back to main document

Parker Road (SH 83) Planning/ Environmental Linkages Study

Slide 1

Parker Road (SH 83) Planning/ Environmental Linkages Study

Peer Review

December 2, 2009

Slide 2

Why PEL?

• Planning process in Colorado would identify corridor vision/ project priorities but...
• Typically had to be backtrack and revisit vision/ priorities when we got to NEPA

Slide 3

Why PEL?

• Now, has become more typical to follow PEL guidance in corridor planning studies, and document it, so that future NEPA can use studies as a starting point.
• Involve resource agencies upfront (intense involvement with first “pilot” efforts – define expectations for future PEL efforts)

Slide 4

Parker Road Location

This slide is a map showing where Parker Road is located.

Slide 5

SH 83 – Issues for Defining Improvements

• Major Regional Arterial
• Need to balance
  • Regional Mobility
  • Local Access – businesses and residents
• Parks, Wetlands, Historic Properties, and Listed Species
• Long Corridor/ Limited Funding

Slide 6

Parker Road Corridor Study

This slide shows two photographs of Parker Road

Slide 7

SH 83 – Our PEL Process

• As one of the first PELs in Colorado – was a pilot; we wanted to document resource agency buy-in.
• Strong partnership with FHWA and local project sponsor.
• Early and broad agency involvement – face to face interviews – Identified key resources; “worst case scenario” impacts; and discussed PEL process.
• Significant public involvement – and documented it

Slide 8

SH 83 PEL Matrix

• Thorough documentation of expectations for each agency – what they like/ fear about PEL
• Under what conditions findings could flow directly into NEPA
• Each agency is different – one size doesn’t fit all
• Defined how/ when agency wants to be involved in future PELs

Slide 9

Colorado’s PEL Partnering Agreement

• Outcome of this open dialogue about expectations/ desires for PEL led to Partnering Agreement – Management Level support
• 15 signatories
  • CDOT, FHWA, FTA
  • EPA, Forest Service, SHPO, DNR, USACE, CDPHE, USFWS
  • MPOs – DRCOG, PPACG, NFRMPO, PACOG
  • Regional Transit – RTD

Slide 10

The Partnering Agreement

• “Signatories are committed to performing meaningful and efficient environmental analyses that are pertinent to the decision-making process. This is a two-way conversation intended to not only address the needs of the transportation agencies but to be supportive of [other] agencies’ charters, goals, and initiatives.”
• “This Agreement does not affect the responsibilities that each agency has by law.”

Slide 11

CO FHWA PEL Questionnaire – Documenting the Results

• Innovation of FHWA in Colorado
• Grew out of strong partnering between CDOT/ FHWA/ Resource Agencies
• Documents PEL process, findings, agreements, etc.
• Bound into final study report, so can serve as starting point for staff entering future NEPA studies

Slide 12

Benefits of PEL

• Sets context for large corridors – broader understanding for better decisions/ better projects
• Smaller projects cleared later in NEPA with minimal backtracking
• Early agency involvement – when they can have an impact on alternatives (to avoid/ minimize)

Slide 13

Benefits of PEL

• Allows study of logical sequence for efficient project improvements
• Cross-training of planners and environmental practitioners
• Less expensive

Slide 14

Lessons Learned from SH 83 PEL

• In order for PEL to function as a tiering document for future NEPA, cumulative impacts should be done.
• Not all agencies want to be involved in the same way, or at the same time.
• Some resource agencies are also landowners and have a dual interest.

back to top