National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 4 - Case Study Results
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Case Study Synthesis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Case Study Synthesis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Case Study Synthesis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - Case Study Synthesis." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 32

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.

29 C H A P T E R 5 The research found many different ways to carry out NEPA for situations involving more than one mode or U.S. DOT agency. The case studies offer examples of agencies working out hybrid processes and trying new approaches that worked for their particular situation and parties involved. In other cases, participants took away some lessons learned that will benefit them the next time they face a similar situation. In its own way, each case study demonstrates that flexibility and openness to new approaches were necessary to achieve satis- factory outcomes. In the previous chapter, transferrable strategies were listed under each of the five challenges. Many of these were listed multiple times, because there were instances where a particu- lar strategy was used to address more than one challenge. This chapter begins with a consolidated list of transferrable strate- gies and tactics. Crosscutting themes and stumbling blocks to avoid for successful outcomes are then presented. Consolidated List of Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Twenty-three strategies for addressing the challenges to multimodal NEPA projects emerged from the case studies. Table 10 lists these strategies, identifies the challenges they addressed, and references the case studies that used each strategy. More detailed descriptions of each application can be found in the individual case study summaries, presented as Appendices A through L. Many of these strategies relate to the challenge of coordinat- ing between and among U.S. DOT and local agencies. Success- ful techniques varied widely and included committees, joint project offices, memoranda of agreement, and frequent in- person meetings. Coordination also occurred through the use of local task forces, groups, or technical documents to address and record solutions to technical issues. Crosscutting Themes and Keys to Success As expected, the most prevalent theme across the case studies was the need for early and continuous coordination across all agencies—federal, state, and local—with a potential stake in the project. Coordination emerged in every case study as either a factor for success or, when effective coordination was lacking, as a source of frustration and delay. This theme is appli- cable to all five challenges. Coordination is critical to the success of any project involving more than one partner. Variations on this theme include knowing the best point at which to engage specific agencies and the most effective strategy to employ in a given situation. Remaining flexible and seeking opportunities to find common ground also emerged as important themes, and are generally tied to the need for cooperation. Case Study Synthesis Case Study Highlight: T-REX and “One DOT” FTA and FHWA operated as “One DOT,” and established an Interagency Agreement early in NEPA, streamlining the NEPA process for T-REX. The two agencies identified areas where their NEPA requirements differed and identified an approach to reconciling these issues in an Inter- agency Agreement. Staff from both agencies understood their roles and responsibilities throughout NEPA, saving time and resources. The One DOT approach—a U.S. DOT initiative at the time—was intended to foster collabora- tion across modal administrations. It was applied through construction and garnered the FHWA Colorado Division and FTA Region VIII a special award in recognition of the efforts.

30 Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Challenges Case Studies that Demonstrate Strategy/Tactic 1. U ni qu e Ag en cy - Sp ec ifi c Pr og ra m R eq ui re m en ts 2. D iff er in g In te rp re ta tio ns o f N EP A R eq ui re m en ts 3. A nt ic ip at in g W hi ch A ge nc ie s Ha ve M ajo r Fe de ra l A ct io ns 4. E ffi ci en t Co or di na tio n am on g A ge nc ie s 1. Utilize various channels to maintain regular communication with all appropriate partners. All 2. Establish process where federal agencies coordinate directly. I-70 East National Gateway DART DFW Extension 3. Foster a sense of teamwork and collaboration and develop relationships among all parties, particularly with and between federal agency staff. Dulles Project T-REX I-70 East Columbia River Crossing DART DFW Extension 4. Establish interagency agreement(s) to detail specific agency requirements, procedures to be followed, and agency roles. T-REX Mountain View Columbia River Crossing Port of Miami Tunnel 5. Build coordination among agencies pre-NEPA and capitalize on preexisting relationships. I-70 East Columbia River Crossing East Link 6. Hire a mediator and/or facilitator to help work through challenging issues and facilitate agreement. XpressWest Eastern Corridor 7. Leverage work that took place before NEPA began. T-REX 8. For phased projects, engage all lead and cooperating federal agencies in every phase, even if their interests aren’t directly affected across all phases. Dulles Project Port of Miami Tunnel DART DFW Extension 9. Designate a single lead agency or designate which agency's requirements and/or processes will be followed early; conduct evaluations for other agency requirements separately. Dulles Project National Gateway DART DFW Extension 10. Aim to prepare a single NEPA document and address unique agency requirements in standalone sections. DART DFW Extension 11. Develop a detailed critical path method schedule that is updated and referenced on a regular basis. T-REX 12. Hire or identify a staff expert to provide necessary expertise in specific technical areas and/or expedite unfamiliar processes. Columbia River Crossing DART DFW Extension Table 10. Transferrable strategies and tactics applied in case studies.

31 13. Co-locate or assign staff from partner agencies, or defer to agency specialists, to provide specific technical expertise and/or expedite unfamiliar processes. National Gateway DART DFW Extension Dulles Project T-REX Columbia River Crossing I-70 East 14. Establish a committee, task force, or working group to provide technical guidance and support. T-REX I-70 East 15. Create a formal governance structure (with management board) to coordinate decision-making among private and public partners. CREATE 16. Establish a detailed charter or coordination plan that includes ground rules and procedures for conflict resolution and facilitation. East Link 17. Develop technical memoranda or white papers to explain and reconcile differences in agency requirements. T-REX I-70 East East Link 18. Apply documented policies, procedures, and successful methodologies for resolving issues that were implemented on other multimodal NEPA projects. I-70 East East Link Transferrable Strategies and Tactics Challenges Case Studies that Demonstrate Strategy/Tactic 1. U ni qu e Ag en cy - Sp ec ifi c Pr og ra m R eq ui re m en ts 2. D iff er in g In te rp re ta tio ns o f N EP A R eq ui re m en ts 3. A nt ic ip at in g W hi ch A ge nc ie s Ha ve M ajo r Fe de ra l A ct io ns 4. E ffi ci en t Co or di na tio n am on g A ge nc ie s 19. Develop a formal dispute resolution process that engages higher-level staff to resolve procedural differences. T-REX Columbia River Crossing 20. Closely align state and federal environmental processes. Port of Miami Tunnel 21. Incorporate a thorough scoping process. XpressWest 22. Visit the regional or field office of an agency to encourage greater participation. Mountain View Eastern Corridor 23. Create an action so that the most appropriate U.S. DOT agency can lead the NEPA process. DART DFW Extension Table 10. (Continued). Closely related is engaging all necessary staff as needed throughout the process. Several of the strategies were related to this theme, including engaging staff with expertise in spe- cific NEPA or agency-specific requirements, as was done on National Gateway and the DART DFW Extension; using executive-level staff to resolve differences, as was done on Columbia River Crossing and T-REX; and seeking external experts as needed to provide guidance or facilitate resolu- tions, as was done on XpressWest. Similarly, ensuring that all agencies (both local and fed- eral) have the same level of interest in and commitment to the project is critical to moving the NEPA process forward and minimizing delays on a combined process. In the East- ern Corridor and Mountain View case studies, one U.S. DOT

32 agency did not actively participate in the multimodal NEPA process due to a lack of local commitment to a multimodal outcome that would lead to a federal action on their part. On I-70 East, a merged process was eventually split because of differing levels of funding commitment to the highway and transit elements. Another overarching theme was strategic use of the most advantageous agency relationships and high-level interests. This was perhaps most evident on the National Gateway proj- ect, which used a high-level kick-off meeting in Washington, D.C. to capture the attention of the participating states and engage their governors. The project team also emphasized the economic and community benefits of the National Gateway to win support. Leveraging shared interests and executive-level strategic relationships can help engage agency partners that may not otherwise be interested in coordinating. Allocating adequate time and resources to the NEPA pro- cess was cited frequently as crucial to addressing the identified challenges to multimodal projects. Some of the strategies may require extra time to execute. Factoring in the time required to meet the approval requirements of multiple agencies— even after coordination strategies are implemented—is good practice. Becoming familiar with agency and private partner processes and reconciling differences early in the NEPA process was also a significant crosscutting theme. This was particularly important for addressing the first two challenges, but lack of understanding may also preclude identification of project elements that may trigger federal action—a problem under the third challenge of anticipating major federal action. Gaining an early understanding of agency constraints and expectations and recognizing they may differ also recurred across such case studies as Mountain View, Eastern Corridor, CREATE, and XpressWest. Finally, the case studies demonstrate that there is no single best way to approach the NEPA process for multimodal situ- ations. The T-REX and I-70 East projects illustrate this point particularly well. In the T-REX project, a single EIS was pre- pared for both the highway and the transit improvements, and both modes then moved to a single design-build procurement for implementation in a shared corridor. The subsequent I-70 East process was modeled after T-REX, but due to the differ- ing levels of funding commitment in that case, the highway and transit elements were ultimately split into separate NEPA processes (with associated delays and costs). Ultimately, the success of multimodal NEPA activities may depend more on the willingness and motivation of the agencies to work together, to find common ground, and to work around differing processes, and less upon the team’s organizational structure or approach. Achieving an effective interagency approach depends on how well the project spon- sor and other agencies are able to bridge the differences in requirements and agency practices. Stumbling Blocks to Avoid The case studies also highlighted stumbling blocks to avoid when undertaking a multi-agency NEPA process. In particular: • Differences in perspective and emphasis between U.S. DOT agencies—whether from differing program structures, legislative mandates, past legal challenges, or leadership priorities—can complicate the development of a shared process. Agreement on a single process and scope that accommodates each agency’s needs may require coopera- tion and compromise. • Different levels of commitment to a project can nullify or limit the effectiveness of prior agreements. • Insufficient time or resources allocated to applying these strategies can hinder successful implementation. • Limited commitment on the part of project sponsors to coordinate or learn other agency requirements, and failure to communicate the benefits of full agency engagement, can be barriers to implementing the recommended strategies. • Resistance on the part of state and local sponsors to adapt their current processes to reflect the nuances of U.S. DOT agency NEPA processes can lead to frustration and delays. • Reluctance of federal agencies to engage in projects before their major action is identified can thwart coordination and overall progress. The strategies and tactics summarized in Table 10, along with the Self-Assessment Tool in Appendix O, can be used to help anticipate and avoid the stumbling blocks listed in this section. Appendix M identifies key NEPA requirements for each of the U.S. DOT agencies featured in the case studies. This appendix can help future project sponsors identify the rel- evant requirements before starting a multi-agency, multi- modal NEPA process.

Next: Chapter 6 - Implementation Plan »
Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 827: Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects analyzes approaches taken by state departments of transportation (DOTs), their local partners, and other project sponsors to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for transportation projects involving more than one mode. Case studies illustrate successful practices and provide examples of institutional arrangements used to comply with NEPA requirements for two or more U.S. DOT agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!