EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Minutes of Interagency Task Force Meeting

2:00pm – 3:30pm

July 11, 2007

I. Opening Remarks

Mary Peters, Secretary of Transportation, opened the meeting by expressing her thanks to the Task Force for its accomplishments. She also mentioned the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) congestion initiative, which is currently underway. Some of the projects selected as part of this initiative may also be designated as priority projects under Executive Order 13274.

Secretary Peters then discussed the St. Croix River Crossing at Stillwater, which was the topic of a recent meeting with the governor of Minnesota. This project went well, although since the environmental review was completed, the Sierra Club has filed a lawsuit. She also mentioned the publication of Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, a document that shows that integrated planning can be employed to develop transportation projects that complement the landscape rather than conflict with it.

The Secretary also noted that she has been very pleased with the implementation of the new planning regulations that were promulgated in accordance with SAFETEA-LU. She advised the group that DOT is gearing up for the next surface transportation reauthorization bill, which will begin with fiscal year 2009. In the meantime, three of the five states that are eligible to participate in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery Pilot Program have expressed interest, while Ohio and Texas have declined to participate. The Secretary recently signed off on the transfer of federal NEPA responsibilities to the California Department of Transportation, effective July 1, 2007.

Secretary Peters stated that DOT is in the final stages of making a decision on the 29 applications for the Urban Partnership Program and the 13 Corridors of the Future applications. It is commendable that many of the applications broke down jurisdictional and modal boundaries. Whichever applicants are chosen, the pilot projects will hopefully solve congestion issues and improve quality of life. Tyler Duvall, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, added that this work is focused on advancing projects that are critical to improving system performance and reducing congestion.

Another area of work mentioned by Secretary Peters was much-needed aviation reform.  She pointed out that the air traffic control system in place today is the same as when the Beatles landed in the United States 50 years ago.  She called the system safe but vastly inefficient, and said that it is causing many planes to sit idle on runways with their engines running.

Secretary Peters said that, in general, two national interests are currently at odds. On the one hand, there is a push to use less fuel for transportation, which the Secretary fully supports. On the other hand, the country is dependent on fuel taxes to fund surface transportation. If future reform is going to support energy security, a substitute funding source must be found.

In closing, Secretary Peters expressed her full support for the Task Force and thanked the members for their continuing participation.

II. FHWA Survey of Agency Streamlining Initiatives

Tyler Duvall, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, said that the next meeting of the Task Force will take place in September, when the members will review a list of the next round of priority projects.

Mr. Duvall then briefly reviewed current initiatives of the member agencies that are advancing the goals of Executive Order 13274:

• The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is preparing a Section 106 training course.
• The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing a Geographical Information System (GIS) to assist in the NEPA review process.
• The Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is conducting SAFETEA-LU outreach directed at project managers in an effort to improve inter-agency coordination in the field.
• The USDA Forest Service is providing consultation on threatened and endangered species issues.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is developing a strategic plan for ecosystem-based project planning.
• The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has published several assistance guides on issues such as categorical exclusions, the NEPA process, and environmental management systems (EMSs).

Mr. Duvall noted that the E.O. 13274 website should be employed to highlight the activities of the different agencies. In addition, the Secretary will be speaking with state governors and would like to highlight the priority projects in an effort to reshape the conversation about the nexus between environment and transportation infrastructure.

III. Update on Work Groups

Fred Skaer, Director, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provided an update on the three work groups established by the Task Force. Each group has completed a baseline report. More recently, the members of all three work groups have been focused on SAFETEA-LU implementation at their respective agencies. Carol Braegelmann (FHWA) is now chairing the Cumulative and Indirect Effects Work Group, while David Carlson (FHWA) is chairing the Purpose and Need Work Group.

Michael Culp (FHWA), the chair of the Integrated Planning Work Group, reviewed the recent accomplishments and updated priorities of the Integrated Planning Work Group. The work group’s proposed priorities for the next two years are as follows:

• Tiering, Corridor, and Sub-Area Studies: Survey the state of practice (with cooperation of the other Task Force work groups). This would look carefully at the “bridging” documents between planning and NEPA and develop principles to make these documents more effective. This project would especially entail cooperation with the other two work groups.
• Eco-logical Principles: Outreach and training with resource agency and transportation staff in the field to help explain how to implement the process outlined in the Eco-Logical guide.
• Pilot Projects: Track and advise projects that are selected under the USDOT grant program. This would be an informal process.
• New Planning Regulations:  Outreach and training for integration of the environment into the transportation planning process before the NEPA process begins.

Thomas Bigford of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) asked for an example of the connection that is to be made between the Integrated Planning Work Group and the Cumulative Impacts Work Group. Mr. Skaer explained that integrated planning uncovers factors that are important to society, which, in turn, can indicate what will be important for cumulative impacts analysis later on in the process.

Mr. Skaer added that it is important to mitigate issues, but also to invest in the important issues. In addition, it is necessary to bring resources from multiple agencies to the table to supplement transportation dollars.

Paul Hoffman of the Department of Interior (DOI) noted that the Cumulative Impacts and Purpose and Need Work Groups have not been active for some time. He inquired about the future of these work groups. Dinah Bear (CEQ) said that the duties of the Purpose and Need Work Group are completed, as the group found few legal conflicts between agencies. Instead, the real focus on purpose and need should be during the implementation phase. It is necessary to make sure that people in the field understand the current guidance.

There was some disagreement about whether there are outstanding issues in the area of purpose and need for transportation projects. Mr. Skaer raised concerns about the interpretation of purpose and need under NEPA versus project purpose under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Ms. Bear noted that although there is not a conflict from a legal perspective, interpretation in the field can be an issue. In part, this is related to the various perceptions and cultures of the different agencies.

Mr. Duvall noted that although not many calls come into the CEQ about purpose and need, it still appears to be a problem on a project-by-project basis. It was noted that issues were clarified in a letter exchange between USDOT and CEQ.  Jennifer Moyer (ACE) added that ACE has had problems with purpose and need under NEPA and project purpose under the Clean Water Act. She cited a need for specific case studies on this issue.

David Carlson (FHWA) mentioned that the Purpose and Need Work Group is using its remaining funds to survey states that have projects that are subject to the provisions of Section 6002 in an effort to identify purpose and need successes and failures.  The group agreed with this idea.

Mr. Skaer added that SAFETEA-LU does not require that NEPA and Section 404 purpose and need requirements be linked. He suggested that there could be an administrative decision to clarify the relationship between the two. He suggested that the Purpose and Need workgroup work with ACE and EPA to evaluate the challenges and opportunities  to match up the project purpose found in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act with NEPA purpose and need language.  Mr. Duvall noted that ACE, EPA, CEQ, and DOT should be involved in this discussion, with FWS and NOAA in an advisory role. Mr. Carlson added that this issue would be an additional task for the work group that would need to be identified and funded. He said that this issue could be addressed after completion of the report on the purpose and need efforts under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU.

Mr. Duvall said that he has been disappointed that the Task Force has not addressed uncomfortable subject matters, such as major interagency conflicts, in the past. Mr. Skaer noted that problems with purpose and need do not arise often, but when they do arise they can be quite large. Mr. Duvall said that projects with a large investment are often the ones with the most significant environmental problems.  

Carol Legard (ACHP) said that she would like to participate if there is more discussion and guidance on this issue of purpose and need. Mr. Skaer stated that the Cumulative and Indirect Effects Work Group would be invited to work collaboratively on the tiering, sub-area, and corridor studies outlined as part of the Integrated Planning Work Group’s two-year work plan.

IV. SAFETEA-LU Implementation

Mr. Skaer updated the group on the status of the SAFETEA-LU implementation. Individual states had until July 1, 2007, to transition to the new transportation planning requirements under Section 6001 of SAFETEA-LU. As a result, agency representatives have had meaningful conversations with each other about integration and information sharing. These changes will benefit individual agencies and society alike.  

Currently, California is the first and only state to assume responsibility for NEPA review as granted under Section 6005 of SAFETEA-LU. The state has excluded at least 20 projects from its purview due to national interest or project status. Mr. Skaer asked the task force to assist the California Department of Transportation in this transition.

In addition, the new Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU has been implemented. Mr. Skaer informed agency representatives that the process has been customized for highways, transit, and multimodal projects. Agencies will benefit from the increased certainty at different steps in the process in return for improving their collaborative processes. Agencies will be expected to engage and participate early in the process and throughout project development. Mr. Skaer expressed the hope that having agencies coordinate early would eliminate the "late-hits" that sometimes happen, and that agency concerns and questions should be raised at the appropriate points in the process. It is important that agencies raise awareness of these new processes to representatives in the field. Many of these agency-specific outreach efforts will be web-based. In addition, it may be necessary to complete some policy verification and interpretation efforts through the Task Force.

Carol Legard, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), expressed concern that the information available at the beginning of the transportation planning process may not be sufficient for resource agencies to know whether their involvement is necessary. In particular, State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) have consistently requested more information to make their decisions.  Mr. Skaer said that a conversation should be had early in the planning process to determine what information is missing. Mr. Duvall suggested that it may be appropriate to institute a uniform overarching policy-level agreement addressing the need for a reasonable level of information during different stages of the planning process.  Paul Hoffman (DOI) added that it would be helpful for FWS to have the same early information. In particular, it would be beneficial to prescribe the minimum amount of information necessary at certain stages, which will help determine whether supplemental studies are necessary early in the process. Mr. Duvall suggested that the group choose a few states as pilots for early commenting periods.

Mr. Skaer inquired about the coordination plan required for NEPA reviews under Section 6002 of SAFETEA-LU. Currently, 60 projects that fall under Section 6002 are being monitored for their compliance with the law. This monitoring will help determine problems and best practices for coordination plans. Mr. Duvall suggested that the group identify a subset of these 60 projects to demonstrate concepts such as the rapid assessment process. Also, it may be helpful to bring project managers before the Task Force to speak about their lessons learned.

Joe Burns (FWS) mentioned that TRB currently has several projects underway on implementation of Section 6001 of SAFETEA-LU. Anne Miller (EPA) suggested that a demonstration project may be helpful in this case as well. Marlys Osterhues (FHWA) noted that the Green Highways project highlighted in the Report to President would be helpful for identifying state-level issues.

Mr. Duvall inquired about how much of the time delay during environmental impact studies is due to public controversy. In response, Mr. Skaer said that comments are often made late in the process in an effort delay project construction. He advised that a better scoping process prior to beginning an EIS would be extremely beneficial. Mr. Duvall suggested that it may be valuable to analyze the time drivers involved in project delay. Paul Hoffman added that a cultural change is necessary to reduce time delays. There was some discussion on the benefits of doing a cost-benefit analysis of projects, and whether this helps with the review process.  

Joe Burns (FWS) mentioned the Strategic Habitat Conservation policy, which is a new concept for the FWS and is being driven by a new director. This effort is now being stepped down to the local level to do regional plans.

V. Update on the Congestion Initiative

Mr. Duvall outlined the DOT Congestion Initiative. Currently, there is a large focus on streamlining transportation projects in urban areas through the Urban Partnership Agreements. These projects feature initiatives on congestion pricing, peak period flow, commuter transit services technology, and flex scheduling and telecommuting. Currently, the nine projects in contention for an Urban Partnership Agreement are found in metropolitan areas that together comprise 35 percent of the congestion in the United States. The current short list includes New York City, Seattle, San Francisco, Miami, Denver, Dallas, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Atlanta, and San Diego. The final short list will have only five projects. None of these projects should require the attention of the Task Force. However, the information on the project can be found at www.fightgridlocknow.gov.

The Corridors of the Future Project will, however, require attention from the Task Force. Approximately three to five interstate corridors will be identified for involvement in the program. Financial and environmental issues have been the two road blocks for interstate transportation projects in the past. The financial issues for large projects are generally being solved through public-private partnerships. On the environmental side, all of the projects selected under Corridors of the Future will be placed on the Executive Order priority project list. Once the final list has been determined, the Task Force will be able to provide feedback on the choices.

Mr. Duvall noted that the United States is at a crossroads on how to fund transportation development. Therefore, transportation planning will be an issue in Congress in the upcoming years, with a particular focus on the reauthorization bill. Mid-session tax receipts show that the Highway Trust Fund is below predicted levels, which will lead to higher transportation deficits in Fiscal Year 2009. The previous shortfall had been predicted somewhere under $1 billion.

VI. Other Updates

Gallup Survey on Environmental Streamlining
 
Shari Schaftlein, FHWA, reviewed the results of Gallup Polls conducted in 2003 and 2006 that collected information about what resource agencies and transportation agencies think of one another. The data was aggregated from the 10 federal regions. The results will be available on an FTP site shortly, along with the executive summary and regional reports. Representatives of five large states (California, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Texas) have already had the opportunity to see the results from their states. Overall results show that resource agencies think the US DOT is doing a better job. In addition, every region improved since 2003 except New England and California.

Data on Completion Times for NEPA Reviews

Mr. Duvall presented information about Environmental Assessment (EA) and EIS processing times. The average processing times decreased between 2002 and 2004, but are now increasing again. The average time to complete an EIS is currently 62 months and the average time for EAs is 43 months, which is far behind the target. Mr. Duvall inquired about why the trends have been reversing over the past few years. Mr. Skaer noted that transportation construction costs have increased at a greater rate than inflation and that there is a deficit in the Highway Trust Fund, which can stall projects. Mr. Duvall asked the group members to get back to him if they have any additional information about project delay.

E.O. 13274 Report to the President

Mr. Duvall informed the group that the draft 2007 Report to President had been distributed and that comments will be accepted through August 10, 2007, though early comments are much appreciated. Ms. Schaftlein noted this Report to President focuses on the actual projects and the work groups’ initiatives. In addition, the current draft is less polished than the draft of the 2004 Report to President, and commenters are asked to take this into account.

VII. Wrap-Up

At the next meeting, the most promising projects for inclusion in the list of priority projects will be presented. The majority of the projects added to the priority list will be in congested metro areas. However, if the Task Force members know of a potential project in a non-congested area, suggestions are welcome.

Mr. Duvall asked the group whether they would appreciate more regular updates on the priority projects. There was general agreement that the group only be notified if there is something that needs to be brought to their attention, such as lagging schedules, consultation, or personality problems.

Mr. Duvall thanked the group for attending and adjourned the meeting.