23 C.F.R. § 771.105

Policy

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

It is the policy of the Administration that:

(a) To the maximum extent practicable and consistent with Federal law, all environmental investigations, reviews, and consultations be coordinated as a single process, and compliance with all applicable environmental requirements be reflected in a single environmental document required by this part.

(b) Programmatic approaches be developed for compliance with environmental requirements (including the requirements found at 23 U.S.C. 139(b)(3)), coordination among agencies and/or the public, or to otherwise enhance and accelerate project development.

(c) Alternative courses of action be evaluated and decisions be made in the best overall public interest based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe and efficient transportation; of the reasonably foreseeable social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed transportation improvement; and of national, State, and local environmental protection goals.

(d) Public involvement and a systematic interdisciplinary approach be essential parts of the development process for proposed actions.

(e) Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts be incorporated into the action. Measures necessary to mitigate adverse impacts are eligible for Federal funding when the Administration determines that:

(1) The impacts for which the mitigation is proposed actually result from the Administration action; and

(2) The proposed mitigation represents a reasonable public expenditure after considering the impacts of the action and the benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. In making this determination, the Administration will consider, among other factors, the extent to which the proposed measures would assist in complying with a Federal statute other than NEPA, executive order, or Administration regulation or policy.

(f) Costs incurred by the applicant for the preparation of environmental documents requested by the Administration be eligible for Federal assistance.

(g) No person, because of handicap, age, race, color, sex, or national origin, be excluded from participating in, or denied benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any Administration program or procedural activity required by or developed pursuant to this part.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases, 1985–2013 · leading case: Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). · cites it 3× “In accordance with 23 C.F.R. § 771.105 (b), the Defendants evaluated alternative courses of action, ROD at 33-52; they considered the need for safe and efficient transportation, ROD at 63-68; they considered the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed…”

Corridor H Alternatives, Inc. v. Slater, 166 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 1999). “” 23 C.F.R. § 771.105 (a) (1998). While there is obvious merit to coordinating environmental reviews of the kind required by NEPA and section 4(f), we' do not read section 771.”

Coalition for the Advancement of Reg'l Transp. v. Fed. High. Admin., 959 F. Supp. 2d 982 (W.D. Ky. 2013). · cites it 2× “In Claim 14, CART contends that the Purpose and Need Statement is drawn too narrowly and thus not made in the public’s best interest in violation of 23 C.F.R. § 771.105 (b) and FHA Order 6640.”

City of Alexandria, Va. v. Slater, 46 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C. 1999). “See 23 C.F.R. § 771.105 (b). A. Standard of Review A court, in reviewing an alleged NEPA violation, is limited to determining whether the agency complied with the statute’s procedural requirements.”

Citizen Advocates for ResponSible Expansion, Inc. v. Dole, 770 F.2d 423 (5th Cir. 1985). “23 C.F.R. §§ 771.105 , 771.111, 771.123 & 771.”

— 23 C.F.R. § 771.105(a) — 1 case

Audubon Naturalist Soc'y of the Cent. Atl. States, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Transp., 524 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Maryland 2007). “In accordance with 23 C.F.R. § 771.105 (b), the Defendants evaluated alternative courses of action, ROD at 33-52; they considered the need for safe and efficient transportation, ROD at 63-68; they considered the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the proposed…”

— 23 C.F.R. § 771.105(d) — 1 case

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.