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

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

March 24, 2004

Call to Order: 2:06 PM

Chair: Mary Peters, FHWA Administrator

I. Introduction and Opening Remarks

Administrator Peters opened the meeting by thanking everyone for attending and for remaining involved in the work of the Task Force and the three Priority Issue Work Groups. She informed the Task Force that the New Hampshire I-93 project, one of the nine remaining projects on the Priority Project list, is likely to complete the environmental review process in the near future, with a Final EIS anticipated in April 2004 and a ROD anticipated in June 2004. Administrator Peters thanked the agencies involved for their hard work on the project and urged these agencies to maintain this commitment to bring the environmental review of the project to completion.

II. Annual Report to the President and Selection of New Priority Projects

Tyler Duvall, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, informed the Task Force that the first annual Report to the President is virtually complete, and is currently awaiting signature by the Secretary of Transportation. He explained that after signature by Secretary Mineta, the report will be delivered to CEQ for transmittal to the President.

Mr. Duvall then updated the Task Force on the status of the selection of projects to be added to the Priority Project List. He noted that there are currently 52 projects on the Project Register, and recommendations for new Priority Projects have been forwarded to the Secretary of Transportation for consideration. Mr. Duvall indicated that there are likely to be six projects added to the Priority Project list, including airport and highway projects.

III. Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects

Jennifer Dorn, FTA Administrator, introduced the presentation on the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects. Administrator Dorn stressed the importance of these projects and noted that 80% of travel in New York City takes place on public transportation, with about 7 million transit riders per day. She went on to explain that FTA views these projects as a critical testbed for new ways in which to incorporate environmental stewardship into transit projects.

Administrator Dorn introduced the visitors who provided updates on the status of the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects: Bernard Cohen, Director of FTA’s Lower Manhattan Recovery Office; Susan E. Schruth, Former Director of FTA’s Lower Manhattan Recovery Office; David Carlson, EPA Region 3; Tony Cracchiolo, Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PATH), Director, Priority Capital Programs; William Wheeler, Director of Special Projects and Planning, Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA); Mysore L. Nagaraja, President of the MTA Capital Construction Company; and Chris Bastion, MTA.

Slides that were used in their presentations can be found in the attached handouts, which were distributed to all meeting participants.

Bernard Cohen delivered a presentation that provided an overview of the context for the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects and highlighted the innovative approaches that FTA and other agencies took to expedite project review and uphold environmental responsibilities. David Carlson, EPA, explained the importance of cumulative impact analysis, given the large number of simultaneous projects, and the proactive approach taken by FTA and EPA to develop an area-wide cumulative impacts analysis approach for all of the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects. He highlighted how important this approach was in expediting the environmental reviews. Mr. Cohen continued the presentation by explaining the development of the Environmental Analysis Framework used to ensure consistency in analysis, continuity for agency reviews, and public understanding. He also explained the use of Environmental Performance Commitments that define the commitments of participating agencies in order to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts, especially during construction.

Tony Cracchiolo, PATH, gave a presentation focusing on the WTC PATH Terminal. He provided an overview of the project, including a description of the systems lost on 9/11 and the plan developed and implemented by PATH to restore service and to ultimately construct a greatly improved permanent facility.

Mysore Nagaraja, MTA Capital Construction Company, gave a presentation focusing on the Fulton Street Transit Center and South Ferry Station. He explained that nearly 1 million customers were impacted by the damage caused to the Subway 1 and 9 lines from the 9/11 attacks. He then introduced Chris Bastion, MTA, who presented the goals of the MTA reconstruction efforts that resulted in the Fulton Street Transit Center and South Ferry Terminal Projects. Concerning the Fulton Street Transit Center, Mr. Bastion summarized the project need and specific project elements to address needs, particularly in regard to improving access and visibility of stations. He also highlighted environmental issues, particularly potential impacts on historic resources, and lessons. One lesson coming out of the process was that reaching agreement on hot issues early in the review process engenders a more cooperative relationship and results in a faster review process. He also noted that routine, daily communications among key project partners were a key to streamlining and expediting the environmental review process. Finally, Mr. Bastion described another lesson learned, which was to look for innovations, such as considering that certain parts of a project might be eligible for a Categorical Exclusion, allowing them to be initiated sooner.

Mr. Bastion continued by presenting the current conditions, needs, and planned project elements at the South Ferry Terminal. In addition, Mr. Bastion noted that NYC Transit is the first public agency in the US to be ISO 14001 certified, and this may have made the environmental community more comfortable in dealing with the agency during planning.

Mr. Nagaraja briefly described coordination with the contractors that will complete the construction while minimizing environmental impacts during construction. He explained that this coordination included efforts to manage transporting about 1,000 construction workers to the site and training of workers in environmental performance issues.

Mr. Bastion closed the presentation on the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects by again highlighting lessons learned from the projects that are broadly applicable.

Administrator Dorn congratulated the presenters and their organizations on their dedication to problem solving. She then summarized by presenting four key factors that have contributed to the success thus far on the Lower Manhattan Transportation Recovery Projects: 1) an early and proactive focus on challenges – not backing away from difficult issues; 2) written interagency agreements that called for up front discussion of issues and early review of documents, which allowed for development of creative solutions; 3) a continuous risk management focus, including environmental risk; and 4) highly committed FTA and local staff.

Emil Frankel, DOT, noted that this is a unique project, but that it still is yielding very valuable lessons that can be applied to streamline other projects.

Tyler Duvall asked about the role of security issues for the Lower Manhattan Transit Recovery Projects and experiences dealing with security agencies. Chris Bastion and Mysor Nagaraja noted the importance of building transit security considerations into the transit projects, and that the transit industry has evolved rapidly in regard to security in transit planning. They also responded that they have had good dealings with security agencies. A participant noted that a “Threat and Vulnerability Assessment” must be done for each of the projects, and that this is an effort separate from the environmental review.

Administrator Peters thanked the presenters for an outstanding presentation.

IV. Work Group Priority Activities

Fred Skaer, FHWA, reminded Task Force members of the need to identify the priority activities on which the Work Groups could initiate efforts. He drew attention to the recommended activities described in the first annual Report to the President, which he stated would create expectations about what the Task Force and the Work Groups might do in the coming year. He indicated a desire to confirm that the Work Groups are on track and to identify any other issues that they should be addressing. He asked a representative from each Work Group to give a brief summary of their recent efforts and proposed activities.

Pam Stephenson, FHWA, summarized the priorities of the Purpose and Need Work Group. She highlighted four proposed activities to be undertaken in the next six months: 1) identifying differences in applicable laws; 2) refining options for improving coordination of NEPA purpose and need with other laws; 3) describing impediments and successful approaches to integration of applicable requirements; and 4) reviewing existing training materials to identify opportunities for adoption, modification, and use. She noted that activities would include not only a review of applicable laws and regulations, but also a review of how these have been implemented, and will include interviews with practitioners. She asked for Task Force acceptance of the Work Group’s proposed activities. Administrator Peters gave FHWA’s endorsement of this plan. No Task Force members raised objections.

Carol Adkins, FHWA, described that the Integrated Planning Work Group’s first priority is to develop a baseline of regulations, procedures, and training that can be used to educate all parties to inform their decisions on what can be accomplished in the area of integrated planning. The Work Group plans to look at planning processes by various types of agencies (land use, transportation, historic preservation, etc.) to identify ways to integrate processes. She also noted that the Work Group would like to work closely with the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group. She then indicated that the Work Group is proposing to generate not just reports, but practical tools that can be used in the field, and that the Work Group would like to package information so results are useful, identify stakeholder groups, and conduct outreach to inform others of how best to use these tools. The Task Force expressed agreement that the Work Group is moving in the right direction.

Lamar Smith, FHWA, noted that the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group had developed and ranked a number of activities in its work plan and these are in the Report to the President. These included: document and clarify mitigation requirements under individual regulations concerning indirect and cumulative impacts; collect data and analysis methods from existing guidance, training, and other documents; and examine development of a coordination model for projects. Administrator Peters noted that the presentation given on the Lower Manhattan Recovery Projects provided an excellent example of how coordination can be used to identify and address cumulative impacts.

Gary Mayer of the Department of Commerce, noted that his staff participating on two of the Work Groups raised the issue of limited staff resources for agencies to participate in interagency consultation and other activities that would help improve and expedite the environmental review process. He asked if others had concerns about this issue, and whether the Work Groups had planned to examine this issue. Several comments were made about the fact that over time, demands will only grow, and there is a need to take a more structural review of funding mechanisms, including the possibility of funding new positions, prioritization of activities, and the potential need for a new model for staffing offices to go with the new model of conducting the environmental review process, which is more proactive and requires early collaboration. Mr. Mayer suggested that the Integrated Planning Work Group might look at developing such a staffing model. Fred Skaer noted that the Integrated Planning Work Group recognized this issue in its work plan and plans to address it in its second 6-months.

The Department of Agriculture representative noted that the Integrated Planning Work Group faces a particular challenge because its scope is so broad, and that it is serving as a “catch-all” for things that don’t fit under the other groups.

Anne Miller, EPA, expressed general support for the priorities listed by the Work Groups.

No objections were expressed by Task Force members to Work Group priorities.

V. Wrap-Up

Administrator Peters concluded the meeting by presenting a tentative agenda for the next Task Force meeting, which will likely be in May. She noted that the following were anticipated agenda items:

Update on the selection of new priority projects
Update on the status of existing priority projects
Update on the status of the first annual Report to the President
Update from Work Groups on the status of implementation of activities
Discussion of staffing/resource issue raised during this meeting

She then thanked everyone for staying through a longer-than-usual meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 PM.