EXECUTIVE ORDER 13274
Minutes of Task Force Meeting
U.S. Department of Transportation
1:30 - 3:00 pm
April 21, 2008
I. Opening Remarks
Tyler Duvall, U.S. DOT Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone. All those in attendance introduced themselves. Mr. Duvall introduced Joel Szabat, U.S. DOT Deputy Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy.
II. Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Mr. Duvall discussed U.S. DOT’s continued support for its national congestion initiative, the Department’s strategy to reduce traffic congestion throughout the country by using innovative means such as congestion pricing. He mentioned that New York City’s congestion pricing proposal was defeated when the New York State Assembly voted against it. New York City had been awarded $354.5 million as part of U.S. DOT’s Urban Partnerships Program and was on track to create the nation’s first congestion pricing program. U.S. DOT will now seek to allocate these funds to two other cities. There will be an announcement on Friday, April 25th, regarding the selected cities.
The reauthorization process set to begin next year for SAFETEA-LU will provide yet another opportunity to establish a policy or a set of principles for expedited environmental review of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects. Mr. Duvall said U.S. DOT would like to identify a few pilot projects that could serve as examples for this legislative policy statement. He requested that each partnering agency provide contact information for its legislative staff.
Mr. Szabat said that U.S. DOT has identified other major corridors of national significance and that its approach will be in relation to projects within those corridors. One such example is the Columbia River Crossing project. U.S. DOT named the Interstate 5 Bridge over the Columbia River between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington, as one of the nation’s top transportation priorities under the Corridors of the Future program.
Harold Peaks (FHWA) elaborated on the project and its collaborative environmental process. He said a regular meeting process has been established and the project team has received significant input so far. He expects the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to be released in May. Both Oregon DOT and Washington DOT have shown interest in maintaining this streamlined process to resolve other mutual transportation challenges. Mr. Szabat emphasized that local consensus in support of a project, as in this case, is a key criterion for continued U.S. DOT support.
III. The National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Commission
Fred Skaer (FHWA) discussed the final report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission, titled Transportation for Tomorrow. He discussed recommendations the commission made regarding a more streamlined environmental review process. Mr. Szabat emphasized that the recommendations in the report are not shared by U.S. DOT. This was illustrated by the minority views written by U.S. DOT Secretary Mary Peters, et. al. Mr. Szabat explained that U.S. DOT agrees that it takes far too long to deliver transportation projects and that the agency would like to explore initiatives to reduce the time spent completing EISs.
Mr. Duvall added that U.S. DOT’s dissension from the Commission was due in part to the financing proposals. He asked Task Force member agencies to consider providing feedback on the proposals that came out of the report and noted that some of them may appear in the next reauthorization bill.
Mr. Skaer provided an overview of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission. He explained that Commission’s majority members decided that it was most important to discuss reforms that could address problems in the project development process. For example, the Commission has recommended revisions to the CEQ regulations to provide greater specificity on alternatives that are available. The commission also recommended establishing a cabinet-level appeals process.
Mr. Skaer asked for any thoughts or preliminary reactions. Ted Boling (CEQ) said that he was surprised there has not been more of a strong public reaction to the Commission’s recommendation to eliminate Draft EISs. He added that CEQ’s recommendations trend toward management and resources and rule of reason to guide the NEPA process. He asked how U.S. DOT planned to respond to this recommendation. Mr. Duvall responded that U.S. DOT dissented from the report and announced points of opposition to priority items. Mr. Duvall suggested developing a response for internal guidance on how the agency will respond to proposals, but that the guidance would not be for publication.
Paul Hoffman (U.S. DOI) responded to the recommendation for an appeals process. He explained that the DOI already has an Office of Decisions and Appeals for the Secretary that essentially serves as an appeals process.
Mr. Duvall asked for CEQ’s view on the changing financial landscape within transportation. Mr. Boling responded that the Task Force might want an interagency analysis of the range of alternatives given the financing for transportation projects. He suggested that such an analysis would inform the coming reauthorization process.
Susan Bromm (U.S. EPA) said that she is troubled by concept of getting rid of the Draft EIS, especially since the Draft EIS allows for meaningful public participation. Enhancing public participation, rather than shortcutting it, seems more useful. Also, she suggested that the concept of a “1040EZ” equivalent for projects with few significant impacts seems like an oversimplification of the process and does not reflect the complexity of these projects.
Mr. Skaer responded that there are some projects for which a single issue necessitates an EIS. He suggested that perhaps there needs to be permission to do something different for projects with a single, focused environmental issue.
Mr. Hoffman said that the federal government has too often opted to prepare EISs instead of environmental assessments (EAs) in an effort to protect itself in the event of litigation.
Mr. Boling recommended making documents more web-enabled so that information is more accessible. He said that he does not think the federal government will get to an “EZ” version of environmental reviews. He added that he thinks this proposal underestimates the expertise of environmental professionals.
Regarding recommendations to have FHWA set minimum conditions for what must occur during a “robust scoping,” Mr. Boling mentioned the 1983 CEQ guidance issued on scoping. Mr. Skaer responded that the concern prompting the recommendation was really over “scope creep.” Among the priority projects, the Intercounty Connector (MD) and the St. Croix River Crossing (MN-WI) are examples of projects in which the environmental review process had to start over but was still completed in 36 months.
Mr. Duvall asked for thoughts on setting time limits for reviews. There has been an idea that the process should be different for projects for which federal agencies are contributing less than 10% of financing. Mr. Hoffman responded that he was against the time limits because of the challenges with the Endangered Species Act.
Mr. Skaer said that the mechanics of the coordination plans and the management-oriented discussions are still in early stages. He also mentioned that the rest of the commission’s report includes some discussion on program redesign. The ten proposed federal surface transportation programs are listed in the report.
Mr. Szabat mentioned that U.S. DOT opposed the 40-cent-per-gallon increase in the fuel tax because it does not provide an incentive to take advantage of roads during non-peak times. Also, U.S. DOT is encouraging a decreased dependence on fossil fuels.
IV. Presentation: U.S. 93 (Montana)
Kevin McLaury, FHWA-Montana Division Administrator, gave a presentation on U.S. 93, a project that was selected as a priority project in February 2003. The alignment runs the length of Montana from Idaho to the Canadian border. The Task Force recommended forming a review team with representatives from both federal and state agencies, which resulted in the Interagency Review Team. Mr. McLaury shared some testimonials about how the process kept the team focused on solutions and served as a model for interagency cooperation.
The US 93 project was the catalyst to create habitat wildlife crossings on highway projects. The project was broken into three major sections and a separate EIS was prepared for each one. One section of the highway is Hamilton-Lolo, which focuses on migration patterns to allow for wildlife connectivity and includes a series of wildlife jump-outs. Another section of the highway is Evaro-Polson, which includes plans for an overpass for animals to go over the highway in a major crossing area. Structures are being lengthened so that migratory animals can still utilize the area. The project also focuses on stream restoration in the area. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Nation were also engaged in the process significantly. The highway signs within the tribal boundaries are in dual languages (Salish and English).
An MOU was signed on April 1, 2008. The agencies agreed to early involvement and to expand the U.S. 93 concept, which will be applied to the U.S. 83 highway.
V. New Priority Projects
Mr. Szabat explained that the Task Force would like to build off of the U.S. 93 experience. Most, if not all, of the new priority projects should be of national significance. The sort of project we are likely to see is the Columbia River project, though it has not been nominated. The project provides relief specifically between Portland and Vancouver, with high visibility and location along the I-5 corridor. There exists now an effort for an interstate collaborative environmental process, similar to that used for U.S. 93. There are regular meetings, and a Draft EIS is expected to be released in November 2008. The project may be presented to the Task Force for further consideration.
VI. Executive Order Updates
a. Integrated Planning Work Group
Mike Culp (FHWA) discussed the priorities for the new two-year work plan for the Integrated Planning Work Group. The work group is funding the Integrated Planning and Eco-Logical Pilot Grant Program, which consists of awarding $1.57 million to 15 recipients. Some of the areas addressed include integrated planning, partnering and data issues, and performance monitoring. Mr. Culp highlighted the North Central Texas Council of Governments, which has received funding. The Council wants to reinvent how they plan and implement integrated planning projects. They will form collaborative relationships early in the process, implement the Eco-Logical framework, and, as a result, end up with projects that have stronger environmental credentials. This strategy should relieve the pressure on the NEPA process.
b. Report to the President
Marlys Osterhues, FHWA, provided an update on the Report to President. The OMB review was completed in February, and the OST review is in the final stages. CEQ will have the opportunity to review the report in May. She said that only minimal changes were requested during the OMB review process.
c. Priority Project Status Updates
No updates were announced.
VII. Meeting Adjournment
Mr. Szabat asked if there were any other items to discuss. Hearing none, he thanked the group for attending and noted that the next meeting will be held in about three months.
|
