Assistant Commandant for Engineering and Logistics

Office of Environmental Management


Environmental Planning and Historic Planning

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires all Federal agencies to consider the impacts of proposed actions on the human environment and involve the public in the NEPA process. The Environmental Planning and Historic Preservation (EPHP) Team publishes all Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessments of regional or national significance for public notice and comment. Interested parties can view recent draft and final NEPA documents below. Contact information for each project are included in each posting.

On April 23, 2019 CG-47 released the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) (EP CI) and the Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures (EP IP).  The EP CI mandates the use of the EP IP.  The two documents now align with the DHS NEPA policy, Implementation of the National Environmental Policy Act, Department of Homeland Security Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01 (series) and replace the old Coast Guard National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Implementing Procedures and Policy for Considering Environmental Impacts, COMDTINST 16475.1D, which has been cancelled. The EP CI and IP include significant changes to the Coast Guard environmental planning process and provide improved policy and procedures for complying with both NEPA and Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, Executive Order (EO) 12114.  Coast Guard members engaged in environmental planning efforts or taking actions that trigger NEPA or EO 12114 requirements must read both the EP CI and IP in order to implement their requirements effectively.  Significant changes from COMDTINST M16475.1D included in the EP CI and IP include but are not limited to:

  • Policy and procedures on the requirements of EO 12114.
  • Pre-planning process and notification requirements for NEPA and EO 12114.
  • Timing of compliance with other related environmental mandates (ESA, NHPA, etc.).
  • Requirements to track and report mitigation and monitoring commitments.
  • Requirement to establish formal agreements for providing environmental planning support.
  • Specific guidance for both the acquisitions and shore facilities management programs

Policy Documents

USCG Environmental Planning Policy, COMDTINST 5090.1

Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures for COMDTINST 5090.1 Environmental Planning Policy

United States Coast Guard (Coast Guard) Final Environmental Impact Statement for BNSF Railway Bridge 196.6 Project Across the Missouri River, Mile Point 1315.0, Morton and Burleigh Counties, Between Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota

By USCG through consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. CG-BRG


With in-service components that are over 130 years old and a history of exposure to ice jams, Bridge 196.6 is approaching the end of its useful life and needs to be replaced to safely move future rail traffic along the BNSF northern corridor. The existing structure has shallow-foundation piers, which are susceptible to scour from hydraulic motion. BNSF has deemed the structure to be scour critical, which requires underwater inspections to be conducted every 5 years and after significant high-water events. Due to the age and condition of the bridge, restrictions in load clearance and axle spacing limit the size and type of railcar that can traverse Bridge 196.6. Additionally, the speed across the bridge is restricted to 25 miles per hour. To increase the speed across the bridge to the neighboring timetable speed of 35 miles per hour and remove the load restriction on the bridge, BNSF needs to replace Bridge 196.6. The existing main spans are configured with two pin-connected through trusses. Each truss contains fracture-critical members, which are subject to tensile loads. Failure of such a component would result in partial or total collapse.

USCG has identified the Proposed Action Alternative (that is, build a new bridge with 200-foot spans and piers, 20 feet upstream of the existing bridge, and remove the existing structure) as the Preferred Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative avoids the necessity of retaining walls on the eastern and western banks of the Missouri River. The Proposed Action Alternative encompasses the least amount of excavation and associated truck traffic impacts, soils impacts, vegetation impacts, and land use impacts. Hydrologic Engineering Center – River Analysis System modeling has demonstrated that the Proposed Action Alternative would have no net rise in the 100-year base flood elevation.