USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Community impact assessment evaluation


Material Information

Community impact assessment evaluation an evaluation of the Community impact assessment: a quick reference for transportation booklet and related practices : final report
Uniform Title:
Community impact assessment : a quick reference for transportation
Portion of title:
Evaluation of the Community impact assessment a quick reference for transportation booklet and related practices
Alternate Title:
Community impact assessment evaluation final report
Physical Description:
1 online resource (131 p.) : ill. ;
Ward, Beverly G
Cunill, Buddy
United States -- Federal Highway Administration
Florida -- Dept. of Transportation
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, FL
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Transportation -- Planning -- Evaluation -- Handbooks, manuals, etc -- United States   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Planning -- Methodology -- United States   ( lcsh )
Transportation -- Research -- United States   ( lcsh )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
technical report   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )


Includes bibliographical references (p. 42).
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Beverly G. Ward.
General Note:
Title from t.p. of e-book (viewed Aug. 10, 2011).
General Note:
"Sponsored by Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in cooperation with Florida Department of Transportation, Buddy Cunill, research project manager ..."
General Note:
"March 1998."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 028773754
oclc - 746175313
usfldc doi - C01-00307
usfldc handle - c1.307
System ID:

This item is only available as the following downloads:

Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200433Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 028773754
005 20110810130346.0
006 m d
007 cr bn|||||||||
008 110810s1998 flua obt 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00307
HE192.55.U6 (ONLINE)
1 100
Ward, Beverly G.
0 245
Community impact assessment evaluation
h [electronic resource] :
b an evaluation of the Community impact assessment: a quick reference for transportation booklet and related practices : final report /
prepared by Beverly G. Ward.
3 246
Evaluation of the Community impact assessment :
a quick reference for transportation booklet and related practices
Community impact assessment evaluation final report
Tampa, FL :
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida,
1 online resource (131 p.) :
Title from t.p. of e-book (viewed Aug. 10, 2011).
"Sponsored by Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, in cooperation with Florida Department of Transportation, Buddy Cunill, research project manager ..."
"March 1998."
Includes bibliographical references (p. 42).
z United States
x Planning
v Handbooks, manuals, etc.
United States
United States.
Cunill, Buddy.
United States.
Federal Highway Administration.
Dept. of Transportation.
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
Community impact assessment : a quick reference for transportation
i Print version:
Ward, Beverly G.
t Community impact assessment evaluation.
d Tampa, FL : Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida, [1998]
w (OCoLC)243473067
Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856


An Evaluation of the Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation Booklet and Related Practices Final Report Center for Urban Transportation Research University cif South Rorida


Photo credits Scoff Herskowitz: Garden District Chinatown Cleveland Sujol Soroiyo: lombard Street Paul Reichert: Montano progtOIII$ ofld f:xHtt otN o! 5ovth Aotldo a-.

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION An Evaluation of the Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation Booklet and Related Practices -. Final Report Morth1998 Sponsored by. Federal Highway Administration U. S. Department of Transportation in cooperation with Florida Department ofT ransportation Buddy Cunlll Research Project Manager Environn;tental Management Office Prepared by. Beverly G. Ward Deputy D irector, ETS Center for Urban Transportation Research University of South Florida


FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION May 11, 1998 Ms. Beverly Ward Deputy Director, ETS 60s su .. F1m0450 .. o.-College o f Engineering University of South Florida 420 2 E Fowler Avenue, ENB 118 Tampa, Florida 33620-5350 Re: Final Report: "An Evaluation o f the Community Impact Assessmen t : A Quick Reference for Transportation Booklet and Related Practices" D ear Ms. Ward. Tfi'OMAS F.liA.R.R.Y. JR. soc:uray Enclosed are forty seven copies of the (Phase l) final r eport developed by the Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida entitled, "An Evaluation of the Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation Boo klet and Relate d Practices". Please distribute these to CUTR personnel, the Design Team and applicable respondents. Issuance of this final report completes this federally funded project. It is pleasure you and C U T R staff I look to the successful comp letion of our other research efforts in this area. Shou l d you h ave any questions or need additional copies please let me know. M y number i s (850) 922-7207. BC/bc Enclosures Sincerely, Buddy Cunill Research Project Mana g e r


Contents Project Overview .... ........... .... .... .... . ... .. .......... .. ..... 1 Eval uation Me t hodology ..... .... ......... ...... ...... ... .. ... ... 1 Evaluation Resuhs ........ . ..... ............................................... 2 AppendiX A CIA Research Design Team .... ....... ..................... ................ 43 AppendixB Postcards ............ ........ ........................................... 45 Evaluation .. ..... .. : ..................................................... 46 Append ixC CIA Evaluation Comments and Explanations .......... ...... ........... ..... 54 AppendixD CIA Research Design Team Action Plan ..................................... 125 CIA Future Actions .. ............... . .... ........... . .................. 126 National Community I mpact Assessment Workshop Tentative Agenda ............. .................................... 129




COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWAnON The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR) at the University of South Florida conducted o notional Community Impact Assessment Evaluation on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWAI. Office of Environment and Planning, in cooperation wijh the Environmental Management Office of the Florida Deportment of Transportation. The evaluation form, distributed to rnetropomao.planning organiZations (MPOsl and state departments of transportation (DOTst requested information on practitioners' knowledge qnd use of Community Impact Assessment techniques. The responses were used by the Community Impact Assessment Research Design Team to measure the use of Community tmpad Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transportation. a booklet developed by FHWAand state DOTs and MPOs. The Team also assessed the use of techniques described in the booklet. The evaluation provided Insight to the Design Team on the effect of the booklet on increasing the awareness of community impact Issues and promoting greater consideration of these issues in organizational. project decisionmoking. The overall were used to determine training and other community impact assessment needs. One outcome of the assessment was a national OA workshop planned for Foll1998. A listing of the Team members is provided in Appendix A. The Research Design Team met, in Tampa, 26 and 27 January 1998 to review the interim findings of the national evaluation, develop on action plan, and make to FHWA based on the evaluation. As port of the action plan, the Team began planning for a Community Impact Assessment Notional Practitioner Workshop for Foll1998. A summary of the action plan and o tentative workshop agenda is provided in Appendix D. With the assistance of the Research Design Team, CUTR staff developed a 67-question evaluation instrument. The questions, largely shaped by the booklet. were phrased to provide participants the opportunity to checkoff responses and give comments. Potential respondents were notified in advance by postcard. One hundred forty-nine instruments were moiled to MPOs and DOTs on 4 December 1997. Reminder postcards were mailed on 17 December 1997. Telephone coils also were made during the week of12 January 1998. Copies of the postcards and the evaluation instrument are in Appendix B. The evaluation was moiled to each of the 50 state DOTs environmental officials as listed In the 1997 Diredory of Slate Tronsporlafion Agency Environmental Officials.' Upon the recommendation of the Research Design Team, some stole transportation agencies received multiple evaluations where it appeared that the environmental functions may be decentralized, e.g., Florida and Mississippi. Sixty-seven evaluations were moiled to DOTs. Recipients also were requested to forward the evaluation to the appropriate person(s)ln their agencies. Evaluations also were moiled to transportation planners at 81 MPOs selected from the Association of Metropomon Planning Organizations' and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Travel Model Improvement Program, Federal Highway Administration Oiredory of MPOs Internet sites2 An evaluation was mailed to at least one MPO in each slate. Efforts were mode to have a representative sample of Iorge and small MPOs in stoles with multiple mailings. lOne


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUAnON evaluation was mailed to the Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning For assessment purposes this evaluation is not include d in the total.) Number of unduplicoled evaluations distributed for assessment: 148 Number of respondents: 65; 46 state tra nsportation agencies or DOTs. 19 metropolitan planning organizations. Response role : 44% This section provides on overview of the responses to each question. The percentage of respondents thai answered "Ye-t' to specific questions is shown below, as applicable. Where respondents were asked to rank responses, the average rank is shown. Summaries of question explanations and comments are provided in this section. All explanations and comments are provided in Appendix C. Response frequencies by state ore shown below and in Figure 1. STATE : Alobomo Alosko Colitomio Ois:hict of Colvmbio Florldo :Georgia 1Howoii ; Illinois : lndiono Konsos LOuisiana MoiniQ Mol'flond Mosso


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Familiarity with Community Impact Assessment: A Quick Reference for Tmnsporlallon Booklet 1. Do you have a copy of the CmnmunHy lmpad Asses.smenf: A Quick Re1'M!nce for In yow department? (N=65) 70%, "Yes Forty-five of the 64 respondents slated they were familiar* with the booklet. Only seven, or less 40% of the MPO respondents were familiar with the booklet compared with 83% of the DOTs. The comments shown In Appendix C reflect that familiarity could signify only that respondents hod seen a copy circulated in their organizations 2 Please rank the usefulness of the Quick Reference booldet. (Please circle your response.) (N=45) Not useful . I 1 I 2 I 3 Very useful 4 5 3.50 More than 1wo-thirds of oil respondents were fomifiar with the booklet. Many respondents found il useful and feh that il served lis purpose. Others feh that its usefulness would increase as more of the practices were implemented in their organizations. Many felt it contained good information. Those respondents who ranked it low felt either that the booklet did not apply to their work or that the concepts were too grandiose: 3. Please rank the extent to which the OA Quick Reference booldet has affected the way you conduc:t assessments. (Please circle your response.) 1N=44) None Very much 1 2 I 3 4 5 2.49 4


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Respondents ranked the effect oi the booldei on the way they conducted assessments lower than they ranked its usefulness. Those who ranked it high stated that it seiVed as a reminder or helped them to focus on community themes. Lower ran kings came from respondents who felt they were already using the techniques. As was expected, state t ransportation agency responde nts ranked the effect of the booklet significantly higher than MPO respondents. 4. Pleow indicate how widely the booklet is d"IStributed In your department. (Please drde your response. ) (N=4S) Nototoll --------------2 .95 Very widely 4 5 The range of comments regarding the booklefs distribution varied from relatively wide distribution-copies t o bureau staff, and environmental district staff-to relatively limit ed a copy in the department library. The telephone number of FHWA's Office of Environment and Planning was provided In the evaluation, advising recipients to contact that number to receive copies of the booklet. 5. On refteclion. has the OA Quidc Refen!nce booklet mode a the way your organimtion studies or addresses impacts of proposed transportation projects on . ? (Please check all thot opply.) : %All Respondents %DOTs %MPOs -1 4 20 0 BusinGS:Ses 1 6 20 6 Community Fodli11es 22 26 11 Communlti&S 22 28 6 Neighborhoods 16 20 6 Peopl e 20 24 11 Public lnv<>Mlment 5


COMMU NJIY I M P ACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Most r e s ponden t s w ere unab l e t o determi n e a change, but same the booklet increased awareness of the conce pt The booklet seems to have affected the way i n whkh organiZations address community and neigh b orhood impacts and public involvem ent. W i de r d istribution a nd more i n formation on "how-to may be needed 6 If the CIA Quick Reference booklet has not mode o diff&'ence in your orgonizolion's operations. what ore the bouiers? (Please check ol that opply.l % All Respondonls %DOTs %MPOs II II II 9 II 6 ol01ierest 25 24 2 8 ol staff lo i mplemont II II II La

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION % All Respondenls % DOTs % MPOs Foetor 1 4 20 17 6 The lype$ of lnfonnalion your orgonlzoflon solicils hom lhe public The most frequently cited difference made by the booklet in organizaHons' operations was "Increased consideration of community impacts in decisionmaking and public input . This was consistent with responses given to Question 5. Respondents with MPOs also stated that the booklet had affected their instrucnons to contractors or consunants. Other frequently cited areas for DOT respondents included: Where in the process community impacts are considered; ldenHflcaHan of areas to be included In the assessment process; The a mount of public involvement. 8. In what else can be done to promote CIA cansidero!iOn? (Please attach additional pages if necessal'f.) Respondents felt more guidance, resource material. and training are needed to promote CIA consideration. some respondents suggested that legislative action, the coupling of the use of the techniques with funding, or awards programs could serve as incenlives. A Montana respondenrs comments are typical of those received. Don't quiflln Montana, the-concept of was linked to growth and development. Community character and values have only recently been brought to the table as issues" (emphasis added). Overall, DOT respondents were more familiar with the booldetthan those with MPOs. Most respondents who are familiar with the booklet find it useful and think it contains good information. II seems from responses that it is early to gauge the extent of the impact the booklet may have on the way assessments a r e conducted. Respondents suggest that it has yet to reach many people who actually do community impact assessments. Respondents also stated that there is a lack of staff to Implement change. The booklet seems to have had some influence in increasing consideration of community impacts and public input More guidance, resource material. and training on community impact assessment are needed. 7


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Community Impact Assessment: The Process in Your Organiztrllon 9. What benefits do you think the c:omnwnity impact assessment (CIA) process am confribute 1o the project planning or development pnxess? !Please aHuc:h additional pages if necessary.) The benefits of CIA generally were thought to be found in improving the decisionmaking process through: More community or public involvement; Minimizing impacts; and A better understanding of socioeconomic issues. As one respondent said, done property--the bolonclng of impacts. CIA is required by NEPA but forgotten by many Cl should be considered during anernative development, purpose, and new preparations. If done this way impacts should be minimized: 10. What mps hove you taken In your organization 1o influence considercrlion of community impacts during the decisionmaking process? (Please attach additional pages if necessay.) The most frequent steps taken by respondents to influence consideration of community impacts related to public involvement. Several respondents, however. suggested that intemal lorganizalionl and external (community) training or education components had been developed. Others hod improved assessments as related to Trtle VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Environmental Justice Executive and Departmental Orders. For instance in Florida, IWe hove) established a multidisciplinary task team an CIA to identify and evaluate department level of CIA assessment and recommend ways to enhance the assessment process. IWe also) established an implementation team of cross-functional/ interagency parties to implement task team recommendations: 11. Based on Question 10, abcwe, what dtanges have ocamed in your organizotion? The changes in organizations seemed to have resuned in greater awareness or sensllivily to community Issues. In some instances, this hos resuned in Improvements or refinements in the planning process(es). There was some sense that n is too early to identify more changes. Many respondents soid they were unsure if any change had occurred or stated thot no change had occurred. 8


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 12. How has your organization used pubSe efforts to determine the impaCt of proposed projects on communities at different stages in project deicisionmoking? (Please attach additional pages If necessary.) There were several methods cned for using public involvement inclu ding: Developing cilizens ,advlsory groups as an educational liaison for the public and ,he organization; Charelles and public informolion meetings; Websiles, state fairs, and 1 numbers . Beyond the various methods respondents also stated that the "when and where public involvement is used has changed Several respondents stated that the public is involved early and others indicated during the project development phase of the project. ... Process more proactive in general than used to be: 13. How is CIA used in the melropolitan planning In general, respondents said this was not known or it is not used. Where respondents were knowledgeable, CIA seems to be used most often i n the landuse and planning. There also was some indication that It is used wnh major Investment studies IMJSS) and alternative analyses 14. How is CIA used during project planning and development? Much emphasis seemed to be placed on public involvement. However, some respondents did indicate that CIA p layed an important role in their socioeconomic impact studies, environmentOI study processes, or NEPA analyses. others seemed to think its use limited only for urban projects or the responsibility of other entities -local governments. 15. Which of the following regulations, statutes, policies, technical advisories, and Orders are you mo.sffamiliar? (Please check all that apply.) : lt. All Rospondonls %DOTs %MPOs -Council on Envlrorvnonlal Quolily ICEQ) Rogulolions lor lmplemenfing 72 85 39 NEPA 86 as 94 lrm!rmodol SUrface TransporlaMon Elllclency Act IISTEAJ ol199 1 8S 96 so NoMonal Environmental Polity Act o f 1969 !NEPAl 52 59 33 Tille VI of1he Civil Rlgh1s Act of 1964 and relafod sloMos 28 33 17 23 USC 1091hl, Highway Ad of 1970 9


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION xoors %MPOs -73 85 44 23 CFR m. EmAronmenlallmpoct and Rel ated Procedures 09871 70 87 28 TA 6640.8A 0987). Guidance for Prep<;Jring ond Proce$$ing ErMPrt:> . . . . .... . ... ...... . . . . . .. . .. .. ' Respondents were most familiar with ISlEA and NEPA; however, respondents from MPOs were more fami l iar with ISlEA than NEPA. DOT respondents were more familiar with NEPA. The next most frequent l y cited regulati on was 23 CFR 771, Environment al I mpact and Related Procedures 0987). DOT respondents were more famil i ar with almost oil the regulations, statutes. and so forth than MPO respondents. This may be VefY significant in lhat many community impad analysts believe, and responses to this evaluation supparllhe belie that assessment should begin very eorly in the planning phase ond continue in the project development phase. This may be problematic. suggesting the need for clarfficalion of the statutofY basis for the community assessment in the eorly planning phase. 16. lfFHWA's TA6640.8A or23 CFRm were revised, what wou ld you do to change how OA is addressed? The responses to this question varied. There was some sense of a need for FHWA to provide DOTs and MPOs clear policy guidance on CIA particularly as related to: Environmental justice; Public participation; Secondary and cumulative impacts; Property values; and "Bal ancing" the relationship between CIA and the naturar environment. Many respondents were unsure or wan ted no changes. 10


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATiaN 17. In your opinion, what level of pnorily IS given to addressing community impods In your organization? (N=63) Not o priority High priority 1 2 3 4 5 3.40 Respondents, in general, slated !hal communily impacts were given a beller !han average priorily in !heir organizations DOT respondents gave the priority level a higher average rating than MPO respondents-3.51 versus 3.09. There was some sense of Increasing sensltivily to communily impacts. One respondent stated, however, 'We are reactive not proactive. If someone screams, we lislen and if possible, fly to satisfy !hem: Pontlcal expediency also was mentioned as playing a r o le in responsiVeness. 18. In your opinion, is it important to address community impacts as port of the prolec:t development process? (N:65) 100%, "YeS' There were few comments following this question, possibly because respondents were only prompted to explain if the answer was "No." 19. In your opinion, is it important to address corrmunHy impacts os part of 1he MPO process? (N=62) 89%, "YeS' More DOT respondents, 93%, than MPO respondents, 78%, felt it important to address community impacts as part of the MPO process. This Is not surprising given !he differences between DOTs and MPOs in !he response role. The fact that more than two-thirds of MPO respondents (remember less than 40% were familiar with the booklet) ten !hot i t should be part of the MPO process is a ralher strong endorsement. The comments provided by respondents _indicate that community impacts should be addressed at !he communily level, but there was some concern expressed over !he level of detail. 11


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSM ENT EVAWAT I O N 20. In your opinion, does addressi n g community impacts influence your orgonization's decisionmoking? IN=611 Rorely infklences 1 2 3 4 5 3 .43 All r espond ents that communi1y i mpocts hod a bette r than average in fl uence on t hei r orgonl z a tl o n s d eci sionm aking. The r e was no s i g n ific a n t difference between DOT respond e nts an average of 3 .49, and that o f MPO res p o nden ts. 3 .29. The comments i ndicate tha t the influence of communi ty impacts m a y be project-spec i fic (i.e.. cas e -by-case) or limi ted to specific communities 21. Usted below are the assessment components Included in the CIA Quick Reference booklet Pleose indialte with o checkmort< those procllced by your orgonizotion (Please check oa thotopply. ) % AI Respondents %DOTs "MPOs 6 7 76 44 Analysis ol community impacts 52 6 1 28 CornmurVty i mpod ossessmen t os part of the dedsionmoking process 8 8 9 1 78 Oefinffioo ol projedivslmonls ...... ... ..... ........ . . Use of p u b lic p a m c ipotio n w as the most cited componen t This was followed by of the p roject and study area' which was cited almost as fre quentl y b y DOT responden t s MPO r esponden ts cHad components less than DOT resp o ndents f o r all factors. In all cases. th e d iffe rence was by 1 0 percentage points or mor e MPO 12


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION respondents seem familiar with the components, bui do not appear consistently to apply them In the transportation planning and project development process. Earlier comments suggest that MPOs respondents feel thai the components should be applied by local governments or are only project-specific. iii EO:: 1 3!ii!i\iF ii il :iH Si.iiC#/ I ; ; i i ; iH#

COMMUNIIY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Developing a Community 25. When in prQject plcn ing and da'f algpnwtt do you begin developing a summary of the history and ontic:lpoled future of the c:ommunityilesl? The most frequent r esponses were a s early as possible or In the environmental or NEPA phase Roughly 10% of respondents stated that the s ummary is not developed formall y 2 6 Please indicGie with a c:heclcmoltc the al-ts fypia1lly used in developing a community prvfile by your organization. IPieose check all that apply.) SMA 'fai ... ds s DOrs MPOs -S3 54 so "'t and gender disl!blfion 31 33 28 EdUCl:lllond Oflllinment ss 52 61 Employmont staluo 80 85 67 Etllnic11y and rat$ 66 70 56 lncomo level s 3 1 37 17 lndla

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATI ON : % All Respondents % DOTs % MP0s 56 63 39 Propetly volues 59 67 39 Tax bose 70 70 .... ... . Economlc.Jien

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Colleding Data 2 7. Please indiwle wilh a chedcmark the AISOUIQIS fn7icaAYused to gather community information (Please check aU that apply.) %DOTs %MPOs -20 11 44 Building-permit records 80 80 78 Census Bureou publications and stolisticol obstrocts 52 5 7 39 Communlly ganlzalioRS 55 59 44 COns ullonls 3 2 6 Doonolley OWelo\'menl agencies o r lobo r departments 28 24 39 State.locol. and university l ibraries 39 37 44 Toxreoords 22 22 22 . ditedories ........... .... Other resources induded t h e use o f public involvement techniques and GIS. 1 6


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 'lftd ? 1\,ii* 9" 'h\" r W ''iW"" 4Wo m 0& Analyzing Communlly Impacts 28 Please indicale with a c:hedcmorktheelements you when analyzing community impacts. (Please dlec:k all that apply. ) % Ali 118opondents % DOTs % MI'Os 53 50 61 Communily goals 70 76 56 Mognlkld e of publi c issues and controvorsl&S 86 87 83 Nega!M> i mpods 75 74 7 8 Posl!lve impacts 67 72 56 Pul>lic perception ol impocts 28 30 22 Review and research o f public issues 6 1 76 22 5eaonclory o n d cumulollw impods 64 72 44 Temporary and longlenn impods Other elements mentioned were school s and public Involvement. 29. Please Indicate with a checkmork the community Issues to identify community impacts. % AI Respondents %DOTs %MPOs Fodor 67 63 78 Changes In Popula1ion 61 72 33 ComiTMJnity Cohesion and lnferodion 39 48 17 lsolallon 53 54 50 Qualily o f life 23 28 11 Soda! values 22 24 1 7 Taxrecords ... -. . .. ..... 17


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWAnON lr. lr. DOTs lr. MPOs -64 63 6 1 Aeslhetics 64 n 56 Bomer Eftect 58 57 50 Olholily"""' Communily Goal s Compatil!ywilh 1he LMJble cornmunltles 19 20 17 lni1io1iYeorSustainallle Development 70 85 33 Forrnlond tmpaCls 56 65 33 75 76 n londuse PoHems Economic Conditions All Respon-lr. DOTs "MPOs 88 89 83 Business and Employment lrnpocts 47 54 58 Business Visibility 63 n 39 Bypass Eftects 58 65 39 Propef1y values 56 57 56 Regional a nd local conditions 48 54 33 Tax Bose 18


COMMUNITY I M PACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION liAIResponclenls 11 DOTs liMPOs 67 61 83 80 83 72 .. 45 46 44 64 70 50 36 39 28 7 0 n 67 ss 52 61 5 0 46 61 81 83 78 11 All Responclenls 11 DOTs 11 MPOs 72 63 53 45 83 70 57 so 44 44 44 33 11 AI Respondents 11 DOTs ll Ml'Os 20 73 70 20 83 72 22 so 67 -Blcyl:l e Aocess Clt c ula1ion/Traffic F low Conned'Mty bGtwe.en mode:s General Accessi billy Mobilily Boriiers Pedeslrilic Selvices Oime Emergency R

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION %DOTs "MilOs -S3 96 50 B usiness and Fonn OisplocemM I S 64 78 28 D isplacement of Public Focitifies 58 70 28 Displacement of Public Services 7S 80 72 Effect!"' N.,;ghbomoods 66 70 56 Effect oo popul afions wi1l1 special needs 75 85 50 Effect on SChools and Rellgloos JnstiMions 59 67 39 Effect on lhe Economy 88 96 67 Resldentiot D isploc:ements 63 74 33 Ro!ocation Site Avoi labilily 75 78 67 R ig h l-of-way Costs lille VI o f lho CMI Righi> Act ol1964 oncl r elaled 70 80 slaMes ........ .... . . .......... .... ... ... The most cned communny issues typically used to identify communny impacts included: Changes in popul ation; Sound intrusions; C ompafibilny w i th plans; Busi n e s s and employment impacts; Vehicular ac c e ss; Affect on publicfacilities; Emergency r esponse; Resident ial displaceme nts. Other c o mmu nny issues i ncluded school boundaries and the sense of communny. Of the 50 commun i ty issues listed there were only th r ee issues where MPO respondents showed a high e r percentage These were: Changes in populati on; Business visibilny; Bic ycle access. This s eems consisten t with earl i er response regardin g famili arity with regulat ions 20


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 30. Do you examine how differing impOci$ relate to each otfler'? (N=Sl) 59%, "Yes" More than lwcrthirds of DOT respondo;mts stated !hot they examined how differing impads relate to each other. Only one-third of MPO respondents said "Yes." The comments suggest that respondents attempt to look to those impacts that may naturally relate to each other, then try to balance impacts, considering costs, other environmental regulations, and so forth. One respondent stated that this examination was "impractical." Selecting Analysis Tools 31. Please Indicate with a chedonork the approaches used to examine the future of the study area with the project versus the future without the project. (Please died< all that apply.) ll All Respondonls ll DOTs % MPOs 75 36 17 76 39 17 67 28 17 Fcx:to< Comporoive approach Comprehensive approodl lncremMto1 approach The most frequently used approach was comparative. Other approaches included use of maps [for comparison] . 32. Please Indicate with a checkmark the dimensions ll All Respondonls %DOTs liMPOs 63 70 44 Cumulative impacts 91 96 7 8 D i rect impacts 41 46 28 Duration of the impact ovar time 53 67 17 I ndirect/secondary impacts 41 48 22 Ukeliho od of the lmi>act 55 65 28 Order of magnilvde 21


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION "DOTs %MPOs 44 46 39 Perception of impacts lreOI or imagined! 23 28 II of lhe Impact 63 74 33 Scale, severily, and e>d0<1f ol1he . . ..... . Respondents most analyze direct impacts; cumulative impacts; and scale. severity and extent of the impact. This was true for both DOT and MPO respondents, although the percentag e of MPO respondents was significantly lower. 33. Please indicat e with a checkmalt< the techniques u sed to gather information and examine the effects of a project on the community. Alllaspondents "DOTs %MPOs 55 57 so Broinstormmg 52 63 22 comparisons 8 4 17 Oelp/ll T ecllnlques 56 56 Expert Consuhotion 48 41 67 GeographiC lnfonnolion Systems (GISI!Oolobonks 1 9 22 11 lnlemei/Wcrld Wide woo 59 59 61 19 20 17 3 1 39 II Peer RE!'Ilew 86 87 83 Publk Pot1Sdpotion 48 48 50 Slalislical Analysis 33 4 1 II .. VosuoHmagir\Q .. Public participation was the m o st frequent technique used to gather information and exam i n e project effects. comparisons" was the next most frequent answe r for DOT respondents. GIS/Dot obanks was the next most frequent response for MPO respondents Other techniques mentioned r elated predominate l y t o specific public participation techniques and surveys. 22


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 34. Do you have projects 1hat other$ llii ghtfil'id useful as case stucles or good exon !pies of community impact assessment? (N=Sl ) Twenty-eight p e r c ent o f respondents answered "Yes." There was no difference between !he percent of DOT and MPO respondents. WJHS!O S9i'!!"9 1 11;a:Ho!l 'MSS!!!MII!illillli!W 8Bl!1i I ii !den/Hying Soluflons 35. Do you use public: participation to help Identify solutions to adverse impacts? (N::61) Ninety-two p ercent stated, "Yes." There no sign i ficant difference betwee n MPO and DOT respondents. 36. If there are Odwrse impacts on the community please rank in order from 1 to -4 with 1 as the first and 4 as the last, the methods used to deo l with i mpacts. (N=57) All Raspondonls DOTs MPOs Eocpecled 1.63 1.40 2.29 Avoi d a n c e 3.33 3.46 2 92 4 Enhance lhe communiry . 2 1 .98 2 .0 7 2 Minirnltotlon 2.91 3.05 2.50 3 M i tigation . .. While !h e average rank for all respondent s fell Info !he expected order, when DOT responses ware separated from MPOs the DOT s' were closer to the expe ct e d The MPO order: Minimization Avoidance M ll lgallon Enhance the community .. 37 What are some technique$ used by your organization to avoid less en, or mitigate community impacts or enhance the community? Many respondents staled tho! design changes were used; changing alignments was a frequ ent response. Several respondents also menffoned thai public Involvement techniques were used to ways t o avoid, lessen, mi1igale community impacts or enhanc e the community. 23


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION 38. Do you consider the effects of mitigation techniques on the community? (N::53) Sixty-six percent stated, "Yes." Three-quarters o f DOT respondents stated !hot consideration is give n to mitigation effects. Less than 50% of MPO respondents staled that these effects were c onsidered. 39. How does your organization balance communi1y Issues against concerns for the natural environment? Many respondents found this difficult. In general, state or local statutes and regulations give priority to the natural environment over community impact issues. Publlc pamcipation a lso was used as a technique to help resolve conflicts. One respond ent mentioned, 'Try to gel all pames to the table and work aut solutions." Using Public lrwolvemenf 40. What role does the pubic play in considering communi1y (Please check aD that apply.) All Rospondonts %DOTs %MP0s 34 35 33 Develo p!Mill of lhe projects purpose-ond-n-' statement 67 74 50 l denlilicalion of altemallves 55 57 50 ld en!ilicalion of community YOiues 34 39 22 ldenlfficalion of lhe project s1udy area 61 70 39 ldenlificalion of tronspor1alion 63 n 39 tdent16cotion of OYQidance. minimization. mffigation. and enhancemen t opportunities 59 72 28 . k'lvestigoion of ... On average, the respondents' three most frequently cffed roles were: Identification of alternatives; Identification of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancemen t opportunities; and Identification of transportation impacts. 24


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUAnON DOT respondents cited the first two; t\oWever, inveStigation of social, economic, and environmental impacts was the third. MPO respondents tied Identification of community values with ide.ntificotion of Identification of transportation impacts and identification of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement opportunities were tied for second for MPO respondents. 41. Pleawlndltale with a checlanark the notification activities lypically used by your organization. % AI Respondents % DOTs % MP0s Factor 47 5 14 42 44 28 98 55 31 41 41 4 15 50 50 33 100 65 35 61 Announc

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 43. Do you have o copy of the Public llwolvwnenf Techniques for Tmnsporlalion (N::61) E ighty percent stated, "Yes. There wos no s ignificant difference between the percentage of DOT ond MPO respondents. 44. Pleaseindicate with o chedcmark the pubriC pcll1icipalion techniques typically used by your orgonizolion. (Please check criJ that crpply.) "DOTs "MI'Os 41 39 44 Ad hoc losk lo

COMMUNilY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 45. Has your organization changed iis pubtrc invOlvement effort since the Executive Order and Department of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice? (N::56) Uttte change Great change 1 2 3 4 5 2.26 Respondents on average said that there had been some change in their organizations since the Orders on Environmental Justice. DOT respondents, on average, ranked the change at 2.31; MPO respondents, 2.13. This difference was statistically significant. Where change has occurred, respondents slated thalli has Ioken the form of more sensitivity to the needs of ethnic and racial minority groups and disabled persons. There also was indication that changes have occurred in opportunities for and the manner in of public partidpation. Several respondents indicated no change had occurred. 46. Does your organization usually prepare separate community Impact technical reports? (N::61) 14%, "Yeft' Seventeen percent of DOT respondents stated they prepared separate reports; only 6% of MPO respondents staled thai separate reports were prepared. 47. In your opinion are separate CIA reports necesscuy? (N=53) 22%, "Yef! While there was no difference between DOT and MPO respondents, there were several commenls regarding this question. Respondents felt that separate reports may be warranted sometimes and should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Others felt the NEPA document was adequate. 27


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 48. Does your orgonimlion generally present conwnunity impact findings in the NEPA document? (N::55) 70%, "Yes Nearly 90% of DOT respondents stated that communi1y impact findings were presented in the NEPA document. Less then 30% of MPO respondents slated that the findings were presented in thE! NEPA document. 49. Are community impacts discussed at pubroc hearings or other public meetings? CN=601 86%, "Yes" More then 90% of DOT respondents stated that community impacts were discussed at public hearings or other public meetings Only 72 percent of MPO respondents slated that they discussed impacts at these forums. H appears that the impacts ere discussed under varying conditions-access, relocations, environmental conditions, end so forth. 50. Do you personally prepare 1ext sections on pertinent community topics far indusion in project planning and ckNelopment documentation? IN=561 Thirty-eight percent stated, "Yes." There was only one percentage point difference between DOT and MPO respondents. 51. Where does CIA information fypkDf/y appear in the project planning and development document? The most frequently cited areas were the Environmental Impact Statement (EISI and Environmental Assessment (EA}. Some respondents slated that the information only appeared in the NEPA document in the social environmental section. One respondent who appeared to be a DOT representative stated "H doesn't." 52. In your opinion. Is CIA given equal consicleiolion bv your organaalion in decisionmalcing as o"lel'fucloo's f.e.. nolurol and physicoleruiOt11Tle11111n the project plannjng and development proa!SS? (N::591 49%, "Yes 28


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUAnON Less than 50% of DOT respondentS staied thai CIA was given equal consideration. Almost 60% of MPO respondents stated that CIA wos given equal consideration. This was statistical significant and ambiguous. Ambiguous because only Z2'l(,of MPOs contacted responded to the evaluation. Those who responded were unfamiliar with the regulations and many techniques 53. When outside agencies review your environmental documents, what are typical concerns or comments regarding the community impact assessments? Many respondents stated that they received few comments on CIA issues. When respondents did receive comments, these usually concerned londuse, secondary and cumulative and cultural resource fmpocts. This quotation could characterize the responses, "They generally want to make sure we address concerns brought up by the communities ... msme::s: u ; sa;:mi ,;;;;m ;;w !!Uo:l3 1VSMP?!C!I: 'il!llliiillll'lil'llllii 111 Pi' !'!I'll! 1' i\ ii ::o !"!!" !;! ,.., .. 1 ;: I I Resources 54. lllease lncriCOte with a chedcmark the resources you generally use when conducting community Impact assessments. (Please check al that apply.) % All Respondents % DOTs % MPOs Fodor 63 61 67 lnlemal agen

C OMMUNITY lMPACi ASSESSMENT EVAi.:.JA'nON 55. Pleose indicale with a chedcmar1< if you are familiar with the falowing publications. (Please check all that apply. ) %All Respondonls %DOTs %MPOs -47 43 56 AASHTO. Gvide!ines on Cllizen Porlidpaflon In Tronspotlallcn Planning. 1978 Commitlee on Guidelines a nd Principles. "Guidelines ond Princi p les for Soc:i o llmpoc:t A$$e$Sment : lmpod Asses:stnenl. Vol. 12.. N o 2. 9 7 17 SUmmer 1994. Melhcdology of Scciol /mp( lll:lnV6fllotyof/VghwayKetor8dScciol 28 28 28 /mpnt of Tronspol1alion, FHWA ond FTA. /nn()yafj()ns in PIJblic 36 28 56 !n'IO!vemenl for Transponalion Plonning. Jonoory 199 4 Respondents, on average, were mosl fami l iar wilh the U S Deportment ofTronsporlotion, FHWA, Environmental Policy Slotement. Howeve r seporolely, MPO respondents we r e mosl familiar with !he AASHTO publicofion and !he u.S. Deportment ofTronsportoffon, FHWA and FTA. Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Oecisionmaking. Overall, DOT respondents were more familiar with !he publications !han M P O respondents. 56 Please cite ather you feel are valuable far CIA, inducfmg state or local procedures, guidance etc. Resources mentioned included CorTrons sludies, Maryland Stole Highway Adminislrotion EnVironmental Procedures Manual, WisDOT work, F lorida Project Devel opment an d Environment (PD& Manual. 30


COMMUNITY IMPACT EVALUATION 57. Would you be willing to in o 2().. to 30-minute telephone lnteMew? (N=S8) 47%, One-half of DOT respondents stated they were willing to participate in a telephone in terview. Only 39% of MPO respondents were willing. 58. Please forward o copy of o typical community impact assessment prepared by your orgonizolion. Eleven received. Respondent Information 59. Ale you involved in the NEPA decisionmolcing process? (N=63) 73%, "'Ye$' Nearly 90% of DOT respondents indicated that they were involved in the dedsionmaking process. Only 33% of NJ>O respondents stated they were involved. Most respondents described their role In the NEPA decisionmaklng process as environmental document preparers and reviewers. Many described themselves as environmental section managers or supervisors. 60. Are you involved in doing comnunity impact assessments? (N=62) 56%. "Yes." Only 44% of MPO respondents stated t hat they were involved in doing community impact assessments. More than 60% of DOT respondents stated. "yes." Respondents' roles in doing assessments were wide-ranging Activities including conducting assessments, documentation. working with consultants, and providing input as MPO representaflves. 61. Are you Involved In the MPO process? (N::62) 28%. These respondents described their role as MPO transportation staff. Most of their activities involved work with the transportation improvement plan mP). Some respondents described their work as providing support to the MPO planning section. 31


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION 62. Would you seek to attend orsupportyourC011111Ulily impact assessment specialist's attendonce ato Community Impact Asses-tWorilshop in of1998? CN=59) Seventy-five percent stated, "Yes: There was no significant difference between the two groups, DOTs and MPOs; both seemed willing to support to the workshop . 63. What topical areas or-would you lbto see adcloesred ato OA workshop? The range of topica l areas or concerns suggested by respondents can be divided into roughly two categories, topics related to methods and tools for assessment and those related to regulations. I n the first category, respondents are interested in CIA basics, assessment methods, case stud ies, and "best practices. The second category o f suggested topics r e lates more to understanding of regulations and policies particularly as related to soda equity tribal governments, environmental justice, and litle VIseem to be of significant concern. 64. Whot OA areas would you like to see addressed through resecm:h? Many of the workshop topic themes were repeal e d in these responses However, the themes were more specific. For example historica l or case studies on how the lock of community impact assessment may hove been detrimental to communities. Or assessments of the benefits of one or techniq u e over another two-lone versus four-lone widenings ; raised versus flush medians. 66. Please indicate your gender (opfionoiJ. (N=53) 33%, F ema l e Eighty-one percent of all respondents answered this question. More than 40% of MPO respondents to this que won (78% of all MPO respondents) were female. A little less than 30% percent of DOT respondents were female. !Eighty-three percent of DOT respondents answered this question ) 67. Please incfecate your race or ethnicity (opflfanaol. (N=48) 96%: WhHe of Non-Hispanic Origin Seventy-three percent of all respondents answered this quewon All DOT respondents to this question (78% of DOT themselves as whHe of nonHispanic origin. 32


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Eighty-two percent of MPO respondents to iliis question (60 percent of MPO respondents) Indicat ed white, non-Hispanic origin SUmmary DfResulfs The response rate of 43% seems good for a mail-out evaluation, however, it was anticipated to be higher for the target group. Two factors are thought to contribute to the lower than expect response. The 148 evaluation recipients were 67 state departments of transporta1ion representatives and 81 metropolitan planning organization transportation planners The data source for the DOTs provided names. Names were not provided, for the most part, for MPO representatives. In the follow-up telephone calls, some recipients stated that they did not receive the form before the deadline. The second factor related to the release date of the form. Some recipients may have been busy with the December-January holidays. Familiarity with Commtmify lmpad Assessment: A Qu;ck Reletence for Tftii7SPOflalion Booklet More than two-thirds of the respondents have a copy of the booklet and find it useful. From the comments, the booklet serves its purpose as a "quick reference." Respondents were less thon neutral on the effect of the booklet. The booklet may not be widely distributed within organiza1ions. There i s some indica1ion that in some organizations It may have been shared only with management, NEPA practitioners. or passed around, then shelved. The booklet made a difference in the way organizations study or address impacts as related to communHies, neighborhoods, and public Involvement. The barriers, in order, were lack of staff to Implement, lack of expertise, and resistance to change: Areas where the booklet made a difference included : Increased consideration of community impacts in decisionrnaking and public Input Where in the process community impacts are considered; and Instructions to contractors or consultants Community Impact Assessmeni: The Process in Organizations The activities to promote CIA considerations generajly fell into twa categories. One, provide additional training, resource materiel, and policy and technical guidance. Two, provide legislative mandates or policies. Some respondents were unsure if any change had occurred in their organizations Other respondents Indicated the benefits to CIA relate back to working with communities, neighborhoods, and the pubnc. The individual activities Included increased public involvement, increased awareness of communlty Issues, and more Incorporation of enVironmental justice guidelines. The impact on the organizations has been a heightened avvareness of 33


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION community issues. There were severo! ways that public involvement was used in the decisionmaking process "plain plan public focus groups; and public advisory commiffees IPACs). Public involvement seems familiar in the MPO process; however, the responses to this did not show the variety of applications. Respondents did emphasize early involvement in the planning process. CIA appears to be used most often as port of NEPA or the public porticipalion process. Respondents were most familiar with: . lntermodol Surface Tronsportooon Efficiency Act (ISTEAI of 1991; National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPAl; Council on Environmental Quality ICEOl Regulooons for NEPA; and Execulive Order IE.O.l 12898 on Environmental 0994). for revising TA 6640 .8A or 23 CfR 771 varied. The most threads related to secondary and cumulative impacts and public involvement. The importance of CIA in organizations fell in the midrange. Its importance either seems to be increasing or is situooonal, e g., importance Increases with project magnitude or if related to an urban area All respondents felt H important to address CIA issues in the project planning and project development process. Eighty-nine percent (89%1 of respondents fek that addressing CIA issues in the MPO process was important The influence of addressing community impacts on orgon lzooons' dedsionmaking also fell in the midrange. This influence seems related to the degree to which fek CIA was Important. It also appeared situationalorganizations being reactve rather than proactve seemed The most frequently used assessment components were: Use of public pamcipoOOn; Definition of project and study area; and Documentation of findings. Defining the Project Many used a definition similar to that found in the booklet. Most respondents fek that communily issues should have a major role in defining the project in early phases. Identifying communities early in the planning phose was important The resources used to idenmy the project study area were broad and seemed to include several public participation opportunmes. The ronge of responses to the development of a communily profile was from As early as possible" to 'We don't." Elements typically used in developing a communily profile included: 34


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Population and Demographic Components Trends in populat ion growth and demographics; Ethnlclty and race; and Income levels. Economic ond Social History Components Economic bose; Economic trends; Property values; and T oxbase Physical Characteristics Related to Community Activities Existing land-use plans and zoning; Businesses; and Future land-use plans and zoning. Collecting Data Resources typically used to gather community informafion included: Census Bureau publications and statistical abstracts; State and local government planning; and Field or windshield surveys and reviews. Analyzing Community Impacts Elements typically considered when analyzing community impacts included: Negative impacts; Positive Impacts; and Magnitude of public issues and controversies. Issues typically used to identify community impacts included: 35


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Social and Psychological Impacts Changes in Population; Communily Cohesion and Interaction; and Qualily of life. Physical Aspects Sound Intrusions; Aesthetics; and Sorrier Effect. Land Use Compotibilily with plan Oongrange comprehensive, etc .); Land-Use Pallerns; and Farmland Impacts. Economic Conditions Business and Employment Impacts ; Bypass Effects; and Regional and local conditions Mobilily and Access C ircul ation/Traffic Flow; Vehicul ar Access; Bicycle Access; and Pedestrian Access. Provision of Public Services Effect on Public Fodlities ; Effect on Public Services; and Use of Public Facilities. Solely Emergency Response; Pedestrian and Bicycle Solely; and Potential Health Impacts 36


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT NALUATJON Displacement Res!Gential Displacements; Business and For m Displacements; Effect on Neighborhoods ; and Right -of-way Costs. Better than ha l f the respondents indicated that consideration was g iven to how differing impacts relate to each other. Some found this difficutl or impractical. Selecting Analysis Tools The most frequent approaches used to examine the future of the study area w ith the project versus the future without the project were the comparative approach and the comprehensive approach The dimensions typically analyzed included: Direct impacts ; Scale, severity, and extent of the Impact; and Cumulative impacts. The most frequent techniques used to gather information and examine the effects of a project on the community included: Public Participation; Mapping Overlays; and Brainstorming. More than one-fourth of the respondents had projects sunabl e for case studies. Identifying Solutions More than 90% of respondents stated public partic i pation was used to help identify solutions t o adverse impacts. The order of methods used to deal impacts was: Avoidance Minimization Mitigat ion Enhance the community 37


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWAnON Techniques used to avoid, lessen, or mnigole community impacts or enhance the community varied. Changing alignments, bypasses, overpasses were the predo minant avoidance techniques. Community enhancements were developed by working with communities. Almost two-thirds of the respondents stated consideration was given to the effects of mitigation techniques on the community. In the balance community issues against concerns for the natural environment, community issues sometimes lose to regulatory or legislative mandates or economic concerns. Using Public Involvement The usual role of the public in considering community i mpacts included: Identification of alternatives; Identification of avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and enhancement opportunities; Identification of transportation impacts; and Investigation of social, economic, and environmental impacts. The notification activities typically used by organizations included: local newspapers; Radio; and Announcements at town meetings. Most respondents characterized their organiza tion s' c ommunications with the public as -open ." More than three-fourths of the respondents have a copy of the FHWA publication, Public Involvement Techniques for Transportation Oecisionmaking in their departments. The public participation techniques typically used by organizations included: Public meetings; Advisory committees; and Newsletters. The amount of change in public involvement efforts s ince the Executive Order and Department ofT ranspartolion Order on Environmental Justice fell below the midrange level. Some respondents staled there was no need for changes; others were not sure. OocuiTftlliiUiiOo'l Less than 15% o f respondents stated their organizations usually prepare sepa r ate community Impact technical reports. However, 24% of respondents stated separate CIA reports were necessary. Those who responded, "Yes; felt that projects of a certain magnHude or the 38


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT VALUATION extent of local concerns could justify a separate report. More than two-thirds of the respondents stated their organizations generally presented community impact findings in the NEPA document. Eighty-five percent stated community impacts were discussed at public hearings or other public meetings. Nearly 40% of respondents personally prepare text sections on pertinent community topics for inclusion in project planning and development documentation. The CIA information typically appears in the environment and environmental consequences of EA and EIS; however, the range of answers was broad. of the respondents felt CI.A. was giVen equal consideration by their organization in decisionmaking. When outside agencies review organlzatlons' environmental documents, concerns or comments regarding the community impact assessments generally are not expressed. Exceptions would be secondary and cumulative Impacts and land use Issues. -Resources Resources generally used when conducting community impact assessments included: Internal agency experts; Own expertise; and Consunant experts. The most familiar publications were: U .S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Environmental Policy Statement 1990 and 1994; U.S. Department ofTransportation, FHWA and FTA. PubHc Involvement Techniques for TransportaHon Declslonmoldng. Summer 1996; and AASHTO. Gu!deUnes on Citizen Participation in Transportation Planning. 1978. Respondent Information Nearly three-fourths of the respondents were involved in the NEPA dedsionmaking process. More than 60% were involved in doing community impact assessments. Slightly more than one-fourth were involved in the MPO process. More than three-fourths of the respondents would seek to attend or support their community impact assessment specialists' attendance at a Community Impact Assessment Workshop in the fall of 1998. 39


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION OA Workshop Topical Recommendations Current research In CIA related topics; Best techniques to mitigate; .unding techniques; Creaflve and flexlble designs; Environmental jusflce, Tille VI, etc.; Effective ways to address secondary and ind irect impacts; GIS use and census data; Tribal versus nonlribal within reservation boundaries; Small/rural population communities; Development of a clear, step-by-step process acceptable to the FHWA. Short term and long tenn improvements to the CIA and integration of CIA and MPO processes. Suggested OA Research Areos How often does social impacts or CIA change a project as compared to natural systems impacts? Cost/benefit. Does CIA necessarily mean a better long-tenn decision? tJow to get CIA into engineering? Effects of raised medians versus flush medians on business and neighborhoods. Community typology In relation to impacts, long-tenn changes in communities after project, develop regional muhiplies for economics. Before and after research; applied research. Proven and effecflve mitigation methods. General historic data; effects of transportation facilities on communifles both positive and negative effects. How effecflve are CIA requirements and reguloflons. Overall, respondents seem to find material such as the Community lmpad Assessment booklet beneficial The booklet does not appear to be as widely distributed among MPOs as DOTs. Although a sample of 25 percent of the MPOs was selected for evaluation, does not appear that CIA techniques are used as extensively among MPOs, There was considerable difference in responses throughout the eva luation between the DOTs and MPOs. While this may be a funcflon of the survey distribution as discussed eorfier, MPO r espondents in general, vvere less famWar CIA regulations and techniques. This suggests that a greater outreach effort is needed to engage MPO transpartoflon planners in the community impact assessment dialogue, if this approach is to be effective. 40


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION There was substantial support among re5pelidents for more informafion in the form of workshops and research. The delivery of this information is under consideration of the Research Design Team. Some of the proposed mechanisms ore discussed in AppendiX D 41


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Endnotes 1. Committee on Environmental Analysis in Transportation and Task Force on Waste Management in Transportation. Diredol)' of Slate Transportation Agency Environmental Officials. Washington. DC: Transportation Research Board 1997 2. Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations: hHp://narc org/narc/ampo/index.html Trave l Model improvement Program: hHp:l/www. 42


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Appendix A CIA Reseorth Design Team Mr. Larry Anderson Federa l Highwciy Administration Florida Division Office 227 N. Bronaugh Street; Room 2015 Tallahassee, FL32301-2015 Mr. Buddy Cunill Transportation Policy Administrator Florida Department ofTransportation Environmental Management Office 605 suwannee Street, M5 37 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Mr. John F. lsom Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department 10324 Interstate 30 P.O. Bax 2261 Lillie Rock. AR 72209 Mr. Greg King California Department of Transportation CaiTrans-Environmental Program 1120 N. Street, M5 27 Sacramento, CA 95814 Mr. Robert laral/ie Regional Environmental Manager New York State Department ofTransportation Hunters Point Plaza 47-40 21st Street Lang island Cily, NY 11101 43 Mr. Larry Barfield Transportation Policy Administrator florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office 605 Suwannee Street, M5 37 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Mr. C. L. Irwin Manager Florida Department of Transportation Environmental Management Office 605 SUWannee Street. M5 37 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Mr. Orlando Jamandre, Jr. Texas Deportment of Transportation Environmental Affairs DiVision 125 East lllh street Austin, TX 78701 Ms. Brenda C. Kragh Federal Highway Administration Office of EnVironmental Planning 400 7th Street SW, HEP-30 Washington, DC 20590 Ms. Judy Lindsey-Foster Maine Department of Transportation Office of Environmental Studies Transportation Building Child Street 16 State House Station Augusta, ME. 04333-0016.


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Mr. Jose-Luis Meso Metropoliton Planning OrganiZation Secretariat Metropolitan Dade County Stephen P. Clark Center 111 North First Street Suite 910 M i ami, FL 33128 . Ms. Barbaro Stevens Illinois Deportment of Bureau of Design and Environment 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Room 330 Springfield, IL 62764 CUTRS1aff: Ms. Stacy Jackson Burgess Research Assistant Center for Urban University of South Florida 4202 E. l'owler Ave, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620.5375 Ms. Beverly G. Word Deputy Director Center for Urban Transportation University of South Aorido 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUT 100 Tampa, FL 33620 44 Mr. Donald Sporklin Maryland Stole Highway Administration Project Planning Division -Environmental Planning 707 North Colvert Street MS C-301 MD 21201 Mr. Terrence A. Taylor Administrative Assistant II Metropolitan Dade County MP 0 Stephen P. Clark Center 111 North First Street Suite 910 Miami FL 33 128 Mr. Edward Mierzejewski Ph. D. Deputy Director Center for Urban Transportation University of South Florida 4202 E. Fowler Ave, CUTlOO Tampa, FL 33620.5375 Ms. Williams Senior Research Assodote Center for Urban Transportation University of South Florida 4202 E Fowler Ave CUT 100 Tempo, FL 33620-5375


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION AppendixB Poslcoid and Evaluation Dear Colleague: The center for Urban Tronsportafion Research (CUTRI I s conduc1ing a Communi ly lmpoc1 Assessmen l Evolualion on behalf o t lhe FHWA Office at Environment and P looning. Wilhin the next two weeks. yw will f'eceiVe on evaluation form requesting information on your knowledge and use of Community lmpac1 Assessment techniques. Your respooses w i ll be used 1o assess Jhe use of Communily lmpoc1 Assessment: A Quick Reference for Troi'ISportation. a booklet dO\Ieloped by lhe Federal Highway Adminislrol lon. and the lechniques described in Jhe bookie!. The responses also wiD help us J o determine training and olher Community lmpad Assessment n eeds Your Input Is very lmponon t aM v.\11 be kept sl ric1i y conlldenlioi. H yw leeilhal lhis form should be addressed t o anolher person. please provide lhe a ppropr ial e person's name. tille, department. address. and phone number t o me at the reiUm address shown on lhe reverse side; fax. 813.974.5168; or e-mail. lhonk yov, .in odvonce, for your time and cooperoffon. Sincerely. BevefiyG.Word Depuly Director. EJS .Reminder Poslalrd Dear Colleague: The Center for Urban Tronsportaljpn Research ICUTRI is conducting a Communi ly lmpac1 Assessmenl EvaiuaHon on behaH o f Jhe FHWA Ofllce of Environment and Planning. lasl week. yw should have receNed the evaluation form reques11ng lnforrnalion on how communily impac1 assessments are done in your o r gan ization. I t you have compleled and reiUrned lhe form. lhank you lor your inpul. ff yw have nol. please do so. H you need another copy of lhe form or have questions. please conl act me at 813.974.9773: fax. 813.974.5168: o r e-mail. ward@culr Thank you for your assislonce Sincerely. Beverly G. Word Depuly Director. ETS 45


Please complete the following form, providing information on your use of Community lmpad Assessment: A Quick Reference for Transpotta#onBook1et and knowledge of community impact assessment (CIA) techniques. Your response is important. Please indicttfe the /egislalion, pn1dices, or fedlniques you Cll17fll7fly use. All responses will be kept strictly confidential. The information will be used to assess the use of Community lmpad Assessment A Quick Reference for Transportation. a boolclet developed by the Federal Highway Familiarity with Ct1ITimiJIIIfy /mpf A QJidc 64. Do you hove a copy of the Cl>mmvnlly lmpad Assessment. A Oukk Refetence for Tronsporlalion bool 1 2 3 4 S < Very useful Please explain. 3. Please rank the extent to wh ich the OA Quick Reference booklet has affected the my you condoc! assessments. (Please cirde your response.) None > 1 2 3 4 S < Verymuch Please explain. 4. Please Indicate how widely the booklet is distributed i n your deportment IP!eose cirde your response.) Not 01 all > 1 2 3 4 S < Very widely Comments? S On reflection, has the CIA Quick Reference booklet mode o difference i n the woy yovr orgonizotion studies or addresses impacts of proposed transporto11on proiects on ... ? !Please check olllh01 app ly.! 0 Businesses 0 Community Facilities 0 Communities 0 Neighborhoods 0 People 0 Public Involvement 0 Other IPleose specify .) 6 If the CIA Quick Reference booklet has not mode a difference i n your organization's operations, what ore the bom..-s? IPieose check ollth01 apply.) 0 lock of expertise 0 Lock of interest 0 Lack of staff to i mplement o lack of support 0 Resistance to change o Other (Please specify.) 7. OA Quick Reference booklet has mode a difference in your organization's oper011on, please indic01e the areas. IPieose check oil that apply.) 0 Identification of areas to be in duded in the assessment process 0 Increased considerat i on of community imp acts in decisionmoking and public Input 0 Instructions to controdors or consuttonts 0 The amount of data Investigated 0 The amount of information your organization solicits from the publ ic 0 The amount of public involvement 0 The kind of dato investigated 0 The way you do your job 0 The types of informo11on your organization solicits from the publi c 0 Where In the process community impacts ore

COMMUNI1Y1MPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 8 In generd. v.tlOf else con be done to promole CIA consldelementing Na'A CJ tntennodol Surfoce TronspCflotion Efficiency Ad ofl991 0 Notional Environmental P olley Ad ol1969 (NEPAl 0 11tle VI ofthe CM1 Rights Ad of 1964 and rel ated statutes 0 23 USC 10911\1, Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 0 23 aRm. Environmental i mpact and Related Procedures 0987) 0 TA 6640 .8A 09871. Guidance fa< Preparing and Processing Envfronmento( and Section 4111 Doa.menls CJ .xeab.oe Orde< EOJ 12898 on ErMronmenlol Jus!ice 09941 0 Oepar1menl of Transportation Order to Address Environmental Juslice I n Mlna 1 2 3 4 5 < High pria

18. In 'fOUl opinion is a ro address COilVIlUrOiy impocls 0$ poll ollhe projecl development process? 0 Yes 0 No I f you answered 'No: p lease explain 1 9 In your opinion. is Jl. impo 1 2 3 4 S < /IJwoys Comments? -----------------------21. listed below ore lhe assessment components induded i n lhe CIA Quidc Reference bool

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSBSMENi EVALUATION 26. Continued Ph)'$/tX11 Chatr1clefisfia Relafedlo Comnwnily AciMiies 0 Businesses 0 Community/activity centers 0 Community focal points or infonna l meeting places 0 ExiSting land-use plans and zoning 0 Future land-use plans and zoning 0 Infrastructure 0 Housing 0 Planned and future devel opment 0 Pvbli c services facilities 0 ReligioUS centers 0 Spedal areas, histone districts. and porldand s 0 Other IPiease specify.) Colecting Da1a 27. Please indicate w ith a checkmark the resources typically used to gather commu nity Information. (Please check all that opply.l 0 Building-penni! records 0 Census Bureau publicaMns and statistical abstracts 0 Community organizations 0 Consultants 0 Donnelley Directory 0 Dun and Bradstreet databases 0 or windshield surveys and reviews 0 lntesviews and public involvement with businesses, community leaders, and residents 0 Local historical societies a n d Stat e Historic PreseiValion Officer ISHPOl 0 Metropontan Planning Organizations 0 Real estate mali

29. Please i ndieale with o checkmar k !he community issues used by your organizat io n I a i dentify community impacts (continued). 0 Bicy<:le Access 0 Circulolion/Trofflc Row 0 Connectivity between modes 0 Gen er al Accessibility 0 Mobility Barriers o Pedestrian Access 0 Public Tronsporkioon 0 Transit Access 0 Vehicular Access ProrlisiDn of Pllbllr: s.Mt:es 0 Effect on Publ ic Facil ities 0 E ffect on PubliC Services 0 Use of Public Fociilies 0 Use of Public ServiCes Safefy 0 Crime o Emergency Response 0 Pedeslrion and Sicycte Solely 0 Polenijal Heollh Impacts 0 Business and Fomn Displacements 0 Displacemen t of P u blic Facilllles 0 Displacement of Public Servloes 0 E llect on Neighborhoods 0 Effect on papulolions wilh special needs 0 Effect on Schools and Religious lnslilulion s 0 Ellect on !he Ecaoomy 0 Residenllo l Displacements 0 Relacallon Site Avoilobaily 0 Righl a f-wo y Cost s 0 Tille VI of the Civil Rights Act o f 1964 an d reloled slalules 30. Do ,.,... examine how adfering impocts relate ro eoct> other? 0 Yes 0 No Please explain so 31. Please Indicate wilh a checkmark lhe approaches used to examine !he Mure of lhe s1udy area wilh !he project vepllon of impacts !real or imagined) 0 Reversibility of !he impact 0 Scale, severity, and ex1en1 of !he impact 0 Olher O'leose specify.! 33. Please in dicole wilh a c heckmar k the tech niques used to golher lnfomnollon and examine !he effects o f a p roject on !he community. 0 Broins10fming 0 Comparisons 0 Delphi Techniques o Expert Consuttollon 0 GeographiC lnfomnatlon Systems iGtSJIDotabonks 0 Wide Web 0 Mapping 0ve00ys 0 Mol1<.el Reseon:fl 0 Peer Review o Public Portieipalio n 0 Staffstical Analysis 0 Vlsuallmaging 0 Other !Please specify. ) 34. Do you hove pro[ecls !hot others mlght6nd useful as case s1udles or good examples of communlly i mpact assessment? o Yes o No


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATIO N lc:lenllfying Solutions 35. Do you use pubic parficipa1ion to help solutillllS to adverse impads? 0 Yes 0 No 36. If !here ore odve 1 2 3 4 5 < Greol change P lease e>cploln.


46. your orgonizafion utUOIIy prepam separate communily impact technical reports? 0 Yes 0 No 47. In your opinion are separate CIA reports necessary? 0 Yes 0 No 48 Does your organization general l y present communily Impact flndings In the NEPA document? 0 Yes 0 No 49 Ate comrnunily impacts discussed at public hearings 0< olhet pubfoc meetings? 0 Yes 0 NO Please explain. 50 Do you personally prepam tex1 sections on pertinent ComtnWlily topics for inclusion in projed planning and development documentation? 0 Yes 0 NO 51. Where does CIA inlormooon f'/PCOIY appear in the project planning and development document? _____ .. _ _______ ... ,_, _ 52. In your opinion. is CIA given equal consideration by your orgonizo1ion in decisionmaking as othQr foclonef$. Vol. Ill: Jrwenrory of Highway Refcled Social Impacts. F'tnol Report. June 1982. 0 U.S. Department ofTronsportotion, fHWA and FTA. lnnowliotls in PUblic involvement lor Tronsportalfcn Planning. January 1994.


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSfSSMENT EI/AWAnON 56. Please cite o1her reso11rces you feel ore valuable for CIA. including slale or local procedures, guidance, etc. !Please provide copies.l 57. Would you be willing to participate i n a 20 to 30-mlnute te4ephone inlerview? o Yes .0 No 58. Please forward a copy of a 1ypicol community Impact assessment prepared by your organization. Respondent Information 59. Ate you involved in 1he NEPA delcislonmoking process? o Yes o No If yes, in what capacity? 60. Are you involved i n d o i ng community Impact assessments? 0 Yes 0 No If yes, i n what capacitY? 61. Are you Involved in the MPO process? 0 Yes 0 No rt yes, in what capacitY? 62. Would you seek t o offend or support your community i mpact assessment speciol isfs attendance at o Community I mpact Assessment Workshop in 1he foil of 1998? 0 Yes 0 No 63 What topical areas or concerns wou l d you fike to see addressed at o QA worksh op? 64 What CIA areas woul d you l ike to see addressed through research? 65. Please give your name, address, and position or attach your business cord (oplionoll. 66. Please ind icate your gender lopllonoll. 0 Female 0 Mole 67. Please indicate your race or e1hniclty (optional). 0 American Ind ian o r Alaskan Native 0 Asian or Pacific Islander 0 Black of Hispanic Origin 0 Black of Non-Hispanic Origin 0 Hispanic 0 White of Nor>-Hispani c Origin 0 01her race/e1hnicity !Please specify.) Thonk you for participating in flis If you hove any quasHons. piQose di9CI 1\em 10 Word, tente r lor Urban TronsporlcdiOn ReSIQOf'Ch. University ofSOu'fl Rorido. 4202 East FoW.Er CUT 1 00, Tampa. FL Telephone: 813.974.9773. E41l0il: -return 1f>e SUNe)' in the enclosed self-odd......t ...... _mail to Stacy-Urban Tnmspot1alion _d, UniYet>ily ofSoulll llorida, 11202 E:.""""'' A-CUTlOO, Tompo, FLS3620-$375 ; or""' 1Q Stacy .lod

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMEI'Ii EVALUATION AppendixC OA Evaluation Comments and Explanations 2. Please rank the usefulness of the Quick Reference booklet. Please explain. Needs more "how to: has provided a platform to "legit imize" community impacts within the project analysis. I think it has the potential t o be more useful if it is introduced to those who do CIA. The booklet was o useful tool in that ff reminded me of some creative ways to incorporate ideas into planning. was good to see an easy and quick to read guideline for engineers. is a good refresher and a good example for consultants preparing the socioeconomic portion of Phase 1 documents for the district I believe your use of "impact'' i s misleading. A bener term would be "issue(s)." The overuse of impact" is o strain. Only current t h inking on this subject that has been provided to districts. It would be very useful ij we used ff, but it has been he lpful in starting a discussion about CIAs. CIA handled by socioeconomic specialist with background in community sociology. Gives a good overview of process but doesn't give applied details. The methodology is sound and should lacilnate the analyses of impacts to communnies. i t reinforces our approach to assess ing community impacts Goad reference, but I'd like to think we ore already working on most of these. Very good layout of involvement with o community as well of assessment for a particular project 54



C:OMMUNrrt iMPACT ASSESSh,EI\11' EVALUATlON We have very few projects of the magnitude that would require the use of this guide; very few opportunities to encounter environmental justice issues. Maybe. Few state h ighway projects involve communi1y impact issues. Those that do ore generally construction related and temporary. Expect usefulness to increase as we develop on internal policy on Community Impacts! Environmental Justice and Tnle VI. 3. Please rank the extent to whid1 the CIA Quick Reference booklet has affected the way you conduct ussessmen1s. Please explain. Have used many of the techniques before. We hove changed our way of approaching communi1y impact assessment and public portidpotion More of on emphasis o n communi1y themes and individual components. Reminds us of the right questions to ask. I do not conduct assessments. I utilize some the input gathering techniques and issues to consider when reviewing environmental documents The Quick Reference Guide has not affected the way we conduct assessments. Support of existing procedures. Has been provided to for major projects. We currently do not use it when conducting assessments. MODOT is already conducting CIA for projects. Generated the development of o CIA program to cause methods and techniques to apply the principles of CIA assessment. Extensive use of the booklet has not been mode by my office. 56


. COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION We haven't done one since rei:eiVilig. Montano uses mosffy CEs. But. the Issues of community stability ond sense of place ore olive In Montano and any help Is oppredoted. Has been used as basis for forthcoming deportment environmental justice guidelines. Has influenced our process, but has not been Instituted as laid out in the booklet so for IW>re of on emphasis on community than its individual comments. Reminds us of the right questions to ask. We did most of these steps previously.This Is just a reminder o1 what we already knew. Use some kind of public involvement. Also, participated In on FOOT statewide task team. This, plus the booklet. has changed my overall awareness of CIA needs. We hove not yet implemented any changes. The Quick Reference Guide has not offected the way we conduct assessments. Support of existing procedures. As in Question 2, most of the Issues were already being considered as a port of the NEPA process. A valuable tool that provides on outline for the assessment process. Again, the stole has its own manual tho1 tends to be who1 we ore most familiar with. II prelly much goes along with what I was already doing. Never used the reference so far, but definitely the issues are noted. It does, however, provide good guidance for when we migh1 do CIA in the future. Provided gu idance to potential issues, therefore a reference to ovetSight. lntemol policy in development with the reference book being used as one of the reference mo1eriols/basis for the policy. 57


COMMUNliY IMPACT A5S!SSM ENT EVAW ATIO N 4. Please incfocote how widely the booklet is distributed in your deportment. Comments? Everyone in environmental has access to one. Provided to NEPA practitioners. Distributed to environmental specialists, project managers, upper manageme n t and consultants. Also, presentations were given to summarize contents. It was distributed to each of our district offices {8). A copy was routed around for all to see. location studies staff. After reviewing n for this survey I will be making copies for our land use division. We need more copies! All production and p l anning offices and MPOs. I hove seen the booklet in other offices, but I hove no knowledge of extent of distribution. I [ ranked) all 3s so for, but that is how it goes. The booldet hos gone out to most administrators and to most In environmental services. Not sure. Distributed to oil staff in work unn environment management office provided to consultants with current involvement. Not sure of distribution In other departments. It is used i n our NEPA training materials and all our districts. Deportment wide distribution is unknown District Six has one photocopy of the guide in the Env ironmental Studies Unit. Only one or two people sow it Umited to distribution I n environmental section. A notice was p laced in our statewide environmental newsleHer. Many requests come in and copies were sent out from HQ in Socromento to any planners that requested the booldet. 58


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Wi!hin environmental, not in design. Remained In o library as one ofthe references. All district environmental planners hove o copy as well as headquarters personnel. Consultonls/Controctors through our spring APC conference, total 40 to 50. All Bureau staff and all district environmental staff. Total, 40. 5. On reflection, has the CIA Quick Refereltc:e booklet mode a dlffetence In the way your organization studies or addresses impacts of proposed transportation projects on . ? Other I do not think H has been institutionalized. Not a ble to determine. Already conducting CIA. The booklet opened program development to address all the foregoing. Although the booklet has not been used, Hs prindples hove been in fulfilling NEPA requirements. Increased awareness of the concept. Beginning to. Environmental Justice. Not yet. Not able to determine. None to dote. None. Not sure, may be too early to tell . 59


COMMUNITY lMPAC!' ASSESSMENT EVA!.UAi!CN Irs made it easier Ia explain to Hopefully we were already doing most of these. Regional projects. 6. If the CIA Quick booklet has not made a differenc:e in your organization's operations, what are the barriers? Other We feel we ore adequately addressing community impacts. Never allempted to assess. No barriers, know how already. lack of knowledge of the booklet itself but not lack of knowledge of its principles. lack of the concept "community." This is how-to, a resource-based state. Do not have CIA specialists in the way they are described in the booklet. Not applicable Would rather say "not makes a measurable difference." Content o f booklet. lack of opportunity to implement (need projects of certain magnitude} or lack of awareness. Only applicable to big jobs. Minimal urban projects at this fime. Again, just repeats what we already do. Hasn't seen the need. Doesn't fit our organizafion. We are more flexible. Already implemented D hope}. Was treated as just one mare manual but this survey helped! 60


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION L ock of impacts or concerns lnlernal policy development 7 If ffle OA Quick Reference booklet hos mode a difference in your organization's operation, please incfiCale the areas. Other I think this is where it would be the most useful I t is a good checklist I envision tho!" will be used as a guide for our consuftants for future projects. the booklet is a good reference for all Items listed We have a comprehensive public involvement process handbook we follow already. 8. In what else con be done to promote CIA consideration? Legislative action. increased educational opportunities for CIA methodologies. Inclusion in A-IWA Policy statements; FHWA and instate training efforts; FHWA course in CIA to replace old social and economic considerations course. We need a clear message from our region office that this Is expected. Recognition (award programs with honorable mentions). Training for district personnel or consultants. Wider distribution of the handouts seminars, workshops, etc. Mandates! More emphasis by review agencies and public demand. Continue the big change In the department from engineering to people/places Clear guidance, good assessment methods and training, Integration of CIA principles between system planning, project developme(lt and operations. 61


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Emphasis in DOT environmental regulations (e.g., 23 CFR 7711 Don't In Montano lhe concept of community was linked to growth and development. Community character and values hove only recently been brought to lhe table os issues. Training. Incorporate in environment document guidelines. FHWA support. More realism in determining when and to what extent H should be used. Short video for either technical staff and/or elected officials. We feel comfortable wHh our program. Conftnued awareness training emphasis on CIA needs. The DOTs need to remain sensitive to opinions of the public; be infonned and be informative We ore trying to create a CIA team from existing positions. They will develop the process and tools as they do actual analysis. Should be port of stondord scope of service for consuHont work. Threat of losing funding. In our state, even engineers understand 1he economic/socia l importance of highways. Unsure. More public involvement across all departments. Moil !he reference along wHh the survey and probably a follow-up letter; o brief by federal officials to policy committee might help at 1he MPO level. CIA issues ore more pertinent in populated areas where socioeconomic impacts ore mofe likely to occur and ore more difficuH to ovoid. Unit to FHWA Tll1e VI mandates. Incorporate T111e VI and Environmental Jusftce. 62


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 9. What benefits do you think the community impact assessment (CIA) process con contribute to the project planning or development process? "Beef up" the process. If done properly, the balondng of impacts. CIA is required by NEPA but forgotten by mony. Cl should be considered during ahernative development, purpose, and new preparations. If done-this way impacts should be minimized. Improved and more "informed" decisionmaking; improve consideration of "special populations; balanced goals and impacts. Improve understanding of communities and their understanding of our processes. I don't think H would contribute. Our MPO already has several management systems in place fhat deal with these sorts of issues. A greater emphasis on interaction with fhe affected community. should enhance communicafion. Comprehensive planning things to consider. Background/refreshment. Unknown. Helps to identify community impocts so that they can be addressed. Opens dialog with community. Only current thinking on this subject that has been provided to districts. By the flme the projects gel to our level (regional) CIA could have eliminated implementation barriers and anger by the public . Beller design of projects to fH into communities rather than communities having to fit around roads. A good guide. Better issue identification, better decisions; less controversy, improved public relations. better communicalion and problem solving. Critical to obtain local support for project. Particularly helpful in analyzing alternatives. 63


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Improved projects and acceptance of DOT mission. Better understanding of environmental process. Gets in touch with what the people core about and wont before we decide what we ore going to do. lmpro'led and more informed Improved of special populooons"; balance goals and impacts. -Concerns surface early in the process. Serves as guidance to cooperation with local governments. Clarify issues for use in documents. Gathers public interest and Input. Helps formolize project need. A more clear understanding of impacts and a process by which to include the assessment of such impacts. Assist in reading consensus. Provide information on processlatest information Early consensus. less impact on human environment. controversy Enhance; involve the public more fully. Cansiderooon of community impacts becomes more by using the CIA booklet. Those effective public involvement-resulting in projects that better seiVe community needs. II may provide on early screen/warning of need for on environmental review. As on MPO. we have a long-range perspective. not at community level. The Community Impact Assessment process is a benefit to project planning and development because n forces the planner to examine populotlons that may be affected by a project. Real data is collected and displayed and decisions ore mode based on that inforffiOOon. The level of detail that is obtained is superior to that which on individual. even if they ore familiar wnh an area. con contribute toward the decision making process. Will provide project legitimacy wnh community. 64


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Bolance for project purpose and need. Few to none. Beller communication with public. Very little. Identify potential problems before they become too costly in fime and money. r>rovides addifional data documentation to substantiate claims and recommendations. Better decisionmoking {and dedsions supported by the community); also stakeholders will feel more attachment to the projects that are designed with community input. Helps us to choose the best alternative and plan for problems we can't avoid. Help to .avoid some issues that might not be identified unftl the public input stages. Awareness, break up "depthy" issues, documentation. Con help as achieve community consensus in a logical manner Flag problems early in process and set stage for better planning Objective needs analysis of transportation infrastructure needs In community. ReduCtion of controversy and better understanding of local issues. Clearly defined steps. Identification of issues to involve the public in. 10. What steps have you token in your organization to influence conside.alion of community impads during the decisionmaking process? Emphasize soda! impacts. Minimizing community impacts are considered and included in purpose and need statements and mapped to the best of our ability prior t o corridor idenfification. Environmental awareness video and training; improved reporting in .CIA. reports and environmental documents; distribufion of CIA handbook; CIA overviews for new employees; periodic in-house training for employees and consultants. 65


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Implement community involvement, landscaping commitmenls and t raining of sloff. Development of Blueprint has set several slon d ords thai Influence decisionmoking when dealing with community impacts. A grea ter emphasis on secondary impacts of a pro j ect i s stressed. Pose issues to engineers so they con contemplate the issues and Incorporate into design. Nothing different Always hove been considered. Environment a l justice, public involvement We hove a Community Awareness Plan. Has been provided to consuHants for maj or projects. Encourage public invo l vement and community assessment at the local level. More demog r aphic data in environmental documents. Public meetings, discuss ions w"h citizens' committees, press releases and periodic meetings. Socioeconomic specialist on board; Public participation; Environmental justice as a general concept not jusl minorities/low Income; Modified design manual. Established multidisciplinary task team on C I A to identify and evaluate department level of CIA assessment and reco mmend ways t o enhance the assessment proces;;. Eslablished an implementation team of cross-functiona l /interagency parties to implement task team recommendations Our public involvement process is comprehensive and often includes citizen adVisory task forces. Personal emphasis on the need to Involve local polices. None. equal opportunity office; distributed booklet to regions; USDOTs EnVironmental Justice guidelines. 66


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Used GIS to illustrate project locations wiih oVerlays of the percent of minority population by census blockgroup. Environmental awareness Video and training; improved reporting in "CJA reports and environmental documents; distrib ution of CIA handbook; CIA overviews fo r new employees; periodic in-house training for employees and consultants .. We sotrcil views from agencies and public officials. We held public meetings and hearings. No new steps. Public input and studies related to social. economic and environmental effects as appropriate for lhe project. Inclusion of reference in project planning. Incorporation of impacts as part of plan goals. We are trying to do more In this effort, particularly. People not traditionally involved. We have an extensiVe program. Consider CIA needs during consultant/project scope of services review. Management is fully aware of the effect of Jgg; (emphasis original] of public involvement. We are very public involvement aware Have become more consistent wHh consideration of community impacts Beginning the movement toward the CIA team llwo community planning posmons, one computer position, one graphics position!. Usually I am brought into the process after an EA is Initiated We try to have discussions with planning personnel, consultants and local officials to ensure that issues are being addressed. These discussions are usually Informal and occur a t various points throughout project development utilizing Department, consultant and community experts. We also adhere to public .involvement guidelines and try to maintain anopen line of communication with the public by meeting with them and responding to information requests throughout project planning Community outreach efforts, meetings, newsletters, etc. Work through MPO committees that have community-based organizations represented. 67


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION None deportment feel consideration of community impact is adequate. Actively participated in the planning process while constantly preaching about consideration of impacts to communities. We use a land use-based transportation demand model (TRANPLANI and we conduct public meetings. Wrote some articles for our environmental newsleHers; need to do more! Recommending miHgaHon specifically for community Impacts; beHer to find out community impact problems sooner than later Utilize GIS to overlay a variety of data over planned transportation improvem ents. None, so far, stemming out o f this reference. We do have a public involvement plan that is similar to the reference. Consider them as part of NEPA. Provide informa tion to decisionmokers; solicn public input and provide information to public. Active in implementaflon of various transportation plans within our jurisdictions. Included in preliminary environmental evaluofton checklist involving social economic and ecological issues. Public involvement process; Citizen advisory groups; Trained facilnator used. AHend meetings with neighborhood boards and agencies; Send leHers to affected lan downers/lessees. 11. Based on Question 10, above, what changes hove occurred in your organization? None. I wouldn't say changes, but there is heightened awareness that people are just as important as natural considerations. None yet. Several branches of the transportafton planning process hove developed. The main two 68


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION ore transportation planning and the other is land use planning. Secondary impacts are considered in all EIS and EA, and CE where applicable. Project reports and environmental documents are more comprehensive and in depth The process discussed in Question 10 has been a general practice in District SiX for some time. No changes have occurred recently. None. Improved investigations on major projeCts. Not sure. More sensitivity to community issues, port of the backlash that resutted in Environmental Justice 12898. The construction/planning process has Improved considerably. Things aren't simply done the way they were in the past. Better consideration of people/communities, better mitigation for impacts, fteld engineers more aware of the importance of people/communities. Begun development of a CIA research program to establish CIA methods handbook for practitioner and training course; CIA steering team to integrate a CIA program public involvement design team to develop public involvement throughout agency. Human resources impacts are not short-shrift. More public meeting and workshops. Leadership concerns for support from local public. None. Public involvement more proactive. None to date Open process. Inclusion and consideration of various impacts and methods for dealing with such issues. 69


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSSSMENT EVALUATION Too eorty to left. Awareness Again, implementation opportunities have been l i mited. More oware and have increosed our coverage of community groups etc. More thorough review of documents . Moving of one p o s i ti on, reclassification of another. More effort on economic impacts of projed construction. Engineers who moke transportation decisions ore aware and more sensitive t o the needs of and I mpacts on communities. The deportment is finalizing its comprehensive plan tha t wi ll be used to guide proiecfs bosed on priorities impacts and future esti mated funding levels. A little more public involvement and record keeping of such involvement. None. None (see abov e ) We do most of the things mentioned in the reference and the community is a w are of the issues. More GIS development ; more public Input; more participatio n of decision process conflict-resolution up front. Awareness of issues other than engineering concerns and rood users benefits A much more open process; balance between community issues ant the dominant wenond issues beginning to occur. 12. How has yoor organization US8d pAIIc invol\ement effotts to delet oio1e the impact of proposed projeds on COI'IImJflllies ot cllhlent slages in project deidslonmalcing? Seeping process. W e hove two preengineering "Plain Plan" public mee t ings. The plan d epicts existing conditions with no preconceived solutions. Project adv isory com mittees ore formed with meetings held monthly. On EAIEIS proiecfs the PAC is token on a fieldwolk similar to those held with agencies. This has proven eye-opening for many PAC members 70


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Plan review; solicuation of oral and written comments at various sloges of project development including major inveslmenl sludy IMIS) process; special attention to environmental juSlice (EJ) populations and their views; worl< groups and Issue-specific cllizefl groups. Public involvement issues lead to mitigation commitments. Public comment has become a very i mportant aspect of transportation planning. The transportation improvement plan mPl and the long-range transportation plan (lRTP) have several public meetings during their development. Focus groups in addition to more traditional public information meetings. Use technical/public advisory committees to help project team. Public involvement begins wnh informational meetings that allow the public 'to see the project and comment on n. Their cpmments ore usually sue-specific and personal but also reflect larger-scale communny issues. We then begin to look at small segments of the project and try to 'Ovoid impacts that we may not have perceived as bei!'g significant. This fine-luning occurs throughout the project. Public meetings and a public hearing ore carried out later i n project development. Hopefully, by the later stages in the development process, most public comments have been addressed. Various types of public meetings and worl

COMMLJN.'t'lj'y MP'AC7 ASSESSM iNT EVAUJ A!iON Hove not. Open houses, 1-800 number, websites, local publications in communities used more, public access lV, process more proactive in general than used to be. Yes. Plan Feview; solicnotion of oral and written comments at various stages of project development including the MIS process; special aHention to Environmental Justice populations and their views; work groups and issue specific citizen groups. See 10 above. Seek community input discover community valves, "test" ohernative strategies. Not as extensively as we would like. Two major junctures that tam aware. At the advance plan level, preevaluation and assessment, and at project design. We solid comments and react to appropriate/constructive comments. Yes. PD&E projects routinely incorporate citizen advisory committee meeting citizen advisory committees (CACs) and newsleHers as part of project development. Public involvement tokes place, to the plann ing stage {Planning and Environmental Management Office {PlEMOll, PD&E, and design stages. Workshops and public meetings to inform and get input (but mostly to inform!. Yes, colleagues hove used chareHes and public information meetings Offen the process isn't initiated until after there Is o public outcry. H would be useful to anticipate rather tha n react Have citizens advisory committee and advocacy groups comment to our board on specific projects. Yes! Early mid-project development and final development also at design and construction levels. Yes, we try to see what the market will bear as early as possible. Yes, tiering. Worked through citizen advisory committees. 72


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUAllON Responded to local concerns. We always consider how a highway project will affect the communities. Who benefits/is impacted from every facet possible. By soliciting their views and comments early in the decisionmoking process and by keeping them informed of project progression throughoutthe development process. Yes and we hove our decisionmokers involved as well through the public involvement processes. Developed a citizens advisory group to educate the public and for the public to reciprocate by telling us this preferences. Yes, at project development stage. At planning stage by our council of governments (COG)! SCOOT also uses at corridor identification, design, and right-of-way (ROW) stages. Public meetings ; at a state fair, newsletters, moil outs; periodicals. Yes, we use public open houses and citizen working groups. Input throughout studies. Only from a support perspective, governmental jurisdictions take this role. Prelocotion scoping, coordinate with locals to provide consistency in planning efforts, conduct design hearings, solicit community on preferred oHernoffves Noise walls; pedestrian/school issues; Senior cilizims/minorily housing impacts; Modify transportation project; Adapt alignment. 13. How Is CIA used in the mebopolitan planning process? Don' t know, not port of planning Not applicable in Maine. Identify EJ populations; preliminary determination of impacts associated with potential corridors/alignments; identify feasibility of alternatives for further study; develop compatibility between land use and highway needs. Unknown. 73


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION Through public partlclpotion; public involvement. I don 't know. Not applicable Springfield has District Six's only MPO. They hove not had any recent projects requ iring CIA. Not known. Unknown. Through land use/transportation models and assessments. Also, by inviting public comments during the p l an review phase. We also have general community profiles by counties. Not involved with MPO. To the extent that the socioeconomic special ist has input. Not much; if at all. One of several tools and techniques used by the regional planning commissions in assessing impacts of akernatives. Major out reach to identify issues, before jumping too fast ls not. See Question 10 above. Not consciously used. Solicit input from Interested parties Though the plan process !goals and polices) and In the project development stage. Used as part of NEPA and MIS. Public participolion in the MPO process. MPO recently published infomnatlonal handout regarding their processes. FOOT annual work program public hearings. 74


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION By law and regulation/procedure the public is supposed to be Involved in MPO planning but in actuality I don't know Through public meetings. Not done formally by DOT. Not Some of the MISs have a community focus. Not known. II is not as for as I know other than dismissing large capadty projects with large community impacts Used by area local governments in deciding on plan and project activities; their decisions are represented on the MPO. MPOs use the concepts and have for many years. Not involved with that aspect of n. All the processes mentioned above are usually conducted by staff who keep the Metropolitan Planning Organization representatives informed and involved i n the decisionmaking steps. in a preliminary manner. Rough determination of possible relocations; growth need; economic associations. We ore the MPO. See all other question responses. As a decislonmaking tool and in an informal manner. Part oflRP separate document and in all subdocuments. Similar to Q\Jesllon 12 In Pennsylvania, the metropolitan planning organizations are responsible for this. 14. How is CIA used during project planning and development? Discussion with community leaders 75


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Identify who/what is in project area; what ore impacts; what can be done to avoid/minimize; develop mnigalion; obtain public i nput for more ralional decisionmaking. Public involvement issues lead to mnigotion commitments. Much the same, through public participation ; public involvement. 1 don't know that it is formally used. When we begin a new project, our office can recommend that it be implemented. Not applicable. II is the basis for socioeconomic impact studies. Throughout. To detenn ine impacts to the community. Environmental study process. Depends on each local jurisdiction and the Department of Transportation. A process should be developed before presentation to our planning process. I n NEPA analysis, often affecting design and scope. As part of NEPA-preliminary seeping, impact idenfification, avoidance, mifigation Generally looked at a part of the NEPA p rocess. H is addressed as an element of the full environmental analysis, leading to identification of preferred alternative. Looking back to be sure analysis is on track. I s not. As a tool for the environment phase studies. Open communicalion as appropriate. At the advance plan level and project design. Used throughout 76


COMMUNrTY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Part of planning. Primarily through public involvement. Community facility impact analysis. Opportunity for CIA for social (neighborhood) Impacts have been limited. By utilizing the FOOT's procedures and expanding on them if necessary. As meTrtioned. Varies. We have 12 MISs in !he region . The impacts are considered qualitative to dismiss abernotives that have too much impact. Will be used when an urban project anses. By local governments (not MPO slaff). Community impact has always been considered an important factor in project planning. : -Job access, job potential, safety, social impacts are part of 1he scoping process. As a tool to identify and evaluate impacts and to develop project alternatives. Yes, 1he MPO has es!ablished a public Involvement policy that outlines the involvement and the MPO frequently review the transportation model. To develop public consensus of which abemative is best; to reduce community impacts. To develop a checklist of issues. In accordance wi1h NEPA. Same To identify issues of concern in scoping meeting with citizens, groups and agencies Some involvement if a major investment study is done. 77


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 16. lfFHWA's TA 6640.8A or23 CfR m were revised, what would you do 1o c:hange how CIA is addressed? make more important Address environmental justice and cumulative/secondary impact in more detail; stress balancing natural and community Impacts and concerns; emphasis on public participation Nothing. Most of the management systems in place ore flexible enough to cover most changes. More emphasis on early coordination with local communities. Greater emphasis on CIA in relation to impacts on natural environment Provide policy guidelines. Upgrade it to the issues most evident for 199711998 and beyond as best could be determined I'm sure polices would be changed guiding how we would address CIA. No comment. Address the sociohistoric context of impacted communities, more qualitative assessment of community dimensions. Hove fin] each state a CIA program similar to requirements for public involvement. let states develop own programs and FHWA provide good quality guidance and training. Can't respond. This question Is ambiguous Nothing. Our efforts ore not the resutt of low but because we produce a better product. If changes were mode, strengthen the need for local involvement and support for the decision. Use CIA booklet process as basis for that section of the guidance. Flexibility. Include as a separate discipline. 78


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION None. Place more emphasis especially to use In determining impacts and developing appropriate miligafion Unclear on question. Be more consistent in looking of all the impact categories. Upgrade if to the issues most relevant for 199711998 and beyond as best could be determined. More detail. Update the survey methodologies. Not sure, depends on how if is changed. The CIA should only be a darification of topics In theTA not a sfahdalone document. We have enough rules and regulations. Good iileas on implementation would be most useful. Change only those items necessary to address issues of law and statutes. E ISs are rarely conducted In our region lnonattainmenf) and we are not required by state law to do them. In many cases, the MPO Is more likely to be involved in MIS (fewer requirements). If we had to do more EISs things wou l d change significantly . Add environmental justice component: expand coverage of some of the issue areas !e.g., p r operty value loss) and qualify-of-life issues. . Urge more public Involvement and more on secondary impacts. Make If more specific and comprehensive. Not known. Nothing unless I know what the revision is. Noffamiliar enough to address Bring CIA on par with natural resources concerns. 79


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 17. In your opinion, what level of priority is given to addressing community impacts in your organization? Comments? But pr iority is improving ond being considered earlie r Priority has increased in recent years, due i n part to experiences in certain projectsmore priority though on natural impacts We a r e reactive not proactive. If someone screams, we l isten and if possible, try to satisfy them If an urban project, a higher priority is given fa it. Addressing community impacts is a high priority. Maintaining a strong relationship with the community, and with community officials, i s very important i n our o r ganization. Avoiding impact is key to maintaining these r elationships Because of laws and resources, agencies. natural and cultural resources have been more intensely addressed. H depends on the complexity and impact of the project You can't circle a number t o blanket all projects. District has a l arge urban population and E.O. 12898 concerns. It depends 100% on the project and the location. All projects a r e mode l ed for land use compatibility and air quality effects. We are still hanging onto old ways-engineering emphasis. Depends on district applicat i on and functional area In Montana lack of adequate funding is still the over riding elemen t in DOT decision Have not had the opportunity to address Cl. Priority has increased in recent years, due in part to experiences on certain projectsmore press, though, is on natural impacts. Commensurate with level of potenflallmpact I sense that we want to comply with the law, but that we want to win the public over to our position. 80


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION We are regional MPO nat at community level. Addressing community impacts is a high priority. Maintaining a strong relationship with the community. and with community oftidals, is very important in our organization Avoiding Impacts Is key to maintaining these relaHonshlps. High priority used to avoid altematives with large impacts . Depending on political influence of community Involved. We try t o be sensitive to the adverse impacts a project might have on a community. The political environment is more focused currently on public sentiment than community impacts this should change when the new comprehensive plan is adopted early In 1998. See response to item Question 20. Political expediency determines the level of sensitivity under the current management. When applicable 18. In your opinion, is it Important to address community impocts as part of the project deYelopment process? If you answered "No," Please explain. Of course! I I may take very little to address it or a lot. H depends on the project 19. In your opinion, is it imp< lewd to address community impacts as port at the MPO process? If you answered "No," Please exploln. Need to address to some extent as early as possible. Although I have little direct knowledge of the MPO process. Same comments as Question 18 above. Notto the level thO! you would at project-specific. Very difficult at regloool. long term planning organization, community impact has to be at project level. 81


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Cannot be addressed in any detail as port ofllP process. Local governments address this issue most directly. Make it a "'yes" p lease very i m portant too, smiley I :-)). 20. In youl' opinion, does addressing community Impacts influence your organization's decisionmoking? Comments? Same as 17, when tt causes problems. Future projects ore being assessed different from post. C i s hove become on issue that is considered earlier and as a component of the decisionmoking. To different extents and depending on the project and its particular circumstances--generally there is influence though See comments regarding "reactive versus proactive. I am involved in on urban project tho! has a lot of communily opposition, but the build opnon was snn chosen. Communily needs often drive project development. Therefore as these needs ore addressed, they affect decisionmaking. Also, when avoidable and minimizable impacts are identified in a project they are addressed which affects our decisionmoking. II can. You can't circle a number above as a blanket for all projects. I 'm not sure. Depends on the project, and overall community need. Hard to define communily best interest versus special interest in communlly sometimes. Depends on functional area project development much more than planning. Strange os tt may be, usually CIA does lead to different decisions. and the folks who are concerned about funding usually bock off from their stand. See auesnon 17. To different extents and depending on the project and its particular circumstances. Generally there is influence, though. 82


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Most of the time. II depends on the political environment. Community needs often drive project development. Therefore as these needs are addressed, they affect decision making. Also, when avoidable and minimizable impacts ore idenflfied in a project they are addressed which affects our decision making Only do document impacts once a chosen alternative is to be advanced. Yes, local governments ore concerned. Same comment as Question 17. Often community impacts influence a project decision if it becomes controversial enough; otherwise, it has liHie influence. Yes, but it would be better sooner in the process. We probably do all the Hems as a routine but H would be nice to have a checklist. When applicab l e EPA/COE influence prevails. Occasionally the advisory council for historic preservation prevails. 22. .The CIA Booklet defines community ". in part by behavior patterns which ind'Mduals or groups of individuals hold in common." How does your organization define community? In part by cohesion and homogeneity of residents The same. Boundaries that ore physical, social, ethnic, religious, political, etc., but generally a combination thereof. Irs not formally defined. Much the same way. Usually grouped In demographic areas. We do not have a published definition. By default we think of it as a area. 83


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWAnON An urban ized area withi n city/village limits. Our organization defines community in a simi lar manner True "In part" but also by physical restraints and cultural/ethnic identity. Behavior patterns which individuals or groups hold in common II is also defi ned as sharedperceptions, spatia l relationships and common characteristic or interest. Some as above. In terms of neighborhood, ownerships, interdependence, where citizens take pride in and is involved in his/her community. By p lace, location, population. Think of it as; too vague. We have common transportation interests of residents living within Cosper MPO boundaries, i.e jurisdi ctional boundaries. This, pius a group of people with similar concerns about their local area, geographical/ population center, religiousor culturally-based populations located I n close proximity No offici al definition Similarly. Usually geographic. Montana still has a lot of distance between communities. Values heritage sense of p lace are not yet part of discussion. Tribal activities have moved this process forward, however. Does not. More by politica l /governmental boundaries Not currently defined by our organization i n formal manner. Alaska has a host of non-chartered local governments. In urban areas we define community as the local government area !village, subregion, etc .I. Not applicable Broadly as neighborhood (yes! as well as through a racial or ethic identification 84


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EYAWAOON An area within project area. Above plus or geographical community and/or sense of unity as expressed through community organiZation or leadership. Neighborhoods, community organizations, groups, etc . Much !he some. Usually a vlllage or township. By political subdivision. Both formal-jurisdictions -os well as informal based on population or development duster. n doesn't hove on official definition for community. Neighborhood area. We broaden that definttion to include highway users. Our sense of community holds value to ease of access to the state at large Same. W e have a transportation study area (TPAJ that the MPO has jurisdiction. Otherwise, specific projects hove their community" ore defined at the initial study phases. "Population rooted in one place, where the doily life of each member involves contact With and dependence on other members" (p. 51 of the CAL TRANS Environmental Handbook. V 4, on Community Impact Assessment! By established boundaries until told differently. A community may be identified during the study process [i.e., ethnk, senior housing). General area surrounding each project. The same. No such o simple definition available. On the contrary, the "uncommon ideas are what makes up a community. I think! -. Same definition os A-IWA's. 85


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Spatially. Not defined Use reference defintlion. Developing policy. not defined as yet. 23. In youf opinion, should community issues ploy a major role in defining the project In the -tv phases of project deYelopment? Please explain. I t would save time and money in the long haul. The identification of communtly issues must start at the planning phases of a project and continue throug h scoping and NEPA. This will enhance corridor alternative idenlificcrtion by elimincrting? Important in defining project area and purpose and need. This should occur during development of MPO LRTP and (local government comprehensive planiLGCP. Because the project is for the public benefit and directly affects them. I personally am a sfrong believer in this. I don't know that our organizcrtion believes/acts the same. Projects would address needs of communtly while improving roadway function. Also, less resis!once to overall. Yes. As slated in Question 10, communtly issues play a mojor role in project development. Traffic problems, safety concerns, etc., ore primary reasons roadway improvements occur. Solving those problems is the goal of most projects and is carried through from project inception to completion Maybe. II depends on if their issues will not crecrte on unsafe or poor quoltly project. Reduce potential controversies as project develops. Define issues early. Community i mpacts could and should define the project scope. To avoid simply ram-rodding projects that could adversely affect the area. People/community are what irs all about! 86


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Moreso in planning phase. The "seeping process seeks to identify all issues of relevance to a project, including community concerns. I think it depends on the project maintenance activities-no; Increased capacity and major reconstruction, yes. Outreach on preliminary Improvement schemes is crucial. Important in defining project area and purpose and need. In Alaska, local governments hove veto authority by .statute over state projects. don't approve, we can't construct. Depends on the type of project local, yes. Interstate, maybe no. Community issues should ploy a role but not a mcijor role. At times technical decision may require unsatisfactory action. These actions should be adjusted to reflect the will bul not the integrity. Not clear' what you mean here. Public meetings and surveys. Human environment considerations ore required os ore natural environment considerations under NEPA etc. See Question 12. Yes. os stated in question 20, community issues ploy a major role In project development. Traffic problems, safety concerns, etc. ore primary reasons roadway improvements occur. Solving those problems are the goals of most projects and ore carried through from project Inception to completion. But only required on a major project. local elected officials ore always aware of community issues to this is reflected in the project we choose to pursue/build. To diSfupt a small town's heart and destroy it is against our state's core values. In tile early phases. 87


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Be<:ouse of the MlS requirement. problem-solving ot the "corrido(' level should involve the local populace and the issues that are important to them. II would save fime later if there are conflicts. Develops o common denominator or as to resolving some of the issues. Only In-regard to major acfion and otheiWise applicable projects. 24. What resouR:eS do you use to idel1tify 1he project study area 6.e., during scaping. planning. etl:.)? Onsrre visrrs. lnformafio nal meetings; advisory groups State/federal agency contacts, seeping meetings, project advisory commillees of local representofives. Development of a purpose and need statement can identify resources. Aerial photos; input from politicians. planning and zoning officials; public informational meetings; inventories, land planning reports, focus groups. Judgement. GIS system, aerials, post studies with some general scope. I don't know. This is done by district staff and consukonts. land use/zoning maps Resource maps !forest, pork bike, etc.); Historic resources; Hazardous materials !e.g., leaking underground storage tanks U.USTsl. etc.); leiters to community and interested agencies. Identifying a study area is very pro;ect-spe<:ific. n the project is to improve the geometries of a single intersecfion in the middle of on urban area then the project area is localized around that intersecfion. n the project involves new alignment or adding lanes to an eXisting the project area generally broadens to include communities ot or near the location of the proposed improvement. Existing studies, experts, local dolo, personal communications. 88


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Census. data, traffic data, land uses, etc. Planning usually sets if PD&E may revise. Census dolo, regional MPO, regional planning agency, community development agency. land use, zoning maps, transportation. Studies, maps of the area, traffic counts, congestion statistics. Maps, p roject limits. Depends on the project. Umits of construction, plus effects on surrounding neighborhood. Depending upon project size in seeping, planning, construction. location of project, footprint, type/level of impacts, geographical/economic/social extent of impacts. logical termini, long-range plans; seeping, public Involvement. GIS, imagery, aerial photography/mapping, USGS mapping . Not doing a thorough job yet, but we do a preliminary project field review. But ifs hard data and liHie discussion on values and community Issues. Not applicable. Aerial photos; input from politicians; planning; young officials; public informationa l meetings; inventories; land planning reports; focus groups. Maps, census data, local input and surveys. Program evaluation for state transportation improvement program ISTIPI. then seeping. Area of apparent influence. Census data; knowledge experts. Driving NEPA and surveys. Aerial photos. Feed bock from public involvement activities. Cultural resources surveys. Maifing list, interest groups local govemmentlnput, etc. 89


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION MPO planning history, state historic preservat ion officer (SHPOI. other state agencies Aerials, GIS data sets, information gathered from the local s Our new l y established trans po rtat ion service centers seem to be actually involved in outreach during early project stages; however, thi s hasn' t involved planners yet. l nformafl o nal meeflngs advisory groups. L anduse information, planning department statistics, etc: Mapp ing, other studies in the area, field visits. Local j u risdictions, CACs, MPOs, etc P ublic meeting scoping We define a corr i do r using a secflon of the stale as an econom i c blosys tem: E arly coordination, public i nvolvement MPO. This is usually decided by the two MPO committees. Census data; general plans Rang range p l ans) ; aerial maps; engineering plans Maps; MPO demographic data; G I S lfor one project) ; familiarity wi t h the area GIS buffers O e three miles approximate l y ) Local expert i se; pla nn i ng maps ; transportation maps G I S ; census; city maps; transportationlufllilies maps ; data Seeping; lraffic impact analys is; econom i c impact analysis. G I S existing polrtical or geog r aphic boundaries Meeting with project pamcipants at seeping stage Outside of a hernalive actions, project termini consideration o f impact limrts (e.g. such as traffi c noise) L ogical term ini -transportolion driven 90


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 25. When In project planning and deYelopment, do you begin developing a sunvnary of the hisfory, present conditions, and anticipated future of the communily(ies)? Environmental phase. As early as possible. When the NEPA process data gathering commences. Preliminarily, when the project is potential project or i n early planning; but more so dur i ng scoping and purpose and need phases. We don't do everything listed In Question 26, but collect info during the PD&E study process as part of preparing any necessary conceptual stage and relocation plan In the very Again, this is done by district staff and consuttants. Early on, but after some geometries have been preliminarily identified For EA and E IS, yes. For CE, usually no. One of the first steps. Wit h larger projects, very early in project development. When environmental study begins. We do this at the county and regional level. Early during NEPA process. Preliminary studies, at the beginning wrth general scoplng. Not done formally Varies by project Right now we are not doing this. Not applicable. 91


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION Preliminarily, when the project is o potential project or in early planning; but moves during scoping and purpose and need phases During NEPA documentation. Envir onment phase; seeping. Not asyou describe. Depends on the nature of the project Would not do at all for minor project During NEPA process. I Believe during planning, in developing project need. Data collection phase. Early during NEPA process. Not really done Usually in the EA process. For environmental assessment and environmental impact statements yes, for categorical exclusions, usually no. As early as possible At ea rly environmental documentation phase Initiation of NEPA process. Seeping prospective development. We don't. Preparation of EA. These steps are followed dur ing the project plann ing stages (maj or p rojects} usually conducted by In general. the studies leading to environmental documents !NDs/FONSs and EIRIEISs). 92


COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION At the PSR stage now. Developing data for use in modeling. Cannot answer; not done. I have provided input on several occasions with a lis! of resources. Very eorty. Project "concept and preliminary design stages. No, not really. Some are looked at through public involvement/cultural Resources and cumulatiVe effects. 26. Please indiCate with a chec1crnark the elements typically used In developing a community profile by your organization. Someftmes Indian tribal governments. Only done for major improvements. A must. Public involvement, field investigations, Interview key informants. Trends in economic development. Others as deemed necessary for a specific project. Vehicle use; housing data; % below poverty level; types of employment. Housing: year round, seasonal. recreational. occasionol. vacant, group question etc. Demographic deScriptors of employees (occupations, local wage distribution, etc. Community values-to best knowledge as expressed by community. 93

PAGE 100

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION londuses. Essentials. Relation of project to locate, spatial distribution of community. Demographic description of employees (occupations. social and age distribution. etc.). Perhaps wortdrip characteristics. Employment; students. How economic trends might affect social components. i.e . change of job from form to industrial, or impact of access to jobs. We hove border Issues here. Bike facilities and natural resources. Project re lation to community, spatial use of community. Schools. 27. Pleose indlaJie with a checkmark 1he typically used to gallld' community Information. Other Small and Iorge group public meetings. Michigan Resource Information System !MIRIS). I'm not sure. I don't gather this information myself. State statistical branch. Chamber of commerce, published community. profiles, community webpoges/lntemet, GIS in the future. Business survey. 94

PAGE 101

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION We usually confract major projects. Don't know the process used . Local newspaper (dippings and demographic data). Geologicalsensitive lands, wetlands, agriculture, fauk lines, slope, air quality. 28. Please indicate with a checkmark the elements you typically consider when analyzing commiJhity impacts. Other Secondary and temporary-to best abili1y but can only speculate, not scientific. Respondent placed a question mark(?) next to temporary and long-term impacts. Depends on the projecrs the local communi1y. Traffic disruption during construction. Social impacts of relocation. 29. Please Indicate with a checkmark the community Issues typlcaly used to iden1ify community Impacts. Public input, field investigation, key informant interviews. School boundaries sense of communily. 30. Do you examine how differing Impacts relate to each other? Please explain. Whether impacts are significant or secondary. Some are cleaily related to others, while others are part of aggregation of impacts, which could lead to consideration of secondary and cumulative impacts. Overall, try to balance Impacts, especially with natural considerations, too. Transportafton impacts during improvements and what effect it wiH have on the system as a whole. Our screening worksheets used to assess impacts aid the preporer ih examining this. 95

PAGE 102

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Yes. The process of weighing on e impact against another is one of the more aspects in project development. Legal requirements, design restraints, public opinion and cost ore usually important factors. With different projects, there are often conflicting impacts, i.e., number of relocations versus wenand loss. Local values have same weight but regulations usually determine the value. Look f
PAGE 103

COMMUNfTY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Capacity and ability to meet future transportation needs. Simple landuse maps wlth and wlthout. Meaning not clear Best guess scenario, after all future trends may not follow pru;t historical trends. . Cumulative impacts; known interrelatiOns; community input; biosystems versus human dimensions 32. Please indicate with o checkmark the dimensions typically analyzed. Other Mitigation -Construction duration impacts. 33. Please indicate with a checkmork the 'hichniques used to gather informcrlion and examine the etrec:ts of a pi'Oject on the community. Other Focus groups, public meetings, small citizen work groups. Physical analysis/modeling ... Actually physically visiting community. surveys/field reviews. Public meeting, focus groups, small cifizen workgroups. May be done by consultants or others. Charetfes. Not all on everything but some on all. 97

PAGE 104

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 37. What are -techniques used by your cwganizotion 1o avoid, lessen, or mitigate community impacts or enhance the community? Pedestrian overpasses or underpasses; relocate; displaces in the same area; bicycle paths. etc. Tweaking anemative locations to avoid Cl. I ncrease park lands. Revise or change alignments, changing lypkol sections. seeking design exceptions, aesthetics, community enhancements, etc. Provide landscap ing; provide noise abatement walls. Public participation worlcing sessions. Educate. Sometimes avoiding the whole situation. Work with loca l community leaders/officials to identify what con be done and incorporate to the extent practicable Create geometry and roadway shifts. Isn't minimiza tion and mitigation the same? Avoidance of community impacts is a main goal of any project. n is in the best interest of the Department (and the District! t o do so for economic and public relations reasons. Avoidance generally consists of altemaffve identification and policy deviation li.e., design improvement with a smaller footprint than would've been achieved by following standard design specifications). Scope reduction is considered as long as ij won't jeopardize the purpose and need of the improvement. Minimization or mitigation of impacts Is obviously dependent on the impact. Techniques include those employed while trying to avoid impacts as well as sije-specific measures developed in consuation with publk officials or citizens wijh direct interest in the maner. Such techniques may include establishment of commercial/residential access, noise walls, landscaping, bicycle crossings, etc. Enhancement t echniques include all of the above and informational kiosks, sidewalks, bikeways, etc. I n many instances the transportation Improvement itself serves as a community enhancement. Public involvement. Public input Do not include adversely impact projects in short term plans. 98

PAGE 105

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Reduced lypicol sections; medians ; reduced right-of way Sidewalks, public involvement noise barriers, lights/signs, crosswalks, ear1y buyouts, good preliminary studies to identify, avoid, minimize, mitigate interchange, ramp location. Desi gn modifications, noise walls, aesthetic treatments. Bypasses, "mini-bypasses," spedal aesthetic design elements, l andscaping treatments, noise barriers. Bypass with limed access; add curbs, gutters, crossings. Revise, change alignments, providing bridges, changing lypical sections seeking design exceptions, aesthetics community enhancements, etc. Shift the alignment or kill the project. Complete disclosure wh neighborhoods and local government on issues. Whatever we can think of. Bypasses; noise wells; extensiVe landscaping; pavement selection; HOV lanes; gr e at effort In aesthetics; historic preservation. Probably the first I s avoidance. Shift alignment aesthetics review. Modify, change proposed transportation project. Mitigation of farmland impacts; improvements to projects by using noise walls ; vegetated or constructed visual barriers; improvements to public services lbike lanes, sidewalks, pedestrian cross walk, etc.). Repl acement (i.e. trees) wetlands Short construction durallon versus insensitive to contractors; urban design/landscape treatments Adding visual enhancements. Move alignment change to a road profile requiring less right-of-way (4-lane divided to S-lane undivided with slower speeds). community may hove strong preferences. So, listen! 99

PAGE 106

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Choose altemote routes, add amenHies such as landscaping. Provide land use restrictions that minimize future impacts, etc. Depressing the freeway; creating pedestrian or vehicular overcrosslngs; relocaflng homes and businesses. Noise berms; limited construction hours; landscaping; place project below ground level. Mitigate; lessen; avoid. Visual barriers; noise barriers/beams; landscaping; decorative features; traffi c flow changes. Provide pedestrian and bike facilities, avoid some areas. Match land use and facility systems. Realignment; redesign; sound barriers; landscaping. Pedestrian accesses, bikeways, noise mitigafion, wide shoulders for buggies fAmishl and alignment shifts. Provide landscaping First, community goals, objectives, and issues should be properly evaluated/understood. 39. How does your organization balance community issues against concerns for the natural environment? Natural impacts always come first. We try to minimize impacts to communities but natural environment, I.e., weffands/ floodplains have regulatory statutes that may eliminate any minimization or avoidance opportuntlies. Making sure decisionmakers are aware of all issues, severity and nature of impacts, mtligation, ctlizen and agency input--then careful considerafion and balancing of impacts. doesn't. Education, workshops, presentafions. Natural environment'has typically t aken precedence. 100

PAGE 107

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Coordlnotion with all. This is sometimes a difficun task as communlly Issues may be competing against statutory requirements to protect a resource (and vice versa). Issues have not conflicted on our project. Air qulllily comes first. Many times the natural environment will win over the communily issues. EIS and various plans. Not usually a problem, but water, T&E, etc. are more regulated, thus must be avoided morebut I disagree, irs all about people/communily. Natural environment wins because of strong regulatory laws on natural environment. Through public involvement process, including interaction of public witli natural resource agencies. Try to gel all parties to the table and work out solutions. solutions, we will usually do what we feel is best considering all facts. In past, the natural environment got the focus because specific laws for avoidance dictate choices. More balance now. Making sure decision makers are aware of all issues, severily and nature of Impacts, mitigation citizen and agency Input, then careful consideration and balancing of impacts. We try! In Alaska, we hove o lot of what you would call"natural environmenr except for special categories, communily issues usually prevail over natural issues. But also recognize these are only two of many issues involved in decisions . Speculate t hat in past emphasis has been on natural environment. No projects with conflicting issues yet. Compare impacts, minimize, and compensate for unavoidable. 101

PAGE 108

COMMUNrrY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION We analyze on a per-case basis with promotes given to both community issues and natural environment. We must mitigate environmental inputs. In on urban environment both are highly valued. Leans toward "natu ral side as that is driven by Section 4(f), T&E, etc. Have environmental representatives on citizens and long range plan advisory committees. More weight to community issues. A majority of our citizens (who remember the oil bust! feel you can't feed a family on pretty scenery alone. Access to schools and jobs are higher priority. Usually the public is very concerned about environmental issues. This support usually provides for the emphasis for environmentally sensitive projects in the region They don't seem to be pitted against each other very often, but when push comes to shove, the natural environment wins out because of the regulatory framework and special stale and federal agencies dealing with natural resources. It comes down to resource lavvs vs. the political process. Tille VI and E.O. 12898 l end more support to the community. Work closely with all environmental type groups! General public participation. Not sure of the question, what i s natural environmenr?" Discuss openly and try to achieve consensus. They are often inlelviewed. People ore qune concerned about pursuing the environment. Regulatory mandates, prioritize issues and impacts, judge mitigation feasibility. Badly, the biggest hammer wins. 40. What role does the pub&c ploy in considering community lmpacls? Other On right track and nontechnical perspective !different viewpoints). 102

PAGE 109

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Information gathered through a local point person. Not sure. Used to focus the department on whQI impact is of most concern. 41. Pleaslf indicate with a c:heckmark the nofflication activities typicaly used by your organization. Other Signage on project corridors Moiling lists, mailed announcements, distribution of newslelters, brochures. Properly owner notifications, advance notification packages. Mailings to public. There are probably others that l"m not familiar Letters to interested parties. Indirect mailings to affected or interested persons. Door to door, word of mouth. Message boards . T own offidals' notices; regional planning council {RPC) announcements. Internet. 1-800. Bulk mail to more than 1,200 area citizens. Press releases and internet pasting. Community radio and tv. Internet. Mailings to properly owners Interested pony mailing list. 103

PAGE 110

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Notices to oreo news media. Flyers on every moil box flog list of people who want notification. Letters to i ndividual owners in the study area. We have distributed to flyers to all households in the project area Newsletter; periodic letters. On bases. Mailings -extensive to public officials, religion groups etc. 42. How would you c:haladeriEe your organization's communication with the public ( open)? Somewhat open. Very open We use project advisory committees, public meeftngslheoring, publish project manager names, telephone numbers. Open; frequent opportunities for interacfton. Speck and write in loy terms-nontechnical. Diversity training for employees. Yes. irs open lfs t here not as goad os could be. Fairly open. Open. The Department and the District, try to maintain open communication with the public Very open. Public a l ways welcome. lnf ormooon-oriented versus involved. Open; sometimes not received well. 104

PAGE 111

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Trying to be open-people-orientated Open and informative. Somewhat guarded. Open, two-way, responsive .. Still reserved and not totally open. Vast Improvement every year. Open. but little response. Average. Open, good. Open, flexible, receptive, honest. Good use of CACs and SACs public workshops. Open, but we often do not giVe them what they want. Generally adequate for the particular project. Fairly good for localland owners, but could do better for people owning propet1y in project a reo, but live out-of-state Provide opportunity to public Input. Adequate. More open than in post. Very open and encourages to participate. H depends on project manager and engineer's affitudes; this ranges from very good to very poor. H could be better but it has gotten better over the last 10 years. Good. Amenable, open 105

PAGE 112

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Yes, but more could be done. We hold openformat meetings to facilitate communication 44. Please incfiCGfe with o checlcrnOik the public porticipotion techniques typically used by your orgonlzotion. Other All done in varying degrees for each project. No one specific method(s). It is based on level of impact and project-specific. Ahhough issues are rare. Meetings coordinator with local government. Public notices in newspapers E-mail/website. Transportation booth at county fair and public malls. 45. Has your orgonimtion chonged its pubi'IC inYolvement effolt since the ExecutiYe Order and Deportment of Transportation Order on Environmental Justice? Please explain. Diversity training. Always hied to make sure gels word and has opportunity to comment, but now pay special attention to focusing on targeted groups !go the extra mile). No requirements have driven need to change. As they become more educated about this, the district offices are doing more. Open forum meetings rather than presentations at a microphone. A change has not occurred. However, there is more awareness of the legal obligation for equa l treatment of affected demographic groups. No need. More use of Environmental Justice opportunities with church, etc. Perhaps a bit more emphasis but we hod been following what the order said prior to it. 106

PAGE 113

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION Not sure. More emphasis on being responsive to public; having foreign longuoge speaking folks ot hearings with Iorge foreign populations. Public involvement, scoping, weighffng of Impacts, mitigation oil changed, procedure manuals, NEPA wrHe-up. Expanded public involvement program through all areas of department. Planning through construction. . No. Public involvement is a conffnulng emphasis In project planning ond development. Has not been an issue. Not applicable. But not due to the above. We have a task force worldng on guideline for project development and planning activities atthe present time. Become more consistent in review process. We talk about the need to do it/consider it. We now make sure disable accessible and sign language interpreters, Spanish interpreters ore offered. We have always been sensiffve to the needs of minorities, disabled and elde rly. We review our public policy early H changed significantly In 1994 when the comprehensive planning process was initiated there little change has since been. Irs a little better vvHh more documentation. Not aware of any changes. See answer Question 2. Updated all minomy organizations lists. 107

PAGE 114

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAWATION Indian and Hispanic concerns and involvement efforts conffnued emphasis when applicable. Yes. changes occurred during the some ffmefrome but not In response to on our own initiative-begin prior to issuance of these ijems. 47. In yout opinion are separate CIA reports necessary? If yes, Please explain. Depends on the complexity of the project and actual study a reo. With us, most all info in technical reports is in environmental documents. We prepare too much paperwork now. This CIAR wouldn't cause us to do anything differently. Could depend on mognrude of the project and local concerns. It depends on the project type. Sometimes. no. A basis for decisionmoking and documentation. Only if CIA is major. They ore necessary at the local level. Someftmes for bypass, speciol communities (minority, elderlyl or for extensive impacts. Not if doing a good job. Con be adequately done in NEPA. I con see some logic to hove a separate report, so I might try it in the future. Normally produce separate reports for all discipline areas, so this would be the report for social impact. Wijh us, most oil Information in technique reports is in environmental documents. Someffmes, but not foro typical project. Yes, if project warrants, commensurate wijh potenffollmpoct. Depends on the potennol impact of project on communijy. 108

PAGE 115

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION I t would depend on the project. In some case, yes, but not all. If you mean environmental assessments (EAs) and environmental impact statements, yes. Addressed in NEPA documents. The NEPA document is sufficient. Fpr some projects, especially anything w"h federal funding potential. Usually, as they allow for more intensive. focus than is usually allowed when the materials are merely folded into the environmental document. On a case-by-case basis. If we can afford. Not normally in Alaska. We try to use communey planning and traffic study recommendations in our project development. Somefimes separate economic reports are used. We prepare very few separate reports. Maintain technical files on all. These reports contain a n extensive amount of data that should be contained, evaluated. and summarized. 49. Are community impoets discussed at public hearings or other public meetings? Please explain. In buill-up or urban project areas .. A summary of all impacts is given at hearing and public meelings. We also discuss ROW relocation assistance procedures and Tllle VI considerations. Wlth respect to access, wetlands, floodplains, noise. relocations, etc. Community (or publici is involved in the beginning. 109

PAGE 116

COMMUNil'l' IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUAllON This would depend on types of impocts. Almost always residentia l and business relocation process is discussed. We hold informal public meetings and hearings. Community impacts ore addressed on a person to person basis as issues are raised by attendees. In general. Noise, in particular, is a concern, as well as access. Relocations, affect to community, access, etc. We put them in written material on hold "open house type public hearings. Usually why people are there! Not in detail At citizen advisory task force meetings and pub lic Informational meetings, as well as formed public hearings Again, after filling in lthlsl form, I can see advantage of doing this. If it is on issue, i t is discussed. Not as formal process. When warranted. We hold Informal public meetings and hearings. Community impacts are addressed o n a person-to-person basis as Issues are raised by attendees. Traffic/lone closings Relocations ore an economic impact, access to businesses and schools are discussed. Issues are usually raised by citizens and affected parties. During the environmental public meeting or open house, all tentative impacts including community impacts, are made known Public meetings are well attended. 110

PAGE 117

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUAliON Socioeconomic and ecological impads as opplkoble ore open for discussion of location/design/ environmental hearings and publi c meetings. 51. Where does CIA informcrlion typlcolly oppeor in the project planning ond clevelopment docurnenf? It doesn't. In the ECAD, EA, or EIS. Not for planning documents only for NEPA. Social environment in NEPA documents. In the summary, description of resources in project area, impact section, Section 41fl evaluofion and in comments and response section. In our NEPA and related documents. Most of the fime in an appendix. If crucial, usuaUy where text describes project and public opinion or whatever. In affected environment/environmental consequences. Analysis of existing Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences of EA and EJS. Impact. Conceptual stage relocation plan. Environmental study development In social and economic and land use sections. Sodoeconomic section. EIS: affected environment and consequence section; EA: impact secfion. PrOject purpose and need; affected environment; I mpact ossessment/mHigotion. Introduction. 111

PAGE 118

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION In the NEPA document. Description of existing. Environmental documentation as appropriate. Usually i n a section of either the "Affected Environmenr or Environment Consequence . Social impacts: community cohesion. potential controversy. !Hies VI considerafions relocations. Existing and affected environment sections. Under its own section. Social impacts section of NEPA document. Coordination actually is addressed throughout document. Not applicable Impact section. As port of the alternatives discussions. Social Impacts. economic impacts and/or land use impacts section of report In the public comment and staff analysis sections. In the draft environmental document. Cannot answer. Environmental consequences. We also do secondary and cumulative impact studies for many of our projects. Preliminary environmental evaluaoon. checklist and environmental Impact summary and mitigat ion plan; EA Impacts/ mitigation section appendices; EIS affected environmental. environmental consequences appendices. 112

PAGE 119

COMM'-""'Y IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 52 In your opinion, is OA gi'<'lln equal consideiolion by yow Ol"gCCI1izotto In dedsioumalw19 as offlerfodors fi.e.. natural and physical enWonment) In the project planning and chMIIopment process? Please exploil1. Natural and physical impacts are much more important. But CIA Is becoming more important In dedslonmaldng . Permit conditions con drive communlly Impacts, costs of project and other factors can cause community impacts. Air qualify issues mainly. It may get more consideration in an urban project. Issues are too amBiguous and not scientific. To some degree considero!ion is less but no fault to altempt comprehensiVe solutions. Yes. As stated earlier, community needs ore often the main reason for the tronsportalion improvement. Also, residential and commerdal displacements, public service and facility Impacts, park Impacts, etc., are considered undesirable, if not illegal, and avoided to the extent practicable. Design alternatives must usually be exhausted for such impacts to occur. It is given approx same weight as other Impacts. No project flies if the public is upset by it, and won't allow it wings So we use public involvement. It is situation"specific (project, localionl. depends on the orientation of the distrid Physical and natur al science lypically prevail. To the extent that permitting obstocles con be overcome. Yes and no. Depends on project, not dear-cut answer. Sometimes other factors come into play (e.g., political, safety, etc.) if I had lo pick. rd say no. Natural impacts more vlslble and agencies more concerned with those (environmental resource and permitting agencies). Local government interaction concerns this. Don' t know. 113

PAGE 120

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Based on pas! project experiences. We cannot ignore political pressure. Equal s the path of least resisfance. Some, but not equal." Again we are just initiating a regional plan. Communily impacts were analyzed per project prior to the plan There are far fewer people with education and experience in our agency in the CIA area than with the specialties like biology, and archaeology. But no formal guidelines, I am aware of Soci oeconomics and ecological impacts are addressed consistent with the severity of impact EPAICOE dominate with wetland issues. 53. When outside agencies I1Mew your environmental documents, what are typical c:oncems or comments AlgCIIding the community impact assessments? Usually nothing None. Land use with and without project; cumulative and secondary impacts ; addressed environmental justice concerns. Many review, none comment typically. We prepare Type II CEs that don't have to be reviewed by other agencies except FHWA. Secondary impacts; land use impacts Not in my backyard (NIMBY) comments. The main subjects of comments relate to preservanon of hls!oric, prehistoric or other cultural resources and are forwarded by the Historic Preservation Agency. The FHWA also comments on Section 4!fl issues as appropriate The socioeconomic secnon of the document is usually not heavily commented on 114

PAGE 121

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION Not much usually but some cumulciiive ohd Secondary long term Issues related to lock of planning. Most of the concerns in the past were on natural and cultural resources. CIA has not been "hor for us. Communi1y service dissatisfaction, community isolation. Air quality . Usually not enough details on a consistent basis. ROW, housing for relocation. Relocation; land use changes; noise impacts; increased traffic Comments do not typically come from outside agencies. Very little. EPA has in the lost two years shown concem cind has mode recommendations. Don't get many comments in this area. They generally wont to make sure we address concerns brought up by the communities themselves. Few. Very littl e unless there is controversy. Hove yet to see any outside agency (except cities) comment on any social or economic area. Assuring community impact has been considered. There hos not been much comment on any community impact assessment documentation by outside ogendes Environmental justice, historic districts/ structures. Not much usually but some cumulative and secondary long term issues related to their lock of planning. Making known like projects in the project vicinity. 115

PAGE 122

C OMMU NITY IMPACT ASSESSM ENT EVALUATION Minimal concerns. FHWA, EPA. DEO, local jurisdictions, etc Very lill1e comments ore usually mode. Evidently they consider our discussions sufficient. That no one is disproportionately impacted and all measures to minimize harm are implemented. I om not familiar with any outside reviews during my tenure (one and one-half years}. Are cumulaHve impocts being properly addressed? Are the impacts on the businesses correctly assessed? Are you correctly analyzing the impacts associated with land use changes? Not applicable. Cannot answer; FHWA favorably remarked on our PIP. Normally, we have no comments. Generally favorable Noise impacts/air quality; intermodalism. local government ensures thi s There is usually very little comment on this subject. 56. Please cite other resources you feel are wluoble for CIA. induding state or loCal procedures, guidance, etc. CAL TRANS has some great studies. None. Maryland State Highway Administrooon (MSHAI Environmental Procedures Guidance Manual, 1995 (CIA sectons provided]. None known. 116

PAGE 123

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSfSSMENT EVALUATION Considering cumulative effects, CEO; Indirect and Cumulative Effects Analysis for Project; induced land development, WisDOT. Georgia Deportment of Community Affairs county snapshots. Specialist with knowledge of community, social dimensions of projects. Part l;Chopter 8 PD&E; Part 2, Chapter 9 and 11 PD&E manual [Florida). -Our Deportment of Commerce has a lot of miscellaneous economic data on all areas of our state. Anding the local information sources, e.g., shops, barbers, corner groceries etc. The biggest social impact generally confronted by Idaho Transportation Department (lTD! is traffic noise at 23 CFR 722. The biggest economic issues generally deal with displacement and access control. 59. Are you Involved in the NEPA deicisionmaking proQISS? If yes, in what copacity? Environmental Manager Supervisor NEPA Unit, Environmental Aspects Develop info and analyses used in decisionmoking process. Prepare and approve NEPA documents. Document preparation and review. Manage NEPA teom(s). Supervisor. Project Manager for PD&E. Environmental studies manager. Environment document writer Responsible for socioeconomic section. 117

PAGE 124

COMMUNITY IMPACT Environmental policy development Location committee reports. Administrator of bureau that prepares, or oversees development of. environmental documentation Manage the process. Develop and analysis used i n decisionmoking process. We make initial recommendations, administration has the lost word. Manage environment phose project work. Manager of design section p r eparing documentation. Review and approval process for NEPA does. Environmental manager in PD&E environmental impact review capacity. Document reviewer. Usually I supply traffic and related information to the author of the document. Document preparation and review. NEPAIFHWA section of environment; CAT; IE; CE/EAIEIS/MIS. DOT-review of enVironmental documentation. Senior project manager, environmen tal section. I wrne enVironmental documents. Project management. I review all major EISs the deportment prepares in the social and economic areas. Only advice to management. A key player as "MPO:" 118

PAGE 125

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Regional State of Alaska Environmental section. Manage FHWA. Review final work products. Senior Environmental Planner Technical/manager; for natural resources, socioeconomics and land use, i.e., everything cumulative effects ... from fish/frogs .. 60. Are you involved in doing community Impact assessments? If yes, In what capacity? From one end to the other. Reviewing and conducting. Preparing technical analyses and documentation (or supervise consultants). As port of preparation and approval of NEPA documents. Review and comment and Identification of resources. Document prepara tion and review. Supervisor. Dedsion of consunant word. Writing the descriptions, gathering data. As socioeconomic specialist (preliminary studies, impact identification, mitigation . Policy development and resource. In my capacity as being responsible for NEPA. MPO transportation staff. Supervising. Specific project oversight. NEPA consideration of soda! impacts. 119 #

PAGE 126

COMMUNiTY lMPACT ASS5SMENT Reviewer. Landuse. zoning, future landuse, farm l and impads, socioeconomic. Tangenfially I idenfify trofficrelated issues. Develop scope of servi ces/review resuhs. Preparation of EA. Pro jed scoping Writing socioeconomic lmpad statements. P rojed management/oversight consuhants as primary production staff. Review scopes. I work for studies preferred by consultants, and somefimes wrne the studies themselves. Analyst. Field reviews, oversight etc. AsonMPO When requested by distrids. 61. Are you irwoiYed in 1tle MPO process? If yes, In what c:opaclly? Very indiredly Transportation planner Transportation plans and programs Manager Review documents, suggest data sources, variables to examine Planning does most o f this. I do manage projed NEPA, compliance. We are the MPO. 120

PAGE 127

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION MPO transportation staff. Advisory. Responsible for including In languaQe plan and TIP. Admlnlstraflon and putting projects on ltle TIP. leod administration staff for MPO; staff provides technical assiStant. Senior transportation planner (sole staff to local MPOjust under TMA status -170,000lsh In 90 census). Transportation manager for the MPO. Support the planning section in developing project scope and identifying environmental concerns. Project manager However, we are currently integrate cumulative effects analysis Into this process-:63. What topical areas or concerns would you fike 1o see addressed at a CIA worlcshop? Nuts and boffs hands on you have to get personally involved with the neighborhood or to do 'the job right--census data is ok but upfront involvement is the best. Methodologies; mitigation; rural communities. Discussion of use of best techniques to mitigate, if avoidance isn't practical, community concerns. None comes to mind. Funding techniques; creotive designs and flexible designs; issues to consider; upcoming trends. Standard CIA procedures, environmental justice, Tltle VI, etc. Effective ways to address secondary and indirect impacts. Inclusion of CIA at the local level. 121

PAGE 128

COMMUNITY IMPAC'i EVALUATIO N No comment. Environmental justice; mitigation; level of r-o-w; data at various stages of projed development (footprints versus specific); GIS use; and census dolo. Assessment methods, case studies, roundtable discussions on topics. Secondary and cumulative effeds. Tribal versus nontrlbol within reservation boundaries; small population communities; rural CIA (Montana issues). Current research in CIA related topics, including economic effeds; cum u lative ond secondary impods. General basics of a CIA. Development of a clear, step-by-step process acceptable to the FHWA. Awareness; enhancement. How other states deal with CIA. Socioeconomic impods, environmental justice, cumulative ond secondary impads. Construdion duration impods. What ore MPOs' roles and responsibmties in the CIA process. No opinion, just keep it prodico l for a state agency stropped for money and personnel. General procedures; case studied. Emphasis is on areas around 200,000 in population; smaller areas hove tougher time with politicians and others acknowledging environmental concerns and their financial consequences. Environmental Justice issues (methodologies; social equity issues; public involvement; how to influence the internal decisionmaking process). How to get to the public and get them interested; how to get management interested; more guidance on Environmental Justice. Short-and longterm improvements to the CIA and integration of CIA and MPO processes. 122

PAGE 129

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION The lTD has little control over local land use declslons, many of which create problems after a highway is in place; especially when improvements are proposed. How are such problems best CIA in the transportation design process and In the MPO process enVironmental justice/ Title Vl and the transportation design process; State specific data sources. 64. What CIA areas would yau like to see aclclressed through research? How often does social impacts or CIA change a project as compared with naft!rol systems impacts? Rural CIA techniques. Discussion of use of best techniques to mitigate, if avoidance isn1 practical. Community concerns. Can't think of any. Impact of widening on community cohesion; perception of.dividing community by going from 2-lane to 4-lone. Mltlgotlon possibilities. Cast/benefit. Effects of raised medians versus flush medians on business and neighborhoods. Community typology in relation to impacts, long-term changes In communities after project, develop regional mul!iplies for economics. Before and after research; applied research. Does CIA necessarily mean a better long-term decision? How to get CIA into engineering curricula. New or revised research on effects of bypasses or relocated roads on local busineSs. Proven and effectlve mitigation methods. General historic data;effects of transportation fodlnles on communities -both positlve and negative effects. 123

PAGE 130

COMMUNIT't I M P ACT ASSSSMEN"J' VA L UAT: O N Same as (Question 631 above. Construction durat ion impads What economic 'mitigation is for $1 million; construction for o local community ijobs, income, etc .); How effedive ore CIA requirements and regulations. No opinion. Positlve and negatlve effeds of transportation enhancement projeds on communities. Case studies where Jock of CIA contributed to detrimental projeds/effeds. Follow up studies on projeds' community effeds; more on property value impods in different types of communities. Document pro jed across the community. Synthesis of innovotlve approaches for mitigation community impacts 124

PAGE 131

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION AppendixD CIA Researdl Design Team Action Pion The responsibililies of the Research Design Team included: ThEr development of an action plan and recommendations to FHWA based on the findings of the Address ways to promote incorporation of community valuE! issues and impact assessment methods Into the decision making processes of DOT and MPO programs around the nation. Serve as a steering committee for a Community Impact Assessment National Workshop in 1998; and During the 26 through 27 January 1998, the Design Team began complling a llst of future actions. That list was refined over the next two months with team members stoong that priority should be given to at feast 10 items. The remaining action i tems are also felt to _be important and should be pursued by FHWA in the future. The top 10 action items involve work efforts, however, that should begin within the next 12-to-18 months to advance and promote .ciA iniliooves nationwide. All the action Hems recommended by the Research Design Team are shown in this Appendix The inifial plans for the CIA Nooonal Workshop are shown in the following tentative agenda. The workshop is tentafivefy scheduled for September 1998 in Tampa, Florida. 125

PAGE 132

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION OA Future Actions Research Design Team First Order Priorities 1. FHWA Comprehensive Resource Book: regulations policies, guidance, techn i cal advisories, resource handbooks, and so forth. Include an extensive bibliography of"good, practicar resource malerlal. 2. Training courses sponsored or provided by FHWA. National Highway lns1ilule (NHII, the States, or olher organizations. Courses should be FHWA-endorsed. a. CIA Analysis and Methods b. C1A Process, Procedures, and Regulations that could accompany the resource book; c. Train-lhe-trainer; d General Public Education; e Mitigation techn iques; f. Public Involvement within the CIA Process; g. Consensus Building or Conflict Resolution; h. Topical Area Training; e.g relocatio n, scoping, community cohesion, etc. 3. Develop a National Clearinghouse lhat includes a CIA Practitioners' Nelwork a. The Clearinghouse also would: i. Convene annual/biennial forums or workshops; ii. Develop and maintain an lnlernet presence; iii. Develop and moderate a bulletin board or l istserv er; iv. Provide teleconferences; v. Mainlain a library of resou rce and t raining malelial; vi. Develop a series of question and answer (Q & AI Sheets; vii. Develop videos. b The practitioners would: i. Exchange scopes of work; ii. Provide mentoring to olher states; 111. Provide peer reviews; iv. Nelwork; v Collaborate and cross-lrain; vi. Establish maintain stale-of-lhe-art. 126

PAGE 133

COMMUNf!Y IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION 4 Establish CIA committees in AASHTO, TRB, NARC, and AMPO S Establish methods for and training in assessing: a Secondary and Cumulative b. Landuse Impacts; 6. Link the three processes: NEPA. MPO, and local government planning 7. Inform MPOs and local governments of their roles and respansibilnies for CIA as defined in planning regulations and NEPA. Promote comprehensive planning" based on CIA at the local government level. 8. Develop ways to effect organizat ional change that promotes CIA at all levels of government. 9. Develop a National Program of Applied Research. Research resuHs should suggest policy and practice growth and change areas that benefit programs and communnies. Potential topics include: -a. OA issues: i. construction; II. aesthetic values; iii. traditionaVcultural; IV. community cohesion; v. economic; vi. quality of life; vii. landuse; viii. environmental (air, noise, greens}; b CiVIl Rights; c. Native American issues; d. Relocation issues; e. Growth Management; f. Secondary and Cumulative Impacts; g. Organizational Development; h Community Development; i. Comprehensive Planning; I 3 cPlanning Process, local, MPO, and NEPA. 127

PAGE 134

COMMUNITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUAnaN 10. FHWA Awards Program: special awar ds, recogniflon, g ronls, designations incen t ives, and so forth This should include : a Management and agency personnel involved with the program ; b Communities. Resean:h DeSign Team Actions 1. Integrate C I A other regulatory assessment areas 2 Identify and dissem i nate l nfonnot lo n on best practices: 3 Promote the greening of the agencies : 4 Emphasize ClA in po li cy statements and rev isio ns to regulations. S FHWA staff support to help develo p process. 6 Promote public inVolvement throughout agencies-continuous process. 128 -

PAGE 135

COMMUNnY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION National Community lmpad Assessment Workshop INVITATION ONLY Radisson Riverwalk Hotel 16 and 17 September Tampa,. Florida The workshop Is proposed to provide community analysts a fo('Um to shore their varied knowledge and experiences through Interaction and discussion. This approach is anticipated to encourage networking, a priority of !he Research Design Team. Discussions will be supplemenled by short introductory presentations of topics by panelists. TENT AliVE AGINDA 16 Seplember 1998 Opening Session Session 1-1: Defining the Project: Scope and Need Break Purpose and Need Developing Project Alternatives Issue Identification Screening Question and Answer Period Session 1-2: Developing a Community Profile and Collecting Data The Community Profile Community Goals and Values Data Sources and Primary Uses Question and Answer Period lunch: Keynote Speaker Session 1-3: Facilitated Breakouts or Roundtables with Recommendations Where and when does community Impact assessment begin? What issues need to evaluated? What Is the role of MPOs,local govemments DOTs, FHWA. and others in CIA Process? What is the Scoplng Process and the role of cooperating agencies? 129

PAGE 136

COMMUNllY IMPACT ASSESSMENT EVALUATION Breck Session 1-4: Reports from Session 1-3 EndDfDayl Written Summary 17 September 199 8 Summary of Day 1 Session 11-1: Analyzing Communily lmpods Breck Evaluation o f lmpads Evaluating Disproportionate lmpads Selecting Analysis Tools Question and Answer Period Session 11-2: Identifying Solutions Lunch Addressing lmpads Avoid/Minimize/Mit i gate/Enhance Session 11-3: Facilitated Breakout s or Roundtabl es with Recommendations Break What is the role of Public Involvement? How do you effeduole organizational change for CIA purposes? How do you incorporate communily impod assessment into the dec i sionmaking process? What is the purpose of CIA? Session 11-4: Reports from Session 11-3 Closing Session Summary of Day II Future Adions Based on Recommendations Partidpant Evaluation 130

PAGE 137

COMM I.NTY IMPACI ASSESSMENT EVAlUATION 18 s.plember 1998 aA RB:ltJOith Design Team R e v ie w of C l osing Session R evie w of Action Plan Addltl