23
Managing the Environmental Review Process OneDOT Coordination During NEPA APTA Rail Conference June 25, 2019 Steve Salin, AICP Vice President, Capital Planning Dallas Area Rapid Transit
0
Managing the Environmental Review Process
OneDOT Coordination During NEPA
APTA Rail ConferenceJune 25, 2019
Steve Salin, AICP
Vice President, Capital Planning
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
1
• Background• Challenges of Multimodal Agencies• Case Study
– Strategies Used– Key Decisions
• Lessons Learned• Summary
Outline
2
• Multi-agency participation in NEPA projects can complicate the environmental review process• Multi-agency involvement may come from:
– Two transportation modes in one right-of-way– A single mode requiring approvals from more than on USDOT agency
• Over the course of our system development, we have experienced both of these circumstances– Light rail and commuter rail sharing ROW– Light rail on airport property
• Two or more US DOT agencies can increase the complexity and create challenges to schedules, deliverables and the NEPA process
• The more partners involved, the greater the chance for miscommunication and understanding• Lessons learned during our earliest projects, influenced our approach to subsequent projects
Background
3
1. Unique agency-specific program requirements under “NEPA umbrella”
2. Differing agency interpretations of NEPA requirements 3. Anticipating which agencies will have a major federal action4. Efficient coordination among participating agencies5. Securing funding for multimodal NEPA studies
Challenges of Multimodal NEPA
4
Challenge Orange Line Cotton Belt
Unique agency-specific program requirements under “NEPA umbrella Yes Yes
Differing agency interpretations of NEPA requirements Yes Yes
Anticipating which agencies will have a major federal action Yes
Efficient coordination among participating agencies Yes Yes
Securing funding for multimodal NEPA studies Yes
DART Project Challenge Experience
5
Case Study CorridorsCotton Belt
Orange Line to DFW
6
Case StudyOrange Line
7
• Project Description– A 14-mile extension of light rail from downtown Dallas to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
• Key USDOT Agencies– Federal Transit Administration (Lead)– Federal Aviation Administration (Cooperating)
• Key State and Local Agencies– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Sponsor)– Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Authority (DFW)– Cities of Dallas and Irving– North Central Texas Council of Governments– Texas DOT
Orange Line LRT Extension to DFW Airport
8
Source Amount % of Total CostFederal ARRA funds (Phases 1-2) $63.0 million 5%
Federal TIFIA loan (Phase 3) $120.0 million 10%
Local funds (likely local dedicated sales tax) $183.0 million 85%
Total $1,200 million 100%
Orange Line to DFW Project Funding
9
• Utilized joint meetings between federal lead and cooperating agencies • Became familiar with FAA processes and considerations early in the project
– Recognized that we needed additional expertise– Asked for help
• Hired a specialist to help navigate those unfamiliar processes• Combined NEPA processes• Leveraged mutual interests in the project• Maintained frequent coordination with partner agencies• Allocated additional time to reconcile differing agency approaches
Strategies Used
10
• FTA: Lead Agency with FAA as Cooperating Agency• Two phases
– First phase to edge of airport (independent utility) with EIS– Second phase provided rail service to the central terminal area and qualified for an EA– A design-build alignment change was determined by FAA to require a supplemental EA– FTA and FAA determined previous FONSIs were valid
• Separate EIS chapter focusing on airports and FAA issues• Sequential reviews• A single environmental document for each phase with separate FTA and FAA ROD/FONSI• Second phase had a much shorter timeframe even with the re-evaluation due to lessons learned
during the first phase
Key Decisions
11
Case StudyCotton Belt
12
• Project Description– A 26-mile extension of light rail from Plano, TX to Dallas/Fort Worth Airport
• Key USDOT Agencies– Federal Transit Administration (Lead)– Federal Aviation Administration (Cooperating)– Federal Railroad Administration (Participating)– USDOT Build America Bureau
Cotton Belt Corridor Regional Rail
13
• Key State and Local Agencies– Dallas Area Rapid Transit (Sponsor)– Dallas/Fort Worth Airport Authority (DFW)– Cities of Dallas and Ft Worth– North Central Texas Council of Governments– Texas DOT
Cotton Belt Corridor Regional Rail
14
Source Amount % of Total CostFederal CMAQ funds $136.0 million 12%Federal Section 5307 formula funds $3.3 million <1%Federal Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program loan $908.0 million 80%
Local funds, including DART locally dedicated transit sales tax, tax increment financing funds from the City of Plano and the City of Richardson (2020-2038), contributions from other cities in the corridor, fare revenue, naming rights, and advertising revenue
$87.7 million 8%
Total $1,135.0 million 100%
Cotton Belt Corridor Project Funding
[1] Cotton Belt Corridor Regional Rail Project: Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision. DART. Nov. 2018.[2] "Update on Status of Financing of Cotton Belt Commuter Rail Project." Presentation to DART Budget & Finance Committee. May 28, 2019.[3] DART FY2019 Business Plan (9/18/2018).
15
• Orange Line experience contributed to overall strategy– Did not hire an airport specialist
• Orange Line relationships were leveraged• Utilized joint meetings between federal lead and cooperating agencies• Kick off meeting with all agencies in attendance
– NEPA– Funding Partners
• Conference calls– Between December 2016 and November 2018 – 25 conference calls
Strategies Used
16
• FTA: Lead Agency with FAA as Cooperating Agency• FRA: Originally Cooperating Agency changed to Participating Agency• Separate EIS chapter focusing on airports and FAA issues• Concurrent reviews rather than sequential reviews• Combined FEIS/ROD• Single ROD signed by both FTA and FAA
Key Decisions
17
Summary
18
Approach
• There is no single best approach to overcoming the challenges– We became familiar with other agency processes early– Be flexible and adapt – Allocate additional time to accommodate various approaches
• Many of the challenges were directly related to coordination across time zones and multiple agencies– Pick a meeting cycle and stick to it
19
• Committees, task forces, working groups • Memoranda of Agreement / Interlocal Agreement• Frequent in-person meetings• Technical documents to address & record solutions to issues• Combine the NEPA process
Strategies
20
• Coincidence is not coordination • Critical to establish early coordination with the federal agency and then sustain it
– Can never do too much – Determine participation levels and follow through – Foster relationships with federal and sponsor agencies prior to the project– Leverage relationships & high-level interests– Engage necessary staff throughout process
Lessons Learned
21
• Agency Processes – No two agencies do things the same way– Become familiar with partner processes, reconcile differences early– Make sure agencies have same interest and commitment– Allocate adequate time & resources – Document reviews and comments
• Technical details – Understand agency constraints & expectations
Lessons Learned
