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.
33 C H A P T E R 6 The products of this research are intended to help practi- tioners understand the challenges of multimodal NEPA pro- cesses and consider how they might benefit by applying some of the best practices, innovative strategies, and lessons learned identified in this research. This chapter outlines a broad imple- mentation approach to help make the results of this research accessible and transferrable to the unique situations that prac- titioners may face with future multimodal NEPA projects. Self-Assessment Tool A primary product of this research is the creation of a tool- kit for practitioners to apply as they are developing a plan of action and working through the NEPA process for multimodal projects. The self-assessment tool, provided in Appendix O, is one of three main tools resulting from this research. It was designed to facilitate discussions among the NEPA project team about the challenges inherent in multimodal projects, and steps that can be taken to mitigate them. The tool was designed with insights gained from the case study results and synthesis dis- cussed earlier, as well as the input of practitioners that comprise this research effortâs focus group. The tool comes with a set of instructions to guide practitioners on how to use the tool. Tool Guidance The color guidance that accompanies each statement helps the user identify those competency areas needing the most attention. When users check the green box, they are indicat- ing that they already have a high understanding and have given attention to the issue. Those checking a brown or red box are indicating that there may be a need for greater under- standing and attention. The provided scale, ranging from âcompletely agreeâ to âcompletely disagree,â is meant to be illustrative; each user or project team can create an alternative that works best for them. Each individual statement is impor- tant in assessing the userâs or the project teamâs competency. The average of greens and reds in one section does not equate to overall competency in a section. Tool Discussion Within the self-assessment tool following each section, fur- ther guidance is given on the relevant NCHRP Project 25-43 tools (e.g., final report results and case studies) to reference in order to become more familiar with the issues and available strategies. The goal of the discussion sections is to lead the project team to the in-depth study of the relevant challenges explored in that section, ways in which those challenges arose and affected project development, and strategies and lessons learned from project teams who worked through these chal- lenges. While the materials touch on âhowâ project teams were able to create solutions to the challenges by highlighting key strategies and lessons learned, the application of these strategies will be unique for each project team depending on the context of the project, challenges, and resources available. Other Uses of the Tool The tool was designed for NEPA project teams working on multimodal projects involving more than one U.S. DOT agency. However, as the research team developed the tool, it became apparent that many of the challenges explored in the toolâs statements are applicable more broadly, e.g., to NEPA processes in which just one U.S. DOT agency and multiple other agencies (not necessarily U.S. DOT) are involved. Proj- ect teams may customize the tool to suit their particular needs. Suggestions for Further Exploration The research suggests a few areas for further exploration. Use of Interagency Agreements. The recurring theme of agency cooperation across case studies and the success of Implementation Plan
34 projects where roles and relationships were clearly documented suggest that interagency agreements might be helpful tools for multimodal NEPA projects that involve multiple U.S. DOT agencies. Agencies embarking on interagency projects exam- ine previously used agreements to help identify specific points where early consensus is critical. A future effort could attempt to pinpoint a specific threshold or scenario under which proj- ect sponsors and U.S. DOT agencies should consider using an interagency agreement. A related question to consider is the extent to which it is possible to implement preemptive agree- ments between U.S. DOT agencies that frequently partner on multimodal projects. White Paper on Requirements that Differ among U.S. DOT Agencies. A paper discussing the requirements that differ among U.S. DOT agencies and specific guidance on how multimodal projects may address them could be useful. Appendix M offers a starting point. Revisit the Challenge of Securing Funding for Multi- modal NEPA Studies. As noted previously, Challenge 5, Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies, did not emerge from the 12 case studies, likely because the case study selection criteria favored cases where there had been at least one major NEPA milestone in the last 10 years. Those cases where project sponsors had been unable to assemble the funding for a multimodal NEPA process were thus screened out. Future research could specifically explore examples of this challenge. As noted previously, some of the strategies recommended in this study might be appropriate for address- ing specific problems related to this challenge that may emerge from future research.
