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.

H-1 A P P E N D I X H Summary Project Description Mountain View is a 38-mile north-south corridor west of Salt Lake City. The project includes a limited-access highway component and related roadway facilities, a tran- sit component [bus rapid transit (BRT) convertible to light rail], and an emphasis on pedestrian- and transit-oriented land use. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Lead • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Cooperating Key State and Local Agencies • Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)—Lead Sponsor • Utah Transit Authority (UTA)—Co-sponsor Challenges Faced The Mountain View Corridor project team faced three of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table H-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Use a multimodal approach to facilitate implementation. • Understand other agencies’ issues and constraints before undertaking a multi-agency process. • Be cautious about including local interagency agreements in NEPA documents. Case Study Detail Introduction UDOT and FHWA undertook a multimodal NEPA process to evaluate highway and transit options in a 38-mile corridor running north-south along the west side of the developed areas within Salt Lake County and Utah County (see Figure H-1). UTA was a co-sponsor; FTA was a cooperating agency. Par- ticipants described the process as a corridor planning effort designed to evaluate a number of highway, transit, and land use solutions within the NEPA process to determine a preferred strategy. The primary project objective was to improve regional mobility—both by reducing roadway congestion and by sup- porting increased transit availability. Secondary objectives were to support local growth objectives, increase roadway safety, and support increased bicycle and pedestrian options. A combined highway and transit project emerged from the NEPA process. The highway component is a new six- to eight- lane limited-access freeway connecting I-80 west of Salt Lake City to I-15 near Provo. The first phase of development for the roadway component includes right-of-way acquisition for the eventual freeway facility, construction of an arterial road- way with signalized intersections, construction of two inter- changes, and construction of a trail. The transit component, in the northern portion of the corridor, is a 24-mile dedicated facility in the median of an arterial roadway parallel to the new freeway. The transit component would initially be built as BRT, with potential conversion to light rail. The NEPA process was carried out between 2003 and 2008, producing a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), and Record of Decision (ROD). These NEPA documents described both the highway and transit elements and their impacts, but the federal action (location and design approval by FHWA) was limited to the highway project. Case Study—Mountain View Corridor, Salt Lake City, Utah

H-2 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 H-1. Challenges summary. Source: UDOT Figure H-1. Mountain View Corridor project area.

H-3 Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies UDOT was the project sponsor, UTA was a co-sponsor, and FHWA was the lead federal agency for NEPA. Initially, FTA agreed to serve as a joint lead agency. Its status was later changed to a cooperating agency when FTA concluded that the Mountain View transit component was not a high prior- ity project for UTA. At the time, UTA was advancing a num- ber of other major transit investment projects through FTA’s New Starts and other grant-making processes for funding. Because no FTA action on Mountain View was anticipated in the foreseeable future, FTA elected to invest its staff time and limited travel funds on more immediate projects. Communications between the project team and FTA were routed through UTA, which had an established relationship with FTA staff in Denver. FTA staff participated in coordina- tion calls and assisted with document reviews but were not able to participate fully in Mountain View NEPA activities. As part of the NEPA process, UDOT requested the involve- ment of Envision Utah—a non-profit organization based in Salt Lake City that had been working with local jurisdictions since 1997 to link land use and transportation planning. In 2004, Envision Utah facilitated a Growth Choices Study to help local municipalities understand the relationship between land use and transportation policy choices and to facilitate agreement on a vision of future development with comple- mentary land use and transportation policies. Participating cities in the corridor signed a Mountain View Vision Volun- tary Agreement intended to guide future land use and trans- portation decisions. The agreement outlined a future land use concept—to be implemented by each jurisdiction—consisting of pedestrian-oriented mixed-use centers and corridors and a variety of housing types. NEPA Process/Approach The NEPA process for the Mountain View Corridor was undertaken shortly after UDOT had lost an environmental lawsuit over the Legacy Highway. UDOT therefore chose to take a different approach with Mountain View to reduce the risk of a legal challenge. The new approach considered high- ways, transit, and land use together in addressing mobility needs. Between 2003 and 2008, a DEIS, FEIS, and ROD were completed for the combined highway and transit project. The voluntary agreement on land use noted above was used in the analysis of alternatives and impacts under the NEPA process. As a demonstration of their commitment to a multi-modal solution, UDOT and UTA entered into an Interlocal Coopera- tion Agreement that laid out a phased plan for implementing the program of highway and transit projects: • UDOT will proceed with Phase 1 of the 5800 West Freeway Alternative immediately following issuance of the ROD, to the fullest extent possible given available funding. • UTA will take all actions necessary to (1) complete Phase 1 of the 5600 West Transit Alternative and begin revenue opera- tion by December 31, 2015, and (2) complete Phase 2 of that alternative and begin revenue operation of that phase by December 31, 2025. • UDOT will not initiate construction of Phase 2 of the roadway until after Phase 1 of transit is in revenue operation [with certain exceptions and conditions further described in the ROD]. • UDOT will not proceed with construction of Phase 3 of the roadway until after Phase 2 of transit is in revenue operation. Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority FHWA signed the NEPA documents, but made it clear in the ROD that it had no approval responsibility for the transit element. If a future FTA action should occur, the ROD stated, FTA would need to decide on the appropriate level of envi- ronmental study necessary for that action. FHWA also stated that additional NEPA processing would be needed for Phase 3 of the highway project, which was anticipated to be years away from being implemented. Thus, the EIS was seen as the first in a potential series of NEPA documents for the combined highway and transit program. The implementation phasing contained in the interlocal agreement was included in the FEIS and was made a require- ment of the ROD. The land use scenario in the Mountain View Vision Voluntary Agreement was assumed for all analyses in the EIS, including the travel demand forecasts. The agreement was included in the EIS as an appendix. In 2009, UTA applied for a TIGER grant to help fund the transit component. FTA informed UTA that it would require an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the BRT project, because the level of project definition and environmental analysis in the Mountain View EIS was not detailed enough to satisfy FTA’s NEPA requirements. An EA was prepared, but the process was never completed because the transit component project was not selected for a TIGER grant. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA The NEPA process was conducted in accordance with the FHWA/FTA joint NEPA regulations at 23 CFR Part 771. Approval of the ROD by FHWA constituted location and design approval for the highway. The ROD authorized UDOT to proceed with construction for Phases 1 and 2 and with right-of-way acquisition for Phase 3, but was conditioned upon compliance with the phasing schedule in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement.

H-4 Impact of These Requirements Differences between the FHWA and FTA approaches to planning and NEPA were an issue. At the time of the Mountain View NEPA process, federal laws governing the transit pro- gram required a corridor-level analysis of alternative modes and alignments for fixed guideway transit projects funded with New Starts grants. FTA tended to expect that local deci- sions on the scope of a transit project would emerge from an alternatives analysis carried out prior to NEPA. FHWA was more comfortable relying on the NEPA process to arrive at project scope decisions. In addition, FTA was unwilling to fully engage in the pro- cess without knowing that the transit project was a UTA pri- ority, and how the project would be funded (i.e., FTA wanted to know what federal action it would be expected to take). FHWA, however, was prepared to work with UDOT and its partners to clear the highway project through NEPA so that environmental approvals would be in place when construction funding became available. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: FTA’s unique requirements for New Starts projects were not directly addressed, since UTA did not identify New Starts as its intended funding source. However, since the transit element of the Mountain View study was to be a fixed guideway project, FTA tended to view the project through the lens of its New Starts requirements. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements: FHWA, as the lead agency, was willing to participate in a cor- ridor planning study and incorporate the corridor planning results into a NEPA document before funding was identified. FTA saw the Mountain View study as more of a planning exer- cise. Without a clear sense that the transit component would be using FTA funds, FTA did not anticipate that it would be called upon for a major federal action triggering NEPA. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: FTA agreed to be named as a cooperating agency, but declined to play an active role because it did not anticipate having a major federal action. It directed its staff resources to projects that were UTA’s priorities for implementation. FHWA’s ROD states that subsequent NEPA processing would be required before any federal action could be taken on the transit component. Efficient Coordination Among Agencies: FTA was reluc- tant to fully engage in the process because the transit proj- ect was not a UTA priority and the FTA’s federal action was unclear. With the goal of establishing a new multimodal approach, UDOT and the local participants sought a greater level of involvement than FTA could provide. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: The cost of the NEPA process was largely borne by UDOT. UTA provided in-kind staff support, and perhaps a minor cash contribution, but cost-sharing between the highway and transit project sponsors was not an impediment. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The Growth Choices process and the Mountain View Vision Voluntary Agreement were focused efforts to more closely link land use and transportation decisions within the context of a federal NEPA process. With the subsequent turnover of elected officials and planning staff, however, local government commitment to the voluntary agreement has diminished. UDOT and UTA report that suburban develop- ment is now taking place in a manner that is not particularly supportive of transit. Another strategy was the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between UDOT and UTA, which was an effort to demonstrate the agencies’ joint commitment to a multimodal program of projects and obligate both agencies to carry out their respec- tive parts of the program. UDOT has built the initial 18 miles of the highway component. Under the ROD, however, UDOT cannot proceed with the second phase until the BRT com- ponent is constructed. UTA has no funding for BRT at this time, and without the higher-density development envisioned in the voluntary agreement, there may not be sufficient transit ridership to support BRT. Lessons Learned Use a multimodal approach to facilitate implementation. By taking a multimodal approach to the NEPA process and involving local jurisdictions in creating a land use vision for the corridor, UDOT succeeded in building an 18-mile highway segment and preserving right-of-way for the remainder of the envisioned project without legal challenge. Understand other agencies’ issues and constraints before undertaking a multi-agency process. Engaging other agen- cies in the NEPA process can be difficult. Other agencies have their own programs and priorities to manage, and their staff time and resources are limited. It should not be assumed that a cooperating agency will be able to devote its full attention to the NEPA process for a given project. If a U.S. DOT modal agency is unable to actively participate, a multi-agency approach may lead to frustration and an inability to move forward efficiently.

H-5 Be cautious about including local interagency agreements in NEPA documents. UDOT and UTA tied the highway and transit project implementation schedules together in an inter- local agreement that was made part of the ROD. Although the agreement seemed strategic at the time, without the neces- sary transit funding commitments, the ability of UDOT to advance subsequent phases of the highway project is put at risk. A change in the phasing schedule for either mode could be cause to reopen the NEPA process. Bibliography Federal Highway Administration. November 17, 2008. “Record of Decision, Mountain View Corridor Project in Salt Lake and Utah Counties.” Federal Highway Administration, Utah Department of Transportation and Utah Transit Authority. September 2008. Mountain View Corridor Final Environmental Impact Statement and Section 4(f) Evaluation. Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority. November 13, 2008. “Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transit Authority.”