8. Regulations, Process, and Leasing Airspace for a Freeway Cap
Highway airspace projects, such as freeway caps, are allowed under federal law and various state laws, subject to significant procedures, restrictions, and requirements. Airspace projects typically require a lease of airspace from the state transportation agency, environmental review and compliance, design review and approval, and construction oversight.
State departments of transportation (SDOTs) are largely responsible for managing highways and related airspace. However, this responsibility is subject to federal regulations if the highway is part of the Interstate Highway System or part of the National Highway System. Additionally, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) oversees the SDOTs in the administration of its regulations and, with respect to interstate highways, is directly involved in the approval process.
Highway cap projects for public purposes are feasible, although most project proponents who have brought a freeway cap project to fruition will attest that the state and federal involvement adds significant cost and time to the project compared to projects on privately owned or municipality owned land. As previously noted, private development in freeway airspace is currently infeasible (with a few notable exceptions) due to a regulation that makes private financing unavailable. This regulation appears to be obsolete and private development appears to hold promise for the future, should the regulatory barrier to private financing be removed.
U.S. Department of Transportation Regulations
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) “supports State and local governments in the design, construction, and maintenance” of the Country’s highway system. The FHWA is an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). Both were created in 1966.
The FHWA has had several predecessors: The Office of Road Inquiry (1893), the Office of Public Roads (1905 – a division of the United States Department of Agriculture), the Bureau of Public Roads (1915), the Public Roads Administration (1939), the Federal Works Agency, and then reverted back to Bureau of Public Roads (1949 – under the Department of Commerce).
Many of the key regulations governing highway airspace projects are found in Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §§ 710.401 – 710.409. The regulations administered by the FHWA allow “airspace leases” over its highways, i.e., interstate highways:
(c) Other use or occupancy. Subject to 23 U.S.C. 111, the temporary or permanent occupancy or use of right-of-way, including air space, for nonhighway purposes and the reservation of subsurface mineral rights within the boundaries of the rights-of-way of Federal-aid highways, may be approved by the Administrator, if he determines that such occupancy, use or reservation is in the public interest and will not impair the highway or interfere with the free and safe flow of traffic thereon.
Final approval from the FHWA is required for any such lease. It also is a “very interested party” in airspace leases over other highways, particularly those that are part of the National Highway System (NHS).
The Interstate Highway System is formally titled The Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways, which was authorized by the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956. The Interstate Highway System is comprised of those routes typically designated with the letter “I” followed by a number. It is a subset of the NHS, which is a system of roads deemed strategic to national interests by the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. In addition to interstate highways, the NHS includes (quoted from NHS website):
- Other Principal Arterials: These are highways in rural and urban areas which provide access between an arterial and a major port, airport, public transportation facility, or other intermodal transportation facility.
- Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET): This is a network of highways which are important to the United States’ strategic defense policy and which provide defense access, continuity, and emergency capabilities for defense purposes.
- Major Strategic Highway Network Connectors: These are highways which provide access between major military installations and highways which are part of the Strategic Highway Network.
- Intermodal Connectors: These highways provide access between major intermodal facilities and the other four subsystems making up the National Highway System. A list of all official NHS Intermodal Connectors is available online.
What is meant by “very interested party” and what that entails for leasing and building in airspace isn’t entirely clear. However, state right of way manuals generally reveal a significant difference in procedure for projects over interstate highways compared to other NHS highways. For example, Chapter 15 of the California Right of Way Manual distinguishes final approval of interstate projects from other highways, stating:
Sites on the Interstate require FHWA approval of the final construction plans, environmental document, and, if necessary, an air quality study.
Regarding leasing, it states:
FHWA approval of airspace leases is required only when the airspace site is located on an Interstate highway. All federal requirements in 23 CFR 710.405 shall be followed.
The California manual includes a summary table of the FHWA approvals necessary for interstate highway airspace:
|FHWA APPROVAL OF AIRSPACE SITES ON THE INTERSTATE REQUIRED FOR:|
|• Conceptual use of an airspace site not in the current inventory. (Requires a narrative describing the use and a location map.)|
|• A change in use (whether new lease, assignment, amendment, etc.).|
|• Preliminary and final approval of the proposed use, including site plans, on any airspace site within the right of way (Includes telecom sites).
Note 1: Preliminary approval not required if only minor improvements (paving, striping, lighting) will be made.
|• Categorical Exemption or Environmental Impact Document of any new lease or a new lessee if the previous Categorical Exemption is over five years.|
|• Air Quality Statement.|
The FHWA contains an online list (with hyper-links) to the online locations of many states’ right of way manuals or guidelines. The applicable state manual or guidelines will be one of the most important resources for any contemplated highway airspace project. The manuals are guides to both the state and federal processes and substantive rules, necessary to gain approval for highway airspace leases and projects. Some states have additional useful materials. For example, the California DOT (Caltrans) is developing a “Freeway Cap Best Practices Guide,” which was still in draft form at the time of this writing.
Allowed Uses in Highway Airspace:
Lease of highway airspace is allowed for a broad range of public and private uses (including parking). However, the FHWA or state agency may reject airspace leases involving unsafe uses, such as the storage of flammable or explosive material, or where the airspace is needed for future operation, maintenance, or expansion of the highway.
Particularly since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York City and on the Pentagon, security is a major concern in all construction in highway airspace. Obtaining an independent safety and security analysis is advisable and may expedite approval of the project.
Fair Market Value
The state transportation agency must determine and receive the fair market value of the airspace at issue, particularly if Federal funds were used to acquire the highway right of way. The state lease revenue must be applied to Federal Title 23 transportation uses, although such application does result in an offsetting credit against the state’s future receipt of such funds.
However, there are exceptions to the requirement that the FHWA or state agency receive fair market value for the airspace. For example, the Colorado Dept. of Transportation (CDOT) Right of Way Manual interprets the federal regulatory language as follows:
CDOT clearly shows that an exception is in the public interest for:
- Social, environmental, or economic purposes;
- Non-proprietary governmental use;
- Or uses under 23 U.S.C. 142(f), Public Transportation;
- Use by public utilities as outlined in 23 CFR, Part 645;
- Railroads may be accommodated in accordance with 23 CFR, Part 646;
- Bikeways and pedestrian walkways in accordance with 23 CFR, Part 652;
- Use for transportation projects eligible for assistance under Title 23 of the United States Code 710.403(d)(5).
The CDOT manual goes on to specify:
With regard to airspace on an Interstate Right of Way, the FHWA may, upon written submission, approve an exception to the FMV requirement if the above criteria are met. The FHWA has delegated approval for less than FMV disposals on noninterstate right of way and property purchased without the use of federal funds to the Property Management Program Manager if the disposal meets with the above criteria.
The Federal Airspace Guidelines contain a number of structural guidelines, a sampling of which include:
- Structural supports must be clear of the shoulders or safety walks but, with FWHA or state agency approval, may be located in the median or “outer separation” if there is sufficient width. Structural supports must not impede visibility or traffic flow, and should allow as much space as feasible on the sides of the highway sufficient clearance to facilitate maintenance and repair work.
- Vertical clearance must be no less than 16 feet 6 inches at any point or whatever the state requirement is plus 6 inches. Where control or directional signs are installed below an overhead structure, the minimum vertical clearance between the soffit of the overhead structure and the highway grade line shall be 20 feet. Exceptions to the signage clearance requirement may be granted on an individual basis.
- Airspace projects must be no longer or wider than will allow natural ventilation. Exceptions may be made when artificial ventilation is provided.
- Design and operation should restrict access by vehicles that might be used for terrorist activities, including the carrying of explosives, e.g., by use of bollards to limit vehicular access.
- Highway alignment may not be altered, either temporarily or permanently. Exceptions may be granted if beneficial to the operation or maintenance of the highway.
Advertising signage is limited to identifying ownership and activity, and will be subject to Federal and local restrictions on signage.
Required Lease Terms
The FHWA Airspace Guidelines set forth the key required lease terms, as follows:
- Provision to prohibit the transfer, assignment, or conveyance of the airspace rights to another party without prior state department of transportation / state highway authority (SDOT/SHA) approval with FHWA concurrence on Interstates.
- Provision to revoke the agreement in the event that the airspace facility ceases to be used or is abandoned, or becomes necessary for highway purposes.
- Provision to revoke the agreement if the terms of the lease are breached and such breach is not corrected within a reasonable length of time after written notice of noncompliance has been given. In the event the agreement is revoked, the SDOT/SHA may request the removal of the facility occupying the airspace. The removal shall be accomplished by the responsible party in a manner prescribed by the SDOT/SHA at no cost to the FHWA. An exception to facility removal is permitted when the improvements revert to the State upon termination of the agreement and the SDOT/SHA chooses to accept them.
- Provision to allow SDOT/SHA and authorized FHWA representatives to enter the airspace facility for the purpose of inspection, maintenance, or reconstruction of the highway facility when necessary. The manner of when and how these inspections are to be made should be specified in the airspace agreement.
- Provision that the facility to occupy the airspace will be maintained so as to assure that the structures and the area within the highway right-of-way boundaries will protect the highway’s safety and appearance, and that such maintenance will cause no unreasonable interference with highway use.
- Provisions assuring that the airspace user will be responsible for any resulting hazardous waste contamination without liability to the SDOT/SHA and FHWA.
- Provisions to assure full understanding that the airspace user will not qualify for relocation benefits under the Uniform Act.
For examples of airspace leases see Appendix I for a copy of the airspace lease for the Kansas City Bartle Hall Convention Center, Appendix J for a California form airspace lease (probably for more mundane projects e.g., cell phone towers and under freeway storage facilities), and Appendix L for an early draft of the complex P3 Presidio Parkway project.
Approval Process / States
The approval process for a freeway cap is administered primarily by the states, i.e., SDOTs. For projects in interstate freeway airspace, the FHWA reserves direct approval authority at key junctures, including final approval.
As previously mentioned, the FHWA contains an online list (with hyper-links) to several states’ right of way manuals or guidelines. The manuals set forth state procedures for contemplated highway airspace projects.
California’s process is instructive. In that state, an airspace project is initiated by submitting a written proposal to the relevant Caltrans (the state’s DOT) district. After an initial review, the project sponsor may conduct a more detailed feasibility study in consultation with Caltrans staff. This study is called the Cap Feasibility Study (CFS), which will look at:
- Transportation Impacts Analysis: Impact on the state’s right of way and transportation infrastructure;
- Regulatory Scoping: Survey of needed approvals and agreements;
- Fatal Flaw Review: Review for engineering infeasibility.
After the CFS, depending on potential impacts to transportation facilities or plans, the project is then routed into one of two processes. If Caltrans determines there are no potential impacts, then the project is routed into a “Simplified Process for Caltrans Review and Oversight.” If, however the agency determines there may be potential impacts, then the project is routed to its “Typical Caltrans Process per Development Procedures Manual (PDPM).”
The simplified process, also referred to by Caltrans as the “Cap Oversight Process” (COP) can be conducted either by the project sponsor’s consultant in coordination with Caltrans’s Intergovernmental Review unit (IGR) or by Caltrans staff on a cost recovery basis (i.e. project sponsor is billed). The COP consists of the following stages:
- Environmental Evaluation: Distinguished from environmental review of the full project (under CEQA – California’s environmental review law), this evaluation considers only environmental impacts within the ROW. Caltrans uses its Standard Environmental Reference (SER).
- Preliminary Design Review.
- Agreements: Airspace Lease and Maintenance Agreements are negotiated and signed.
- Encroachment Permit: Caltrans entitlement of project comes in the form of an encroachment permit, which it grants only after finalization of design specifications, environmental evaluation, staging and traffic plans, airspace lease, and maintenance agreement.
- Construction Oversight: Before construction, project sponsor and Caltrans must enter a construction oversight agreement. Caltrans will perform inspections to insure compliance with approved plans and the project sponsor must submit all planned construction activities to Caltrans for review concerning impact on traffic, including staging plans, traffic plans, and schedules.
The full process, also referred to by Caltrans as the “Transportation Project Process” is the process set forth in its Project Development Procedure Manual (PDPM) for “for developing State highway improvement projects.” It is triggered if, during the CFS, Caltrans determines the project has potential impacts on transportation. This process involves a higher degree of agency involvement in the design and oversight of the project and includes the following stages:
- Project Initiation Document (PID). Often referred to as a Project Study Report, it is a detailed analyses of all physical aspects of the project, from purpose and need, to alternatives, to impacts, to design and construction, identification of necessary agreements and documents.
- Formal Project Studies: Engineering, Environmental (re highway operations), Draft Environmental Impact Review (CEQA impacts, mitigation, preferred alternative), and Draft Project Report (compares alternative designs ±30% level)
- Final EIR/EIS and Final Project Report (selected alternative full description).
- ROW certification: This stage ensures that project sponsor has secured all necessary rights of way, property, and agreements prior to issuance of Encroachment Permit.
- Encroachment Permit: Same as COP process.
- Construction Oversight: Same as COP process.
As previously mentioned, some states have additional useful materials. For example, the California DOT (Caltrans) is developing a “Freeway Cap Best Practices Guide,” which was still in draft form at the time of this writing, albeit available online.
Some level of environmental review will be a part of any highway airspace project. A general understanding of the environmental review regulatory process is a must for a project proponent. An experienced consultant is essential to shepherd the project through the process. Thus, an in-depth review of the regulations is beyond the scope of this manual. However, certain issues will be of keen interest to project proponents. For example:
- How long will it take?
- How much money will it cost? ($250,000 to $2,000,000 +)
- How to do it?
- What laws and processes come into play?
- When and how is environmental review compliance initiated?
- Are there are any streamlining opportunities?
Most highway projects will be required to go through the environmental review process set forth by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Additionally, many states have their own environmental review laws and processes. Additionally, projects will also need go through some level of review for potential contaminants on the land at issue under the Comprehensive Environmental Review Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA aka the “Superfund” law). On top of that, the SDOT may have its own review requirements (e.g., Caltrans’s Project Study Report) It is often possible to at least partially combine these overlapping processes, particularly with respect to NEPA and the state environmental review, into a single environmental review document and that the major environmental documents are prepared to satisfy both state and federal law.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is invoked by major federal actions, which could impact the environment. Environmental review is also invoked by disposal agreements, ROW use agreements, and leasing actions involving any highway “that has been funded under title 23.” However, NEPA does not dictate an outcome. Its purpose is primarily disclosure, public notice, and participation.
Prior to committing to the project, NEPA requires a thorough review and analysis of potential environmental impacts. Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a major action if the action “may” or “will” have a significant impact on the environment. The EIS must identify the action, alternatives, environmental effects, and mitigation.
Major federal actions include actions by the federal government, on federal land, involving federal funding, or requiring federal permits (this includes private developments). Agencies must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) on a major action if the action “may” or “will” have a significant impact on the environment.
However, not every action requires an EIS. Alternative documents, where impacts are unlikely, include a Categorical Exclusion (CE) or an Environmental Assessment (EA).
Actions which neither individually nor cumulatively impact the environment may receive a CE. This determination is guided by the following general questions:
- Does the action have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment?
- Are there unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources?
An EA is prepared when it is not clear whether an EIS is needed. This circumstance arises for potentially major actions. An EA will determine one of two courses: a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an EIS. (An EA shouldn’t be confused with a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), which relates to the requirements of CERCLA. However, an ESA can be part of the EA.) An EA process should include any state and local environmental review requirements.
Drafting an EA typically takes between 1 – 3 months, with agency review taking another 1 – 2 months. If the EA supports it, the relevant agency will issue a draft FONSI. The public and other agencies must be given at least 15 days for review and comment. The project sponsor must then respond to any comments identifying adverse impacts, mitigate the impacts or choose a project alternative. If the agency to determines that there are no significant unmitigated impacts, it may issue a final FONSI.
Source, U.S. Dept. of Energy
Environmental Impact Statement
If there is a determination that significant environmental effects may or will occur, the state department of transportation, FHWA, or other project sponsor must begin the process of preparing an EIS. The EIS process is completed in the following order:
- Notice of Intent (NOI)
- Draft EIS
- Final EIS
- Record of decision (ROD).
Between the draft and final EIS, the project sponsor considers and responds to all substantive comments received on the draft EIS.
To start, the project sponsor publishes a Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (NOI). According to the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Citizens Guide to NEPA:
The NOI provides a brief description of the proposed action and possible alternatives. It also describes the agency’s proposed scoping process, including any meetings and how the public can get involved. The NOI will also contain an agency point of contact who can answer questions about the proposed action and the NEPA process.
After receiving input on the scope of the EIS, the project sponsor prepares and publishes a draft EIS. Again, the sponsor receives and responds to comments. The review and comment period must be at least 45 days. Thereafter, the sponsor publishes the Final EIS, which includes responses to the comments to the draft EIS. After publication of the Final EIS, there is a waiting period of 30 days before the reviewing agency can make a decision.
The NEPA environmental review includes both statutory and practical time periods. A two year period, from inception of review to a decision, is not uncommon. The Army Core of Engineers has published an excellent spreadsheet which provides a timeline and detail regarding the NEPA process, included in Appendix D.
Contaminated Sites, Pollutants, Assessment, Cleanup, and Management
The processes for complying with laws and regulations concerning contaminated sites and the generation of pollutants from the project is typically integrated with environmental review, approval, and implementation of the project. Unless extensive cleanup or management is indicated, compliance will not necessarily increase the time indicated for approval. Detailed descriptions of these laws are beyond the scope of this book. However, since most freeway cap projects will be in urban settings, where site contamination and pollution is most prevalent, these laws will be part of the site evaluation and project approval processes.
The main federal law covering sites contaminated with hazardous waste and their cleanup is the Comprehensive Environmental Review, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA aka Superfund Law).
CERCLA has the purpose of identifying and cleaning up sites that have been contaminated with dangerous chemicals or other wastes. Funding of clean-ups is accomplished by identifying Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) and through the use of government funding – the “Superfund.” CERCLA begins with an Environmental Site Assessment (ESA). The first step of an ESA is a Preliminary Assessment and Site Inspection also known as a Phase I report. The Phase I involves research of the history of the site and it’s uses, as well as a visual inspection. Usually there is no sampling or soil testing in a Phase I. If the Phase I warrants further study, a Phase II study is conducted. Phase II will involve sampling and testing. Based on the foregoing, the project may either go forward without cleanup or a plan for cleanup must be developed and implemented before construction. If cleanup / remediation is indicated, the project sponsor or PRP must report the site for inclusion in a federal database. It must also study alternatives and feasibility, propose a cleanup plan, receive public comment, and finally pursue approval from the EPA.
Construction Sourced Pollution:
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) is directed at managing solid and hazardous waste at sites that are currently in use. For freeway caps, it is most likely to pertain to demolition and construction activities. Like CERCLA, the RCRA moves from site assessment to a management plan to public comment and finally to approval.
Exposure to Freeway Auto Tailpipe Emissions:
The air pollution implications of proximity to high traffic roadways are attracting increasing attention. In particular, the concentration of ultra-fine particulate (UFP) pollution is closely related to proximity to high traffic roadways. UFP pollution has been associated with heart disease and cognitive impairment. To date however, most air pollution regulations pertain to addressing the source of the pollutants (e.g. vehicles and factories), or filtering/ventilating tunnels for the benefit of auto occupants, rather than restricting building in proximity to the source. Nevertheless, freeway cap projects are likely to face increasing scrutiny regarding the air pollution exposure of persons on or near the freeway caps from auto tail pipe emissions from the cars traveling underneath. This may be a short-lived concern if electric vehicles begin to significantly replace internal combustion engine vehicles. In the interim, the potential for elevated exposure to tailpipe emissions must be addressed, particularly in freeway cap projects that will host buildings in which people work or reside. For example, the Capitol Crossing project, which contains both residential and commercial buildings, was required to include “Eco-Chimneys” to vent and clean auto exhaust emissions. Alternatives for venting and filtering tailpipe emissions is discussed in Chapter 7.
State Environmental Laws and Procedures:
Many states have laws similar to NEPA, which can extend to projects not covered by NEPA. They can also apply alongside of NEPA. Commonly, environmental documents for NEPA can be combined with the analogous state environmental document.
A list of states with NEPA-like laws, along with additional information about those laws can be seen Appendix E These state laws have different scopes and rules. For example, some states apply their NEPA-like laws only to actions of the state. Others include actions of municipalities including discretionary permitting actions to approve private projects. Additionally, check for exemptions or streamlined processes applicable to certain types of projects. For example, California has streamlined review for certain large projects (in excess of $100 million) it calls “Environmental Leadership Projects.”  (See Appendix F)
 Interstate Highway System. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Jan. 23, 2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System
 National Highway System (United States). (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved Jan. 23, 2018 from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Highway_System_(United_States)
 23 CFR 1.23 – Rights-of-way.
 Interstate Highway System, supra, Wikipedia
 National Highway System, supra, Wikipedia
 U.S.D.O.T. – F.H.W.A, National Highway System, Retrieved on Nov. 1, 2017 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/
 U.S.D.O.T. – F.H.W.A, National Highway System, Intermodal Connectors. Retrieved on May 9, 2018 from https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/intermodal_connectors/
 California Dept. of Transportation, Right of Way Manual, Ch. 15, Sec. 15.06.11.03 “Final Approval.” Retrieved on Nov. 2, 2017 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/row/rowman/manual/
 Id. at Sec. 15.06.13.00 FHWA Approval.
 FHWA, Right-of-Way Program Administration – State Right-of-Way Manuals, Retrieved on Nov. 2, 2017 from: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/right-of-way/program_administration/srowm.cfm
 Many of the state manuals still refer to sections of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 23 Subchapter H, as it existed in before 2000, particularly 23 CFR 713 concerning the management of airspace. However, in 2000, Subchapter H was amended and reorganized. Part 713 no longer exists, and the topics therein have been relocated (64 FR 71284, Vol. 64, No. 244, Dec. 21, 1999) as follows:
713, subpart A (713.101-713.103) → 710.101-710.103.
713, subpart B (713.201-713.205) → 710.405.
713, subpart C (713.301-713.308) → 710.407-710.409.
 CalTrans (2017), Freeway Best Practices Guide, Final Draft; Retrieved on April 4, 2018 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/final-products/11_FwyCapBestPracticesGuideFinalDraft_03122017_Watermark.pdf
 Title 23 CFR § 710.403(d)
 Colorado Dept. of Transportation, Right of Way Manual, Chapter 7 – Property Management (May 20, 2016), 7.2.9 – Disposal or Lease at less than Fair Market Value. Retrieved Nov. 2, 2017 from https://www.codot.gov/business/manuals/right-of-way
 Airspace Guidelines to 23 CFR 710.405 – 710.407 (2010), 710.405_10, Retrieved on Nov. 13, 2017 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/real_estate/right-of-way/corridor_management/airspace_guidelines.cfm
 Additionally, as previously noted, Title 23 CFR § 710.405(b)(4) requires that such agreements “[e]stablish terms for revocation of the ROW use agreement and removal of improvements at no cost to the FHWA.” The Airspace Guidelines for ROW goes on to explain that use agreements states that each agreement should contain provisions to:
“Revoke the agreement in the event that the airspace facility ceases to be used or is abandoned, or becomes necessary for highway purposes” and
“[A]ssure full understanding that the airspace user will not qualify for relocation benefits under the Uniform Act.”
 The manuals and publications can be found on the FHWA’s “Bridges & Structures” page (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge) under any one of the topical links.
 As mentioned, California is developing a “Freeway Cap Best Practices Guide.” Retrieved on April 4, 2018 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/final-products/11_FwyCapBestPracticesGuideFinalDraft_03122017_Watermark.pdf
 See California Department of Transportation – Standard Environmental Reference, Retrieved on Dec. 14, 2017 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/
 Caltrans, Project Development Procedure Manual, Retrieved on Dec. 14, 2017 from http://www.dot.ca.gov/design/manuals/pdpm.html
 Freeway Best Practices Guide, Final Draft, supra, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/grant_files/final-products/11_FwyCapBestPracticesGuideFinalDraft_03122017_Watermark.pdf
 23 CFR 710.403(d) and 23 CFR 771
 Hayes, D.J. & Hourihan, J.A. (9/1/1985), NEPA Requirements for Private Projects, Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review, Vol. 13, Issue 1 Art. 3, 61-62.
 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, National Environmental Policy Act National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (NEPA) of 1969 (NEPA), Retrieved from https://www.usbr.gov/gp/ecao/slideshow.pdf
 U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration, FAQ: NEPA Environmental Assessments, Retrieved from https://bphc.hrsa.gov/policiesregulations/nepa.pdf
 Council on Environmental Quality, Executive Office of The President of the U.S. (2007). The Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act, p.8
 The Citizen’s Guide to the National Environmental Policy Act, supra, p.13
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Environmental Policy Act Review Process, Retrieved on Dec. 23 from https://www.epa.gov/nepa/national-environmental-policy-act-review-process
 Adams, William. What is a safe distance to live or work near high auto emission roads? UrbDeZine (2015) Retrieved from https://sandiego.urbdezine.com/2015/05/28/what-is-a-safe-distance-to-live-or-work-near-high-auto-emission-roads/
 Council on Environmental Quality, State NEPA Contacts, (June 22, 2013): Retrieved from https://energy.gov/nepa/downloads/states-nepa-environmental-planning-requirements
 Montana, Improving the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) Process – Senate Joint Resolution No. 18: Report to the 57th Legislature of the State of Montana, Chapter 5 (How Does MEPA Compare With Other State Environmental Policy Acts?), retrieved from http://leg.mt.gov/css/publications/environmental/2000mepa_report/mepa_tofc.asp
 Cho, Juliet H. (2011), California Governor Signs AB 900 Streamlining CEQA Challenges, California Environmental Law (Stoel Rives LLP), Retrieved on 12/14/2017 from https://www.californiaenvironmentallawblog.com/ceqa/california-governor-signs-ab-900-streamlining-ceqa-challenges/
© All rights reserved (2018)