National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida

« Previous: Appendix A - Case Study Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project, Northern Virginia
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Case Study Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 50

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.

B-1 A P P E N D I X B Summary Project Description The Port of Miami Tunnel (POMT) is a 2.98-mile high- way connection between the Port of Miami and I-395 via the MacArthur Causeway. The project includes two 0.8-mile, two-lane bored tunnels from Watson Island to Dodge Island, where the port is located, crossing beneath the Main Channel of Miami Harbor. The project includes adding lanes to the MacArthur Causeway Bridge, realigning the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) line, and relocating Port Boulevard lanes on Dodge Island. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Lead Agency • U.S. Coast Guard (USCG)—Cooperating Agency Key State and Local Agencies • Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)—Sponsor • Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) • Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM) • Port of Miami Challenges Faced The Port of Miami Tunnel project team faced one of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table B-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Coordinate with federal and local agencies prior to the start of NEPA activities. • Engage stakeholders formally in the review process. • Foster an early partnership between the lead agency and sponsor. • Implement new technologies to avoid environmental impacts. Case Study Detail Introduction The Port of Miami is the largest cruise port and 11th largest container port in the United States. It is located on a 518 acre site on Dodge Island in Biscayne Bay between the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach. Previously, the only direct road- way access to the port was the six-lane Port Boulevard Bridge (known as the Port Bridge), which begins at the western edge of Dodge Island and becomes NE 6th Street in downtown Miami. This route required tractor-trailers bound for the port to use surface streets through Miami’s Central Business Dis- trict. The return trip from the port was also routed through downtown Miami. The POMT project created a direct roadway link between I-395 and the port, allowing traffic to bypass downtown Miami (see Figure B-1). The project included three components: • Constructing two 0.8-mile, two-lane bored tunnels cross- ing beneath the Main Channel of Miami Harbor between Watson and Dodge Islands; • Adding one lane in each direction to the MacArthur Cause- way Bridge to meet capacity needs created by the tunnel; and • Realigning FEC railroad tracks and relocating eastbound and westbound Port Boulevard lanes on Dodge Island to accommodate the new tunnel portals. Construction began in May 2010 and the project opened to the public in August 2014. The main objectives of the project were to divert port traf- fic from surface streets in downtown Miami, reduce traffic delays accessing the port caused by congestion on downtown Case Study—Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, Florida

B-2 streets, increase the capacity of the route to handle projected increases in port traffic, support the city’s development plans for downtown Miami, and improve air quality in downtown Miami by reducing traffic and congestion (idling vehicles) on city streets. The concept of a direct roadway tunnel connecting the Port of Miami (constructed in 1960) and I-395 had been part of area development plans since the 1980s. The need for new roadway access was explored through a Vehicular Access Study commissioned by the City of Miami in 1981. Through several rounds of analysis, the Port of Miami Access Task Force, cre- ated by the Miami-Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), identified both bridge and tunnel alternatives along several alignments under the Main Channel of Miami Harbor. In 1984, the Miami-Dade County Board of Commissioners approved a three-phase plan to improve transportation access to the Port of Miami, including intersection improvements near Port Boulevard and Biscayne Boulevard, replacement of the bascule Port Boulevard Bridge with a fixed-span bridge (which occurred in the 1990s), and construction of a new direct access tunnel connecting the Port to I-395. This led to the commencement of the environmental review process for tunnel alternatives. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies FHWA was the lead federal agency for NEPA activities. FHWA was the natural lead agency given that almost all of the project components involved roadways and bridges, and ulti- mately a direct connection to I-395. The USCG, which was part of the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) when the NEPA process was initiated, served as a cooperating agency. FDOT was the project sponsor. The POMT project went through multiple stages of NEPA review. In 1989, FDOT began a Project Development and Environmental (PD&E) study, a state process that is carried out in conjunction with the federal NEPA process. FDOT had Unique agency- specific program requirements under the NEPA umbrella Differing agency interpretations of NEPA requirements Anticipating which agencies will have a major federal action Efficient coordination among agencies Securing funding for multimodal NEPA studies Table B-1. Challenges summary. Source: Parsons Brinckerhoff Figure B-1. Map of project area.

B-3 not yet identified specific funding sources for the project, and wanted to keep the option of federal funding open. The possi- bility of incorporating federal funding in the future prompted FDOT to engage FHWA in the NEPA process. FDOT followed its standard practice of keeping FHWA aware of possible major projects and completing the necessary steps for NEPA approval, should federal funding and/or a major federal action become necessary. More than a decade later, this forethought proved crucial for completing the project. The USCG and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) participated as cooperating agencies due to the need for per- mitting of project components. The project was originally conceived as an immersed tube tunnel under the shipping channel in Miami Harbor, to be constructed using cut-and- cover methods. Therefore, impacts to shipping and cruise ships were anticipated during construction, precipitating a cooperating agency role for the USCG. Other issues included potential impacts to water quality and manatees in Biscayne Bay, and the need for a Section 404 permit from the USACE. Because the cut-and-cover tunnel would pass through a sole- source aquifer, the project had to comply with Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and thus included review by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Although a realignment of railroad tracks was included in the project scope, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) did not participate in the environmental review. The rail work con- sisted of realigning a single track and second spur. The impact was minimal and necessitated no review by FRA. FDOT, as the project sponsor, was the state lead agency for NEPA. FDOT coordinated among several state and local agencies, including the City of Miami, the Miami-Dade MPO, and Miami-Dade County. The local agencies were critical to the project development process because the tunnel plans had to be consistent with current development plans for Miami’s Central Business District and Watson Island. The project is located in the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, which is clas- sified as one of the state’s Outstanding Florida Waters. This necessitated the participation of FDEP. Due to the multimodal nature of the project and overlapping local governance, the NEPA process included the participation, both formally and informally, of several other federal, state, and local agencies. FDOT organized these stakeholders into Technical and Community Advisory Committees (TAC and CAC, respectively). Table B-2 lists the agencies represented on each committee. The committees provided a formal structure through which participating agencies could evaluate alterna- tives and provide comments. NEPA Process/Approach The project evolved in three major phases from 1989 to 2009: • Phase I: In 1989, FDOT began a PD&E study to examine bridge and tunnel alternatives. That study ultimately led to a 1996 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a tunnel alternative crossing diagonally between the port (Dodge Island) and Watson Island under the Main Channel, connecting the port directly to the MacArthur Causeway. The DEIS identified significant impacts assuming the use of cut-and-cover construction. • Phase II: Advances in tunneling technology allowed FDOT to change the construction method to a bored tunnel, which allowed the NEPA class of action to be reduced from an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to an Environ- mental Assessment (EA). FHWA approved a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in 2000. • Phase III: In 2005, consideration of tolling as a potential funding option triggered a re-evaluation of the 2000 FONSI. Table B-2. Committees involved in the state and federal environmental review processes. Technical Advisory Committee Member Organizations Community Advisory Committee Member Organizations FDOT Beacon Council Port of Miami Tropical Audubon Society FHWA Marine Council Miami-Dade Transit Authority Downtown Development Authority Dade County Public Works Department Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce DERM Chalk’s International Airlines FDEP Dade Helicopter Miami-Dade MPO Watson Island Fuel & Fishing Supplies Dade County Planning Department Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau USACE Downtown Miami Business Association South Florida Regional Planning Council Congressman Lehman’s Office USCG Latin Chamber of Commerce Florida East Coast Railway The Miami Herald Bayside Management Center

B-4 Subsequent discussions with the port’s stakeholders revealed that tolling was not a viable option. No changes were made to the NEPA document at that time, but the FONSI was updated in 2009 to reflect a project change to widen I-395 and the MacArthur Causeway. Phase I of the NEPA approach began with the state PD&E study, which analyzed seven corridor alternatives: two tunnel options and five bridge options. FDOT’s PD&E manual pro- vided a useful framework for engaging agencies and resolving issues. The manual aligns FDOT’s process with the federal NEPA process, and provides in-depth guidance for each rel- evant agency on their requirements related to specific trans- portation modes and environmental issues. The TAC and CAC were involved throughout the PD&E study and the first phase of the NEPA process, meeting at least a dozen times to discuss the preferred corridor alternatives, and later to fine-tune the tunnel alignment during the DEIS process. The tunnel construction method was assumed at that point to be cut-and-cover. Through the DEIS it became clear that this method would have disturbed the Biscayne Bay Aquifer and Aquatic Preserve, causing negative water quality impacts. FDEP communicated concerns over impacts to Biscayne Bay resulting from blasting and dredging. Port stakeholders, such as freight operators and cruise lines, were also concerned about the effect of construction on port operations. After comments were received from stakeholder agencies, FDOT began to consider the tunnel boring machine method. FDOT was introduced to this method at an industry forum for another Miami project, the East-West Corridor. Analy- sis showed that tunnel excavation using this method greatly reduced the impact of construction on water quality and port operations. In Phase II, POMT plans were updated to specify excava- tion by tunnel boring machine rather than cut-and-cover methods. FHWA changed the NEPA class from an EIS to an EA in May 1997, and issued a FONSI in 2000. In Phase III, several years later, FDOT and the Florida Turn- pike Enterprise (FTE), along with the City of Miami, the Port of Miami, and Miami-Dade County, began identifying poten- tial funding sources for the project, one of which was tolling. FTE is a business unit of FDOT, tasked with developing and managing FDOT owned and operated limited-access toll facilities. At this time, federal funding was not anticipated. To evaluate the potential for tolling, FTE initiated a re-evaluation of the FONSI and updated project documents. Because no major changes were made that affected the project’s environ- mental impacts, FHWA approved the re-evaluation in 2005. Concurrently, FDOT began looking further into imple- menting the POMT using bored tunnel technology and the risks of constructing a 40-foot-diameter tunnel, with which the state (and U.S. industry) had little experience. FDOT hosted an industry forum in December 2005 to assess the industry’s appetite for bored tunnel technology and evaluate industry interest in the POMT as a public-private partnership (P3). During this phase, tolling was determined to be unfeasible, as it would lower the port’s competitiveness with neighboring ports. FDOT determined that pursuing the project as a P3 was the best approach for controlling the state’s risk and funding the project. A recent amendment to the state P3 legislation, as well as the availability of funds garnered from property taxes, had opened new project structuring options for the State of Florida. FDOT chose a consortium to design, build, and finance the project. In 2008, due to the recession, the con- sortium realized that long-term private debt had become a less attractive financing option, and turned to the U.S. DOT Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) credit program as an option to replace private financ- ing. TIFIA financing meant that the project needed to be “fed- eralized,” as the inclusion of federal financing was a major federal action. FHWA reviewed the NEPA documents to make sure they met federal requirements. Federalizing the project at this stage proved less difficult than it might have been because FDOT and FHWA had completed the NEPA process years earlier. In 2009, around the time of financial close on the project, the FONSI was updated to incorporate changes to the adja- cent I-395. The 2000 FONSI had assumed a separate project would be undertaken to widen I-395 to four lanes to match the addition of lanes on the MacArthur Causeway. The project was delayed, and to bridge the gap between the MacArthur Cause- way widening and I-395 improvements, an interim project was created to add one lane to I-395. This smoothed the movement of traffic from four lanes on the newly widened MacArthur Causeway to three lanes on the interim stretch to two lanes on I-395. The interim project did not cause additional challenges or require review beyond the original agencies involved in the NEPA process. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA FHWA’s NEPA requirements are detailed in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environmental Impacts and Related Procedures.” USCG NEPA implementing procedures regarding this proj- ect can be found in Commandant Instructions M16590.5C, Bridge Administration Manual. USCG procedures include agency-specific definitions of each NEPA class of action. This can add complexity to projects in which USCG is not the lead agency, because USCG officials must certify that the NEPA class chosen was adequate. Due to USCG’s jurisdictional role in the project, the pro- cess of reconciling differences between USCG and FHWA was simplified because the two agencies had a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on how to approach NEPA approval for bridge projects requiring action by both. The MOU delin- eated the roles and responsibilities of each agency, depending

B-5 on the NEPA class of action. The following requirements in the MOU were relevant to the project: • FHWA will act as lead agency when a highway project requires action by both FHWA and USCG. • FHWA will consult with the USCG prior to determining that any project which may require a USCG permit is a CE, EA, or EIS. • For any project that may require a bridge permit, and is to be classified as an EA or EIS, FHWA will request that USCG become a cooperating agency. • For EA projects, FHWA will consult with the USCG during the preparation of both the EA, and if so determined, the FONSI. • FHWA will consult the USCG relative to the need for high- way and USCG public hearing opportunities and consider a joint public hearing where appropriate. • Navigational impacts are to be included in the EA or EIS. USACE’s procedures were in line with those stipulated in the NEPA Improvement Act (42 U.S.C. 4371), closely aligning them with FHWA procedures. The procedures dictate that the USACE will adopt another federal agency’s NEPA document unless it finds “substantial doubt as to the technical or proce- dural adequacy or omission of factors important to the Corps decision.” Examples of the factors important to the Corps decision are not referenced, implying that the USACE district commander managing the review has discretion to raise flags when necessary. Impact of These Requirements The requirements of the cooperating agencies in the NEPA process for the POMT project did not exceed those of the lead agency, FHWA. In fact, the procedures of USCG enhanced the efficiency of the NEPA process by defining conditions under which FHWA and USCG would coordinate their environmental approval. Similarly, USACE presented no agency-specific requirements, only reserving the right to require additional analysis at the discretion of the district commander in charge. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: Neither of the cooperating agencies involved in the POMT had additional specific program requirements that negatively impacted the NEPA process. USACE requirements reflected broader NEPA regulations, and the agency was willing to adopt FHWA’s environmental document unless the district commander deemed otherwise. The supporting documentation in the FONSI indicated that the USACE was satisfied with the environmental analysis pro- vided in the EA, and only stipulated the permitting required for the project. The permitting process subsequently became the responsibility of the private partner in the P3. Similarly, the pre-existing agreement between FHWA and the USCG removed complexity which might otherwise have existed due to USCG’s specific NEPA requirements. The proj- ect was also subject to permitting requirements from USCG, which was the responsibility of the P3 partner. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements: NEPA requirements among the agencies were aligned, but the focus of each agency led to different areas of emphasis. The USCG and USACE focused on the effect of the project on water quality in Biscayne Bay and port operations, especially during the first phase of the project when the tunnel was planned to be constructed using the cut-and-cover/immersed tube method. FHWA focused on increasing roadway capac- ity and mitigating noise and congestion in creating a direct access roadway between MacArthur Causeway and the tun- nel. Disagreements regarding the construction impacts of a cut-and-cover tunnel on the bay and shipping were much less significant after the tunnel construction method changed— the tunnel boring method allowed the project to avoid the significant impact and disruption to the vulnerable environ- ment of Biscayne Bay that would have occurred during cut- and-cover construction. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: One challenge was determining which agency would have a major federal action, due to the lack of a concrete financial plan for the project at the start of the NEPA process. Early on, FDOT decided to engage FHWA as the lead agency for the project to keep its funding options open. Although there was no major federal action at that point to trigger FHWA’s involvement, FHWA was FDOT’s federal partner, and was aware of FDOT’s practice of following federal processes before a major action is triggered. The inclusion of roadway, bridge, and tunneling work made FHWA the obvious federal partner on the project if it were to be federalized in the future. Due to an existing bridge permit and construction in the harbor, USCG and USACE were expected to have some role in the NEPA process. Efficient Coordination among Agencies: FDOT set up two advisory committees to engage participating agencies in the environmental review process. Through this formal structure, the participating agencies met frequently through- out the state and federal review process and were part of the process of choosing the preferred alternative for the project. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: FDOT paid 100 percent of the cost of the NEPA study for the project.

B-6 Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The major challenge faced during the NEPA process for the POMT was anticipating which agency would have a major federal action. While it was clear that the USCG and USACE would be involved due to the project’s tunnel and bridge com- ponents, it was less clear whether FHWA had a major federal action because federal funding and financing were not yet part of the financial plan. FDOT engaged FHWA in the NEPA pro- cess early to keep its funding options open, and that proved to be extremely valuable to the project when it sought fed- eral financing years after NEPA approval. The PD&E process also served as a key tool during the environmental clearance; the alignment of the PD&E process with the NEPA process allowed project staff to anticipate issues that would arise and meet the requirements of all agencies involved. FDOT’s prac- tice of integrating the NEPA process into its PD&E process and keeping federal agencies informed and involved helped the state avoid a large hurdle later in the process. FDOT also had the flexibility to change the project’s tunnel- ing method after the DEIS was completed in 1996. The will- ingness of FDOT to adopt new industry practices led to the modification of the construction method, and ultimately led to changing the NEPA class from EIS to EA/FONSI. The change of the construction method alone allowed the project to avoid many of the issues and impacts that would have had to be analyzed, negotiated, and potentially mitigated. Lessons Learned Coordinate with federal and local agencies prior to the start of NEPA activities. Early in the planning process, FDOT convened a technical team of federal, state, and local stakeholders to analyze and evaluate several corridor options for the project. This stakeholder engagement was initiated at the project development stage pre-NEPA, and included more than 10 agencies—some which would became lead and cooperating agencies during the NEPA process. By engaging stakeholders early on, especially during the first phase of the project, FDOT and FHWA were able to pinpoint many of the project’s potential issues and make appropriate adjustments before a final EIS or ROD was issued. Additionally, the exis- tence of a MOU between two of the federal agencies on roles during NEPA review removed any doubt about the responsi- bilities of each agency in participating in NEPA. Engage stakeholders formally in the review process. The early coordination with agencies and stakeholders through the advisory committees also created a vehicle through which to solicit local and public participation in the environmental process. The committees met at least a dozen times and pro- vided input from their constituents throughout every stage of the process, from corridor analysis to choosing the preferred alternative. Foster an early partnership between the lead agency and sponsor. FDOT’s early partnership with FHWA led the state to pursue a NEPA review for the POMT before there was a major federal action to trigger FHWA’s official participa- tion. This planning allowed FDOT to quickly federalize the project later when it sought TIFIA financing in 2008. Had FDOT not engaged FHWA until that point in the project, implementation would have been significantly delayed. FHWA and FDOT had built a productive partnership prior to the launch of the POMT project, developed over time while working together on many projects in the state. That partner- ship, coupled with strong project management on the part of FDOT, helped maximize the benefits of the close relationship during the NEPA process. FHWA’s early involvement allowed its staff to quickly review project documents for compliance with regulations to meet federal aid requirements. FDOT also had strong relationships with USCG and USACE that helped streamline coordination. FDOT had used a similar approach for a number of other projects—going through NEPA review without the trigger of a major federal action—in order to keep the state’s federal aid options open. Implement new technologies to avoid environmental impacts. For the POMT, the most influential factor in stream- lining the NEPA process was the use of improved tunneling technology. With the original cut-and-cover tunnel construction method, the environmental impacts—especially to water qual- ity and port operations—would have been significant, and con- siderable mitigation would have been required. The willingness of FDOT to embrace a new, relatively untested (in the United States) tunnel boring machine construction method allowed FDOT to avoid the most significant environmental impacts, and allowed a change in the class of action from an EIS to an EA. Bibliography Florida Department of Transportation. February 17, 2006. Port of Miami Tunnel and Access Improvement Project Information Memo. Accessible via: http://www.portofmiamitunnel.com/system/js/ back/ckfinder/userfiles/files/news-clips/06-0216-PIM-Final.pdf. Florida Department of Transportation. Project Development & Environ- ment Manual (PD&E Manual) Parts 1 & 2. http://www.dot.state. fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/pdeman1.shtm. (As of March 23, 2015). Federal Highway Administration, Region Four. December 13, 2000. “Administrative Action Finding of No Significant Impact, Port of Miami Tunnel & Access Improvements From I-395 to the Port of Miami in Miami-Dade County, Florida.” Federal Highway Administration, United States Coast Guard. Jan uary 19, 1986. “USCG/FHWA Memorandum of Understanding on Imple- menting NEPA.” https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ notices/n6640-22.cfm. (As of November 9, 2015).

Next: Appendix C - Case Study Eastern Corridor Program, Cincinnati, Ohio »
Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (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 Environmental 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.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!