In recent years, there has been a renewed interest in the use of tiering and tiering-like procedures as techniques for managing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process for highway projects. However, experience with these procedures remains limited, and guidance materials are scarce. Thus, available information is brought together about tiering, the benefits and drawbacks of tiering are assessed, and general advice is offered about when to use tiering and what issues to consider in a tiered NEPA process. The effort consists of five parts. First is an introduction of NEPA and its processes, followed by information on regulatory authority and guidance, early experiences with tiering, recent developments in tiering, benefits and drawbacks of tiering, and issues to consider in preparing a tiered study.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Council on Environmental Quality. NEPA Regulations Implementation of Procedural Provisions. Federal Register, Vol. 43, Nov.29, 1978, p. 55,978.
2.
Council on Environmental Quality. Guidance Regarding NEPA Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 48, July28, 1983, p. 34,263.
3.
Council on Environmental Quality. Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations. Federal Register, Vol. 46, March23, 1981, p. 18,026.
4.
FHWA. Environmental Impact and Related Procedures. Federal Register, Vol. 52, Aug.28, 1987, p. 32,646.
5.
Caroline County Residents Say No Thanks to D.C. Bypass Plan. The Washington Post, May24, 1990, p. C4.
6.
FHWA. EIS: Virginia and Maryland, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 54, April26, 1989, p. 18,067.
7.
FHWA. EIS: Clark County, Nevada, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 57, Aug.20, 1992, p. 37,863.
8.
FHWA. Environmental Process: Clark County, Nevada, Revised Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 62, Sept.3, 1997, p. 46,546.
9.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 49, July6, 1984, p. 27,868.
10.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 49, July23, 1984, p. 29,693.
11.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 51, June4, 1986, p. 20,398.
12.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 51, Oct.22, 1986, p. 37,535.
13.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 52, April9, 1987, p. 11,594.
14.
FHWA. EIS: Orange County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 53, March16, 1988, p. 8,714.
15.
FHWA. EIS: Oregon, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 54, Aug.15, 1989, p. 33,655.
16.
FHWA. EIS: Contra Costa County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 54, Nov.29, 1989, p. 49,172.
17.
FHWA. EIS: Los Angeles County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 56, Jan.16, 1991, p. 1661.
18.
FHWA. EIS: Livingston, Michigan, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 56, Nov.25, 1991, p. 59,323.
19.
FHWA. EIS: Kern County, California, Notice of Intent. Federal Register, Vol. 59, Feb.7, 1994, p. 5,666.
20.
Missouri Department of Transportation and HNTB Team, The 1-70 Improvement Study: Innovations in Corridor Planning, 2001.
FHWA. Record of Decision for the U.S. 301 Northern Corridor Project Planning Study, May18, 2001.
23.
FHWA and State Highway Administration, Northern Corridor Tier I Final Environmental Impact Statement, Dec.21, 2000.
24.
FHWA, Washington Department of Transportation, King County Department of Transportation, and Sound Transit, I-405 Corridor Program, NEPA/SEPA DEIS Executive Summary, Aug.2001.
