EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Minutes of Meeting of Task Force Agency Representatives
Truman Room
White House Conference Center

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

June 10, 2005

Call to Order: 2:10 pm

Chair: Mary Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration

I. Introduction and Opening Remarks

FHWA Administrator Mary Peters called the meeting to order at 2:10 pm. She thanked the Task Force members for attending and made a few opening remarks. Regarding TEA-21 reauthorization, Administrator Peters noted that the Congressional conferees had met for the first time and that Secretary Mineta had sent a letter to the conferees reiterating the Administration's positions on the bill. She said that she hoped another short-term extension of FHWA and FTA programs would not be necessary.

Regarding the I-93 priority project in New Hampshire, Administrator Peters said that FHWA hopes to sign a Record of Decision in the near future. She said that the outstanding issue is road salt, and FHWA is working with EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to resolve this issue.

Administrator Peters also discussed a recent Gallup Survey of field staff. She thanked Ann Miller of EPA and Carlos Mendoza of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for their help on this effort.

Administrator Peters asked Ann Miller to discuss EPA's Green Highways Initiative. Ms. Miller said that the initiative is an effort of EPA's regional office in Philadelphia to showcase successful approaches to integrated planning, streamlining, stewardship, environmental management systems, and watershed protection. On June 2, 2005, a "Green Highways Charrette" was held in Philadelphia to explore Green Highway criteria and build consensus on a definition of a " Green Highway." In September, a forum will be held in College Park, MD, to showcase prime examples of stewardship and sustainability in transportation and to formulate components of a Green Highway Certification Program.

Garry Mayer of NOAA presented information on the Northwest Region's development of standard local operating procedures for Endangered Species (SLOPES) for conducting consultations between NOAA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on permit applications. SLOPES are procedures that have been co-developed by the two agencies as a consistent means of conducting Section 7 consultations under the Endangered Species Act.

Joe Burns of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spoke about the Oregon Bridge Replacement Program, an innovative environmental streamlining approach that is shortening the review process for the state's bridge replacement projects while enabling a statewide mitigation and conservation program.

II. Presentation on the St. Croix River Bridge Crossing (Stillwater Bridge) Priority Project

Michael O'Malley of the DOT's Office of the Secretary, the project champion for Stillwater Bridge project, Tom Bradley of the National Park Service, Don Gutkowski of Wisconsin DOT, Rick Arnebeck of Minnesota DOT, and Cheryl Martin of FHWA's Minnesota Division Office gave an update on the status of the Stillwater Bridge priority project. Mr. O'Malley thanked Laura Dean of the U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Paul Hoffman of the Interior Department for their efforts on this project.

Mr. O'Malley said that an agreement has been reached to build a new bridge and to retain the historic lift bridge for pedestrian and bicycle use. The state of Minnesota is pursuing funding to rehabilitate the lift bridge prior to its conversion to a bike/pedestrian facility. The state may be able to commit funds from a separate state program for historic bridges.

Mr. Bradley said that the Park Service sees the conversion of the lift bridge into a recreational resource as a type of mitigation for the new bridge. He added that new ideas for additional mitigation measures are still being suggested.

Mr. Gutkowski reminded the Task Force of how long the effort to replace the bridge has been going on. With regard to indirect impacts of the project, he said that this issue is "a whole new world for lots of folks." He said that some state DOTs are having trouble developing mitigation measures for the indirect impacts of projects. In some cases, the types of mitigation actions suggested by other stakeholders are already being done by the state DOT (e.g., planning assistance, corridor studies). In other cases, the state DOT is prohibited from undertaking suggested actions such as the purchase of large tracts of land for conservation purposes. For example, Mr. Gutkowski said that the Wisconsin DOT can only purchase land within a quarter-mile of a proposed corridor.

Mr. Arnebeck said that mitigation package identifies actions that could be taken by others to reduce the indirect impacts of the project (e.g., zoning, land-use planning, conservation easements). He said that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is submitting a watershed grant application to EPA for the monitoring of water quality changes in the area that is likely to be developed. This is an example of how other federal funding can be used to help with the mitigation of a transportation project.

Ms. Martin said that FHWA is preparing to circulate a draft cooperating agency operating agreement. She said that this document may include the draft Section 7(a) decision and other draft regulatory documents.

Administrator Peters asked for feedback from federal resource agencies.

George Dunlap of the Army Corps of Engineers asked whether a Section 404 permit has been requested. Mr. Arnebeck said that a permit application has not yet been submitted, but the Army Corps of Engineers has been involved in the facilitation process and the mitigation package has taken into account the concerns of the Corps.

Mr. Dunlap noted that some project sponsors don't understand that the Army Corps is required to look at multiple alternatives when considering the Section 404 permit application. He said that problems can arise when project sponsors settle on a project alternative before submitting a Section 404 permit application.

Mr. Dunlap asked about the intended benefits of the project. Mr. O'Malley said that the bridge will take traffic away from the historic town of Stillwater and will improve travel times. Mr. Arnebeck said that 80 percent of public comments are in favor of the project and that it has bipartisan support on both sides of the river.

Administrator Peters thanked the project participants for their presentation and asked the Task Force members to go back and talk to their staff who have been involved with the project.

Mr. Burns said that Mr. Hoffman appreciated the alternative dispute resolution process that was built into the facilitation process. Ms. Miller thanked the project team for their hard work and said she recognized the difficulty of the task they faced.

Mr. Arnebeck noted that it was helpful to know that if the facilitation process failed, the government agencies would attempt to achieve consensus without the non-governmental stakeholders, and that if the agencies failed to reach consensus, the project would move up to this Task Force. He said that this dynamic was helpful to keep the facilitation process going.

III. Next Steps for the Work Groups

A. Integrated Planning Work Group

Carol Adkins, the chair of the Integrated Planning Work Group, said that the group would like to spend the next four months making agency staff and non-governmental organizations aware of the Work Group's baseline report. She said that the Work Group realized that it needs to do outreach within each of the federal agencies. She said that in doing so, the Work Group members would learn of other activities in their agencies that are closely related to integrated planning.

Ms. Adkins said that the Work Group would like the Task Force's support in reaching out to the appropriate offices within each agency. She also asked the Task Force members to seek authorization for direct links from agency websites to the Work Group's baseline report. Mr. Dunlap suggested that the Work Group send an email to Task Force members with specific information regarding this request. Ms. Adkins agreed to do so.

For outreach efforts outside the federal government, the Work Group is compiling a list of stakeholders to contact and is thinking about the sensitivities of each of these stakeholders. The group is utilizing ICF Consulting to develop a set of Powerpoint slides that can be used to provide outreach on the Work Group's baseline report.

Ms. Miller asked whether the outreach effort will solicit comments on the report or is meant to publicize the findings of the Work Group. Ms. Adkins said that the Work Group is interested in soliciting feedback on the findings and recommendations in the baseline report. Ms. Miller noted that the E.O. 13274 web site that contains links to the three reports of the Work Groups does not clearly provide a way for people to comment on the reports.

Administrator Peters noted that the Task Force had considered holding field hearings or workshops. Given the modest attendance at the March 31 stakeholder workshop, she asked if field workshops would be a worthwhile undertaking. Ms. Miller said she was not sure that field workshops would be a worthwhile use of resources. Administrator Peters agreed and said that the Task Force should pursue other types of outreach.

Ms. Adkins then discussed the interagency handbook on habitat mitigation. She said a new draft is being developed and will be circulated for review. She asked the assistance of the Task Force in getting approvals for the handbook by October 1, 2005.

With regard to the handbook, Administrator Peters spoke about her experiences as the director of the Arizona DOT and the "postage stamp" mitigation measures that were undertaken. She said that there is a need for a more comprehensive look at habitat conservation.

Mr. Dunlap asked whether the habitat handbook would constitute formal guidance. Ted Boling of the Council on Environmental Quality said that the handbook would be a best practices guide and would show permissible activities.

The Task Force assented to the Integrated Planning Work Group's proposed outreach activities.

B. Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group

Ted Boling, co-chair of the Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI) Work Group, said that the group had received positive, informal feedback on its report and would like to proceed with several activities. First, the Work Group would like to do an intensive study of some of the priority projects to develop lessons learned. The Work Group would coordinate through the DOT project champions and would contact those involved in priority projects for which indirect and cumulative impacts had been an issue.

Second, the Work Group would like to develop more detailed national-level guidance on how to conduct and document the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts and determine appropriate mitigation. Third, the Work Group would like to conduct public outreach to make these materials available to state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, and federal agencies.

Administrator Peters asked for feedback on the ICI Work Group's proposed activities. Lamar Smith of FHWA, co-chair of the ICI Work Group, suggested that any future guidance should address how to put geographic or time-based boundaries on the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts.

Vaughn Stokes of the U.S. Forest Service said that many of the appeals on forest management plans relate to the analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts and that the Task Force should be concerned about setting precedents.

C. Purpose and Need Work Group

Pamela Stephenson, chair of the Purpose and Need Work Group, said the group's report is finished and was put up on the E.O. 13274 web site last week.

She said the Work Group has identified three outstanding issues in the baseline report:

How to craft a workable, concise purpose and need statement;
How to involve other agencies in development of a purpose and need statement; and
How to incorporate economic development as part of the purpose and need for a project.

Ms. Stephenson said that the Work Group would like to begin developing interagency guidance that would include case studies, informational needs for the development of concise and clear purpose and need statements, and policy clarifications on issues that have been identified as a source of interagency disagreement during project development. She noted that these recommendations in the baseline report are long-term and a proposal was sent to the Task Force as a read-ahead to develop targeted guidance on 1) integration of NEPA project purpose and need and Section 404 project purpose and 2) economic development considerations in purpose and need. This proposal for targeted guidance was reviewed by Work Group members prior to the meeting and some members expressed reservations about pulling out the Section 404 coordination from other interagency coordination as this differs from the recommendation in the Work Group's report.

Administrator Peters asked Task Force Members to go back to their agencies and talk to their staff on the Purpose and Need Work Group to decide on each agency's stance on this proposal. She said she would seek electronic approval of the work plan by June 20, the day before the Work Group's next meeting.

Ms. Miller suggested that the Work Group look at particular cases before developing guidance on the issue of purpose and need under NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Ms. Miller said that the process would benefit from a case-by-case understanding of when the problems with purpose and need have arisen. She suggested that the problem needs to be better defined before crafting a policy fix.

Mr. Dunlap said that he would like to see the Work Group clearly describe what the outstanding issues are that need to be resolved. He suggested that any policy issues would need to be decided by political appointees. He noted that one of the roles of the Council on Environmental Quality is to help reconcile policy disagreements among agencies.

Administrator Peters asked Ms. Stephenson to write the charge provided by the Task Force at the meeting so it would be sent out and approved electronically by all Task Force members. She asked the Purpose and Need Work Group to give an update at the next Task Force meeting, which will take place in September.

IV. Wrap-U