Here are a few points of interest that I took away from the presentation.

• In Washington, a mandate was discussed that would require the affected environment section to appear before the development of alternatives section.
• FHWA is in the process of taking all NOIs that are more than 10 years old off of the books.
• The average time to complete the NEPA process nationwide is 6 years. This is for CEs, EAs and EISs. So it’s likely that the few huge EISs are skewing that average upwards.
• The original size of an EA was supposed to be 15 pages.

Major causes of delay in the NEPA process

According to Joe’s presentation, the TRB concluded that the major causes of delay in the NEPA process are:

• Low project priority,
• Lack of funding,
• Local controversy, and
• Project complexity.

The NEPA 50% Faster Survey that came out of the Re:NEPA discussion agreed with the lack of funding issue and the local controversy issue as being major sources of delay and frustration. The survey results didn’t indicate that in the opinion of the more than 100 NEPA professionals who took the survey that low project priority and project complexity were major sources of delay.

Top 10 Ways to make NEPA more Efficient

There were 10 ways discussed at the TRB meeting to make NEPA more efficient and effective.

1. Take advantage of the planning process as a catalyst for NEPA
2. Initiative NEPA review only when the project is “ripe”
3. Invest in focused scoping to determine the real issues
4. Don’t avoid, but manage risk
5. Establish a realistic schedule
6. Prepare decision focused documents
7. Avoid encyclopedic disclosure for the sake of full but unnecessary levels of costly bullet proofing
8. Actively promote joint review opportunities
9. Respect the Technical Support Data file and Administrative Record
10. Quality, Innovation, and Training

Sounds good, right? My problem with this list is that it’s not a list of actionable items for me to improve my process when preparing a NEPA document. For example, when I start my work, I don’t say to myself, “Now I’m going to establish an unreasonable schedule.” Everyone tries to establish a reasonable schedule. Nor do I say “this project isn’t ripe yet; let’s begin working on it.” Instead of vague advice like ‘establish a reasonable schedule’ and ‘work on ripe projects,’ how about providing actionable changes?

Actionable Suggestions for Improving Efficiency of the NEPA Process

I caught up with Joe after his presentation to ask him this question- “Give me some actionable changes that I can implement today when preparing NEPA documents.” Below are 3 actionable suggestions from Joe.

1. Check the STIP/TIP to make sure you have a matching project description BEFORE beginning your work on the project.
2. Conduct a risk assessment. (I didn’t do a good job of asking Joe to explain to me the details of a risk assessment for a NEPA document. So if you’ve ever done a risk assessment and have found it to be a helpful tool, please leave me a comment with more information about how this works and what risk you assessed).
3. EAs should only have 2 alternatives–a build and a no-build.

You can check out the YouTube videos of Joe’s presentation below. Please leave me your thoughts in the comments, especially if you are familiar with how a risk assessment can make the NEPA process more efficient.

Part 2 from the Presentation
Part 3 from the Presentation
Part 4 from the Presentation
Part 5 from the Presentation

Related posts:

1. Sources of Delay and Frustration in the NEPA Process
2. Results from the Sources of Frustration & Delay in the NEPA Process Survey
3. But Is It Healthy? (Part 1) – Health Impact Assessment and NEPA

What I learned from my unscientific Indirect Impacts survey:

• Almost 100% of documents noted that the proposed project would indirectly impact land usage. Since the documents I studied were all transportation projects, this is not surprising.
• Traffic indirect impacts encompassed almost 70% of the researched documents. Again, the documents I studied were infrastructure projects so long-term traffic effects should be prevalent, but did not necessarily need mitigation.
• 47% of the documents addressed socioeconomic indirect effects. Perhaps the number of documents that were concerned with this issue wasn’t higher, because some proposed projects were in rural locations and not near existing residents.
• Water Resources, Wetlands, and Biological indirect impacts were prevalent in about the same percentage of documents. Maybe the percentages aren’t higher because some agencies encompassed these effects within the broader category of land use.
• A mere 13% of the documents addressed air quality as an indirect impact.

A Closer Look at the Indirect Impact Section:

The most ambiguous part of exploring possible indirect impacts is the requirement for the effects to be “reasonably foreseeable.” Even the guidelines for analyzing potential indirect impacts aren’t very clear. What if an area’s population grows dramatically within the next ten years, regardless of whether or not an improvement is made to an existing roadway? NEPA documents are supposed to address indirect impacts of all of the proposed alternatives, including the no-build alternative where no changes would be made. But after doing my research, I’ve discovered that some documents don’t separate the analysis of indirect and direct effects, or they just analyze direct and cumulative impacts without delving into studying indirect impacts separately. Perhaps because indirect impacts are very difficult to distinguish from direct impacts or already existing or future conditions, agencies don’t spend as much time analyzing them. In conclusion, indirect impacts are difficult to predict but must be addressed.

Related posts:

1. Fresh EISs? Where to Find Current Example EISs
2. 5 ICI Analyses Tips with Susan Geist
3. Environmental Impacts of Military Aviation

I’m not familiar with this survey

If you’re familiar with the survey, skip this section. If you’re not familiar with the survey, here’s some background information.

The Sources of Frustration & Delay in the NEPA Process survey came out of the Re:NEPA “50% faster” discussion. The purpose of the survey is to identify issues that consistently result in frustration and delay in the NEPA process. All of the issues included in this survey are from comments made in the Re:NEPA discussion . The desired outcome of the survey is to identify 2 or 3 big issues that are driving everyone crazy. Ideally, the Re:NEPA community can then brainstorm ways to address these big issues.

To view the issues included in the survey or to complete the survey, go here: http://cubit.wufoo.com/forms/sources-of-frustration-delay-in-the-nepa-process/

Overview Survey Results

Survey Respondents Have Worked In:

Sources of Frustration & Delay that Impact a Large Number of Projects

How often do you run into the following issues during the NEPA process?

Sources of Frustration & Delay that Stop Projects or Cause Major Delays

On average, what was the level of delay or frustration for projects with these issues?

If you are interested in more detailed results of this survey, email me, and I’ll send you a pdf with a breakdown of the issues and survey responses.

What’s Next for this Project

I heard from several people that this data should be publicized in an article. I personally don’t want to write or read a negative article with only a list of issues that are “broken” in the NEPA process. I think the next step for this project should be to publicize the above 8 issues (well, technically, 7 because 1 issue is repeated on both lists) and get ideas from the NEPA community on how to address these issues. If we get good ideas for addressing the issues, then I will write an article about the survey data along with the ideas for potential solutions.

If you have any other ideas for potential or partial solutions that specifically address the 8 issues above and your ideas should be included in an article, send your suggestions to me privately via email or DM on Twitter (@cubitplanning), or provide your suggestions publicly below.

Related posts:

1. Sources of Delay and Frustration in the NEPA Process
2. For NEPA Nerds, TRB’s discussion of NEPA 50% faster

The Past

Sarah presented on the legal framework of environmental justice analysis.  You can watch Sarah’s portion of the presentation here:

The Present

Brandy presented on the current state of TxDOT guidance.  One very interesting portion of her talk was a list of major elements of environmental justice analysis.  Brandy asked a series of questions that I’ve outlined below.

Major Elements of Environmental Justice Analysis

1. Users and Options

• Who is using the facility?
• What are their choices?
• How do you figure out who is using the facility?
• Are there free, parallel access roads?
• What are the non-toll routes?

2. Accessibility, Policies and Collection Methods

• Where is the excess toll revenue going?
• What kind of projects are being funding with the toll revenue?
• How easy is it to get a toll tag?
• Does a toll tag require a credit card?
• What are the payment options other than a toll tag?
• How far do people have to go to get a tag?
• What are the payment choices?
• How much more does it cost if users don’t have a toll tag?

3. Economic Analysis

Today, TxDOT uses a simple reasonable scenario analysis to determine economic impact.

1. How often is someone likely to use the facility?
2. How many times per year?
3. How much would a reasonable scenario cost (i.e. likely times to use the facility x number of times per year)?
4. What percentage of income would the reasonable scenario be for a person of low-income versus a person of medium income?

You can watch Brandy’s portion of the presentation here:

The Future

Finally, Jolanda presented her research on the Appraisal of Available Analytical Tools To Assess Environmental Justice Impacts of Toll Road Projects.  I was pleasantly surprised to learn that Texas is a leader in analysis of potential environmental justice concerns followed closely by Washington DOT.  Learn more about the methods used by the different states in Jolanda’s portion of the presentation here:

Does your company block YouTube? If so, check out the PowerPoint of the presentation here.

Environmental Justice and Toll Roads

View more presentations from kcarney.

If you’re interested in a quick estimate of environmental justice groups in an area, check out Cubit’s free EJ Estimator.

Environmental Justice Estimator

A big thank you to Sarah, Brandy, Jolanda and the Heart of Texas Chapter of WTS for letting us record the presentation and make it available.

What? You’re not a member of WTS? Learn more about the Heart of Texas Chapter of WTS here.

If there’s any portion of the presentation that you’d like to discuss further, leave me a comment below.

Related posts:

1. Customer Case Study: Edd Manges, Environmental Planning Department Manager
2. Hand to Mouth: EPA Releases Guide to Child Environmental Exposures
3. FEIS Land Swap Halted Over Alternative Analysis Failure

Frustration!

On FHWA’s Re:NEPA, there’s a survey based on a long discussion entitled NEPA: 50% faster? The purpose of the survey to identify 2 or 3 big issues that consistently result in frustration and/or delay in the NEPA process. With this information, the Re:NEPA community can then brainstorm ways to address these big issues.

Over 50 people have already responded to the Sources of Delay and Frustration Survey. So far, the 2 issues that are “in the lead” are:
* Changes in project scope or unclear project scope
* Increased documentation levels (i.e. EAs now EIS size)

Do you agree or disagree that these two issues are major sources of delay and frustration in the NEPA process? Please share your opinion via survey if you haven’t done so already: http://cubit.wufoo.com/forms/sources-of-frustration-delay-in-the-nepa-process/

If you’ve already completed the survey, please email the link above to people whose input should be included. I’ll be sure and post more detailed survey results in the near future.

Related posts:

1. Results from the Sources of Frustration & Delay in the NEPA Process Survey
2. For NEPA Nerds, TRB’s discussion of NEPA 50% faster

I read 14 EISs from the NEPA Library to see what real estate data was being included in these documents. Below are the results of my unscientific survey.

The chart above indicates that:

• 5 EISs had homeownership rates (i.e. 70% homeowners, 30% renters);
• 5 EISs had median home value/price data (i.e. $200,0000 per home);
• 4 EISs had total number of residences in the project area (i.e. 150 homes);
• 4 EISs had vacancy rate data (i.e. 12% of homes were vacant);
• 4 EISs had average household size data (i.e. 3.1 people per household); and
• 3 EISs had new building permits counts (i.e. 100 permits in 2008).

Real Estate Data Sources

The majority of the documents used city and county level data. The US Census 2000 was the most often referenced data source by far.
__________________________________________

So What Now?

I’ve been trying to decide what current real estate data to include in Cubit’s Housing and Regional Economic report.  Based on my survey, I’m going to add homeownership rates, median home value/price, total number of residences, vacancy rates and average household size data to the Housing and Regional Economic report.

I’m going to use 2006-2008 American Community Survey data, because 1. it’s more up to date than 2000 Census data and 2. it’s available for large counties/cities (which are the project areas that were most likely to be used in the 14 surveyed documents). I’ll also consider adding permit counts from US Census Bureau’s Building Permits data.

Small Area Median Home Values

Small area home data is often difficult to find.

But I am disappointed that more of the documents didn’t include small area real estate data, like for zip codes or Census tracts.  When I was writing NEPA documents, I needed small area data. Sure, county level data was helpful.  But if a project was going to displace a home, I needed real estate data about that specific neighborhood or zip code to determine relocation opportunities. So I’m debating adding median home values for small area geographies like Census tracts to the Housing and Regional Economic report.
__________________________________________

Would median home value data for geographies smaller than cities or counties be helpful?  Or is city/county level data sufficient for your analysis? Or maybe you’d like a blog post on good data sources for small area real estate data? Let me know what you think in the comments below, or contact me.

Related posts:

1. THE Best Agricultural Data for Environmental Impact Statements
2. ACS Housing & Permit Data Now Available
3. Get Free Industry, Agricultural, & Rent data

Volunteers measure greenhouse gases.

I received the following information via email from the Duke Environmental Leadership program today.

White House may issue order to expand NEPA

The Obama administration may soon issue an executive order adding climate change to the list of factors federal agencies must take into account when evaluating projects and policies.

Environmentalists have pushed for the expansion of the 40-year-old National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which currently requires agencies to consider environmental factors such as land use, biodiversity and air quality.

“People will think longer and harder and smarter about what they build when they understand that the environment around them is changing,” said David Bookbinder, chief climate counsel at the Sierra Club.

Business groups have opposed the revision, saying the stricter requirements will slow down federal approvals and ultimately hurt the economy. Some state and federal agencies already consider climate impact when analyzing projects.

“Requiring analysis of climate change impacts during the NEPA process … will slow our economic recovery while providing no meaningful environmental benefits,” wrote Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R) and Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso (R) in an October letter to Nancy Sutley, head of the White House Council on
Environmental Quality.

“Projects across the nation are already experiencing delays or being canceled due to inappropriate and inefficient implementation and litigation from existing environmental regulations,” they added.

——————————————————–

Also, if you are interested in learning more about climate change issues and NEPA, the DEL Program will be holding the upcoming course “Considering Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change under NEPA,” March 3-5, 2010. See this website for more information and registration: http://nicholas.duke.edu/del/continuinged/greenhousegasMar10.html

Related posts:

1. Will NEPA Docs Have to Address Climate Change?
2. An EIS for Health Care Reform?
3. For NEPA Nerds, TRB’s discussion of NEPA 50% faster

Coal mine in southern West Virginia

On November 24, Judge Chuck Chambers ruled that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers violated NEPA by not providing sufficient means for the public to comment on two coal mountain top removal permits in the Appalachian Mountains.

The other 79 pending permits in the area could be sent back to go through the public process again as well, according to the Sierra Club spokesman, Oliver Bernstein.

Judge Chambers said that the US Army Corps of Engineers’ public involvement was lacking on two fronts.  First, he ruled that the information released to the public at first was unclear and inadequate.  Secondly, once the Corps released hundreds of pages of information actually relevant to the environmental assessment, it was released post-notice and post-comment.

The public notices would have been sufficient if they had included practical information, such as the type of plan proposed, the location, a map, information regarding topography, and historical background of the area.  “Plaintiffs are not requesting engineering-level detail,” Chambers said. “However, conceptual analysis is necessary… to intelligently comment on a public notice.”

NEPA Lesson Learned: Include practical information such as scope, location and a map with public notices.

Related posts:

1. Say It To My Facebook: Using Social Media for Public Involvement
2. 7 Projects Using Social Media for Public Involvement
3. Environmental Assessment Omits Water Infrastructure, Violates NEPA

Joshua Tree Park

The 9^th Circuit Appellate Court reviewed the EIS prepared for the exchange of land in Joshua Tree National Park between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Kaiser Eagle Mountain Inc. and confirmed that the EIS violated NEPA.  Specifically, the EIS:

• used too narrow purpose objectives that resulted in a flawed alternative analysis, and
• didn’t adequate address eutrophication or the introducing of new chemicals or nutrients into an ecosystem.

The court determined that the purpose and need in the EIS was more beneficial to the private Kaiser Company than the general public.  As a result, the alternatives that stemmed from the purpose were too narrow as well. Even though 6 alternatives were considered, the alternatives were focused on benefiting Kaiser instead of the general public and were written under the assumption that the land exchange would occur.

The court also decided that eutrophication was not properly addressed in the EIS. Instead of having an eutrophication section of the document, the EIS addressed eutrophication in a piecemeal fashion by referencing impacts in other sections of the document like air quality and disease vector control. This piecemeal approach failed to be a thorough look at how new nutrients would affect the ecosystem.

Scopion in Joshua Tree Park

NEPA Lesson Learned:  Eutrophication should be addressed in its own section of the EIS when new pollutants will be introduced into an ecosystem.

Related posts:

1. Environmental Assessment Omits Water Infrastructure, Violates NEPA
2. FEIS Land Swap Halted Over Alternative Analysis Failure
3. Court says Management Plans Must Look At Monitoring Alternatives

On October 27, the EPA released the final report “Highlights of the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook,” an accessible introduction to the Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook (CSEFH), which provides risk assessors a user-friendly reference guide to “behavioral and physiological characteristics needed to estimate childhood exposure to toxic contaminants and other environmental stressors”.

The Highlights Handbook presents background data and studies, explains the different lifestages of children, lists the fundamental principles of exposure assessment and cumulative exposure, and provides references for all these components.

These tools are becoming increasingly handy to planners and evaluators of environmental effects as they are taking on the role of health risk assessors.  In the actual CSEFH, there are specific chapters that are most likely pertinent to planners.  These would the chapters devoted to non-dietary exposures:

• CSEFH Chapter 1 Introduction (294 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 2 Variability and Uncertainty (119 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 3 Water Ingestion (570 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 4 Non-Dietary Ingestion Factors (466 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 5 Ingestion of Soil and Dust (1 MB)
• CSEFH Chapter 6 Inhalation Rates (784 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 7 Dermal Exposure Factors (632 KB)
• CSEFH Chapter 16 Activity Factors (2 MB)
• CSEFH Glossary (100 KB)

Here is an example of some of the data available:

Related posts:

1. Environmental Justice Analysis for Toll Roads: The Past, Present & Future