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

2:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m.

December 4, 2003

Call to Order: 2:05 PM

Chair: Emil Frankel, Asst. Secretary for Transportation

I. Introduction and Opening Remarks

Following a brief welcome and introductions, Mr. Frankel provided a brief overview of the agenda for the meeting, which included:

• A brief presentation by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects;
• A presentation by Mike Zatz of ICF Consulting on the progress made on the Report to the President;
• Open discussion of the goals for the Task Force in the coming year.

Mr. Frankel also noted the importance of evaluating and considering the lessons learned presented in the Draft Report to the President.

II. Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects

David Vozollo, FTA, provided a brief summary of the three projects that make up this priority project. He noted that a more detailed presentation on the projects and their status will be given in a future Task Force meeting. He also notified the group that he had been on-site in New York City on Dec. 3 at a joint event with the Governor of New York and the Mayor of New York City to announce the availability of initial funding to cover environmental and planning work for the PATH station construction that is part of this project. Mr. Vozollo also informed the Task Force that a group called the Coalition of Victims’ Families has submitted a nomination for the footprints of the World Trade Center buildings to be given National Historic Landmark status. In response, FTA has been coordinating with involved resource agencies as well as local project sponsors to investigate how the designation may be accommodated. He also noted that they are attempting to coordinate these efforts with those associated with Section 106 reviews being conducted for other projects in the area.

A question was raised concerning whether the NEPA process was triggered as a result of the nomination for National Historic Landmark designation. A clarification was offered by Mr. Vozollo, who indicated that the NEPA process was already underway prior to the nomination, as it was required even in the absence of the nomination.

III. Status of Priority Projects

Fred Skaer, FHWA, provided a brief explanation of the role of the Task Force in meeting the goals of the Executive Order. He explained that as four of the priority projects completed the environmental review process, they were moved off of the priority list. Mr. Skaer explained that on November 17, 2003, Secretary of Transportation Norman Y. Mineta sent a letter to Governors and other officials requesting nominations for additions to the priority project list. He noted that a team has been assembled within DOT to review the nominations and to apply criteria to screen these nominations and to provide recommendations to the Secretary. A small number of projects are to be added to the list of priority projects in an effort to keep the list manageable. Mr. Skaer informed the Task Force that nominations are due by December 15, 2003, field offices from agencies may be consulted in early January, and the Secretary is likely to announce new projects in February. Nominations received in 2002 during the selection of the first group of priority projects will also be eligible for consideration.

IV. Report to the President

Tyler Duvall, FHWA, explained that the Task Force is on-schedule for the completion of the Annual Report to the President, and explained the process for moving ahead to prepare the Final Report. He requested that, for planning purposes, each Task Force member inform DOT of the number of copies of the Final Report that it would like to receive.

Mr. Duvall introduced Mike Zatz of ICF Consulting to deliver a presentation on the progress made in preparing the Annual Report to the President. Color and black and white versions of the Final Review Draft were made available to Task Force members. Mr. Zatz began by pointing out that the colors in the report that appear purple are in fact blue, and that this will be corrected when the Final Report is printed by the Government Printing Office. The presentation highlighted the changes made to the report since the last Task Force meeting. Mr. Zatz indicated that comments submitted by Task Force members had largely been incorporated, but explained that some comments could not be incorporated due to structural formatting changes made to the report. Mr. Zatz noted that additional information had been sought on agency activities and priority projects and that after all information was incorporated, a technical editor reviewed and edited the report. Mr. Zatz then highlighted changes made to the report to reduce its length, with most reductions achieved by revising the description of Work Group activities in consultation with DOT representatives. Also, the full text of the Work Group work plans was removed from the appendices and will be placed onto the Executive Order website. Mr. Zatz explained that the following additions have been made to the report: a list of acronyms; “quotes” highlighting key statements from the body of the text; a summary and conclusions section; several graphics; references to laws and regulations; and formatting. Also highlighted were several changes made to the “lessons learned” section of the report. Mr. Zatz concluded by providing instructions for the submission of final comments, and also requested that high-resolution electronic copies of all agency logos be sent along with comments.

George Dunlop, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, commented that a key national goal is to develop multi-modal and integrated transportation systems, and asked why the use of intercoastal waterways was not addressed in the “Introduction and Background” section of the report. Mr. Dunlop asked if freight shipping via inland waterways could be added if he were to provide the necessary data. Mr. Zatz indicated that it would be possible to incorporate intercoastal waterways, and requested that Mr. Dunlop forward the data through DOT.

V. Discussion

After the conclusion of the presentation, Rick Capka, FHWA, introduced Dave Galt from Montana DOT and welcomed him to the meeting. Mr. Galt, who is involved in the US 93 Corridor Project in Montana, thanked the Task Force for allowing him and his colleagues to observe the meeting, and indicated that he was impressed by the accomplishments of the Task Force.

Mr. Frankel opened a discussion of the goals for the Task Force in the coming year by highlighting the work plans of the Priority Issue Work Groups. Mr. Skaer continued by explaining how some of the activities in the action plans were labor intensive but were expected to be relatively easy to complete (such as research, gathering of materials, etc.), while others would require high-level discussion among Task Force members and others. Mr. Skaer noted that these latter actions may require policy realignment, and that it might be effective for the Work Groups to develop options, bring them to the Task Force, and then hold discussions to determine the right time to bring the issue to the table for full Task Force consideration.

Mr. Frankel requested the representative from CEQ to comment on the goals of the Purpose and Need Work Group. Dinah Bear, CEQ, responded that initially CEQ felt the purpose and need statement requirement of NEPA was relatively clear, but learned that inconsistent interpretations at various agencies has resulted in different approaches to preparing the statements. She suggested that further guidance would be useful, particularly in the form of a series of model statements that integrate the needs of other laws as well as those of NEPA. Ms. Bear indicated that an important issue raised by the Work Group is how to integrate economic development goals into the purpose and need statement. Mr. Duvall asked how the new aviation bill might impact the implementation of the NEPA process, and Ms. Bear responded by indicating that CEQ hoped to avoid creating two parallel processes. Mary Peters, FHWA Administrator, commented that many purpose and need statements are lengthy, and recommended that the Task Force explore ways to encourage those preparing the statements to write them more succinctly and in simple language.

Mr. Dunlop explained that the Corps of Engineers follows a three-step screening process to considering Clean Water Act requirements in the issuance of a dredging permit. Preferably, the project must avoid adverse impacts on waterbodies. If impacts can't be avoided, the project must describe how they are being minimized. If impacts can't be minimized, the project must describe mitigation processes to be applied. He indicated that many projects don't include explanations of how impacts are being minimized and mitigated, and that most of these are projects relating to energy. Mr. Dunlop suggested that the Task Force coordinate with the White House Energy Office on this issue.

The Forest Service representative, Mr. Vaughn Stokes, informed the Task Force that on December 3, 2003, President Bush enacted the Healthy Forests Initiative, which will help to streamline the environmental review process for forestry projects. It aims to avoid inaction, and to keep the process moving forward by allowing actions to be taken to prevent harm to the economy or to citizens. Administrator Peters suggested that the Task Force consider how best to coordinate its efforts with others such as the Healthy Forests Initiative and the Executive Order on the “Preserve America Initiative.”

John Fowler from the ACHP noted that the upcoming reauthorization of TEA-21 presents an opportunity to apply lessons learned in the streamlining process to national transportation legislation. He suggested the role of the Task Force be to identify what needs changing, while the legislative role would be to determine how these changes would be accomplished.

Mr. Frankel noted that each of the priority projects has been assigned a DOT “champion,” and asked if it would be helpful for other agencies to designate champions for individual projects as well. Mr. Stokes from the Forest Service mentioned that MOUs with State DOTs have escalation provisions that have issues elevated when needed. He noted though that the Forest Service prefers decisions to be made in the field, because the individuals in the field are usually more aware of the issues associated with individual projects, and may be able to make better-informed decisions. Mr. Frankel asked if other agencies would be able to use a system similar to that used by the Forest Service. Paul Hoffman, FWS, agreed that solving problems at the field-level is preferable, but indicated that FWS headquarters staff are always available to get involved when needed. He further noted that FWS has a formal process in place to get headquarters staff involved in projects when needed. Mr. Frankel asked if there had been times during implementation of the priority projects when field staff were unable to identify the appropriate higher level people to get involved, and the response from the DOT champions present was that there had been no such problems.

Administrator Peters noted that she and Mr. Skaer met with NOAA fisheries staff earlier in the week about the EO and how FHWA would like to work more closely with them. She offered to participate in similar meetings with other agencies if there was interest.

Mr. Frankel asked if there was interest in having a Task Force meeting at a project site in the future, especially in light of the additional time needed and limited travel budgets. He noted that such a meeting might take place in New York City to see the site for the Lower Manhattan Recovery projects, and requested feedback. John Fowler, ACHP, suggested that holding a meeting in the field would provide the opportunity for a longer meeting that would allow the Task Force to consider one or more issues in greater depth than is possible during the Task Force’s normal 90-minute meetings. Concerns were expressed by some attendees about potential travel difficulties that might be caused by weather if such a trip were planned in the winter.

VI. Wrap-Up

Mr. Frankel informed the Task Force that the next meeting will be held in February 2004. He requested members to consider the goals of their agency and to bring to the next meeting a list three or four tasks that their agency would like to see the Task Force accomplish in the coming year. It was suggested that agencies should pay special attention to the lessons learned presented in the Report to the President and the activities proposed by the Work Groups.

Mary Peters described her vision for the Task Force in the next year, with a focus on intergrated planning, and also a focus on programmatic issues. She also suggested considering how to make things happen within the existing framework more concurrently rather than sequentially as a way to reduce resource use. She thanked everyone for their hard work over the past year, and noted that a lot has been accomplished, but there is stil much remaining to do.

Administrator Peters provided final comments, explaining her vision for the Task Force in the coming year. She noted that the Task Force has made good progress, but there is room for much more action. She suggested a focus should be put on integrated planning and on programmatic issues, as well as considering how to undertake work concurrently rather than sequentially under the existing environmental review process, in an effort to reduce resource use.

The meeting was adjourned at 3:25 PM.