Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects (2016)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 827 Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects Donald J. Emerson Doris Lee WSP | ParSonS Brinckerhoff San Francisco, CA Crystal M. Cummings Jennifer Thompson WSP | ParSonS Brinckerhoff New York, NY Bridget M. Wieghart WSP | ParSonS Brinckerhoff Portland, OR Shelly Brown Shelly BroWn aSSociateS, llc Seattle, WA Subscriber Categories Highways • Public Transportation • Environment TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2016 www.TRB.org Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research is the most effective way to solve many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation results in increasingly complex problems of wide inter- est to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. Recognizing this need, the leadership of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in 1962 ini- tiated an objective national highway research program using modern scientific techniques—the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). NCHRP is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of AASHTO and receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine was requested by AASHTO to administer the research program because of TRB’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. TRB is uniquely suited for this purpose for many reasons: TRB maintains an extensive com- mittee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; TRB possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state, and local governmental agencies, univer- sities, and industry; TRB’s relationship to the Academies is an insurance of objectivity; and TRB maintains a full-time staff of specialists in high- way transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators and other staff of the highway and transporta- tion departments and by committees of AASHTO. Topics of the highest merit are selected by the AASHTO Standing Committee on Research (SCOR), and each year SCOR’s recommendations are proposed to the AASHTO Board of Directors and the Academies. Research projects to address these topics are defined by NCHRP, and qualified research agencies are selected from submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the Acad- emies and TRB. The needs for highway research are many, and NCHRP can make significant contributions to solving highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement, rather than to substitute for or duplicate, other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet by going to http://www.national-academies.org and then searching for TRB Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 827 Project 25-43 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-37551-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2016943332 © 2016 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. COPYRIGHT INFORMATION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FRA, FTA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, PHMSA, or TDC endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board; the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, non- governmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. C. D. Mote, Jr., is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.national-academies.org. The Transportation Research Board is one of seven major programs of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to increase the benefits that transportation contributes to society by providing leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisciplinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied committees, task forces, and panels annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. Learn more about the Transportation Research Board at www.TRB.org.

C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 827 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Christopher J. Hedges, Manager, National Cooperative Highway Research Program Lori L. Sundstrom, Senior Program Officer Danna Powell, Senior Program Assistant Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Margaret B. Hagood, Editor NCHRP PROjECT 25-43 PANEL Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Impact Analysis Elizabeth “Libby” B. Rushley, Lawhon & Associates, Ashville, OH (Chair) Brandon Weston, Utah DOT, Taylorsville, UT Michelle Oswald Beiler, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA Faisal Hameed, Parsons Corporation, Washington, DC Michael R. Kies, Arizona DOT, Phoenix, AZ Dan Lamers, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington, TX Christina M. Minkler, CHA Consulting, Albany, NY Karin Morris, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, Philadelphia, PA Xavier Pagan, Florida DOT, Tallahassee, FL Bruce Bender, FHWA Liaison (retired) Christine Gerencher, TRB Liaison

F O R E W O R D By Lori L. Sundstrom Staff Officer Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 827: Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects analyzes approaches taken by state departments of transportation (DOTs), their local partners, and other project sponsors to satisfy National Environmen- tal Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for transportation projects involving more than one mode. Case studies illustrate successful practices and provide examples of institutional arrangements used to comply with NEPA requirements for two or more U.S. DOT agencies. The report should be of immediate use to executives and senior planning officials who are contemplating a multimodal approach to NEPA compliance. States are increasingly pursuing balanced transportation solutions that, in addition to highways, may include improvements to other parts of the local surface transportation net- work and incorporate elements such as bus, commuter and inter-city rail, freight rail, street car or light rail, bicycle, pedestrian, intermodal freight facilities, and airport access. This practice has increased the likelihood of two or more U.S. DOT modal administrations being involved in the NEPA environmental review process. The term “environmental review pro- cess” is defined at 23 U.S.C. § 139 and is the process for preparing an environmental impact statement, environmental assessment, categorical exclusion, or other document prepared under NEPA for a planned transportation project. The term “environmental review process” also includes the process for and completion of any environmental permit, approval, review, or study required for a project under any federal law other than NEPA. From the perspective of state DOTs, their local partners, and other project sponsors, the involvement of different combinations of U.S. DOT modal administrations, whether in lead, cooperating or participating roles, can increase the complexity of the NEPA process while also providing opportunities for synergy. Myriad challenges can arise when navigat- ing different interpretations, policy, guidance, and expectations of the NEPA process by combinations of the involved agencies. Under NCHRP Project 25-43, WSP|Parsons Brinckerhoff was asked to identify prac- tices and strategies that state DOTs and other project sponsors can use to efficiently and effectively fulfill NEPA requirements for multimodal transportation projects. Following a literature review, they selected a dozen recent multimodal projects that involved at least two U.S. DOT modal administrations and conducted in-depth interviews with those involved. Case studies were prepared and analyzed to identify successful practices and factors that influenced success. NCHRP Report 827 should be helpful for agency staff who are respon- sible for structuring a multi-agency effort to advance a multimodal project through the NEPA process.

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 1 Research Methodology 2 Challenges of Multimodal NEPA Processes 2 Research Findings 3 Practitioner’s Tool and Implementation Plan 5 Chapter 1 Background 6 Objectives of NCHRP Project 25-43 6 Scope of Study 6 Previous Research 8 Chapter 2 Challenges of Multimodal NEPA Processes 8 Challenge 1: Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements Under the NEPA Umbrella 8 Challenge 2: Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements 9 Challenge 3: Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action 10 Challenge 4: Efficient Coordination among Agencies 10 Challenge 5: Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies 11 Chapter 3 Case Study Methods 11 Identification of Case Study Projects 13 Case Study Methodology 14 Case Study Synthesis Approach 16 Chapter 4 Case Study Results 16 Case Study Overviews 18 Problems and Strategies by Challenge 28 Conclusions 29 Chapter 5 Case Study Synthesis 29 Consolidated List of Transferrable Strategies and Tactics 29 Crosscutting Themes and Keys to Success 32 Stumbling Blocks to Avoid 33 Chapter 6 Implementation Plan 33 Self-Assessment Tool 33 Suggestions for Further Exploration 35 Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Initialisms A-1 Appendix A Case Study—Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, Northern Virginia B-1 Appendix B Case Study—Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida

C-1 Appendix C Case Study—Eastern Corridor Program, Cincinnati, Ohio D-1 Appendix D Case Study—Phase I National Gateway Clearance Initiative, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia E-1 Appendix E Case Study—Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE), Chicago, Illinois F-1 Appendix F Case Study—TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado G-1 Appendix G Case Study—I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado H-1 Appendix H Case Study—Mountain View Corridor, Salt Lake City, Utah I-1 Appendix I Case Study—XpressWest High-Speed Passenger Train, Victorville, California, to Las Vegas, Nevada J-1 Appendix J Case Study—Interstate 5 Columbia River Crossing, Washington and Oregon K-1 Appendix K Case Study—East Link Light Rail Project Puget Sound Region, Washington L-1 Appendix L Case Study—Orange Line LRT Extension to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, Texas M-1 Appendix M Key NEPA Requirements of U.S. DOT Agencies N-1 Appendix N Inventory of Multimodal NEPA Processes O-1 Appendix O Self-Assessment Tool