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.

O-1 A P P E N D I X O Instructions This tool is designed to help those undertaking multi- modal NEPA processes to assess their preparedness to address the challenges they are likely to face. The tool contains five sections: I. Identifying U.S. DOT Agency Participants, Roles, and Resources II. Identifying and Reconciling U.S. DOT Agency Require- ments and Procedures for NEPA Process III. Establishing NEPA Approach IV. Project Organizational Structure V. Project Procedures through the NEPA Process Each section provides a series of statements that represent the decisions and issues that have challenged those perform- ing previous multimodal NEPA processes. By agreeing or dis- agreeing with each statement, practitioners can gauge their own familiarity with the issues and identify those where they seem to be least prepared. At the end of each section, there is a reference to places within the final report to look for further information and guidance. The tool can also be used by individual practitioners or as the starting point for discussion at a workshop during the kick- off phase of the multimodal NEPA process. A group discussion might be particularly useful for identifying needed capabilities and establishing expectations among team members. The color guidance that accompanies each statement is meant to be a signal to which competency areas the team needs to work on the most. Each statement is important to assessing the project team’s competency. The scale of “com- pletely agree” (green) to “no progress” (red) is meant to be illustrative—a project team may choose to develop its own scale based on its own circumstances. An average of greens and reds in one section does not equate to overall compe- tency in a section. When a practitioner or a team disagrees with any one of the statements, the tool is suggesting a need for further consideration as to their readiness for a multi- modal NEPA process. Answer Key: Completely Agree Somewhat Agree Somewhat Disagree Completely Disagree No progress has been made in this area Not applicable After applying the tool, one can review the final report and individual case studies to learn more about the challenges other project sponsors faced, the strategies they used to address them, and the lessons they learned. Tool and Discussion I. Identifying U.S. DOT Agency Participants, Roles, and Resources Identifying all interested federal parties and their roles is an important early step in a multimodal NEPA process. The following statements relate to identifying the roles, responsi- bilities, and resources of the U.S. DOT agencies that may be involved. 1. All U.S. DOT agencies that may have a major federal action for the project have been identified, including agencies that administer potential funding sources for project construction and those with non-funding roles. Self-Assessment Tool

O-2 2. There is agreement among those agencies on which is going to be lead and which will be cooperating agency(ies). 3. The lead agency has the necessary resources, staff expe- rience, and procedures, where resources means funds and staffing needed to carry out the NEPA process, and procedure means a basic process for carrying out their responsibilities during NEPA. 4. If the lead agency lacks any of the necessary resources, experience, and procedures, other interested parties have been identified (including agencies, private partners, or consultants) who can provide resources, relationships, or expedite portions of the NEPA process. 5. If there is more than one lead agency, agencies have com- plementary responsibilities, skills, and resources that will help move the NEPA process forward. 6. If there is more than one lead agency, agencies have devel- oped complementary schedules to complete project com- ponents, and have aligned funding and review periods to avoid schedule delays. References Sources of information in the NCHRP Project 25-43 final report are: • Challenge 3. Anticipating Which Agencies Will have a Major Federal Action in Section 3 of the Synthesis • Table 10, Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Applied in Case Studies, numbers 8, 9, 12, 13, 23 • Example Case Studies: Dulles Project, National Gateway, DART DFW Extension, CRC, Port of Miami Tunnel II. Identifying and Reconciling U.S. DOT Agency Requirements and Procedures for NEPA Process A complete up-front understanding of each U.S. DOT agency’s requirements, expectations, and related procedures can save time and money. Obtaining agreement on which procedures will be followed can be a key strategy for success. 7. The state/local project sponsor is familiar with the NEPA requirements of all U.S. DOT agencies involved, including non-NEPA requirements that are generally met during the NEPA process. If not, the sponsor has hired an expert to help familiarize it with the necessary requirements and procedures. 8. The U.S. DOT agencies’ NEPA requirements/interpretations are consistent, or if inconsistent, an agreed upon plan of action has been created to overcome inconsistencies in requirements and/or interpretations. 9. Agencies’ procedures regarding Section 106 consultations and related processes have been discussed and aligned. 10. If the project will utilize a combination of agency pro- cedures, this plan of action is mapped out in detail and agreed upon by all interested parties. 11. Written procedures exist to help navigate inconsistencies in agencies’ NEPA requirements/interpretations. 12. There is a well-established working relationship between U.S. DOT agencies that sets the precedent for mapping out and overcoming inconsistencies in NEPA requirements/ procedures. 13. Committees or teams have been established to facilitate communication within and among agencies to guide the process and resolve disagreements. References Sources of information in the NCHRP Project 25-43 final report are: • Challenges 1 and 2: Unique Agency-specific Program Requirements under the NEPA Umbrella, Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements

O-3 • Table 10, Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Applied in Case Studies, numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 18, 19 • Example Case Studies: Dulles Project, DART DFW Exten- sion, T-REX, CRC, East Link, I-70 East III. Establishing NEPA Approach Several NEPA approaches are available: a single NEPA pro- cess for all modes, separate but coordinated processes, or an approach that starts out merged and then the modes sepa- rate. The following statements represent points to consider in making a decision about the appropriate preferred approach. 14. The sponsor and lead agency(ies) have consulted with each other about the approach. 15. The lead and cooperating agencies have agreed upon an approach that addresses critical issues and established/ potential points of conflict. 16. The NEPA approach is mapped out from start to finish with agreement from lead agency(ies) and sponsor(s). 17. A plan for coordination of separate but concurrent NEPA processes has been established. References Sources of information in the NCHRP Project 25-43 final report are: • Challenges 3 and 4: Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements, Efficient Coordination among Agencies • Table 10, Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Applied in Case Studies, numbers 2, 4, 5, 8, 11, 16, 17 • Example Case Studies: CRC, East Link, CREATE, T-REX, DART DFW Extension, Dulles Project IV. Project Organizational Structure A project organization and staffing plan can identify the specific roles and responsibilities of the participating agen- cies, serving as the foundation for day-to-day workflow and project decision-making. The following statements represent points to consider in structuring the project. 18. The lead agency(ies) and sponsor(s) have agreed upon roles and responsibilities in progressing NEPA on the project. 19. The lead agency(ies) and sponsor(s) have an agreed upon decision-making process and structure. 20. A staffing plan for all interested agencies, with necessary skills/experience and roles, has been agreed upon. 21. If the project has more than one lead agency, agencies have committed to working together throughout the NEPA process, and have an agreed upon work ethic, set goals, and schedule that will minimize risk of delays on the project. 22. Key project staff has worked together in the past, and will use that relationship and experience on this project. 23. If the project has more than one lead agency, these agen- cies have worked together in the past, and will use that relationship and experience on the project to minimize the risk of delays on the project. 24. The project manager/team leads have experience/skills with interdisciplinary teams, multimodal NEPA, collabo- ration, communication, and other abilities or knowledge necessary for project success. 25. Special expertise required for the completion of a multi- modal NEPA process has been sourced, either internally or externally. 26. Procedures to resolve conflicts (formally or informally) in roles, responsibilities, and/or interpretations of NEPA requirements have been established through training, facilitation, and/or teambuilding.

O-4 References Sources of information in the NCHRP Project 25-43 final report are: • Challenge 4: Efficient Coordination among Agencies • Table 10, Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Applied in Case Studies, numbers 4, 7, 15, 16, 17, 19 • Example Case Studies: T-REX, Mountain View, CRC, I-70 East, CREATE, East Link V. Project Procedures through the NEPA Process Good communication—through multiple channels—is a key to success in multi-agency NEPA processes. The follow- ing statements represent points to think about in formulating project processes. 27. There is agreement on the alternatives to be carried into the NEPA process and on the means for evaluating these alternatives. 28. Technical procedures/manuals will be prepared and agreed to before analyses are conducted, ensuring agree- ment on methods and assumptions. 29. There is agreement on how to engage resource/regulatory agencies and other stakeholders in the process, and who will engage them. 30. Procedures have been put in place for direct consultation between the sponsor and lead agencies. 31. Procedures have been put in place for direct consultation between the U.S. DOT agencies as needed. 32. There are agreed upon committees/decision-making struc- tures at different levels between sponsor and lead agencies to ensure efficient coordination. 33. A detailed NEPA project schedule has been created and agreed to by all parties. 34. The project schedule takes into account review time by multiple interested parties. 35. The project team meets frequently to discuss updates and resolve potential conflicts. 36. Project team meetings are conducted face-to-face when possible, otherwise completed by phone. References Sources of information in the NCHRP Project 25-43 final report are: • Challenge 4: Efficient Coordination among Participating Agencies • Table 10, Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Applied in Case Studies, numbers 1, 3, 5, 14, 18, 20, 21, 22 • Example Case Studies: Dulles Project, T-REX, I-70 East, CRC, DART DFW Extension

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 N avigating M ulti-A gency N EPA Processes to A dvance M ultim odal Transportation Projects N CH RP Report 827 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-37551-1 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 7 5 5 1 1 9 0 0 0 0