2007 Environmental Consultation and Mitigation outreach effort

Seeking Input from Environmental Resource Agencies on the CLRP and Regional Transportation Planning Process

In March 2007 the TPB solicited input and comments on the 2007 CLRP from natural resource and environment agencies in D.C., Maryland and Virginia as part of a new environmental consultation process required under federal legislation.  In this first year of consultations, the focus of the process was on building a foundation for continued engagement of federal, state and local environmental agencies in the development of the region’s CLRP.  This was done by soliciting comments on the CLRP and requesting environmental data in order to map the CLRP with various environmental resources. 

The TPB sent ninety letters to various representatives from state and local resource agencies, out of which sixteen replies were received. A summary of the replies indicates the need for greater understanding of the relationship between transportation planning and environmental planning at a regional scale.  Many agencies involved in the environmental consultation process viewed environmental review as an effort primarily aimed at the project level.  This mapping exercise is thus intended to serve as a tool to facilitate regional, plan-wide thinking. Draft maps showing the connection between transportation planning and environmental planning in the region were the first products of this initial consultation. 

Summary of Replies from March 2007 Environmental Consultation and Mitigation Outreach Effort

The replies were varied but shared a few common threads.  For instance, the comments generally did not provide specific comments on the plan, stating their agency was already involved in a formal, more detailed environmental or historic preservation review at the project level.   These references to existing processes for detailed, site-specific environmental review signaled the difficulty in thinking about transportation and environmental planning at the regional level.  Therefore, future attempts will be made to steer the consultations toward more system-wide discussions of environmental impact and mitigation rather than replicating existing environmental review processes.   

The specificity of the GIS data request resulted in the widespread provision of relevant agency contacts for GIS data assistance or a direct path to download data regarding historic properties/archaeology, green infrastructure, watersheds, wetlands, etc.  Additionally, data showing state conservation plans, wildlife management plans, and an inventory of VA natural heritage resources that could be impacted by the plan were obtained through this process.  Agencies with this level of information largely extended offers for future collaboration and requested coordination of mitigation activities with agencies at both early planning stages and during implementation.

Some agencies provided specific comments regarding missing elements.  For instance, one agency stated that many projects in the plan “have the potential to affect historic properties”, yet the TPB does not identify cultural or historic properties or address potential mitigation strategies for these resource types.  In working with historic preservation agencies throughout the region, the TPB attempted to rectify this oversight through the draft maps that were created out of this consultation.   In this case, national, state and city historic registry information was plotted against the CLRP in a Historic Sites Map. 

Other concerns were also voiced through the consultation process, such as overlooked potential impacts and additional resources to include in the mapping exercise.  One agency found that “the proposed projects may impact potential scenic byways, some federally protected lands, and proposed and existing trails and greenways.”  It was also advised to cast a wider net in our GIS mapping, such as the addition of rural legacy areas in our analysis of protected lands. 

Lastly, few mitigation strategies were offered by respondents, such as one recommendation to create and submit a forest conservation plan prior to submission of preliminary site plans.  Mitigation input received from the environmental agencies was incorporated in the TPB’s draft mitigation discussion, which outlines preferred environmental mitigation strategies for the CLRP.

Going forward, the TPB agreed to collaborate with these agencies in the continued development and refinement of this consultation process.