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

2:30 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.

October 30, 2003

Call to Order: 2:35 p.m.

Chair: Mary Peters, Administrator-Federal Highway Administration

I. Introductions and Opening Remarks

Mary Peters, FHWA Administrator, called the meeting to order and thanked the Task Force members for their participation in the September 23 Task Force Recognition Event where four priority projects were recognized for success in completing the environmental review process. She welcomed John Nau, Chairman of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and thanked all of the Task Force representatives for their continued commitment to implementing the Executive Order. She indicated that the Task Force has been successful not only for its accomplishments but also for allowing everyone involved to get to know each other and to build good relationships among agencies.

Mary Peters drew attention to the DOT Order (DOT 5611.1A, issued on October 10, 2003) on National Procedures for Elevating Highway and Transit Environmental Disputes. She then introduced Tyler Duvall, who replaced Joel Szabat as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy. Each of the meeting participants then introduced themselves for the benefit of Mr. Duvall.

II. Status of Priority Projects

Mary Peters provided an update on the New Hampshire I-93 project. She indicated that significant progress has been made on the project. The purpose of the project is to improve safety and transportation efficiency by widening a 19-mile stretch of Interstate 93 and reconstructing interchanges between Salem and Manchester. Improved bus service will also be provided along with park and ride lots. Mary Peters described the mitigation and enhancement package that was agreed to for the project, which includes wetland creation, enhancement, and preservation; a grant to purchase property rights to aid in the protection and long-term viability of Massabesic Lake; and a technical planning assistance program to aid the corridor communities in making appropriate land use choices to address concerns about secondary growth. She explained that the only outstanding issue relates to increased road salt runoff resulting from the road widening. This is the same issue as with the CCCH project, and they may look at conducting a regional study on road salting and runoff like the one for the CCCH project in Vermont. A water quality monitoring study is being done, and the hope is that the final EIS and ROD will be issued this winter.

Mary Peters then explained the plan for reopening the priority project nomination process. DOT is working to notify Governors, MPOs, and other stakeholders that new priority projects will be selected and nominations are due on December 1. The selection process will be similar to that used for the first group of projects. The same criteria will also be used. The new list hopefully will be announced in February 2004. A question was raised about whether or not DOT will consult with the agencies during the selection process, and Mary Peters responded that agencies will be consulted and that the agency feedback was helpful in the last round of selections. She noted that DOT does not have a prescribed number of projects that will be selected. The number selected will depend on the number of good projects submitted.

III. Report to the President

Tyler Duvall introduced himself and provided an overview on the schedule for developing the Report to the President, which is required under the Executive Order. He highlighted that there is an aggressive calendar for completion of the report and noted that DOT's contractor, ICF Consulting, has worked hard to put together a draft of the report based on input from all of the agencies. The Task Force members will need to focus on reviewing the draft, which will be distributed to the Task Force on November 7, 2003 and provide comments by November 17, 2003.

Mike Zatz of ICF Consulting provided an overview of the content of the draft Report to the President. He explained that the report provides information to address the requirements of the Executive Order, and includes information on the status and findings of the priority projects, agency activities to support environmental stewardship and streamlining, and priority issues identified by the Task Force. The draft report will not yet include photos, graphics, or final formatting, which will be incorporated into the second draft of the report.

Mike Zatz reviewed the outline for the report, and provided information on each section of the report: Executive Summary, Introduction, Background, Accomplishments, Next Steps, and Appendices. The section on Accomplishments is the largest section of the report and includes information on the status of the priority projects and lessons learned, agency stewardship and streamlining initiatives, and priority issues that are the focus of the Work Groups. In the section on the priority projects, he noted that there is a discussion of "Lessons Learned / Recommendations," which was developed from interviews conducted by ICF Consulting with 23 individuals representing project sponsors, DOT champions, FHWA division offices, and key resource agencies for the four projects that have completed the environmental review process. He highlighted a few of the key recommendations, which included bringing all involved agencies together for face-to-face meetings early in the project, engaging a neutral facilitator in the discussion, and developing a formal process for elevating issues to senior management when needed.

Mike Zatz concluded by highlighting issues for the Task Force to consider in commenting on the draft Report. Members should pay particular attention to the sections on lessons learned from the four completed priority projects, since this is new information synthesized from interviews, and the agency initiative write-ups, to ensure they reflect activities that were undertaken in response to or in support of the Executive Order. The Task Force should also consider the report length and whether anything could be shortened or cut, since the draft report once format will reach approximately 70 pages, including the Work Groups' work plans as appendices.

In the discussion that followed this presentation, it was stressed that the presentation of lessons learned/recommendations in the report needs to be carefully considered so that this section is not misrepresented as comprehensive Task Force recommendations, since it actually reflects only lessons learned by participants in the expedited review process for four priority projects. It was pointed out that when it is said that a process should be developed for elevating issues, this does not necessarily mean a formal federal process. Also, one of the recommendations related to the idea that expediting the review process requires staff resources that may be lacking, and so arrangements to help fund resource agency staff would be helpful. However, it was pointed out that by making the process more efficient, fewer resources may be needed in the long-term, resulting in this being an issue of short-term workload.

IV. Working Group Reports on Work Plans

Pam Stephenson, FHWA, gave a summary of the recommendations included in the Purpose and Need Work Group's work plan. The Work Group initially had eight recommendations, which they prioritized. The group agreed that the first priority would be to develop a baseline of information through a review of relevant laws and regulations related to Purpose and Need and identification of impediments as well as successful approaches. It was agreed that a review of existing training modules on purpose and need and alternatives development should be conducted concurrently to identify opportunities for adoption/modification. The other recommendations then follow from these activities.

Carol Adkins, FHWA, gave a summary of the changes made to the Integrated Planning Work Group work plan as a result of comments received from a number of agencies. On the first page, they added a paragraph acknowledging the authority of state and local governments with respect to planning decisions. In response to input from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Work Group included information on planning for aviation projects and added definitions that relate to airport development and master plans. They also developed a graphic showing the surface transportation planning process and the aviation planning process. The Work Group would also like to map out land use and resource planning. Several clarifications were also made to the recommendations section of the work plan. The Work Group has not yet completed prioritization of the recommendations, but some of the recommendations focus on developing baseline information, which may wind up being selected as first priority. The Work Group will hold a meeting on Monday, November 3, 2003, and will submit recommendations on November 4, 2003.

Lamar Smith, FHWA, presented changes that were made to the Work Group work plan on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. The Work Group received very few substantive comments on the body of the report, so few changes were made to this section. Most comments dealt with recommendations and the need to clarify them. As a result, the Work Group clarified and revised some of the recommendations. They also suggested moving one of the recommendations over to the "Integrated Planning" Work Group and suggest that a separate Work Group be established to address the issues of appropriate NEPA consideration and review for contractor-selected waste and borrow sites (or PSLs), since this is beyond the scope of this Work Group. Lamar Smith reviewed the recommendations of the Work Group, which include: development of a coordination model; identification and evaluation of existing methodologies for indirect and cumulative impact assessment; clarification of specific mitigation requirements; development of resources to improve understanding of inter-relationships between transportation projects and land use change; compiling and making available all existing guidance documents addressing indirect and cumulative impacts; and examining existing training opportunities across the agencies. Lamar Smith noted that the recommendations have not yet been prioritized, but they would work on prioritization.

Mary Peters complimented the work groups on their progress to date, and noted two common features of the work group's recommendations: understanding the lay of the land and identification of best practices. She asked the Work Groups to also look for efficiency improvements and examine ways to streamline the process within each of these issue areas. She noted that this effort might be the first time that these important issues are being examined on an interagency basis.

V. Wrap-up

Mary Peters closed the meeting by reiterating the guidelines for submitting comments on the Draft Report to the President and noted the time frame for submitting comments. She briefly reviewed the agenda for the next meeting of the Task Force, which is scheduled for December 4, 2003.

Meeting adjourned at 3:55 p.m.