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.

5 Background Increasingly, state departments of transportation and other agencies are pursuing transportation solutions that feature more than one mode and that involve two or more U.S. DOT agen- cies in the NEPA process. Multi-agency participation in NEPA often occurs when projects with different modes share the same right-of-way, where more than one mode might be developed to serve the same travel markets and needs, or where one mode offers mitigation for the impacts of another. It may also occur when a project featuring a single mode requires some form of approval by more than one U.S. DOT agency. The proliferation of projects that involve more than one U.S. DOT agency stems in part from growing transportation needs, increased interest in multimodal solutions, and limited availability of rights-of-way. It also may be a result of changing federal program structures and initiatives, including growth in the number of projects seeking funds from the FTA’s New and Small Starts program, the FRA’s High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail Program, and the U.S. DOT’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) program. The FAA initiatives to protect airports and airspace also have contributed. From the perspective of state DOTs and their local part- ners, the involvement of two or more U.S. DOT agencies can increase the complexity of complying with the NEPA process and create challenges for expeditiously meeting NEPA and related requirements. Having more project partners—with differing interests and requirements—increases the need for coordination and the opportunity for misunderstanding and disagreement. Prior to conducting this research, the research team had observed three general approaches to conducting the NEPA process where different modes and two or more U.S. DOT modal administrations were involved. Figure 1 illustrates these approaches. In the first approach, all modal alternatives or compo- nents (and federal agency involvement) are covered within one merged NEPA process. In the second, the NEPA process starts out merged, but is later separated into two or more processes with separate findings and decisions for each modal project. In the third, separate NEPA processes are used for each modal project, with individual study elements coordi- nated and information shared throughout the processes. In the figure, each general approach is shown as requiring one or more EISs, although in practice the process also applies to C H A P T E R 1 NEPA The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) established federal policies and procedures related to environmental protection. It requires that federal agencies utilize a systematic, inter- disciplinary approach and that they ensure that environmental amenities and values are given appropriate consideration in decision-making. Whenever a federal action likely to have a signi- ficant impact on the environment is contem- plated, NEPA requires preparation of a detailed statement on the action’s impacts and alter- natives. An action could include a funding com- mitment or other approval, such as a permit. The statement is prepared in consultation with other agencies with jurisdiction or special expertise. Implementing regulations, promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality at 49 CFR 1500, establish three types of statements, depending on the significance of an action’s impacts. They are: Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) followed by a Record of Decision (ROD), an Environmental Assessment (EA) followed by a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) (or possibly followed by an EIS and ROD), and a Categorical Exclusion (CE).

6an EA/FONSI or a CE. In some cases, particularly those fol- lowing the second approach, tiered NEPA documents have been used. Regardless of the method used, reconciling dif- ferent U.S. DOT agency rules, approaches, and processes can be difficult for sponsoring agencies. This report offers case studies and “lessons learned” to help state DOTs and their local partners structure and implement an efficient and effec- tive approach to meeting NEPA requirements for multimodal transportation projects. The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), like previous surface transportation authorizing legislation, included provisions aimed at streamlining the envi- ronmental review process, and made other changes to planning and project development processes. The case studies carried out in this research all predated MAP-21. Nevertheless the overall findings, transferrable strategies, and lessons learned from this research are likely to be relevant regardless of the evolving requirements of federal law and regulations. Objectives of NCHRP Project 25-43 The objectives of this research were to: • Characterize the challenges inherent in satisfying NEPA requirements from multiple U.S. DOT agencies; • Identify strategies and tactics that state and local trans- portation agencies have used to overcome these challenges; and • Suggest new and innovative strategies that can be applied by state and local transportation agencies in future multimodal NEPA processes. Scope of Study The research approach had three phases, as depicted in Figure 2. In Phase 1, the research team gathered background infor- mation, documented the challenges involved in satisfying the NEPA requirements of multiple U.S. DOT agencies, and selected 12 case studies of multimodal NEPA projects that involved multiple U.S. DOT agencies. Phase 2 was the core of the research effort, during which the case studies were conducted and documented. In Phase 3 the research team synthesized the case studies and prepared the final report, a self-assessment tool for practitioners, and presentation materials. Previous Research While numerous case studies of NEPA processes have been carried out since NEPA was enacted, the research team found no systematic analysis of the challenges and best practices for multimodal NEPA activities. NCHRP Project 25-25, Research for the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment, Task 05, looked at the causes and extent of environmental delays in transportation projects (TransTech Management 2003). It included five case studies of NEPA process delays but did not identify multimodal or multi-agency issues. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 27, developed tools and tips to assist NEPA project managers (ICF Inter- national 2008). While the final report addressed the importance of working relationships and collaboration, it did not delve into the unique challenges of multi-agency and multimodal projects. NCHRP Project 8-36A, Research for the AASHTO Stand- ing Committee on Planning, Task 48, produced a toolbox for improving the linkage between transportation planning and NEPA (PB Consult, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas 2006). The project drew upon research, case studies, pilot proj- ects, and experiences of states and metropolitan areas through- out the United States. Many of the suggested strategies were identified in preparation for, or during the delivery of, a series of FHWA and FTA seminars and workshops on Linking Planning and NEPA conducted in 18 states during 2004 and 2005. The tools suggested in the final report could be applied to multi- agency and multimodal NEPA processes, although the toolbox did not focus on multi-agency and multi modal situations. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient, Trans- portation Equity Act—A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 1. Single NEPA Process for Both/All Modes 2. Merged Initially, then Separated 3. Separate but Coordinated NEPA Processes Figure 1. Three general approaches to multimodal NEPA.

7 authorized the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), a large-scale research effort to discover and analyze solutions to some of transportation’s largest issues. The research focused on four areas: safety, renewal, reliability, and capacity. Within this program, the SHRP 2 C19 research project focused on analyzing constraints and solutions to expediting project delivery, planning, and environmental review of projects. The C19 research identified common constraints that kept projects from being expedited or that caused delays during initial phases of project development. Over the course of their research, the C19 team created and refined a list of expediting themes that best described the constraints and solutions identified in their analysis. These themes are directly related to the challenges and strategies identified later in this report, specifically in the context of navigating the NEPA process for multimodal projects. The C19 themes were: • Improve public involvement and support. • Improve resource agency involvement and collaboration. • Demonstrate real commitment to the project. • Improve internal communication and coordination. • Streamline decision-making. • Integrate [resources] across all phases of project delivery. While the SHRP 2 C19 research has a broader mandate— reviewing constraints to project delivery in all of the initial phases of project development—the research findings reinforce many of the themes and solutions identified and discussed in this study. Used together, the C19 research provides a com- prehensive overview of a range of project delivery challenges and solutions, and this study focuses on tools that can be used during the environmental review phase for multimodal projects. PlanWorks, developed under the SHRP program (and orig- inally known as Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships, or TCAPP) is a web-based resource that facilitates a collaborative approach to project planning and development, capturing environmental, com- munity, and mobility needs. PlanWorks provides guidance on when and how to engage cross-disciplinary participants in the planning process in order to ensure more effective coordination and knowledge-sharing among all those affected by the project. In addition to facilitating processes for working through miti- gation strategies, the tool also identifies potential challenges, allowing a project team to anticipate where issues may arise in the planning process. Like the self-assessment tool developed in the course of this research, PlanWorks can help project teams navigate complex, multi-disciplinary decisions that are funda- mental to successful project planning and development. Figure 2. NCHRP Project 25-43 research approach.