![](media/image1.png){width="0.7333333333333333in"
height="0.7597222222222222in"}

**U.S. Department of Transportation**

**Federal Highway Administration**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.719444444444444in"
height="0.9729166666666667in"}

**January 2001**

**Office of Freight Management and Operations**

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The Federal Highway Administration\'s (FHWA) Office of Freight
Management and Operations initiated this study to examine the
relationship between freight facilities and the environment. More
specifically, the focus of the study is how the environmental review
process affects the development or expansion of intermodal freight
facilities. Law mandates consideration of both human and natural
environmental resources where there is federal involvement in
transportation improvements. This involvement can include permitting,
loan guarantees, direct federal aid and other activities requiring a
\"federal action\" and apply to public as well as private sector
sponsors. The degree that environmental laws are understood,
acknowledged, and complied with can affect project schedules, design,
and costs.

FHWA employed a case study methodology. Projects were reviewed across
the nation for all modes of transportation. FHWA's interests included
both projects that had encountered delays as well as those that had
successfully completed the environmental review process in a timely
manner. The eight selected projects included: one rail/highway facility
in Waterville, Maine; four rail/highway/port facilities in Oakland,
California, Sears Island/Mack Point, Maine, West Hayden Island,
Portland, Oregon, and the FAST Corridor in the Seattle/Tacoma area; and
two port/rail facilities in the Long Beach Naval Yard, Long Beach,
California and the Alameda Corridor, Los Angeles, California.

The types of intermodal projects captured in this sample were determined
largely by whether a federal agency had a funding, approval, or
permitting role. The water side of port improvement projects most
frequently requires National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) reviews in
the form of Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Assessment
due to the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) permitting requirements and
expenditures of the Harbor Maintenance Tax for capital improvements,
such as dredging. FHW A becomes involved with port improvements through
land side access projects including: new access into and out of ports
for federal-aid highways, rail/highway grade separations at ports, and
installation of Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) technology to
improve the efficiency of port-highway interfaces. Inland rail/highway
intermodal facilities are mostly owned by railroads and are not as
likely to require federal permits and funding, and therefore tend not to
trigger NEP A reviews (in the past).

The FHWA evaluated the environmental issues associated with the selected
projects and the project\'s level of success in the environmental review
process. The findings are based on data that is restricted to what could
be obtained through interviews with a variety of participants on the
different projects. The total number of intermodal freight
transportation projects currently underway in the United States is
unknown. Therefore, this is not a statistical sample of all port, rail,
highway, and airport facilities. The information represents a first look
at environmental issues affecting development of intermodal freight
transportation facilities. Environmental factors identified from the
case studies as issues associated with intermodal facility development
include, but may not be limited to:

-   Air quality,

-   Cultural resources,

-   Land use compatibility,

-   Local transportation,

-   Natural resources,

-   Noise/vibration,

-   Hazardous waste,

-   Socioeconomics,

    -   Environmental Justice

-   Water quality

Initial observations that can be drawn from the information reviewed
include, but are not limited to the following:

-   Intermodal freight transportation projects, depending on federal
    funds or permits, frequently involve a variety of federal agencies
    as reviewers or that could that could be directly affected (port
    improvements and landside access issues).

-   Clear communications and early involvement of federal and state
    agencies are critical to the successful completion of environmental
    analysis for projects (time, money spent, design of project, etc.)

-   Conflicts between state and federal environmental requirements can
    cause delays on projects but can be overcome with early recognition
    of issues and agreements among agencies on how to proceed.

-   Consideration of environmental resources (including avoidance and
    minimization of impacts through site selection and design) early in
    the planning and project design phases can result in simplified
    environmental review and avoidance of costly delays in project
    schedules.

-   Early coordination with public interests on intermodal freight
    projects can lead to resolving concerns before they become a
    problem.

-   NEPA streamlining through improved agency consultation may be
    difficult to achieve on many projects if the regulatory agencies do
    not have adequate resources to engage in early consultation.

-   When questions or disagreements arise over the assumptions behind a
    project\'s purpose and need, and alternatives, regulatory agencies
    do not always have the resources to independently verify cargo
    projections, market analyses, and facility land use needs.

-   Port dredging, land side development, and land side access projects
    are sometimes covered by separate NEP A documents because funding is
    not always available to cover all three types of activity
    simultaneously and because different agencies take the lead on these
    projects. On a related note, there does not appear to be any
    regional or national guidance or policies for project sponsor
    agencies and regulatory agencies to follow when considering the
    funding, permitting, and environmental review of projects in
    separate political or planning jurisdictions that compete in the
    same freight markets.

Additional efforts in this area of environmental review might include
the following next steps:

-   Further research including more case studies and a better
    understanding of the numbers of projects that exist to confirm the
    preliminary conclusions discussed above.

-   Further research into how FHW A Division staff considers a
    project\'s purpose and need, and alternatives when it is a
    cooperating or review agency.

-   Further research into how other reviewing agencies (e.g.,
    Environmental Protection Agency, U.S Fish and Wildlife Service,
    National Marine Fisheries Service, and State Historic Preservation
    Officers) consider a project\'s purpose and need and develop
    alternatives.

-   Exploring opportunities for multi-agency project sponsorship and
    agreements among agencies regarding cooperation on intermodal
    projects (e.g., COE and FHW A on port improvements and landside
    access as well as Federal Railroad Administration and U.S. Coast
    Guard when appropriate}.

######### 

######### 

######### 

######### Table of Contents

Page

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-[1](#section-1.0-introduction)

Definitions 1-[2](#definitions)

Environmental Considerations in Planning Intermodal Facilities
1-[2](#environmental-considerations-in-planning-intermodal-facilities)

Environmental Issues as an Opportunity to Advance Intermodal Projects
1-[2](#environmental-issues-as-an-opportunity-to-advance-intermodal-projects)

Environmental Impacts as a Potential Source of Delay and/or an Obstacle
1-[2](#environmental-impacts-as-a-potential-source-of-delay-andor-an-obstacle)

Structure of the report 1-[3](#structure-of-the-report)

SECTION 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2-[1](#section-2.0-methodology)

Project Selection 2-[1](#project-selection)

Initial Project Evaluation and Investigation
2-[2](#initial-project-evaluation-and-investigation)

Implementation of Case Studies 2-[3](#implementation-of-case-studies)

Preparation of Case Study Summaries
2-[3](#preparation-of-case-study-summaries)

SECTION 3.0 EVALUATION 3-[1](#section-3.0-evaluation)

Overview 3-[1](#overview)

Summary of Selected Projects 3-[1](#summary-of-selected-projects)

Environmental Issues 3-[5](#environmental-issues)

Level of Success in the Environmental Review Process
3-[7](#level-of-success-in-the-environmental-review-process)

SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4-[1](#section-4-conclusions-and-recommendations)

Conclusions 4-[1](#conclusions)

Recommendations 4-[2](#recommendations)

APPENDIX A - INTERMODAL PROJECTS CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT AS CASE
STUDIES
A-[1](#appendix-a---intermodal-projects-considered-for-development-as-case-studies)

Part I -- Projects advanced as case studies
A-[1](#part-i-projects-advanced-as-case-studies)

Part II -- Projects strongly considered but not advanced as case studies
A-[3](#part-ii-projects-strongly-considered-but-not-advanced-as-case-studies)

Part III -- Projects initially considered, but not advanced as worthy of
consideration as case studies
A-[5](#part-iii-projects-initially-considered-but-not-advanced-as-worthy-of-consideration-as-case-studies)

APPENDIX B \-- INTERMODAL FACILITY DESCRIPTIVE MATRIX
B-[1](#appendix-b-intermodal-facility-descriptive-matrix)

APPENDIX C \-- SELECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
C-[1](#selection-and-evaluation-criteria)

Phase One Selection Criteria C-[1](#phase-one-selection-criteria)

Initial Screening Questions for Projects
C-[1](#initial-screening-questions-for-projects)

APPENDIX D \-- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SELECTED PROJECTS
D-[1](#appendix-d----interview-questions-for-selected-projects)

APPENDIX E \-- SELECTED INTERMODAL PROJECTS E-[1](#appendix-e)

######### List of Acronyms

ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

COE Army Corps of Engineers

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHS National Highway System

NMFS National Marine Fisheries

SHPO State Historic Preservation Office

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# 

# 

# SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Office of Freight Management and Operations within the Operations
Core Business Unit (CBU) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
was created in January 1999. The Office focuses on freight issues within
FHWA to fulfill both the U.S. DOT and FHWA strategic plans to
"...advance America's economic growth and competitiveness...". The
Operations CBU is charged with "optimizing performance" of the
transportation network. A "roadmap" was designed for the Freight Office
to provide a structure for achieving the goals and objectives of the
agency regarding freight transportation. The "roadmap outlines six cross
cutting issues in freight transportation which are: environment,
planning, finance, economic benefits, freight performance measures, and
intermodal freight analysis/decision framework. Each of the six items is
important to understanding and developing a freight transportation
system.

Environmental issues, relating to intermodal freight transportation
facilities are the focus of this study. The purpose is three fold: 1) to
develop an understanding of how these facilities affect environmental
resources, 2) how, and what, environmental resources affect the
development of intermodal freight facilities, and 3) understanding how
projects are implemented given the environmental regulations and agency
review process.

Consideration of environmental resources, both human and natural, is
mandated by law where there is federal involvement in transportation
improvements. This involvement can include permitting, loan guarantees,
direct federal aid and other activities requiring a "federal action" and
apply to public as well as private sector sponsors. State and local laws
may also require the consideration of a variety of environmental
resources before a transportation project can advance regardless of the
sponsoring entity involved. The degree that environmental laws are
understood, acknowledged, and complied with can affect project
schedules, design, and costs.

This report identifies a number of environmental constraints affecting
the development and expansion of intermodal freight facilities. These
constraints include: facilities that enhance the movement of freight
between modes, including rail yards with highway connections, ports with
rail and highway connections, and airports with highway and rail
connections. The report is one of several ongoing studies by the FHWA
related to intermodal freight transportation. Selected intermodal
projects are presented in this report that reflect environmental issues
raised during project planning and advancement, and highlights where
environmental issues:

1.  Provided a rationale for particular solutions;

2.  Affected Schedules;

3.  Affected costs (positively or negatively); or

4.  Affected the viability of a proposed action.

The sample of intermodal projects illustrates the environmental issues
facing agencies, authorities, and private sector entities engaged in
advancing freight transportation improvements.

The report includes evaluations of some of the causes of delays and cost
increases (e.g., the agency review process, presence or absence of a
structured approach to environmental analysis, and public involvement).

## Definitions

An intermodal facility is a site where freight is conveyed from one mode
of freight transportation to another. Examples include water/port to
rail or highway movements, and truck/rail interfaces.

Intermodalism received national attention with the 1991 Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). With new language under
the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century (TEA-21),
expenditures from federal sources for the development or improvement of
intermodal freight facilities are likely to increase. A number of state
initiatives have been undertaken, including legislation in California
and Virginia, to facilitate private development of what had previously
been thought of as public infrastructure. These federal, state, and
private sector initiatives also hold the potential for raising
environmental concerns related to freight transport.

## Environmental Considerations in Planning Intermodal Facilities 

Planning new or expanded intermodal facilities can require evaluating a
broad range of potential environmental and related social impacts.
Planning for federally aided facilities requires funding applications,
and coordination and review among local, state, and federal
transportation agencies as well as environmental review agencies. Under
the implementing regulations for the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), a federal agency must prepare or oversee the preparation of an
environmental impact statement (EIS) if the proposed action could result
in a significant environmental impact. Federal agencies prepare or
oversee the preparation of an environmental assessment (EA) to determine
whether to prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
NEPA requires sponsoring agencies to consult with other agencies,
involve the public, and have a review period for EISs and some EAs. The
environmental review process encompasses other federal regulations as
well, including the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered
Species Act, the Clean Water Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the
Executive Order on Environmental Justice, and the Uniform Relocation and
Assistance Act.

The attention paid to the environmental impacts of potential intermodal
facilities is both an opportunity to advance many projects, and a
potential source of delay and/or an obstacle to construction.

## Environmental Issues as an Opportunity to Advance Intermodal Projects

The transportation industry has embraced intermodalism because it is
efficient. That efficiency can produce substantial environmental
benefits, and thus, can aid intermodal facility development. For
example, facilities that help decrease congestion can reduce emissions
of concern locally, regionally, nationally, and internationally. That
emissions reduction qualifies such facilities for funding from the
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. Several intermodal facilities have taken
advantage of that eligibility, and we profile one, in Waterville, Maine.

## Environmental Impacts as a Potential Source of Delay and/or an Obstacle

The Process of identifying environmental resources and assessing the
impacts of freight transportation facility projects on those resources
can be a source of delay or an obstacle to a project in two ways. First,
*procedurally*. Both federally and non-federally aided projects must
comply with environmental regulations pertaining to wetlands, endangered
species, local zoning processes, and construction permits. Agencies may
encounter delays in the preparation of an EIS or EA when they cannot
achieve internal agreement on the proposed action or on methodologies
for characterizing specific resources and impacts. Such delays may occur
even in the absence of substantial environmental concerns, although
concerns clearly make a delay more likely. Because agency consultation
requires time, promptly initiating consultation is important and can
minimize adverse impacts to a project schedule. Although proper
integration of environmental considerations into the planning process
cannot ensure a smooth agency consultation and public involvement
process, it greatly increases the likelihood. This approach can also
produce benefits to the environment as well. Second, *substantively*.
Environmental review may discover, quantify, or otherwise raise
environmental impacts that are of serious concern. Issues, especially
with noise and land use compatibility, may arise apart from any formal
evaluation process.

Many environmental concerns can be addressed through avoidance of
resources during planning and design, and in some cases project redesign
can not only reduce impacts, but also add benefits. Whether a concern is
raised and addressed early in the planning process often determines
whether or not the concern delays (or ultimately prevents) the project
and affects the cost. Not anticipating a concern and planning for it
early in the planning stages can add months to a project schedule and
possibly result in project cancellation. Effective planning includes
early consideration of potential environmental issues while the project
proponent is still in a position to alter the project design if
necessary, and early consultation with the public and agencies having
regulatory jurisdiction. Early consideration of potential environmental
impacts improves the likelihood that impacts can be avoided, minimized,
or mitigated and in the best case, environmental benefits can be
produced.

## Structure of the report

Section 2 of this report addresses the methodology; Section 3 describes
the results of the analysis; and Section 4 presents summary and
observations. The appendices contain a list of intermodal projects
considered for development as case studies, an intermodal facility
descriptive matrix, selection and evaluation criteria, interview
questions for selected projects, and further information on each of the
selected intermodal projects.

# 

# SECTION 2.0 METHODOLOGY

FHWA employed a case study methodology to examine the ways that the
environmental review process and environmental factors can affect the
development and expansion of intermodal facilities. Projects were
reviewed across the nation for all modes of transportation. FHWA's
interests include both projects that had encountered delays as well as
those that had succeed in getting through the environmental review
process in a timely or expeditious manner. An attempt was also made to
identify additional success stories where the environmental review
process or environmental factors worked to the advantage of the
project's funding, timing, or scope.

## Project Selection

The project team began by reviewing available intermodal project lists
and conducting a brainstorming session to generate an initial list of
projects for consideration. A table and listing indicating the universe
of projects that were considered is included in Appendix A. To narrow
the list of projects for further study, FHWA applied two screening
phases. The first phase involved a set of minimum requirements,
including:

-   Needing either federal funding or a federal permit;

-   Having a clear relationship to intermodal freight terminals and/or
    operations;

-   Being far enough into the planning and development process that the
    project proponents and reviewing agencies were able to discuss the
    potential or actual impacts, the level of public concern, and any
    issues associated with agency consultation/permitting; and

-   Having the potential to affect (either negatively or positively)
    environmental resources across one or more (natural and/or human)
    environment dimensions. The project could be included if it lacked
    these impacts but had substantial public opposition.

The second screening phase was applied to projects passing the initial
screening criteria and was based on information availability. A series
of initial inquiries were made to identify projects for which
appropriate individuals could be found who were knowledgeable and
willing to speak about the project. Individuals who understood the
perspectives of the agencies and stakeholders were sought. Study
constraints did limit time in finding individuals. Table 1 presents the
case studies and Figure 1 shows their locations.

**TABLE 1**

**COMPLETED CASE STUDIES**

+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **FACILITY       | **REGION**          |                            |
| TYPE**           |                     |                            |
|                  |                     |                            |
| **(by Mode)**    |                     |                            |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
|                  | **Eastern U.S.**    | **Western U.S.**           |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Rail/Highway** | Waterville (Maine)  |                            |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Rai            | Sears Island/Mack   | FAST Project               |
| l/Highway/Port** | Point (Maine)       | (Seattle-Tacoma);          |
|                  |                     |                            |
|                  |                     | Port of Oakland            |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Port/Rail**    |                     | Alameda Corridor (Los      |
|                  |                     | Angeles);                  |
|                  |                     |                            |
|                  |                     | Port of Long Beach         |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Port/Highway** |                     | West Hayden Island         |
|                  |                     |                            |
|                  |                     | (Portland, Oregon)         |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+
| **Airpo          | Logan Airport       |                            |
| rt**/**Highway** | (Boston)            |                            |
+------------------+---------------------+----------------------------+

**FIGURE 1**

**LOCATIONS OF SELECTED INTERMODAL PROJECTS**

## ![](media/image3.wmf)

## Initial Project Evaluation and Investigation

While the project selection process was underway, a matrix was developed
to map projects by mode, geography, environmental factors, and other
criteria. Geography was represented as: Northeast, South,
Midwest/Plains, and West regions, although FHWA also considered whether
projects had either urban or rural locations, and whether they were in
residential or non-residential settings. Modes and connections were
categorized as ports/highway/rail, rail/highway, and
airport/highway/rail facilities. Intermodal facilities were further
characterized by the type(s) of commodities transferred: dry bulk,
trailer/container, liquid bulk, perishable, or hazardous materials.
Environmental factors included:

-   Noise and vibration,

-   Land use compatibility/zoning,

-   Local transportation impacts,

-   Socio-economics,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Environmental justice

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Community impacts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Air quality,

-   Water quality,

-   Hazardous waste contamination,

-   Natural resources,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Wildlife habitat,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Vegetation,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Cultural resources,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Historic structures,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Archaeological sites,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Landscapes, traditional cultural properties, etc.

This comprehensive matrix is presented in Appendix B.

Following project selection, the matrix was refined and simplified.
Summary Table 2 illustrates the degree to which the selected projects
are representative of different modes and environmental factors.

The project team employed a variety of means to collect the information
to characterize the projects. We identified initial contact persons
(usually an individual representing the project sponsor) and asked
questions (See Appendix C) to collect the basic information on projects
that allowed us to apply the site selection criteria. The project team's
previous knowledge of many intermodal projects, information provided by
FHWA, and initial telephone and internet inquiries provided a first cut
of information regarding which projects to investigate further.

## Implementation of Case Studies

After we selected the case studies, it was necessary to collect
additional information on the environmental review process beyond
information typically contained in public documents. We developed a
questionnaire and interviewed sponsoring agencies and the associated
planning and regulatory agencies. Appropriate interviewees were selected
both through the recommendations of FHWA and the existing knowledge of
the project team, and from referrals obtained in previous interviews or
through other contacts. Interviewed individuals included: those
responsible for the NEPA process for the projects in question at the
applicable lead agency, project sponsor agencies, FHWA field offices,
EPA Regions, local MPOs, and other involved agencies. Interviewees were
also identified through contact lists in NEPA documents. For the more
detailed interviews, the project team sent the interviewees information
regarding this study, including a description of the study's goals and
scope, as well as an advance copy of the interview questions to
facilitate the interview. Appendix D contains a copy of the
questionnaire that was developed to ensure comprehensive, consistent
coverage of the applicable issues

## Preparation of Case Study Summaries

Based on the results of the interviews and information gathered from
public documents, project summaries were prepared. These summaries were
structured in a formal and consistent format to maximize their
usefulness. The full set of these project summaries is provided in
Appendix E.

**TABLE 2**

**MATRIX OF SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS FOR CASE STUDY PROJECTS**

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 7%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Mode</td>
<td rowspan="2">Project</td>
<td colspan="9">Environmental Factors</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Air Quality</td>
<td>Cultural Resources</td>
<td>Land Use Compatibility</td>
<td>Local Transportation</td>
<td>Natural Resources</td>
<td>Noise, Vibration</td>
<td>Haz. Waste Contamination</td>
<td>Socio- Economics</td>
<td>Water Quality</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Rail/ Highway</td>
<td>Waterville (Maine)</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td rowspan="3">Rail/ Highway/ Port</td>
<td>Oakland Marine Berths</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td><p>X</p>
<p> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Sears Island/Mack Point (Maine)</td>
<td> </td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>FAST Corridor (Seattle/Tacoma)</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td><p> </p>
<p> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td rowspan="2">Port/Rail</td>
<td>Long Beach Naval Base Re-Use</td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td><p> </p>
<p> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Alameda Corridor (Los Angeles)</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td></td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Port/ Highway</td>
<td><p>West Hayden</p>
<p>Island Terminal</p>
<p>(Portland, Oregon)</p></td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td> X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> X</td>
<td> </td>
<td> </td>
<td><p> </p>
<p> </p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Airport/ Highway</td>
<td>Logan Airport (Boston)</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td> </td>
<td>X</td>
<td><p> </p>
<p> </p></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

# SECTION 3.0 EVALUATION

## Overview

This section includes the evaluation of information collected from the
sample of projects, as well as information on other intermodal projects
that was obtained through the screening process. The sample projects are
summarized by project type, lead and cooperating agencies, level of NEPA
documentation, main environmental issues, and level of success that
these projects had in the environmental review process.

## Summary of Selected Projects

######## Type of Projects Captured in Sample

The results of the review of planning activities and environmental
constraints affecting the development and expansion of intermodal
facilities is based on screening projects nationwide and a detailed
review of selected projects. For the selected projects studied in
detail, Table 3 provides a brief project description, lead and
cooperating agencies, funding sources, public/private partnership,
whether an EA or EIS was prepared, main environmental issues, and length
of the environmental review process.

The types of intermodal projects captured in this sample were determined
largely by whether a federal agency had a funding, approval, or
permitting role. When agencies are involved in this way, it triggers an
environmental review at the federal level. Certain types of intermodal
projects are more likely than others to involve a federal environmental
review. Six of the eight projects in the sample are port-related
projects involving dredging, fill activities to expand ship and land
side access, and land side improvements and/or access improvements. One
of the projects is a rail/highway intermodal facility and another is
air/highway.

The water side of port improvement projects most frequently require NEPA
activities in the form of EISs and EAs due to the Army Corps of
Engineers permitting requirements and expenditures of the Harbor
Maintenance Tax for capital improvements, such as dredging. FHWA becomes
involved with port improvements through land side access projects
including: new access into and out of ports for federal-aid highways,
rail/highway grade separations at ports, and installation of ITS
technology to improve the efficiency of port-highway interfaces.

Inland rail/highway intermodal facilities are mostly owned by railroads
and are not as likely to require federal permits and funding, and
therefore tend not to trigger NEPA reviews (in the past). Federal-aid
funding is available through several FHWA programs for providing
rail/highway improvements. These include: highway access to and from
rail yards, reconstruction of National Highway System (NHS) intermodal
freight connectors, building NHS intermodal freight connectors, improved
interstate access, double stack compatibility for trains, highway/rail
grade separation projects at rail yards and along rail lines,
improvements to rail facilities, and grade crossing improvements, and
activities that provide air quality benefits in non-attainment areas
(diversion from truck to rail and other types of projects). These
projects can require a variety of NEPA documents including a Categorical
Exclusion (CE), an EA or an EIS.

**TABLE 3**

**SUMMARY OF SELECTED PROJECTS**

+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| **Pr  | **Spo   | **Project       | **F | ** | **Main   | *       |
| oject | nsoring | Description**   | und | EA | Envir    | *Length |
| /     | Age     |                 | ing | or | onmental | of      |
| T     | ncies** |                 | Sou | EI | Issues** | Enviro  |
| ype** |         |                 | rce | S? |          | nmental |
|       |         |                 | s** | ** |          | Review  |
|       |         |                 |     |    |          | Pr      |
|       |         |                 |     |    |          | ocess** |
+=======+=========+=================+=====+====+==========+=========+
| Sears | **Lead  | Renovate Mack   | Fe  | EA | Marine   | For     |
| I     | federal | Point in        | der | a  | and      | Sears   |
| sland | ag      | Penobscot Bay   | al, | nd | ter      | Island, |
| and   | ency:** | as an           | St  | E  | restrial | on and  |
| Mack  | FHWA    | alternative to  | ate | IS | habitat  | off for |
| P     | for     | the             | and | f  | and      | many    |
| oint, | Sears   | unsuccessful    | P   | or | visual   | years.  |
| ME    | Island  | Sears Island    | riv | S  | impacts  | Mack    |
|       | and COE | intermodal      | ate | ea |          | Point   |
| Po    | for     | facility        |     | rs |          | has     |
| rt/ra | Mack    | proposal. Maine |     | I  |          | been    |
| il/hi | Point   | DOT proposed    |     | sl |          | rel     |
| ghway |         | Sears Island as |     | an |          | atively |
| and   | **Coop  | the site of a   |     | d, |          | brief   |
| po    | erating | multimodal      |     | a  |          | thus    |
| rt/hi | federal | facility with   |     | nd |          | far.    |
| ghway | ag      | rail and        |     | po |          |         |
|       | ency**: | highway access  |     | ss |          |         |
|       | None    | that would      |     | ib |          |         |
|       |         | service         |     | ly |          |         |
|       | **State | containers and  |     | an |          |         |
|       | or      | dry bulk        |     | EA |          |         |
|       | local   | products. Mack  |     | f  |          |         |
|       | ag      | Point will have |     | or |          |         |
|       | ency**: | two berths      |     | Ma |          |         |
|       | Maine   | available for   |     | ck |          |         |
|       | DOT     | the shipment of |     | Po |          |         |
|       |         | all commodity   |     | in |          |         |
|       |         | types,          |     | t. |          |         |
|       |         | including       |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | petroleum.      |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | Cargo will be   |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | transferred to  |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | trucks, for     |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | which no new    |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | roads will be   |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | required.       |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| W     | **Lead  | Facility        | F   | EA | Avoided  | Rel     |
| aterv | federal | transfers bulk  | ede |    | wetland  | atively |
| ille, | ag      | and             | ral |    | impacts  | brief   |
| ME    | ency**: | manufacturing   | and |    | by       |         |
|       | FHWA    | goods from      | p   |    | s        |         |
| Ra    |         | truck to rail.  | riv |    | electing |         |
| il/hi | **Coop  |                 | ate |    | this     |         |
| ghway | erating |                 |     |    | site     |         |
|       | federal |                 |     |    | over     |         |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    | another  |         |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | none    |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | **State |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | or      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | local   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Maine   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | DOT     |                 |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| Logan | **Lead  | Initial         | Ma  | EA | Noise    | Rel     |
| Air   | federal | concepts        | ssP | /E | impacts  | atively |
| port, | ag      | included dual   | ort | IR | and      | brief   |
| Bo    | ency**: | taxiways and    |     |    | c        | after   |
| ston, | FAA     | multiple cargo  |     |    | ommunity | changes |
| MA    |         | facilities.     |     |    | op       | in      |
| Bird  | **Coop  | Based on early  |     |    | position | design  |
| I     | erating | public          |     |    | derailed |         |
| sland | federal | involvement,    |     |    | fa       |         |
| Flats | ag      | one taxiway was |     |    | st-track |         |
| and   | ency**: | eliminated and  |     |    | envir    |         |
| North | none.   | office and      |     |    | onmental |         |
| Cargo |         | hotel           |     |    | review   |         |
| Area  | **State | developments    |     |    |          |         |
|       | or      | were added as   |     |    |          |         |
| A     | local   | well as a       |     |    |          |         |
| ir/hi | ag      | shoreline park. |     |    |          |         |
| ghway | ency**: |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | M       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | assPort |                 |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| West  | **Lead  | 600-acre        | P   | E  | Dredge   | An      |
| H     | federal | facility with   | ort | IS | and fill | add     |
| ayden | ag      | access to deep  | of  |    | impacts  | itional |
| Is    | ency**: | draft shipping  | Por |    | to       | year    |
| land, | COE     | and barge       | tla |    | w        | because |
| Port  |         | traffic on the  | nd, |    | etlands, | of      |
| land, | **Coop  | Columbia River. | po  |    | sig      | change  |
| OR    | erating | It has direct   | ssi |    | nificant | in DEIS |
|       | federal | access to a     | bly |    | habitat  | scope.  |
| Po    | ag      | rail line and   | st  |    | loss and | Public  |
| rt/hi | ency**: | an interstate   | ate |    | c        | and     |
| ghway | FHWA,   | highway, but    | and |    | ommunity | r       |
| /rail | USCG    | may still       | f   |    | concern  | esource |
|       |         | require an      | ede |    | over     | agency  |
|       | **State | additional      | ral |    | w        | c       |
|       | or      | highway bridge. | for |    | etlands, | oncerns |
|       | local   | Facility plan   | bri |    | noise    | may     |
|       | ag      | includes grain, | dge |    | and air  | delay   |
|       | ency**: | automotive and  |     |    | po       | p       |
|       | Port of | general marine  |     |    | llution, | roject. |
|       | P       | cargo           |     |    | and      |         |
|       | ortland | distribution    |     |    | traffic  |         |
|       |         | capabilities.   |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| FAST  | **Lead  | Fifteen         | Sta | V  | En       | Normal  |
| Corr  | federal | individual      | te, | ar | dangered | ti      |
| idor, | ag      | projects to     | p   | io | species  | meframe |
| WA    | ency**: | improve         | riv | us | and      |         |
|       | FHWA on | mobility in the | ate | E  | wetlands |         |
| Po    | a few   | freight         | i   | IS |          |         |
| rt/ra | p       | corridor        | nve | s, |          |         |
| il/hi | rojects | stretching from | sto | E  |          |         |
| ghway | and FTA | Tacoma to       | rs, | IR |          |         |
|       | on at   | Everett.        | f   | s, |          |         |
|       | least   | Projects        | ede | a  |          |         |
|       | one     | include twelve  | ral | nd |          |         |
|       | p       | grade           | aid | E  |          |         |
|       | roject. | separations and |     | As |          |         |
|       |         | three port      |     |    |          |         |
|       | **Coop  | access          |     |    |          |         |
|       | erating | projects.       |     |    |          |         |
|       | federal |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | none    |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | **State |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | or      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | local   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Was     |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | hington |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | State   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | DOT,    |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Puget   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Sound   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | R       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | egional |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | C       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ouncil, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Ports   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | of      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Tacoma, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | S       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | eattle, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | and     |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | E       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | verett, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | 11      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | cities, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | two     |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | co      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | unties, |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Bur     |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | lington |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | N       |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | orthern |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Santa   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Fe and  |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Union   |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Pacific |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | Ra      |                 |     |    |          |         |
|       | ilroads |                 |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| Al    | **Lead  | Development of  | Pr  | E  | Effects  | Approx  |
| ameda | federal | a consolidated  | iva | IS | related  | imately |
| Corr  | ag      | freight         | te, | /E | to       | four    |
| idor, | ency**: | railroad        | loc | IR | sei      | years.  |
| Los   | FHWA,   | corridor below  | al, |    | smicity, | F       |
| Ang   | FRA     | grade between   | sta |    | vi       | ollowed |
| eles, |         | the Ports of    | te, |    | bration, | by      |
| CA    | **Coop  | Los Angeles and | and |    | acq      | co      |
|       | erating | Long Beach and  | f   |    | uisition | mmunity |
| Port  | federal | downtown Los    | ede |    | and      | law     |
| /rail | ag      | Angeles.        | ral |    | disp     | suits   |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    | lacement | on both |
|       | Surface |                 |     |    | ide      | EIS and |
|       | Transpo |                 |     |    | ntified. | EIR.    |
|       | rtation |                 |     |    | Be       | Project |
|       | Board   |                 |     |    | neficial | is      |
|       |         |                 |     |    | l        | under   |
|       | **State |                 |     |    | ong-term | constr  |
|       | or      |                 |     |    | effects  | uction. |
|       | local   |                 |     |    | related  |         |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    | to air   |         |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    | quality, |         |
|       | Ca      |                 |     |    | noise    |         |
|       | ltrans, |                 |     |    | energy,  |         |
|       | Alameda |                 |     |    | transp   |         |
|       | C       |                 |     |    | ortation |         |
|       | orridor |                 |     |    | and      |         |
|       | Transpo |                 |     |    | circ     |         |
|       | rtation |                 |     |    | ulation, |         |
|       | Au      |                 |     |    | public   |         |
|       | thority |                 |     |    | s        |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | ervices, |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | safety   |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | and      |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | s        |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | ecurity, |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | ae       |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | sthetics |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | and      |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | ec       |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | onomics. |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| Long  | **Lead  | Developing the  | F   | E  | Historic | Several |
| B     | federal | 525-acre former | ede | IS | re       | years   |
| each, | ag      | Naval facility  | ral | /E | sources, | due to  |
| CA    | ency**: | as a            |     | IR | en       | NE      |
|       | Navy    | cont            |     |    | dangered | PA/CEQA |
| Naval |         | ainer/rail/port |     |    | species  | coord   |
| Base  | **Coop  | facility that   |     |    | habitat, | ination |
| r     | erating | will transfer   |     |    | and      | issues  |
| e-use | federal | bulk (primarily |     |    | h        | and     |
| as    | ag      | lumber) and     |     |    | azardous | multi   |
| m     | ency**: | liquid bulk     |     |    | waste as | -agency |
| arine | (none)  | commodities,    |     |    | well as  | review. |
| ter   |         | and operate as  |     |    | air      | F       |
| minal | **State | a ship repair   |     |    | quality, | ollowed |
|       | or      | facility.       |     |    | noise    | by      |
|       | local   |                 |     |    | and      | co      |
|       | ag      |                 |     |    | vi       | mmunity |
|       | ency**: |                 |     |    | bration, | law     |
|       | C       |                 |     |    | and      | suit.   |
|       | altrans |                 |     |    | h        |         |
|       | and     |                 |     |    | azardous |         |
|       | Port of |                 |     |    | material |         |
|       | Long    |                 |     |    | t        |         |
|       | Beach   |                 |     |    | ransport |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | from     |         |
|       |         |                 |     |    | trains.  |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+
| Oak   | **Lead  | Adding four     | P   | EA | Marine   | Unav    |
| land, | federal | additional      | ort | a  | habitat, | ailable |
| CA    | ag      | containership   | of  | nd | en       |         |
|       | ency**: | berths and one  | O   | E  | dangered |         |
| M     | COE and | tug berth       | akl | IS | birds,   |         |
| arine | Navy    | through         | and | /E | air      |         |
| Ter   |         | widening and    |     | IR | em       |         |
| minal | **Coop  | deepening of    |     |    | issions, |         |
| Dre   | erating | the existing    |     |    | traffic, |         |
| dging | federal | inner harbor    |     |    | historic |         |
| and   | ag      | channel, bank   |     |    | re       |         |
| Expa  | ency**: | excavation,     |     |    | sources, |         |
| nsion | FHWA    | fill land       |     |    | noise    |         |
|       |         | reclamation,    |     |    | and      |         |
|       | **State | and wharf       |     |    | vi       |         |
|       | or      | construction.   |     |    | bration, |         |
|       | local   | The project     |     |    | and      |         |
|       | ag      | also involves   |     |    | c        |         |
|       | ency**: | realignment of  |     |    | ommunity |         |
|       | Port of | Seventh Street  |     |    | c        |         |
|       | O       | and             |     |    | oncerns. |         |
|       | akland, | construction of |     |    |          |         |
|       | C       | a small access  |     |    |          |         |
|       | alTrans | road to handle  |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | additional      |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | traffic         |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | anticipated as  |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | a result of the |     |    |          |         |
|       |         | project.        |     |    |          |         |
+-------+---------+-----------------+-----+----+----------+---------+

Like port facilities, airports are publicly owned and the FAA has to
approve construction on airport property (e.g., the Logan Airport
project in Boston, Massachusetts). Therefore, airport freight facility
construction could trigger the NEPA process. However, other than the one
project included in this sample, suitable air-freight projects were
difficult to find.

For the six port projects in this sample, COE was the lead agency on the
Mack Point portion of the Sears Island/Mack Point projects (Penobscot
Bay, Maine), the Port of Oakland's marine terminal dredging (Oakland,
California), and the Port of Portland's West Hayden project (Portland,
Oregon). The FHWA was the lead agency in the Sears Island project,
Alameda Corridor project (the Los Angeles, California area), and the
FAST Corridor project (the Seattle-Tacoma area), because they were
funding access roads or separation of railroad/highway at-grade
crossings. The Navy was the lead federal agency in the reuse of a former
Naval base as a marine terminal at both the Port of Long Beach (the Los
Angeles, California area) and the FISCO portion of the Oakland project.
The FHWA was a reviewing agency in the Port of Oakland, West Hayden, and
Long Beach projects.

For the non-port projects, FHWA was the lead federal agency for the
Waterville, Maine rail/highway intermodal facility. The FAA was the lead
agency for Logan Airport North Cargo Area project.

## Environmental Issues 

Table 3 lists the main environmental issues associated with the sample
of projects. The projects encompassed a range of impacts. Natural and
cultural resources, noise, and local traffic were among the larger
issues.

[Natural Resources]{.underline}. The natural resource issues included
effects to wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and marine
habitat. In terms of impacts by modes, the Logan Airport and Waterville
rail/highway projects did not have any natural resource impacts.
Potential impacts to wetlands were an issue for the Waterville, West
Hayden, FAST Corridor, and Port of Oakland projects. The Maine DOT
selected the Waterville project to avoid wetland impacts at another
site. The West Hayden project would result in the filling of 40 acres of
wetlands to accommodate landside intermodal facilities. The Port of
Portland has proposed greater than one-to-one mitigation of wetlands and
forest loss. Some of the projects that comprise the FAST Corridor have
wetland impacts (e.g., grade separations that require additional
right-of-way). The specific details of the mitigation measures for the
individual projects were not readily obtainable.

Two of the port projects, Sears Island and the Port of Oakland, had
marine habitat issues. The Port of Oakland project has a mitigation plan
that will prevent significant adverse localized effects except on one
eel grass bed. The Sears Island project would have affected an area that
did not actually contain eel grass, but had the right habitat for eel
grass. Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species were an
issue for the FAST Corridor, Port of Oakland, and Port of Long Beach.
For the FAST Corridor, new species of salmon have been listed and damage
to Puget Sound, the rivers or adjacent riparian habitat may threaten
their habitat. The regional governments have been consulting with USFWS
and NMFS on long-range and short-range approaches to address the
potential impacts. The long-range approach is to prepare a recovery and
conservation plan for each of the six river basins in the three-county
area that will support the recovery of the salmon. The short-range
approach is to identify and pursue other actions likely to have an
immediate beneficial effect. These include capital investments,
regulation of activities within habitat areas, the level of enforcement
of various actions, and management practices of government agencies. The
construction of the Port of Oakland facility threatens potential feeding
areas for the California least tern and nesting areas for the Brown
Pelican. Possible adverse impacts to several species could be caused by
non-indigenous species invasion from increased ballast water discharges.
The Port will contribute \$200,000 over four years (NMFS originally
requested \$2 million) to aid in the development and implementation of
the State's ballast water monitoring and treatment program. The reuse of
the Long Beach Naval Yard also has the potential to adversely effect
potential feeding areas of the California least tern and nesting areas
for the Black-crowned Night Heron. The mitigation for the California
least tern is to create replacement shallow-water foraging habitat
within the vicinity of the Terminal Island nesting colony. The
mitigation for Black-crowned night heron would involve salvaging
approximately 30 trees from the existing colony and planting them at
Gull Park on the Navy property.

[Cultural Resources]{.underline}. Three of the port projects, Long
Beach, Oakland, and Alameda Corridor, had cultural resource issues. Both
the Long Beach and Oakland projects involved the demolition of
significant historic Navy buildings. The mitigation for both projects
involved establishing exhibits and the Oakland project designed portions
of the historic structures into the new facilities.

[Noise and Vibration]{.underline}. The proximity to residential land use
for the Logan Airport, Oakland, Long Beach, and Alameda projects created
noise and vibration issues. In the Logan airport project, a substantial
mitigation program addressed the potential noise from a proposed
taxiway. The mitigation included a series of strategically placed and
designed buildings that would act as noise and visual buffers. In the
Oakland, Long Beach, and Alameda projects, the adjacent communities were
concerned about noise and vibration from increased rail and truck
traffic. All three projects included mitigation to reduce the noise and
vibration impacts (the mitigation for the Alameda Corridor addresses the
impacts of the Long Beach project). Noise barriers will be constructed
along the Alameda Corridor to reduce noise. Various design and
operational approaches will be used to reduce vibration potential,
including relocation of trackwork away from sensitive areas,
installation of ballast mats, and use of movable point frogs where
needed.

[Local Transportation]{.underline}. Almost all of the projects have
local transportation impacts. The FAST Corridor and the Alameda Corridor
have positive impacts because they improve access to intermodal
facilities and thereby reduce congestion. There are however, cases where
local traffic and transportation have been viewed as negative impacts,
as is the case with the Hayden Island Port expansion project. Increasing
truck traffic through communities and onto and off of interstate
highways can be viewed as a problem rather then a benefit. The expansion
of the Port of Oakland initially generated neighborhood objections to
increased truck and rail traffic, but these concerns were addressed
through a range of mitigation measures.

[Air Quality]{.underline}. Most of the projects were anticipated to have
beneficial air quality impacts because they reduce congestion. The
elimination of a large number of grade crossings on the Alameda Corridor
is projected to have a substantial reduction in all criteria pollutants.
The analysis for the Waterville project indicated that it would have
positive air quality impacts because it would reduce heavy truck traffic
and emissions. The project was therefore awarded CMAQ funding.
Neighborhood concerns over local air emissions associated with the Port
of Oakland expansion led to mitigation that included a transfer of
\$660,000 from the Port to AC Transit (the local transit agency) for bus
engine retrofitting, and some maritime terminal equipment will be
retrofitted with emissions control devices.

[Socioeconomics]{.underline}. Several of the projects had potential
socioeconomic impacts such as potential community impacts (Logan Airport
and Alameda Corridor), displacement and disruption of businesses
(Alameda Corridor), and job creation (Sears Island/Mack Point). The
construction of the Alameda Corridor will require up to 40 full
acquisitions and up to 16 partial acquisitions of commercial properties.
Some businesses may have substantial difficulty relocating. Construction
of the project will have substantial impacts on businesses along the
corridor. They will experience reduced vehicular and pedestrian access,
traffic detours, noise and other inconveniences. Mitigation measures are
expected to reduce the impacts to potentially substantial and include
signs to direct customers along alternate routes to businesses; traffic
management to maintain access; and a business outreach program. Any
relocated businesses would be compensated under the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act. The proposed
action would result in only four residences having noise impacts after
the implementation of noise attenuation walls. The environmental justice
analysis also considered the beneficial effects of the proposed action:
a 90 percent reduction in population exposure to railroad noise on all
lines serving the ports. Therefore there was no disproportionate adverse
affect to low-income or minority communities.

[Land Use]{.underline}. One neighborhood adjacent to Logan Airport was
concerned about the compatibility of the proposed cargo terminal
development with the neighborhood, and with possible adverse impacts to
the host community. In addition to noise and vibration impacts, the
community was concerned with the prospect of a view dominated by air
cargo warehouses. The development of more attractive office buildings
and the hotel with restaurants and other amenities was deemed more
compatible with existing land uses. The EIS for the Alameda Corridor
found that with the No Build alternative, increased train traffic could
potentially have substantial incompatibility with some adjacent land
uses.

[Water Quality]{.underline}. Water quality issues were addressed in the
dredging projects (e.g., fill material produced by the dredging for the
reuse of the Long Beach Naval Yard is contaminated) and in the
de-watering of the Alameda Corridor, but there were no substantial water
quality issues involved.

[Hazardous Waste]{.underline}. The only project with notable hazardous
waste issues is the reuse of the Long Beach Naval Yard. The fill
material produced by the dredging, along with other materials on the
island, is contaminated. The Navy established two major restoration
programs and has worked with the U.S. EPA to dispose of the contaminated
dredge materials, and with the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control to dispose of the contaminants on the island.

## Level of Success in the Environmental Review Process 

[NEPA, Including Agency Consultation]{.underline}. Success in the NEPA
process and in agency consultation can be measured in a number of ways,
including the amount of time required to move through the process,
compliance with procedural requirements, and the degree of proactive
engagement of the appropriate agencies in consultation. Other measures
are discussed further below.

The projects in the sample involved five EISs and at least five EAs (the
FAST Corridor is a series of projects and at least one was covered by an
EA; the Sears Island project started as an EA before becoming an EIS and
then back to an EA when it moved to Mack Point; the Oakland Project
involved both an EA and an EIS). Specific information on the length of
time required to prepare the EAs was unavailable. The Waterville EA,
according to Maine DOT, did not encounter any delays.

The projects with EISs provided the best information on the timing of
the environmental reviews within this sample. Table 4 illustrates the
timelines of these EISs. The Long Beach EIS/EIR was the shortest in
duration, but still required 19 months. It appears that part of the time
required was attributable to the Section 106 process, coordinating the
NEPA and CEQA processes, and the Navy taking longer than the Port of
Long Beach to reach conclusions regarding the magnitude of the impacts.
The Section 106 process alone took a year to complete.

The amount of time to prepare the Alameda Corridor EIS, 26 months,
appears to have been attributable to several factors. The size of the
loan from FHWA required coordination with FHWA headquarters. FRA was a
joint lead agency and FHWA staff in California worked with FRA
headquarters staff. Both state and federal environmental documentation
were required for this project. While work done for the state
requirements could be referenced in the federal documents, additional
analysis not required at the state level had to be undertaken to satisfy
federal needs (air quality, water quality, and historic preservation).
This included determining what was needed and where, as well as the
complicated coordination contributed to the time it took to finish the
review. In addition, the complexity of the project no doubt contributed
to the amount of time needed to get through those processes and
requirements.

The COE issued the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the West Hayden Island EIS
17 months ago and it is still in the DEIS stage. The Port of Portland
lost an additional year because it began to prepare a DEIS addressing
the first five years of development, but subsequently convinced the COE
to allow it to address all 30 years of proposed development.

The environmental review for the Sears Island project encountered over
12 years of effort before it was cancelled. Much of the delay came from
the Sierra Club's litigation over the initial EA, which led to the
preparation of an EIS. The EIS took two years to prepare, because, among
other issues, the reviewing agencies had substantial disagreements with
FHWA and Maine DOT. The Sierra Club successfully litigated the EIS. FHWA
and Maine DOT prepared a Supplemental EIS before deciding that the use
of Sears Island had become economically infeasible.

###### TABLE 4

###### EIS TIMELINES

  --------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Project**      **Milestone**     **Date**   **Cumulative Duration**
  ---------------- ----------------- ---------- ----------------------------
  Alameda Corridor                              

                   NOI               12/93      

                   DEIS              1/95       13 months

                   FEIS              2/96       26 months

  Long Beach                                    

                   NOI               9/96       

                   EIS/EIR           4/98       19 months

  Sears Island                                  

                   EA                11/83      

                   Litigation        1985       

                   NOI               9/85       22 months

                   DEIS              7/86       

                   FEIS              10/87      45 months

                   ROD               12/87      

                   Litigation        1988       

                   Draft Suppl. EIS  7/95       

                   Withdrawal of NOI 2/96       12 years, 3 months

  West Hayden                                   

                   NOI               10/98      (on-going)
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------

Improving the agency consultation process is the focus of FHWA NEPA
streamlining efforts, including the new Section 106 regulations, and
MOUs on consultation regarding wetlands and endangered species. These
initiatives and requirements encourage consultation early in the NEPA
process. Counteracting this goal, FHWA, COE, EPA, FWS, and NMFS are
often resource-constrained from providing sufficient input into projects
during the early planning stages as lead, cooperating or reviewing
agencies. This situation can thwart meaningful consideration of a
project's purpose, need, and alternatives, as well as the timely
discovery of fatal flaws. Issues can arise when relying on another
agency's determination of a project's purpose and need, and the
alternatives that would meet those needs. The COE is greatly inhibited
from reviewing projects at the conceptual stage, and its staff may only
work at the permit stage; their budget correlates directly with the
number of permits that it has to process. In general, FWS does not have
the staff resources to attend pre-application meetings and other
advanced planning activities. Some of the EPA regional offices also have
resource constraints and cannot always attend pre-application or early
planning meetings. If COE and FWS could meet with applicants prior to
filing applications they may have more influence on the process for
selecting alternatives. FHWA has developed MOUs with a number of
agencies that integrate the 404 permitting process with NEPA and bring
agencies into the consultation process in planning. In some cases,
funding has been provided to agencies where the work necessary is
considered above and beyond their normal responsibilities. This funding
is not a uniform practice nor is it uniformly necessary.

Most of the projects in this sample involved consultation with one or
more of the agencies discussed above as well as with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO). The success of these consultations has
varied for any given resource area. Sometimes the delays are beyond the
control of the project sponsor. For example, both of the lead agencies
involved in the FAST Corridor projects, NMFS and FWS, are grappling with
how to apply the Endangered Species Act consultation process to projects
in urban watersheds given the new listings of salmon. FHWA and Maine DOT
held meetings with EPA, FWS, and NMFS during the scoping process for the
Sears Island project and throughout the preparation of the EIS, those
agencies had strong disagreements with FHWA and Maine DOT. The
disagreements centered on issues such as the selection of alternatives
to be analyzed in the EIS and the analysis of secondary impacts. Maine
DOT has implemented an effort to better integrate the preliminary design
and environmental review phases so that environmental issues are
considered at the beginning of projects.

[Use of a Structured Process for Environmental Review.]{.underline} It
appears that all of the three projects involving FHWA as the lead agency
(Alameda Corridor, Waterville, and Sears Island/Mack Point) used FHWA's
structured review process. Sears Island started with the FHWA structured
review process, but as the project wore on and became more controversial
it was difficult to apply. FHWA and Maine DOT used a standardized
approach to screen potential environmental impacts when choosing the
Waterville site. In addition, the projects that had to comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) generally followed a
structured approach, because CEQA is much more prescriptive than NEPA.
Following FHWA's structured approach in the Alameda Corridor project may
have been challenging because FHWA came in and out of the lead agency
role as the nature of the federal funding changed.

[Integration of NEPA and State Environmental Review
Processes.]{.underline} The President's Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA require agencies to "cooperate
with state and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce
duplication between NEPA and state and local requirements . . ." (40 CFR
Part 1506.2). The projects analyzed in this sample encountered mixed
results in terms of integrating NEPA and state review processes. The
Alameda Corridor would have been more integrated, but the CEQA process
advanced without the NEPA process because it appeared that federal
funding would not be available for the project. The CEQA process had
been underway for nine months when federal funding was identified and
FHWA and FRA initiated NEPA. The integration of NEPA and CEQA in the
Long Beach project did not go as well as it could have because the Navy
took longer to reach conclusions about the magnitude of impacts and had
a more complex internal decision-making process than the Port of Long
Beach. For the Port of Oakland project, early coordination and
consultation with the various state agencies during the NEPA process
facilitated the project's progress. The FAST Corridor projects that
involve NEPA have been and will be integrated with the Washington State
Environmental Policy Act.

[Affect of the Environmental Review Process on Project Design and
Alternatives.]{.underline} The environmental review process influenced
project design and alternatives for several projects. For the FAST
Corridor project, the screening and ranking process used by WSDOT and
the Regional Council (MPO) led to the selection of projects that had
fewer assessed impacts relative to others. Consultation with COE and FWS
led FHWA and Maine DOT to select the Waterville site rather than a site
in Fairfield, specifically because Fairfield contained wetlands. In the
Long Beach EIS/EIR, two of the alternatives analyzed are based on two
potentially feasible adaptive reuse alternatives generated by the
Historic Properties Adaptive Use Feasibility Study. The Sears Island
structural designs and drainage patterns were altered because of
concerns over wetlands. After the project was cancelled, Maine DOT chose
Mack Point as an alternative site, because the regulatory agencies in
the Sears Island review had preferred it. For the Logan Airport project,
the community's early entry into the planning and environmental review
process had a strong influence on the formulation of alternatives and
the change in the project's initial design.

[Multi-Agency Review]{.underline}. Most of the sample projects have
involved reviews with agencies such as EPA, COE, FWS, NMFS, and SHPOs.
As discussed above, structured processes have been used on some projects
to consult with these agencies. Even in the more controversial projects,
it is not clear how much the multi-agency review process may have
delayed a project. With any controversial project, the reviewing
agencies are likely to request additional information and analysis.

[Public Involvement]{.underline}. All of the projects, with the
exception of the Waterville project, had public involvement processes
and faced some public opposition. The Waterville project received no
substantial public comment, because it is located in an industrial area
away from any residences or natural resources.

The Port of Oakland appeared to have successful results with its public
involvement process, albeit litigation may have sped the discussions. To
address community concerns about air quality, noise, and vibration, and
increased truck and rail traffic, the Port worked extensively with the
community through an early outreach effort to develop a range of
mitigation and enhancement actions. Following a quickly agreed to
Consent Decree, these efforts appear to have shifted public sentiment
towards widespread local support for the project.

The Sears Island/Mack Point projects involved sporadic public meetings
until the initiation of the supplemental EIS for Sears Island, for which
formal public meetings were regularly held. Initially, the project had
public support attributable to the economic development potential of the
project. Eventually, however, summer residents, national and local
environmental groups, and others strongly objected. Environmental groups
representing a summer resident successfully litigated the project for
several years. Although they were unsuccessful in their final legal
challenge, the years of delay rendered the project economically
infeasible on Sears Island. Maine DOT moved the project to Mack Point.
The Mack Point project involves regular public meetings and a town
oversight group.

The public involvement process for the West Hayden intermodal facility
has been mixed. To solicit community concerns about the proposed
facility, the Port of Portland has presented its plans at town meetings
for East Hayden. One neighborhood's early discussions with FHWA and the
Port led to formal inclusion of a new bridge as a Phase One project
component in the NOI. Community views were also integrated into the
planning process through an Advisory Committee, which included local
citizens, environmental groups such as the Audubon Society, and
multi-function agencies. However, some of the community and
environmental groups have been dissatisfied with the public involvement
process because they believe that the Port has not properly
characterized their positions and they do not have appropriate
representation on the Advisory Committee relative to the other
stakeholders. Negotiations are continuing to avoid litigation over the
extent of wetland impact avoidance and mitigation.

The EIS for the Alameda Corridor leveraged the extensive public
involvement that occurred under the CEQA process. Under CEQA, the
Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority implemented an extensive
notification process and held numerous public meetings. This may have
been the reason that attendance was lower at the FHWA/FRA public
meetings for the EIS. Much of the opposition came from locally elected
officials rather than individual citizens. Attempts by local governments
to block the project through CEQA and NEPA law suits were unsuccessful.

For the Long Beach reuse EIS, the Navy held public meetings, as did the
City of Long Beach. Residents remained concerned about air quality,
noise and vibration, and hazardous materials transportation impacts from
train traffic. The neighboring communities were unsuccessful in blocking
the project through CEQA and NEPA litigation. The public involvement for
the FAST Corridor has mainly occurred on a project-specific basis. Most
of the individual projects that comprise the Corridor do not appear to
have been controversial.

For the Logan Airport cargo building and taxiway, MassPort recognized in
advance the historical mistrust in the surrounding community and
provided substantial funding to the community so that it could hire its
own consultants to participate directly in developing the alternatives.
This gave the community joint ownership of the project and thereby
lessened potential opposition.

# SECTION 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The information included in this report comes from eight case studies.
The data is restricted to what could be obtained through interviews with
a variety of participants on the different projects. The total number of
intermodal freight transportation projects currently underway in the
United States is unknown, and thus, this is not a statistical sample of
all port, rail, highway, and airport facilities. The information
represents a first look at environmental issues affecting development of
intermodal freight transportation facilities. Enough information has
been collected to make it clear that there are a variety of
environmental concerns on intermodal freight transportation projects and
they are not restricted to issues of air quality, noise, and community
impacts.

## Conclusions

Initial conclusions that can be drawn from the information reviewed
include, but are not limited to the following:

-   Intermodal freight transportation projects, depending on federal
    funds or permits, frequently involve a variety of federal agencies
    as reviewers or that could be directly affected (port improvements
    and landside access issues).

-   Clear communications and early involvement of federal and state
    agencies are critical to the successful completion of environmental
    analysis for projects (time, money spent, design of project, etc.)

-   Conflicts between state and federal environmental requirements can
    cause delays on projects but can be overcome with early recognition
    of issues and agreements among agencies on how to proceed.

-   The variety of environmental issues that can become a concern on a
    given project depend on the nature of the project and the location
    of the project. They are not uniform for every project.

-   Consideration of environmental resources (including avoidance and
    minimization of impacts through site selection and design) early in
    the planning and project design phases can result in simplified
    environmental review and avoidance of costly delays in project
    schedules.

-   Early coordination with public interests on intermodal freight
    projects can lead to resolving concerns before they become a
    problem.

-   NEPA streamlining through improved agency consultation may be
    difficult to achieve on many projects if the regulatory agencies do
    not have adequate resources to engage in early consultation.

-   When questions or disagreements arise over the assumptions behind a
    project's purpose and need, and alternatives, regulatory agencies do
    not always have the resources to independently verify cargo
    projections, market analyses, and facility land use needs. They have
    to rely on the lead agency to comply with the NEPA requirement for
    independent verification of the information and analyses submitted
    by a permit or funding applicant.

-   Port dredging, land side development, and land side access projects
    are sometimes covered by separate NEPA documents because funding is
    not always available to cover all three types of activity
    simultaneously and because different agencies take the lead on these
    projects. On a related note, there does not appear to be any
    regional or national guidance or policies for project sponsor
    agencies and regulatory agencies to follow when considering the
    funding, permitting, and environmental review of projects in
    separate political or planning jurisdictions that compete in the
    same freight markets.

## Recommendations

Additional efforts in this area of environmental review might include
the following next steps:

-   Further research to confirm the preliminary conclusions discussed
    above. This might include researching FHWA EAs and EISs for
    intermodal facilities; reviewing past funding of intermodal
    projects; and interviewing additional FHWA Division Office staff.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Further research into how FHWA Division staff considers a project's
    purpose and need, and alternatives when it is a cooperating or
    review agency.

-   Further research into how other reviewing agencies (e.g., EPA, FWS,
    NMFS, and SHPOs) consider a project's purpose and need and develop
    alternatives. This research could include whether those agencies
    have the resources to independently verify a lead agency's or
    applicant's freight projections and market analysis, if they have
    reason to suspect them.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Follow-up calls to determine whether some of the projects excluded
    from this report might be worth further review. In addition,
    projects that were only in the early stages of review during the
    preparation of this report might be appropriate for review in a
    subsequent effort.

APPENDIX A

**INTERMODAL PROJECTS CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT AS CASE STUDIES**

# APPENDIX A - INTERMODAL PROJECTS CONSIDERED FOR DEVELOPMENT AS CASE STUDIES

## Part I -- Projects advanced as case studies

+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| **P    | *    | **      | *      | **P    | **Type and      | *  |
| roject | *Geo | Federal | *Invol | roject | Magnitude of    | *A |
| Name   | grap | Funding | vement | Devel  | Impacts or      | dv |
| and    | hy** | or      | of     | opment | Public          | an |
| Mode** |      | Pe      | Inte   | St     | Controversy**   | ce |
|        |      | rmit?** | rmodal | atus** |                 | as |
|        |      |         | Frei   |        |                 | a  |
|        |      |         | ght?** |        |                 | ca |
|        |      |         |        |        |                 | se |
|        |      |         |        |        |                 | st |
|        |      |         |        |        |                 | ud |
|        |      |         |        |        |                 | y? |
|        |      |         |        |        |                 | ** |
+========+======+=========+========+========+=================+====+
| A      | West | Federal | Yes,   | Under  | Project         | Y  |
| lameda |      | f       | facil  | constr | involved        | es |
| Co     |      | unding. | itates | uction | brownfields,    |    |
| rridor |      | N       | h      |        | archaeological  |    |
|        |      | umerous | ighway |        | issues, Native  |    |
| Los    |      | federal | and    |        | Americans,      |    |
| A      |      | permits | rail   |        | probably local  |    |
| ngeles |      | and     | conne  |        | traffic and     |    |
| area   |      | federal | ctions |        | noise impacts   |    |
|        |      | EIS.    | and    |        | during          |    |
| Rail / |      |         | access |        | construction.   |    |
| H      |      |         | to     |        | Started as a    |    |
| ighway |      |         | ma     |        | CEQA document,  |    |
|        |      |         | ritime |        | because it was  |    |
|        |      |         | faci   |        | not in the SIP. |    |
|        |      |         | lities |        | FHWA wanted to  |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | streamline the  |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | NEPA document,  |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | but were unable |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | to. Had one     |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | NEPA suit and   |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | several CEQA    |    |
|        |      |         |        |        | suits.          |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| O      | West | Army    | Yes    | Phase  | Dredging        | Y  |
| akland |      | Corps   |        | I      | impacts. Local  | es |
| Marine |      | of      |        | under  | truck traffic,  |    |
| Te     |      | Eng     |        | constr | air quality,    |    |
| rminal |      | ineers, |        | uction | and noise.      |    |
| Berths |      | Section |        | or     | Endangered      |    |
| 55-58  |      | 404     |        | com    | species issues. |    |
|        |      | permit. |        | plete. |                 |    |
| O      |      | Federal |        | Later  |                 |    |
| akland |      | Enviro  |        | phases |                 |    |
|        |      | nmental |        | pe     |                 |    |
| Port/  |      | Ass     |        | nding. |                 |    |
| Rail/H |      | essment |        |        |                 |    |
| ighway |      | con     |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | ducted. |        |        |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| West   | West | Army    | Yes    | E      | Local truck     | Y  |
| Hayden |      | Corps   |        | nviron | traffic, air    | es |
| Island |      | of      |        | mental | quality, and    |    |
| Marine |      | Eng     |        | review | noise.          |    |
| Te     |      | ineers, |        | is     | Potential       |    |
| rminal |      | Section |        | being  | endangered      |    |
|        |      | 404     |        | cond   | species issues. |    |
| Por    |      | permit. |        | ucted, | Potential       |    |
| tland, |      | P       |        | having | wetland issues. |    |
| Ore.   |      | ossible |        | been   |                 |    |
|        |      | FHWA    |        | reini  |                 |    |
| Port/H |      | funding |        | tiated |                 |    |
| ighway |      | for new |        | in     |                 |    |
|        |      | bridge. |        | 1998   |                 |    |
|        |      | Draft   |        | fol    |                 |    |
|        |      | EIS     |        | lowing |                 |    |
|        |      | un      |        | a      |                 |    |
|        |      | derway. |        | re     |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | vision |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | to     |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | ACOE   |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | proc   |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | esses. |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| Logan  | N    | The     | Yes -  | P      | Noise and       | Y  |
| Air    | orth | Bird    | Air    | roject | vibration; air  | es |
| port - | east | Island  | cargo  | effec  | quality;        |    |
| Bird   |      | Flats   | oper   | tively | socio-economics |    |
| Island |      | cargo   | ations | com    | and             |    |
| Flats  |      | project | and    | pleted | neighborhood    |    |
| Cargo  |      | i       | t      |        | impacts.        |    |
| Area   |      | nvolved | rucks; |        |                 |    |
|        |      | FAA     | local  |        |                 |    |
| Boston |      | funding | tr     |        |                 |    |
|        |      | and     | anspor |        |                 |    |
| R      |      | federal | tation |        |                 |    |
| ail/Av |      | enviro  | i      |        |                 |    |
| iation |      | nmental | mpacts |        |                 |    |
|        |      | p       | on     |        |                 |    |
|        |      | ermits, | a      |        |                 |    |
|        |      | as well | irport |        |                 |    |
|        |      | as a    | a      |        |                 |    |
|        |      | federal | ccess. |        |                 |    |
|        |      | Enviro  |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | nmental |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | Ass     |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | essment |        |        |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| Sears  | N    | R       | Yes -- | The    | Impacts to eel  | Y  |
| Island | orth | equired | port   | p      | grass were      | es |
| te     | east | an EIS  | with   | roject | apparently      |    |
| rminal |      | and     | rail   | was    | involved in     |    |
| devel  |      | p       | and    | s      | stopping the    |    |
| opment |      | robably | truck  | topped | project. Public |    |
| and    |      | other   | conne  | in     | concern over    |    |
| access |      | permits | ctions | court  | coastal         |    |
|        |      |         |        | by     | development     |    |
| Sears  |      |         |        | EDF,   | probably played |    |
| I      |      |         |        | NRDC,  | a role as well. |    |
| sland, |      |         |        | and    |                 |    |
| Maine  |      |         |        | others |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | six    |                 |    |
| Rail/H |      |         |        | years  |                 |    |
| ighway |      |         |        | ago    |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | after  |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | an EIS |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | had    |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | been   |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | pr     |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | epared |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | and    |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | s      |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | everal |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | m      |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | illion |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | d      |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | ollars |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | spent  |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | on     |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | c      |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | onstru |                 |    |
|        |      |         |        | ction. |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| F      | West | Federal | Yes -- | V      | Appears to have | Y  |
| AST-Co |      | funding | Im     | arious | positive air    | es |
| rridor |      |         | proved | stages | quality effects |    |
|        |      |         | truck  | of     | through reduced |    |
| Puget  |      |         | access | an     | congestion.     |    |
| Sound, |      |         | to     | alysis | Positive safety |    |
| WA     |      |         | ports  | and    | impacts from    |    |
|        |      |         | and    | im     | grade           |    |
| Port/  |      |         | grade  | plemen | separating      |    |
| Rail/H |      |         | separ  | tation | highway/rail    |    |
| ighway |      |         | ations |        | at-grade        |    |
|        |      |         | inv    |        | crossings.      |    |
|        |      |         | olving |        | Appears to have |    |
|        |      |         | port,  |        | neighborhood    |    |
|        |      |         | rail,  |        | impacts.        |    |
|        |      |         | and    |        |                 |    |
|        |      |         | h      |        |                 |    |
|        |      |         | ighway |        |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+
| Long   | West | Army    | Yes.   | In     | All sorts of    | Y  |
| Beach  |      | Corps   | The    | constr | environmental   | es |
| Naval  |      | of      | new    | uction | issues and      |    |
| Base   |      | En      | te     |        | considerations. |    |
| Re-Use |      | gineers | rminal |        | Also relates to |    |
|        |      | permits | will   |        | reuse of        |    |
| Long   |      | for     | i      |        | military        |    |
| Beach, |      | la      | nclude |        | terminals.      |    |
| CA     |      | ndfill, | an     |        |                 |    |
|        |      | dyke    | o      |        |                 |    |
| Por    |      | work,   | n-dock |        |                 |    |
| t/Rail |      | use of  | rail   |        |                 |    |
|        |      | dredged | fac    |        |                 |    |
|        |      | ma      | ility. |        |                 |    |
|        |      | terial. |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | Is also |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | a       |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | brow    |        |        |                 |    |
|        |      | nfield. |        |        |                 |    |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+-----------------+----+

##  Part II -- Projects strongly considered but not advanced as case studies

+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| **P    | *    | **      | *      | **P    | **Type and   | **A    |
| roject | *Geo | Federal | *Invol | roject | Magnitude of | dvance |
| Name   | grap | Funding | vement | Devel  | Impacts or   | as a   |
| and    | hy** | or      | of     | opment | Public       | case   |
| Mode** |      | Pe      | Inte   | St     | C            | st     |
|        |      | rmit?** | rmodal | atus** | ontroversy** | udy?** |
|        |      |         | Frei   |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | ght?** |        |              |        |
+========+======+=========+========+========+==============+========+
| OE&J   | N    | Army    | Yes.   | P      | Brownfields; | No     |
| Che    | orth | Corps   | The    | roject | private      |        |
| rokee, | east | of      | site   | is in  | developer of |        |
| Woodb  |      | En      | is     | preli  | an           |        |
| ridge, |      | gineers | being  | minary | intermodal   |        |
| NJ     |      | and     | redev  | s      | yard- reuse  |        |
|        |      | other   | eloped | tages. | of dredged   |        |
| Truc   |      | enviro  | as an  |        | materials;   |        |
| k/Rail |      | nmental | inte   |        | neighborhood |        |
| /Barge |      | permits | rmodal |        | noise/light  |        |
| and    |      |         | distri |        | impacts      |        |
| Wareh  |      |         | bution |        | (from        |        |
| ousing |      |         | center |        | current rail |        |
|        |      |         | with   |        | yard -- Port |        |
|        |      |         | truck, |        | Reading Yard |        |
|        |      |         | rail,  |        | on the       |        |
|        |      |         | barge  |        | site).       |        |
|        |      |         | and    |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | wareho |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | using. |        |              |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| Red    | N    | The     | Yes.   | Acqui  | Air quality  | No --  |
| Hook   | orth | project | The    | sition | (reduction   | Only   |
| Barge, | east | is      | barge  | of two | of VMT and   | re     |
| NY     |      | funded  | tran   | new    | truck        | quired |
|        |      | in part | sports | barges | emissions) - | a      |
| Barg   |      | with    | cont   | and    | Was one of   | categ  |
| e/Rail |      | CMAQ    | ainers | mobile | the first    | orical |
| /Truck |      | grants. | from   | cranes | freight      | exc    |
|        |      | Only    | the    | is     | projects     | lusion |
|        |      | r       | Red    | nearly | funded under | under  |
|        |      | equired | Hook   | comp   | CMAQ.        | NEPA.  |
|        |      | a       | Con    | leted. |              |        |
|        |      | cate    | tainer | The    |              |        |
|        |      | gorical | Te     | p      |              |        |
|        |      | ex      | rminal | roject |              |        |
|        |      | clusion | in     | is now |              |        |
|        |      | under   | Br     | s      |              |        |
|        |      | NEPA.   | ooklyn | everal |              |        |
|        |      |         | to     | years  |              |        |
|        |      |         | Port   | old.   |              |        |
|        |      |         | N      |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | ewark, |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | where  |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | it is  |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | moved  |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | inland |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | by     |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | truck  |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | and    |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | rail.  |        |              |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| CSX    | Midw | R       | Yes    | Opera  | Mitigation   | No     |
| 59th   | est/ | eviewed |        | tional | for noise,   |        |
| St     | Pl   | under   |        |        | traffic, and |        |
| Inte   | ains | NEPA    |        |        | community    |        |
| rmodal |      | because |        |        | impacts were |        |
| Yard   |      | of      |        |        | identified   |        |
|        |      | Conrail |        |        | in the EIS   |        |
| C      |      | acqui   |        |        | and City of  |        |
| hicago |      | sition, |        |        | Chicago      |        |
|        |      | but no  |        |        | permit. EIS  |        |
|        |      | Federal |        |        | said         |        |
|        |      | permit  |        |        | residences   |        |
|        |      | or      |        |        | were 375     |        |
|        |      | funding |        |        | feet away    |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | but did not  |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | indicate the |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | magnitude of |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | the noise    |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | impacts.     |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | Project is   |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | located in   |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | an           |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | e            |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | nvironmental |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | justice      |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | community    |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| Marine | S    | Army    | Yes    | Army   | EIS covering | No --  |
| Cargo  | outh | Corps   |        | Corps  | "23 key      | High   |
| Te     |      | of      |        | of     | issues,"     | level  |
| rminal |      | Eng     |        | Eng    | including    | of     |
| C      |      | ineers, |        | ineers | water        | sensi  |
| omplex |      | Section |        | to     | quality,     | tivity |
| Develo |      | 404     |        | issue  | aquatic      | due to |
| pment, |      | Permit  |        | Final  | sediments,   | on     |
| Daniel |      | and     |        | EIS in | endangered   | -going |
| I      |      | Section |        | near   | species,     | and    |
| sland, |      | 103 of  |        | f      | light, parks | antic  |
| Charl  |      | the     |        | uture. | and          | ipated |
| eston, |      | Marine  |        | Too    | recreational | liti   |
| SC     |      | Prot    |        | early  | op           | gation |
|        |      | ection, |        | to     | portunities, | and    |
|        |      | R       |        | charac | and          | pol    |
|        |      | esearch |        | terize | e            | itical |
|        |      | and     |        | the    | nvironmental | issues |
|        |      | Sanc    |        | review | justice      | pre    |
|        |      | tuaries |        | pr     |              | cludes |
|        |      | Act.    |        | ocess. |              | nec    |
|        |      | USCG    |        |        |              | essary |
|        |      | (for    |        |        |              | inte   |
|        |      | two     |        |        |              | rviews |
|        |      | br      |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | idges), |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Section |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | 9 of    |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | the     |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Rivers  |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | and     |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Harbors |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Act. US |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Forest  |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Service |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | (       |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | constru |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | ction). |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Surface |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Transpo |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | rtation |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | Board   |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | for     |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | rail    |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | const   |        |        |              |        |
|        |      | ruction |        |        |              |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| The    | East | Yes --  | New,   | C      | Numerous     | No.    |
| EDC    |      | Army    | stat   | oncept | potential    | The    |
| Sunset |      | Corps   | e-of-t | and    | impacts.     | p      |
| Park   |      | of      | he-art | pl     |              | roject |
| p      |      | Eng     | con    | anning |              | is not |
| roject |      | ineers, | tainer | were   |              | ad     |
|        |      | Section | te     | comp   |              | vanced |
| Bro    |      | 404     | rminal | leted. |              | enough |
| oklyn, |      | Permit  | in     | NYCEDC |              | to     |
| NY     |      |         | Br     | going  |              | fully  |
|        |      |         | ooklyn | to     |              | id     |
|        |      |         | with   | next   |              | entify |
|        |      |         | sprint | steps  |              | en     |
|        |      |         | trains | now.   |              | viron- |
|        |      |         | and    |        |              | mental |
|        |      |         | r      |        |              | imped  |
|        |      |         | educed |        |              | iments |
|        |      |         | need   |        |              | to the |
|        |      |         | for    |        |              | develo |
|        |      |         | trucks |        |              | pment. |
|        |      |         | to     |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | come   |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | to     |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | ter    |        |              |        |
|        |      |         | minal. |        |              |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| Cross  | N    | Federal | Yes -- | Early  | Increase in  | No --  |
| Harbor | orth | permits | rail,  | pla    | rail         | p      |
| Tunnel | east | are     | truck, | nning. | movements in | roject |
|        |      | anti    | mar    | DEIS   | ne           | is too |
| New    |      | cipated | itime. | is the | ighborhoods, | early  |
| Yo     |      | to be   |        | next   | removal of   | in the |
| rk/New |      | re      |        | stage  | trucks from  | pl     |
| Jersey |      | quired. |        |        | NYC and      | anning |
|        |      |         |        |        | trans-Hudson | stage. |
|        |      |         |        |        | routes, etc. |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+
| BNSF   | Midw | Could   | Yes    | Opera  | Aside from   | No --  |
| Al     | est/ | not be  |        | tional | possible     | Insuff |
| liance | Pl   | det     |        |        | site         | icient |
| Inte   | ains | ermined |        |        | specific     | infor  |
| rmodal |      |         |        |        | impacts,     | mation |
| Fa     |      |         |        |        | rural        | to     |
| cility |      |         |        |        | facility     | judge  |
|        |      |         |        |        | that may     | a      |
| Fort   |      |         |        |        | have avoided | pplica |
| Worth, |      |         |        |        | adverse      | bility |
| Texas  |      |         |        |        | impacts at   |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | alternative  |        |
|        |      |         |        |        | locations    |        |
+--------+------+---------+--------+--------+--------------+--------+

## Part III -- Projects initially considered, but not advanced as worthy of consideration as case studies 

Denver UPS project

Des Moines, UPS project

East-west corridor, Maine Judith

Western Transportation Trade Network (WTTN) project

Tucson, AZ intermodal NAFTA project

I-35 NAFTA Corridor -- improvements through urban areas

PennDOT bridge replacement projects

Connecticut railroad bridge replacement

Bethlehem, PA - CSX or NS yard expansion

Reno, Nevada grade separation rail project

Other Chicago projects

Lackawanna Valley Industrial Highway

# APPENDIX B INTERMODAL FACILITY DESCRIPTIVE MATRIX

# APPENDIX B -- INTERMODAL FACILITY DESCRIPTIVE MATRIX

#  ![](media/image4.wmf){width="9.990277777777777in" height="6.758333333333334in"}

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# APPENDIX C 

# SELECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

**(Distributed to project team)**

# APPENDIX C ­\-- SELECTION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA 

**(Distributed to project team)**

## Phase One Selection Criteria

To select projects for the development of case studies, we are using two
phases of screening criteria. The first phase involves a set of minimum
requirements that we are applying to projects for which we lack
sufficient prior information to make a case study recommendation. These
requirements are indicated below. The second phase will examine how a
project contributes insight across matrix categories (see criteria
below). For the projects selected as case studies, our interview
questions are presented below.

**Minimum Requirements:**

**Federal funding --**or**-- federal permit** -- the project must have
required one or the other.

**Level of NEPA documentation** ­-- the project must have required an
environmental assessment or environmental impact statement under Federal
laws.

**Involvement of intermodal freight** -- the project must have a clear
relationship to intermodal freight operations.

**Project development status** -- the project must be far enough along
that the project proponents and agencies are able to discuss
specifically the potential or actual impacts, the level of public
concern, and any issues associated with agency coordination/permitting.
We want to avoid speculation on these issues because a project is in the
early stages of project development.

**Type and magnitude of impacts or public controversy** -- the project
must have moderate to significant impacts (either negative or positive)
across one or more subject areas under the natural and human
environments. The project could be included if it lacked these impacts
but had generated substantial public opposition.

## Initial Screening Questions for Projects 

*We will use the following questions to collect basic information on
projects that will allow us to apply the site selection criteria.*

1\. Could you briefly describe the project, e.g., location, modes
served. (Confirm a clear relationship to intermodal freight operations.)

2\. Is there federal funding or a federal permit involved?

3\. What is the project development status, e.g., feasibility stage,
planning/NEPA stage, under construction, operational?

4\. What type and magnitude of impacts or public controversy has the
project involved?

5\. Have there been any agency coordination or permitting problems?

**[Evaluation Criteria]{.underline}: For Placement of Projects in Matrix
and Final Selection**

**Regional location:**

-   Northeast

-   South

-   Midwest/Plains

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   West

**Privately- and publicly-owned facilities**:

-   Privately-owned

-   Publicly-owned

**Mode and commodity type /** **shipment means**:

-   Different intermodal combinations of rail, truck, aviation, inland
    waterway, and maritime

-   Commodity type (e.g., perishables, high value,
    container/freight-all-kinds, bulk, liquid bulk, etc.)

**Type and magnitude of impacts:**

-   Noise and vibration

-   Land use compatibility

-   Local transportation impacts

-   Socioeconomics

-   Air quality

-   Water quality

-   Hazardous waste contamination

-   Natural resources

-   Historical and cultural resources

-   Environmental justice

**Urban and rural**:

-   Residential and non-residential areas

-   Urban and rural

**Successes and failures:**

-   Successes (e.g., generated positive impacts or took environmental
    considerations into account during conceptual design phase and
    avoided project delays in the face of permitting requirements or
    public opposition)

-   Failures (e.g., Mismanaged agency coordination or public involvement
    process, or suffered **avoidable** costs or delays due to
    environmental issues)

# 

# APPENDIX D

# INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SELECTED PROJECTS

# 

# APPENDIX D \-- INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR SELECTED PROJECTS

*The following questions have been developed to collect moderately
detailed information regarding selected intermodal freight projects that
have been influenced by environmental impacts or the environmental
planning process. Please note that not all questions will be used with
each interviewee, both because of inapplicability and/or because of
prior knowledge of the contractor.*

1\. Could you briefly describe the project?

1.  

-   What is the location, both in geographic region and immediate
    surroundings?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What modes and carriers are served? (Re-confirm a clear relationship
    to

> intermodal freight operations.)

-   What are the key commodity types served (e.g., containers, bulk,
    liquid bulk)?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What is the nature of facility ownership?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Who is the project planning entity?

2\. Is there federal funding or a federal permit involved?

3\. What is the current project development status, (e.g., feasibility
stage, planning/NEPA stage, under construction, operational)?

4\. At what point in the project development process did you begin to
consider environmental issues? For example, in the feasibility stage,
conceptual design stage, or detailed design stage.

5\. Were there any project design or alternatives changes based on
environmental issues?

6\. What were the main environmental impacts (positive and negative), in
terms of the natural, physical, and human environments?

-   Key impacts (prompt if necessary) might be in the areas of:

> \-- Noise and vibration
>
> \-- Land use competition
>
> \-- Local transportation impacts
>
> \-- Socioeconomics / employment
>
> \-- Emissions and air quality
>
> \-- Water quality
>
> \-- Wetlands permitting
>
> \-- Hazardous materials / hazardous waste contamination or dredge
> spoils
>
> \-- Natural resources and biodiversity
>
> \-- Cultural or historical resources
>
> \-- Other environmental justice considerations

-   Were there any environmental impacts that the public or others
    perceived as potential impacts, but from an analytical standpoint
    were negligible?

7\. Did you prepare an Environmental Assessment or an Environmental
Impact Statement?

-   Was there an equivalent state or local environmental review process
    combined with the EA or EIS?

8\. Approximately how long did it take to prepare the EA or EIS and any
associated state or local document?

-   Were there any delays related to having to combine the NEPA process
    with a state or local review process?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If so, what was the nature of that delay?

9\. Were there any project delays because of a consultation process or
environmental permitting (e.g., 404 permit, Section 106 consultation
with the SHPO, Section 7 consultation with US FWS)?

-   If yes, what was the nature of the delay (e.g., insufficient
    information submitted during consultation, difficulty reaching
    agreement with the reviewing agency, or delay on the part of the
    reviewing agency)?

10\. Was there a multi-agency review?

-   If yes, what agencies were involved and were there any associated
    problems?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If there was a private entity as the action proponent or local
    government applying for federal funding, was the multi-agency review
    process clear to them?

11\. What was the public perception?

-   How did you involve the public and how did the public involvement
    process work?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   For example, did you form a citizen advisory group?

# APPENDIX E

**SELECTED INTERMODAL PROJECTS**

## Appendix E \-- Selected Intermodal Freight Projects

The length of the case studies for the selected intermodal freight
projects varies depending on the magnitude of the impacts, the level of
documentation available, and the ability to contact project proponents
and reviewers.

In the summary box for each case study the lead agency is the lead
federal agency for the purposes of the NEPA process and the cooperating
agencies are the other agencies cooperating with the lead federal
agency. The reviewing agencies are the agencies with regulatory
jurisdiction (e.g., FWS, COE, SHPO). The state or local agencies are the
action proponents in the state department of transportation or the local
port authority.

The projects comprising the case studies include:

-   Sears Island and Mack Point, Maine

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Waterville, Maine

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Logan Airport, Boston, Massachusetts

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   FAST Corridor, Washington State

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   West Hayden Island, Portland, Oregon

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Oakland, California

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Alameda Corridor, Los Angeles, California

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Long Beach, California

**Project Description**

Initially, Maine DOT had proposed Sears Island, in Penobscot Bay, as
their preferred alternative for an intermodal facility and nearby Mack
Point eventually became an alternative site.

Subsequent to the termination of the Sears Island project, Maine DOT, in
cooperation with private investors, is proposing to renovate an existing
intermodal facility at Mack Point. While the current Mack Point project
is substantially different from the project originally proposed at Sears
Island, the Sears Island EIS had addressed Mack Point and the regulatory
agencies and environmental groups had urged its selection. Therefore,
both projects are described in this case study.

Under the Port Planning and Development Program, which began in 1976,
MDOT targeted the Searsport area for potential development of a new port
facility capable of competing with new port facilities outside Maine.
The proposed action in the original FHWA EIS for Sears Island was for a
two-berth dry cargo port with the potential for future expansion to six
berths. At full build-out it would have required 160 acres of the mostly
forested 940-acre island. The port would have been connected to the
mainland through the construction of a 2.3 mile-long, two-lane highway,
including a 1,200 foot causeway and a 1.5 mile railroad spur along the
length of a gravel bar connecting to the mainland. The port was intended
to supplement the existing petroleum and cargo port at nearby Mack Point
with container and break-bulk capacity. It would primarily service
Maine's northern hinterland, which mostly produces forest, paper, and
agricultural products. MDOT considered two alternative sites on Mack
Point located across the harbor from Sears Island near the mainland end
of the proposed causeway. Mack Point is 50 percent developed with
industrial and port facilities. MDOT rejected both Mack Point
alternatives as impractical given the projected need for six berths at
full build-out.

MDOT constructed a causeway and highway connecting the port site to the
mainland in 1982 with federal-aid highway funds. Eventually, MDOT
completed substantial clearing and grading at the proposed site and
removal of approximately 303,000 cubic yards of dredged material before
further construction and funding of the project were enjoined. The
dredging represented approximately 60 percent of the total required to
complete the initial one-berth terminal in Phase I of the project.

The Mack Point facility currently proposed for redevelopment would
create two modern piers with four fully serviceable berths for less than
one quarter the public cost of the previously proposed Sears Island
development. "By constructing the two new piers within the footprints of
the existing piers, environmental impacts have also been vastly
minimized," according to Maine Transportation Commissioner John Melrose.

The new berths would handle all commodity types, including petroleum,
and be served by pipeline, road, and the Bangor and Aroostook Railroad
Searsport Terminal. No new roads would be required. Increased traffic
would require new stop lights in a neighboring town.

Mack Point renovation would be a \$19 million joint public/private
venture, for which the State of Maine has pledged \$16 million from a
combination of general fund bonds and appropriations. The balance will
be financed through a revenue bond paid by the Bangor and Aroostook
Railroad (BAR) and Sprague Energy. A unique provision was created to
allow either the railroad or Sprague to buy back their pier site and
pier when the state\'s full investment is paid back. Both parties have
agreed to payments over time that would allow ownership to revert to
them. According to Melrose, "We plan to have all BAR and Sprague
payments go toward capitalizing a revolving loan fund for Maine ports
and harbors that would be under the direction of the Maine Port
Authority."

The COE has not yet determined whether the dredging renovation or a new
action that requires permitting. If a permit is required, the Army Corps
of Engineers will fund the dredging.

The engineering for Mack Point is 70 percent complete. Necessary permit
applications were supposed to have been filed by the end of December
1999, and bidding for construction was expected to begin in April 2000.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

**Local Transportation:** The local transportation impacts created by
the Mack Point facility will be mitigated through the installation of
stoplights.

**Natural Resources:** The Sears Point facility would have damaged
wetlands on the island and eelgrass habitat in the subtidal zone
surrounding the island. The access corridor's division of the island
also would have fragmented species populations, damaging the diversity
and health of the island ecosystem.

The Mack Point renovation is estimated to affect less than one acre of
wetlands. There is local concern that increased shipping efficiency will
stimulate trade in wood chips, increasing deforestation.

**Hazardous Waste:** The safeguards needed for the transport of
hazardous materials, such as petroleum, are already in place at Mack
Point.

**Socioeconomics:** Sears Island initially garnered public support for
its potential job creation and other socioeconomic benefits. Currently,
the renovation of the Mack Point facility is also being championed as a
source of new jobs.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, including agency consultation:** FHWA accepted the lead agency
role for the Sears Island port project because FHWA had been involved in
MDOT's construction of a causeway and highway connecting the port site
to the mainland in 1982 with federal-aid highway funds. FHWA also had an
ongoing relationship with MDOT and of the affected federal agencies,
they had a local presence in Maine. In the fourteen years from initial
proposal to cancellation of Sears Island as an intermodal site, an EA,
EIS, and Supplemental EIS were prepared. The Sierra Club's litigation
over the initial EA led to the preparation of the EIS. The EIS took two
years to prepare, mainly because the reviewing agencies had substantial
disagreements with FHWA and Maine DOT. Subsequent to the EIS, the Sierra
Club won a court ruling that USCG had unlawfully issued a permit for the
proposed causeway under the General Bridge Act. FHWA and Maine DOT
prepared a Supplemental EIS, which took over three and a half years,
before deciding that the use of Sears Island had become economically
infeasible.

In terms of agency consultation, FHWA and MDOT held at least two scoping
meetings with all of the agencies participating in the EIS process. FHWA
and MDOT also circulated a preliminary draft EIS among these agencies.
Several of the agencies criticized MDOT for rejecting both Mack Point
sites as impracticable alternative sites for the project. They suggested
carrying the Mack Point alternatives through the full impact analysis at
the same level as the Sears Island site. There was also disagreement
particularly from FWS and EPA, over the MDOT proposal for analyzing
secondary impacts, which were being limited to currently viable
development alternatives. EPA's written comments to FHWA on the
preliminary draft EIS argued against FHWA and MDOT's position that there
were no viable alternatives to the Sears Island site. They also strongly
disagreed with only analyzing secondary growth likely to occur as a
result of the port while not evaluating potential development due to the
newly created access road to the island. MDOT decided to fully analyze
the Mack Point alternatives in the Final EIS. Simultaneously, EPA hired
their own consultant to prepare a study on the practicability of the
Mack Point alternatives. EPA and their consultants met with FHWA and
MDOT to discuss the conflicts between the findings of their respective
consultants. There was a conflict among the consultants regarding the
adequacy of two berths versus six berths for the twenty-year design
life.

FHWA and MDOT circulated a preliminary Final EIS for Sears Island and
issued the Final EIS in the face of continued opposition from FWS, NMFS,
and EPA. Those agencies and the Sierra Club submitted additional
comments on the Final EIS before FHWA issued its ROD.

As part of the COE review of the Section 404 permit application for
Sears Island, the COE met with EPA, FWS, and NMFS to discuss their
opposition to the project. The COE was unable to resolve their concerns
and issued the COE ROD approving the MDOT application. EPA pursued a
formal review of the COE Division Engineer's decision through the
Assistant Secretary of the Army, who issued the final COE approval. The
USCG also issued its ROD permitting MDOT to construct the causeway.

FHWA and MDOT prepared a Supplemental EIS, because subsequent to the
Final EIS, FHWA and MDOT determined that a six-berth facility would
require 124 acres of upland rather than 50. MDOT subsequently determined
that Sears Island had become economically infeasible.

The identification of all necessary permits for the Mack Point
renovation is pending the Army Corps of Engineer's decision regarding
the nature of the dredging. Should a review be deemed necessary, an EA
would most likely be completed, with the Army Corps of Engineers serving
as the lead agency.

**Use of a structured process:** For Sears Island, Maine DOT started
with FHWA's standard approach to NEPA reviews, but over the course of
the lengthy review process they had difficulty following the approach.
In addition, Sears Island was part of a "three port strategy" for the
state, so there was a larger planning context. Maine DOT has taken a
standard approach to planning the Mack Point renovation. Maine DOT has
worked with FHWA to begin the NEPA process earlier in their planning
activities and to better integrate the project planning and NEPA review
processes for all projects.

**Effect of process on project design and alternatives:** The Sears
Island project plans and alternatives were altered and eventually
abandoned after review. Prior to abandoning the Sears Island site,
concerns over wetlands resulted in the reconfiguration of structural
designs and drainage patterns.

**Multi-agency review:** The proposed Sears Island project triggered
substantial multi-agency review efforts as discussed above. Some of
these reviews led to additional studies and NEPA documents.

**Public involvement:** Initially, Sears Island had public support.
Approximately 100 people attended the public hearing on the Draft EIS.
Most of the people who spoke were from the local community and expressed
support for the project because of the potential for job creation in
this economically depressed area. The shipping interests believed that
the Mack Point facilities were outmoded, overcrowded, and unsafe. The
Sierra Club's opposition focused on the underlying assumptions for the
facility rather than on environmental issues. They argued that the
project was unneeded and based on erroneous or misleading and/or
incorrect data in the Draft EIS. Eventually, other environmental groups,
summer residents, and others strongly objected to the facility. Public
involvement in the planning and review of the Sears Island facility
consisted of sporadic public meetings until the initiation of the
supplemental EIS, for which formal public meetings were regularly held.
Maine DOT has incorporated the public into planning of the Mack Point
renovation through regular public meetings and a town oversight group
that acts as an intermediary between the local citizens and the project
group.

######### Project Description

Guilford Transportation Industries (parent of Guilford Rail System)
constructed a truck-to-rail\
\
\
transfer facility, including storage areas, staging areas, and other
facilities. Six 3,000-foot tracks were removed from an existing rail
yard, and a new 3,000-foot by 100-foot paved loading/unloading area was
built along with two new tracks that connected the new loading/unloading
area to the main line. Waterville is located inland in mid-coast Maine,
and the facility's location near an Interstate highway allows central
Maine products shipped in trailers and containers to move via rail,
reducing heavy truck traffic and emissions. The facility is operational,
and the FHWA has maintained a continual role by leasing packers to
Guilford. The current site was selected when environmental impacts and
subsequent mitigation costs at a site in Fairfield were too high.

######### Environmental Issues

**Air Quality:** Analysis showed that the facility would reduce heavy
truck traffic and emissions. As a result, Maine DOT requested \$1.2
million in funding from the Federal-aid Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality program.

**Land Use:** Given the location of the Waterville facility within a
brownfield, the Guilford rail yard, the facility had essentially no
negative impacts on the natural, physical, or human environment. Using
the brownfield is likely an environmental improvement.

**Local Transportation:** The increased local truck and rail traffic was
estimated to have minimal impacts to local transportation and noise and
vibration.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, including agency consultation:** The Waterville transfer
facility required an EA, which was completed without delay. Given the
nature of the Waterville site, no issues related to agency consultations
existed. However, for the initial site in Fairfield, the consultation
with the Army Corps of Engineers and FWS led Maine DOT to conclude that
wetlands mitigation would have doubled the cost of the project from \$2
million to \$4 million. The early identification of this issue led Maine
DOT to select the Waterville site.

**Multi-agency review:** The Waterville site was chosen by a
multi-agency review as the alternate to the failed Fairfield site.
Environmental issues were an important factor in the selection of the
site. The multi-agency review conducted by FHWA and Maine DOT used a
standardized approach in order to screen potential environmental
impacts.

**Project Description**

The Massachusetts Port Authority (MassPort) wished to expand its air
cargo facilities at Logan Airport by constructing new air cargo
buildings and a new dual taxiway. The project area is located in the
southwest corner of the airport, on a reclaimed area known as Bird
Island Flats. This area adjoins an older residential neighborhood
(Jeffrey's Point) established long before the airport. Logan is built
largely on reclaimed and filled portions of Boston Harbor, and is
severely land constrained because it is surrounded by active harbor
channels and by the historic neighborhoods of East Boston.

The 90-acre project area was originally envisioned as also receiving
limited office development, and the dual taxiways were envisioned as
also providing access to a potential new runway.

The project is now effectively completed and includes the air cargo
buildings, several office buildings (including one housing most of
MassPort's staff), and a large hotel. Only a single taxiway was built
and a successful linear park (the "walk to the sea") was included in the
project.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

The aviation facilities, other buildings, and taxiway were all
constructed on Bird Island Flats, a former wetlands area that had been
filled several decades ago. Therefore, many potential concerns related
to wetlands, natural resources, endangered species habitat, and
historical resources had been previously addressed and were not an issue
in this project.

**Air Quality, Noise/Vibration:** Some original (conceptual) versions of
the project would have placed dual taxiways and air cargo facilities
within a few hundred yards of a neighborhood that pre-dated the airport.

A substantial mitigation strategy was developed to address this
potential impact. All formally considered alternatives included only a
single taxiway, rather than the dual taxiways originally contemplated,
and a scaling back of air cargo buildings. Further, a substantial
commercial/office building component was added to the alternatives.
Reaching agreement with the community that "good fences make for good
neighbors," the project in effect included a series of strategically
placed and designed buildings that would act as noise and view buffers.
One of these buildings is a 100-plus foot high Hyatt hotel with a
rooftop restaurant, despite explicit restrictions in the state
environmental impact review (EIR), and FAA safety regulations that limit
buildings in the applicable area to 70 feet (in case of missed
landings). Many in the region (including some in government, media, and
the public) believe that the hotel was built at this location to ensure
that an additional runway could not be built. Therefore, the surrounding
neighborhoods would receive no additional flight patterns and no new
sources of aircraft noise.

**Local transportation:** There was at least some concern that the
project might affect access to some airport parking facilities and lower
the level of service at certain local intersections. MassPort's initial
analysis of the issue proved inadequate and the project was delayed for
about two months by the EOTC until the analysis was redone.
Nevertheless, in the end, no significant impact was found regarding
local transportation. Additional highway and local access issues later
arose due to the shift of the Ted Williams Tunnel portal to the project
area. However, these issues were addressed under the EIS for the Central
Artery/Tunnel project.

**Land Use, Socioeconomics:** The adjoining neighborhood was concerned
about the compatibility of the proposed development with the
neighborhood and the possible adverse impacts to the host community. In
addition to noise and vibration impacts, the community was concerned by
the prospect of a view dominated by air cargo warehouses.

The development of more attractive office buildings and the hotel, with
restaurants and other amenities, was deemed more compatible with
existing land uses. The linear park further helped shift the project's
image from that of an eyesore to an improvement to the community.
Finally, the development and jobs that came with the constructed
alternative were viewed as being a greater local benefit than the air
cargo facilities. The cargo facilities were designed primarily for the
small package express carriers and were considered primarily to benefit
the metropolitan region and not the local area.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, including agency consultation, and integration of NEPA and state
environmental review processes:** An early conceptual version of the
project envisioned dual taxiways serving new air cargo hangers and
possibly access to a new runway. Although an expedited federal review of
this version was possible, state environmental review requirements made
federal review alone, expedited or not, insufficient to allow
construction.

The federal EA was conducted at the level of an EIS for the purpose of
maintaining a review process parallel to the state EIR. MassPort
believed they had to comply with both regardless. At least two factors
made MassPort focus more closely on the state process. First, MassPort
believed they would likely be sued under state law, and therefore
decided to follow the state process most closely for defensive purposes.
Second, the state process explicitly would permit MassPort to progress
to 30 percent of project design before permitting, minimizing the net
delay to the project by continuing preparations while resolving
permitting and litigation issues.

MassPort still ended up making considerable efforts to get the state EIR
approved, as the Massachusetts EOTC denied approval and delayed some
elements of the process (such as the approvals for the local
transportation analysis, as discussed above). Local political
considerations also affected this process in complex ways. For example,
the EOTC was concerned that the project might preclude or constrain
future transportation investments in the area. At one point, MassPort
was subject to litigation from both a citizen group opposing the
project, and from the Massachusetts EOTC.

**Effect of process on project design and alternatives:** As soon as it
became apparent at the conceptual level that airport expansion might
occur, Jeffrey's Point and East Boston were prepared to mobilize. A
citizen's group called Airport Impact Relief, Inc. (AIR, Inc.) was
organized to work on this and other airport impact issues. As a result,
from the start of the project design and planning process, the airport
was proactive in incorporating citizen concerns into the project and in
formulating alternatives.

**Public involvement:** Community concerns regarding the project existed
for years prior to the projects formal initiation due to previous
impacts to the neighborhood from the airport operations. MassPort staff
recognized that the community did not trust them and that they would be
sued regarding this project, regardless of how they proceeded. To gain
credibility with the community and to better ensure a legally defensible
environmental review, MassPort provided the community with several
hundred thousand dollars prior to the definition of alternatives
(although at least one conceptual vision of the project had been
informally "floated" prior to this formal community involvement). This
money was to be used to hire noise, air quality, and land use
consultants, approved by MassPort, but selected by the citizens' groups,
to directly participate in developing the alternatives. MassPort's
planning staff forcefully pursued this strategy with the Authority's
leadership, arguing "it would be better to pay for participation and
consultants now than to have to pay for lawsuits later." Establishing
this substantial community joint ownership of the project early on was
highly effective in precluding the re-examination of issues. For
example, once the primary citizens' group had spent considerable effort
helping to design the office buildings to provide noise mitigation
barriers, they could not credibly oppose the project based on
insufficient noise reduction.

######### 

######### 

#########  

######### 

######### Project Description

The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st^ Century (TEA-21)
establishes the National Corridor Planning and Development program.

This program cited the FAST Corridor as one of its 43 high priority
corridors. The FAST Corridor, stretching from Tacoma to Everett within
the State of Washington, is a statewide initiative composed of fifteen
individual projects. These individual projects, twelve grade separations
and three port access projects, are designed to function as an
integrated unit. The Puget Sound region is the second largest freight
gateway for containerized cargo in North America, and the volume of
container traffic is expected to double by 2015. The FAST Corridor
projects are intended to facilitate the transfer and transport of this
increasing volume of trade commodities. The fifteen projects have been
planned at the corridor level by the Puget Sound Regional Council and
the Washington State DOT (WSDOT), the fifteen cities where the
individual projects will be completed, the ports, the Burlington
Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railroad, and the Union Pacific (UP) Railroad.
All of the projects have begun the planning process, and a number of
them (e.g., SR 519, 3^rd^ St. SW, Port of Tacoma Road, E Marginal Way,
and S 277^th^ St.) are ready to begin construction imminently. Funding
for the projects varies and includes federal, state, and private
(railroads and ports) financing.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

**Air Quality:** The FAST Corridor is in an air quality maintenance
area. The Washington State DOT has indicated that by reducing congestion
for both freight and general purpose movements, the fifteen projects
will improve travel speeds around ports, rail yards, and grade crossings
and thereby reduce air emissions.

**Cultural Resources:** Cultural and historical issues have been
identified as a concern. A number of the projects, for example SR 519,
are being built on mud flats, where the potential for discovering Native
American artifacts is high. This issue will be better defined as studies
progress.

**Local Transportation:** All 15 projects are designed to improve
freight mobility in the corridor by improving local transportation. The
FAST Corridor partners will achieve this benefit by reducing delays at
highway/rail grade crossings through grade separations and by improving
rail and truck access to ports.

**Natural Resources:** Some projects may have potential impacts to
endangered species and some have had impacts to wetlands. The recent
addition of the Sockeye and Chinook Salmon to the list of threatened and
endangered species has created new environmental review and consultation
issues not usually encountered in urban projects. Puget Sound and its
surrounding river systems are habitat for the endangered Sockeye Salmon.
Damage to the Sound, the rivers, or to adjacent riparian habitats may
threaten the Sockeye and their habitat. Separately, additional land
required to create grade separations has required filling in wetlands
for some projects.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, including agency consultation:** The projects receiving federal
funding have all begun the NEPA process. Because each project has
"independent utility" (i.e., they are not operationally dependent on
each other to succeed), the Corridor as a whole did not require review
under one NEPA document. Instead, the projects are covered under
separate EAs and EISs. The FAST Corridor partners selected the projects
because they scored high in a state technical ranking process that
evaluates economic benefit and the feasibility of mitigating community
impacts. This approach helps to avoid lengthy environmental reviews.

To address the new endangered species consultations required by the
recent listings of salmon, three counties have created a TriCounty ESA
Response Team. This Team is an informal association and has no
independent powers. Consultations with NMFS are coordinated with the
Tri-County ESA Response Team and follow long-range and short-range
approaches. The long-range approach is to prepare a recovery and
conservation plan for each of the six river basins in the three-county
area that will support the recovery of the salmon. The preparation of
the plan is estimated to take between 18 months and three to four years.
The short-range approach is to identify and pursue other actions likely
to have an immediate beneficial effect. These include capital
investments, regulation of activities within habitat areas, the level of
enforcement of various actions, and management practices of government
agencies. Ideally, the Team would like NMFS to recognize their early,
proactive, and beneficial actions as a basis for giving some umbrella
coverage for activities rather than protracted project-by-project
consultations.

The FAST Corridor partners have been grappling with several issues. For
example, they have had to address with NMFS the issue of how the salmon
listings will affect projects that are already underway, as well as
projects that are still in the planning and environmental review stages.
The ESA Response Team has been trying to determine what processes and
procedures would be timely and give the level of review that is needed.
WSDOT has been proactive in negotiating, facilitating, and evaluating
transportation projects, however, they believe that even this exemplary
effort will involve project delays. In addition, the FWS is responsible
for the Bull Trout, which may be listed soon (FWS has jurisdiction over
freshwater species). They are concerned about having two processes and
two biological assessments with two different agencies when both the
salmon and trout are potentially affected. As a possible mitigation
strategy, the ESA Response Team is considering whether NMFS might
approve the concept of basinwide habitat banking. Under the banking
approach, a pool of mitigation sites is preserved for use to offset
impacts from individual projects within the basin. Another issue is that
Native American groups can bring treaty rights to bear if the salmon are
not protected.

**Integration of NEPA and state environmental review processes:** Some
of the projects are only receiving state funding and only trigger the
State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), and not NEPA. For those projects
that trigger both NEPA and SEPA, the two processes are very similar and
their integration has not caused any problems. On another level, while
the independent nature of these projects did not require a NEPA review
for the corridor, the Washington State Growth Management Act requires
the Regional Council to review the projects as a whole, seeking
consistency throughout the Corridor. The fifteen projects were assembled
and screened at the regional level by the Puget Sound Regional Council.
This higher level of screening and review under the Growth Management
Act allowed the state and regional planners and decision-makers to
balance the environmental impacts of each project with the regional
transportation benefits.

**Multi-Agency Review:** Multiple agencies have been involved in the
review of these projects and it appears that coordinating the review
process and keeping it on schedule has not been an issue.

**Effect of Process on Project Design and Alternatives:** The screening
and ranking process used by WSDOT and the Regional Council led to the
selection of projects with fewer impacts.

**Public Involvement:** No major issues or delays have been associated
with the public involvement process. When a local community, such as the
City of Auburn, opposes one of the projects, the local planners address
the community's concerns.

The fifteen cities involved in the Corridor projects are all host
communities in the sense that they have the infrastructure that supports
this flow of commodities. However, over 70 percent of the imported
containers at Puget Sound ports are headed to points elsewhere in the
U.S. Some host communities have voiced concerns over projects causing
local impacts without appearing to create reciprocal benefits. WSDOT and
the Regional Council have had a public outreach campaign to raise public
awareness about the value of facilitating this flow of commodities. In
their campaign they have indicated that many Washington State exports
are bulk items (such as apples and grain), which have relatively low
value per ton, while the imports passing through tend to be higher value
goods. Those higher value goods generate most of the shippers' profits.
The State wants to attract and keep those shippers in Washington,
because once they are there, they prefer to carry the State's exports
with them on backhaul trips. Backhauling allows Washington farmers and
manufacturers to reach markets that are otherwise unattainable. They
have pointed out to the public that without a large volume of high-value
imports and an abundance of backhaul capacity for lower-value exports,
it would be difficult to attract the freight companies that ship many of
the State's goods to international markets. They estimate that
Washington exporters save \$150 to \$500 per container because of this
advantage.

**Project Description**

Hayden Island is located in the Columbia River and is adjacent to the
Port of Portland. Originally a set of two islands subject to seasonal
river inundation, the 1920's placement of groins by the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the subsequent accretion of silt, created Hayden Island.
The damming of upstream portions of the Columbia River has controlled
river level fluctuations, making the island permanently habitable.

In 1983, Portland Metro (the Portland MPO) designated Hayden Island as
within its Urban Growth Boundary, and determined that the island was
suitable for marine industrial uses. The eastern end of the island was
subsequently developed with housing and commercial uses. In 1991, Metro
and the Port of Portland identified the western end of Hayden Island as
one of the last remaining large locations in the metro area in which
deep draft shipping could be developed. In 1994, the Port purchased 827
acres on the western end of the island for deep draft shipping and as an
environmental reserve. These uses were confirmed in the 1995 Regional
Comprehensive Plan prepared by Portland Metro. It was also determined
that the proposed land uses for Hayden Island would best be achieved
were the island to be annexed by the City of Portland and re-zoned under
its processes; this process is underway. In addition to its expected use
for deep draft shipping, the West Hayden Island facility would be able
to service barge traffic from the Columbia River. The West Hayden marine
terminal site is immediately across the channel from other port
facilities, is linked via a spur to a rail line that bisects Hayden
Island, and has nearby access to an Interstate Highway that currently
serves Hayden Island. However, the bridge (Interstate-5) that serves the
eastern end of Hayden Island is currently congested, with demand at
capacity during peak periods.

The Port of Portland developed a three-phase plan for the development of
the West Hayden Island intermodal facility. Depending on market demand,
the development plan will be implemented over approximately a
thirty-year period. Phase One consists of the development of an
intermodal grain facility. Phases Two and Three include the
establishment of automotive distribution and general marine cargo uses.
Integral to the feasibility of Phases Two and Three is the construction
of a road bridge to link the western end of Hayden Island with the
Port's facilities on the mainland to avoid needing access to I-5.
Construction of this bridge still requires funding and would require a
Supplemental EIS for the project.

The commodities transferred at the West Hayden facility under Phase One
will primarily be transported by rail. It is expected that peak truck
traffic serving the Phase One facilities would be less than 60 vehicles
per hour. Under Phases Two and Three, rail will serve many cargo needs,
but trucking will be increasingly important (for example, automobiles
being distributed within the Pacific Northwest by truck). However, the
new bridge would meet the needs of the intermodal facility and alleviate
traffic impacts on the eastern (I-5) bridge. The intermodal facility is
projected to cost \$120 million to construct (for all phases), and the
bridge is estimated to cost an additional \$44 million. The Port of
Portland is involved in a concurrent federal and local permitting
process, in which it is composing a Draft EIS of the full three-phase
plan for the Army Corps of Engineers. The Port is simultaneously seeking
annexation of the site to the City of Portland and the consequential
re-zoning and application of local zoning laws.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

West Hayden Island was predominantly created, and its former wetlands
impacted, under activities conducted during the 1920s and 1930s.
Subsequently, many dredge spoils were deposited on the island during the
1950s and 1960s. Therefore, many potential concerns related to wetlands,
natural resources, endangered species habitat, and historical resources
were not directly at issue for this project, as they involved
pre-existing conditions. Nonetheless, there are several habitat,
wetlands, and natural resources issues still of concern on this project
and are discussed below.

**Cultural Resources:** Hayden Island, which was once described by Lewis
and Clark as the "canoe image island" was assumed to potentially have
been a site of Native American activities. However, an archeological
investigation found no evidence of artifacts.

**Local Transportation and Noise/Vibration:** The West Hayden facility
has "host community issues" stemming from the East Hayden Island
residents' concerns that the intermodal facility will negatively impact
their access to I-5. East Hayden Island's sole highway access, the I-5
bridge, is already congested. The trucks would pass through a commercial
area, including some retail and a hotel, which could produce noise and
vibration impacts. Truck routes to the I-5 access ramps would not pass
through any residential areas and under Phase I would not exceed 60
vehicles per hour. Nonetheless, there is significant community concern
regarding the impacts of the truck traffic.

The Port has proposed a (new) West Hayden Island Bridge as a condition
for Phases Two and Three to commence. However, there is some contention
whether the Port would legally commit to not proceed with these Phases
without construction of the bridge. The Port is seeking federal funding
(hopefully earmarked) for half of the \$44 million cost of bridge
construction. The Port has offered to make \$4.5 million in road
improvements on the I-5 highway and bridge, in order to help mitigate
highway and bridge impacts. It appears that most of the community
believes that \$4.5 million dollars in improvements would be inadequate
to mitigate the ramp congestion and noise/vibration impacts the
facility's truck traffic would create.

**Natural Resources and Wetlands:** The 827 acres that the Port acquired
is a riparian habitat composed of intermittent wetlands in the lowlands
and black cottonwood forest in the uplands, with a variety of small
mammals and nesting grounds for migratory neotropical birds. A dispute
among the parties over the size of these areas (for example, the
cottonwood area is described by different parties at from 240 to over
400 acres). The wetlands consist of an intermittent creek and lake. EPA
has suggested that a significantly greater portion of the island may be
considered as wetlands, as the island's mean 15-foot elevation makes
much of it susceptible to periodic flooding despite the upriver dams. No
threatened or endangered species are present on the island. Nonetheless,
the riparian forests, particularly the cottonwood, are considered
critical habitat. Much of the area, including some of the cottonwood
forest, includes dredge spoils that have been deposited for decades.

The Port plans to use eight million cubic yards of sand to raise much of
their property's mean elevation from 15 feet to 30 feet, which would
affect approximately 600 acres. This would include filling some wetlands
and leveling some woodland. The remaining 227 acres of West Hayden
Island would remain as open space and wooded wetlands with a 50-acre
recreational area. The Port has proposed greater than one-to-one
mitigation of wetlands and forest loss. However, there is considerable
concern about habitat recovery time and the impacts of substantial
habitat fragmentation. Partially because of the effects of Portland's
Urban Growth Boundary, West Hayden Island represents one of the largest
cottonwood forests in the area providing critical interior habitat for
certain species. Although not pristine, the location has been fenced off
from people for approximately 15 years.

Through clean-up of dredge spoils, mitigation and restoration efforts,
and protection of open space, the Port asserts that the proposed action
would improve the island's environmental condition. This view is
disputed by the resource agencies and some environmental groups because
of the substantial habitat impacts, which they consider as outweighing
the clean-up benefits. Furthermore, the island remains far below its
full environmental potential, as characterized by its condition prior to
the deposition of dredge spoils. Several environmental groups want the
island restored to its circa 1940 environmental condition as an
unspoiled, undeveloped habitat. Some local citizens who oppose the
degradation of wetlands have sued the Port and are pushing for the
revitalization of the island's historic wetlands through the resumption
of seasonal natural inundation from the Columbia River. Concern exists
over the interdependence of the wetlands and the health of the Columbia
River, and the implications for endangered fish stocks.

**Environmental Review Process**

The project is currently in the DEIS phase, which is expected to be
completed soon. In 1997, the Port of Portland anticipated initiating a
DEIS for the first five years of development at the West Hayden
intermodal facility (now known as Phase One). At the Port's request, the
Army Corps of Engineers later decided to accept a DEIS for all thirty
years (three phases) of proposed development at the facility, and the
Notice of Intent (NOI) was issued on October 27, 1998. The change in the
scope of the DEIS delayed project initiation by approximately one year,
but will eliminate the need to prepare additional EISs in the future for
Phases Two and Three. While the new bridge is described as occurring in
Phase One in the NOI, it is still unfunded and is currently proposed for
Phase Two, and possibly may not be built. Thus, when plans and funding
for the West Hayden Island Bridge are finalized, it will likely require
a supplemental EIS.

This aggregation of the three phases has been disputed by environmental
groups, and may also be opposed by the resource agencies. They believe
that the three phases have independent utility, the phases are subject
to independent timelines, and have little advantage from physical
contiguity. These parties believe that there may be a number of other
potential sites for these facilities if sited independently, and that
there is no compelling rationale for their co-location. Among these
sites are locations within already developed Port properties, or at the
Port of Vancouver immediately across the channel.

**Agency consultation:** At an informal level, development of this site
(including by a previous owner) has been an issue for a number of years,
and interaction between agencies has at least occurred at the informal
and preliminary level. The Port also distributed scoping documentation
early in project initiation. Metro has been coordinating with the Port
for a number of years, which has facilitated the project's continued
progress. For example, coordination with the MPO and the city has
resulted in a coordinated process that is facilitating zoning and
building permit issues. Similarly, FHWA's inclusion helped generate a
viable solution (the new bridge) to more significant potential local
transportation impacts.

However, a lack of internal resources prevented several agencies from
engaging substantially in early action, and staff turnover may have
negated institutional knowledge of earlier considerations. The Army
Corps has staff restrictions on involvement prior to the formal permit
process; the FWS described that staff workload prevents their early
involvement unless the proponent makes it clear that such involvement is
needed to help develop a project. FWS described the agency interaction
as lacking genuine effort to engage in early discussions. While all
formal requirements were followed, the project substantially changed
from the NOI, and the impression was received that the community and
other agencies were already on board in support of the project.

**Integration of NEPA and state environmental review processes:** The
Port of Portland has concurrently pursued the NEPA and local processes.
The Port intends to submit a Preliminary Draft EIS to the Army Corps of
Engineers in four to five months, and anticipates that the Federal
process will be complete in the fall of 2001. The Port estimates that
the permits required for annexation to the City of Portland and the
application of local zoning laws will be completed by September 2000.

**Public involvement:** The characterizations of this process have been
widely divergent. The community of East Hayden Island has been aware of
possible development for a number of years. One neighborhood's early
discussions with FHWA and the Port led to formal inclusion of the new
bridge as a Phase One project component in the NOI. Community views were
also integrated into the planning process through an Advisory Committee,
which included local citizens, environmental groups such as the Audubon
Society, and multi-function agencies such as Metro (which has
responsibilities including land use planning, open space, parks, and
salmon recovery). The Port of Portland has used public meetings to
present the plans for the intermodal facility and to give the public a
forum in which they can voice their concerns. While not fully resolved,
the Port hopes to be able to leverage its close coordination with the
City and series of public participation activities into the successful
resolution of environmental and community concerns. Negotiations are
continuing to avoid litigation over the extent of impact avoidance and
mitigation.

**Current Status:**

This project has developed and the environmental review process and
public involvement conducted in a manner that may substantially delay
development of a new port facility. The Port's preference appears to be
development that will allow maximum flexibility and expansion of their
own[^1] facilities in future years. Such an objective would be
accomplished by maximizing development rights at West Hayden Island,
still leaving several smaller existing port parcels vacant for future
development. However, to accomplish this objective, delays have already
been encountered, such as an approximate one-year incremental delay due
to shifting the scope of the DEIS to incorporate all three project
phases. The environmental review process has been considered by all
parties to be a major influence shaping the project, including factors
such as the size of the development and the possible inclusion of a
bridge. Based on misgivings about the process, the FWS is strongly
leaning toward opposing the DEIS based on inadequate "Purpose and Need"
and Alternatives Analysis; they believe they will be joined by several
other agencies in this position. Community and environmental groups have
shifted from conditional acceptance to outright opposition of the
project, and appear poised to litigate to prevent its occurrence.

**Project Description**

While these two NEPA actions are legally separate, for practical
purposes they represent two elements of the same physical project. The
Port of Oakland is expanding its facilities by adding four additional
containership berths and one tug berth through widening and deepening of
the existing inner harbor channel, bank excavation, fill land
reclamation, and wharf construction. The project also involves
realignment of Seventh Street and construction of a short access road in
order to handle additional traffic anticipated as a result of the
project. Additionally, the project includes substantial demolition and
reconstruction (containment dike construction and land fill) of a former
U.S. Navy facility (the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, or
"FISCO") in the adjacent Middle Harbor, with conversion of the FISCO
facility into container handling facilities, the Middle Harbor Shoreline
Park and associated promenades, and restoration of natural habitat. The
overall project site covers approximately 250 acres of the former FISCO,
approximately 105 acres of the Union Pacific (UP) Railyard, and 118
acres of water area. The Berths 55-58 Project and FISCO Disposal and
Reuse Project are independent from, but associated with, the Oakland
Harbor Navigation Improvement Project, which will further deepen some of
the berths and channels from the 42 feet envisioned in this project to
50 feet, and will include additional restoration of natural habitats.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

**Cultural Resources:** The extensive demolition and reconstruction of a
former Navy base raised questions concerning historical resources. The
FISCO complex was found to have some historical significance. In
agreement with the State Historical Preservation Officer (SHPO), the
facility's historic training walls were incorporated into the new park
as jetties, historic pilings will be left in place as a historic
exhibit, and materials from demolished buildings will be reused.

**Natural Resources, Wetlands, and Water Quality:** The construction of
the facility threatens potential feeding areas for the California Least
Tern and nesting areas for the Brown Pelican. The FWS was responsible
for these habitat issues, which fell under the Endangered Species Act
and the Migratory Bird Act, respectively. Light pollution mitigation
will be undertaken, and container gantry cranes will be regularly
inspected to insure they are not providing roosting/nesting habitats for
predatory raptors. There was additional concern about potential impacts
to eelgrass beds, although this was found to be mitigable through
offsetting plantings and sediment restoration in the Middle Harbor.

Dredging and dike reconstruction are required for the facility, for
which the Army Corps of Engineers has provided the required permits. The
fill has not been found to be contaminated. The project was designed to
create 30 new acres of port terminal area and 5 acres of new parkland,
without involving any net fill increase in the Bay (this is possible
through channel widening along the berths). A strong mitigation plan
will prevent significant adverse localized effects except on one small
eelgrass bed.

Ballast water discharge concerns by NMFS resulted in a Biological
Opinion of possible adverse effects (nonindigenous species invasion) on
several fish species from ballast water discharge increases associated
with additional maritime traffic. NMFS negotiated with the Port
regarding reasonable and prudent measures to mitigate the impact, which
in the end did require the Port of Oakland to enter into an MOU with
NMFS. As a result, the Port will contribute \$200,000 over four years
(NMFS originally requested \$2 million) to aid in the development and
implementation of the State's ballast water monitoring and treatment
program.

**Air Quality, Local Transportation, Noise/Vibration, and Public
Involvement:** Residents originally voiced concerns over air quality,
noise and vibration, and increased truck and rail traffic. A lawsuit
focused primarily on the air quality issues had been filed in October
1997 (in response to the FISCO EIS), but was settled through a Consent
Decree in less than four months. Both prior to the litigation and as a
result thereof, the Port worked extensively with the community to
develop a range of mitigation and enhancement actions. For example,
\$660,000 was transferred from the Port to AC Transit (the local transit
agency) for bus engine retrofitting, and some maritime terminal
equipment will be retrofitted with emissions control devices. In total,
\$9,000,000 will be spent on the Port's Air Quality Mitigation Program.
In addition, as described above, the Middle Harbor Shoreline Park and
associated promenades were incorporated into the project at a very early
date in response to community requests. While the nearest community
(West Oakland) is minority and low-income, they were found to be subject
to no significant and disproportionate adverse impacts. Public sentiment
has shifted to widespread local support for the project.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, agency consultation:** The Army Corps of Engineers recently
completed the Environmental Assessment of the project, having issued its
Public Notice for comments regarding the Section 404 permit for the
project on September 1, 1999. A Finding of No Significant Impacts
(FONSI) was made, and therefore no Environmental Impact Statement was
found warranted for the Berths 55-58 Project (a state EIR was
completed). The FISCO Disposal and Reuse Project had its FEIS/EIR
completed in July 1997. On the basis of CEQA criteria, the Reduced
Harbor Fill Alternative was found to be the environmentally superior
reuse alternative, and was selected as the preferred alternative. A
FEIR/EIS/FS was also completed for the adjacent Harbor Navigation
Project. Although the Corps and Navy have been the official lead
agencies for the project, the Port has effectively taken a lead role in
much of the effort and has carried out the planning of the facility on
behalf of the Corps and Navy. The Corps has also issued a Section 404
permit, following the November 29 signing of the endangered species
consultation by NMFS.

**Multi-Agency Review:** The Corps had initiated a joint consultation
for the Berths 55-58 Project and Harbor Navigation Project in June 1999,
which FWS agreed to, but NMFS requested that the consultations be
separated. The Corps, because of staff constraints, did not reinitiate
the consultation with NMFS until September 27, 1999. While NMFS did
commence their work on their biological opinion prior to the formal
reinitiation, their own staff constraints resulted in the opinion not
being completed until mid-November. This process resulted in an MOU
between the Port of Oakland and NMFS, in which the Port agreed to help
fund a state study and effort to minimize the potential impacts of
nonindigenous species introduction from ballast water discharge.

**Integration of NEPA and state processes:** The NEPA and California
environmental review requirements include review roles for several state
agencies. In particular, the State Lands Commission and the Regional
Water Quality Control Board were responsible for issuing permits
regarding fill and water quality issues, respectively. Furthermore, the
Bay Conservation and Development Commission holds authority over all
projects impacting San Francisco Bay, and undertook its own
comprehensive review of the project prior to issuance of its permit.
Early coordination and consultation by the Port with each of these
entities facilitated the project's progress.

The Port Authority completed a Section 106 historical review process for
the former FISCO facility, and arranged for a combination of
illustrative preservation and adaptive reuse to mitigate the extensive
demolition. Arrangements for conversion of the FISCO Navy facility and
property transfer have been made with relatively little difficulty with
the completion of the FEIS/EIR, as well as certain facilitating
legislation that simplified the property transfer.

**Project Description**

The Alameda Corridor will be a twenty mile consolidated railroad link,
centered along

Alameda Street, extending from downtown Los Angeles to the Ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach. The ports comprise the largest seaport complex
in the U.S. and the third largest in the world. The project will
consolidate the rail operations of four mainlines (one owned by Union
Pacific (UP), two by Southern Pacific (SP), which have merged since the
environmental analysis began, and one by Santa Fe (ATSF), which later
merged with Burlington Northern). Currently, trains operating to and
from the ports run on 90 miles of track. In 1993, 32 trains per day
operated to and from the ports. The average speeds on these lines are in
the range of 10 to 20 miles per hour because of a large number of grade
crossings and other restrictions. The four mainlines have 198 at-grade
street crossings and have over 70,000 people living within 500 feet. The
ports are expected to experience a shift toward an increased reliance on
containers with a commensurate increase in rail activity. According to
the EIS, part of this growth is attributable the development of on-dock
or near-dock railyards that will result in an estimated 23 percent
reduction in truck movements by the year 2020. By the year 2020, an
estimated 97 trains per day will be moving in and out of the ports. The
"Purpose and Need" as stated in the EIS is that utilization of existing
unimproved corridors under this scenario will result in impairment of
rail and street traffic flow and increased noise and air pollution. The
depressed trainway will have two mainline tracks in addition to an
at-grade track serving local industries. Alameda Street would be
reconstructed to accompany the depressed track. Overpasses configured to
match existing street geometry would allow passage across the depressed
trainway at designated streets.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

**Air Quality:** For the purposes of CEQA, the construction of the
corridor would produce emissions of criteria pollutants and fugitive
dust in quantities above significance thresholds established by the
South Coast Air Quality District. These construction emissions were not
considered substantial under NEPA. Under the No Build alternative,
locomotive, auto, and truck regional criteria emissions would increase
substantially. The proposed action was projected to have a substantial
reduction in all criteria pollutants. Car and truck emissions decline
slightly.

**Cultural Resources:** The Corridor would avoid the Watson Station,
which had been determined eligible for the National Register. Findings
of No Effect were reached for several structures and a Finding of No
Adverse Effect was reached for the Redondo Junction Historic District.
The EIS indicated that the area between 109^th^ and 111^th^ Streets was
sensitive for archaeological resources. One site, located in the
vicinity of the midpoint of the Corridor, was reported to have burials
when it was discovered in 1969. However, it is outside the area of
potential effect. The other site is located on the Dominquez Hills
overlooking Compton Creek and the Los Angles River. The site was
discovered in 1969 and was described as a seasonal village or camp site
which had already been effectively destroyed by roads and grading
activity. In addition, a Phase I Archaeological Study was conducted in
1992. The results of the archaeological field reconnaissance revealed no
surface evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources
within the project Area of Potential Effects. Therefore, the EIS
concluded that the APE is considered to contain no known important
prehistoric or historic archaeological resources with the possible
exception of the area in the vicinity of the site with the potential
burials. The EIS indicated that a qualified archaeologist would be
contacted promptly if the construction of the project encountered
unanticipated cultural resource remains. The fact that burials have been
found in the past indicates the possible presence of an important
resource. Therefore, they planned to conduct archaeological monitoring
in that area. During the construction process 30 Native American
skeletons were discovered. This led to the preparation of a recovery
plan.

**Land Use:** Under the No Build alternative, increased train traffic
could potentially have substantial incompatibility with some adjacent
land uses. The construction of the Alameda Corridor does not represent a
major change to existing uses and will not impede the achievement of
local planning goals.

**Local Transportation:** The construction of the Alameda Corridor could
result in potentially substantial traffic disruption at various
locations throughout the construction period. During the operations
phase of the No Build alternative, the increased train volumes and
deteriorated roadway conditions would result in increasing delays,
slower speeds, and less capacity to handle future demands. The operation
of the Alameda Corridor is expected to improve overall traffic handling
capacity. Grade separated crossings over the depressed railroad, left
turn pockets, and improved signalization would improve traffic
conditions in the project area. In terms of traffic capacity at
intersections, the No Build alternative is estimated to have substantial
impacts to three intersections in 2010 and 65 intersections in 2020. The
operation of the Alameda Corridor is estimated to result in substantial
impacts at two intersections in 2020. The addition of turning lanes
would mitigate these impacts. Under the No Build alternative, auto/train
accidents would increase as the growth in freight trains increases. The
Alameda Corridor would reduce those accidents because conflicts would be
eliminated along the Corridor and train volumes will be reduced on the
other rail lines. The state is required to implement traffic maintenance
plans during construction to mitigate temporary impacts.

Although the project may increase the potential for accidents involving
train derailments and spills by increasing the number of trains, the
provision of improved tracks and equipment and cross-street grade
separations would decrease the accident potential. The likelihood of
injuries or property damage would be substantially reduced due to
containment provided by the trench. The potential for accidents on the
other lines would decrease as train activity decreased.

**Noise/vibration:** The construction of the corridor could produce
intrusive noise at some locations. Train operations under the No Build
alternative would have substantial impacts for 69 residences. For the
portion of the Proposed Action within the Alameda Corridor, 92
residences and two community facilities would experience a substantial
impact. With the construction of noise barriers, the residual impacts
would potentially effect eight residences and two community facilities.
The use of sound insulation for buildings will be explored and
implemented where practicable. Along the SP, UP, and ATSF branches the
proposed project would reduce residential noise exposure from 29,800 to
zero. Potentially substantial vibration effects could occur during
operation at certain points. Various design and operational approaches
will be used to reduce vibration potential, including relocation of
trackwork away from sensitive areas, installation of ballast mats, and
use of movable points frogs where needed.

**Socioeconomics:** The construction of the Alameda Corridor will
require up to 40 full acquisitions and up to 16 partial acquisitions of
commercial properties. Under the Uniform Relocation and Assistance Act,
comparable housing has been identified and assistance with relocation
for both residents and business people has been provided. In terms of
effects on schools, the Alameda Corridor would greatly reduce train
conflicts for students walking across Alameda Street. However, the
project would result in increased noise effects at two schools located
along the corridor. The use of sound insulation for buildings will be
explored and implemented where practicable. The residual impact is
expected to be potentially substantial. In addition, the project would
result in noise impacts at one church. The use of sound insulation for
the building will be explored and implemented where practicable. The
residual impact is not substantial.

Construction of the project will have substantial impacts on businesses
along the corridor. They will experience reduced vehicular and
pedestrian access, traffic detours, noise and other inconveniences.
Mitigation measures are expected to reduce the impacts to potentially
substantial and include signs to direct customers along alternate routes
to businesses; traffic management to maintain access; and a business
outreach program. Any relocated businesses would be compensated under
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies
Act.

The EIS addressed environmental justice. Land uses surrounding the
corridor are primarily industrial with only a small proportion
consisting of residences. Those residences were occupied by minorities.
The proposed action would result in only four residences having noise
impacts after the implementation of noise attenuation walls. The
proposed action would result in a 90 percent reduction in population
exposure to railroad noise on all lines serving the ports. A number of
mitigation measures involving landscaping and urban design will be
implemented in response to perceived visual effects in one of the
Central Business Districts (Compton) and in recognition of the need to
apply urban design measures to the corridor as a whole. The
environmental justice analysis also considered the beneficial effects of
the proposed action, especially the improved traffic circulation and
reduced grade crossing accidents. Based on the small number of minority
residences that would be impacted and the substantial number of minority
residences that would benefit from the noise reductions, The EIS
determined that there were no disproportionate adverse impacts to
minority or low-income populations.

**Water Quality:** The EIS indicated that construction of the Corridor
may require dewatering in some portions. In addition, the addition of
footings and columns for the crossings of the Los Angeles River, Compton
Creek, and Dominquez Channel could affect the flood control capacity of
these waters. They planned to design the columns and footings for
appropriate hydrology considerations in coordination with the COE and
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, including agency consultation:** Planning for the Alameda
Corridor began in 1981 when the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) created the Ports Advisory Committee. The Committee
conducted various planning activities which eventually led to the
creation of the Alameda Corridor Task Force in 1985, which in turn led
to the creation of the Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority (ACTA)
in 1989. ACTA began conceptual engineering in 1990, to more fully define
the project. Simultaneously, FHWA intended to be the lead federal agency
and a joint EIR/EIS was envisioned. FHWA started a NEPA scoping process
in 1991. Subsequently, FHWA funding was limited to specific grade
crossing separations allowing individual categorical exclusions for
these actions. ACTA withdrew from the NEPA process and advanced the
project under CEQA alone.

ACTA developed a range of conceptual engineering alternatives and
reviewed them in a Draft EIR, which was issued in August, 1992, and a
Final EIR, which was issued in January, 1993. ACTA selected a locally
preferred alternative.

After completion of the EIR, ACTA, Caltrans, and FHWA decided that
additional federal funding should be applied for and that FHWA and FRA
should prepare an EIS. FHWA and FRA stated in the FEIS that they had
decided to make maximum use of the analyses undertaken for the EIR.
Therefore, the EIS expanded on the EIR where it was necessary to address
federal requirements that the EIR did not have to address. Additional
subjects requiring analysis included: additional documentation to
address Clean Air Act requirements, including a conformity
determination, the Section 106 process for cultural resources, COE
requirements for hydrology and water quality, additional documentation
for hazardous materials requested by FHWA and EPA, and coordination
required for threatened and endangered species.

Prior to the re-initiation of the Alameda Corridor EIS by the FHWA and
FRA, the COE and the Port of Los Angeles/Los Angeles Harbor Department
prepared an EIS/EIR for the modification of the Port of Los Angeles
Master Plan. The EIS/EIR was completed in 1992. The purpose of the Plan
was to accommodate increased cargo throughput and the relocation of
hazardous and other facilities. The plan included dredging navigation
channels and turning basins in Los Angeles Harbor and the creation of
about 582 acres of new landfill to support new terminals and associated
handling and storage facilities. The facilities will be developed in
four increments over time as needed. Similarly, the Port of Long Beach
was designing and building a comprehensive program of grade separation
projects that were supposed to dramatically reduce train-related traffic
blockages at the Port. The program was slated for completion by 1997. In
addition, the Port was improving efficiency and expanding capacity of
their on-dock rail facilities. Those improvements were designed to speed
flow of cargo through the Port and reduce Port-related truck traffic on
roadways and freeways. The Alameda Corridor EIS assumed that these
projects would be in place for the purposes of the Alameda Corridor
project, and were therefore also part of the No Build Alternative.

The FHWA and FRA reinitiated the NEPA process with a Notice of Intent in
December 1993. They consulted with three federal agencies during the
preparation of the EIS: EPA, FWS, and COE. EPA submitted a comment
letter during the scoping process in which they raised concerns about
the selection of alternatives and air quality impacts. In May 1994,
subsequent to the scoping process, FHWA and EPA held a meeting at EPA's
Region 9 offices in San Francisco to discuss the project and its
environmental documentation. The meeting included staff from FHWA Region
9, FHWA California Division, Port of Los Angeles, and project
consultants. The key comments in EPA's follow-up letter included air
quality, train derailments and spills, and water quality. Their comments
were largely based on their review of the Final EIR, which they had not
previously reviewed. Regarding air quality, EPA commented on potential
violations of the carbon monoxide and particulate matter standards and
the application of the Conformity Rule to the project. Their concerns
over emergency response focussed on the need for a plan that addresses
worst case scenarios. They commented that, among other requirements,
such a plan should be designed to address sensitive receptors and
natural resources in a timely way. The plan should be sent for review
and comment to EPA, the Coast Guard, FWS, California Office of Emergency
Services, California EPA, Los Angeles County, municipal fire
departments, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, California
Department of Fish and Game, and the Highway Patrol. Their comments on
water quality centered on the need for stormwater discharge permits for
the construction and operational phases and as well as the need for
nonpoint source controls. In addition, EPA noted that the Executive
Order on Environmental Justice had just been signed and that the DEIS
should reflect its requirements. FHWA addressed these comments in the
Draft EIS. FHWA also consulted with the COE on the proposed waterway
crossings, which included two meetings. The COE indicted that the
crossings may meet the general terms and conditions for a nationwide
permit. Consultation with the FWS regarding the California least tern
resulted in a response that potential effects are remote and therefore
formal consultation is unnecessary.

They issued the Draft EIS in January 1995. The comment letters received
during the scoping process came from: two federal agencies (EPA and the
Surface Transportation Board), three regional agencies, five County of
Los Angeles agencies, 17 local jurisdictions, eight private
organizations, businesses and individuals. Approximately 90 people
attended the public hearing and 30 people spoke.

Among the written comments, EPA's main concerns focussed on air quality.
EPA commented that although DEIS and conformity analysis suggest that
the project would help reduce air pollution levels, there are
opportunities to implement additional mitigation measures. As an example
they recommended a program to reduce vehicle miles traveled by
construction workers. They also had numerous comments on the technical
aspects of the air quality modeling. The Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California strongly objected to the alternative preferred by
the local entities because of the potentially significant costs and
impacts upon existing water conveyance facilities. The San Gabriel
Valley Council of Governments and the Metropolitan Transportation
Authority were concerned about the secondary or cumulative impacts from
the increase in port-related rail traffic eastward of the Corridor
(grade crossing delay, congestion, and air quality). Several of their
member governments also provided similar comments. The Southern
California Association of Governments commented that the project is
consistent with the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and is vital
to the region's future growth. The Los Angeles Unified School District
raised concerns about vibration during construction and operation of the
Corridor, traffic circulation, air quality, and noise. The City of
Compton submitted over 140 pages of comments on a broad range of
subjects and proposed a covered depressed trainway and roadway (a
tunnel). The City of Lynnwood commented on local transportation,
utilities, mitigation of air pollution, and economic benefits (local
hiring policy). The City of Vernon supports the locally preferred
alternative and among their other comments, noted that the "EIS should
discuss the importance of the Alameda Corridor Project with regard to
its mitigation of individual and cumulative" impacts which are
anticipated for the port projects related to the Corridor. They also
commented that the EIS should recognize that the Alameda Corridor
project is the mitigation for the impacts resulting from the other port
projects. The comments of the Cities of Long Beach and Los Angeles were
generally supportive. A family commented on existing grade crossing
delays. A citizen of Compton commented on property devaluation,
emergency response access, increased noise, air pollution, and
vibration. Two oil companies commented on potential impacts to their
pipelines and one commented on access for emergency response vehicles. A
land company, which owns over 450 acres and nearly 3 million square feet
of office and light industrial space along the Corridor, commented on
loss of access and impacts from noise and vibration.

Many of the issues raised at the public hearing pertained to the City of
Compton and included: vehicle access, impacts on schools, law
enforcement and public safety issues, concerns about graffiti, a
perception that there would be a large increase in trench traffic, job
creation and the need for employment outreach efforts, and project cost.
Other comments addressed: potential grade separations in the City of
Lynnwood, the I-105/Imperial Highway Interchange, parking, landscaping,
and business access along the corridor.

The Final EIS was issued in February 1996. In May 1997, the Secretary of
Transportation delegated to the Administrator of FHWA, the authority to
manage DOT's \$400 million loan with ACTA. Other related activities
outside the Alameda Corridor include the Alameda Corridor East and a
Southern California Association of Governments study to determine the
best way of moving rail traffic eastward through Southern California.
The study addresses the potential for additional consolidated along one
or more lines. The Alameda Corridor East project involves a series of
transportation safety improvements at 55 grade crossings along 35 miles
of ROW throughout the San Gabriel Valley.

The FHWA and FRA reinitiated the NEPA process with a Notice of Intent in
December 1993. They issued the Draft EIS in January 1995 and the Final
EIS in February 1996. In May 1997, the Secretary of Transportation
delegated to the Administrator of FHWA, the authority to manage DOT's
\$400 million loan with ACTA.

**Integration of NEPA and state environmental review processes:** The
CEQA process began about nine months before the NEPA process because
federal funding was not identified, and thus NEPA was not triggered,
until later in the planning process. The locally preferred alternative
under CEQA was also the federally preferred alternative under NEPA. The
FHWA wanted to streamline the NEPA process. One way to have accomplished
this would have been to adopt the CEQA document for the purposes of
NEPA. However, as mentioned above, FHWA needed to conduct additional
analyses to meet federal requirements that were not required of the EIR.

**Effect of process on project design and alternatives:** The public
involvement process and consultation with local governments led to
certain mitigation measures on the preferred alternative.

**Multi-Agency Review:** There was an extensive multi-agency review
process as described above.

**Public Involvement:** Prior to the NEPA scoping process, the CEQA
process involved an extensive public comment effort. ACTA distributed
the August 1992, Draft EIR to 120 government agencies and interested
parties. ACTA received 100 requests for additional copies during the
public comment period. ACTA held six public hearings, which were
attended by 163 people, of whom 47 provided verbal comments. ACTA
announced the hearings through a number of means, including newspapers,
direct mailing, radio and television public service announcements,
flyers and door hangers. In addition to the formal hearings, ACTA held
four community meetings. The 35 comment letters received during the
scoping process came from: two state agencies, six regional agencies,
three County of Los Angeles departments, eight local jurisdictions,
eight private companies, and four individuals.

For the NEPA scoping process, the FHWA and FRA held a formal scoping
meeting, which they advertised in seven local newspapers. They also
notified public agencies and known interested parties through a direct
mailing. In addition, they sent a direct mailing to five federal
agencies and a general mailing to 465 addresses. The FHWA and FRA
conducted afternoon and evening sessions for the scoping meeting. They
gave attendees an information packet about the project and conducted a
presentation to explain the project and the purpose of the meeting.
Fifty-one people attended the two sessions combined. Six speakers
provided comments at the sessions and 12 written comments were received.
During the scoping period, the FHWA and FRA received 14 comment letters,
including one from EPA, two local agencies, the Cities of Compton and
Vernon, seven private companies, and two citizens. The agency letters
are separate from the agency coordination and consultation letters
discussed above. The commenters raised issues concerning: alternatives,
accessibility, safety, air quality, noise and vibration, traffic and
circulation, landscaping, and site-specific issues. During the comment
period for the DEIS, FHWA and FRA held a public hearing with an
afternoon session and an evening session. Approximately 90 people
attended the two sessions combined. Thirty people spoke at the two
sessions combined.

**Project Description**

For the EIS/EIR, the purpose and need of the *federal action* was to
dispose of the Long Beach Naval Station (NAVSTA) and the Long Beach
Naval Shipyard (NSY) under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
process. The purpose and need for the proposed *local action* was to
reuse the Navy property for expansion of the Port of Long Beach.

Located south of Los Angeles, the Port of Long Beach coupled with the
Port of Los Angeles constitutes the San Pedro Bay Port System; together
they are approximately twice as large as the next largest container port
in North America. The 525-acre island facility will serve as a
container-rail/port facility that will also transfer bulk (primarily
lumber) and liquid bulk commodities, and operate as a ship repair
facility. As part of the Port of Long Beach, the facility is linked by
rail to the region and nation through the Alameda Corridor. The Port of
Long Beach is building one quarter-mile of new track to link with the
Alameda Corridor.

The Port of Long Beach has carried out the planning of the facility on
behalf of CALTRANS. While the Navy still holds the title to the NAVSTA
and NSY properties, pending clean-up of hazardous waste contamination,
the Port of Long Beach has facilitated construction of the intermodal
facility by leasing segments of the base until the property transfer is
completed. Completion of the construction of the intermodal facility is
dependent upon the transfer of the property title to the Port of Long
Beach. The Navy is funding the clean-up of the naval complex; the FHWA
has funded construction of a traffic interchange and grade separation;
and the ACOE is funding dredging and dike repair.

**Environmental Issues of Concern**

**Cultural Resources:** The naval complex housed a Historic District,
comprised of buildings designed by Paul Revere Williams, one of the
first prominent African American architects. These historically
significant buildings garnered attention from the local community and
the State Historical Preservation Organization (SHPO) and national
attention from the ACHP. The local community wanted the complex to be
preserved intact. In November 1997, the Navy completed a *Historic
Properties Adaptive Use Feasibility Study* to identify potential
realistic, economically feasible adaptive uses for the Historic
District. The Navy also reinitiated consultation under Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) with the SHPO and the
ACHP. Upon completion of a Section 106 Adaptive Use Feasibility Study,
it was found that the only economically viable use for the complex is
the conversion to an intermodal facility. The Navy developed a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the SHPO and the ACHP addressing the
potential effects on the Historic District and identifying possible
mitigation measures. The agreed upon mitigation plan included: the
preservation of selected items from the historical buildings, production
of a historical documentary, and a \$4.2 million allocation to the City
of Long Beach for historic preservation.

**Hazardous Waste:** The fill material produced by the dredging, along
with other materials on the island, is contaminated. The Navy
established two major restoration programs, an Installation Restoration
Program (IRP) and a compliance program, in response to releases of
hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, petroleum hydrocarbons,
and hazardous solid wastes. The IRP identifies, assesses, characterizes,
and cleans up or controls contamination from past hazardous waste
disposal operations and hazardous materials spills. The Compliance
Program addresses underground storage tanks, above ground storage tanks,
oil/water separators, asbestos, polychlorinated biphenyls, radon, and
lead-based paint. The Navy has worked with the U.S. EPA to dispose of
the contaminated dredge materials, and with the California Department of
Toxic Substances Control to dispose of the contaminants on the island.

**Natural Resources:** The FWS raised concerns over impacts to potential
feeding areas for the California least tern and nesting areas for the
black crown night heron. The EIS/EIR indicated that a significant and
mitigable impact to the California least terns would occur due to the
loss through dredging of the 26-acre shallow water area in the West
Basin. The mitigation is to create replacement shallow-water foraging
habitat within the vicinity of the Terminal Island nesting colony. The
project would also have a significant and mitigable impact to the
black-crowned night heron rookery because of the removal of ornamental
trees on the NAVSTA, NSY, and surrounding Port of Long Beach properties.
The mitigation for this impact would involve salvaging approximately 30
trees from the existing colony and planting them at Gull Park on the
Navy property. Both mitigation measures are the responsibility of the
Port of Long Beach.

**Noise/vibration:** The nearest private residences are located three
miles from the intermodal facility, however, the increased train traffic
that will result from the completed facility transects these
neighborhoods. The Alameda Corridor project will mitigate these impacts.

**Environmental Review Process**

**NEPA, agency consultation:** The disposal and conversion process has
taken several years. In 1991, the BRAC Commission recommended the
closure of NAVSTA and in 1995, recommended the closure of NSY. Most of
NAVSTA closed operationally in 1994 and NSY closed in 1997. The Navy
began the NEPA process by choosing to evaluate the disposal and reuse of
NAVSTA and NSY in separate NEPA documents because they closed under
separate BRAC Commission actions and the Navy could reach independent
decisions on the two facilities. The Navy prepared and distributed a
Final EIS in February 1997 for NAVSTA. The Navy also published a Notice
of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS for NSY in September 1996. The City of
Long Beach's Harbor Department prepared an EIR for the reuse of NAVSTA
in 1996. The City's Harbor Department published a Notice of Preparation
(NOP) in 1996 for the preparation of an EIR under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the development of NSY. The Navy
reevaluated its earlier decision and determined that they should address
the disposal and reuse of NAVSTA and NSY in one EIS. Their rationale was
that: the properties are adjacent; the Port of Long Beach's reuse plans
for both properties were similar; the proposed disposal and reuse would
now occur in the same general time frame; and there is the possibility
that a combined analysis could identify mitigation measures to reduce
impacts to the Historic District. Therefore, the Navy and the City of
Long Beach decided to prepare a joint EIS/EIR. They completed the Final
EIS/EIR in April 1998. In terms of agency consultation, the proposed
destruction of the historic buildings generated controversy and the
local preservation group and the SHPO involved the ACHP. The Section 106
process required one year to complete.

**Integration of NEPA and state environmental review processes:** The
Navy and the Port of Long Beach initiated independent EISs and

EIRs, which they did not complete. They moved forward with a joint EIS
and EIR, which has been reviewed by FHWA, EPA, FWS, and the COE. They
also worked jointly with the Navy to complete the Section 106 historic
review process. The Port believes that the EIS delayed the project. The
Port of Long Beach used a standard approach, has been through CEQA
reviews many times, and has reached an understanding over how to
characterize various types of impacts (e.g., negligible or significant).
However, the Navy (especially their legal staff) had more difficulty
determining levels of impact.

**Effect of process on project design and alternatives:** Two of the
alternatives analyzed in the EIS/EIR are based on two potentially
feasible adaptive use alternatives generated by the *Historic Properties
Adaptive Use Feasibility Study*.

**Multi-Agency Review:** The Port and the Navy had to consult with
several agencies, including the SHPO, ACHP, EPA, COE, DTSC, and FWS.
Apparently, the Navy's ongoing consultations with DTSC have led to
tensions between the two agencies.

**Public Involvement:** Residents are still concerned about air quality,
noise and vibration, and hazardous materials transportation impacts from
train traffic. The neighboring communities sued over the EIR and EIS.

[^1]: Siting of some of the proposed development across the river where
    a more appropriate site may be already available has been encouraged
    by the Port of Vancouver, community groups, and the FWS, but
    dismissed by the Port of Portland as their may not be sufficient
    space to site all three potential phases.