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.

C-1 A P P E N D I X C Summary Project Description The Eastern Corridor Program is a set of road, transit, bicy- cle, and pedestrian improvements in the Cincinnati region. The program includes four core highway projects—improvements to Red Bank Expressway, SR 32 relocation, SR 32 improve- ments, and improvements to the SR 32/I-275 interchange— plus a new commuter rail line, expanded bus service, and transportation system management improvements. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Lead Agency for Tier 1 NEPA and for Tier 2 roadway components • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Cooperating Agency for Tier 1 Key State and Local Agencies • Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)—Public Agency Lead • Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) • Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District • Clermont County Transportation Improvement District • City of Cincinnati • Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments Challenges Faced The Eastern Corridor Program project team faced two of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table C-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Be willing to employ a non-traditional approach for a unique project. • Secure agency buy-in on complex issues early in the process. • Recognize that a tiered approach alone does not solve issues and conflicts related to environmental impact and coordination. Case Study Detail Introduction The Eastern Corridor Program is a multimodal set of proj- ects in the Cincinnati region aimed at improving mobility between Cincinnati and its eastern suburbs. The program area encompasses 165 square miles, extending from the Cincinnati Central Business District and riverfront redevelopment area in Hamilton County east to the I-275 outer belt corridor in Clermont County. There are currently limited routes connect- ing the eastern suburbs with downtown Cincinnati—four local roads traversing the Little Miami River, and a circuitous route using the Interstate highway system (I-471 and I-275) which requires two crossings of the Ohio River. The Eastern Corridor Program, advocated by Hamilton County and a stakeholder group called the Eastern Corridor Partners, aims to address the challenges that have led to insufficient transportation capac- ity, safety issues, and lack of transportation alternatives in the project area. Planning for transportation improvements between Cin- cinnati and its eastern suburbs began in the 1960s. Over the 30 years that followed, a series of feasibility and planning studies was conducted, but improvement projects were delayed due to a lack of funding to move projects to the plan- ning or construction phases, or due to planning information being out of date by the time funding became available. In Sep- tember 1999, the Ohio-Kentucky-Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI) completed a major investment study (MIS) for the Eastern Corridor Program, titled “2020 Vision for the Eastern Corridor.” The MIS, carried out under FHWA/ FTA planning regulations promulgated pursuant to the Inter- modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, was a Case Study—Eastern Corridor Program, Cincinnati, Ohio

C-2 local planning study aimed at identifying transportation alternatives that could best meet the transportation needs of the corridor, while minimizing environmental impacts and maximizing social and economic benefits. In 2003 and 2004, ODOT decided to pursue a tiered approach to developing the program and project list and fulfilling NEPA requirements. The goal of the first tier was to identify broad corridors for program improvements and establish a common purpose and need statement; the goal of the second tier was to carry out detailed environmental analysis for individual projects. The tiered approach allowed projects with minimal environmen- tal impacts to be implemented while analysis and consensus building continued on projects with more complex issues. Program Overview The projects comprising the Eastern Corridor Program are grouped into four categories (see Figure C-1): • New Highway Capacity: – Red Bank Corridor (Segment I): The project includes a series of improvements to Red Bank Expressway between I-71 and US 50. The improvements were proposed to reduce congestion and delays along the expressway, improve major intersections, enhance traffic flow, and accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians. Work includes removal, relocation, and rehabilitation of roadways, sidewalks, access points, and intersections. 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 C-1. Challenges summary. Figure C-1. Eastern Corridor project map. Source: ODOT

C-3 – SR 32 Relocation (Segments II and III): SR 32 is one of the primary thoroughfares in the Eastern Corridor Pro- gram area. The roadway suffers from congestion, a high crash rate, and heavy truck traffic. Consideration has been given to moving the western end of SR 32 to create a new connection between SR 32, US 50, and Red Bank Road. This relocation would include a new multimodal bridge for SR 32, rail transit, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic across the Little Miami River—a designated wild and scenic river—connecting SR 32, US 50, and Red Bank Road. – SR 32 Improvements, Eastgate Area (Segments IV (a) and (b)): Improvements to SR 32 in the Eastgate area focus on improving capacity and access to SR 32 between the I-275 interchange and Olive Branch-Stonelick Road. The project includes the construction of a new inter- change and road extensions. The project also includes separate improvement work on the I-275/SR 32 exchange and connected access roads. – SR 32/I-275 Interchange Improvements (Segment IV): The project upgrades the I-275/SR 32 and SR 32/ Eastgate Boulevard interchanges and improves capacity and access along SR 32. • New Rail Transit Capacity: – Oasis Rail Transit: Oasis Rail Transit is a proposed 17-mile commuter rail line between Cincinnati, Hamilton County, and western Clermont County. The line would be built on existing freight tracks and on a railroad right-of-way that the Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority (SORTA) purchased in the early 1990s with FTA funds. New track would be laid to complete connections in the corridor. The project could share a multimodal bridge crossing of the Little Miami River with the SR 32 Relo- cation project. • Transportation System Management (TSM) Projects: Approx imately 180 small-scale roadway network improve- ments are included, such as changes to traffic signal timing, intersection improvements, improvements to existing road- ways, and development of new bike trail/multipurpose facilities. • Expanded Bus Transit: Local transit providers would expand bus service. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies The Eastern Corridor Program team has been using a tiered approach to NEPA, which in turn has guided the time- line and status of the individual projects. The tiered approach divided the assessment of alternatives and environmental impacts into two phases: the first tier established the purpose and need of the overall program and identified broad corri- dors, and the second tier analyzed the alternatives in greater depth on a project-by-project basis. The Tier 1 Final Environ- mental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved in November 2005, and the Tier 1 Record of Decision (ROD) was approved in June 2006. FHWA was the lead federal agency for the Eastern Corridor Program during Tier 1; FTA was a cooperating agency. Other cooperating federal agencies during Tier 1 included the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. ODOT was the co-lead agency with FHWA. The agencies met in 2002, early in the tiered approach pro- cess, to determine each agency’s role. As the program con- sisted mainly of roadway improvements, it was determined that FHWA and ODOT would be the lead agencies. In Tier 2, FHWA and ODOT are the lead agencies for all of the roadway projects in the program, including the new high- way capacity projects and TSM projects. The major federal action on these projects is the use of federal funds for design and construction. New Starts grant funding from FTA is seen as a potential funding source for the Oasis Rail Transit project. As this would trigger a major federal action for FTA, it is anticipated that FTA would be the lead federal agency if the project advances. As of late 2015, ODOT was conducting a concep- tual alternatives study as a precursor to undertaking Tier 2 NEPA for transit. While ODOT is leading the Eastern Corridor program overall, SORTA’s support for Oasis Rail Transit is critical to moving the project forward. In 2002, an initiative to finance public transportation improvements in Hamilton County through a half-cent sales tax levy was defeated by a public vote. Without a clear source of funds, the Oasis Rail Transit project has been a low priority for SORTA, and consequently FTA has not actively engaged in the NEPA process. NEPA Process/Approach Previous planning efforts in this corridor—conducted in the 1960s and again in the 1990s—were lengthy and ulti- mately unsuccessful. The complexity of environmental issues and insufficient funding for planning and NEPA resulted in delays and outdated environmental documents. In the early 2000s, the participating federal and state agen- cies determined that a tiered environmental approach would be the most effective way to analyze the complex issues asso- ciated with the Eastern Corridor Program, as some of its projects could be expected to have significant impacts on surrounding parklands, waterways, and communities. Tier 1 provided a high-level review of the program, allowing stake- holders to reach agreement on the corridors that would be improved, without getting bogged down by the complexity

C-4 of the environmental impacts of individual projects. The tiered approach allowed those projects with lesser impacts to advance and be constructed after their more rapid Tier 2 approval, and kept the more complex projects from delaying the entire program. The tiered approach also gave the public opportunities to shape the overall program. Tier 1 EIS Process Tier 1 of the NEPA process identified and broadly analyzed feasible alternatives in corridors with a conservative footprint. The goal of Tier 1 was to identify how various potential modal projects could be best implemented in terms of engineering, environmental, financial, public input, land use, and com- munity development concerns. During Tier 1, a Draft EIS and Final EIS were developed and approved by FHWA and ODOT. The Tier 1 review led to a Tier 1 ROD, approved by FHWA in June 2006, which identified a set of multimodal improve- ments to undergo a more detailed analysis in Tier 2. The ROD specified the class of action and type of NEPA document to be prepared for each project. Tier 2 NEPA Process Tier 2 analyses are evaluating the preliminary alternatives recommended in the Tier 1 ROD. Tier 2 will produce sepa- rate NEPA documents for each of the program components, with classes of action reflective of the level of impact of each project. Specific issues such as preferred project alignments, detailed environmental impacts, and mitigation strategies are being evaluated. After each project is evaluated in Tier 2, and the environmental document necessary for that project is approved, final design and construction for that project will begin. As of late 2015 four major projects in the Eastern Corridor Program are preparing for significant Tier 2 NEPA review. • Red Bank Corridor: In January 2014 ODOT published a Preferred Alternative Implementation Plan identifying five different project components, the next steps for plan- ning and engineering, the estimated construction cost of the project, and the next steps for NEPA. ODOT recom- mended that each of the five components be advanced with separate NEPA documents. • SR 32 Relocation: The project faces several hurdles due to the risk of significant environmental impacts and permit- ting issues, stemming primarily from the location of proj- ect alternatives in the Little Miami River valley—a state and national scenic area. Specifically, the issues include Section 4(f) historic preservation, Section 7(a) of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), and the need for concur- rence from Native American tribes to construct through and impact important archeological sites. Federal agencies in addition to FHWA, including the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as well as non-federal parties, such as the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Native American tribes, have been deeply involved in negotiations over mitigation strate- gies to minimize the project’s impact. Following the release of a feasibility study in 2012, the stakeholders could not agree upon an alignment and mitigation strategy. In 2013 ODOT and FHWA engaged the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution and the Consensus Building Institute to assess the interests of each of the stake- holders and coordinate their priorities on mitigating the various impact issues. The Institutes reviewed all Eastern Corridor Program documents including Tier 1 NEPA doc- uments, and included local communities and other stake- holders in the mediation process. In August 2015, ODOT and FHWA published a status update from the mediation process, outlining the major impact risks to SR 32 and rec- ommendations for moving the project forward. The major recommendation is to split SR 32 into two segment projects that can proceed independently. It was also recommended that the project purpose and need be reviewed and the needs and solutions prioritized. These steps are expected to be taken in early 2016. The multimodal bridge crossing of the Little Miami River is on hold. • SR 32 Improvements, Eastgate Area: A Conceptual Alterna- tives Solutions Report was completed in July 2012. The report recommended that four alternative corridor alignments be studied in further detail in preparation for the Tier 2 NEPA process. As of late 2015, ODOT and the Clermont County Transportation Improvement District are exploring funding options for project construction. • Oasis Rail Transit: The rail transit project is divided into four segments. A Conceptual Alternatives Solutions Report was published in November 2013, and a Conceptual Alternatives Study is under way as a precursor to a possible Tier 2 NEPA phase. Alternative alignments are being evaluated that do not require a new crossing of the Little Miami River. If the proj- ect moves ahead, decisions remain on implementation roles, responsibilities, and funding. The remaining highway projects—the SR 32/I-275 inter- change and the TSM projects—satisfied Tier 2 with Categori- cal Exclusions (CEs). FHWA approved a Level 4 CE for the $48 million SR 32/I-275 interchange, and the project has been constructed and is open to traffic. Most of the 180 TSM projects have reached substantial com- pletion or are in design. Of those that have not yet been com- pleted, approximately 10 are on hold due to funding issues, approximately five have been cancelled (due to changing

C-5 needs), and two have been rolled into other existing projects within the Eastern Corridor Program. The bus operation improvement projects, which fall under SORTA’s jurisdic- tion, have been put on hold due to a lack of operating fund- ing and public need. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA FHWA’s and FTA’s NEPA requirements are detailed in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environmental Impacts and Related Proce- dures.” The regulations state, “ . . . when both the FHWA and FTA are involved in the development of a project, or when the FHWA or FTA acts as a joint lead agency with another fed- eral agency, a mutually acceptable process [for coordinating regarding NEPA] will be established on a case-by-case basis.” Many of the roadway and transit projects are structured as distinct and independent projects, with the exception of the multimodal bridge crossing the Little Miami River proposed as part of the SR 32 Relocation project. The Oasis Rail Transit project, if it proceeds, would also be subject to FTA procedures and criteria for New Starts fund- ing. FTA’s New Starts requirements for planning and proj- ect development are overlaid on the NEPA process. FTA has reminded SORTA that the right-of-way purchased with FTA funds must remain in active planning or SORTA could be asked to refund the federal funds. Impact of These Requirements Some of the Eastern Corridor projects would have signifi- cant impacts on surrounding park land, waterways, and local communities. The overall program was able to move through Tier 1 analysis by examining the broader project corridors and deferring review of more detailed environmental impacts to Tier 2. The tiered approach allowed the program to move ahead and the less impactful components of the program to be constructed. Tier 2, however, must address the impact issues and establish preferred alternatives and mitigation plans for each of the proj- ects in the program. For the SR 32 Relocation project, regula- tory requirements such as Section 4(f) and WSRA Section 7(a) are significant hurdles. FHWA, ODOT, and various stakehold- ers have been unable to reach consensus on a mitigation strat- egy or a project alignment. The lack of consensus has led to a conflict resolution process that recommended next steps for moving the project forward. As of late 2015, the purpose and need statement is being revised, and the process is looking at alternatives to reduce costs and impacts. The concept of a new multimodal bridge crossing the Little Miami River is on hold. FTA’s New Starts requirements related to project develop- ment would be addressed in conjunction with the Tier 2 NEPA process. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: ODOT undertook a multimodal NEPA process assuming that the FTA and FHWA require- ments were similar, and expecting that FTA would be a will- ing participant. It did not understand the FTA New Starts process and how New Starts funding requirements would affect FTA’s willingness to engage as a cooperating agency in NEPA. Frequent changes to the FTA’s New Starts program requirements have added to the difficulties of advancing a multimodal program with a long lead time. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Require- ments: The challenges that have delayed progress and are continuing to be addressed for the SR 32 Relocation project have been raised by federal and state resource and regulatory agencies such as the National Park Service, the Ohio Depart- ment of Natural Resources, and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Ser- vice, as well as Native American tribes. The delays are not rooted in differing interpretations of NEPA requirements; rather, they are rooted in the varying objectives of the involved entities and lack of consensus on an acceptable solution. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Fed- eral Action: FHWA’s major federal action was triggered on the project due to the large roadway components that were candidates for federal aid funding. An FTA major federal action could be triggered if the Oasis Rail Project and related transit components of SR 32 Relocation move forward for FTA grant funding. While FHWA fulfilled the role of lead federal agency in Tier 1, both agencies, along with other resource agencies, were engaged in developing the tiered approach and program-level strategies. There was little continuing coordination with FTA dur- ing Tier 1. ODOT met with FTA at the outset of Tier 1, and at that time FTA expressed a reluctance to be involved because it seemed unlikely that Oasis Rail Transit would meet the requirements for New Starts funding. As a cooperating agency, FTA agreed to review the Draft EIS and commented on displacements and environmental justice, bus rapid tran- sit, and cost/benefit analysis. FHWA issued a Notice of Intent for the Tier 2 EIS on the Oasis Rail project, but later decided that FTA would be the more appropriate agency to lead the NEPA process for this project. FTA has not yet accepted this role. Because the proj- ect is not currently a SORTA priority, and due to a lack of local funds, FTA does not anticipate that it will have a major federal action to take in the foreseeable future. However, FTA has acknowledged that both it and SORTA would need to be involved if the rail project advances.

C-6 Efficient Coordination among Agencies: A tiered NEPA process has been under way for a dozen years. A formal coor- dination schedule has allowed stakeholders to participate in the NEPA process, and FHWA meets monthly with local staff on environmental impact issues. In addition, quarterly or bi-annual meetings are held between local funding part- ners (county and city officials and area metropolitan planning organization and transportation improvement district chairs) and stakeholder groups (townships and communities, civic organizations, and special interest groups). Since the start of Tier 2 efforts, the participating state and federal agencies have been meeting to discuss Tier 2-specific NEPA issues. Although there has been a formal participation structure, the agencies were unable to agree on a preferred alternative for the SR 32 project alignment that would avoid or mitigate all of the impact issues that concern FHWA, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the affected Native American tribes. Mediation was ultimately required, and the SR 32 project is now being re-scoped to reduce costs and impacts. FTA has not engaged in the process since the beginning and the sponsoring agencies are unsure of FTA’s role going forward. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: Funding for NEPA studies was an issue in the 1960s and again in the 1990s. In Ohio, state gas tax revenues can only be spent on highways. ODOT did not consider this limitation to be an obstacle to using gas tax funds on the multi modal Tier 1, which was funded 50-50 between local funding partners (MPO, city, and counties) and ODOT. For Tier 2, however, ODOT determined that gas tax revenues could not be used for advancing the Oasis Rail project. Surface Transportation Program funds are being used for the current Conceptual Alternatives Study. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The tiered NEPA approach allowed ODOT and the stake- holders to establish a high-level purpose and need and broad alternatives that could then be examined separately through the Tier 2 NEPA analyses. Through the Tier 1 process a list of alternatives and projects was created that coordinated with existing land use planning and the vision for the region. The use of multiple modes was considered to be critical to address- ing the growing travel demands and reaching consensus on a solution. The use of mediation through the Consensus Building Insti- tute was intended to aid in resolving environmental impact issues on the SR 32 Relocation project. The mediation led to a recommendation to split the SR 32 project into two segments in hopes of making progress. Lessons Learned Be willing to employ a non-traditional approach for a unique project. The tiered approach was useful for this pro- gram because it transformed years of feasibility studies and project recommendations into a structured process and set of projects with a common purpose and need. By approving the broad corridors through the first tier of NEPA, much-needed projects with minimal impacts are being constructed, and are not delayed by the complex issues of two or three projects in the program. Secure agency buy-in on complex issues early in the process. Project staff at ODOT noted that it would have been helpful to get early buy-in from FTA on the process for the Oasis Rail Transit project. FTA has not agreed to assume the role of lead agency, and FTA’s ultimate decision on the Tier 2 NEPA process is uncertain. Part of FTA’s reluc- tance reflects local reservations about the project due to the major capital and operating funding requirements, design concerns, and ridership projections. Recognize that a tiered approach alone does not solve issues and conflicts related to environmental impact and coordination. ODOT staff note that one of the biggest draw- backs to the tiered NEPA approach is the “kicking down the line” of important issues. While the tiered process allowed many of the more straightforward projects to move forward, it did not make it easier to resolve the significant environmen- tal and funding issues that have held up two or three projects. Developing a plan earlier on how to tackle these significant impacts might have prevented delays. Staff commented that they are hesitant to move forward with a tiered approach again due to the lack of resolution to the complex project issues in Tier 1. They stated that a robust planning process that can iden- tify projects, needs, and challenges followed by project-specific NEPA reviews would have worked as well in identifying and mitigating impacts. Bibliography Federal Highway Administration. June 2006. “Record of Decision for Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects—Tier 1.” Federal Highway Administration, Ohio Department of Transporta- tion, and Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District. November 2004. Tier 1 Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects. Federal Highway Administration, Ohio Department of Transporta- tion, and Hamilton County Transportation Improvement District. November 2005. Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement, Eastern Corridor Multi-Modal Projects. Ohio–Kentucky–Indiana Regional Council of Governments. September 1999. 2020 Vision for the Eastern Corridor: A Comprehensive Plan for Improving Transportation in the Cincinnati Metropolitan Area. http://easterncorridor.org/. (As of March 23, 2015).