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.

16 C H A P T E R 4 This section summarizes the 12 case studies, including the challenges encountered and strategies employed to address them. It is organized to help a reader identify those cases that may be similar to his or her particular situation or interests, and that may offer relevant lessons learned. The full case studies are presented as Appendices A through L. Case Study Overviews Dulles Project—Northern Virginia The Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project is a 23-mile exten- sion of the metropolitan Washington, D.C., heavy rail system from East Falls Church, VA, to the Dulles International Airport in Loudoun County, VA. The project features the new Silver Line, built in two phases, and a new rail yard facility at Dulles Airport, as well as improvements to the existing rail yard at West Falls Church. Phase 1 added four new stations along 11.7 miles from the existing Orange Line to Reston, VA. Much of this phase used land in the median of the access road owned by the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA). Phase 2 is adding five stations, including one at Dulles Airport, along the remaining 11.5 miles. A single lead agency, FTA, guided the NEPA process, with FAA providing input on aviation-related issues as needed. FAA adopted FTA’s environmental documentation, ultimately saving time and resources. The project team also established a joint project office, which facilitated effective coordination and communication. Port of Miami Tunnel—Miami, FL The Port of Miami Tunnel project is a 2.98-mile roadway connection between the Port of Miami on Watson Island and I-395. Prior to tunnel opening, access to the port was via the Port of Miami Bridge, which required vehicles to use local surface streets through downtown Miami. The Port of Miami Tunnel project has two 0.8-mile, two-lane bored tunnels. The project also added one lane in each direction to the MacArthur Causeway and realigned the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) tracks and Port Boulevard lanes on Dodge Island. A challenge faced by the project was identifying funding and financing for the project, and thus the federal agency to serve as the lead for NEPA. Well into project development, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) elected to seek a federal loan, and FHWA agreed to lead the NEPA process. Due to effective coordination between FDOT and FHWA—a practice established by the state on previous high- way projects—the team was able to complete NEPA activities quickly with minimal delays to the construction schedule. Eastern Corridor—Cincinnati, OH The Eastern Corridor Program is a set of multimodal improvements in the Cincinnati, OH, region. The goal of the program is to relieve congestion and improve transit, bicycle, and pedestrian mobility. The program includes five major highway and rail transit improvement projects, as well as small-scale roadway network improvements and expanded bus operations. A tiered NEPA process is being used. The challenge to completing a multimodal NEPA process stems from the lack of funding and the low priority given to the rail transit component of the program. FHWA served as lead agency during Tier 1, which covered the entire multi- modal program, and is the NEPA lead for the Tier 2 process for highway projects. A Tier 2 NEPA process for the rail com- ponent depends upon local decisions to make the project a priority. Other NEPA challenges have included the risk that some projects in the program would have significant envi- ronmental impacts. Formal meditation and re-scoping were undertaken to begin to resolve impact and mitigation issues. National Gateway—OH, PA, MD, WV The Phase 1 National Gateway Clearance project is a $183 million initiative to raise vertical clearances along CSX Case Study Results

17 track between Ohio and Pennsylvania. Phase I includes rail clearance and other rail improvements between Northwest Ohio and Chambersburg, PA. The project will clear remain- ing obstacles to the use of double-stacked rail cars between Midwestern markets and Mid-Atlantic ports. The project faced tight deadlines due to the award of a TIGER I grant. Coordination was required among the multi- state project team, which included four governors, state staff, and multiple U.S. DOT agencies. The project team was able to limit potential delays by coordinating early and frequently— both to coordinate NEPA approaches and procedures as well as to keep all relevant parties informed and engaged. CREATE—Chicago, IL The CREATE program is a series of freight rail, passenger rail, and related improvements in the Chicago region aimed at enhancing mobility by increasing capacity and efficiency. The program consists of approximately 70 projects, of which three have significant environmental impacts. Given the unique structure of the program—numerous component projects in an urban region, participation of multiple U.S. DOT agencies as well as several private Class I rail operators, and projects with varying degrees of impact— the program team has developed several strategies for navi- gating the complex project development and environmental review process. A program-specific environmental review pro- cess was created that allows numerous component projects having little or no significant environmental impact to move forward while environmental reviews continue on the more complex projects. Governance roles and procedures facilitated effective communication between project partners and enabled trust to be built in a situation where some participants had little experience with the NEPA process. T-REX—Denver, CO T-REX consisted of highway and transit improvements in the I-25/I-225 corridor southeast of Denver. It included widening and rehabilitating 17 miles of Interstate highway and constructing 19 miles of double-tracked light rail transit. The transit component encompassed 13 new stations and the purchase of 34 light rail vehicles. The project was able to avoid major NEPA process chal- lenges through effective coordination and strong relationships between both the local and federal participating agencies. FTA and FHWA operated under the principles of “One DOT”— a U.S. DOT initiative at the time of the NEPA study to foster collaboration across modal administrations—and established an Interagency Agreement to streamline the overall NEPA pro- cess. The project capitalized on studies conducted pre-NEPA. Task groups with representation from federal, state, and local agencies were convened to address issues within specific tech- nical focus areas, and technical resource papers were prepared for the project team. Co-locating sponsoring agencies and the consultant team in the same building as the FTA regional office and in proximity to FHWA helped to foster teamwork and collaboration. I-70 East—Denver, CO The I-70 East Corridor Project involved transit and high- way improvements in the I-70 corridor in the Denver metro- politan area. The transit project was the East Rail Link, a 22.8-mile rail line linking Denver Union Station to Denver International Airport. The highway project was a proposed reconstruction of I-70 between I-25 on the west and Tower Road on the east. A single NEPA process was undertaken for both projects. Coordination among multiple U.S. DOT agencies (FHWA, FTA, FRA, and FAA) was carried out through an executive office committee and technical working groups. The proj- ect team was challenged, however, by the fact that funding was available for implementing the East Rail Link but not for reconstructing I-70. Sponsors of the transit project were eager to move the process forward. Initial studies conducted as part of the NEPA process showed that the highway and transit projects had independent utility, even though they shared the same corridor. Ultimately the state and local par- ticipants decided to split the NEPA process into two separate processes, which allowed the transit project to advance more quickly. Separating the processes involved several workshops, stakeholder involvement, redefining the purpose and need (which had originally been written to be multimodal), and rewriting several technical reports. Mountain View—Salt Lake City, UT Mountain View was a combined highway/transit project in a 38-mile corridor in Salt Lake and Utah counties. The highway component, sponsored by the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), was a new six- to eight-lane limited access freeway connecting I-80 west of Salt Lake City to I-15 near Provo. The transit component, sponsored by the Utah Transit Authority (UTA), was a 24-mile dedicated facility in the northern section of the corridor. A combined NEPA process was undertaken for both projects, with FHWA and FTA serving as co-lead agencies at the beginning. Later, FTA reduced its role to cooperating agency because UTA did not consider the transit project to be a high priority, and FTA did not anticipate having a major federal action. This made it difficult for the state and local project partners and FTA to engage in the process.

18 UDOT and UTA entered into an Interlocal Agreement to demonstrate their joint interest and commitment to the multimodal project. The Interlocal Agreement linked the full implementation of the highway to the implementation of the transit project, and was incorporated into the FHWA ROD. XpressWest—CA, NV The XpressWest High-Speed Passenger Train is a planned passenger rail project along a 200-mile corridor between Victorville, CA, and Las Vegas, NV, largely within the I-15 right-of-way. The project is sponsored by a private company, DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (DXE). The goal of the project is to relieve congestion on I-15 and at major commercial airports serving the Los Angeles and Las Vegas metropolitan areas. The project faced challenges in coordinating among several partners participating in the project, including FRA, FHWA, FAA, and a private entity. Although FRA was the lead agency for NEPA, DXE played a major role in coordinating between participating entities, and provided information when needed to help move the NEPA process forward. The project team met in person when possible to help facilitate solutions to safety concerns and other issues, and used web conferences and third-party experts to work through solutions. Columbia River Crossing—WA, OR The I-5 Columbia River Crossing Project was a five-mile multimodal (highway, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian) project connecting Vancouver, WA, to Portland, OR. The goal of the project was to replace aging and substandard bridges while increasing transportation options in a corridor experiencing frequent crashes, congestion, lack of mobility, and poor bicy- cle and pedestrian connections. A combined NEPA process was undertaken with FHWA and FTA as co-leads. State and local project sponsors included the Washington State DOT (WSDOT), the Oregon DOT, Tri-Met, and Clark County Transit (C-Tran). The project faced the challenge of differing processes among participating state and U.S. DOT agencies. The sponsors worked to develop relationships with both federal lead agencies and ultimately crafted a hybrid process acceptable to all. Tactics that built trust included thoroughly learning each U.S. DOT agency’s requirements and procedures, conducting face-to- face meetings when possible, and holding separate meetings with U.S. DOT agencies when necessary to avoid conflicts and resolve issues. East Link—Seattle, WA The East Link Extension/I-90 project is an 18-mile extension of the Link Light Rail system along I-90, which will connect Seattle to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond in the eastern Puget Sound region. The project will relocate existing high- occupancy vehicle lanes located in the center lanes of I-90 and the I-90 floating bridge and replace them with bi-directional light rail. The project is to be completed in five segments, and would be the first known rail operation to be located on a float- ing bridge. The project faced challenges in reconciling the NEPA requirements of FTA and FHWA. The project team was able to work through these conflicts in part due to the strong working relationships and coordination among the local and federal partners in the region established on past projects. The team also benefitted from prior coordination and policy actions that had been documented in issue papers prepared by the Environmental Action Team, a group formed by the WSDOT and the regional transit authority, Sound Transit, with the support of FTA and FHWA. The issue papers proved to be a valuable tool to help the East Link project team move past impasses related to NEPA approach on multimodal components of the project. DART DFW Extension—Dallas, TX The Orange Line LRT Extension to DFW Airport project is a 14-mile extension of light rail from downtown Dallas to the Dallas/Fort Worth Airport (DFW). The project was com- pleted in two phases. The first phase extended the Orange Line 9.3 miles to the Beltline Station on DFW Airport property. The second phase extended the line from the Beltline Station to the DFW Airport terminal station. This phase was entirely on DFW Airport property. The project faced unique FAA program requirements. Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) addressed them by being attentive to differences in the NEPA approach between FAA and FTA, and by hiring an expert to advise the project team on FAA’s requirements and process. The project team also practiced effective coordination by defining roles and respon- sibilities early in the project and adhering to that protocol, and by fostering constant communication throughout all phases of the project. Close working relationships among project staff and the federal agencies proved to be a key to the project’s success. Problems and Strategies by Challenge The case studies validated the first four challenges as shown in Table 4. These challenges were experienced to varying degrees across the case studies. The fifth challenge—securing funding to carry out a multimodal NEPA process—was not appar- ent in any of the 12 cases studied. No additional challenges emerged.

19 The following sections summarize the problems faced and strategies employed under each challenge. More detailed discussion on the challenges faced, the strategies and tactics applied, and the lessons learned can be found in the detailed case study write-ups, presented as Appendices A through L. Challenge 1: Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements Seven of the 12 case studies revealed specific problems related to this challenge. The problems observed by the case studies as well as their corresponding strategies/tactics are summarized in Table 5. Summary of Problems Faced In many of the cases in which FTA was either a lead or cooperating agency, FTA’s New Starts requirements were cited as a unique agency requirement linked to the NEPA umbrella. State department of transportation sponsors tended to be unfamiliar with the FTA’s New Starts approval steps and associated analyses that needed to occur concurrently with the NEPA process. On the Columbia River Crossing Project, it took several years to arrive at a hybrid process that was acceptable to FHWA, FTA, and the participating state and local agencies. Seeking to identify a project that is competitive for New Starts funding can add to the analysis and documen- tation required during NEPA and can influence the selection of the locally preferred alternative, as illustrated by the Dulles project. Project sponsors and/or U.S. DOT agencies were unaware of or did not fully understand other agencies’ specific requirements, which tended to result in delays. During Phase 1 of the DART DFW Extension project, for example, DART was not aware until after the DEIS was published that FAA would require an Airspace Study to separately assess potential impacts of the one-mile alignment on airport property. Fulfilling this requirement after the DEIS was published instead of integrating it into the DEIS process delayed the project by several months. The case studies also offer examples of the challenges caused by changes in federal legislation and policy affecting one or more agencies. On the Dulles Corridor Metrorail Proj- ect, changes in FAA rules related to the runway protection zone were raised in the context of NEPA. This led to changes to the project and additional NEPA review. During the CREATE program, enactment of the American Recovery and Reinvest- ment Act of 2009 (ARRA) created new opportunities for fund- ing through FRA. The state’s interest in these funds led to increased FRA involvement in NEPA, and an expanded scope of NEPA review to include operational issues of interest to FRA. Transferrable Strategies Successful strategies for addressing the first challenge included early and frequent coordination to enable a collab- orative and cooperative approach to problem-solving. Specific strategies that successfully ameliorated the challenges of agency- specific requirements under the NEPA umbrella included: • Developing relationships between sponsor and federal agency staff; • Understanding each other’s positions and building com- promises that respect those positions; Project and Location 1. Unique Agency- Specific Program Requirements 2. Differing Interpretations of NEPA Requirements 3. Anticipating Which Agencies have Major Federal Actions 4. Efficient Coordination among Agencies 5. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Dulles Project, Northern VA Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, FL Eastern Corridor, Cincinnati, OH National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV CREATE, Chicago, IL T-REX, Denver, CO I-70 East, Denver, CO Mountain View, Salt Lake City, UT XpressWest, CA, NV Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR East Link, Seattle, WA DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX Table 4. Challenges by case study.

20 • Hiring an expert familiar with both processes to facilitate agreement; and • Committing to interagency agreements detailing specific requirements and roles and outlining a high degree of coordination between the U.S. DOT agencies. Challenge 2: Differing Interpretations of NEPA Requirements The second challenge was found in eight of the 12 cases studied. Table 6 summarizes specific problems encountered and strategies/tactics applied. Summary of Specific Problems Five types of problems were encountered under this overall challenge. The first related to differing agency methodologies for assessing specific impacts, such as noise and Section 4(f). Differences between FTA and FHWA as well as FTA and FAA requirements emerged from the case studies. Second, the case studies illustrated differing agency pro- cedural requirements, perhaps stemming from different legal requirements and/or interpretations of the law and court rulings. These specifically emerged from the DART DFW Extension, National Gateway, and XpressWest case studies. In XpressWest, for example, the private project sponsor handled the design while the NEPA process was handled by a consultant hired by FRA. Coordination was challenging because project design and NEPA were handled by different entities. FHWA and the state DOTs were unclear at first on which agency to talk to regarding various aspects of the project. This differed from the typical relationship between FHWA and state DOTs for NEPA projects under the highway program, where the states own the projects and are responsible for design. Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics Dulles Project, Northern VA FTA New Starts requirements were overlaid onto the NEPA process. Project sponsors incorporated New Starts criteria into NEPA process, adapting the alignment to meet the criteria. National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV Project was subject to general conformity and additional disclosure requirements of contractors under FRA. FHWA assigned a senior NEPA expert to FRA to administer the project. Being based in the FRA office, this project administrator was able to obtain the necessary guidance about FRA requirements and avoid or resolve interagency conflicts. CREATE, Chicago, IL ARRA and the creation of a new High- Speed Rail Program led to increased FRA involvement and expanded the scope of the NEPA process to include issues of interest to FRA. Enhanced coordination between agencies and project team facilitated resolution of unique FRA issues. T-REX, Denver, CO FTA New Starts requirements were overlaid onto the NEPA process. Established an FTA and FHWA Interagency Agreement, which included guidelines for how FTA-specific New Starts requirements would be addressed. XpressWest, CA, NV FHWA and FAA had safety concerns that affected project footprint, and thus affected the project’s design and impacts. Safety concerns had to be addressed within the NEPA process. The private project sponsor engaged FHWA, FRA, Caltrans, and the Nevada Department of Transportation in developing a Highway Interface Manual to address safety concerns. Volpe Transportation Systems Center was brought in to facilitate discussions on operational and safety issues, leading to refinements to the Highway Interface Manual. Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR FTA New Starts grant requirements overlaid onto the NEPA process were a source of procedural differences. Staff eventually learned other agency procedures. The environmental consultant knew both FHWA and FTA processes and could facilitate agreement. Sponsor staff developed relationships with each federal agency and developed a hybrid process. DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX DART was not familiar with the FAA requirement for an Airspace Study, leading to a delay in the first phase. DART hired a consultant with expertise in FAA regulations for the second phase. Table 5. Summary of problems and strategies across case studies: Challenge 1.

21 Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics Dulles Project, Northern VA Both FTA and FAA had major federal actions and would have to issue RODs for the project. Conducted NEPA within the framework of FTA requirements, while addressing FAA requirements separately. FAA adopted FTA’s environmental documentation and in its ROD acknowledged responsibility for the scope and content that address FAA actions. National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV FRA initially thought that the project should require an EIS. The parties collaborated and were able to agree that an EA would be sufficient. FHWA required more extensive outreach than FRA and the project was under tight timeline. Meetings were held and comments accepted via the project website. FRA did not have a programmatic evaluation for 4(f). The project used FHWA’s programmatic evaluation. T-REX, Denver, CO FHWA and FTA had different methodologies for measuring impacts under specific categories such as noise and vibration. Established an FTA and FHWA Interagency Agreement that reconciled differences in and outlined agency requirements. Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) convened task forces for focused input on specific impacts, e.g., air quality, noise, historic resources, and wetlands. Consultant prepared technical memoranda as a resource for all agencies involved. I-70 East, Denver, CO FHWA and FTA had different methodologies for measuring impacts under specific categories such as environmental justice, air quality, and noise. Project sponsors adapted the Environmental Policies and Procedures Manual developed for another project to help address issues related to differing NEPA requirements. CDOT and the Regional Transportation District (RTD) convened several Technical/Issues Working Groups to provide focused input in distinct areas, including reconciling differences between FHWA- and FTA-specific requirements. XpressWest, CA, NV FRA managed the consultant conducting NEPA, while the private project sponsor (DXE) focused on design. It took some time for FHWA and the state DOTs to understand this unique institutional relationship. Under the highway program, states own the projects and are responsible for design. Many discussions and meetings were conducted among the participating agencies and DXE. Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR Differences between FHWA and FTA delegations of authority to project sponsors had to be reconciled. Utilized staff with recognized expertise in a particular area. Over time, sponsors developed collaborative relationships with each federal agency, which enabled compromise. Table 6. Summary of problems and strategies across case studies: Challenge 2. (continued on next page)

22 The third type of problem relates to what might be called differences in philosophy or emphasis between and among U.S. DOT agencies, often stemming from the nature and history of their funding programs and enabling legislation, subsequent administrative rule-making, and leadership prior- ities. On the DART DFW Extension, for example, FAA wanted to coordinate directly with the other U.S. DOT agency, FTA, rather than coordinating through a local sponsor. During the Columbia River Crossing Project, FTA and FHWA maintained unique delegation practices, as discussed under Challenge #2 in Chapter 2 of this report. Fourth, as discussed under Challenge #2 in Chapter 2 of this report, U.S. DOT agencies tend to have differing per- spectives on the role of the NEPA process in local and federal agency planning and decision-making, with FHWA and FTA tending to see the NEPA process as part of project planning and development. In the Mountain View and Eastern Cor- ridor cases, FTA was reluctant to take a formal role in NEPA activities until the transit project was seen as a local priority for federal funding. FHWA was willing to engage in the Port of Miami Tunnel project before the source of funding was identified (see Challenge 3). For FAA, projects are essentially developed and then subjected to NEPA review. Finally, in some cases, practices within a U.S. DOT agency were found to differ by region, as noted in Chapter 2 of this report. FHWA and FTA have more or less involvement in the NEPA process in different parts of the country, depending on their relationship with the local sponsor agency. In Washing- ton, Oregon, and California, for example, FHWA tended to delegate extensively to the state DOT. Transferrable Strategies Four broad strategies emerged across the case studies that could be transferred to other projects. The first involved developing strong working relationships and coordinating Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics East Link, Seattle, WA FTA and FHWA used different methodologies to assess and mitigate impacts (i.e., noise). Close and preexisting coordination between local agencies led to a process for dealing with these issues. Documentation of successful methodologies and mitigation through issue papers of the Environmental Action Team (dating back to early 2000) created a record of precedents that was employed as a base for negotiation on future projects. FHWA agreed to limit its review to highway issues. DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX FAA, the one federal agency that initially was expected to have a major action, did not have the staff with technical expertise to review a light rail project. All parties agreed from the start that FTA was the most logical lead agency. DART created an action for FTA by using FTA funds for a small portion of the project. DART executed a reimbursement agreement with FAA to fund its participation in the review. Differing emphases of FAA and FTA during NEPA. DART was unfamiliar with many FAA concerns. DART was attentive to the FAA NEPA guidance and created a separate section in the documents for airport impacts in a format familiar to FAA. DART hired an FAA expert. NEPA plays a different role in decision-making for each agency. FAA applies NEPA when the design is well developed, while FTA sees the NEPA process as part of the project development process. Staff on the project developed strong relationships and had good communications. FAA was going to require a supplemental environmental document for alignment changes made during the design-build process. FAA determined that changes made to the alignment during the design-build process were not significant enough to trigger a Supplemental EIS, and that a re-evaluation was sufficient. Table 6. (Continued).

23 early and often. Several of the case studies demonstrated success with this strategy. On East Link, close and preexisting coordination between local agencies, including Sound Transit and WSDOT, helped lead to a process for addressing differ- ences between FTA and FHWA NEPA requirements. National Gateway is another example of this strategy. A second strategy involved agreeing—early in the process— on which agency’s requirements will govern NEPA activities. Perhaps the most illustrative case of this strategy is the devel- opment of the FTA and FHWA Interagency Agreement for the T-REX project, which identified areas where the agency’s NEPA requirements differed and documented a recommended approach to reconciling them. Third, by developing documentation, either in the form of a series of papers or a single manual, agencies were able to explain and help reconcile differences in agency requirements. Examples include the technical working groups that prepared technical memoranda for specific focus areas in the T-REX, I-70 East, and East Link cases. A fourth strategy involved retaining staff or consultant specialists. DART, for example, hired a former FAA staff per- son as a consultant to advise on FAA requirements and pro- cedures for the second phase of the Orange Line to DFW. On the Columbia River Crossing Project, staff with recognized expertise in specific technical areas were helpful in reconciling differences in agency approaches. Challenge 3: Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action Five of the 12 studies faced challenges related to anticipating which agency would have a major federal action. The specific problems encountered and corresponding strategies are sum- marized in Table 7. Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, FL Unclear which federal agency would have a major federal action (if at all) due to the lack of a funding strategy at the outset of the project. FDOT’s Project Development & Environment (PD&E) process follows the same milestones as NEPA does, facilitating transfer of environmental analyses should NEPA be triggered. FHWA was willing to be the lead federal agency before the federal source of funding was finalized. MOU between FHWA and USCG clarified roles and responsibilities of each agency. Eastern Corridor, Cincinnati, OH The Oasis Rail Transit project (the transit component of the Eastern Corridor Program) currently has no lead federal agency. FTA has not actively engaged in the NEPA process and is waiting for local agencies to decide whether they will proceed with the project. FHWA was the lead agency for Tier 1 NEPA, which included the entire multimodal program. ODOT and local agencies are doing further studies of the transit component prior to Tier 2. National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV There was uncertainty about which agency would administer the TIGER grant. Initially it was assumed the funds would flow through FRA but the funds were ultimately administered by FHWA. FRA did not have the staff resources or procedures to manage the NEPA process. FRA was the lead agency, with staff assistance provided by FHWA. Mountain View, Salt Lake City, UT UDOT and UTA sought to demonstrate commitment to a multimodal process and solution. FTA did not anticipate that it would have a role as a lead agency because the transit component of the multimodal program was not a UTA priority. FTA was initially identified as a co-lead agency, but its role was changed to cooperating agency. XpressWest, CA, NV FAA safety concerns were raised late in the NEPA process and led to additional engineering studies that delayed the NEPA schedule. Although FRA coordinated with FAA early, aviation-related safety concerns were not identified until late in the NEPA process. Table 7. Summary of problems and strategies across case studies: Challenge 3.

24 Specific Problems Identified Most of the identified problems resulted from a lack of clar- ity about which U.S. DOT agency’s funding would be used to pay for a multimodal project. This led to uncertainty as to which federal agency would have a federal action that would trigger their role under NEPA. In some cases, the NEPA process was put on hold until the major federal action became clear. The selection of a lead agency—or co-leads—drives the rest of the process. The case study projects reached this decision in different ways. In the case of National Gateway, the lack of certainty about which U.S. DOT agency would award the TIGER grant led to a decision that FRA and FHWA would be co-leads. In the end, FHWA was the only agency with a major action, but FRA remained involved. Funding unknowns also created uncertainty about which agency would have a major action early in the Port of Miami Tunnel project. The project sponsors anticipated using a com- bination of local, city, county, state, and private financing, thus engaging the state’s environmental process. More than halfway through project development, FDOT elected to use FHWA funding, and the FHWA NEPA process was initiated. While the NEPA process had to catch up with the advanced stage of proj- ect development, FDOT had followed its standard practice of keeping FHWA informed of possible major projects and com- pleting the necessary steps for NEPA approval, should federal funding and/or a major federal action become necessary. In DART’s DFW Extension, funding played a role in a slightly different way. At first, FAA was the only agency with a major federal action. When all parties agreed that FTA would be a more logical lead federal agency for a light rail project, DART directed a small amount of FTA formula funding into the project to create a major action for FTA. DART found an innovative solution to ensure that the most appropriate lead agency had an action. In the Mountain View case, UDOT and FHWA sought to take a more comprehensive approach to NEPA. Transit and highway alternatives were considered during corridor plan- ning, and the preferred alternative included both a new high- way and bus rapid transit. FTA was reluctant to engage because the transit element was not perceived to be a local priority that would require a major federal action by FTA. A similar situa- tion occurred on the Eastern Corridor in Ohio. On the XpressWest project, FAA safety concerns were not addressed early because it was not clear that an FAA action would be required. When it became apparent that the project would cross a runway protection zone, requiring FAA approval, additional engineering studies became necessary. Transferrable Strategies Strategies potentially transferrable to other projects involve coordinating and communicating with federal agencies to help anticipate any major federal actions that might trigger NEPA. This theme is exemplified by the Port of Miami Tun- nel project, in which FDOT kept FHWA informed of its proj- ect development. By aligning the state’s PD&E process with the NEPA process, the project sponsors faced minimal delay when FDOT decided to use FHWA funds late in project devel- opment. In the case of XpressWest, major FAA actions were unanticipated and led to delays when discovered. In the Mountain View and Eastern Corridor cases, communication about the resources and constraints of all the federal agencies might have led to better understanding of which agencies had the capability to play which role in the NEPA process. Challenge 4: Efficient Coordination among Agencies In nearly all of the case studies, efficiently coordinating among all the participating agencies proved to be challenging. The specific problems faced as well as strategies/tactics are summarized in Table 8. Specific Problems The coordination challenge generally related to the need to engage multiple agencies in the process and the difficulty of integrating the different approaches of the participat- ing agencies. Specific case study examples of this challenge include the Columbia River Crossing, DART DFW Extension, and the National Gateway. On the Columbia River Crossing, differences in approach between the two states and different U.S. DOT agencies required additional resources and time to establish a structure through which agency roles, respon- sibilities, and processes were defined and agreed upon by all parties. Similarly, on the DART DFW Extension project, FAA’s approach differed from FTA’s for analyzing the proj- ect, and this required extra coordination steps to make sure each agency’s concerns were met. On the National Gateway project, the involvement of four states, with differing pro- cedures and approaches, along with the strict deadlines imposed by the TIGER I grant, necessitated efficient coordi- nation from the beginning of the project to define roles and gain consensus. CREATE was a unique case due to the large number of entities and the governance structure created to ensure that partners were part of the decision-making process. Changes to the budget, program scope, and related contracts required unanimous agreement among 11 entities—federal and local, public and private, and three U.S. DOT agencies. For example, coordination issues between FRA and FHWA/FTA regarding CE project classification caused the CP Canal Flyover project to be evaluated as an EA instead of a CE. The project involved several Class I railroads that had worked together, but were

25 Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics Dulles Project, Northern Virginia Coordination among a large group of stakeholders, including FTA and FAA. Established a joint project office, including staff familiar with FTA policies and procedures and MWAA serving as a liaison with FAA to help resolve airport-related issues. Engaged FAA for the entire project, although its role was small in the first implementation phase of the project. National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV Project received a TIGER I grant, with short and specific deadlines imposed by law. Project included improvements in four states. Each state had its own impacts and procedures, and the longest timeline controlled the overall schedule. Ohio had fewer issues and felt it was delayed by environmental processes in other states. Held a high-level kick-off meeting in Washington, D.C., which highlighted the timeline for the project. The governors of the involved states were aware of the project and coordinated as needed to resolve issues. Sought coordination at all levels. Regular phone calls were held with all states. CSX, a private partner, was not familiar with NEPA and problems arose when CSX or its contractor moved ahead of the process. Clear communication from the project manager to the agencies helped resolve issues. The consultant CSX hired to complete NEPA documentation lacked knowledge of local conditions. FHWA assigned a senior NEPA expert to FRA to administer the project. This person had working relationships with several of the state DOTs. CREATE, Chicago, IL Coordinating decision-making among various parties in a disparate process with many component parts. Created formal governance structure (complete with management board) to coordinate decision-making among private and public partners. T-REX, Denver, CO NEPA required coordination between FHWA and FHWA, as well as among state and local agencies. Co-located sponsoring agencies and the consultant team in the same building as FTA regional office and in proximity to FHWA. Developed a detailed critical path method schedule updated weekly. Capitalized on coordination that occurred before the NEPA process began. I-70 East, Denver, CO NEPA required coordination between FHWA and FTA, as well as among several agencies. Established an Intergovernmental Coordination and Compliance Committee to provide technical guidance and support. FTA and FHWA coordinated directly as the two regional offices, located in the same building, helped to facilitate internal communications. Mountain View, Salt Lake City, UT FTA did not actively engage in the NEPA process, since it did not anticipate having a major federal action. Representatives of state and local agencies traveled to the FTA regional office to seek more active engagement from FTA. XpressWest, CA, NV Orchestrating the involvement of many parties, particularly FRA and DXE, while producing a NEPA document that met the needs of all agencies. Learning curve for all agencies and individuals with varying levels of expertise. Robust and frequent communication among all agencies, including meetings, teleconferences, web conferences, letters, and e-mails. Table 8. Summary of problems and strategies across case studies: Challenge 4. (continued on next page)

26 also competitors. In the end, FHWA was the lead agency of a program in which rail was the dominant mode. Coordination challenges were faced on other projects that required resource and regulatory agency sign-off and involved a large number of stakeholders. In each case there was the need to coordinate procedures among agencies whose cooperation is needed to move forward. Transferrable Strategies For each of the projects, project teams created coordinating structures and guidelines for how, where, and how frequently stakeholders would coordinate and communicate. This tactic, at the very least, is necessary for ensuring that all parties are included in the NEPA process. More in-depth coordination strategies included developing governing documents, setting up a formal decision-making structure, co-locating staff, and establishing other techniques for how partners would coordi- nate given their unique set of issues. On the Dulles, T-REX, and Columbia River Crossing proj- ects, each project team established a joint project office to expedite coordination and improve communication. To fur- ther enhance communication and a shared understanding of issues, the Dulles team invited all involved federal agencies to participate in meetings throughout every phase of NEPA activities—even meetings not directly affecting their interests. This promoted information-sharing and enabled project sponsors to gain an understanding of all agencies’ perspectives on issues as they arose, which helped avoid and address sub- sequent issues. Use of critical path schedules and weekly staff meetings created an interface through which agencies could regularly share information and be kept on a schedule. In all cases, a clear understanding of the approaches and perspectives of the federal agencies involved may help mitigate possible conflicts in approach and analysis. DART copied both FTA and FHWA on all project correspondence. On the National Gateway, XpressWest, and CREATE proj- ects, private partners were key participants in the NEPA pro- Project and Location Specific Problem Strategies/Tactics Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR Differences in approach to NEPA, both between FHWA and FTA and between the states and transit agencies, required time to work through. FHWA and FTA had differing priorities and areas of emphasis. Late in the process, after the ROD, the USCG determined that the bridge height had to be raised. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers raised new Clean Water Act Section 404 and 408 permit issues late in the process. Frequent communication and face-to- face meetings. An elevation process was used when needed to resolve procedural differences. Relationships were purposely built between staff of all agencies, enabling compromise. Project partners prepared an agreement about roles and responsibilities. FHWA and FTA attempted to coordinate on selection of project team members. Resolution of the bridge height issue was elevated to headquarters and required an environmental re- evaluation, adding time to the schedule. The InterCEP agreement and process were useful for facilitating timely and productive engagement of resource agencies but could not address coordination issues within an agency. East Link, Seattle, WA NEPA required coordination among several agencies. Development of a coordination plan between transit and highway partners (both local and federal) early on helped negotiate solutions to issues before they affected the schedule. DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX Numerous partners and different approaches to NEPA, especially between FTA and FAA. FAA preferred to coordinate with other federal agencies or the local airport, rather than the transit project sponsor. DART met periodically with FTA and FAA and copied both agencies on all correspondence. DART held frequent (bi-weekly) meetings with Technical Advisory Committee comprised of local partners. DFW played a major role in coordinating issues on the airport and addressing FAA concerns. Table 8. (Continued).

27 cess. This raised a distinct set of coordination challenges as teams worked to understand and align the fundamentally different needs and approaches of public and private sector partners. The overarching lesson from all cases is the need for frequent and early communication and coordination to identify and resolve issues. Challenge 5: Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies Securing multimodal funding for NEPA did not emerge as a challenge in any of the 12 cases studied. Although several of the cases faced a lack of funding to complete NEPA and imple- ment projects, the lack of funding did not seem to stem from the multimodal nature of the project and the need for different modal agencies to contribute. The criteria used to select the case studies—which favored cases where there had been at least one major NEPA milestone in the last 10 years—may have screened out cases where project sponsors had been unable to assemble the funding for a multimodal NEPA process. Specific Problems Early interviews with U.S. DOT staff as well as feedback from the study’s focus group and the NCHRP Project 25-43 panel indicated that funding should be regarded as a challenge in the early stages of a multimodal NEPA study. When a multi- modal project involves multiple agencies and programs, it may not be “owned” by any one program, and it may then be difficult to assemble funding for NEPA activities from mul- tiple sources. While many of the multimodal NEPA processes examined in this research used funds from a single mode, several states (e.g., Ohio and Arizona) do not allow gaso- line tax revenues to be used for modes other than highways. The Eastern Corridor is an example of a program with this restriction. Lack of funding can delay the start of the NEPA process or lead to delays while additional funds are secured. Transferrable Strategies The case studies may provide helpful examples of how to fund multimodal NEPA studies. As shown in Table 9, most of the 12 case studies were funded by the state and/or local project sponsors, with the most common arrangement being one entity taking the lead in funding most of the NEPA costs. State DOTs were a primary funding partner in seven of the 12 cases. For the Mountain View and National Gateway projects, local partners also made in-kind contributions of staff time. At least five cases used federal funds; in these cases, funding was contributed by only one of the U.S. DOT agencies involved. This arrangement did not appear to present any major issues, even in cases where the U.S. DOT agencies served in joint lead roles. In the case of the Columbia River Crossing, FHWA funded the bulk of the NEPA process and related engineering studies to address both FHWA and FTA requirements, with the expectation that New Starts funding would cover a substantial portion of the construction costs. Project and Location Federal Non-Federal Dulles Project, Northern Virginia FTA Commonwealth of Virginia Fairfax County Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, FL FDOT Eastern Corridor, Cincinnati, OH FHWA (Tier 2 only) Ohio DOT Local partners (metropolitan planning organization/city/counties) National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV CSX State partners (in-kind) CREATE, Chicago, IL TIGER and other sources T-REX, Denver, CO FHWA CDOT I-70 East, Denver, CO CDOT RTD Mountain View, Salt Lake City, UT UDOT UTA (in-kind) XpressWest, CA, NV DesertXpress Enterprises Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR FHWA WSDOT Oregon DOT East Link, Seattle, WA Sound Transit DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX DART (through sales tax proceeds) Table 9. Funding partners for NEPA across case studies.

28 The strategies recommended for other challenges may help project sponsors secure funding. For example, early coor- dination with federal agencies—before initiating NEPA— can provide clarity on the level of involvement needed from federal agencies and perhaps reveal potential funding opportunities. Conclusions The 12 case studies examined in this research illustrate the challenges faced by those undertaking multimodal NEPA processes involving more than one U.S. DOT agency. They capture an array of NEPA processes, institutional arrange- ments, and strategies that may be transferrable to others. The first four of the five challenges identified in Chapter 2, Challenges of Multimodal NEPA Processes, are particularly well represented. In these cases, overcoming the challenges involved a variety of strategies—some of which were new and innovative for the agencies involved. In the end, success tended to depend more on the willingness and motivation of all parties to work together, to find common ground, and to work around differing processes, and less upon a specific organizational structure or approach. Chapter 5, Case Study Synthesis, draws on the case study results to provide a consolidated list of strategies/tactics and to highlight crosscutting themes, keys to success, and stumbling blocks to avoid. Further detail on the cases can be found in Appendices A through L.