” requirements.

National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-59, Section 109 ofTitle 23, USC). Following the substantial completion of the Interstate System, the trans-portation focus for many states shifted to congestion management and system preservation

4 CHAPTER ONE

projects that involve existing facilities. Working with community stakeholders to preserveand enhance the human and natural environment is a significant component of these pro-jects. To address the challenges resulting from this new emphasis, many state transporta-tion agencies and professional organizations have implemented a “context-sensitive design”(CSD) approach to project development.

The National Highway System Designation Act (Section 109 of Title 23, USC)was enacted in November 1995. The act indicated that design for new construction,reconstruction, resurfacing, restoration, or rehabilitation of highways on the NationalHighway System (other than a highway also on the Interstate System) may take intoaccount

• The constructed and natural environment of the area

• The environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community, and preservation impacts ofthe activity

• Access for other modes of transportation

Five pilot states (Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, and Utah) were selected toimplement the CSD approach to highway design. Principles for CSD can be found on theFHWA website at www.fhwa.got.gov/csd/principles.

1.3 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969 (NEPA)

NEPA is the most important federal environmental legislation to be considered in the plan-ning and development of highway projects. NEPA was enacted by Congress in December1969 and signed into law by President Nixon on January 1, 1970. It was the first compre-hensive environmental law in the United States and established the country’s national envi-ronmental policies. To implement these policies, NEPA requires federal agencies to assessthe environmental effects of its discretionary actions prior to making decisions on suchactions. Actions subject to NEPA include such activities as the financing or approving ofprojects or programs; the adoption of agency regulations and procedures; the permitting ofprivate and public actions; and a broad range of other actions.

As indicated in Section 101 of NEPA, its purpose is “to declare a national policywhich will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his envi-ronment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environmentand biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understandingof the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to estab-lish a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)”, within the executive office of thepresident.

In addition to the agency specific regulations implementing NEPA, DOT and its con-stituent agencies have identified the process and methods to be used to assess environmen-tal impacts under NEPA in a number of orders, technical advisories, and memoranda.These include Order 5610.1C, Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts(9/18/1979), which established procedures for consideration of environmental impacts indecision making on proposed DOT actions. A draft revision to this order has been consid-ered by DOT (Draft Order 5610.1D, 7/5/2000), but has not been finalized. Further guidancefor preparing environmental documents under NEPA is provided in FHWA TechnicalAdvisory T6640.8A, Guidance for Preparing and Processing Environmental and Section4(f) Documents (10/30/1987), the Federal Aid Policy Guide (FAPG), and a number ofFHWA Policy Memoranda (see Table 1.1).

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 5

Additional guidance is provided in common law resulting from litigation concerningenvironmental matters. Judicial review may result in clarification or invalidation of all orparts of environmental regulation. There is an extensive body of law that has resulted fromsuch review.

1.3.1 The Environmental Impact Assessment Process under NEPA

An outline of the steps in the NEPA process is presented in the following discussion andillustrated in Fig. 1.1.

Determination of the Level of Documentation Needed to Comply with NEPA.Highway projects are usually initiated by a state or local transportation agency. If it isanticipated that a major federal action is required to implement a project, it must com-ply with NEPA. Conversely, projects that do not require a major federal action do notrequire review under NEPA. These minor actions include projects that are “categori-cally excluded” from detailed review under NEPA and for which a minimal level ofenvironmental documentation is required. A list of categorical exclusions is provided

6 CHAPTER ONE

TABLE 1.1 FHWA Office of Planning, Environment, and Real Estate—Selected Policy Memoranda

Issued date Subject

8/17/06 Guidance on 23 USC §328 Environmental Restoration and Pollution Abatement7/31/06 Memorandum on Improvement of NEPA Documents5/25/06 Highway Traffic Noise4/4/06 Section 6004: State Assumption of Responsibility for Categorical Exclusions3/29/06 Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot-Spot Analysis in PM2.5

and PM10 Nonattainment and Maintenance Areas2/15/06 Release of FHWA Construction Noise Model (FHWA RCNM) Version 1.02/14/06 Interim Guidance for Implementing the Transportation Conformity Provisions in

the SAFETEA-LU2/3/06 Interim Guidance for Air Toxic Analysis in NEPA Documents1/13/06 Guidance for Applying the 4(f) Exemption for the Interstate Highway System3/10/05 Federal-Aid Eligibility of Wetland and Natural Habitat Mitigation4/28/99 Guidance on the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ)

Program under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)3/12/97 Eligibility of ISTEA Funds to Mitigate Historic Impacts to Wetlands10/28/96 NEPA Requirements for Transportation Enhancement Activities12/15/95 Memorandum of Understanding to Foster the Ecosystem Approach12/13/95 Use of Private Wetland Mitigation Banks10/11/95 Highway Noise—The Audible Landscape: A Manual for Highway Noise and

Land Use7/25/95 Participation in Funding for Ecological Mitigation7/5/95 Use of Private Wetland Mitigation Banks as Compensatory Mitigation for

Highway Project Impacts6/12/95 Highway Traffic Noise Guidance and Policies and Written Noise Policies2/3/95 Analyzing Exempt Projects in the Conformity Process11/8/94 Federal Interagency Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for Implementation

of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)8/22/94 Interim Guidance of Applying Section 4(f) on Transportation Enhancement

Projects and National Recreational Trails Projects4/19/94 Wetland Delineation and Mitigation

in Tables 1.2 and 1.3. The following are examples of actions that would trigger the needto comply with NEPA.

• The proposed use of federal funds for the planning, engineering, or construction of a pro-ject, or for needed right-of-way acquisition

• Modifications to an existing interstate highway

• Modifications to a non-interstate access-controlled highway that affects the right-of-waypreviously financed with federal funds

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 7

Notice of Intent

EnvironmentalAssessment

Finding of NoSignificant Impact

(FONSI)

Agency ActionAgency ActionAgency Action

Scoping Process

Agency/PublicReview & Comment

Draft EIS

Record of Decision

Final EIS

No

Exclusion

Exclusion

Applies

No

EIS

EIS

Required

Proposed AgencyAction

Categorical Exclusion orOther Exemption

FIGURE 1.1 Overview of NEPA environmental review process. (From R. E. Bass and A. I. Herson,Mastering NEPA: A Step-by-Step Approach, Solano Press Books, Point Arena, Calif., 1993, with permission)

If a project is subject to NEPA, a determination must then be made regarding the levelof analysis and process to be completed to comply with NEPA. The type of environmentaldocumentation that is required must be made in consultation with FHWA, which, in turn,coordinates the review of a proposed action with other involved federal agencies. Based oncoordination with FHWA, a project could require one of the three levels of environmentaldocumentation:

• Documentation supporting the project status as a categorical exclusion (CE).

• Projects for which an environmental assessment is required to make a final determinationof whether an Environmental Impact Statement is required.

• Projects for which an environmental impact statement is required.

8 CHAPTER ONE

TABLE 1.2 Actions Categorically Excluded from Further Review by FHWA

1. Activities that do not involve or lead directly to construction

2. Approval of utility installations along or across a transportation facility

3. Construction of bicycle and pedestrian lanes, paths, and facilities

4. Activities included in the state’s highway safety plan under 23 USC §402

5. Transfer of federal lands pursuant to 23 USC §317 when the subsequent action is not anFHWA action

6. Installation of noise barriers or alterations to existing publicly owned buildings to provide fornoise reduction

7. Landscaping

8. Installation of fencing, signs, pavement markings, small passenger shelters, traffic signals, andrailroad warning devices where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption will occur

9. Emergency repairs under 23 USC §125

10. Acquisition of scenic easements

11. Determination of payback under 23 CFR §480 for property previously acquired with federal-aid participation

12. Improvements to existing rest areas and truck-weigh stations

13. Ride-sharing activities

14. Bus and railcar rehabilitation

15. Alterations to facilities or vehicles in order to make them accessible for elderly and handicappedpersons

16. Program administration, technical assistance activities, and operating assistance to transitauthorities to continue existing service or increase service to meet routine changes in demand.

17. Purchase of vehicles by the applicant where the use of these vehicles can be accommodated byexisting facilities or by new facilities which themselves are within a categorical exclusion

18. Track and railbed maintenance and improvements when carried out within the existing right-of-way

19. Purchase and installation of operating or maintenance equipment to be located within the tran-sit facility and with no significant impacts off the site

20. Promulgation of rules, regulations, and directives

Source: Adapted from 23 CFR 771.117(c).

A determination of the extent of environmental documentation is based on a preliminaryenvironmental evaluation of a proposed action to determine whether:

• The proposed action falls within the definitions of projects that are categoricallyexcluded from NEPA review.

• The proposed action has the potential to result in one or more significant environmentalimpacts.

• Measures are reasonably available that could mitigate potential environmental effectsthereby eliminating the potential for significant environmental impacts.

• The project has unusual level of public controversy that may warrant preparation of an EIS.

Categorical Exclusions. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1508.4)require that each federal agency identify the types of actions under its purview thatwould not individually or cumulatively result in significant environmental impacts.These projects, designated as categorical exclusions, are exempt from the need to pre-pare an EA or EIS.

FHWA has identified two sets of projects that may be categorically excluded fromdetailed review under NEPA. The first group of actions is found in 23 CFR 771.117(c) and

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 9

TABLE 1.3 Actions Generally Excluded from Further NEPA Review But Subject to FHWA Approval

1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, addingshoulders, or auxiliary lanes

2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, including the installation of ramp-metering control devices and lighting

3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation toreplace existing at-grade railroad crossings

4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities

5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas

6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-of-way, wherethe proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts

7. Approvals for changes in access control

8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominately for indus-trial or transportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoningand located on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehi-cle traffic

9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary facilities whereonly minor amounts of additional land are required and there is not a substantial increase inthe number of users

10. Construction of bus-transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger shelters, boardingareas, kiosks, and related street improvements) when located in a commercial area or otherhigh-activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic

11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used predominatly for industrial ortransportation purposes where such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning andwhere there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community

12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes

Source: Adapted from 23 CFR 771.117(d).

is provided in Table 1.2. These are actions that have been categorically found not to resultin significant adverse environmental impacts. The second group of actions is found in 23CFR 771.117(d) and is provided in Table 1.3. These include actions that have been foundgenerally not to result in significant adverse environmental impacts, but for which FHWAmust make a final determination.

When satisfied that the project meets one or more exclusion criteria and that other envi-ronmentally related requirements have been met, FHWA will indicate approval by signinga Categorical Exclusion form. A copy of documentation required to support this determi-nation must be sent to FHWA by the sponsoring agency.

In certain cases, FHWA has reached agreement with sponsoring agencies on the treat-ment of very routine, repetitive projects with little or no environmental impact implica-tions. Such projects may be processed on the basis of a “programmatic” categoricalexclusion if certain specified conditions are met. Use of this programmatic process is sub-ject to annual review by FHWA.

Classification of a project as a categorical exclusion does not exclude a project from therequirements of other federal environmentally related processes. These requirements mustbe met before FHWA will make an exclusion determination. In addition, Congress may, atits discretion, also exempt a specific federal project or program from NEPA through spe-cific legislation.

Environmental Assessments. An EA is conducted for projects that are not categoricallyexcluded and for which it is not clear whether an EIS is required. The primary purpose ofan EA is to help FHWA decide whether an EIS is needed. Consequently, an EA should pro-vide the evaluations critical to determining whether a proposed action would result in asignificant impact on one or more of the environmental resources considered under NEPA,thereby necessitating a more complete analysis in an EIS. If it is determined that a proposedaction does not have the potential to result in one or more significant environmentalimpacts, then FHWA will issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), thereby ter-minating the environmental review process under NEPA. If it is determined that a proposedaction has the potential to result in one or more significant impacts, then FHWA has theoption to require that an EIS be prepared.

Contents and Format of an EA. The contents of an EA are determined throughagency and public scoping, preliminary data gathering, and field investigation. Thesesteps will identify potentially affected resources and the level of analysis that is neces-sary to identify whether an action would have the potential to result in a significant envi-ronmental impact.

The EA should be a concise document, including only the data and technical analysesneeded to support decision making, and be focused on determining whether the proposedaction would have a significant effect on the environment. It is not necessary to providedetailed assessments of those resources for which significant environmental impacts arevery unlikely.

In addition to a cover sheet and table of contents, the following elements should beincluded in an EA:

• Purpose and need for the proposed action

• Project description and alternatives

• Environmental setting, impacts, and mitigation

• Comments and coordination

• Appendices (as necessary)

10 CHAPTER ONE

• Section 4(f) evaluation (if required)

• EA revisions (if required)

Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action. A succinct description of the purpose andneed for the proposed action should be provided at the beginning of the EA. The need forthe project should be based on an objective evaluation of current information and futureanticipated conditions. This section of the EA should identify the transportation problem(s)or other needs which the proposed action is intended to address (40 CFR 1502.13). The sec-tion should clearly demonstrate that a need exists and should define the need in termsunderstandable to the general public. The statement of purpose and need will form the basisfor identifying of reasonable alternatives and in selecting a preferred alternative.

Consistent with joint FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) guidance(July 23, 2003 Joint Memorandum from Mary E. Peters, administrator of FHWA andJennifer L. Dorn, administrator of FTA), the Purpose and Need Statement must be as con-cise and understandable as possible. Although it serves as the cornerstone for the subse-quent identification and evaluation of alternatives, it should not specifically discuss anyalternative or range of alternatives, nor should it be so narrowly drafted that it unreasonablypoints to a single solution, thereby circumventing necessary environmental review beforea selection is made. In general, the “need” for an action should be defined as the trans-portation system deficiencies that will be addressed by the action, while the “purpose” forthe action should be described as the objectives that will be met to address the deficiencies.Table 1.4 identifies the types of information that could be incorporated into the EA todemonstrate the need for a proposed action.

Project Description and Alternatives. Included in this section of the EA should be aproject description written in clear, nontechnical language. It should include the locationand geographic limits of the project and its major design features and typical sections; alocation map (district, regional, county, or city map depicting state highways, major roads,and well-known features to orient the reader to the project location); a vicinity map

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 11

TABLE 1.4 Information to Establish Need for Highway Projects

Project status: Briefly describe the project history including actions taken to date, other agencies and governmental units involved, action spending, schedules, etc.

System linkage: Is the proposed project needed as a “connecting link”? How does the project fit in the transportation system?

Capacity: Is the capacity of an existing facility inadequate for the present and projected traffic? Would the proposed project provide needed additional capacity? What is the level(s) of service forexisting and proposed facilities?

Transportation demand: Is the project identified in an adopted statewide or metropolitan transportation plan as needed to meet current or projected demand?

Legislation: Is there a federal, state or local governmental mandate for the action?

Social demands or economic development: Is the project needed to address projected economic development or changes in land use?

Modal interrelationships: Is the proposed project needed to interface with and complement airports, rail and port facilities, or mass transit services?

Safety: Is the proposed project needed to correct an existing or potential safety hazard? Is the existing accident rate excessively high compared to that of similar facilities in the region or state?

Roadway deficiencies: Is the proposed project needed to correct existing roadway deficiencies (e.g., substandard geometrics, load limits on structures, inadequate cross-section, or high maintenance costs)?

(detailed map showing project limits and adjacent facilities); current status of the projectincluding its relation to regional transportation plans, regional transportation improvementprograms, congestion management plans, and the state transportation improvement pro-gram; proposed construction date; funding source(s); and the status of other projects or pro-posals in the area. For projects that include more than one type of improvement, the majordesign features of each type of improvement should be included.

The description of the project should clearly indicate the independence of the action by

• Identifying and providing the basis for establishing the “logical termini” (project limits)of the action

• Establishing the separate utility of the action from other actions of the agency

• Establishing that the action does not foreclose the opportunity to consider other actions

• Confirming that the action does not irretrievably commit federal funds for closely relatedprojects

Reasonable alternatives to the project should be discussed, including consideration of ano-action option, which is mandated under both CEQ and FHWA regulations. The EA mayeither discuss (1) the preferred alternative and identify any other alternatives considered or(2) if a preferred alternative has not been identified during previous planning studies, thealternatives under consideration. The EA does not need to evaluate in detail all reasonablealternatives for the project, and may be prepared for one or more build alternatives.

Project alternatives can be classified into two types: viable, and those studied but nolonger under consideration. Viable alternatives should be described in sufficient detail tocompare their effectiveness against the proposal in meeting the project purpose and need,and to assess potential impacts and estimate cost. Alternatives no longer under considera-tion should be explained briefly and the reasons provided for their elimination.

Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation. The EA should include a descriptionof the environmental setting in which the proposed action would be located. The descrip-tion should be succinct and maximize the use of visual displays to reduce the need forextensive narrative. Beyond a general description of contextual background, the discussionshould focus on those features that have the greatest potential to be significantly affectedby the proposed action.

The EA should discuss any social, economic, and environmental impacts whose sig-nificance is uncertain. The level of analysis should be sufficient to adequately identifythe impacts and available measures to mitigate impacts, and to address known and fore-seeable public and agency concerns. Impact areas that do not have a reasonable possibil-ity for individual or cumulative environmental impacts need not be addressed. Thereasons for determining why any impacts are not considered to be significant should beprovided.

If more than one alternative is involved, the evaluation must identify the impacts asso-ciated with each alternative being evaluated. The EA should identify the technical studiesand backup reports used in making the assessment and indicate where they are available. Alist of environmental resource categories to be considered in both EAs and EISs is includedin Table 1.5.

Feasible measures that reduce or eliminate potential impacts of a proposed actionshould be identified. Measures may be presented as potential commitments that may beselected for implementation by the lead agency. Alternatively, these measures can be incor-porated as elements of the proposed action, thus avoiding impacts. Measures to mitigateimpacts may diminish the intensity of project effects to the point that they would not beconsidered to be significant, and could make the project eligible for a FONSI.

Based on the results of these evaluations, a determination is made of whether the antic-ipated effects of the project represent a significant environmental impact thereby requiring

12 CHAPTER ONE

the preparation of an EIS. This determination is based on a review of the context andintensity of the impact. Context refers to the setting within which the proposed project isbeing developed. Intensity refers to the severity of an impact and will vary by resource type.

Factors to consider in determining intensity of an impact include

• The degree to which the action may affect public health or safety.

• The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment may result in asignificant level of public controversy.

• Whether the action may result in cumulatively significant impacts when added to theeffects of other planned and programmed projects and activities separate from the pro-posed action.

• Whether the action has the potential to violate one or more federal, state, or local laws orstandards intended to protect the environment.

Factors to be considered in determining the context include

• Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to public, park lands,prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 13

TABLE 1.5 Environmental Resource Categories to Be Considered in the Preparation ofEnvironmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements

1. Land use impacts

2. Farmland impacts

3. Socioeconomic impacts, including disproportionate adverse impacts on disadvantaged and minority populations (environmental justice)

4. Relocation impacts

5. Considerations relating to pedestrians and bicyclists

6. Air quality impacts

7. Noise impacts

8. Water quality impacts

9. Wetland impacts

10. Water body modification and wildlife impacts

11. Floodplain impacts

12. Wild and scenic rivers

13. Coastal barriers

14. Coastal zone impacts

15. Threatened or endangered species

16. Historic and archeological preservation

17. Hazardous waste sites

18. Visual impacts

19. Energy

20. Construction impacts

21. Relationship of local short-term uses vs. long-term productivity

22. Irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources

23. Cumulative impacts

• The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures,or objects listed on or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

• The degree to which the action may adversely affect threatened or endangered species oftheir habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of1973.

Comments and Coordination. Determination of the need for an EIS or whether theFHWA can issue a FONSI can only be made after the EA has been made available foragency and public review. This section of the EA should summarize the efforts taken tocoordinate with agencies and the public, identify the key issues and pertinent informationreceived through these efforts, and list the agencies and members of the public consulted.

Public involvement is an essential element of the NEPA process, and the proposingagency must take proactive steps to encourage and provide for early and continuing publicparticipation in the decision-making process [40 CFR 1506(a)]. Opportunities for publicinvolvement are provided at several stages during the development of NEPA documents,such as at the publication of the notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS, during the processused to scope the environmental document, and during the process afforded to agencies andthe public to review the environmental document.

Opportunity for the public to review and comment on the completed (draft) EA occursupon publication of a notice of availability of the draft document. Such notice may be pub-lished in local newspapers or other local print media, presented in special newsletters, pro-vided to community and business associations, placed in legal postings, and presented tointerested Native American tribes, if appropriate. For an EIS, publication of such notice isalso required in the Federal Register. Notices and other public announcements regardingthe project should be sent individually to those who have expressed an interest in a spe-cific action.

Early incorporation of public input on project alternatives and issues dealing withsocial, economic, and environmental impacts helps in deciding whether to prepare an EIS,in determining the scope of the document, and in identifying important or controversialissues to be considered. When impacts involve the relocation of individuals, groups, orinstitutions, special notification and public participation efforts should be undertaken.Early and ongoing public involvement will assist in gaining consensus on the need for theaction and in identifying and screening alternatives.

A public hearing is not mandated to receive comment on an EA but is required for pub-lic review of a draft EIS. The proposing agency must provide for one or more public hear-ings to be held at a convenient time and place for federal actions that require significantamounts of right-of-way acquisition, substantially change the layout or function of con-necting roadways or of the facility being improved, have substantial adverse impact onabutting properties, or otherwise have a significant social, economic, or environmentaleffect [23 CFR 771.111(h)(2)(iii)].

During public hearings, the public should be provided with information on the pro-ject’s purpose and need and with how the project relates to local and regional planninggoals, the major design features of the project, its potential impacts, and the reasonablealternatives under consideration including the no-action alternative. Areas of specialinterest to the public, such as needed right-of-way acquisition and the proposed displace-ment and relocation of existing uses, should be carefully explained, as should the agen-cy’s procedures and timing for receiving oral and written public comments [23 CFR771.111(h)(2)(v)]. The public comment period for a draft EIS is at least 45 days. All pub-lic comments received during the public comment period, including during public hear-ings must be documented.

Appendices (if any). Appendices to the EA should include the analytical information thatsubstantiates the principal analyses and findings included in the main body of the document.

14 CHAPTER ONE

Section 4(f) Evaluation (if any). As described in Art. 1.2 of this chapter, a Section 4(f)evaluation may be required if a project would require the use of land from a significant pub-licly owned public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or any signifi-cant historic site. If a Section 4(f) evaluation is required, it may be included as a sectionwithin the EA. If included within the EA, a separate “avoidance alternatives evaluation”need not be repeated in the EA. In all cases, the Section 4(f) evaluation must be circulatedfor review in conformance with 23 CFR 771.135(i) requirements.

EA Revisions. An EA should be revised subsequent to public review to (1) reflectchanges in the proposed action, impact assessment, or mitigation measures resulting fromcomments received on the EA, (2) include any necessary findings, agreements, or determi-nations made as a consequence of the concurrent reviews under Section 4(f) or other reg-ulatory requirements, and (3) include a copy of pertinent substantive comments received onthe EA and appropriate responses to the comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact. After review of the EA and any other appropriateinformation, the FHWA may determine that the proposed action would not result in anysignificant impacts, and issue a FONSI. The FONSI should briefly present the reasons whythe proposed action would not have a significant effect on the human environment orrequire the preparation of an EIS. The FONSI should document compliance with NEPAand other applicable environmental requirements. If full compliance with all these otherrequirements is not possible by the time the FONSI is published, the FONSI should docu-ment consultation with the affected agencies to date and describe how and when the otherrequirements will be met.

There is no requirement to publish a record of decision (ROD) for a FONSI, nor is therea legally mandated requirement to distribute the FONSI. However, the FHWA must send anotice of availability of the FONSI to federal, state, and local government agencieslikely to have an interest in the undertaking and the state intergovernmental review con-tacts [23 DFR 771.121(b)]. It is encouraged that agencies that have comments on the EA(or requested to be informed) be advised on the project decision and the disposition of theircomments, and be provided a copy of the FONSI.

Environmental Impact Statement. A federal agency must prepare an EIS if it is propos-ing a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environ-ment (40 CFR §1501.7). The regulatory requirements for an EIS are more extensive thanthe requirements for an EA. The steps to be followed in preparing an EIS are depicted inFig. 1.1.

Once the lead agency determines that an action would result in a significant measur-able impact, development of a draft enviornmental impact statement (DEIS) is initiatedthrough a public and agency notification and scoping process focused on early identifi-cation of the major issues of concern and alternatives for study. This process includesconfirmation of FHWA as the agency to lead the environmental review process, identifica-tion of cooperating agencies, distribution of a letter of initiation of the environmentalprocess from the sponsoring agency, publication of a notice of intent to prepare an EIS,invitation to agencies to become participating agencies in the environmental reviewprocess, and completion of scoping activities. Each of these steps is described in the fol-lowing discussion.

Lead Agency Determination. In accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU,DOT is designated as the federal lead agency for the “environmental review process” forany surface transportation project that requires a DOT approval. The environmentalreview process includes both NEPA and other reviews. The lead agency is responsiblefor taking actions within its authority to facilitate the resolution of the environmentalreview process. It also is responsible for preparing the required NEPA document for the

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 15

project, or ensuring that one is prepared. Other federal agencies that have jurisdiction bylaw, or that have special expertise with respect to any environmental issue that should beaddressed in the EIS may be a cooperating agency upon request of the lead agency. Anagency may also request that the lead agency designate it as a cooperating agency. Eachcooperating agency must (1) participate in the NEPA process at the earliest possible time,(2) participate in the scoping process described below, (3) assume on request of the leadagency responsibility for developing information and preparing environmental analysesincluding portions of the EIS concerning issues which the cooperating agency has spe-cial expertise, and (4) make staff available to enhance the lead agency’s interdisciplinarycapability.

Dissemination of Letter of Initiation. In accordance with Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU, a project sponsor has the responsibility to notify DOT that the environmental reviewprocess for a project “should be initiated.” This notice of initiation, which can take the formof a letter or other form of notice, should identify the type of work, termini, length, and gen-eral location of the project. It should also identify any federal approvals that the projectsponsor believes will be necessary, including all anticipated environmental reviews, per-mits, and consistency determinations.

Publication of Notice of Intent. The EIS process begins with the publication of a noticeof intent (NOI) stating the agency’s intent to prepare an EIS for the proposed action. The NOIis published in the Federal Register, and provides basic information on the proposed actionin preparation for a subsequent “scoping process.” The NOI should include a description ofthe purpose and need for the proposed action similar to that included in an EA. In addition,it includes a brief description of the proposed action and possible alternatives, and a descrip-tion of the process proposed by the sponsoring agency to identify the scope of the EIS. Thisshould include any proposed scoping meetings and other methods proposed for publicinvolvement in the environmental review process. The NOI should also identify the agencypoint of contact for the project, who can respond to questions concerning the proposed actionand the NEPA process. The NOI should emphasize the lead agency’s commitment to col-laborate with others interested in the proposed action and to describe how it intends to engageinterested parties throughout the analysis. The publication of the NOI in the Federal Registercan be supplemented by issuing other forms of notice such as announcements on websites,newspapers, newsletters, and other forms of media. The format and content of the notice ofintent are included in FHWA Technical Advisory T6640.8A.

Invitation to Participating Agencies. In addition to publication of an NOI, Section6002 of SAFETEA-LU requires that the lead environmental agency designate as“participating agencies” (a new term created under SAFETEA-LU) all other govern-mental agencies—federal or nonfederal—that may have an interest in the project, andinvite them to participate in the environmental review process for the project. Such desig-nation and invitation should occur as early in the environmental review process as ispracticable. Any federal agency that is invited to participate in the process must acceptthe invitation unless that agency notifies the lead agency in writing by the deadline speci-fied in the invitation that (1) it has no jurisdiction or authority over the project, (2) it hasno information or expertise relevant to the project, and (3) it does not intend to submitcomment on the project.

Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU further mandates that the lead agency must establish aplan for coordinating public and agency participation in the environmental review process,including for all federal environmental reviews for the project, not just DOT reviews.Optionally, the lead agency may establish a schedule for completion of the environmentalreview process after consultation with all participating agencies and the state and projectsponsor. SAFETEA-LU directs “each federal agency, to the maximum extent practicable,”to (1) carry out all reviews required under other laws concurrently with the review requiredin NEPA, and (2) formulate and implement mechanisms to enable the agency to ensure the

16 CHAPTER ONE

completion of the environmental review process in a “timely, coordinated, and environ-mentally responsible manner.”

Scoping. “Scoping” is an early and open process for determining the breadth of issuesto be addressed in an EIS, the range of alternatives to be considered, and the methods to beapplied in evaluating the effects of an action. The objectives of scoping are to

• Invite the participation of affected federal, state, and local agencies, any affected Indiantribe, and other interested persons (including those who might not be in accord with theaction on environmental grounds).

• Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues that are not significant or that havebeen covered by prior environmental review.

• Allocate assignments for preparation of the EIS among the lead and cooperating agencies.

• Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements so FHWA and cooper-ating agencies may prepare other required analyses and studies concurrently with the EIS.

• Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analy-ses and the planning and decision-making schedule.

Notification and implementation of scoping is achieved through public agency involve-ment procedures required by 23 CFR 771.111.

Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The principal pur-pose of the DEIS is to disclose to the decision makers and the public the probable impactsof reasonable alternative that have the potential to meet the purpose and need of a proposedaction. Responsible decisions can be then made after public review and comment based onan assessment of the degree to which competing alternatives meet the need for the actionand by balancing their relative environmental, social, and economic impacts.

Preparation of the DEIS should begin at the earliest practical time. A key elementshould be the early exploration of alternatives and their relative ability to meet the purposeand need for the proposed action. This will assist in identification of reasonable alternativesand allow early coordination with cooperating and responsible agencies.

The DEIS should be concise and include succinct statements, evaluations, and descrip-tions of conclusions. Lengthy, encyclopedic discussions of subject matter diffuse the focusof the document from its analytical purpose. The document should be easily understood bythe public and written to emphasize the significant environmental impacts of competingalternatives. Discussions of less significant impacts should be brief, but sufficient todemonstrate that due consideration was given and more detailed study not warranted.

CEQ regulations emphasize brevity and stress the importance of focusing on significantissues and avoiding detailed discussion of less important matters. Normally, EISs should beless than 150 pages, or less than 300 pages if the action is unusual in scope and complexity.Exhibits (charts, tables, maps, and other graphics) are useful in reducing the amount of nar-rative required. Adequacy of a DEIS is measured by its functional usefulness in decisionmaking, not by its size or amount of detail. This is especially applicable in the executivesummary of the document, where items relating to alternatives and their impacts and relatedmitigation can be presented in a matrix format, thereby minimizing the need for narrative.

Contents and Format of the Draft EIS. In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.10 and FHWATechnical Advisory T6640.8A, an EIS should be prepared in accordance with the follow-ing outline unless compelling reasons to do otherwise are given by the proposing agency:

• Cover sheet

• Executive summary

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 17

• Title page

• Table of contents

• Purpose and need for the proposed action

• Alternatives

• Affected environment

• Environmental consequences

• Mitigation measures

• List of preparers

• List of who received copies

• Appendixes

• Index

Cover Sheet. The cover sheet should clearly indicate the name of the project, its loca-tion, date of publication of the DEIS, and the responsible sponsoring and environmentallead and cooperating agencies.

Executive Summary. A summary should be given that provides an overview of theentire DEIS and be no greater than 10 to 15 pages in length. The summary should includethe following information:

• Briefly describe the proposed project, including the route, termini, type of facility, num-ber of lanes, length, county, city, and state, along with significant appurtenances, asappropriate.

• List other federal actions required for implementation of the project, including requiredpermits. Also describe other major actions proposed by other governmental agencies inthe same geographic area as the proposed project.

• Summarize all reasonable alternatives considered.

• Summarize the major environmental impacts of each alternative, both beneficial andadverse.

• Identify proposed measures to reduce or avoid identified impacts.

• Briefly describe any areas of concern (including issues raised by agencies and thepublic) including any important unresolved issues.

Title Page. The title page should identify the name of the proposed action, and itsgeographic limits and location, the date of the DEIS, and any relevant report numberidentified by the sponsoring agency and FHWA. The proposing agency must be clearlyidentified, including the name, address, and telephone number of a primary contactperson. All agencies that serve as cooperating agencies should also be identified. A briefone paragraph abstract should be included, providing a description of the proposedaction and its alternatives, a summary of significant impacts, and major mitigation mea-sures. The title page should also identify the date by which comments on the DEIS mustbe received.

Table of Contents. A table of contents should be included in the document and con-sider all areas of concern identified during the scoping process.

Purpose and Need of the Proposed Action. The DEIS should include a description ofthe purpose and need for the proposed action. The information provided should be similarto that provided in an EA, as described earlier in this chapter.

Alternatives. The lead agency must “objectively evaluate all reasonable alterna-tives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the

18 CHAPTER ONE

reasons for their having been eliminated” (40 CFR §1502.14). Reasonable alternativesare those that substantially meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, andinclude those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoint,rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the applicant or the public. Agenciesare obligated to evaluate all reasonable alternatives or a range of reasonable alternativesin enough detail so that a reader can compare and contrast the environmental effects ofthe various alternatives.

Both improvement of existing highways and facilities on new locations should be con-sidered, as appropriate to the need for the action. A representative number of reasonablealternatives must be presented and evaluated in detail in the DEIS. For most major projects,there is a potential for a large number of reasonable action alternatives. Only a representa-tive number of the most reasonable approaches, covering the full range of alternatives,should be presented. The number of reasonable alternatives will depend on the project loca-tion and pertinent project issues. Each alternative should be briefly described using mapsor other visual aids such as photographs, drawings, or sketches. A clear description shouldbe presented of the concept, major design features, termini, location, and costs for eachalternative. More detailed design of some aspects may be necessary for one or more alter-natives to evaluate impacts or mitigation measures, or to address issues raised by otheragencies or the public. However, equal consideration must be given to all alternatives. Allreasonable alternatives considered should be developed to a comparable level of detail inthe draft EIS so that their comparative merits may be evaluated. Where a preferred alter-native has been identified, it should be so indicated. The DEIS should include a statementthat the final selection of an alternative will not be made until the impacts of the alterna-tives and public comments on the DEIS have been fully evaluated. Where a preferred alter-native has not been identified, the DEIS should state that all reasonable alternatives areunder consideration and that a decision will be made only after the impacts of the alterna-tives and comments on the DEIS have been fully evaluated.

Both CEQ and FHWA regulations implementing NEPA require consideration of a“no-action” alternative. The no-action alternative is the condition that would occur ifFHWA did not implement the proposed action, but may be different from the existing con-dition due to implementation of other actions separate from those of the proposed action ifthe proposed action was not authorized. For highway projects, the no-action alternativewould at least include those reasonably foreseeable maintenance and safety actionsrequired to continue operation of the facility under consideration.

Affected Environment. This section of the DEIS describes in concise terms the social,economic, and environmental setting for the alternatives under consideration. The limits ofthe study area(s) should be based on an assessment of the extent of potential impact for eachimpact category. Impact categories should include those listed in Table 1.5. Only aspectsof the setting relevant to assessing the environmental impacts of proposed alternativesshould be discussed in detail, with other descriptions limited to that necessary to providecontext.

Environmental Consequences. The major significant impacts of the project should bediscussed in detail in the environmental consequences section for each of the categories forwhich a description of the affected environment is provided. The analysis of impacts shouldconsider all issues raised during the project’s public and agency-scoping process. Theanalysis must include consideration of the full range of short- and long-term, and direct,indirect, and cumulative effects of the preferred alternative, if any, and of the reasonablealternatives identified in the alternatives section of the DEIS. Effects to be considered includeecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social, and public health impacts,whether adverse or beneficial (40 CFR §§1508.7, 1508.8).

Mitigation Measures. This section of the DEIS should specify measures to lessen theadverse environmental impacts of alternatives identified in the environmental consequences

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 19

section of the DEIS. For an impact mitigation measures to be considered usable it must beeffective, economically feasible and the agency must be capable of and committed toimplementing the measure. Under CEQ regulations, mitigation can be achieved by avoid-ing the adverse impact, minimizing the adverse effect by reducing the scope of the project,implementing a program to reduce the impact over time, or compensating for the impact byreplacing or providing substitute resources.

List of Preparers. A list should be provided of the names and appropriate qualifica-tions (professional license, academic background, certification, professional working expe-rience, and special expertise) of the persons who were principally responsible for preparingthe DEIS or substantial background papers. The list should include any project sponsor,FHWA and consultant personnel who had primary responsibility for preparing or review-ing the DEIS.

DEIS Distribution List. The draft EIS must list the names and addresses of the agen-cies and organizations that were sent copies of the DEIS for review.

Comments and Coordination. The draft EIS should contain pertinent correspondencesummarizing public and agency coordination, meetings, and other pertinent informationreceived.

Glossary and Abbreviations. A glossary and list of abbreviations should be includedas an aid to those not familiar with the project development process and technical issuesbeing considered in the DEIS.

References and Bibliography. A clear, concise listing of references and biblio-graphical material should be included.

Appendices. Appendices should contain the reports and documents that support thefindings of the DEIS. Detailed technical discussions and analyses that substantiate the con-cise statements within the body of the DEIS are most appropriately placed in the appen-dices. Appendices must either be circulated with the draft EIS or be readily available forpublic review.

Index. An index to the DEIS should be provided to assist the reader in locating topicsof interest.

Public Review and Comment. Upon completion, the DEIS is made available for pub-lic review and comment. Review of the DEIS should supplement the public outreachactivities to date. A notice of availability of the DEIS should be published in the FederalRegister and in newspapers of general circulation in the vicinity of the project site. Hardcopies of the DEIS should be provided at libraries and other locations in the vicinity ofthe geographic area that would be potentially affected by the proposed action. Electroniccopies of the DEIS and its supporting documentation should also be made available onthe website of the sponsoring agency. Provisions should be made for major foreign lan-guage populations in the area, including the publication of notices in the language ofmajor non-English speaking populations in the area, and the provision of translators atany public hearings.

The notice of availability of the DEIS should indicate the date by which public com-ments must be received and the dates, times, and locations of any public hearing(s) on theDEIS. Adequate notice should be provided to any public hearings to allow sufficient timefor public examination and assessment of the DEIS. All substantive comments received onthe DEIS during the public review period, including all written comments and oral com-ments received at any public hearing on the DEIS, should be documented and summarized.Responses must be prepared to all substantive comments. Responses to nonsubstantivecomments and gratuitous remarks on the DEIS are not required.

Final EIS. Upon completion of the public comment period on the DEIS, an analysis iscompleted of the comments received, necessary revisions are made to the analyses and

20 CHAPTER ONE

conclusions in the DEIS, and a final EIS (FEIS) is prepared. The FEIS must document andinclude responses to all substantive comments received on the DEIS from public agenciesand the public (40 CFR §1502.18). Responses to comments can be made in the form ofchanges to the text and analyses included in the DEIS, factual corrections, new alterna-tives considered or an explanation of why a comment does not require a response (40 CFR§1503.4). A copy or summary of substantive comments and the responses to them mustbe included in the FEIS [40 CFR §1503.4(a)]. The contents of an FEIS is provided inTable 1.6.

If not already identified in the DEIS, the FEIS should identify the preferred alternativeto be recommended for implementation. The preferred alternative could be one of the rea-sonable alternatives considered in the DEIS or an alternative that is a composite or variantof the reasonable alternatives considered in the DEIS.

If the preferred alternative will involve the use of a resource protected under Section4(f), a final Section 4(f) evaluation must be prepared and included as a separate section ofthe FEIS or as a separate document.

When completed, the FHWA will publish the FEIS and EPA will publish a notice ofavailability of the FEIS in the Federal Register. A minimum of 30 days must pass afterpublication of the FEIS before FHWA can make a final decision on the proposed action(40 CFR §1504).

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES 21

TABLE 1.6 Contents of a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

Item Content

Cover sheet The cover sheet must indicate FEIS.Executive summary The executive summary should incorporate any changes

between the DEIS and FEIS, identify the preferredalternative, and concisely describe all mitigation mea-sures, including m