Preparing Joint NEPA/CEQA Documentation

• 23 CFR 771
• 40 CFR 1500
• Executive Order 11988:  Floodplain Management
• Executive Order 11990:  Wetland Protection
• Executive Order 12898:  Environmental Justice
• Executive Order 13112:  Invasive Species
• Memorandum: Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations
• Environmental Handbook, Cultural Resources, Vol. 2
• FHWA/FTA Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Decisionmaking
• Importance of Purpose and Need in Environmental Documents
• Project Development Procedure Handbook, Chapter 11
• Memorandum of Understanding NEPA Section 404 Clean Water Act Integration Process
• FHWA Technical Assistance Document T6640.8A
• Guidance for Preparers of Cumulative Impact Analysis
• Guidance for Preparers of Growth-related, Indirect Impact Analysis
• Consideration of Cumulative Effects under the National Environmental Policy Act (1997
• Caltrans Annotated Outlines for Joint Environmental Documents

• CEQA Decision Tree
• CEQA statute - [Public Resources Code, Division 13, Sections 21000-21178.1
• CEQA Guidelines - Title 14 CCR Sections 15000 et seq.
• Fish and Game Code Section 711.4

One of the primary differences between NEPA and CEQA is the way significance is determined and later discussed in environmental documents.  Under NEPA, significance is used to determine whether an EIS, or some lower level of documentation, will be required.  NEPA requires that an EIS is prepared when the proposed federal action (project) as a whole has the potential to “significantly affect the quality of the human environment.”   The determination of significance is based on context and intensity (for additional information on context and intensity, please see FHWA website).  Some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not be of sufficient magnitude to be determined significant under NEPA.  Under NEPA, once a decision to do an EIS is made, it is the magnitude of the impact that is evaluated and no judgment of its significance is deemed important for the text. NEPA does not require that a determination of significant impacts be stated in the environmental documents. 

CEQA, on the other hand, does require the Department to identify each “significant effect on the environment” resulting from the project and ways to mitigate each significant effect.  A significant effect on any environmental resource triggers the preparation of an EIR.  Each and every significant effect on the environment must be disclosed in the EIR and mitigated, if feasible. In addition, the CEQA Guidelines list a number of mandatory findings of significance, which also require the preparation of an EIR.  There are no types of actions under NEPA that parallel the findings of mandatory significance in CEQA.

Commonly, parallels are drawn between document types for CEQA and NEPA as follows:

Table 1

Comparison of NEPA and CEQA Document Types

*See Chapter 30 for information regarding programmatic categorical exclusions versus categorical exclusions.

Does this mean that whenever an EIR is prepared for a proposed project under CEQA that an EIS must be prepared for that project under NEPA?  The short answer is no.  As stated above, some impacts determined to be significant under CEQA may not lead to a determination of significance under NEPA.  Because NEPA is concerned with the significance of the project as a whole, it is quite often the case that a “lower level” document is prepared for NEPA.  For example, one of the most commonly seen joint document types is an Environmental Assessment/Environmental Impact Report (EA/EIR).

Because the determination of significance is different under NEPA and CEQA, writers of joint NEPA/CEQA documents need to pay particular attention to the handling of significance in their documents.  In general, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) advocates having a separate chapter or appendix dealing with CEQA significance determinations and other CEQA-only issues. Please see the annotated outlines for joint documents for further discussion on this issue. If CEQA significance is discussed elsewhere in the text of the environmental document, a statement or parenthetical reference must be added making it clear the reference to “significance” is being made pursuant to CEQA. 

There are, however, some instances when it is proper to use “significant” or “significance” in a federal analysis.  Table 2 below summarizes these instances.

TABLE 2

Significance in Federal/Joint Environmental Documents

Under NEPA, the general rule is that all alternatives must be analyzed and discussed to the same level of detail; this is different from CEQA, which requires only enough information about the alternatives to allow for meaningful comparison. The exception to the NEPA rule is that SAFETEA-LU Section 6002 does allow the preferred alternative to be developed to a higher level of detail when all the requirements specified in the Section 6002 Final Guidance are met. When preparing a joint document, the alternatives analysis must meet the NEPA standard.

In addition to NEPA, other federal laws, regulations and executive orders require specific discussions regarding alternatives; these include Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act (See Chapter 20)(no prudent and feasible alternative that avoid the use of protected resource), Executive Order 11990 on Wetland Protection (no practicable alternative which would avoid wetland), Executive Order 12898 on Floodplain Management (no practicable alternative which would avoid encroachment), and Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (least environmentally damaging practicable alternative).  The required alternative discussions for these laws, regulations and orders may be included in the alternatives chapter or discussed in the appropriate resource sections of the document.

As discussed in Chapter 12, noise analysis for federal or joint documents differs from that required for state-only documents. The noise section of joint document will address noise first as a NEPA/23 CFR 772 issue and then separately as a CEQA issue. When writing the 23 CFR 772 noise section in a joint environmental document, make sure that the report/document follows and clearly states the results of each step of the noise analysis—receptor type, existing noise level, the noise abatement criteria, the predicted noise level with project, whether there is an impact, what abatement is being considered (if needed) and whether the proposed noise abatement is reasonable and feasible.   This information should be summarized in a table for inclusion in the document.

Most local jurisdictions use community noise equivalent level (CNEL) for noise analysis.  It is important for local agencies to note that the Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, August 2006 calls for the use of hourly A-weighted noise level, dBA L_eq (h).  The noise report and the environmental document for a federal or federal-aid project must be dBA L_eq (h).  

Also, do not use the term “mitigation” when discussing noise issues.  Therefore, when preparing joint documents it is important to use “abate or abatement” or “attenuate or attenuation” when referring to measures to reduce noise levels.

For detailed information on noise analysis, please see the Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol  and the Technical Noise Supplement .

For federal or joint projects, the air quality analysis and technical report must comply with the federal Clean Air Act and the environmental document must contain a regional air conformity statement and a project level conformity statement, if applicable.  The wording of the regional air quality conformity statement must follow approved boilerplate. Please see the air quality section of the annotated outlines posted on the forms and templates page of the SER for the precise wording. For project level conformity, the environmental document should summarize the results of particulate matter (PM) and carbon monoxide (CO) analyses. For additional information regarding air quality, please see Chapter 11 of the SER.

For information on how to handle air quality conformity under the NEPA Pilot Program (Section 6005) and the Section 6004 MOU, please see SER, Volume 1, Chapter 38.

The FHWA Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects provides guidance on how to conduct a visual assessment for federal or federal-aid highway projects.  The process outlined in the guidance is somewhat different than the typical CEQA-only visual analysis.  The basic steps in the process are:

1. Define the project setting and viewshed.
2. Identify key views for visual assessment.
3. Analyze existing visual resources and viewer response.
4. Assess the visual impacts of project alternatives.
5. Define the project setting and viewshed.
6. Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts.

Detailed information about each step in the process can be found in Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.  The visual boilerplate document can be used as a template for writing visual impact assessments.

It is important that the steps and results of the FHWA visual impact assessment are appropriately summarized in the joint environmental document.  Visual simulations, which show the before and after condition, should be included in the environmental document as well. 

The Department also requires environmental documents to address the incorporation of context-sensitive solution in the proposed project.  For information on context-sensitive solutions, please see FHWA context-sensitive website.

Joint documents and cultural resource reports must comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966(Section 106).  While the general intent and analysis required by CEQA and Section 106 are similar, the processing of cultural resource surveys and reports differs between the two.  One of the main differences is that surveys and reports prepared pursuant to Section 106 must be sent to the State Office of Historic Preservation for concurrence.  This is important to keep in mind when developing the project schedule. 

In additon to CEQA requirements, the joint environmental document must discuss the status of the Section 106 process.  Before an EA or a Draft EIS can be circulated to the public, a determination regarding the eligibility for listing on the National Register of Historic Places must be made for cultural resources within the project area.   There must also be a determination of effect for each eligible cultural resource within the project area.   Before issuance of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or circulation of a Final EIS, the Section 106 process must be completed.  For findings of No Historic Properties Affected or No Adverse Effect, the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement may be used to streamline the coordination process.  For projects with a Finding of Adverse Effect, a copy of the executed memorandum of agreement with the SHPO to resolve those effects must be included.

Detailed discussion of Section 106 analysis and the Section 106 process can be found in Chapter 28 of the SER and Environmental Handbook Volume 2.

For state only projects, the applicable section of the Endangered Species Act is Section 10; for federal and federal-aid projects the proposed project and documentation must comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.  Please note that completion of the Section 10 process does not satisfy the requirement to go through the Section 7 process.   The formal Section 7 process includes:

1. Establishing area of potential environmental impact and potential for impacts to endangered species.
2. Determining if a request for species list from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is required.
3. Requesting a species list from USFWS, if needed.
4. Performing Biological Assessment (BA) or Biological Evaluation (BE) and write up results.
5. Obtaining FHWA concurrence on results.
6. FHWA to conference or consult with USFWS.  (Note: Consultation must be complete before final document can be approved.)
7. USFWS issues a Biological Opinion.

For a concise discussion of the formal and informal Section 7 consultation processes, please see April 24, 2002 memo from FHWA regarding Conducting Endangered Species Act Consultations with the Services.

A joint environmental document must document and discuss the steps of the Section 7 consultation process.  Section 7 consultation must be completed prior to circulation of the final EIS or prior to the issuance of a FONSI; in all cases, the process must be complete prior to project approval.  A current species list (less than 2 years old) must be included in the environmental document.

More detailed information on Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act can be found in Volume 3 of the Environmental Handbook.  Information regarding the handling of natural resource documentation and consultation under the NEPA Pilot Program (Section 6005) and the Section 6004 MOU see the natural resources section of Chapter 38, Volume 1, SER.

Federal transportation or federal-aid transportation projects are subject to Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act.  This law states that the Secretary of Transportation shall not approve any project:

“...requiring the use of any publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) unless (1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the using that land; and (2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such use.”

If the proposed project will require the use of one of the resources stated above, then the joint document must include a Section 4(f) Evaluation.  Section 4(f) evaluations require review by the HQ District Environmental Coordinator as well as legal sufficiency review. Please note that a programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation will require the same level of analysis as a non-programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation; the key difference is that a programmatic Section 4(f) can be prepared, reviewed and approved at the Caltrans district/region level.  Under specified conditions, transportation programs or projects may be found to have a “de minimis” impact on resources protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act (i.e., public parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites). No further evaluation of these resources will be necessary under Section 4(f).  For historic sites, a de minimis finding may be made in either of two conditions: the project will have no adverse effect on the historic site under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act; or there will be no historic properties affected. Mitigation and enhancements may be used to offset impacts.  De minimis impacts on publicly owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges are defined as those that do not adversely affect the activities, features, and attributes of the 4(f) resource. When making this determination, it is important to distinguish the activities, features, and attributes of a Section 4(f) resource that are important to protect from those that can be used without adverse effects--for example, playground equipment versus parking facilities. The de minimis finding considers avoidance, minimization, mitigation or enhancement measures.  Please see FHWA Guidance on Determining De Minimis Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources and Chapter 20 in Volume 1 of the SER for more detailed information. Additional details on Section 4(f) and on the preparation of a Section 4(f) Evaluation (programmatic or non-programmatic) can be found in Chapter 20.

In 2006, Caltrans entered into a new Memorandum of Understanding with FHWA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and NOAA Fisheries to merge the NEPA and Clean Water Act Section 404 processes. Projects that have five or more acres of permanent impacts to waters of the United States and require the preparation of an EIS are subject to the NEPA/404 Integration MOU (April 2006). If all the MOU signatories agree, the integration process may be applied to project that do not meet the threshold. For NEPA/404 Integration projects, a set of procedures is initiated, preferably prior to scoping, and these procedures are integrated with preparation of the EIS.

As early as possible, the transportation agencies (FHWA, Caltrans and, if applicable, the local agency), must notify the "responding agencies" (EPA, COE, and the appropriate resource agency (FWS and/or NOAA Fisheries)) that the project meets the threshold for the NEPA/404 integration process and request the designation of mid-level and senior-level representatives should the issue resolution process prove necessary. The integration process includes on-going coordination, meetings at specified points, and three checkpoints. The checkpoints are 1) Purpose and Need, 2) identification of the range of alternatives to be studied in the Draft EIS, and 3) the Preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and Conceptual Mitigation Plan. The MOU outlines the roles and responsibilities of the signatory agencies and sets forth an issue resolution process. FHWA has the authority to determine the project's Purpose and Need and the range of alternatives for FHWA NEPA documents, however, because the COE is the lead Federal agency for the issuance of Clean Water Act Section 404 permits, the COE must concur in the Preliminary LEDPA. FHWA may not issue the final EIS until the COE concurs in the LEDPA.

Weaving the requirements of the NEPA/404 process into the project development process, including the writing and processing of joint documents, can be challenging.  A diagram showing how the project development process and the NEPA/404 process could be combined for an EIR/EIS project has been developed (see page 1, see page 2).

When preparing a joint document, the document and technical studies must meet all the necessary federal requirements; this includes, not only NEPA and other federal laws and regulations, but executive orders as well.  Sometimes document and report writers forget to address these orders.  As a quick check, remember to consider the following executive orders in the relevant reports and the environmental document:

• Executive Order 11990:  Wetland Protection
• Executive Order 11988:  Floodplain Management
• Executive Order 12898:  Environmental Justice
• Executive Order 13112:  Invasive Species

Joint documents must also include a statement regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as an appendix to the document.  The Title VI statement addresses the Department’s not to discriminate based on race, color, religion, age, national origins, and handicap.

A joint categorical exemption/categorical exclusion (CE/CE) uses that same standard format that the Department uses for state-only projects.  The forms includes both a CEQA determination and a NEPA determination.  For a joint CE/CE, both determinations must be completed. 

Detailed information about Categorical Exclusions can be found in Chapter 30 and information regarding Categorical Exemptions can be found in Chapter 34.  

An annotated outline for a joint Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) has been developed and is posted on the SER.  All Department projects are now required to follow this format and all local agencies are advised to follow the format for local assistance projects. Note: At very least, local agencies must use the NEPA-only environmental assessment annotated outline.

The joint document must have all the elements required for an IS under CEQA and an EA under NEPA.  Chapters 31 and 35 discuss the requirements of preparing an Environmental Assessment and an Initial Study, respectively. 

Table 4 below provides a side-by-side comparison of the IS/ND process under CEQA and the EA/FONSI process under NEPA.  The process flowchart following Table 4 shows how the two processes are combined when preparing a joint IS/EA.

Table 4

Comparison of IS/ND Process and EA/FONSI Process

*The QA/QC review should include all members of the Project Development Team.

The CEQ NEPA guidance encourages conciseness in EA documents ( Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s NEPA Regulations).  An EA need only address those issues that Caltrans has determined have a potential for significant impact.  Technical information and studies developed to analyze impacts are summarized in the document and/or incorporated by reference.  Technical studies that support the EA are a part of the environmental compliance record and are public documents. 

Caltrans has developed annotated outlines for joint CEQA/NEPA documents including joint IS/EAs and joint EIR/EAs and a NEPA-only EA annotated outline. The outlines are available on the SER Forms and Templates webpage. The format contained in these outlines is mandatory for Caltrans projects and for Local Assistance projects, use of the NEPA-only annotated outlines at minimum is mandated.  Local agencies are strongly encouraged to use the joint NPEA/CEQA outlines whenever possible. Use of the annotated outlines ensures a document that meets FHWA and Caltrans standards, facilitates project review, and electronic publishing.

Detailed technical information and/or technical reports should be treated as appendices to the EA, but should be bound as separate documents and referenced in the EA.  The appendices should include only analytical information that substantiates analysis that is important to the document (e.g., a biological assessment for threatened or endangered species).  Separate Technical Reports need not be circulated during public review, however, they are public documents and must be available for public review at specified locations (see Circulation and Public Review below). 

If the EA includes a Section 4(f) evaluation, or if such an evaluation has been prepared separately, it must be circulated to the appropriate agencies.  Requirements for coordination of Section 4(f) documents is provided in 23 CFR 771.135.  Guidance on Section 4(f) is provided in Chapter 20.

When approval to circulate has been obtained and confirmed by the signed original title sheet, the district will circulate the “draft” IS/EA with an unsigned proposed ND or MND that has a "draft" watermark. Before the "draft" IS/EA can be circulated, the Draft Project Report (or equivalent design report) must be approved. This is to ensure that the project concept in the draft environmental document are consistent with the draft design report. Circulating the document requires that it be mailed to numerous individuals, organizations and agencies, including: 

1. Responsible agencies.
2. Trustee agencies with resources affected by the project.
3. Any other state, federal, and local agencies which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project or which exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project.
4. Any city or county that borders on a city or county within which the project is located.
5. For a project of statewide, regional, or areawide significance, the transportation planning agencies and public agencies which have transportation facilities within their jurisdictions which could be affected by the project. "Transportation facilities" includes: major local arterials and public transit within five miles of the project site, and freeways, highways and rail transit service within 10 miles of the project site.

As a good planning practice, the “draft” IS/EA should also be circulated to:

1. Any person who has special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved.
2. Any member of the public who has filed a written request for notice with the lead agency or the clerk of the governing body.
3. Any person identified to be concerned with the environmental effects of the project.

The draft IS/EA should also be sent to local, state and federal elected officials, interested environmental organizations, transit agency, neighborhood groups, community non-profit agencies and to the local chamber of commerce. 

As an aid in compiling the distribution list for the IS/EA, reference should be made to the distribution list created for an EIR/EIS.

To make copies of document available to the general public, copies of  “draft” IS/EA and technical reports must be provided to readily accessible locations, such as schools, community centers or libraries, serving the area involved. Copies must also be available in District/Region office.

It is appropriate to charge for duplicating costs when members of the public request multiple copies of the document or when requests come from members of the public residing outside the project area.  The same criteria can be used for technical reports.

The Department must send the document to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to state agencies for review.   However, in addition to this, the district may also mail a copy of the document directly to the local offices of state agencies. 

At least 15 copies of the “draft” IS/EA must be submitted to State Clearinghouse together with one copy of the Notice of Completion.  If more than 15 agencies are checked on the reviewing agencies list on the Notice of Completion, then additional copies of the “draft” IS/EA must be included for those agencies.

When a “draft” IS/EA is submitted to State Clearinghouse for distribution, the State Clearinghouse will assign a SCH number to the document.  All future correspondence with the State Clearinghouse should reference this number.   The draft IS/EA is then reviewed briefly by the State Clearinghouse to determine its scope and to identify the state agencies that should review it. The State Clearinghouse then assigns review dates, attaches a distribution list to the NOC form, and distributes the documents to selected agencies. Reviewing agencies are selected for their expertise in a particular subject matter or geographical areas, or their responsibility for particular types of projects.

State agency review period for environmental documents (EIRs, NDs, or MNDs) begins on the date that the State Clearinghouse distributes the environmental document (ED) to state agencies. For documents received before 12:00 p.m. (noon), documents are usually circulated that same day. Documents received in the afternoon typically are distributed by the next working day. The standard review period for a "draft" IS/EA submitted to State Clearinghouse is 30 calendar days. Day 1 of the review period is the date the document is distributed by State Clearinghouse. The review period ends at 5 p.m. on the 30th calendar day thereafter. On the day following the close of the review period (i.e., the 31st day), the State Clearinghouse will prepare and mail a closing letter to the Department. Attached to the closing letter will be copies of any comments received from reviewing state agencies. Please see the State Clearinghouse Handbook (July 2006) for additional information.

The NOC and at least 15 copies of the “draft” IS/EA are sent to:

State Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 3044
Sacramento, CA  95812-3044

During the 2001-2002 legislative session, Assembly Bill 3041 expanded Public Resources Code 21082.1(c)(4) to require that a state lead agency, such as the Department, submit an electronic format of the document as well as hard copies of the document.  Acceptable formats include word files and pdf files and should be submitted on a CD along with the hard copies of the document and the NOC.

For projects requiring action by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) - i.e., approval of funds and/or new public road connection and/or route adoption - a submittal package must be sent to the Division of Environmental Analysis for forwarding to the CTC. Click here for the CTC submittal instructions.

To comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the Department must provide a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the public, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and the county clerk of each county within which the proposed project is located, sufficiently prior to adoption by the lead agency of the negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to allow the public and agencies the 30 day review period.  The Department must mail a notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration to the last known name and address of all organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing and must also give notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration by at least one of the following procedures to allow the public the 30 day review period:

1. Publication at least one time in a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposed project.  If more than one area is affected, the notice must be published in the newspaper of largest circulation from among the newspapers of general circulation in those areas.
2. Posting of notice on and off site in the area where the project is to be located.
3. Direct mailing to the owners and occupants of contiguous property shown on the latest equalized assessment roll.

As a matter of Department policy, the Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND or MND must be published in the local paper.  The Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND or MND should be combined with the FHWA requirement of a Notice of Availability for the EA.  The Notice of Availability/Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND or MND should contain information about the public hearing or opportunity for a public hearing.  If a public hearing is to be held, the FHWA regulations require that the EA be in public circulation for 15 days prior to the hearing.  The Ch. 11 and Appendix HH of Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) contains detailed information regarding when a public hearing is required and what information should be contained in the public notice. NOTE: The PDPM contains an error regarding the length of the comment period for a "draft" IS/EA; the total comment period is 30 days.

Opportunity for Public Hearing or Public Hearing

Public hearings are encouraged, but not required as an element of the IS/EA process.   However, the Project Development Procedures Manual (PDPM) requires a public hearing for any projects that:

1. Require significant right of way
2. Require substantial changes to the layout, or to the function of connecting roadways, or facility being improved,
3. Have a significant adverse impact on abutting real property, or
4. Have a significant environmental, economic, social, or other effect.

A "Notice of Opportunity" for a public hearing may be used to satisfy the requirement for a hearing if the project is non-controversial and a hearing request is unlikely. This can be determined by analysis of comments received from the public or local agencies or through prior contacts and information meetings.

Chapter 11, Article 7 of the PDPM includes a discussion of how to plan, prepare and conduct a public hearing.

Notice of the public hearing must be published in English in a newspaper having a general circulation in the vicinity of the proposed project, as well as in any foreign language and community newspapers with a substantial circulation in the area.  Each notice must be published in a prominent location in the newspaper other than in the legal notices section and be published twice before the public hearing. 

For the purpose of this guidance, a “final” IS/EA refers to the document as revised after the comment period.  The Negative Declaration (ND) or Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are the decision documents.

Revisions to “Draft” IS/EA

QA/QC Review of “Final” IS/EA

Submittal of “Final” IS/EA for Approval and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Circulation Requirements for ND/FONSI

Submittal of NOD and NOA to the State Clearinghouse

Electronic Submittal

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA)

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)

Preparing an EIR/EIS

EIR/EIS Process

SAFETEA-LU SECTION 6002 EFFICIENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS

LEAD AGENCY UNDER SAFETEA-LU 6002

Under the provisions of SAFETEA-LU Section 6002, USDOT (FHWA or FTA for most Department projects) must serve as the federal lead agency, and the Department as the direct recipient of federal-aid highway funds must be a joint lead agency. Under SAFETEA-LU Section 6005 and pursuant to the NEPA Pilot Program (Section 6005) MOU, the Department will serve in both roles (please see SER Volume 1, Chapter 38, NEPA Delegation). In addition to the required lead agencies, other Federal, State, or local governmental entities may act as joint lead agencies, at the discretion of the the Department (Caltrans). See the FHWA/FTA SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Process Final Guidance discussion on Lead Agencies for more information.

Combined CEQA/NEPA/SAFETEA-LU 6002 Process