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.

L-1 A P P E N D I X L Summary Project Description The Orange Line LRT Extension project is a 14-mile exten- sion of the Dallas, TX, light rail system between downtown and Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW). Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Lead • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)—Cooperating Key State and Local Agencies • Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART)—Sponsor • Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (DFW) • Cities of Dallas and Irving • North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) • Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Challenges Faced The Orange Line LRT Extension project team faced three of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table L-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Coordinate early with federal agencies to establish the most effective project structure and staffing. • Develop relationships with federal and sponsor agencies prior to the start of the project. • Become familiar with other agency considerations early in the project. • Hire a knowledgeable specialist to efficiently navigate any unfamiliar processes. • Combine NEPA processes. • Maintain frequent coordination with interested partner agencies. • Leverage mutual interest in the project. • Utilize joint meetings and open, transparent communica- tion among federal lead and cooperating agencies. • Allocate additional time to reconcile differing agency approaches. Case Study Detail Introduction DART expanded its light rail system by adding a 14-mile extension of the Orange Line to the Dallas/Fort Worth Inter- national Airport (DFW) (see Figure L-1). The extension was completed in two phases. The first phase, called “Irving 1 and Irving 2,” extended the Orange Line 9.3 miles from Bachman Station (where the Orange Line diverges from the Green Line) to the Beltline Station. The last mile and one station of this phase, which opened for revenue service in 2012, are on DFW property. The second phase, called “Irving 3,” extends the Orange Line approximately 5 miles from Beltline Road to the DFW airport terminal station. It includes only one station and is completely on the airport. It opened in August 2014. The NEPA process for the first phase required an Environ- mental Impact Statement (EIS), while NEPA requirements for the second phase were satisfied by an Environmental Assess- ment (EA) and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies The lead federal agency for NEPA on both phases of the Orange Line was FTA. FAA was a cooperating agency for both phases. DART was the local sponsor and coordinated directly with FTA and FAA. DART held several joint meetings with both FTA and FAA, but usually met individually with either Case Study—Orange Line LRT Extension to Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport, Dallas, Texas

L-2 FTA or FAA. DART copied FAA and FTA on its communica- tions with the other agency, so that both agencies would be informed. DFW, as the airport sponsor, was a participating agency. DFW represented airport issues and acted as a facilitator with FAA to support design and construction. FAA coordi- nated with DFW before signing off on anything related to the airport. DART had separate reimbursement agreements, funded by DART, with DFW and FAA. The agreement with FAA paid for dedicated personnel at FAA who reviewed design and NEPA documents. This helped accelerate the process. DFW served as the local entity to coordinate airport requirements with DART and other jurisdictions. Through the agreement, DART reimbursed DFW for its staff time associated with the project. 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 L-1. Challenges summary. Source: DART Figure L-1. DART System map highlighting the Orange Line.

L-3 From FAA’s perspective, the major federal action triggering NEPA was the change to the Airport Layout Plan required by the light rail transit (LRT) alignment. Such changes require FAA approval. Sections 49 USC 47107 (a) and (g) of the Federal Reauthorization Act of 1996 allow the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to prescribe certain assurances from air- port sponsors in exchange for receiving FAA funds. Under these regulations, the airport sponsor is required to keep the Airport Layout Plan up to date. The sponsor must obtain FAA approval of any changes to the Airport Layout Plan, and this approval is a major federal action under FAA Order 5050.4b (NEPA Implementing Instructions for Air- port Actions). Initially, the light rail project was anticipated to be funded locally. However, after consultation between DART, FTA, FAA, and DFW, all parties agreed that it would be preferable for FTA to be the lead agency for NEPA with FAA as a coop- erating agency—FTA is more familiar with the environmen- tal impacts associated with a light rail project, FTA had staff resources to commit to the project, and DART had the exper- tise to manage the NEPA process. In order for FTA to be the lead agency for NEPA, it was necessary that FTA have a major federal action. DART elected to pursue federal funds for the first phase, since an FTA grant is a federal action under NEPA. Following the Record of Decision (ROD), DART obtained a $60 million grant under the American Recovery & Reinvest- ment Act of 2009 (ARRA) and $50 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality funds to construct the first phase. For the second phase, DART applied a small amount of its Section 5307 formula funds to the project so that there would be an FTA action. DART formed a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) com- prised of interested agencies that provided input on each phase. For the first phase, the cities of Irving and Dallas, TxDOT, and DART served as the core participants in the TAC. For the second phase, DART, the Fort Worth Transportation Author- ity, and DFW served as the TAC. DFW hosted bi-weekly TAC meetings at the airport primarily to coordinate the many DFW departments with an interest in the project. The meet- ings also addressed other project issues, such as emergency response, as needed. NEPA Process/Approach The Orange Line extension to the airport has a long history. Rail from Dallas through Irving to DFW was part of DART’s first Transportation System Plan in 1985. In 2000, a corridor- level major investment study concluded with a locally pre- ferred alternative (LPA) of light rail to the north end of DFW. In 2002, the DFW Rail Access Study considered three light rail alignments that would directly serve the DFW Airport Central Terminal Area. The purpose of the Orange Line extension was to serve the City of Irving and to connect DART’s extensive light rail system to DFW Airport. As such, the project was divided into two phases. The first phase extended light rail through the City of Irving to DFW property. The second phase provided rail service directly to the central terminal area. At the onset of NEPA for the first phase, the exact route of the second phase was yet to be determined. FTA determined that each phase had independent utility, allowing the phases to advance with two separate environmental efforts. Due to the potential impacts along the nine-mile line through the cities of Dallas and Irving to the airport property, the first phase (Irving 1 and 2) required an EIS. Public scop- ing for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) commenced in March 2005. The DEIS was published in Janu- ary 2008. The DART Board approved the refined alignment and stations in April 2008. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published in July 2008, and the FTA ROD was signed on September 5, 2008. The FAA ROD was approved on January 7, 2009. In January 2009, DART awarded its first-ever design-build contract for Irving 1 and Irving 2. Construction began in June 2009, and revenue service on the first phase began in late 2012. The second phase (Irving 3) was shorter, entirely on air- port property, and had far fewer impacts. It qualified for an EA. Initial coordination between DART, FTA, FAA, DFW, and NCTCOG began in late 2008. Scoping began in 2009, and the EA was published in August 2011. FTA and FAA each issued a FONSI in October 2011. The design-build contractor was selected in December 2011. When the design-build contractor for the second phase suggested an alignment change as a cost-saving measure, FAA determined that a supplemental EA would be required. A draft supplemental EA was submitted in February 2012. In March 2012, FAA reduced the level of review to a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation was finalized in April and both FTA and FAA determined that their previous FONSIs were valid. A single environmental document was prepared for each phase of the project, but FTA and FAA each issued an ROD/ FONSI. As the project sponsor, DART took the lead during both phases, managing the environmental analysis and prepar- ing the NEPA documents. The much shorter timeframe for the second phase was partly due to the lessons learned by DART during the first phase. Construction of Irving 3 began in April 2012 and was completed in August 2014 (see Figure L-2). Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA FTA’s NEPA requirements are detailed in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environmental Impacts and Related Procedures.” FAA guid- ance is contained in FAA Order 5050.4b, “NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.” FTA and FAA requirements

L-4 are not incompatible, but the agencies have different interests and tend to emphasize different elements. FTA and FAA NEPA documents respond to the same statu- tory requirements in NEPA, and the same regulations from the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and their docu- ments cover the same topic areas. However, some of the con- siderations differ due to the differing nature of each agency’s typical projects. Noise impacts, for instance, are addressed differently by each agency. Due to the linear nature of transit projects, which travel through or adjacent to numerous prop- erties, FTA tends to deal with many impacts to individual noise receptors. Typical airport projects, by contrast, lead to concerns about how an increase in flights might impact over- all noise levels in the surrounding community. There are also unique concerns on an airport due to potential interference with airport communications. The FAA guidance requires the evaluation of specific envi- ronmental impact categories of particular interest to airports: air quality, compatible land use, construction impacts, flood plains, light emissions and visual effects, water quality, wet- lands, and Waters of the United States. In addition, FAA has a greater focus on safety and security. Finally, FTA and FAA have different thresholds for resource categories. FAA typically requires an Airspace Study before changing an Airport Layout Plan. The Airspace Study allows FAA to determine whether the height, layout, and composition of the structure will obstruct the navigable airspace or adversely affect FAA facilities, such as navigational aids. The Airspace Study can assess a wide range of potential impacts, depending on the airport’s particular interests. These may include airport design standards, objects affecting naviga- ble airspace, airport navigation, human factors, safety, and risk management. Even if there are no tall structures that exceed obstruction standards, there may be physical or electromag- netic effects that impact navigation. Airport navigation relies on electromagnetic radiation, which is highly sensitive to a variety of factors, including reflection from lower structures and the metal associated with a light rail project. Differing impact thresholds for wetlands also became a factor during the second phase. FAA initially asked for a Supplemental EA when the design-build contractor proposed more at-grade design. FAA also requires public meetings in some situations that FTA does not. Impact of These Requirements During the first phase, DART was unfamiliar with FAA requirements and did not realize that an Airspace Study would be required until after the DEIS was published. Starting the Airspace Study late delayed the project by several months— FTA’s ROD was issued several months prior to FAA’s. Never- theless, DART’s design-build contractor was able to start work on the off-airport portion of the project prior to FAA’s ROD that covered the on-airport portion. For the second phase, DART hired an aviation expert— a well-respected professional who had been involved in the first phase to guide coordination and compliance with FAA. The Airspace Study was started early. As a result, the EA pro- ceeded more smoothly and the FONSI was issued two years after scoping. Subsequently, however, issues arose over the way DART approached design-build contracting. DART paid its design-build proposers to develop a book of ideas as part of the selection process. The approach was intended to gen- erate innovative solutions for reducing costs and schedules and addressing other challenges. DART waited to initiate the design-build competition until after the NEPA process was complete. At that point, changes in the project needed to be considered in terms of their potential to reopen NEPA. This invitation to propose improvements concerned FAA during the second phase. FAA rarely modifies a project after the NEPA process. After environmental review was completed, the design-build firm proposed putting more of the project at-grade and reducing the amount of structure at DFW. The refined alignment also avoided the need to relocate the navi- gational aids and windshear devices. While these alignment adjustments reduced costs, they modified floodplain impacts and brought the project closer to the airfield. The refined design also involved different access roads both during and after construction than had been originally analyzed. Initially FAA thought that a supplemental environmental review would be required. There is a “pinch point” where the project is close to several highways and other roads and the landing strips. Separation and clearance had to be protected for these areas, which was a constant challenge. A supplemen- tal document would have required sign-off by FAA’s naviga- tional aids specialists after a lengthy, complex review process. Source: DART Figure L-2. Construction at DFW station, September 2013.

L-5 It was determined that the changes would not alter the origi- nal findings and a re-evaluation was sufficient. Nevertheless, evaluating the issue delayed the project by several months, as FAA would not allow the project to move forward on the airport until the environmental approval was in place. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella: The FAA requirement for an Airspace Study created some of the biggest challenges for the proj- ect. DART did not anticipate the need for an Airspace Study as part of the first phase which delayed the project by sev- eral months. In addition, even though DART anticipated the Airspace Study in the second phase, it did not recognize how sensitive the airport’s navigational aids were to inter- ference from reflection and the metal associated with light rail vehicles. There were challenges throughout the second phase in terms of the design and potential impacts on the navigational aids and airfields as the project passed through the pinch point. Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements: While the interpretations of NEPA requirements between FTA and FAA were not in conflict, differences in emphasis created challenges for the project. FTA is accustomed to deal- ing with linear projects where impacts to properties along the way, both residential and business, can be an issue. FTA initially viewed DFW as simply one of the property owners along the corridor, and did not anticipate intense scrutiny of all aspects of the project by DFW and FAA. For example, DART did not consider the alignment modification proposed by its design-build contractor to be a significant change, but FAA initially required a Supplemental DEIS. Another dif- ference between agencies is the level of review required for various NEPA processes. A Supplemental EIS automatically triggers a higher level of review within FTA than a re-evalua- tion, and takes much more time. A further difference relates to the role of the NEPA process in federal agency decision-making. For FTA, the NEPA pro- cess is a part of the project development process, and proj- ects are expected to evolve incrementally during NEPA. For FAA, projects are essentially developed and then subjected to NEPA review. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: Anticipating major federal actions was not an issue after DART decided to seek FTA funding for the project. Early coordination with FTA and FAA revealed that FAA would have to approve a modification to the Airport Layout Plan, which would trigger a review under NEPA as described above. Efficient Coordination among Agencies: A tremendous amount of coordination was required to resolve the many issues among DFW, FAA, and FTA, as well as TxDOT, local cities, and resource agencies. Effective coordination, while time consuming, was one of the keys to success for the project. Based on previous projects, DART anticipated the need for strong project management and worked closely with all major players. DFW led regular and frequent meetings to coordinate issues among its departments. FAA requires sign-off from the airport sponsor for all issues relating to facilities. By resolving issues on the airport, DFW facilitated FAA approval. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: Light rail to the airport had long been a priority in DART’s system plan. DART funds its NEPA studies with revenue from a one percent sales tax levied by member cities. It also tradition- ally pays for most of the capital costs of its projects, although it did obtain some federal funds for construction of both phases of this project. DFW paid for design and construction of the station on the airport in the second phase, but did not contribute funding to the NEPA process. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges In order to efficiently address FAA’s unique program require- ments, DART hired an experienced aviation consultant for the second phase. The individual was familiar with the technical and procedural requirements, and knew the staff at FAA. This consultant conducted the Airspace Study for the second phase, and had been involved with the Airspace Study for Phase 1. DART was also attentive to the differences in approach between FTA’s and FAA’s NEPA procedures. For example, initial coordination with FTA, FAA, and DART led to agree- ment that FTA should be the lead agency. FTA’s funding was a federal action that triggered NEPA, thereby giving FTA status to be the lead agency. DART also adhered faithfully to FAA NEPA guidance (5050.4b). It created a separate chapter in the EA and a separate section in the EIS where airport impacts were summarized in a format familiar to FAA. Interviewees also emphasized the importance of produc- tive relationships and constant communication as keys to effective coordination on multimodal projects. DART took a proactive and hands-on management approach throughout the process. It met periodically with FTA and FAA and copied them both on correspondence to keep them informed. DART also worked closely with local partner agencies. In the first phase, DART worked with a TAC comprised of the Cities of Dallas and Irving as well as TxDOT. In the second phase, DARTs partners were the Fort Worth Transportation Author- ity and DFW. DFW provided guidance on the FAA process and played a key role in addressing on-airport issues by hosting

L-6 numerous meetings with various parts of its organization. The TAC was instrumental in resolving airport issues. Lessons Learned Coordinate early with federal agencies to establish the most effective project structure and staffing. Coordination enabled the project partners to understand challenges and identify the most expeditious path. The early meetings with FTA and FAA confirmed that FTA should be the lead federal agency. In addition, in projects involving FAA, developing a well-structured reimbursement agreement is key, because funding is necessary for FAA staff to be able to engage with project teams. DART’s regular communications throughout were also important in moving the project forward. Build relationships with federal and sponsor agencies prior to the start of the project. The positive relationships among DART, FTA, FAA, and DFW created an environment of trust. As a result, when a challenge emerged, there was a will- ingness to collaborate toward a solution. Become familiar with other agency considerations early in the project. Earlier awareness of the FAA Airspace Study requirement would have avoided the delay in the first phase of the project. Hire a specialist to expedite any unfamiliar processes. DART’s engagement of an experienced professional who knew FAA requirements and was known to FAA staff significantly expedited FAA coordination in the second phase of the project. Combine NEPA processes. Having a single lead agency and a single environmental document saved resources and time. Consolidating analysis into one document helped foster a shared understanding of the project and its impacts and alternatives. Maintain frequent coordination with interested partner agencies. The regular TAC meetings with interested federal, state, regional, and local agencies allowed the project team to identify and resolve issues in a timely manner. Leverage mutual interest in the project. DFW had worked with DART and others in the region for years on proposed light rail access to the airport and was consistently supportive of the project. They put the time and resources into coor- dinating their interest as well as translating and facilitating communication between DART and FAA as needed. Utilize joint meetings and open communication among federal lead and cooperating agencies. DART’s practice of always copying both FTA and FAA when e-mailing one of the agencies was an efficient way to facilitate coordination. In addition, more joint meetings between the FTA and FAA might have facilitated more rapid resolution of differences. For example, FTA might have been able to address some of FAAs concerns regarding the alignment refinement had they met directly during the design-build selection process. Allocate additional time to reconcile differing agency approaches. In this case, the schedule could have allotted time for environmental review when project changes were contemplated on the airport. Bibliography Dallas Area Rapid Transit. June 17, 2009. “I-3 DFW Connection.” Pre- sented at public meeting, Dallas, TX. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2009. “Fact Sheet: DART Orange Line to North Irving/DFW Project Overview, Summer 2009.” Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2009. “Irving 3 Newsletter, DFW LRT Exten- sion,” Issue 1.0, Fall 2009. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2010. “Orange Line Update News Letter,” Spring 2010 Issue. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2011. “Orange Line Update Newsletter,” Spring 2011 Issue. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. September 2011. DART Orange Line DFW Airport Extension Irving-3, Environmental Assessment. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2012. “Orange Line Winter 2012 Newsletter.” Dallas Area Rapid Transit. June 2, 2011. “I-3 DFW Extension.” Presented at public hearing, Dallas, TX. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. 2011. “DART System Access to DFW.” Presented at One DOT meeting, June 30, 2011, Fort Worth, TX Federal Transit Administration, Dallas Area Rapid Transit, and Federal Aviation Administration. July 2008. Northwest Corridor LRT Line to Irving/DFW Airport, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Federal Transit Administration and Dallas Area Rapid Transit. October 2009. “Notice of Intent for the DART Irving-3 LRT Extension to DFW Airport.” Federal Aviation Administration. September 2011. “Finding of No Signifi- cant Impact, DART Orange Line DFW Airport Extension IRVING-3.” Federal Transit Administration. October 11, 2011. “Finding of No Signif- icant Impact, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Orange Line DFW Airport Extension (Irving-3).”