New NEPA Guidelines Bring Clarity, Not Major Changes, for Colorado Transportation Projects
- sarahdickson0
- Jul 29, 2025
- 5 min read
NEPA is once again in the spotlight following USDOT’s recent announcement of changes to its NEPA implementing regulations and procedures. While the updates have been described as sweeping, our assessment is that they largely codify well-established practices rather than introduce a fundamental overhaul—particularly for FHWA, FTA, and FRA.
We’ve closely reviewed the newly issued 23 CFR 771 regulations and DOT Order 5610.1D, alongside the December 2024 Interim Guidance for the Section 139 Environmental Review Process (now proposed as final), to assess their implications for Colorado agencies and programs.
Since SAFETEA-LU in 2005, every surface transportation bill has brought changes to USDOT’s environmental review processes and expanded their application across all surface transportation agencies. However, those statutory requirements had not been fully reflected in the Department’s NEPA procedures until now. The updated regulations and guidance now provide a consolidated, consistent framework by integrating provisions from MAP-21, the FAST Act, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and the Fiscal Responsibility Act.
For many states—Colorado in particular—these updates affirm and formalize best practices already in place, offering a clearer, more integrated roadmap for environmental review.
Colorado’s Longstanding Leadership in NEPA Streamlining
At Peak Consulting Group, our team has had the privilege of working alongside CDOT, FHWA, FTA, FRA, local agencies, and industry partners for the past 25 years to advance collaborative, efficient environmental reviews. We’ve seen firsthand how Colorado has emerged as a national leader in NEPA implementation, investing in procedures to integrate early planning into NEPA, streamlined and reader-friendly documentation, use of “mitigated FONSIs,” structured processes to track and monitor environmental commitments, and cross-agency coordination to achieve better outcomes.
Efforts like the Transportation Environmental Resource Council (TERC), the long-standing I-70 Mountain Corridor Collaborative Effort, and the use of embedded staff to coordinate environmental requirements across agencies have demonstrated how sustained collaboration builds consistency, transparency, and long-term success. Colorado’s long-serving FHWA Division staff—along with the co-location of FHWA’s Resource Center, Central Federal Lands, and HQ staff working remotely from the state—have fostered a unique environment of information sharing and practical innovation.
While we’ve seen some loss of institutional knowledge due to federal staffing reductions, the legacy of leadership and coordination lives on. As a result, many of the updates in the recent guidance and DOT Order reflect practices that have long been standard in Colorado.
Key Highlights That Reinforce—Not Redefine—Effective Practices
Our perspective on the CEQ regulations. The only substantial updates to the CEQ NEPA regulations since the 1970s occurred within the past five years, with major revisions in 2020, partial reversals in 2022, and broader changes in 2024. While these efforts aimed to modernize and streamline the NEPA process, in our view, the 2024 rulemaking went too far, altering NEPA’s foundational intent and conflicting with established case law and long-standing agency practice. The resulting confusion across agencies likely contributed to the legal challenge to CEQ’s rulemaking authority and the subsequent revocation of all CEQ regulations at 40 CFR §§ 1500–1508—an unprecedented and unfortunate outcome, as the prior regulatory framework had supported decades of interagency alignment, consistency, and predictability in NEPA implementation.
Modernizing and streamlining NEPA has been a USDOT priority for decades. Many elements of the 2020 and 2022 CEQ revisions were rooted in USDOT practices and Congressional mandates that predated or operated independently of CEQ rulemaking. In that sense, USDOT was ahead of the curve, implementing practical reforms long before they were formally addressed in CEQ regulations.
No FHWA tools have been revoked. The guidance and DOT Order align with and clarify existing processes; they do not replace or invalidate current policies or resources. The extensive library of best practices, developed over more than two decades in coordination with AASHTO, CEQ, and others, reflects widely supported process improvements that work. These resources continue to promote streamlining and consistent NEPA implementation across states and remain valuable references.
NEPA does not apply to two categories of USDOT actions, as clarified in the regulations: regional planning activities and actions occurring entirely outside the U.S. These clarifications reflect long-standing interpretations, not new exclusions.
Categorical Exclusions (CEs): No new CEs have been added to FHWA or FTA’s lists. The most notable change applies to FRA, which developed an agency-specific list for the first time. Because of the similarities in surface transportation actions, FHWA, FTA, and FRA can likely interchange their CEs, which has also long been a practice with FHWA and FTA. A process for using other federal agencies’ CEs also has some promise for streamlining, though the process require significant interagency coordination.
The use of CEs remains a foundational element of the NEPA process. Actions listed as CEs should continue to use this classification unless unusual circumstances are present. CDOT’s longstanding use of a CE criteria checklist to confirm and document applicability is well-established and remains consistent with the revised procedures.
The lead agency retains both the authority and responsibility to guide the NEPA process. The updated guidance affirms deference to the lead agency in defining project scope—including purpose and need and the range of reasonable alternatives—consistent with CEQ’s 2003 correspondence with USDOT and reinforced by the May 2025 Eagle County Supreme Court decision. A key clarification in the revised procedures is the definition of “reasonable alternatives” to include technical and financial feasibility—resolving a longstanding ambiguity and grounding alternatives development in practical considerations.
USDOT NEPA procedures retain the core intent of CEQ’s indirect and cumulative effects standards, though under different terminology. Agencies must still consider reasonably foreseeable impacts from other projects when relevant and within their authority. This interpretation of NEPA aligns with the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, affirming a practical, common-sense approach to environmental impact analysis.
Page limits and timeframes for environmental documents may seem dramatic, but they align with long-standing efforts to improve document readability and process efficiency. For states like Colorado these requirements reflect what’s already working: pre-NEPA planning, early stakeholder engagement, and more accessible, user-friendly document formats such as Q&As and executive summaries.
Agency coordination frameworks are beneficial. For states without Colorado’s history of strong interagency partnerships—or, more recently, in cases where local agencies serve as direct recipients of federal aid and work directly with FHWA—more clearly defined roles and responsibilities help streamline decision-making and improve transparency.
Collaboration is central to effective project development. Public and agency involvement helps build understanding and support when the NEPA process is well designed and implemented. The Supreme Court has affirmed that NEPA is intended to inform decisions—not to delay or obstruct needed projects. When done effectively, collaboration fosters shared goals and broadly supported outcomes rather than conflict among stakeholders.
Executive Orders and state laws remain variables. Shifting federal priorities—and differing state priorities— will continue to influence how NEPA is interpreted, applied, and communicated. Practitioners must remain adaptable and focused on balancing public engagement, interagency collaboration, and project delivery while navigating a dynamic and sometimes divergent policy environment.
While much of this guidance reaffirms Colorado’s current approach, continued success depends on collaboration, transparency, and the ability to adapt as policies evolve.
Navigating NEPA Together
At Peak, we’re proud to support agencies and communities across Colorado and beyond in delivering transportation projects that are environmentally responsible, publicly supported, and built to last. We remain committed to helping our partners navigate NEPA and environmental policy changes with clarity, experience, and a collaborative spirit.
We’d love to hear how your agency or team is approaching implementation of the updated guidance—or connect if we can support your NEPA process.
Comments