EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Task Force Agency Representatives Meeting
400 7TH STREET SW
ROOM 4200

January 30, 2003

Joel Szabat, DOT's Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, chaired the Task Force meeting. Department of Transportation Deputy Secretary, Michael Jackson and Federal Transit Administrator, Jenna Dorn made opening remarks. Other Task Force Representatives in attendance were:

• Barbara Robinson, US Department of Agriculture
• Paul Hoffman, Department of Interior
• Chip Smith, Department of Defense
• Joel LaBissonniere, Department of Commerce
• Steve Shimberg, Environmental Protection Agency
• Anne Miller, Environmental Protection Agency
• John Fowler, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
• Dinah Bear, Council on Environmental Quality

Meeting Purpose: To gain input and engage Task Force agency representatives in the implementation of the Executive Order 13274 (EO) Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews prior to the Interagency Task Force Quarterly Meeting chaired by Secretary Mineta.

1. Opening Remarks and Introductions

   Michael Jackson, DOT Deputy Secretary, welcomed the Task Force representatives and opened the meeting by emphasizing the importance of the Executive Order (EO). He stated that the Department is committed to its implementation and success. The EO is not a way to "short cut" the environmental process, but to make effective, efficient decisions by working together to resolve issues quickly. A streamlined environmental process will also have an economic impact because the nation will benefit from the savings in money and productivity as needed transportation projects are realized sooner.

   Jennifer Dorn, Administrator for the Federal Transit Administration, stated that FTA is a committed partner in the implementation of the EO and described some of FTA's recent streamlining and stewardship activities. She believes there are lessons to be learned from all projects selected as priorities for expedited review and believes proactive relationships and collaborative agreements are keys. She charged the Task Force with facilitating partnerships among the transportation and resource agencies across the nation.

   Dinah Bear, General Counsel of the Council on Environmental Quality, spoke on the potential of the EO to have a positive effect on the environmental process. She noted that projects early in the project development and environmental reviews might benefit the most from consideration under the EO. She also emphasized the importance of looking at the lessons learned from each project and applying them as best practices.

2. Status report on selected Priority Projects

   Joel Szabat, DOT Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, summarized the selection process for priority projects. The seven priority projects to be discussed today were selected by the Secretary in October 2002. The selection of additional projects received as nominations in October-November is imminent and the Task Force agencies will be notified before the Department makes public announcements. It is anticipated that the Secretary will select another 8-12 priority projects. A DOT intermodal Project Review Team, who solicited input from resource agencies during the screening process, evaluated project nominations. The EO website (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/stewardshipeo/) provides the full criteria used in the evaluation. Although not a "public" process, the Department will respond to any request from the public for information. Furthermore, the Department would welcome staff from the Task Force agencies to work with the Project Review Team.

   Joel Szabat outlined the role of the Task Force in the oversight of expedited project reviews: the Task Force needs to be a decision-making body and act as an "action" group on project oversight; look at sticking points and facilitate resolution of issues at the lowest level; track progress of priority projects and be able to step in when time tables begin to slip; and make recommendations on policy issues as the need arises. In response to questions, Joel Szabat indicated that it was unlikely the Task Force would need to prepare formal resolutions, except in the case of policy decisions. Furthermore, although the work of the Task Force would not interface with DOT proposed reauthorization language because of timing constraints, the Task Force could look for opportunities in other legislation as appropriate.

   Initially the Task Force representatives will meet on a monthly schedule, with some meetings, perhaps on a quarterly basis as required by the EO, of the principal members, including Secretary Mineta as chair. The next meeting is scheduled for March 4, 2003 at 2:00-3:30 pm at DOT, Room 4200.

   Fred Skaer, FHWA, presented a brief summary of the seven priority projects, highlighting why the projects were selected, project issues and the major federal agencies involved.

   1. CETAP, Riverside County CA: An innovative model on the integration of land use, habitat conservation and transportation planning using the NEPA process. Key agencies include FHWA, EPA, DOI/FWS, DOD/USACE.
   2. Ohio River Bridges, Kentucky-Indiana: A mega-funded project for the construction of 1-2 new bridges. Issue concerned historic preservation, with an agreement close to final. Key agencies are FHWA and ACHP.
   3. Stillwater Bridge, Minnesota-Wisconsin: An older project that needed high-level attention. Issues include wild and scenic rivers and historic preservation. Agencies are FHWA, ACHP and DOI/NPS.
   4. I-93, New Hampshire: An Environmental Streamlining Pilot that illustrates partnering techniques. Issue is indirect and cumulative effects and the key agencies are FHWA, EPA, DOD/USACE, DOI/FWS.
   5. Philadelphia Airport, PA: Project early in development so opportunity for "preventive" opportunities. Potential issues and agencies include FAA, DOD/USACE, EPA, DOC/NMFS, DOI/FWS.
   6. I-69 Corridor, Texas: Part of new proposed "borders-to-borders" interstate highway. It will be a highly complex process with different policy interpretations, but there are environmental stewardship opportunities. Agencies include FHWA, EPA, DOD/USACE, DOI/FWS.
   7. Chittenden Circumferential Highway, VT: Project issues surrounding indirect and cumulative effects arose late in the FHWA process. EPA is a key agency.

   The Task Force heard presentations on the three highlighted priority projects:

   1. CETAP, Riverside County CA: Joel Szabat presented the recent developments and agency agreements reached on the CETAP project. He thanked Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator of EPA Region 9, for his personal attention. The federal agencies agreed that one corridor would be selected at the end of the Tier 1 NEPA process and additional studies would be undertaken to fully incorporate watershed information into the EIS documents. The new schedule for the completion of the Record of Decision is February 2004 and federal agencies have looked for funding to help the county sponsor complete the expanded process.

   2. Stillwater Bridge, Minnesota-Wisconsin: Paul Hoffman, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, DOI, presented the status of the Stillwater bridge project. The major issue is the ultimate disposition of the existing historic bridge and whether it could be left in place until obsolete, then removed, or taken over for preservation by another, non-public entity. FHWA and DOI agreed that mitigation of effects would not include potential indirect effects of development in Wisconsin. A facilitator has been hired to help reach solutions. Major sticking points include new state administrations in both Wisconsin and Minnesota and the desire by some public groups to have more input in bridge design.

   3. Chittenden Circumferential Highway, VT: Anne Miller, Director of the Office of Federal Activities, EPA, gave a brief project history and discussed the issues surrounding the project. She noted that an EIS was done on the project in 1986 and construction of most of the highway is completed. FHWA had prepared an EA as part of a reevaluation of impact on the remaining project section. EPA expressed concerns over induced growth and other water resources impacts and has met with FHWA to resolve these issues; how to address impacts from induced growth is still a concern. Lessons learned include the desire for early coordination between the agencies in the determination of level of NEPA document, as it may be more efficient to prepare a targeted EIS than an EA. She also noted that the public has voiced concerns over the appearance that the federal agencies are reaching agreements without public input.

3. Discussion of how to effectively implement the goals and intent of the EO

   This discussion centered around the topics of agency level of involvement in the field and Headquarters for priority projects; mechanisms to "get out the message" to all appropriate staff; and ideas on content and focus of the Quarterly Interagency Task Force meeting and Annual Report to the President. Joel Szabat began the discussion by noting that departmental organization could make it difficult to keep field staff informed of the EO. He asked what other agencies had done in this effort.

   John Fowler, Executive Director, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, said the Council's website presented information on the EO and his field staff was informed. He also noted the importance of making sure efforts to reach the public is part of the message of the EO, especially the stewardship aspects, and suggested the Task Force publicize the successes, while recognizing the different opinions or perceptions of what constitutes a "success".

   Jennifer Dorn suggested highlighting progress made through lessons learned or collaborative processes. Communication to the public on the "good news" is key.

   Anne Miller said that EPA has informed its regional offices about the EO and she believes the field was aware of it and very interested in the implementation. EPA is curious about the details of how the priority project oversight process would work and asks that the Task Force be mindful of the limitations on human resources and travel funding available. The process needs to be efficient and not overburden staff.

   Joel Szabat acknowledged this concern and added that being selected as a priority project carries responsibilities for the project sponsor as well as the federal agencies. All involved had to be open to ways to expedite the process and that may include funding positions in resource agencies. It is important to communicate staff needs to the Task Force if that will be a stumbling block to project review.

   Cindy Burbank, Associate Administrator for the Office of Planning, Environment and Reality, FHWA, reported on a recent trip to attend an executive level environmental summit hosted by FWHA for the western states where she spoke on the EO. In her talk, she asked who had heard about the EO and was surprised about the show of hands (one person). Recognizing this information gap in its own agency, FHWA is preparing an information package to distribute to the field offices. These informal guidelines will emphasize expectations for the role of FHWA as the lead federal agency. As part of the package, FHWA prepared a generic "sample letter" on the EO and is sharing it with the Task Force (see hand-out) for customization. The Task Force agreed the letter was a good tool for informing field staff and an electronic version of the sample letter will be provided to the Task Force participants. FHWA will also provide copies of the FHWA information package to the Task Force when it is finalized.

   Joel Szabat introduced to the Task Force the concept of "Champions" as another mechanism in the implementation of the EO. DOT has assigned high management level, politically appointed staff to each priority project to lend support and momentum to the review process. He noted he was the Champion for the CETAP project and suggested other Task Force agencies consider a similar oversight arrangement when appropriate.

   The Task Force briefly discussed future goals and activities and Joel Szabat noted future meetings would also focus on stewardship and policies. John Fowler stated the initial reaction of the public and historic preservation community to the EO, including fears that the EO would "steamroll" environmental laws. It is important to ensure the EO stewardship directives are kept upfront and part of the public dialogue. Barbara Robinson, Deputy Administrator for Transportation and Marketing Programs, USDA, added the Task Force must convey sincerity and not become a lightning rod for outside lobbying or pressure.

4. Upcoming Issues and Open Discussion

   Fred Skaer updated the Task Force on a FHWA initiative to hold workshops on Alternative Dispute Resolution in each of the ten federal regions as summarized in a hand out to the agenda. The goal of the workshops is to promote environmental streamlining through training on collaborative problem solving for resource and transportation agencies. The workshops will be scheduled this year although the exact dates have not been set. Fred asked the Task Force agencies to promote attendance by both technical and management staff. FHWA will provide a schedule to the Task Force as soon as it is developed. Joel Szabat cautioned that the use of facilitators should not be used as a substitute for the federal agencies to try and resolve issues first.

   The Task Force briefly discussed ways to document its activities, including a systematic approach to document progress. Documentation will include the priority project status reports and Task Force recommendations for best practices, efficient policy and process changes. The Annual Report will capture these highlights and other activities related to the success of the EO.

5. Wrap-up

   Joel Szabat closed the meeting with a summary of agreed actions for the next meeting on March 4, 2-3:30, DOT, Room 4200, including information on additional selected priority projects. He asked Task Force members to please report back on agency activities to promote the message of the EO to their field staffs and to recommend topics of interest or detail discussion for future meetings.