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.

11 C H A P T E R 3 The research used case studies to further explore the five chal­ lenges discussed in Chapter 2. It was expected that the case studies would illustrate the challenges and offer transferrable best practices to overcome them, ultimately leading to recom­ mendations supported by evidence from the field. It was also anticipated that new challenges might be revealed through the case studies, and that one or more of the initial five challenges might be found to be less challenging than originally thought. This chapter demonstrates how the criteria were used to select the case studies, the approach for obtaining data and infor­ mation used in each case study, and the means by which case study results were analyzed to facilitate broader applications. Identification of Case Study Projects In Phase 1, the research team aimed to identify 10 to 12 case studies for in­depth study through a three­step screening pro­ cess, depicted in Figure 4. A diverse set of cases was sought, with the number of cases large enough to identify crosscutting themes, but small enough to allow the team to delve deeply into each case to understand the challenges faced and how they were handled. In the first step, the research team developed a list of nearly 50 multimodal, multi­agency projects based on their experi­ ence, interviews with key U.S. DOT staff, and input from the NCHRP Project 25­43 panel and the focus group. The long list of projects and the information gathered is provided in Appendix N. In the second step, the research team applied two criteria to narrow the long list of case studies to a shorter list of approxi­ mately 30 projects. For consideration as a case study, a project must have (1) involved two or more U.S. DOT agencies in a significant way, and (2) achieved at least one major NEPA milestone within the last 10 years. The first criterion reflected direction by the NCHRP Project 25­43 panel at the study kick­ off meeting. The second criterion was based on the research team’s view that if the project milestones were achieved more than a decade ago, the lessons learned may no longer be appli­ cable (due to changing regulations or circumstances), and reliable institutional memory may no longer exist. Likewise, if the project recently started or is early in its process, there are likely to be fewer fully developed lessons learned. Thus, those projects that had not yet completed one major NEPA milestone were removed from consideration as a case study. In the third step, based on feedback from the focus group and the panel, the research team determined that the mix of recommended case studies should include: • Representation by all U.S. DOT agencies in a variety of leadership configurations, e.g., single and joint lead; • Various approaches to the NEPA process—at a minimum, this would include the three approaches outlined in Chap­ ter 1 of this report; • Geographic diversity; • A range of size and complexity, e.g., EIS, EA, CE; • Rich lessons, both positive and negative, that highlight a variety of challenges and innovative approaches and con­ tribute to addressing the research objectives; and • Examples likely to illuminate the list of five challenges presented earlier in this report. The selection screening resulted in 12 case studies: • Dulles Corridor Metrorail Project (Dulles Project), Northern VA • Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, FL • Eastern Corridor Program (Eastern Corridor), Cincinnati, OH • National Gateway Clearance Project Phase I (National Gate­ way), Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia • Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Effi­ ciency Program (CREATE), Chicago, IL • TRansportation EXpansion Project (T­REX), Denver, CO • I­70 East Corridor Project (I­70 East), Denver, CO Case Study Methods

12 • Mountain View Corridor Project (Mountain View), Salt Lake City, UT • XpressWest Project (XpressWest), California and Nevada • Columbia River Crossing Project, Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA • East Link Extension/I­90 (East Link), Seattle, WA • Orange Line LRT Extension to DFW Airport (DART DFW Extension), Dallas, TX Brief descriptions of the 12 case studies are provided in Chapter 4. Summary of How Case Studies Address Selection Criteria This section summarizes how the individual projects meet the criteria applied in Step 3 of the case study screening process. Geographic Distribution The case studies were selected to ensure a reasonable geo­ graphic distribution. As shown in Figure 5, the projects are scattered across the country. U.S. DOT Representation and Leadership Configurations The case studies collectively encompass FAA, FHWA, FRA, FTA, the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which was part of U.S. DOT prior to 2002. Leadership structures were also of interest. Table 1 illus­ trates the variety of agency roles in the 12 cases. Four had joint leads and eight were led by a single agency, which provided researchers with the opportunity to assess the issues associ­ ated with each structure. Figure 4. Process for selecting case study projects. Figure 5. Geographic distribution of case study projects.

13 Approaches to NEPA, Size, and Complexity Table 2 shows that the case studies represent a variety of approaches to addressing NEPA requirements in a multi­ modal context. All three of the approaches illustrated in Fig­ ure 1 are represented. In addition, two of the case studies were approached as a program of projects (Eastern Corridor and CREATE). A tiered NEPA process has been used for the Eastern Corridor. The case studies also present diversity in terms of size and complexity, as indicated by the NEPA classes of action shown in Table 3. Relevance to Five Challenge Areas Finally, a preliminary review of the case studies showed that each had potential to offer rich lessons across multiple challenges. Case Study Methodology Phase 2 was the information­gathering step of conducting each case study. The research team relied on two major sources: • Document reviews—The project team compiled and reviewed documentation of the environmental processes of the selected case study projects. Sources included environ­ mental documentation and findings (e.g., EIS and ROD), industry papers and/or presentations on the project, and other relevant and available materials. The research team used the document reviews as a starting point for answer­ ing the following interview questions. Findings were sum­ marized to inform the questions posed during the phone interviews. • Interviews—Telephone interviews were used to gather further information on each of the case studies. After the case studies were chosen, the research team identified key Project and Location Agency Role (single lead, joint lead, cooperating, participating) FAA FHWA FRA FTA STB USCG Dulles Project, Northern VA Co-op Lead Port of Miami Tunnel, Miami, FL Lead Co-op Eastern Corridor, Cincinnati, OH Lead Co-op National Gateway, OH, PA, MD, WV Jt. Lead Jt. Lead CREATE, Chicago, IL Lead Co-op Co-op T-REX, Denver, CO Jt. Lead Jt. Lead I-70 East, Denver, CO Co-op Jt. Lead Co-op Jt. Lead Mountain View, Salt Lake City, UT Lead Co-op XpressWest, CA, NV Part. Co-op Lead Co-op Columbia River Crossing, WA, OR Co-op Jt. Lead Jt. Lead Co-op East Link, Seattle, WA Co-op Lead DART DFW Extension, Dallas, TX Co-op Lead Table 1. U.S. DOT agency representation and leadership configurations for case study projects. Project and Location Single NEPA Process for Both/ All Modes Merged Initially, then Separated Separate but Coordinated NEPA Processes 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 2. NEPA approach for case study projects.

14 participants in each project and prepared a set of questions that formed the basis for the telephone interviews. To the extent possible, those interviewed included one or more representatives of the project sponsor and/or the project sponsor’s consultant, as well as the U.S. DOT agencies that played significant roles. A pilot case study was developed (the DART DFW Extension) to test the case study approach and to ensure that the methodology was sound. In keeping with the criteria introduced above, the inter­ view questions focused on those aspects of multi­U.S. DOT agency NEPA participation that provide the most relevant and credible input into the research—that is, challenges and barriers, topics and applications, strategies, and available data and information. Listed below is the initial set of questions the research team aimed to answer for all case studies. 1. Describe the project and/or alternative(s) subject to the NEPA procedures and processes, including multimodal features. 2. Describe the NEPA process and/or approach [e.g., single Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), separate scoping and DEIS, or separate EISs]. 3. Which U.S. DOT agencies played a significant role in the NEPA effort? 4. Who led the effort? How was coordination among the agencies accomplished? 5. For each U.S. DOT agency, describe the agency NEPA or other program requirements that were applied to the effort. 6. Which of these requirements were inconsistent with the requirements of other U.S. DOT agencies? 7. What major federal actions were ultimately required? Were they anticipated? 8. How was the NEPA process funded? 9. Which of these issues provided the greatest challenges in meeting the schedule and/or goals of the process? 10. What strategies/tactics did the project sponsor adopt to overcome these challenges? 11. What were the impacts on these differences in require­ ments on the process and on the ultimate outcome? 12. What were the key lessons learned in applying these strategies/tactics—that is, what worked? What did not? Why or why not? 13. What new and innovative strategies/tactics would you recommend to other agencies conducting a NEPA analy­ sis of multimodal projects to overcome these challenges? 14. Are there reports or internal memoranda that we could obtain to provide more background on this project/ arrangement? The research team used the document reviews to develop preliminary answers for as many of the questions as possible. The team used the interviews to confirm its understanding of the project, fill in gaps, and seek further clarification. Research team members aimed to conduct multiple interviews for each case study to capture different perspectives. Although the research team selected cases with NEPA activity within the past 10 years, in some cases it was challenging to find inter­ viewees who had played key roles, as many had retired or are now employed by other organizations. Case Study Synthesis Approach In Phase 3 the research team sought parallels among the 12 cases, tying the lessons learned and innovative strategies more directly to the challenges, and then identifying cross­ cutting themes. To guide the synthesis, the team considered a series of questions to identify the characteristics of successful strategies, identify the common or unique nature of circum­ stances, and provide some sense of how the case study results Project and Location CE EA EIS 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 3. NEPA class of action for case study projects.

15 might offer useful guidance and best practices. The questions applied to each case study across the challenges follow. 1. What recurring problems were identified among the case studies? What were unique problems specific to individual case studies? 2. What practices emerged that could be applied in other NEPA processes relating to multimodal transportation projects (or a subset thereof)? 3. For those strategies that might be applied in other NEPA processes, what are the steps needed to make this happen? 4. Of the different strategies and actions illustrated in the case studies, which ones seem most promising as general practice? 5. What are some of the institutional and procedural barriers that might have to be overcome to implement the strate­ gies or actions? 6. What are the most compelling “stories” of how state and local officials developed a proactive strategy for responding to the challenges of multiple federal agency administrative requirements? 7. What suggestions do case study participants have that merit further exploration? Further refinement and analysis of the challenges led to a set of crosscutting themes and takeaways in the form of keys to the success, stumbling blocks to avoid, and strategies for addressing the challenges. As the synthesis progressed in col­ laboration with the NCHRP Project 25­43 panel, the research team decided to produce a self­assessment tool that NEPA project teams and individual staff may find helpful as they undertake planning and execution of multimodal NEPA pro­ cesses in the future.