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

March 4, 2003

Purpose: To brief Task Force Agencies on current developments for the priority projects, including an overview of projects selected February 27, 2002 and to discuss future direction and issues for the Task Force attention.

1. Introductions and Opening Remarks
   
   Mary Peters, FHWA Administrator welcomed the Task Force Members by speaking of the unique opportunities the Executive Order (EO) provided to the group. These meetings are opportunities for discussion on appropriate mitigation, to look at the big picture of creating "greenbelts" or environmental corridors, to undertake preservation of watersheds and ecosystems and to streamline processes.
   
   She acknowledged the selection by Secretary Mineta of six additional priority projects that will be discussed later in the meeting. She also updated the Task Force on the progress of the new transportation reauthorization bill. Agencies received the proposed bill on February 19 and comments on the bill are due soon, She asked the agencies to please talk with the Department if they had any questions in order to facilitate their review. 
   
   
2. Follow up from January 30, Meeting
   
   Mary Peters asked if the Task Force members would like the opportunity to review  "draft" minutes from the meetings prior to finalization.  The Task Force agreed that minutes could be prepared and transmitted to the members without review.
   
   The Task Force members reported on their field notification efforts.  J.P. Suarez, EPA, said that they have sent management briefs to the Administrator and a memoranda to the field offices. Paul Hoffman, DOI, spoke of establishing five national focus groups and a work group of field experts to look at consistency of project reviews and identify reasons for delays. DOI is also developing a national streamlining award within the department.  John Fowler, ACHP, reported on a new executive order on historic preservation that provided an opportunity for a dedicated policy staff that could look for streamlining opportunities. Jim Walpole, DOC-NOAA, said that NOAA is including the topic of environmental streamlining in its internal monthly call with senior staff whereby the EO and priority projects will be a standing item on the agenda.
   
   Chip Smith, DOD-USACE, reported that the USACE has established a website on the EO which can be cross-linked to the DOT site.  The agency also sent a memo to the field and will now track priority projects in their bi-weekly calls with field staff.  Jim Caron, USDA, said his agency works closely with the state departments of transportation on all issues and Dinah Bear, CEQ, noted that CEQ supports the efforts of the Task Force.
   
   Fred Skaer, FHWA, reported that the DOT modal administrations have been tracking progress on the existing priority projects and have spoken with the field management for the newly selected projects. He noted the handout on the DOT champions for each of the thirteen priority projects and upcoming meetings. FHWA will be sending further guidance to its division offices that will ask them to form interagency team on priority projects.  FHWA also posts agreements across the nation on its environmental streamlining website and is working with AASHTO's Center for Environmental Excellence to promote best practices in stewardship.  
   
   Mary Peters acknowledged the hard-working individuals in the field from all agencies who have put in "extra effort" on transportation projects. Specifically mentioned were: Rosemary Monahan, EPA Region 1, for her efforts on I-93, NH;  Dominique Lueckenhoff, EPA Region 6, for I-69, TX; Heinz Mueller, EPA Region 4,  and Laura Dean, ACHP, for their efforts on the Louisville Bridges, KY-IN; and Brooks Carter, USACE, for Legacy Parkway, UT, which is on the EO project register.
   
   Pam Stephenson, FHWA, updated the Task Force on the FHWA sponsored Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) workshops planned for the upcoming year as reported at the January 30 meeting.  She referred the Task Force to the ADR handout which contained (1) a revised concept paper describing the purpose of the workshop and targeted participants; (2) a tentative schedule of dates for each region; and (3) a letter by FHWA to be sent to each division office.  She asked each agency to promote attendance by its field staff and noted that an electronic copy of the handout will be sent with the minutes to make it easier to disseminate the information.  She also asked that FHWA be copied on correspondence so the designated FHWA field contacts could follow-up with agency staff in order to gauge attendance.
   
   Joel Szabat, DOT, introduced the delegation from Riverside County who had requested the opportunity to provide a brief presentation on status of the CETAP priority project.  Joel noted that this presentation provided context and real life experience to the process for the Task Force.  Riverside County Supervisor, John Tavaglione, thanked the Task Force and said Riverside County was pleased to be selected as a priority project because the county is rapidly growing and needs to be prepared to meet the future transportation needs. To this end, it has taken a proactive vision of integrating land use planning, transportation planning and habitat conservation. Cathy Bechtel, Riverside County Transportation Commission staff, then presented the county's perspective on the CETAP process and working with the federal agencies on this new approach to transportation planning. (See handout of slides.)  For lessons learned, she pointed out that there needs to be support from top management of agencies for field staff to feel comfortable in taking new approaches and "doing business differently". It is also critical that there is high level participation in the discussions so that policy decisions can be made at key points in the decision-making process. Finally, she noted that agencies may need to rethink policy and guidance on how to do a "tier 1" document under NEPA that meets the data level  requirements of other regulations, such as Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Riverside County has spent more time and effort to fulfill these data requirements than anticipated and would reconsider following a similar approach in the analysis of future transportation corridors.
   
   
3. Status report on selected Priority Projects
   
   Mary Peters briefly recapped the selection process for nominated projects, noting that the nominations went through a rigorous analysis prior to selection as priority projects. She asked each DOT modal representative to give a brief presentation on the newly selected priority project.
   
   Benito DeLeon, FAA, presented information on the Los Angeles Airport improvement priority project and noted it was an important cog in the national aviation system. The proposed project concerns new infrastructure in runways and multi-modal connections to the interstate and metro transit systems. A DEIS was issued in 2001.  FAA is now studying a new proposal and runway configuration and hope to issue a supplemental DEIS in Spring 2003.  This is an aggressive schedule and the project would benefit from the oversight and support of the EO Task Force.
   
   Jenna Dorn, FTA, made the presentation on the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects (LMRPs) to rebuild, replace or enhance the transit system damaged by the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center.  Administrator Dorn described the initial projects ready for development:  the Lower Manhattan Transit Complex (which includes the PATH Terminal at the World Trade Center site, with connections to the Fulton Street Transit Center) and the South Ferry Subway Terminal.  She pointed out the commitments made by President Bush to New York City and by Congress as demonstrated in the appropriated $4.5 billion dollars to be administered by FTA.  The EO priority project designation will help avoid delays in the recovery efforts that are urgently needed. She recognized that there will be complex environmental and project management issues, but FTA has taken a proactive role as lead agency in identifying problems and solutions. She requested that the resource agencies work with FTA in a positive response and noted that this collaboration had already begun with the signing of the July 2002 MOU with EPA, USACE, FWS, and NMFS to coordinate and expedite environmental reviews.  Other actions initiated by FTA include: internal communication improvements through project-specific oversight plans; creating a new field unit, the Lower Manhattan Recovery Office (LMRO), to manage the recovery effort; assigning a single point of contact in the LMRO for administering grants, and providing an environmental consultant to assist each proposed project.      
   
   Fred Skaer summarized the four highway projects selected on February 27, beginning with the TransAmerica Corridor (future I-66) in Kentucky.  The project will promote economic development and is highly supported by the state.  Issues include coordination with the US Forest Service (USDA) as it will impact the Daniel Boone National Forest and there are opportunities to look at context sensitive solutions. The NOI was published in 2002 so the proposed project will benefit from early Task Force oversight.  The Intercounty Connector, in Maryland, closes an eighteen-mile gap between I-270 and I-95. It is a highly controversial project with a long history of delays. Environmental impacts include wetlands, parklands, historic properties and communities. It will be an expensive undertaking and will require FHWA oversight as a "mega-project".  US 93, in Montana, consists of multiple projects along a 280-mile corridor in different phases of development and environmental review. It has involvement with tribes and tribal lands and has received recognition for context sensitive design. Its selection as a priority project will help in the implementation and follow through of commitments.  The last project summarized was I-80 Improvements in Nebraska.  The project proposes to upgrade 35 miles of the existing interstate. The primary issue is how to address indirect and cumulative impacts for compliance with ESA data requirements.
   
   Joel Szabat briefly reviewed the status of four of the initial seven priority projects.  He began the review by noting the positive movement made on the CETAP project in working out funding constraints and level of detail needed in the analyses. Although the County would like to work with the agencies to further eliminate some alternatives from additional studies, the RODs for the two corridor documents are currently on schedule for August 2003 (north-south) and February 2004 (east-west). The Louisville Bridges priority project Section 106 MOA still needs work based on an issue recently raised by the ACHP, but DOT believes it can be resolved and the project remains on track for a ROD later this summer.  The additional analyses requested in the Chittenden County Circumferential Highway project is nearing completion and it is anticipated that the question of whether to issue an FONSI or supplemental EIS will be answered in the May 2003 timeframe.  The last project reviewed was the I-69 priority project and Joel noted the differences in policy interpretations for off-site borrow/waste/staging areas ("project specific locations" PSL) between FHWA, USACE and USFWS.  These differences may require direction from the agencies program offices and could be an appropriate issue to be examined by the Task Force.     
   
   Fred Skaer explained the two reports provided as handouts to the Task Force. One is the full status report that contains a summary of the projects, including charts, the updated information on the seven initially seven priority projects and the nomination forms for the six recently selected projects. The second report is the executive summary and includes the summary of the projects and charts. He especially pointed out Figure 2. Dashboard of Major Issues for Executive Order Priority Projects and the color-coding used to highlight areas of concern for the Task Force.  Future discussions of priority projects will focus on these main areas of concern and note accomplishments.
   
   
4. Discussion of future issues and direction
   
   Mary Peters began the discussion by noting the EO directed the Task Force to identify broader issues of environmental streamlining and stewardship that will help promote process efficiencies. She noted the issues could be very specific to a particular agency or of wide-range interest, such as indirect and cumulative effects.   She also said that future Task Force meetings will focus more on policy topics and she asked agencies to prioritize topics of interest.
   
   Fred Skaer stated that, from FHWA's perspective, the four legal areas for procedural improvements and discussion by the Task Force are: the Endangered Species Act (FWS-DOI, NOAA-DOC), Section 404, Clean Water Act (USACE-DOD, EPA, FWS-DOI), Section 106, National Historic Preservation Act (ACHP, NPS-DOI) and Section 4(f), DOT Act (DOT, DOI).  Dinah Bear indicated that the report from the CEQ NEPA Task Force is nearing completion and should provide topics for consideration by the Task Force. One such topic could be the application of tiering in the NEPA process. 
   
   Ben Tuggle, FWS, suggested the Task Force examine how to improve early coordination in the transportation planning process within the existing regulatory framework and Susan Absher, EPA, suggested that her agency would like to have a better understanding of how state departments of transportation prioritize projects.
   
   The Task Force agreed that the first topic of discussion would be the Endangered Species Act. DOI, with input from FWS and NOAA, will make the presentation to the group.
   
   
5. Wrap-up
   
   The next meeting of the Task Force is scheduled for April 17 at 2:00 p.m. - 3:30 PM at DOT.  Mary Peters requested the agencies send her their list of prioritized topics for future discussions by the Task Force prior to the meeting.
   
   The following meeting is tentatively scheduled for the week of May 19-23 and may be chaired by DOT Secretary Mineta.  Joel Szabat asked agency representatives to coordinate with the designated Task Force member on availability for that week.