Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews
Home > Interagency Work Groups > Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group > Draft Baseline Report (3/15/2005)
| U.S. Department of Transportation Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews Home > Interagency Work Groups > Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group > Draft Baseline Report (3/15/2005) |
Executive Order 13274
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lamar S. Smith, CEP | Federal Highway Administration, Work Group Chair |
| Edward (Ted) Bolling | Council on Environmental Quality, Work Group Chair |
| Dave Sullivan | Federal Highway Administration |
| Harold Aikens | Federal Highway Administration |
| Carol Braegelmann | Federal Transit Administration |
| Gail Orendorff | Federal Aviation Administration |
| Joseph Burns | US Fish and Wildlife Service |
| Ann Campbell | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Dave Carlson | Environmental Protection Agency |
| James Gavin | Environmental Protection Agency |
| Carol Legard | Advisory Council on Historic Preservation |
| Gilbert, Jack | Texas Department of Transportation, on detail with FHWA |
| Jennifer Moyer | US Army Corps of Engineers |
| Nanette Reck | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration |
| Ellen G. LaFayette | US Forest Service |
The report was prepared by the following ICF Consulting staff:
| Alan Summerville | Senior Vice President |
| Michael Grant | Project Manager |
| Brantley Fry | Senior Associate |
| Todd Stribley | Senior Associate |
| Neil Sullivan | Senior Associate |
On September 18, 2002, President George W. Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. This EO established an Interagency Task Force to advance current U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and interagency environmental stewardship and streamlining efforts, to coordinate expedited decisionmaking related to transportation projects across Federal agencies, and to bring high-level officials to the table to address priority projects.
The Task Force also recognized the importance of indirect and cumulative impacts, among others, as a potential source of interagency conflict and possible delay in the environmental review process. Therefore, the Task Force established an interagency Work Group on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts to evaluate this topic and identify opportunities where greater interagency coordination and collaboration could lead to improvements in the decisionmaking process for transportation projects.
This report presents "baseline" information developed for the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group.The purpose of the baseline assessment is to describe existing legal requirements, practices, and challenges being faced in regard to indirect and cumulative impacts; describe opportunities to improve the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts and interagency agreement on these issues; and to develop recommendations for Task Force consideration.
This document is designed both for the Task Force and for practitioners in transportation and resource agencies to provide a common understanding of requirements, resources and mechanisms currently available to improve the analysis, documentation; and mitigation (avoidance, minimization and compensation) of indirect and cumulative impacts. Drawing on the results of literature reviews, reviews of environmental impact statements (EISs) and associated analyses, interviews with over 50 practitioners (from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal resource agencies, State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and consultants), this report contains information on:
Requirements for Analysis and Mitigation of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (Section 2), including a summary of laws and regulations that address indirect or cumulative impacts, and a compilation of relevant case law and its implications;
Existing Guidance Materials and Training Programs (Section 3), including an annotated bibliography summarizing guidance documents, a compilation of existing training programs, and a synthesis of viewpoints from practitioners on the value of these resources and additional guidance and training needs;
A Summary of State of the Practice, Lessons Learned, and Opportunities (Section 4), which highlights challenges faced, differences of opinion between transportation and resource agencies, effective practices, and opportunities to improve the quality of analysis and develop interagency consensus; and
Case Studies on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (Section 5), which describe notable practices in regard to project-level analyses, consideration of impacts in planning, ecosystem, and other area-wide level mitigation approaches, as well as practices employed on several of the priority projects selected under EO 13274.
Many of these sections were designed to be immediately and directly useful to transportation and resource agency practitioners in the short term, while the Work Group and Task Force consider additional needs related to policy, guidance, training and collaborative decisionmaking. The report concludes with draft Recommended Next Steps (Section 6) for Task Force review.
The draft recommendations and findings on the state of the practice, challenges, and opportunities are summarized below.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is designed to ensure that all direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of a proposed action or project are considered in Federal agencies' decisions to take those actions that could significantly affect the quality of the environment.The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions NEPA defines indirect and cumulative effects as follows:
[W]hich are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
[T]he impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
In addition to NEPA, other statutes require Federal agencies to consider indirect and cumulative effects of transportation improvement projects, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines, the regulations implementing the conformity provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and the regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), among others.
The state of the practice for both indirect and cumulative impact assessment is evolving towards a greater appreciation of indirect and cumulative effects in transportation decisions, as more scrutiny and challenges are being directed at these issues in the environmental review of transportation infrastructure projects. However, the general state of the practice tends to be characterized by a limited analysis of these impacts, although practice varies widely. A review of EISs found degrees of analyses that ranged from no discussion of these impacts, to brief statements that no indirect and/or cumulative impacts would occur, to more detailed studies that address a wide range of aspects associated with indirect and cumulative impacts. In many cases, indirect and cumulative impacts analyses appear to have received insufficient time or resources devoted to the analysis to fully consider these impacts.
There are several overarching issues related to the consideration of these impacts:
Lack of Recognition of Differences between Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - These issues begin at a fundamental level of understanding of how the terms are defined and the differences between the two types of impacts. At the most basic level, there seems to be considerable confusion in regard to the concepts of indirect and cumulative impacts. For example, indirect and cumulative impacts of a transportation project are often addressed together in one section of an environmental document.
Confusion over What Impacts Need to be Analyzed - In some cases, transportation agencies only examine indirect and cumulative impacts on a resource when direct impacts are "significant." This can be problematic when direct impacts on a resource are not considered to be "significant" but related indirect or cumulative impacts may warrant consideration with respect to the transportation decision at hand.
Lack of Rigorous Analysis - Although a wide range of rigorous methods of analysis is available, transportation EISs historically have not used very rigorous analysis techniques to estimate indirect or cumulative impacts. Many transportation EISs state that indirect or cumulative impacts would or would not occur, but do not present a logical cause and effect relationship for particular resources. More rigorous techniques are available, including use of comparative case analyses, scenario writing, expert panel surveys (Delphi techniques), integrated land use and transportation models, and economic models. A commonly used new technique appears to be use of expert panels, which involves gathering together transportation planners, land use planners, resource agency staff, developers, and other "experts" to develop estimates of land use and other changes that would occur with and/or without a project.
Common sources of disagreement between transportation agencies and resource agencies, and sources of confusion for transportation agencies and consultants, tend to revolve around two broad types of issues: 1) analytic/methodological issues, such as the proper analysis boundaries, approaches, and documentation requirements; and 2) more fundamental issues associated with causality and the appropriate role of transportation agencies in compensating for indirect or cumulative impacts.
Typically, the most contentious issues relate to indirect impacts associated with "induced" land development from highway projects. Cumulative impact issues tend to focus on water resources and habitats of endangered species.
Methodological and Analytic Issues- Given their generally more diffuse nature, compared to the analysis of direct impacts, uncertainties and disagreement over indirect and/or cumulative impact analysis in the environmental review of transportation projects are typically related to several methodological issues:
Analysis boundaries - Given the need to look at past and future actions, and to examine environmental resources that may not be directly impacted by a project, questions are often raised about the appropriate boundaries of analysis in terms of time and geographic scope, and the appropriate methodologies to use to capture these impacts.
Level of detail and information availability - Reflecting different authorities and missions, disagreement may arise over how much information is necessary at varying phases of the project development process, and what is considered a reasonable level of detail or approach to analysis. Moreover, the reasonableness or practicality of obtaining information is a common source of disagreement among transportation and resource agencies, particularly in cases where data are limited or difficult to obtain.
Documentation of significance and mitigation -Disagreement among transportation and resource agencies sometimes relates to the relationship between the "significance" of impacts and the type and extent of appropriate mitigation. Resource agencies often look for a determination of "significance" in the environmental document and may associate this with the threshold for mitigation, whereas FHWA policy does not require a determination of the "significance" of impacts and does not consider it a threshold for compensation of project impacts.
Disagreements about Causality and Role of Transportation Agencies in Mitigation- Mitigation (compensation) for indirect or cumulative impacts is often a very contentious issue for transportation projects, particularly highway projects.NEPA does not specifically require substantive mitigation for project impacts, direct, indirect or cumulative. Rather, NEPA focuses on process and full disclosure. The CEQ regulations require that environmental impact statements (EISs) include consideration and discussion of possible mitigation (including avoidance, minimization, and compensation) for project impacts, but stops short of requiring mitigation. However, several laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, give Federal agencies the authority to condition permits or other actions on the adequacy of mitigation to meet Federal standards and goals.
Disagreements about mitigation (compensation) for indirect and cumulative impacts do not appear to be related to conflicts in laws or regulations so much as to conflicts in policy interpretations regarding the appropriate role and responsibility of transportation agencies for these impacts. Fundamental disagreements regarding the extent to which the proposed transportation project causes an indirect environmental impact often underlie this issue and make the question of responsibility for mitigation more contentious.
As a policy matter, FHWA supports reasonable levels of mitigation (including avoidance and minimization) for indirect and cumulative impacts.[1] At the same time, given limited transportation funds, transportation agency staff often believe that mitigation (compensation) of indirect or cumulative impacts is not a reasonable or responsible use of Federal transportation funds, particularly if it is believed that the proportion of the indirect or cumulative impact associated with the transportation action is small or if the impact is spatially removed from the transportation project. Most resource agency staff seems to believe that mitigation is appropriate even if the additive impact of the transportation action is small, and that these mitigation actions should include avoiding and minimizing adverse indirect or cumulative impacts. For these agencies, the argument about just being a "drop in the bucket" is problematic since it results in no one taking any action to address real cumulative impacts. Several resource agency staff also indicated that habitat fragmentation is an issue where mitigation should be given greater consideration.
Although transportation agencies are often wary about inclusion of mitigation for indirect or cumulative impacts, there are several examples of transportation dollars being used for mitigation of these types of impacts. The approaches often focus on avoiding or minimizing the extent of impact, and include implementation of access management (including removal of interchanges or access points to discourage induced development), funding of local land use planning capacity so local governments can make better decisions to limit adverse indirect impacts, and purchases of critical habitats or buffers. These actions are often considered environmental "enhancements" rather than mitigation, since these actions are often viewed by transportation agencies as strategies to address impacts beyond those associated with the proposed transportation project.
Several guidance documents and training courses are available to practitioners to help in understanding the concepts, methodologies, and approaches for indirect and cumulative impact assessment. Based on a review of these materials, and discussions with practitioners at State DOTs, FHWA Division Offices, resource agencies, and others in which we asked their opinions of these materials, some common themes emerged:
Guidance and training on indirect and cumulative impacts have only become available relatively recently. Most of the guidance documents and training programs that address indirect and/or cumulative impacts have only become available within the past five to seven years.
There is a need for more specific guidance tailored to transportation agencies, especially case studies. Guidance at the national level tends to be overly general and somewhat abstract. Several State DOTs have developed more focused guidance documents or training courses on indirect and cumulative impacts for transportation projects, which provide guidelines and examples of how to conduct the analyses, and case examples. National-level guidance and training at this level of detail, and more case studies of transportation projects and methods, would be helpful.
There is a need to clarify differences between indirect and cumulative impacts, and provide guidance and training on both issues. The training programs that are nationally available focus on cumulative impacts or indirect impacts separately, while FHWA and State DOT-level guidance documents generally address both topics together. This disconnect may cause confusion among transportation agency staff and their consultants, and make it difficult to take full advantage of the existing training programs.
Good training programs are available but they may not be accessible to all or to those who need them most. Staff may be sent to general NEPA training courses, but due to resource constraints, it may be difficult to attend a multi-day training program focused specifically on indirect or cumulative impacts. Moreover, consultants who are conducting the analyses may not be attending these courses.
There may be a need for more training on indirect impacts, in particular. There are several courses available on cumulative impact assessment; however, only one nationally available course was identified on indirect impacts, and it is not clear to what extent this course is actually being offered and utilized. Given the disagreement that often arise between transportation and resource agencies in regard to indirect impacts, greater attention to the issue of indirect impacts, either through more offerings of the existing training, development of new workshops, or development of combined indirect and cumulative impacts training programs, may be warranted.
At the same time that indirect and cumulative impacts have been a source of disagreement between transportation agencies and environmental resource agencies, project experiences also provide lessons on principles and practices that can help facilitate a smoother and more effective process. Two over-arching lessons are:
No One Size Fits All Approach - Although transportation agencies ought to strive to have a greater level of consistency in their analyses, experience with indirect and cumulative impacts suggests that they should not take a "one size fits all" approach. The unique circumstances of the project, critical resources, and past actions should determine the geographic and temporal boundaries for analysis.
Importance of Clear Documentation of both Indirect and Cumulative Impacts - It is important to clearly document and delineate the analysis and findings for both indirect and cumulative impacts. Clear description of these impacts, methodologies applied, and consideration of mitigation is important in order to make clear to decisionmakers, the public and resource agencies that all of these issues have been examined.
Building off these lessons and notable practices that have been applied, it is clear that there are several opportunities for improving coordination and obtaining agreements relative to indirect and cumulative impacts. Opportunities include:
Early Coordination to Agree on Critical Issues and Analysis Boundaries - By working together to discuss issues early on, agencies can come to agreement on: 1) the resources that are most likely affected by indirect and cumulative impacts 2) appropriate and reasonable temporal and spatial boundaries for analysis, and 3) the appropriate forecasting methodology for the study. Working with resource agencies early in the process (i.e., during scoping) will benefit the indirect and cumulative impacts analysis later in development of the public document.
Use of GIS and Modeling Tools to Better Characterize Impacts - Analytical tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS) and integrated transportation-land use models provide opportunities to better characterize the geographic scope of effects associated with a project and the level of impact on resources.
Use of Expert Panels – While analytic tools and models can be very helpful in providing quantitative information on potential impacts, several practitioners have noted the uncertainties about the accuracy of models to predict land use impacts of transportation improvement projects, the ease of using these tools, and the cost associated with these tools. Expert panels can be a very effective way to organize input and gain general consensus on the range of impacts that are reasonable to expect.
Consideration of Impacts Earlier in Planning - Analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts is required at the project development stage. In order to expedite analysis in project development and ensure consideration of the most environmentally beneficial outcomes, the planning process is an important point in which to begin the process of considering indirect and cumulative impacts, and to integrate transportation, land use, and environmental planning. (See also, the Integrated Planning Work Group Baseline Report.)
Coordination with Local Governments – Coordination and partnerships with local governments can be helpful since these agencies have land use authority that can help to avoid, minimize, or mitigate against potential adverse indirect or cumulative impacts. Since local governments often are sponsors of transportation projects, involving these agencies in evaluating indirect and cumulative impacts and considering options to minimize or mitigate these impacts can facilitate development of solutions to improve environmental stewardship and address resource agency concerns about these impacts.
Area-wide, Watershed and Ecosystem-level Approaches to Mitigation - For transportation projects, watershed and ecosystem-level approaches can be a useful way to approach indirect and cumulative impacts, because such broad scale approaches focus on the natural resources within a particular ecosystem or watershed and look at the most critical or high quality resources, rather than focusing narrowly on mitigation at the direct location of impact. Area-wide approaches can be an effective tool to avoid and minimize potential adverse impacts or to compensate for unavoidable impacts.
The Role of Federal and State Leadership - An important opportunity for improving indirect and cumulative impacts analysis stems from strategic leadership and direction from senior officials in transportation and resource agencies at the State and Federal level, to make sure that information is communicated to project managers and consultants responsible for preparing environmental documents and that these issues are addressed thoroughly and consistently.
This report documents over twenty case studies of projects or efforts that are notable in terms of their consideration of indirect and/or cumulative impacts, and that exemplify some of the opportunities. Four types of case studies are documented: 1) planning-level efforts, where State or local governments have attempted to consider indirect and cumulative impacts as a means to develop the most environmentally favorable project plans with the goal of expediting environmental review during project development; 2) project-specific cases involving development of EISs or EAs, notable in terms of effective consideration of indirect or cumulative impacts during scoping, rigorous analysis, or use of mitigation to minimize or compensate for adverse impacts; 3) ecosystem-level mitigation efforts; and 4) selected priority projects under EO 13274.
Based on the findings described above, the following table identifies ten recommended next steps for Task Force review, grouped into three categories that will help improve the processes related to indirect and cumulative impacts analyses.
| Recommended Next Step | Description |
|---|---|
|
1. Outreach and Information Sharing |
|
|
Distribute and Raise Awareness of Baseline Materials |
The baseline products will be useful to practitioners in advancing the state of practice, including: the summary of legal requirements; the summary of case law; the annotated bibliography of guidance documents; the compilation of relevant training programs; and the case studies of notable practices. The Work Group recommends that the Task Force authorize public outreach to make these materials available to staff in State transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and Federal agencies involved in the review of environmental documents. Outreach could include:
|
|
Implement a Coordinated Communication Effort from FHWA, FTA, and FAA Headquarters to Field Offices |
A coordinated communication effort would help provide clear direction and consistency. Because the state of practice is at such as transition stage, ranging from very limited analyses to more comprehensive evaluations, the Federal transportation agency staff can play a key role in helping to ensure that State DOTs, transit agencies, and other project sponsors meet a minimum standard for analysis. Through their own review of environmental documents, the Federal agencies can help to ensure that documents are sufficient. |
|
Recognize Exemplary Practices |
The Federal agencies (i.e., FHWA, FTA, FAA, CEQ, or others) should provide recognition for exemplary efforts in regard to analysis, documentation, and mitigation for indirect and cumulative impacts, either by incorporating these into existing recognition efforts (e.g., FHWA's Environmental Excellence Awards), or development of a new program to make exemplary work available as a training tool. |
|
2. Practitioner-Oriented Guidance and Training |
|
|
Develop a Compilation of Best Practice Case Studies |
A compilation of detailed case studies would be helpful to better communicate best practices and effective procedures. The case studies should address not only highway projects but also airport and transit projects, and be organized in a way that the case studies can be used for discussion in training programs at the national and State levels. These case studies could be drafted by fully developing and building on the case studies presented in this report. |
|
Develop More Detailed National-Level Guidance for Transportation Projects |
More detailed national-level guidance should be developed and should include delineation of steps for conducting and documenting the analysis. Although the CEQ guidance on cumulative impacts and FHWA interim guidance are available, transportation practitioners generally felt that these guidance documents are somewhat abstract, and that there is a need for more specific and practical guidance that pertains to transportation projects. Several State DOTs have developed their own guidance documents on indirect and cumulative impacts, and these could serve as models for the level of detail desired. The guidance ideally should map out specific steps in the analysis, samples of available tools, and provide checklists so that project sponsors and their consultants are sure to have considered important issues and documented steps taken. |
|
Develop and Implement Workshops for Federal Agency Field Staff, Project Sponsors, and Consultants |
Much of the existing national-level training involves multi-day courses that focus on cumulative impacts. These courses may not be accessible to a wide audience and often do not address the indirect impact issues that are related to transportation. Development of a series of short workshops focused on indirect and cumulative impacts analysis for transportation projects would be helpful to: 1) raise awareness of basic concepts and emphasize the importance in streamlining the environmental review process and avoiding lawsuits over projects; and 2) supplement the existing training programs and encourage greater participation in those programs. |
3. Development of New Approaches for Consensus Building |
|
Develop a Coordination Model for Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis |
Federal agencies and project sponsors need guidance and information resources to better coordinate in order to avoid misunderstandings and conflicts that can lead to delays in project development. This effort likely would focus on the scoping process and include information on coordination throughout the project development process. This coordination model for transportation projects involving indirect and cumulative impact issues that span applicable statutory requirements would help to focus consultation and agreement on determining appropriate boundaries of analysis, level of detail, addressing situations where data are limited, and when mitigation is required. |
Develop Approaches for Integrating Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Analysis into Planning Processes |
Integration of indirect and cumulative impacts into planning processes could help to improve decisionmaking and facilitate better analyses of cumulative impacts. Program support is needed to address these issues as the planning stage, and link that with project development. This activity should be coordinated with the Integrated Planning Work Group. |
Identify Methods to Address Indirect and Cumulative Impacts in Tiered Environmental Documents |
Approaches for addressing indirect and cumulative impacts more effectively in tiered environmental documents should be promoted. |
Facilitate Interagency Agreements that Focus on Mitigation |
Interagency consensus at the headquarters and field levels should be facilitated with additional attention focused on the appropriateness of mitigation, given different circumstances surrounding indirect and cumulative impacts. |
On September 18, 2002, President Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews. This EO established an Interagency Task Force to advance current DOT and interagency environmental stewardship and streamlining efforts, to coordinate expedited decisionmaking related to transportation projects across Federal agencies, and to bring high-level officials to the table to address priority projects. The interagency Task Force identified three areas where Federal coordination and decisionmaking can improve the transportation project development process:
1) Project purpose and need,
2) Indirect and cumulative impacts, and
3) Integrated planning.
The Task Force established an interagency Work Group for each of these areas to focus efforts on overcoming challenges to coordination and developing process improvements.
Recognizing that the overarching goal of the EO is to promote environmental stewardship in the nation's transportation system and expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects, the efforts of the Work Groups were designed to accomplish the following:
First, the products developed by the Work Groups should provide clear and actionable recommendations that the Task Force can use to forge improvements to the transportation decision-making process. More specifically, the Task Force will seek direction from the Work Groups on the necessary improvements to the development of purpose and need statements, the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts, and the development of integrated plans. That direction must be compiled and presented in a way that enhances the ability of the Task Force to effect change–for example, through the formulation of new policy or more collaborative decision making.
Second, the products developed by the Work Groups should enhance the project development process that is undertaken by practitioners. Specifically, approaches for improving statements on purpose and need, analyses of indirect and cumulative impacts, and development of integrated plans must be communicated to practitioners in a way that enhances their ability to develop better transportation projects in a more timely and cost-effective fashion.
In forming the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group, the Task Force recognized the importance of indirect and cumulative impacts as a potential source of interagency concern, conflict and possible delay in the environmental review process, and where greater interagency coordination and collaboration would lead to improvements in the decisionmaking process for transportation projects.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is designed to ensure that all direct, indirect and cumulative effects are considered. Under NEPA, a Federal agency is legally bound to look at the impacts of its proposed actions in light of the broader policy goal of protecting and enhancing the human environment. The NEPA process directs agency attention to possible environmental problems before the agency is committed to a particular alternative and ensures that the public and other agencies have an opportunity to engage in the agency decisionmaking process.
The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA defines indirect and cumulative effects.
[W]hich are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems.
[T]he impact on the environment that results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
While the two terms are often used together there are key differences between them that must understood. Indirect impact analysis focuses on the present and reasonably foreseeable future, while cumulative impacts analysis takes into account all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Another difference is that indirect impacts are related to the proposed action, whereas cumulative impacts include the effects of actions that are not related to the proposed action, but together with the proposed action can have substantial impacts on the environment. Indirect and cumulative effects are similar in that they include less obvious environmental consequences than direct effects and require additional effort, and perhaps less understood methodologies to analyze. Given the generally more diffuse nature compared to direct impacts, uncertainties and disagreement over indirect and/or cumulative impact analysis in the environmental review of transportation projects are typically related to several issues:
Approaches/Methodologies : Given the need to look at past and future actions, and to examine environmental resources that may not be directly impacted by a project, questions are often raised about the appropriate boundaries of analysis in terms of time and geographic scope, and the appropriate methodologies to use to capture these impacts.
Level of detail : Reflecting different authorities and missions, disagreement may arise over how much information is necessary at varying phases of the project development process, and what is considered a reasonable level of detail or approach to analysis, particularly when information is not available.
Information availability: Transportation agencies often receive comments on their NEPA documents requesting additional information or analyses on impacts to resources. However, in many cases, data needed to fully address an issue is unavailable, not readily available or known to exist, or cannot be reasonably obtained. The reasonableness or practicality of obtaining information is a common source of disagreement or misunderstanding among transportation and resource agencies.
Mitigation: Finally, questions often arise over a lead agency's proposals for mitigation in regard to indirect and cumulative impacts. Failure to reach agreement on the type and extent of mitigation (compensation) has plagued many projects. In particular, transportation agencies have limited control over resulting land use decisions and there is often disagreement over the role of the transportation agency in mitigating these impacts.
In recent years there has been increasing concern about land use development and preservation of open space and fragile ecosystems. Failing to adequately consider and document environmental impacts, commensurate with their potential significance, and failing to seek the input of other agencies and the public, can limit full NEPA compliance. This can result in serious implications in the ultimate quality of a Federal agency's project decisions. Additionally, the public and interest groups can sue on the basis of not adequately considering indirect and cumulative impacts, and conflict among Federal agencies can create delay in project implementation. Thus, transportation agencies are increasingly concerned about how to adequately conduct indirect and cumulative impacts assessments. The Task Force recognized these concerns and the need to bring focused attention to these issues in order to improve environmental stewardship and expedite the environmental review process for transportation projects.
To guide its efforts, the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group (WG) developed a work plan describing the complexities and challenges associated with these issues. The work plan also includes recommendations to address the challenges. The first priority identified by the Work Group was to develop a baseline of information on existing regulations, guidance documents, and training that pertain to indirect and cumulative impacts for transportation projects, and to identify existing practices and challenges being faced. The purpose of the baseline assessment is to provide information that can be used by the Work Group to develop recommendations to the Task Force, and to provide information that can be disseminated to practitioners in order to advance the current state of practice.
This report presents the results of that baseline assessment, conducted by ICF Consulting for the Work Group. It contains five main sections:
Requirements for Analysis and Mitigation of Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (Section 2) – This section presents a summary of requirements, as specified in laws and regulations, and as defined by courts through case law.
Existing Guidance Materials and Training Programs (Section 3) – This section contains an annotated bibliography summarizing guidance documents, and a compilation of existing training programs on indirect and cumulative impacts. It also includes an assessment of guidance and training needs, based on discussions with staff from Federal, State, and local agencies.
State of the Practice, Lessons Learned, and Opportunities (Section 4) – This section summarizes information obtained through a review of EISs, literature review, and discussions with over 40 staff members from the Federal Highway Administration, Federal resource agencies, State departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, and consultants. It provides a summary of key issues faced by transportation agencies in regard to indirect and cumulative impacts, practices being applied, and opportunities to improve procedures related to indirect and cumulative impacts in order to improve environmental performance and reduce project delays.
Case Studies on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (Section 5) – This section contains a set of case studies that were identified for potentially useful practices. The case studies provide lessons that can be applied by practitioners, and could be brought into training programs. This section also includes a summary of indirect and cumulative impact issues, assessment methodologies, and mitigation measures applied for each of the priority projects selected under EO 13274.
Recommended Next Steps (Section 6) – The report concludes with several recommendations for Work Group review, drawn from the baseline information.
This section identifies and summarizes legal requirements for the analysis and mitigation of indirect and cumulative impacts. This section is an important component of the baseline assessment for several reasons. First, Federal agencies can disagree on the appropriate analysis methodologies and mitigation for indirect or cumulative impacts, and therefore, it is important for agencies to understand the legal basis that forms the foundation for each agency's roles and responsibilities in regard to indirect and cumulative impacts. Second, transportation projects are sometimes sued on the basis of alleged inadequate consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts, and therefore, it is important to understand legal requirements and how courts have interpreted the law in regard to the adequacy of analysis.
This section was developed through two primary activities: 1) a review and summary of relevant laws, regulations, and Executive Orders; and 2) a review and summary of relevant case law.
Two documents were developed as products for the Task Force:
Appendix A contains a table identifying laws and regulations relevant to each agency involved in the development or review of transportation infrastructure projects, and summarizes what each says about indirect and cumulative impacts.
Appendix B contains a table identifying relevant cases, and includes a summary of the issue addressed is the case, the legal decision, and the implication for transportation projects.
Key points from these two documents are summarized below.
While NEPA does not explicitly mention indirect and cumulative impacts, NEPA makes it the responsibility of the Federal government to "include in every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statement by the responsible official on the environmental impact of the proposed action [and] adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented." [42 U.S.C. 4332(C)].
The Council of Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA [40 CFR 1500-1508] clarify the requirements by defining direct effects, indirect effects, and cumulative effects.[2]
Direct Effects. Those effects caused by the action and occurring at the same time and place. [40 CFR 1508.8].
Indirect Effects.[3] Those effects caused by the action and occurring later in time or farther removed in distance, but still reasonably foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth inducing effects and other effects related to induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density or growth rate, and related effects on air and water and other natural systems, including ecosystems. [40 CFR 1508.8].
Cumulative Impacts. Those impacts on the environment, which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. [40 CFR 1508.7].
These definitions are reflected in the NEPA-implementing regulations of the various Federal agencies, including agencies of the U.S. Department of Transportation. For example, the FHWA NEPA-implementing regulations [23 CFR 771] reference the CEQ definitions, although they do not explicitly mention indirect or cumulative impacts. Most other Federal laws and regulations do not explicitly define indirect or cumulative impacts, but rely on the CEQ definitions.
The one notable difference is in the definition of cumulative impacts within the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Section 7 requires Federal agencies to cooperate with the Secretaries of Interior (Fish and Wildlife Service) and Commerce (NOAA Fisheries) toward the conservation of listed species. Section 7(a) (1) requires all Federal agencies to review their programs with these natural resource agencies to further the conservation of listed species. Conceivably cumulative effects analysis of future Federal actions could be adequately addressed in the section 7(a)(1) consultations should Federal action agencies choose to do so. There are no implementing regulations that direct these broad mission or program-level consultations. Section 7(a) (2) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402) guide project or action specific consultations that may affect listed species or designated critical habitat. These implementing regulations for action-specific consultations of the ESA defines cumulative effects as those effects of future State or private activities, not including Federal activities that are reasonably certain to occur within the action area of the Federal action subject to consultation [50 CFR 402.02]. This definition is narrower than the definition in the CEQ regulations for NEPA analysis, since it only addresses future State or private activities that are reasonably certain to occur in the future, whereas the NEPA regulations include past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency undertakes such actions. It should be noted, however, that the ESA definition applies only to Section 7 analyses, and not with broader analysis of cumulative impacts required by the NEPA. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NOAA Fisheries promote the use of CEQ's regulations and guidance and do not deviate from CEQ's definitions in 40 CFR 1508.7 and 1508.8(b) in NEPA analysis.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (b)(1)Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material [40 CFR 230 subpart B],likewise, require the determination of cumulative and secondary effects on the aquatic ecosystem. Cumulative effects are defined as the changes in an aquatic ecosystem that are attributable to the collective effect of a number of individual discharges of dredged or fill material. Although the impact of a particular discharge may constitute a minor change in itself, the cumulative effect of numerous such piecemeal changes can result in a major impairment of the water resources and interfere with the productivity and water quality of existing aquatic ecosystems.
Secondary effects are defined as the effects on an aquatic ecosystem that are associated with a discharge of dredged or fill materials, but do not result from the actual placement of the dredged or fill material. Information about secondary effects on aquatic ecosystems shall be considered prior to the time the final section 404 action is taken by permitting authorities. Like with ESA, the definitions included in the 404(b)(1) guidelines are specifically related to determinations of impact on aquatic resources and the CWA 404 permitting process.
As noted above, the CEQ's definitions of indirect effects and cumulative impacts both use the term "reasonably foreseeable" to describe what actions and impacts must be assessed. Courts have interpreted what it means to comply with NEPA requirements for transportation and other Federal projects, and the body of case law related to indirect and cumulative impacts has established some guidelines as to how agencies should address these impacts in compliance with NEPA and the implementing regulations.
One such guideline is that Federal agencies should take a reasonable "hard look" at their proposals in light of available information, analysis and the potential for environmental impacts in making informed decisions to implement an action or alternatives. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. 390 (1976). In taking a hard look agencies are not required to evaluate every conceivable indirect or cumulative impact of the proposed action. The threshold question for determining the scope of the hard look for indirect and cumulative impacts analyses is whether the impacts are "reasonably foreseeable" and should be considered with the direct impacts of the proposed action. Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U.S. at 410, 414-15 ("when several proposals for... related actions that will have cumulative or synergistic environmental impact upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered together" but "determination of the extent and effect of these factors, and particularly identification of the geographic area within which they may occur, is a task assigned to the special competency of the appropriate agencies.").
Courts routinely have found that NEPA analyses need not "discuss remote or highly speculative consequences." Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1283 (9th Cir. 1974). Courts have defined "reasonably foreseeable" as an action that is "sufficiently likely to occur, that a person of ordinary prudence would take it into account in making a decision." Sierra Club v. Marsh, 976 F.2d 763, 767 (1st Cir. 1992)(Sierra Club IV).. Courts have also recognized that "An environmental impact is considered 'too speculative' for inclusion in an EIS if it cannot be described at the time the EIS is drafted with sufficient specificity to make its consideration useful to a reasonable decisionmaker." Dubois v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 102 F.3d 1273, 1286 (1st Cir. 1996).
Existing case law provides relatively little guidance on the level of detail required for indirect impacts analyses. Courts have found that a mere listing or cataloging of potential impacts is inadequate. Friends of Boundary Waters Wilderness v. Dombeck, 164 F.3d 1115, 1128 (8th Cir. 1999). The court in Sierra Club IV found that the impacts analysis need only include the information that is reasonably necessary based on the circumstances surrounding the evaluation of the project. While little guidance exists as to the level of detail appropriate for indirect impacts analysis, courts have consistently found that NEPA analyses should identify and evaluate the growth-inducing effects of transportation projects that are significant, reasonably foreseeable and probable. A statement that growth will increase with or without the project, or that development is inevitable, is insufficient; the agency must provide an adequate discussion of growth-inducing impacts. Laguna Greenbelt, Inc. v. U.S. DOT, 42 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994). The court in City of Davis v. Coleman (521 F.2d 661, 675-77 (9th Cir. 1975) found that agencies have a duty to discuss growth and development that would be caused by a highway interchange project.
Case law also provides some guidance on the standards that must be met in regard to cumulative impacts. NEPA analyses must include useful evaluation of the cumulative impacts of past, present, and future projects. The court in Carmel-by-the-Sea v. U.S. DOT, 123 F.3d 1142, 1160 (9th Cir 1997) found that this means the environmental analysis must evaluate the combined effects of the actions in sufficient detail to be "useful to the decisionmaker in deciding whether, or how, to alter the program to lessen cumulative impacts." See also, Neighbors of Cuddy Mountain v. Forest Service, 137 F.3d 1372, 1379-80 (9th Cir. 1998) ("To 'consider' cumulative effects, some quantified or detailed information is required. General statements about 'possible' effects and 'some risk' do not constitute a 'hard look' absent a justification regarding why more definitive information could not be provided.").
Factors that indicate that an action or project is reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of cumulative impacts analysis include: whether the project has been Federally approved; whether there is funding pending before any agency for the project; and whether there is evidence of active preparation to make a decision on alternatives to the project. Clairton Sportmen's Club v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 882 F. Supp 455 (W.D. Pa 1995).
A cumulative impacts analysis should identify the area in which the effects of the proposed project will be felt; the impacts that are expected in that area from the proposed project; other actions – past, present, and proposed, and reasonably foreseeable – that have or are expected to have impacts in the same area; the impacts or expected impacts from these other actions; and the overall impact that can be expected if the individual impacts are allowed to accumulate. Grand Canyon Trust v. Federal Aviation Administration, 290 F. 3d 339 (D.C. Cir 2002); Fritiofson v. Alexander, 772 F.2d 1225, 1245 (5th Cir. 1985).
NEPA does not specifically require substantive mitigation for project impacts, direct, indirect, or cumulative. NEPA focuses on process and full disclosure. The CEQ regulations require that environmental impact statements (EISs) include consideration and discussion of possible mitigation for project impacts, but stops short of requiring mitigation. When the analysis completed by the lead transportation agency does not identify a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the proposed transportation project and a potential indirect impact or where there are cumulative impacts related to other actions, transportation agencies typically do not develop mitigation measures beyond alternative strategies to avoid and minimize the associated direct impacts. This is often a source of disagreement between transportation and environmental resource agencies.
Several laws, such as the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, give Federal agencies the authority to condition permits or other actions on the adequacy of mitigation to meet Federal standards and goals specified in legislation.
Other Federal laws and regulations have requirements that address mitigation, which may include indirect and cumulative impacts on specific resources. Among others, these include:
The Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines [40 CFR 230 subpart B], which require analysis of and mitigation for secondary and cumulative effects on aquatic ecosystems. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a permitting program to regulate the discharge of dredged and filled material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The basic requirement is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. Wetland impacts must be avoided where practicable and minimized. Any remaining unavoidable impacts must be compensated for by restoration and creation;
The regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), which define an adverse effect if an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register, and require consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts when applying the criteria of adverse effect of historic properties [36 CFR 800]. When the effect could be adverse, the agency official is to consult with the State Historic Preservation Office and other consulting parties to develop and evaluate alternatives that could avoid, minimize or mitigate the adverse effect;
The regulations implementing Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), which define indirect and cumulative impacts and require the evaluation of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on listed species [50 CFR 402] (Note that the definition of cumulative impacts in the ESA is more narrow than the definition in NEPA); and
The Farmland Protection Policy Act implementing regulations, which apply to projects that are completed by a Federal agency or with assistance from a Federal agency and may irreversibly convert farmland directly or indirectly to nonagricultural use (7 CFR 658).
The Clean Air Act, which under the Section 309, gives EPA review authority of NEPA documents, including providing comments to the lead agency on mitigation measures "...to avoid or minimize damage to the environment, or to protect, restore, and enhance the environment." EPA comments may include recommendations for mitigation that address the indirect or cumulative effects of the project and are not necessarily constrained by where the action agency has jurisdiction to implement the measures.
23 U.S.C. 109(h), which requires FHWA to consider the possible adverse economic, social, and environmental effects of any proposed project and ensure that the final decisions on the project are made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the need for fast, safe and efficient transportation, public services, and the costs of eliminating or minimizing such adverse effects.
Some State and local governments also have regulations that are related to the consideration of mitigation for indirect or cumulative impacts.
Provisions regarding FHWA's legal responsibility and authority for mitigating project impacts are found in 23 CFR 771.105(d):
Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts will be incorporated into the action. Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts are eligible for Federal funding when the Administration determines that:
(1) The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result from the Administration action; and
(2) The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure after considering the impacts of the action and the benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. In making this determination, the Administration will consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposed measures would assist in complying with a Federal statute, Executive Order, or Administration regulation or policy.
Provisions regarding FTA's responsibility and authority for mitigating project impacts are the same as for FHWA (found in 49 CFR 622.101, they state that the same procedures found in 23 CFR 771 are to be used). Under 49 U.S.C. Section 47106(c)(1)(C), the FAA may approve a grant for a major airport development project that has a significant adverse effect on natural resources only after finding that no possible and prudent alternative to the project exists and that every reasonable step has been taken to minimize the adverse effect.
This section of the report identifies existing guidance documents and training courses on indirect and/or cumulative impacts for transportation projects. This information is important as part of the baseline assessment in order to understand what is currently available to practitioners. This section briefly examines these materials, and includes an assessment of guidance and training needs, based on interviews with staff at FHWA, Federal resource agencies, State transportation agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and consultants.
Several guidance documents (defined broadly to include policy guidance documents, presentations, reports, and articles) are available to practitioners to help in better understanding the concepts, methodologies, and approaches for indirect and cumulative impact assessment. An annotated bibliography of over 50 relevant guidance documents is included in Appendix C. The annotated bibliography is designed as a resource for practitioners, and provides citations, summaries, and web links (when available) for each document. The documents are divided into categories based on the source: Federal agency, State or local agency, or other (which includes Federally-funded research studies, guidebooks, journal articles, and other materials).
The documents provide guidance on analysis and mitigation of indirect and cumulative impacts, information on impact assessment methodologies, and research on relationships between transportation infrastructure development and indirect impacts.
The majority of documents combines guidance on indirect and cumulative impacts, and discuss the assessment approach together as part of a combined process for transportation projects. But, there are some exceptions, and several documents focus specifically on indirect or cumulative effects. None of the guidance documents prescribe a very specific approach or method of assessment that should be used for specific circumstances or types of projects. They typically include general concepts for addressing indirect and/or cumulative effects, analytical outlines of an approach, or information on potential impact assessment methodologies. Several documents provide information on types of analysis methods and tools that can be used as part of the analysis.
The Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) Handbook, Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act (January 1997) is generally considered the most authoritative resource on cumulative impacts assessment. It divides the process into 11 steps to be addressed in the three primary components of environmental impact assessment, as shown in the table below.
|
Environmental Impact Assessment Component |
CEA Steps |
|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)'s guidance document on Consideration of Cumulative Impacts in EPA Review of NEPA Documents (1999) is intended for use in conjunction with the CEQ handbook. It was developed to help EPA reviewers of NEPA documents provide accurate and consistent comments on the assessment of cumulative impacts.
The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) has produced the most comprehensive guidance resources on indirect impact assessment for transportation projects. These include NCHRP Report 403: Guidance for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects (1998), and Report 466: Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects (2002). These two documents provide a synthesis of regulations, case law, and published literature, and discuss a framework for identifying and analyzing indirect impacts of transportation projects. The framework divides the process into eight steps, as shown in the table below.
|
Steps in Indirect Effects Analysis, from NCHRP Report 466 (2002) |
|---|
|
1. Initial Scoping for Indirect Effects Analysis |
|
2. Identify Study Area Directions and Goals |
|
3. Inventory Notable Features |
|
4. Identify Impact-Causing Activities of the Proposed Action and Alternatives |
|
5. Identify Potentially Significant Indirect Effects for Analysis |
|
6. Analyze Indirect Effects |
|
7. Evaluate Analysis Results |
|
8. Assess the Consequences and Develop Appropriate Mitigation and Enhancement Strategies |
In addition, NCHRP has developed several additional resources that focus on specific types of impacts. These resource documents include: NCHRP Report 423A: Land Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook and NCHRP Report 456: Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects.
Of the DOT agencies, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is the only one with formal guidance focused on indirect and cumulative impact assessment. FHWA has issued two guidance documents on the topic, which address both indirect and cumulative effects: a 1992 position paper, which suggests a decisionmaking framework to incorporate these effects in highway project development, and a 2003 Interim Guidance, which is structured as questions and answers regarding consideration of indirect and cumulative impacts in the NEPA process.
Other documents from Federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FHWA, EPA, and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) provide perspectives on indirect or cumulative impact analysis, or identify potential impact assessment methodologies.
Several State and local transportation agencies have developed guidance documents in order to provide more specific direction to their staff and consultants in regard to processes for conducing indirect and cumulative impacts analysis. The annotated bibliography includes 15 guidance documents prepared by State and local governments, including, Caltrans; Charlotte County, FL; Colorado DOT; Florida DOT; Georgia DOT; Idaho Transportation Department; Indiana DOT; Maryland State Highway Administration; North Carolina DOT; Oregon DOT; Washington State DOT; and Wisconsin DOT.
Many of these guidance documents rely on the 11 steps outlined in the CEQ Handbook, or some refinement to address indirect and cumulative impacts. The documents typically provide more information on methods associated with each step. For example, the Charlotte County (Florida) guidance uses the 11 steps in the CEQ guidance. The North Carolina guidance documents not only break the process into eight steps, but for each step give specific ways to approach it. For example, it delineates five potential ways to determine a boundary for the analysis: political, commute-shed, growth boundaries, watershed/habitat, and public involvement.
Several documents make suggestions for changes to the overall planning and project development process in the interest of strengthening the indirect and cumulative impacts analysis and ultimately transportation decisionmaking. A study by Florida Atlantic University recommends evaluating secondary and cumulative impacts during the transportation planning process, and having an impartial body to foster mediation. A presentation by Colorado DOT recommends regional-based cumulative impacts analysis, as opposed to individual corridors.
Several guidance documents focus on particular resources—for example, land use, wetlands, or endangered species—while others deal with a wide spectrum of resources. Most are geared toward specific types of transportation projects. While the majority deals with highways, several address airport projects, and one deals with transit. Several link a type of project with an affected resource, such as the impact of highways on land use.
The resource treated most often is land use. EPA's Projecting Land Use Change discusses 22 models for predicting land use change, with the goal of helping readers determine which are most appropriate for their analysis. Oregon DOT's Guidebook and Wisconsin DOT's Land Use in Environmental Documents also focus on land use, specifically the impacts from highway development. NCHRP Report 423A, Land Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook also looks at tools for analyzing land use change, while NCHRP's report, Use of Expert Panels, delves into one particular method for estimating land use changes.
In addition to documents that provide guidance on methodologies or approaches, other documents focus on research on the types of effects that are associated with transportation projects. For example, EPA's Our Built and Natural Environments presents data on the impact of growth patterns on environmental resources.
In addition to guidance documents, training programs can be important in helping to communicate the concepts and approaches outlined in guidance documents into practices. A compilation of training courses relevant to indirect and cumulative impacts is included in Appendix D. The compilation includes information on topics covered in the course, course duration, target audience, locations, and contact information.
This compilation serves two roles: 1) it can be made available to staff in State DOTs, FHWA, State and Federal resource agencies, and consultants to raise their awareness of the various training opportunities available; and 2) the Task Force can use the information in order to identify opportunities for interagency coordination or adoption of training programs and to help ensure that any new guidance or recommendations that come from the Task Force can be incorporated into relevant training programs.
Although State-level courses are discussed below, Appendix D does not include courses that have been developed at the State level. Moreover, some training programs available within Federal agencies that are only open to employees of those agencies may not be included, particularly if they are not advertised through public means such as the Internet.
Most general NEPA courses provide some reference to or information on indirect and cumulative impacts. In addition, several nationally available training courses focus specifically on indirect or cumulative impacts, with the majority of training on cumulative impacts. Some of these courses may include indirect impacts as part of the discussion of cumulative impacts. These courses are primarily offered through private sector trainers, as well as a few Federal agencies, and are highlighted below.
Seven training courses were identified that focus specifically on cumulative impacts:
Duke Environmental Leadership Program - Accounting for Cumulative Effects in the NEPA Process : This two and one-half day workshop is a review of cumulative effects concepts and principles, scoping techniques, baseline conditions, information sources, and methods for effects identification and prediction. Examples of cumulative effects analysis with possible appropriate responses are presented. Specific topics include: incorporating cumulative effects analysis into the development of alternatives; re-evaluating and modifying alternatives in light of projected cumulative effects; developing appropriate mitigation measures and monitoring their effectiveness; and setting appropriate boundaries for analysis and identifying past, present and future actions.
Environmental Impact Training (EIT) - Cumulative Effects Assessment. This three-day course focuses on the principles and practices for incorporating cumulative effects considerations in the environmental impact assessment (EIA) process. The substantive topics addressed include principles and procedures, determining spatial and temporal boundaries, defining baseline conditions, delineation of reasonably foreseeable future actions, methods for identifying cumulative effects, incorporating cumulative impact considerations in the scoping process, and mitigation and monitoring of cumulative effects. Special attention is given to case studies for defining lessons learned. Dr. Larry Canter and Dr. Sam Atkinson are the principal instructors.
Environmental Planning Strategies, Inc. - Conducting Quality Cumulative Impact Analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This interactive 2-3 day workshop is highly tailored to the sponsoring Federal and State agency. The training focuses on conducting effective and practical NEPA cumulative impact analyses; selecting the proper scope of analysis; developing an appropriate baseline; and incorporating correct past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Participants systematically discuss cumulative impacts analysis cases within the framework of NEPA, the CEQ regulations, CEQ guidance, EPA guidance, and legal precedent.
Environmental Training & Consulting International - Assessing Cumulative Impacts. This two-day course focuses on tools for identifying cumulative effects and using the methods of analysis contained in the Council on Environmental Quality cumulative effects guidance.
The Shipley Group - Cumulative Impact Analysis and Documentation Process. This two-day workshop is designed primarily for resource managers and staff who review environmental documents. Topics covered include: understanding the working definition of "cumulative impacts" and the associated compliance minimums for complying with full NEPA disclosure; a review of the CEQ Guidance on cumulative impacts; developing a scoping and public involvement strategy that leads to sound cumulative impact analysis; choosing methodologies for cumulative impact analysis; and documenting cumulative impact analysis in an EIS or EA.
U.S. Department of Energy - NEPA: Assessing Cumulative Impacts. This course contains 16 hours of instruction and is designed to help students recognize cumulative impacts and systematically use the methods of cumulative effects analysis for both environmental impact statements and environmental assessments.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service – Cumulative Effects Assessment. This four-day course presents the concepts and approaches for incorporating cumulative effects considerations into environmental impact assessments. Emphasis is placed on the relationships of cumulative effects issues to NEPA documents, transportation projects, and the review of wetland permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Concepts include delineation of spatial and temporal boundaries, methods for identifying cumulative effects, application of predictive methods, and discussion of mitigation and monitoring of cumulative effects.
These courses appear to rely on the CEQ Handbook for the basic approach to assessment, and provide additional detail on scoping, methodologies for impact assessment, and documenting impacts.
Only two training courses were identified that focus specifically on indirect effects:
NCHRP Report 466 : Desk Reference for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects, and supporting slide presentation. The Desk Reference is supported by a curriculum for providing instruction on the techniques of Report 403. The report and supporting slide presentation are designed as tools that can be used for training, and are geared toward staff at FHWA, State DOTs, and consultants. The course curriculum is free and available on the Internet. The Louis Berger Group authored the NCHRP reports and delivered this training.
Methods for Evaluating Secondary and Cumulative Land Use Impacts. FHWA and the New England Region of the EPA co-sponsored one-day workshops that focused on successful methods used to evaluate potential landuse and change related to proposed transportation projects. The workshops included a review of available methods, guidelines for selection of methods, and a case study on expert panels. It draws on NCHRP Report 423A. The workshops were offered three times in 2003 (in Albany, NY; Hartford, CT; and Boston, MA).
These two training courses are not currently being offered, but resource materials for both are available on the Internet (http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov).
Several State DOTs have developed courses or modules on indirect and cumulative impact assessment, which they use to train their own staff and consultants, as well as resource agency staff or others. These State-level courses are not documented in Appendix D, since they are not widely available to all practitioners and they vary widely in scope. The most substantial State-level course that we identified comes from Maryland, and is profiled below:
In addition, a number of State DOTs have their own NEPA training courses, which include information on indirect and cumulative impacts. For example, the Indiana DOT and FHWA Indiana Division conduct a NEPA training class, in which one module is focused on "Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Impacts." This module follows the 11-step methodology for cumulative impact assessment described in CEQ's guidance, "Considering Cumulative Effects Under the National Environmental Policy Act" and includes a case study. North Carolina DOT also conducts training.
Based on our review of the available training courses, and discussions with practitioners at State DOTs, FHWA Division Offices, resource agencies, and others in which we asked their opinions of the guidance and training available for indirect and cumulative impacts, some common themes emerged:
1) Guidance and training on indirect and cumulative impacts have only become available relatively recently. Most of the guidance documents and training programs that address indirect and/or cumulative impacts have only become available within the past five to seven years. The most important and widely viewed guidance documents were dated as follows: CEQ guidance on cumulative impacts – 1997; NCHRP guidance on estimating indirect effects – 1998; EPA guidance on considering cumulative impacts in EPA review of NEPA documents – 1999; and FHWA interim guidance – 2003. As a result, although NEPA has been around since 1969, these guidance documents, and related training programs, are still at a relatively early stage in terms of helping to shape the way transportation project development is conducted. No specific guidance documents were identified that focus on indirect or cumulative impact assessment for all transportation projects, including transit, railroad, and airport projects.
2) There is a need for more specific guidance tailored to transportation agencies, especially case studies. While guidance documents are available, the guidance at the national level tends to be overly general and somewhat abstract. The CEQ guidance on cumulative impacts, in particular, was noted as being useful at a very high-level, but does not provide enough specificity to be particularly useful to transportation practitioners in terms of guiding how to conduct analysis. Several State DOTs have developed their own guidance documents or training programs in order to provide more specificity in terms of analysis methods and approaches. More specific case studies of transportation projects and methods that have been used on these projects would be helpful.
3) There is a need to clarify differences between indirect and cumulative impacts, and provide guidance and training on both issues. As noted above, the training programs that are nationally available focus on cumulative impacts or indirect impacts separately, while FHWA and State DOT-level guidance documents generally address both topics together. This disconnect may cause confusion among transportation agency staff and their consultants, and make it difficult to take full advantage of the existing training programs. Many of the people interviewed did not clearly distinguish between indirect and cumulative impacts, and at least one person referred to CEQ's guidance as addressing both indirect and cumulative impacts, whereas the focus of that document is on cumulative effects.
4) Good training programs are available but they may not be accessible to all or to those who need them most. Training programs are available for practitioners, and these programs are generally perceived as being good. The training on cumulative impacts given by Larry Canter of Environmental Impact Training was singled out as a particularly good course. Some interviewees noted, however, that the training might not be accessible to or taken by everyone who needs it. One person noted that while an agency might send staff to general NEPA training, due to resource constraints they would be less likely to allow staff to attend multi-day training focused specifically on indirect impacts or cumulative impacts, since these were perceived as overly narrow topics. Moreover, consultants who are conducting the analyses may not be attending these training courses. In addition, one person noted that while most training focuses on practitioners, it might be useful to have training courses designed for decision-makers so that they can better understand the overall process and their own role in it.
5) There may be a need for more training focused on indirect impacts, in particular. There are a number of recognized good courses on cumulative impact assessment. At the same time, only one nationally available course and one regional workshop were identified on indirect impacts, and these training opportunities are not currently being offered. Case law and discussions with agency staff generally suggest that indirect impact issues are the most contentious and most common sources of disagreement between transportation and resource agencies. Given the disagreement that often arise between transportation and resource agencies in regard to indirect impacts, greater attention to the issue of indirect impacts, either through more offerings of the existing training, development of new workshops, or development of combined indirect and cumulative impacts training programs, may be warranted.
This section summarizes findings regarding the current state of the practice in regard to indirect and cumulative impacts for transportation projects. It draws from several activities:
1) A review of EIS documents provided by members of the Work Groups from FHWA, FTA, FAA, and EPA. In total, 31 EISs were reviewed: 6 for airport projects from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 8 for transit projects from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and 17 for highway projects from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Appendix E contains a list of the EISs that were reviewed.
2) A review of existing literature, including analysis of unpublished information from National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Project 25-25, Task 3, "Assessment and Mitigation Strategies for Land Development: Impacts of Transportation Improvements," being completed by ICF Consulting; as part of that project, approximately 30 highway EISs were reviewed to identify how they address indirect land use effects of transportation.
3) Discussions with over 50 staff at Federal agencies, including FHWA, FTA, FAA, EPA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service and Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and resource agencies, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) and consultants.
This section highlights the current state of practice, challenges facing both project proponents and resource agencies, and lessons learned from project experience. Issues that are addressed include how agencies: (1) define, interpret, and implement the regulations and requirements for indirect and cumulative impacts, (2) determine the boundaries of the analyses, (3) conduct analysis, and (4) determine appropriate mitigation measures and responsibility for the implementation of the mitigation measures. It also identifies several opportunities to enhance the process for addressing indirect and cumulative impacts and to improve environmental stewardship while expediting project delivery.
The state of the practice for both indirect and cumulative impact assessment is in a transitional stage, as more scrutiny and challenges are being directed at these issues in the environmental review of transportation infrastructure projects. The heightened scrutiny and increased challenges are driven by increased sensitivity to development and its effects on the natural environment, legal challenges, and resource agencies involvement related to specific resources.
The EISs that are being prepared vary considerably in the level of analysis of indirect and/or cumulative impacts. They range from no analysis, to brief statements that indicate no indirect and/or cumulative impacts would occur, to detailed studies that address a wide range of aspects associated with indirect and cumulative impacts. Some general themes are summarized below:
In general, the state of practice appears to be characterized by considerable confusion in regard to the concepts of indirect and cumulative impacts, as well as the requirements for analysis and mitigation. Issues encountered start at the fundamental level of understanding how the terms are defined and the differences between the two types of impacts. Confusion stems in part from the use of several terms for indirect impacts, including indirect, induced, and secondary. Also, there seems to be a wide variety of opinion on whether new development is an indirect or cumulative impact.
Confusion in regard to future development stems from whether or not the proponents or reviewers consider: 1) development as reasonably foreseeable and 2) if it would occur only if an alternative were implemented (i.e., "induced development"). Some FHWA and resource agency personnel agreed that in urban areas, new development would occur regardless of implementing an alternative. These impacts would presumably be included in a cumulative impact assessment, but not in an indirect impact assessment. Development activities that would not or could not occur except for the implementation of an alternative would be considered as indirect impacts. But even in the case where development is planned, a transportation project may accelerate the development and/or spatially dictate where such development would occur. Divergent opinions about the cause and effect relationships and the fuzzy lines between planned and induced development create confusion in terms of describing these impacts.
The inclusion of economic development as part of a project purpose and need compounds the complexity of indirect and cumulative impacts. Questions have arisen over whether the induced growth associated with the proposed transportation project should be considered as a direct impact and increase the size of the project study area. (See also the Purpose and Need Work Group Baseline Report.).
Typically transportation agencies address indirect and cumulative impacts together in one indirect and cumulative impacts analysis. While putting these two issues together in one section of an environmental document is not necessarily problematic, it can become an issue if the analysis fails to fully consider these issues, if agencies disagree on the adequacy of analysis, or if it is unclear that both issues have been addressed.
Practice Generally Not Yet Matured
Although there are a number of examples of projects that have conducted very good analyses of indirect and cumulative impacts, the general state of the practice tends to be characterized by a cursory or limited analysis of these impacts. Several people who were interviewed indicated that the state of the practice has not yet matured.
Our review of EISs found that several airport, transit, and highway project environmental documents did not discuss indirect or cumulative impacts. In most cases where these impacts were discussed, only a qualitative analysis was completed and the EISs determined that there were no notable impacts.
Interviews with practitioners, in large part, echoed these findings. In many cases, resource agency staff felt that transportation agencies were not conducting a thorough analysis, or it was characterized as "just fluff." Some transportation agency staff and consultants also noted the limited attention that has historically been given to these impacts. Generally the State DOT provides direction to consultants in terms of how to conduct the analysis, and in some cases, puts scant attention on indirect and cumulative impacts. The budget for an EIS project may implicitly assume little effort for the analysis, or the State DOT may provide basic language reflecting that growth is expected and the project is consistent with land use plans and expect no more in their document.
Given that many of the guidance documents on indirect and cumulative impacts have only been developed in recent years, transportation agencies may be at a transition stage in terms of learning how to effectively conduct analyses of these impacts. At the same time that practices were noted as not yet matured, a number of cases were identified where more rigorous analyses have been conducted, relying on expert panels, modeling, and field research. The divergent levels of analyses contained in the EISs during this transitional stage emphasize the challenges that face both the project proponents and resource agencies, since it is not clear what the standard should be in terms of the rigor of analysis – when is an analysis adequate and when is it not? At what point are indirect or cumulative impacts so far removed (spatially or temporally) from a proposed action that they are not reasonably foreseeable and are not worth the expenditure of resources to study it?
Confusion over What Impacts Need to be Analyzed
In some cases, it was noted that transportation agencies only examine indirect and cumulative impacts on a resource when direct impacts are significant. This may be inconsistent with the CEQ regulation, and is important in particular, because direct impacts on a resource may not be significant, but indirect or cumulative impacts may still be a relevant consideration with respect to the transportation decision at hand.
Confusion may stem from different interpretations of the CEQ regulations in regard to scoping (1501.7 Scoping), which call for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a proposed action:
(1) Determine the scope and the significant issues to be analyzed in depth in the environmental impact statement.
(2) Identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review, narrowing the discussion of these issues in the statement to a brief presentation of why they will not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing reference to their coverage elsewhere.
In some cases, it appears that if direct impacts were determined not to be significant, it was assumed that indirect or cumulative impacts would not be significant or should not be examined. However, the CEQ regulations require analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts, and note that the intensity of impact may relate to "whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts." [40 CFR 1508.27(b)(7)]
The Most Contentious Issues Relate to Indirect Impacts and Highway Projects
Although indirect and cumulative impacts are both issues in which transportation agencies face uncertainty and in which conflict with resource agencies sometimes arise, the most contentious issues tend to focus on indirect impacts associated with "induced" land use development. These issues are most notable for highway projects.
Among the three primary Federal transportation agencies (FHWA, FTA, and FAA), FHWA projects tend to fall under heavier scrutiny and tend to be more contentious. Transit projects are often seen as having very little or beneficial indirect impacts (i.e., improving air quality by removing cars from the road, facilitating "Smart Growth" development, etc.). Moreover, transit projects are usually located in already developed urban areas and are less likely to have impacts on endangered species and other environmental resources. Although there are a handful of very contentious airport projects, they are not typically perceived as inducing growth as much as responding to growth occurring in a region.
Cumulative Impact Concerns Typically Focus on Land Use, Water Resource, and Habitat Impacts
Most issues with cumulative impacts appear to relate to impacts on water resources and habitats of endangered species. Even though a project may have a small direct impact on wetlands, for example, other existing and reasonably foreseeable developments may have a significant impact on the quality and function of wetlands; in this case, the small impact from the project may be important in the context of its cumulative addition to other actions.
Staff from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) indicated that for impacts on wetlands, every time that it receives a permit for filling in a wetland, it reviews its internal data base of permits to evaluate the past and future impacts on a particular wetland. Should the wetland be in significant decline, the Corps will notify the applicant that it may not be able to issue the permit and other alternatives should be pursued. As such, the ACOE is performing a cumulative impact analysis on the wetlands. Implementation of the various regulations under the Clean Water Act (NPDES, TMDL, and wetlands) is approaching a comprehensive watershed approach that addresses cumulative impacts. This practice of reviewing all wetland permits that involve a particular wetland is a fairly common practice and when applied may be relevant to address cumulative impacts; however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be responsible for such analyses. Implementation of and adherence to NPDES and TMDL regulations under the CWA and its adequacy as a comprehensive watershed approach to addresses cumulative impacts is not a very common practice and has not been applied consistently in NEPA documents.
Air quality has not arisen frequently as an issue in cumulative impact analysis at the project level for highway and transit projects. This may be because regulatory requirements inherently address the cumulative impacts of all reasonably foreseeable projects in a region at the planning stage. Specifically, under the Conformity Regulations of the Clean Air Act, any highway or transit project in an air quality nonattainment or maintenance area must come from a conforming transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). As part of the conformity process, a regional emissions analysis is conducted, in which emissions from the plan must be shown to not exceed the mobile source emissions budget contained within the State Implementation Plan for air quality (or must pass emissions tests) for various years projected into the future. The purpose of the conformity process is to ensure that projects and plans do not adversely affect a region's ability to meet or maintain air quality standards. Consequently, the conformity process essentially ensures that cumulative impacts of highway and transit projects on air quality are considered earlier in the planning process.
Divergent Perspectives about the Role of Transportation in Land Use Development
Disagreements about mitigation for indirect and cumulative impacts do not appear to be related to conflicts in laws or regulations so much as to conflicts in policy interpretations regarding the appropriate role and responsibility of transportation agencies for these impacts. These differences relate in large part to differences in perspectives regarding the role of transportation in changing land development.
Transportation agency staff, particularly in fast growing and urban areas, generally sees their transportation projects as responding to current or anticipated development needs. As a result, they do not view land use development as an indirect impact associated with their transportation projects. Under this perspective, land use development would have occurred with or without the project, and the transportation project is not seen as critical in causing growth to occur. On the other hand, resource agencies are more likely to view transportation projects as having an effect on development patterns, in terms of either the amount or type of development or the rate of growth. Under this perspective, transportation is one of the causes of land use change (or "induced development"), and transportation projects are assigned more responsibility for resulting impacts on habitat, species, and water quality. These divergent philosophies affect perceptions regarding the boundaries of analysis, level of detail in analysis, and mitigation that should be included for a project.
How to determine the appropriate boundaries of analysis in terms of geographic area and time are important issues for indirect and cumulative impacts, since these effects are farther removed and occur later in time than direct project impacts. Transportation agencies often are uncertain how to bound the analysis. In some cases, different perspectives on appropriate boundaries have been a source of disagreement between transportation and resource agencies.
A wide variety of approaches have been used in regard to the geographic boundaries for indirect and cumulative impact analysis. Most interviewees indicated that the geographic boundaries should be resource specific (e.g. within a particular watershed for water related issues). The resource specific spatial boundaries that were identified include watersheds, air sheds, and contiguous natural areas (forests, prairies, wetlands, and other natural environments), and for cultural resources the development of specific areas of potential effect (APE) for direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Ideally, these boundaries should be developed with consideration of boundaries used by resource agencies in their mandated processes.
The divergent views between the transportation agencies and the resource agencies in regard to induced growth provides for divergent interpretations of the spatial boundaries for indirect impact assessment. Given that transportation agencies tend to see their projects as responding to development, rather than facilitating development, their approach often involved analyzing a limited spatial boundary and primarily performing a qualitative analysis of the impacts on the resources in that limited area. For example, one approach used for controlled access highways was to limit the spatial boundary of the analysis to a specific radius around the interchanges, assuming that another other new land use development would not be induced growth since there would be no direct access to the highway. In contrast, resource agencies tend to associate a higher level and spatial component to induced growth from proposed transportation projects, which results in large spatial areas for analysis.
A variety of temporal boundaries are used for indirect and cumulative impacts analysis, and in many cases, these boundaries are not clearly defined. A common theme identified from discussions with transportation and resource agency staff was that it is appropriate to use the timeframe of the most accurate planning document available and/or the long-range transportation plans for a region. These long-range land use and transportation plans provide insight as to what the development patterns and transportation system may look like in the future, and typically use a 20-year time horizon.
On the other hand, some transportation agencies indicated that the long-range plans are speculative plans that are subject to modifications and do not represent reasonably foreseeable actions. They felt that regional and State programming documents that provide insight to the forecasted growth and transportation actions over the next five years provides a more accurate forecast and represent more reasonably foreseeable actions. The interviews also identified that some States have county level planning activities that are completed on an annual basis and provide an accurate forecast of future planned activities. In some cases, relatively short time frames are used for the analysis. FAA staff interviewed indicated that they typically only forecast out to three years.
In terms of timeframe for looking back at past actions for a cumulative impacts analysis, most transportation and resource agencies indicated that establishing trends affecting a particular resource was appropriate. They did not provide a specific timeframe for looking backward. It appears that historical analysis is usually conducted by looking for actions of significance in the near past.
Limited Detail and Rigor of Analysis in Most Cases
As noted earlier, transportation EISs historically have not used very rigorous analysis techniques to estimate indirect or cumulative impacts. A number of resource agency staff indicated that most transportation EISs state that indirect or cumulative impacts would or would not occur, but do not present a logical cause and effect relationship discussion for particular resources. This sometimes means that the analysis is called into question when resource agencies are examining the analysis in the context of their own regulations.
Availability and Use of More Sophisticated Techniques
Wide ranges of rigorous methodologies are available to assess the indirect impacts of transportation projects on land use. These include use of comparative case analyses, scenario writing, Delphi techniques/expert panel surveys, trend extrapolation, build-out/carrying capacity analysis, regression analysis/economic forecasting, simple gravity models, integrated land use and transportation models, and economic models. These types of techniques have been documented and described in a number of guidance documents, including the NCHRP guides on indirect impacts.
Analytic models have inherent tradeoffs between the time and resources needed to run a model successfully, and, the precision, accuracy and resolution that can be achieved with the model. Simple models often provide low resolution with higher variability, whereas complex models are demanding of data, time, and funds, but can give a much finer resolution with good reliability when carefully implemented. The level of resolution, precision, and resources required to analyze a project is dependent on the magnitude of risk represented by the decisions that will be made using the results of the model selected.
The most commonly used new technique appears to be use of expert panels, which involve gathering together transportation planners, land use planners, resource agency staff, developers, and others to come up with estimates of land use changes that would occur as a result of a project or without the project. Expert panels can utilize a formal Delphi process, modified Delphi process or somewhat less structured approaches. The use of expert panels provides for the development of reasonable assumptions, which can be used to substantiate future conditions.
Divergent Views on Documentation of Significance
Disagreement among transportation and resource agencies sometimes relates to issues associated with whether the significance of impacts is determined. Resource agencies often look for a determination or threshold of significance in the environmental document as a threshold for mitigation. FHWA policy does not require a determination of the significance of impacts in its EISs, nor considers "significance" the threshold for mitigation.
This issue appears to stem in part from differences in interpretation of the CEQ regulations (1502.16 Environmental Consequences), which state that, "It shall include a discussion of:
(b) Indirect effects and their significance (1508.8)
(h) Means to mitigate adverse environmental impacts (if not fully covered under Section 1502.14)
FHWA guidance, Technical Advisory T 6640.8A dated October 30, 1987, meanwhile, states that:
"The discussion of the proposed project impacts should not use the term significant in describing the level of impacts. There is no benefit to be gained from its use. If the term significant is used, however, it should be consistent with the CEQ definition and be supported by factual information."
The interviews of both FHWA and resource agency staff highlighted the subtle differences between the CEQ regulations and FHWA's technical advisory. The resource agencies indicated that the indirect and cumulative impact analyses performed by FHWA typically lacked a significance determination, which was seen as a weakness. On the other hand, FHWA indicated that the analyses provided a description of the types of impacts and that it was up to the decision maker, resource agencies, and general public to decide whether or not the impact was significant.
Mitigation Concerns Focus Primarily on Highway Projects
The resource agencies stated that most mitigation issues for indirect or cumulative impacts were associated with documents prepared by FHWA and FAA; most resource agencies noted that there were no issues with FTA documents, as they were focused on transit projects in urban areas. For documents prepared by FHWA, the resource agencies noted, for the most part, that mitigation measures for both indirect and cumulative impacts were not recommended or implemented; however, some particular FHWA divisions did incorporate appropriate mitigation measures for indirect impacts. Some FHWA divisions indicated that they do not develop or implement mitigation measures for cumulative impacts. In documents prepared by FAA, the resource agencies found the mitigation measures were recommended for both indirect and cumulative impacts, but were not enforceable because they are not part of the Record of Decision.
Disagreement about Appropriate Role and Responsibility of Transportation Agency
There is a great deal of disagreement between transportation agencies and resource agencies about the roles and responsibilities of transportation agencies to fund mitigation for indirect and/or cumulative impacts. Mitigation is typically not as critical an issue for FTA and FAA projects as it is for FHWA projects.
Underlying much of the disagreement is fundamental differences regarding causality and the role of the transportation project in causing an indirect or cumulative impact. While determining the causes of growth is complex, disagreements about causality make the issue of responsibility for mitigation more contentious.
As a policy matter, FHWA supports reasonable levels of mitigation for secondary and cumulative impacts.[4] At the same time, given limited transportation funds, transportation agency staff often are concerned