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.
| Project/Type | Sponsoring Agencies | Project Description | Funding Sources | EA or EIS? | Main Environmental Issues | Length of Environmental Review Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sears Island and Mack Point, ME Port/rail/highway and port/highway |
Lead federal agency: FHWA for Sears Island and COE for Mack Point Cooperating federal agency: None State or local agency: Maine DOT |
Renovate Mack Point in Penobscot Bay as an alternative to the unsuccessful Sears Island intermodal facility proposal. Maine DOT proposed Sears Island as the site of a multimodal facility with rail and highway access that would service containers and dry bulk products. Mack Point will have two berths available for the shipment of all commodity types, including petroleum. Cargo will be transferred to trucks, for which no new roads will be required. | Federal, State and Private | EA and EIS for Sears Island, and possibly an EA for Mack Point. | Marine and terrestrial habitat and visual impacts | For Sears Island, on and off for many years. Mack Point has been relatively brief thus far. |
Waterville, ME Rail/highway |
Lead federal agency: FHWA Cooperating federal agency: none State or local agency: Maine DOT |
Facility transfers bulk and manufacturing goods from truck to rail. | Federal and private | EA | Avoided wetland impacts by selecting this site over another | Relatively brief |
Logan Airport, Boston, MA, Bird Island Flats and North Cargo Area Air/highway |
Lead federal agency: FAA Cooperating federal agency: none. State or local agency: MassPort |
Initial concepts included dual taxiways and multiple cargo facilities. Based on early public involvement, one taxiway was eliminated and office and hotel developments were added as well as a shoreline park. | MassPort | EA/EIR | Noise impacts and community opposition derailed fast-track environmental review | Relatively brief after changes in design |
West Hayden Island, Portland, OR Port/highway/rail |
Lead federal agency: COE Cooperating federal agency: FHWA, USCG State or local agency: Port of Portland |
600-acre facility with access to deep draft shipping and barge traffic on the Columbia River. It has direct access to a rail line and an interstate highway, but may still require an additional highway bridge. Facility plan includes grain, automotive and general marine cargo distribution capabilities. | Port of Portland, possibly state and federal for bridge | EIS | Dredge and fill impacts to wetlands, significant habitat loss and community concern over wetlands, noise and air pollution, and traffic. | An additional year because of change in DEIS scope. Public and resource agency concerns may delay project. |
FAST Corridor, WA Port/rail/highway |
Lead federal agency: FHWA on a few projects and FTA on at least one project. Cooperating federal agency: none State or local agency: Washington State DOT, Puget Sound Regional Council, Ports of Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett, 11 cities, two counties, Burlington Northern Santa Fe and Union Pacific Railroads |
Fifteen individual projects to improve mobility in the freight corridor stretching from Tacoma to Everett. Projects include twelve grade separations and three port access projects. | State, private investors, federal aid | Various EISs, EIRs, and EAs | Endangered species and wetlands | Normal timeframe |
Alameda Corridor, Los Angeles, CA Port/rail |
Lead federal agency: FHWA, FRA Cooperating federal agency: Surface Transportation Board State or local agency: Caltrans, Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority |
Development of a consolidated freight railroad corridor below grade between the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach and downtown Los Angeles. | Private, local, state, and federal | EIS/EIR | Effects related to seismicity, vibration, acquisition and displacement identified. Beneficial long-term effects related to air quality, noise energy, transportation and circulation, public services, safety and security, aesthetics and economics. | Approximately four years. Followed by community law suits on both EIS and EIR. Project is under construction. |
Long Beach, CA Naval Base re-use as marine terminal |
Lead federal agency: Navy Cooperating federal agency: (none) State or local agency: Caltrans and Port of Long Beach |
Developing the 525-acre former Naval facility as a container/rail/port facility that will transfer bulk (primarily lumber) and liquid bulk commodities, and operate as a ship repair facility. | Federal | EIS/EIR | Historic resources, endangered species habitat, and hazardous waste as well as air quality, noise and vibration, and hazardous material transport from trains. | Several years due to NEPA/CEQA coordination issues and multi-agency review. Followed by community law suit. |
Oakland, CA Marine Terminal Dredging and Expansion |
Lead federal agency: COE and Navy Cooperating federal agency: FHWA State or local agency: Port of Oakland, CalTrans |
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 small access road to handle additional traffic anticipated as a result of the project. | Port of Oakland | EA and EIS/EIR | Marine habitat, endangered birds, air emissions, traffic, historic resources, noise and vibration, and community concerns. | Unavailable |
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
| Project | Milestone | Date | Cumulative Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alameda Corridor | NOI | 12/93 |  |
| Alameda Corridor | DEIS | 1/95 | 13 months |
| Alameda Corridor | FEIS | 2/96 | 26 months |
| Long Beach | NOI | 9/96 | |
| Long Beach | EIS/EIR | 4/98 | 19 months |
| Sears Island | EA | 11/83 | |
| Sears Island | Litigation | 1985 | |
| Sears Island | NOI | 9/85 | 22 months |
| Sears Island | DEIS | 7/86 | |
| Sears Island | FEIS | 10/87 | 45 months |
| Sears Island | ROD | 12/87 | |
| Sears Island | Litigation | 1988 | |
| Sears Island | Draft Suppl. EIS | 7/95 | |
| Sears Island | Withdrawal of NOI | 2/96 | 12 years, 3 months |
| West Hayden | NOI | 10/98 | (on-going) |
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
previous | next
