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.

K-1 A P P E N D I X K Summary Project Description East Link is an 18-mile extension of the Link light rail sys- tem in the Puget Sound region. The project, which will relocate the existing high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes on I-90, will cross Lake Washington and connect Seattle to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond to the east. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Lead • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Cooperating Agency Key State and Local Agencies • Central Puget Sound Regional Transit (Sound Transit)— Public Agency Lead • Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) Challenges Faced The East Link project team faced one of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table K-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Begin coordination early. • Secure early buy-in from stakeholders. • Document consensus on environmental issues. • Encourage an efficient approval process. Case Study Detail Introduction In 2004, the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) spon- sored the Central Puget Sound Regional High Capacity Transit Corridor Assessment to create a framework for more detailed planning studies of transit potential in the region. This frame- work built on 40 years of planning work in the region, as well as an existing Memorandum of Agreement on Design and Construction of the I-90 Floating Bridge, signed in 1976 by the Washington State Highway Commission and the munici- palities of Seattle, Mercer Island, and Bellevue. The agreement, developed during a period when expansion plans for I-90 were stalled, called for the future conversion of the center roadway lanes into a dedicated transit corridor. The agreement identi- fied the corridor connecting Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond as the best option for high capacity transit (HCT) in the region. Sound Transit included HCT along I-90 serving the above cities in its 2006 Long-Range Plan. The East Link project executes this element of the plan. The goal of the East Link project is to expand the Sound Transit Link light rail system and connect the urban centers of Seattle, Bellevue, Overlake and Redmond. The I-90 corridor experiences congestion and delays in both directions. Existing transit options, operating in mixed traffic, do not offer fast or reliable travel times. The East Link project is an 18-mile extension of the Link light rail system from downtown Seattle to Mercer Island across Lake Washington, continuing east to the cities of Bellevue, Overlake, and Redmond along I-90. East Link will connect to the existing light rail system at the International District/ Chinatown Station in downtown Seattle. The line will operate 20 hours per day Monday through Saturday, and 18 hours on Sunday. The project is separated into five segments (see Figure K-1): Case Study—East Link Light Rail Project Puget Sound Region, Washington

K-2 • Segment A: Seattle (International District Station) to South Bellevue in the center lanes of I-90 • Segment B: South Bellevue to SE 6th Street • Segment C: Downtown Bellevue—SE 6th Street to 116th Avenue NE or BNSF railroad and NE 12th Street • Segment D: 116th Avenue NE to Overlake Transit Center (NE 40th Street and SR 520) • Segment E: Overlake Transit Center to downtown Redmond The project includes aerial, at-grade, and tunnel align- ments of electrified light rail connecting 10 stations. The project also includes a maintenance facility to provide light rail vehicle storage, operator report facilities, light rail vehi- cle maintenance, and maintenance-of-way facilities. The project was approved by voters in November 2008 as part of Sound Transit’s ST2 Plan (Sound Transit 2: A Mass Transit Guide—The Regional Transit System Plan for Cen- tral Puget Sound). ST2 was slated to fund construction and operation for segments A through D from Seattle to Over- lake Transit Center, and preliminary design and environ- mental review of segment E. Due to lower than projected funds from ST2, it is possible that funding will run out for construction and operation before Segment D to Overlake Transit Center is complete. The minimum planned proj- ect would run from Seattle to Hospital Station, representing segments A through C. The preferred alignment for Segment A of the East Link project between Seattle and Mercer Island will occupy the center lanes of the existing I-90 Floating Bridge, requiring the existing HOV lanes to be moved to the outside shoulder of the highway. Several design, construction, and maintenance considerations factored into decisions on adding light rail to 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 K-1. Challenges summary. Source: Sound Transit Figure K-1. East Link project area and segments (with possible alternative alignments).

K-3 the floating bridge. This project is the first known rail opera- tion on a floating bridge, and thus inherently presents con- struction and operation risk. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was completed in December 2008. A Supplemental EIS was com- pleted in November 2010. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was completed in July 2011, and FHWA and FTA issued separate RODs in November 2011. The project is in final design, with construction expected to begin in 2015 and revenue operations slated to begin in 2021. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies FTA was the lead federal agency for East Link NEPA activi- ties; FHWA served as a cooperating agency. At the state level, Sound Transit and WSDOT both served as lead agencies, with Sound Transit taking the title of “nominal lead agency.” The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in Washington State stipulates that when multiple state agencies are acting as lead agencies on a project, one should be named “nominal lead agency,” with an agreement created between the lead agencies to outline their roles and responsibilities in the environmental process. The agreement allows two or more agencies at the state level to share lead agency responsibili- ties, while designating one agency as the nominal lead for reporting purposes. FTA became involved on the project because Sound Tran- sit was investigating federal funding options to fund the construction of the project. Sound Transit did not pursue funding through the New Starts program, but intends to use other federal funding available through FTA to construct the project. FHWA became involved in the project because segments A and B would be built within the existing Interstate road- way, and because the project would cross over I-405. FHWA’s major action on the project is two-fold: the first is that FHWA approval was needed to convert the center HOV lanes on I-90 to track for light rail. The access approval for the cen- ter lanes was obtained through an Interchange Justification Report (IJR). The second is approval for the use of the “airspace” above the Interstate highway for the purpose of adding light rail. Sound Transit invited several local, state, and federal agen- cies to participate as cooperating and participating agencies (see Table K-2). For coordination and decision-making pur- poses, FTA, Sound Transit, WSDOT, and FHWA served on the Executive Sponsorship Team. The Executive Sponsor- ship Team would step in if decisions could not be resolved at the staff level between co-leads. Cooperating Agencies Participating Agencies FHWA U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Army Corps of Engineers National Park Service U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service City of Bellevue U.S. Environmental Protection Agency City of Mercer Island National Marine Fisheries Service City of Redmond Advisory Council on Historic Preservation City of Seattle Bureau of Indian Affairs King County Federal Emergency Management Agency Affected Tribes: Muckleshoot Tribe, Snoqualmie Tribe, Squamish Tribe, Tulalip Tribe, Yakama Tribe, Duwamish Tribe (not federally recognized but included in consultation) Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation Washington Department of Natural Resources Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Washington Department of Ecology Puget Sound Regional Council Puget Sound Clean Air Agency City of Clyde Hill City of Kirkland City of Issaquah Town of Beaux Arts Village City of Medina Table K-2. East Link cooperating and participating agencies.

K-4 NEPA Process/Approach Although the project is complex due to its length and the number of alignment alternatives, the NEPA process was fairly straightforward. The four main agencies—Sound Transit, WSDOT, FTA, and FHWA—had worked together in the past on transit/highway alignment projects, and thus were accus- tomed to coordinating and anticipating the issues of impor- tance to each agency. Light Rail Components Although the East Link corridor was long, with several alternatives (19 alignment alternatives within the 18-mile corridor), the project team decided to move forward with a single environmental review process, noting in interviews that while analyzing the corridor alternatives was complex, there was no better strategy for approaching environmental review. The most significant challenge appeared to be describ- ing and analyzing the impact of the multiple alternatives, especially in a manner that would be clear to the public dur- ing community outreach. The NEPA process began with a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register in 2006. An EIS was pursued due to the significant impact the light rail alignment would have on communities along the East Link corridor. The DEIS was completed December 2008. As a result of public input dur- ing the DEIS process, additional alignment alternatives and issues were raised for all the segments, warranting addi- tional analysis through a Supplemental DEIS, completed in November 2010. The issues raised during the Supplemental DEIS included: • Segment A: Properties adjacent to I-90 were deemed eli- gible for the National Register of Historic Places. It was determined that the inclusion of light rail on I-90 would not affect these properties. • Segments B through E: New alignment and station location options were reviewed after receiving public comments. The FEIS was approved in July 2011. Highway Components In order to approve the addition of light rail to I-90, WSDOT and FHWA completed an IJR to address access changes to the facility. An IJR is required if a project proposes modifica- tions to access on a limited-access facility; FHWA’s approval of the IJR requires compliance with NEPA. The IJR includes eight policy areas that must be analyzed to justify the proj- ect modifications, providing a comprehensive tool to evalu- ate changes to the existing network beyond environmental approval. These policy areas include project need; evaluation of reasonable alternatives; operation and accident analysis; review of access connections and design; land use and trans- portation plans; overview of future planned interchanges; coordination with other projects; and summary of NEPA process. While there were no major access changes to the facility as a result of the project, WSDOT and FHWA used this process as a means for evaluating the engineering and oper- ating feasibility of light rail on I-90, specifically Segment A. The IJR was approved in May 2011, shortly before the FEIS. FHWA and FTA issued concurrent RODs in November 2011—the first time the agencies had done so on a Sound Transit project. FHWA traditionally waits for the lead agency ROD, and then negotiates its approval in a single document, often slowing down the approval process. FHWA and FTA decided to issue concurrent RODs; this allowed each federal agency to focus on its own approval and respective areas of importance without having to coordinate the approvals on a single document and potentially slowing down the approval process—which had been both agencies’ experience with pre- vious joint environmental documents. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA FHWA’s and FTA’s NEPA regulatory requirements are detailed in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environmental Impacts and Related Procedures.” The regulation states, “. . . 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 Federal agency, a mutually acceptable process [for coordinating on NEPA] will be established on a case-by-case basis.” The participating agencies had differing perspectives, however, on how to approach the project and on the impor- tance of particular environmental issues. These differences derive from the different components of the project that are important to each agency, rather than the statutory and regulatory differences, as further described below. At the state level, Sound Transit and WSDOT also have different procedures and practices for implementing SEPA. Impact of These Requirements One area in which these differences in perspective were illustrated is the agreement on the purpose and need state- ment in the EIS. FTA and Sound Transit thought the pur- pose and need of the project should be to implement light rail in the region, consistent with past planning conducted by Sound Transit and the PSRC. FHWA and WSDOT pre- ferred a broader purpose and need statement. Project staff noted that an example of a broader purpose might include a statement such as “improve mobility.” The negotiation

K-5 around the purpose and need statement reflected a desire to keep transportation options open, as there was some hesi- tancy to proceed with the project because of the shift of lane capacity on I-90 in Segment A. This project is tied closely to the I-90 HOV lane project, which will replace the HOV capacity lost to light rail by converting the shoulders to an additional lane that will accommodate HOV traffic. The ten- sion between maintaining and increasing highway capacity and instituting reliable public transportation played out in the environmental review. Another area in which differing perspectives arose was how to measure and mitigate environmental impacts. For example, due to the modal differences between the agen- cies, their responses to mitigating an impact such as noise differ due to the origin and nature of the impact. Rather than negotiating these relatively common divergences on every project, Sound Transit, WSDOT, FTA, and FHWA found an efficient way to reach consensus on recurring environmental issues on regional projects. In 2001, WSDOT and Sound Transit formed an Environ- mental Action Team (EAT), with support from FHWA and FTA, to coordinate and document mutually agreed upon action from all parties on common environmental issues that arose on Sound Transit regional projects. The catalyst for the EAT was the implementation of the Sound Transit Regional Express project, which added several bus routes to highway corridors in the region. The EAT participants agreed upon policy actions through “issue papers” authored by staff at the agencies. The issue papers are kept in an online library that is accessible to proj- ect staff. The papers discuss topics ranging from air quality to right-of-way acquisition to transit-oriented develop- ment requirements for FTA and FHWA. Project staff on the East Link project from both Sound Transit and WSDOT mentioned the EAT as a valuable tool in efficiently working through varying perspectives on methodologies and miti- gation strategies for environmental impacts. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: There were no specific program requirements under NEPA that provided unique challenges on the project. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Require- ments: FTA and FHWA approach their similar require- ments from different perspectives. The agencies’ varying perspectives were a challenge, but not insurmountable due to a tradition of coordination among the agencies (includ- ing Sound Transit and WSDOT). The issue papers created by the EAT assisted in providing a foundation for methodolo- gies and mitigation strategies that could be agreed to by all agencies. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: Anticipating major federal action on the proj- ect was not a challenge because federal agency involvement was clear throughout the project. Sound Transit was seeking FTA funding, necessitating FTA’s involvement. The change to access along I-90 triggered FHWA’s involvement. FHWA expressed early on that it should not be the lead agency, which was another factor in FTA assuming that role. Efficient Coordination among Participating Agencies: The agencies—Sound Transit, WSDOT, FHWA, and FTA— had worked together in the past on the Central Link project as well as the Sound Regional Express projects. The institu- tional knowledge from these previous partnerships led to a good working relationship among the agencies. On the East Link project, Sound Transit created a coordination plan that outlined the team structure and a project work plan outlining the NEPA and SEPA processes. Sound Transit made an effort to communicate with WSDOT and FHWA early on to facilitate timely approvals later in the process and avoid delays. Sound Transit also met monthly with FHWA to work through traffic analysis and ridership forecasting for the IJR process, providing a plat- form for consistency between the EIS and IJR processes. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: Sound Transit funded the NEPA process, including funding for work completed by WSDOT. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The most valuable strategy used to overcome project chal- lenges was put in place before the start of the NEPA process. The creation of the EAT and issue papers in the early 2000s helped to establish foundations upon which to build solu- tions to complex, recurring environmental issues among the four agencies. While each issue requires project-specific solutions, having already agreed to principles and approaches to govern the measurement and mitigation of impacts enabled timely resolution of problems and conflicts. The 1976 Memorandum of Understanding signed by local stakeholders that included transit on the I-90 corridor in the future was also an important contributor to success. This might have helped to mitigate challenges related to the inclusion of light rail on the I-90 Floating Bridge, and it did help solidify the focus on public transit in the purpose and need statement.

K-6 Lessons Learned The following approaches helped resolve challenges in an efficient manner, and mitigated additional issues: Begin coordination early. Sound Transit included WSDOT and FHWA as partners early on in the project, allowing the agencies to work through any issues, especially related to traffic and ridership projections along Segment A of the East Link corridor. Coordination among the agencies was also frequent due to the IJR process, allowing Sound Transit to address the highway agencies’ concerns early in the process. The development of a coordination plan early in the NEPA process also helped to structure the project team and envi- ronmental review work plan. Secure early buy-in from stakeholders. The biggest pub lic controversy on the project was the alignment of the project and the replacement of the center HOV lanes on the I-90 Floating Bridge with light rail. The Memorandum of Agreement documented the importance of HCT to regional partners, and their formal coordination and support proved valuable in countering some of the backlash against the project. Document consensus on environmental issues. The EAT issue papers were a valuable resource as a starting point for discussing methodologies and mitigation techniques to address specific issues that arose during the project. The ongoing working relationships among the four agencies were strengthened as a result of developing issue papers to guide decision-making, and reinforced the credibility of the issue papers. Encourage efficient approval process. One of the pro- cess improvements emerging from the project was issuance of separate, concurrent RODs by FTA and FHWA. The effi- ciency of the process resulted in part because of the sepa- rate, targeted focus on certain project components by each agency and coordination on components through the DEIS and FEIS. Bibliography Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). May 2011. I-90 East Link Project Final Interchange Justification Report. Federal Highway Administration. November 17, 2011. “East Link Light Rail Transit Project: Record of Decision.” Federal Transit Administration. November 16, 2011. “Record of Deci- sion for Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority’s (Sound Transit) East Link Light Rail Transit Project.” Federal Transit Administration, Washington State Department of Trans- portation, and Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit). July 2011. East Link Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.