The Commission, in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT), and the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), through a scoping process and field view, determined that an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be appropriate for this project because the significance of potential environmental impacts of the project is not known at this time.

If at any time during the EA process it is determined that significant impacts will result from the proposed project, then an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. An EIS, like an EA requires virtually the same level of environmental analysis and serves the same purpose - to achieve the goals of NEPA. Both require a collaborative decision making process that discloses to the public the rationale behind the transportation decision and the environmental impacts resulting from it. Feasible and appropriate mitigation of adverse impacts would occur under either approach.

The differences between an EA & EIS include:

EA
Scoping, as needed
Public notification
Limited range of alternatives
The outcomes of an EA:
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), or
No action, or
An EIS is undertaken

EIS

Formal scoping period
Formal public review process
Full range of alternatives
The outcomes of an EIS:
Impacts are mitigated, or
Understood and accepted

The Commission recognizes the importance of this project to the local, regional, and national transportation networks and further recognizes the high level of public interest in the project. Therefore, the Commission is implementing a public outreach program that is considerably more extensive than the typical public notification requirements of an EA.