National Environmental Streamlining Initiatives

Report-out from the
Environmental Protection Agency and the
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop

Phoenix, Arizona
December 4 — 6, 2002

Prepared by:
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

Prepared for:
Federal Highway Administration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• SETTING THE CONTEXT
• ISSUE-BY-ISSUE
  • Topic 1: Resources, Workforce, and Training
  • Topic 2: NEPA Process — Federal Agency Roles
  • Topic 3: Integration of NEPA and Permitting Requirements: NEPA/404 Mergers New England
  • Topic 4: Recurring NEPA Process Issues
  • Topic 5: Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts
  • Topic 6: Tiering
  • Topic 7: Air Toxics
• WORKSHOP COMMITMENTS
• APPENDIX A — WORKSHOP AGENDA
• APPENDIX B — QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES
• APPENDIX C — WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

From December 4 — 6, 2002, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FHWA Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Approximately 60 people participated in the workshop. The 36 EPA participants came from all 10 EPA Regions and Headquarters, and represented National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities, wetlands and other programs. The 23 FHWA participants represented 9 of the EPA Regions, as well as Headquarters.

The purpose of this workshop was to identify and to build on successful streamlining practices that support both EPA's and FHWA's missions and address the challenges that effect and define mutually acceptable solutions to recurring and emerging issues. The intent was for participants to leave the workshop with a better understanding of each agency's definition of stewardship, clarification of the respective agency's capabilities to deliver meaningful solutions, and an improved understanding of how the two agencies can coordinate their activities. FHWA and EPA agreed on most issues and pledged to work together to resolve the issues that delay environmental reviews of surface transportation projects.

ESTABLISHING THE CONTEXT

Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) established environmental streamlining as a primary focus for FHWA. Signed into law June 9, 1998, TEA-21 carried forward the environmental principals of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and provided tools to streamline the environmental review process in Section 1309. As a result of TEA-21, multiple agencies developed an interagency broad-based agenda to advance environmental streamlining for surface transportation projects. Having worked together on numerous collaborative efforts under ISTEA, FHWA and EPA initiated a series of streamlining summits in regional offices around the country very soon after TEA-21 enactment. The purpose of the summits was to bring state and Federal staff together to identify process improvements that not only saved time but also led to greater environmental protection. Some written agreements were either created or updated as a result of the summits. All of the summits served to lay the foundation for better working relationships.

Individually, EPA provided training to its Headquarters and field staffs on the provisions of Section 1309 and other parts of TEA-21 through written materials, national monthly conference calls and a national summit held in Chicago six months after enactment of TEA-21. In addition to participating in many of the streamlining summits, EPA Regional Administrators frequently placed streamlining on the agenda of their quarterly meetings so they could share information and identify issues for Headquarters staff to address nationally.

FHWA and FTA created an interagency workgroup to develop a team to carry forward the twin goals of environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship. EPA has played an active role in that group, identifying it as a streamlining priority. As a result of the workgroups' early efforts, an interagency memorandum of agreement was signed by seven agencies promising to work together to develop concurrent review processes; cross-train staff; identify best practices; and identify and meet information needs early. Since that MOU, EPA Headquarters and regions have actively engaged in assisting FHWA and FTA in developing training courses, an interagency dispute resolution process and interagency guidance on reimbursable agreements. EPA also has become more directly involved with state DOT partners at the request of FHWA, working more directly with states in individual project development and early identification of issues; providing more training opportunities; and direct technical assistance.

Two years after enactment of TEA-21, FHWA hosted a workshop, "National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop" for the interagency partners in Saint Louis, MO. The purposes of the workshop was to cross-educate each other's staffs about the goals of streamlining; clarify agency missions, roles and responsibilities; and to refine the national action plan created by the interagency workgroup. At that time, the agencies began to discuss one-on-one national meetings with FHWA. The concept was to bring FHWA and FTA staff from the field and Headquarters together to identify outstanding issues and provide roadmaps for jointly developing solutions to address those issues. The FHWA/EPA workshop in Arizona was one such meeting convened to meet this commitment and the culmination of many years of collaboration between FHWA and EPA.

As the lead agency, FHWA has made significant strides towards being stewards of the environment while advancing environmental streamlining goals. During 2002, FHWA raised the visibility of environmental streamlining for its agency by adopting environmental stewardship and environmental streamlining as one of its three Vital Few Goals . FHWA developed a targeted performance-based agenda for action on a nationwide basis. These performance expectations focus on improving the quality and timeliness of the environmental review process and on clearly demonstrating environmental stewardship accomplishments.

On September 18, 2002 President Bush signed Executive Order (EO) 13274, "Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Review." The EO further heightened the visibility of environmental stewardship and streamlining and also created a sense of urgency. The Department of Transportation has convened an interagency task force to explore environmental stewardship opportunities, improve environmental review processes, and oversee specific projects on a priority list selected by the Secretary of Transportation. EPA is one of the agencies on the Executive Order Task Force. As of the date of this report, Secretary Mineta selected 13 projects for the priority list (10 are highway projects). Field staff involved in the priority projects are actively and urgently working to resolve outstanding issues. In April 2003, the EO Task Force established three work groups to focus on priority issues: Purpose and Need, Indirect and Cumulative Impacts, and Integrated Planning Obstacles and Opportunities.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has recently established a task force to modernize NEPA. EPA is actively involved in this effort to review areas of interest, including information management, collaboration, categorical exclusions, scope of environmental assessments, and adaptive management. The CEQ task force is reviewing Federal and state practices to identify and disseminate information about successful practices.

SETTING THE AGENDA

Prior to the workshop, EPA and FHWA Headquarters collaboratively designed a questionnaire for field staff to identify issues and concerns related to the environmental review process of surface transportation projects. Field staff submitted a large sample of responses that headquarters' staff then analyzed. Together, EPA and FHWA developed an agenda to meet the needs of their agencies.

Respondents to the questionnaire raised seven topics. The following topics shaped the development of the workshop agenda:

Critical to the success of the workshop was an appropriate representation of agency staff. EPA participants represented both wetlands staff and NEPA activities staff. Staff representation from these two specializations was critical due to the close working relationships at the field level. The wetlands staff is responsible for reviewing permits for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (i.e. wetlands). FHWA division and Headquarters' staff was in attendance. The geographic distribution of FHWA field staff was varied and represented states within 9 of the 10 EPA regions.

At the workshop, leadership from EPA and FHWA set the context for conducting this workshop by establishing a common understanding of each other's perspective on environmental stewardship and an assessment of environmental streamlining progress to date. Presentations by Fred Skaer (FHWA), Joseph Montgomery (EPA NEPA), and John Meaghar (EPA Wetlands) provided their agency's perspective of environmental streamlining and stewardship. These presentations identified existing opportunities to build stronger relationships between FHWA and EPA, as well as to illustrate past and current examples of interagency commitments to environmental streamlining and stewardship.

COMMITTING TO IMPROVE

Participants discussed a variety of examples where the two agencies have been making significant improvements in their collaborative efforts. There is a strong desire to continue building on achieved successes. Throughout the workshop, participants worked together to identify and explore the issues that influence working relationships. Considerable consensus was reached on the areas where improvement needs to be made, including: training, personnel allocation, early resource agency involvement, communication, and data sharing.

EPA's recurring issues centered on the desire for FHWA to take a strong Federal leadership role on environmental stewardship. For example, EPA would like FHWA to implement context sensitive design as a rule, not an exception.

EPA participants also expressed the following concerns:

• Lack of resource agency involvement in the early stages and throughout the process,
• Desire for data to be shared early in the process,
• Lack of knowledge by the EPA of the state's priorities and if/when/how they change,
• Need for greater education of the states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) about the NEPA process, which contributes to NEPA being seen as a "clearance" hurdle and to inadequate analysis, and
• Lack of consistent approaches to the NEPA process.

FHWA concerns focused on realistic expectations and interagency cooperation. Noted in the discussion were the following:

• Requests for information relevant to decisionmaking,
• Realistic information requests based on the available data,
• Reasonable expectations of what FHWA can accomplish based on laws and regulations,
• Shared set of tools for environmental analysis, and
• Formal interagency cooperation in order to attain a more consistent process, while recognizing the regional differences in approach and expertise.

The following table documents the commitments made by the workshop participants to advance environmental stewardship and streamlining. Several task teams were established to further address specific issues, including: training topics, existing technology solutions, determination of when a project is federalized, mitigation banks credits, and shared visions and examples of where agencies worked well together. The task teams will subsequently produce a white paper on each issue.

Issue	Next Steps	Task Team and Members
Resources, Workforce, and Training	Establish a workforce-training group that will develop ideas for training, with an emphasis on cross training. Create a task team to summarize existing solutions and issues.	No one identified. Dominique Lueckenhoff (team leader), Susan Absher, Denise Rigney, Sandy Allen, Dan Johnson, Lamar Smith, and Naima Halim-Chestnut.
NEPA Process — Federal Agency Roles	Create task team to identify when a project is federalized. Create task team to write white paper on the areas of shared visions and examples of where agencies worked well together. Address the discrepancy between EPA and FHWA regarding consistency among EPA regions.	Lamar Smith (team leader), Joe Cothern, Butch Waidelich, and Dave Carlson. Stephanie Stoermer (team leader), Ben West, Denise Rigney, Steve Thomas, Dave Sullivan, and Dominique Lueckenhoff.
NEPA/404 Mergers	Assess how best to use credit in mitigation banks. Create a task team to work on use of credit from mitigation banks. Integrate technology into Section 404 decisionmaking and for improving the LEDPA selection. Publicize successful processes and methodologies (in addition to the November 2001 and February 2002 Successes in Stewardship Newsletters). Possibly conduct domestic scan tour across nation to learn more about NEPA/404 Merger Processes. Provide electronic versions of agreements as reference tools for states developing agreements. Determine how to address cumulative impacts on Section 404 protected resources.	Paul Garrett (team leader), Ann Roche, Yvonne Vallette, Dave Sullivan, Rob Ayers, someone from the EPA Region 3 office.
Purpose and Need Statement	Host focused annual meetings for the group Conduct regional meetings for people routinely involved in the purpose and need statement process Remove extraneous material from purpose and need statements Involve agencies early Provide interagency training opportunities
Alternative Analysis	Insert broader environmental concerns into planning Use tiered documents as a tool where appropriate Write tiering success stories Define what Federal agencies bring to the table Discuss the ratings of the alternatives
Scoping	Conduct scoping early, not at the last minute Foster openness and full disclosure Develop tools like a guide for citizens and a contact list Advocate the use of GIS Conduct annual meetings Develop a checklist
Level of Detail	Establish an interagency group that will develop a data needs assessment for NEPA documentation	No one identified.
Mitigation	Look not only at the watershed but also at the ecoregion/system level Advocate advanced mitigation, where possible Pool information when possible to identify and develop good mitigation sites Look for compensatory measures that also satisfy NEPA requirements
Indirect, Cumulative, and Secondary Impacts	Distribute the draft Questions and Answers on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA Project Development Process for review and comment by field staff (FHWA) Release guidance on mitigation strategies for dealing with disturbances caused by increasing development, sprawl, and automobile usage (EPA) Discuss how to incorporate indirect and cumulative impact analyses into NEPA documents Assess how to communicate and document information in a way that is neither too broad nor too narrow Develop a case-by case approach to addressing direct, indirect, cumulative, and secondary impacts
Tiering Issues	Develop a defined process for tiering Conduct interagency training on tiering
Air Toxics and Greenhouse Gases	Partner on a variety of air toxics related efforts (EPA and FHWA) Conduct additional research on air toxic impacts at the micro scale level. Develop the research methodology needed to provide more data on the subject Integrate NEPA and air quality regulations Ensure that NEPA procedures reflect current Air Quality regulations Collaborate on the development of global climate change policies

SETTING THE CONTEXT

From December 4 — 6, 2002, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and FHWA Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop in Phoenix, Arizona. Approximately 60 people participated in the workshop. The 36 EPA participants came from all 10 EPA Regions and Headquarters, and represented both National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities and wetlands programs. The 23 FHWA participants included both division and Headquarters staff. The geographic distribution of FHWA field staff was varied and represented states within 9 of the 10 EPA regions.

This workshop was the culmination of many years of collaboration between FHWA and EPA. Following the enactment of Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) in 1998, FHWA and EPA initiated a series of streamlining summits in regional offices around the country. Those summits focused onto bringing state and Federal staff together to identify process improvements that not only saved time but also led to greater environmental protections. FHWA and FTA then created an interagency workgroup to develop a team to carry forward the twin goals of environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship. EPA has played an active role in that group, identifying it as a streamlining priority. As a result of the workgroups' early efforts, an interagency memorandum of agreement was signed by seven agencies promising to work together to develop concurrent review processes; cross-train staff; identify best practices; and identify and meet information needs early.

In 2001, FHWA hosted a national workshop, "National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop" for the interagency partners in Saint Louis, MO. At that time, the agencies began to discuss one-on-one national meetings with FHWA. The concept was to bring FHWA and FTA staff from the field and Headquarters together to work together to identify outstanding issues and provide roadmaps for developing solutions together to address those issues. The FHWA/EPA workshop in Arizona was one such meeting convened to meet this commitment.

The purpose of this workshop was to identify and to build on successful streamlining practices that support both EPA's and FHWA's missions and to assess the challenges that limit their ability to define mutually acceptable solutions to recurring and emerging issues. The intent was for participants to leave the workshop with a better understanding of each agency's definition of stewardship, clarification of the respective agency's capabilities to deliver meaningful solutions, and an improved understanding of how the two agencies can coordinate their activities.

The goals of the workshop support executive level initiatives such as the President's Executive Order (EO) 13274, Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews, the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) task force to modernize NEPA. EO 13274 emphasizes the importance of expedited transportation project delivery while being good stewards of the environment. The EO complements and reinforces the strategic direction that FHWA established in its Vital Few Goals² , by setting expectations, measures, and methods for advancing an improved and efficient environmental review process and for demonstrating environmental stewardship. Concurrently, EPA is actively involved in CEQ's task force to modernize NEPA. The task force is addressing areas of interest, including information management, collaboration, programmatic categorical exclusions (CE), tiering, scope of environmental assessments (EA), and adaptive management. The task force is reviewing Federal and state practices to identify and disseminate information about successful practices.

At the kickoff of the workshop, EPA and FHWA Headquarters' staff set the context for this workshop by establishing a common understanding of each other's perspective on environmental stewardship and an assessment of environmental streamlining progress to date. Presentations by Fred Skaer (FHWA), Joseph Montgomery (EPA), and John Meaghar (EPA) provided agency perspectives of environmental streamlining and stewardship. These presentations identified existing opportunities to improve relationships between FHWA and EPA. Throughout the two and a half-day workshop, participants discussed issues surrounding numerous topics, including workforce issues, NEPA process, NEPA 404/mergers, indirect and cumulative impacts, tiering issues, and air issues.

Participants worked together during the workshop to identify and explore the issues that influence working relationships, including: training, personnel allocation, early resource agency involvement, communication, and data sharing.

Some of the issues brought to the table include:

• Agencies use the same words, but often times have different definitions and meanings associated with them.
• Even though the agencies are working in tandem towards the same goal throughout the NEPA process, each agency has its own mission to accomplish, and conflicts do arise.
• High staff turnover rates lead to a decline in institutional memory.
• Insufficient staffing may lead to project scheduling dilemmas.
• Different state approaches and levels of expertise.

EPA's recurring issues centered on the desire for FHWA to take a stronger Federal lead. FHWA concerns focused on establishing realistic expectations and improving interagency cooperation. While the issues stem from different backgrounds and have differing causes and effects in terms of the two agencies' views, the areas of concern appear to be very similar. A central theme throughout the workshop was the need for education and training.

The purpose of this document is to capture the information shared at the workshop; to identify the agreed upon next steps; and, to capture specific recommendations and broader conclusions. This report reflects the statements and experiences of individuals and may not represent official FHWA or EPA policy. The "Issue-by-Issue" section of this document provides guidance on the following seven topics:

The document identifies the areas of agreement and disagreement regarding each issue, identifies potential solutions, and documents the next steps EPA and FHWA set forth to resolve each issue. Where appropriate, significant actions that have taken place since the workshop have been noted. In conjunction with this document, several task forces were established to further address specific issues, including: training topics, existing technology solutions, determination of when a project is federalized, mitigation banks credits, and shared visions and examples of where agencies worked well together. The task teams will subsequently produce a white paper on each issue. Finally, the appendices include the following:

² In 2002, FHWA identified three priorities as Vital Few Goals: Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship, Safety, and Congestions Mitigation.

ISSUE-BY-ISSUE

This section provides a summary of each issue that affects working relationships and identifies what EPA and FHWA agreed to do to address the issue. Prior to the workshop, FHWA and EPA staff identified the issues through a questionnaire completed by EPA and FHWA field staff. The questionnaire and results are found in Appendix B. The issues include:

During the workshop, participants discussed areas of agreement and disagreement regarding the definition of the problem, potential solutions, and the resources necessary to resolve each issue. In some cases, it was necessary to clarify key agency policy and regulatory requirements. Participants reached consensus on the issues and next steps to resolve the issues.

Topic 1: Resources, Workforce, and Training

Both FHWA and EPA face a number of resource, workforce, and training issues that delay the effective implementation of NEPA responsibilities. Representatives from both EPA and FHWA agree that these problems include lack of resources, workforce deficiencies, and training availability. Some state and Federal resource agencies are developing and using strategies to overcome these problems such as interagency agreements, training, technology that can fill resource gaps, and workforce capacity development.

Resources — Finances, Technology Tools, etc.

Resource issues that delay the effective implementation of NEPA include the following:

• Limited and restricted funding, especially for early and sustained resource agency involvement in project planning and development of environmental analysis.
• Limited data availability and sharing.
• Lack or limited availability of technical tools.

Workforce

Workforce deficiency issues also exist in both state and Federal agencies and include the following:

• Insufficient numbers of staff.
• High staff turnover and a resultant lack of institutional memory at state departments of transportation (DOTs).
• Lack of a clear understanding of staffing priorities and skill needs.
• Limited numbers of high quality, well-trained consultants.

Training

Workforce issues directly correlate to the training issues faced at all levels of government and among the consultants used by government agencies. Numerous inadequacies were identified regarding training, including the following:

• Lack of defined and necessary competencies.
• Lack of sufficient and continuous training in those defined skill competencies.
• Lack of cross-training opportunities for agency staff on issues such as wetlands, level of service, and others.
• Limited availability of informal teaching and learning from other agencies.
• Limited availability of conflict resolution and facilitation training.

Potential Solutions

The discussion of resource, workforce, and training issues generated ideas to solve these identified inadequacies. Potential solutions include flexible funding sources, use of technology and tools, team building and communication, and workforce capacity building.

Flexible Funding Sources

Programmatic agreements can help overcome the lack of staff. USDOT, EPA, and other agencies are developing and using interagency agreements to fund additional staff at state and Federal agencies. Section 1309(e) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) states that "Federal — aid funds may be used to help Federal agencies meet time limits for environmental reviews." Funding can only be used to speed up the customary time needed for reviews. Agencies can also exercise other authorities to supplement resources, including the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act.

In February 2002, FHWA released guidance to help direct the development of interagency funding agreements. The guidance is available from FHWA's streamlining website at: http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/igdocs/index.asp. When developing agreements, agencies should consider the following issues:

• Reason for agreement (e.g. is it to streamline projects or to institute programmatic efficiencies).
• Authority allowing agreement.
• Responsibilities of all parties (state and Federal agencies).
• Tasks covered by funding agreement; the agreement may include numerous tasks.
• Measurements of success.
• Relationships to other existing agreements and the benefits of incorporating such agreements into the funding agreement
• Cost accounting and fund transfer; Agencies must establish a mechanism for transferring funds and tracking costs.
• Dispute resolution.

Flexible funding sources are often needed to accomplish the goals of environmental streamlining and stewardship. Outsourcing can be an efficient method for filling staff and competency deficiencies. For example, state DOTs are setting aside funds to hire qualified, professional neutral facilitators. EPA and FHWA suggested creating a pool of funds state DOTs could use instead of their own program funds to finance efforts that facilitate communication and cooperation and build workforce capacity.

Use of Technology and Tools

The use of technology to fill resource gaps greatly contributes to the efficiency and efficacy of environmental review work. Florida's Efficient Transportation Decisionmaking web conferencing process has proven successful in quickly and accurately identifying state environmental and other resources. Environmental management systems offer tremendous potential to improve collaborative decisionmaking. In fact, FHWA is searching for exemplary environmental management systems.

Agencies can also use technology during planning, project development, environmental review, and training in order to improve working relationships and educate agency staff and the public. By jointly developing technical tools and agreeing on common terms and definitions, agencies can facilitate cooperation and improve understanding. These tools can also be used to educate the public about the transportation project development and environmental review processes. For example, agencies can develop an electronic and hard copy citizens' guide to NEPA. Technology can also help staff share data and understand what data are available. Greater use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the inclusion of Federal, state, and interest group GIS information can improve decisionmaking.

Team Building and Communication

Team building and agency cooperation are the foundation upon which most environmental streamlining is achieved. Communication both within an agency and with other agencies is critical to addressing all environmental issues and to complying with all environmental commitments. Team approaches, whereby one team manages a project from cradle to grave, allow for enhanced communication and seamless performance. Cooperation and communication also facilitate project scheduling and negotiated timeframes for completing reviews.

Various states are conducting periodic meetings with all stakeholders to discuss transportation issues and statewide priorities. For example, Arizona hosts brown bag lunches to allow agency staff to meet with one another on an informal basis. Another method for improving communication is a telephone list that staff can use to find specific issue contacts both within an agency and across agencies. Such lists can be used to better inform EPA about state priorities, changes in priorities, and reasons for changes (EPA identified the lack of information in state priorities as an impediment to project streamlining). EPA and FHWA also suggested jointly prioritizing workloads to manage staff resources and developing criteria to evaluate EPA's participation in periodic and project review meetings.

Workforce Capacity Building

Training in new areas and with other agencies is an effective way to educate agency staff and to foster cooperation among agencies. Cross-training allows staff from a variety of agencies to hear the same information at the same time, therefore reducing misunderstandings. An example includes nation-wide training on conflict resolution. In addition, Section 404 regulatory training was held, and an EPA trainer reports that half of her last training class was from EPA and half from state DOTs and FHWA.

During the workshop, participants brainstormed about approaches to building workforce capacity. Participants agreed that multiple approaches are required. The approaches include:

• Establishing a workforce training group to address pertinent issues.
• Defining the required competencies of transportation and environmental professionals.
• Reinstating the three-week environmental training center.
• Providing incentives to employees to develop and improve competencies.
• Jointly developing training and providing cross-training among agencies; e.g., Maryland has an interagency group to develop interagency training.
• Consulting with experts when developing training.
• Learning from good training models, such as EPA Region 9's training on early involvement and the purpose and need statement.
• Hosting a clearinghouse of training opportunities.
• Providing on-site training, when necessary, during project review meetings.
• Developing training for the consultant community and enforcing certification programs.
• Creating peer exchanges and mentoring opportunities.
• Developing alternative forms of training, such as web-based trainings, as a cost effective way to meet the demand for training.
• Conducting post-training evaluations to gauge training effectiveness.
• Preserving institutional memory.

Next Steps

Workshop participants agreed to do the following to address resource, workforce, and training issues:

• Establish a workforce training group that will develop ideas for training, with an emphasis on cross-training (e.g., Federal-aid 101, NEPA basics, transportation planning, etc.).
• Create a task team to summarize existing solutions and issues. Team members include: Dominique Lueckenhoff (team leader), Susan Absher, Denise Rigney, Sandy Allen, Dan Johnson, Lamar Smith, and Naima Halim-Chestnut.

Actions Since Workshop

• In May and June 2003, FHWA held its first two regional Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) workshops. The ADR workshops are aimed at bring together state and Federal transportation and resource agencies to discuss environmental issues on a regional basis. The workshops are being held in each of the remaining ten standard Federal regions.

Topic 2: NEPA Process — Federal Agency Roles

Each Federal agency participating in the NEPA process as the lead, cooperating, or reviewing agency should do so with at least a general understanding of the missions, legislative authorities, and regulatory requirements of the other agencies involved. The EPA's participation in the NEPA process for transportation projects is related to two authorities in particular — Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The first requires the EPA to review and comment on EISs and other Federal NEPA related activities. EPA also has a veto authority for the 404(b)(1) wetland permitting process.

FHWA is responsible for the Federal-Aid Highway Program, which provides Federal financial assistance to the states to construct and improve the National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges. The FHWA's authority is codified in U.S.C. Title 23 and amended by subsequent reauthorization bills such as the Intermodal Surface Transportation Equity Act (ISTEA) (1992-1998), and TEA-21 (1998-2003). Project level activities eligible for Federal-aid funding generally include preliminary engineering, design, right of way acquisition, construction and related mitigation measures for reconstruction, resurfacing, operational improvement, and highway safety projects. FHWA approves the expenditure of funds for the abovementioned activities. This action triggers the NEPA process for which FHWA is the lead agency.

State DOTs, and transit authorities along with MPOs are responsible for system level planning and decisions to initiate projects. The project sponsor's or applicant's responsibilities include: programming funds for Federal-aid; providing matching funds; conducting transportation planning process; transportation conformity analysis; managing the project development process, project design, construction and maintenance, developing the project agreement, and compliance and oversight for all delegated responsibilities.

Considerable confusion exists over when a project is "federalized." However, once a project is federalized, the project sponsor must comply with all Federal-aid and NEPA requirements. There is a critical need for guidance on when a project is federalized to improve understanding and trust on project reviews between FHWA and EPA.

Potential Solutions

During the workshop, the agencies met separately to discuss expectations of each agency and to identify the roles each agency believes it serves. FHWA recognizes that EPA's constructive involvement during project development is important both as a formal cooperating agency (i.e. any Federal agency other than the lead agency that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved in a proposal or alternative for legislation or other major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment) or in a less formal role.

As a cooperating agency, FHWA asks the following of EPA:

• Have realistic expectations about information and data — EPA should request information that is relevant to better decisionmaking. FHWA also stresses that all agencies need to be realistic about the availability of data, and recognize that data are sometimes limited. Furthermore, tools for analyzing impacts should be agreed upon at scoping (or earlier, if possible). FHWA would like to reach agreement with EPA on rather than EPA behave in the "know it when they see it" manner.
• Provide constructive, direct, and relevant comments — FHWA would like EPA to communicate constructively their concerns to FHWA directly, rather than through the media or interest groups. In addition, FHWA would like EPA to provide comments that are relevant to the choice of alternatives being presented.
• Manage expectations - EPA should have reasonable expectations of FHWA as the lead agency based on regulations and laws. EPA should also have reasonable expectations for the availability of data.
• Fully participate and cooperate in the process — EPA should participate in meetings, respond to telephone calls, share expertise with its partners, and not take adversarial roles, but rather cooperate with other agencies.
• Provide consistency among regions — FHWA strongly advocates consistency among EPA regions despite differences in environmental conditions across the nation.

In addition to what FHWA asks of EPA, EPA believes that it provides the following services and benefits to FHWA:

• Identifies and communicates issues before writing a formal letter to FHWA and the project sponsor.
• Shares EPA's specialized expertise on environmental regulations, policies, technologies, accepted practices, and data.
• Advises and consults on problem areas.
• Avoids duplication of effort by providing an environmental analysis.
• Involves other agencies.
• Facilitates discussions with other agencies that lead to better interagency coordination.
• Advises and comments on the adequacy of NEPA documents and process.

Conversely, EPA looks to FHWA to fulfill its responsibilities as the lead agency by taking a stronger NEPA leadership role (i.e. drive the train). Specifically, EPA expects the following of FHWA:

• Take a strong NEPA leadership and stewardship role — EPA depends on FHWA to manage the NEPA process. To ensure a streamlined approach, FHWA should be a steward for the environment, as well as for the traveling public. EPA requests that FHWA appreciate that environmental regulations are not a hurdle to clearance. In addition, EPA would like FHWA to implement provisions of TEA-21 that benefit the environment, such as restoring past damages. Furthermore, FHWA should address issues, such as air toxics and indirect and cumulative impacts. Finally, EPA asks that FHWA strive for environmental stewardship at the field level.
• Provide consistency in the application of processes — EPA is asking FHWA to provide consistency in the application of processes, such as NEPA/404 mergers and decisions made during the NEPA process (CE, EA, and EIS).
• Involve resource agencies and the public — EPA requests that FHWA involve all resource agencies early and often, in particular the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). In addition, the public needs to be more fully engaged in the transportation planning process. EPA asks that FHWA be willing to negotiate memoranda of understandings with resource agencies.
• Understand and respect the role of cooperating agencies - EPA requests that FHWA recognize that EPA has a role in the transportation and NEPA process. In particular, FHWA staff need to better understand EPA's role under Section 309 versus NEPA.
• Keep EPA apprised of state DOT priorities and project status — As the lead agency, FHWA should keep the resource agencies apprised of project priorities and status and ensure they are working on the current priorities and planning their resources to address future priorities. Periodic meetings will help educate all parties about any changes so that all agencies understand FHWA and state priorities and effectively plan their resources. Telephone calls, electronic mail, and mailings can also help to inform EPA.
• Ensure necessary data and full disclosure of decisions are provided — EPA is requesting that FHWA provide more technical data early in the process and explain how criteria are weighted and ranked for developing alternatives.
• Provide resources to better conduct the NEPA process — EPA looks to FHWA to garner and provide resources to facilitate the NEPA process, including professional facilitators and conflict resolution professionals.
• Educate state and local agencies on their environmental responsibilities - EPA asks FHWA to work harder to educate state and local agencies about environmental analysis and how to integrate results earlier in the process. EPA would like context sensitive design one day to be the rule, rather than an innovative feature.
• Recognize and accept that there are differences within agencies across the nation — EPA requests that FHWA recognize variation of natural resource issues across the nation. These variations will lead to significant differences among regions.

FHWA views that it is performing the following roles:

• Helping to guide decisions.
• Serving as a mediator among resource agencies.
• Providing quality control of transportation projects.
• Advocating for transportation needs.
• Serving a fiduciary role as stewards of public funds.
• Serving as stewards for some resources (e.g. 4(f) resources).
• Advocating for the traveling public.
• Involving the public in transportation decisionmaking.

Next Steps

• Create task team to identify when a project is federalized. The team consists of Lamar Smith (team leader), Joe Cothern, Butch Waidelich, and Dave Carlson.
• Create task team to write white paper on the areas of shared visions and examples of where agencies worked well together. The team is comprised of: Stephanie Stoermer (team leader), Ben West, Denise Rigney, Steve Thomas, Dave Sullivan, and Dominique Lueckenhoff.
• Address the discrepancy between EPA and FHWA regarding consistency among EPA regions. FHWA advocates for consistency, while EPA requests FHWA to accept variation among regions. A white paper can help clarify this issue for EPA and FHWA

Topic 3: Integration of NEPA and Permitting Requirements: NEPA/404 Mergers

Both EPA and FHWA representatives identified the NEPA/404 Merger process — integration of NEPA and CWA Section 404 permitting requirements — as a successful and innovative streamlining tool. In an integrated process, the project sponsor submits the 404 permit application to USACE simultaneously with the publication of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). At least 29 states in the nation have used a NEPA/404 merger agreement. However, across the nation there is considerable variation in the usage and emphasis of merger processes. Representatives from Washington State, North Carolina, and New England informed the workshop participants on the processes and methodologies they employ to review and decide on Section 404 permits. During these presentations, participants asked numerous questions and identified good practices, essential elements of a good process, and lessons learned. Finally, the workshop participants identified next steps to improving and refining NEPA/404 Merger process agreements.

EPA's Responsibilities

Ann Campbell, of EPA Headquarters, provided a tutorial of the Section 404 program. Section 404 establishes, "a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands." No discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the Nation's waters would be significantly degraded. The discharge of a pollutant³ is a prerequisite for CWA permitting jurisdiction. Geographic jurisdiction of CWA is derived, in part, from the following actions:

• 1972 CWA defined navigable waters as waters of the United States.
• 1977 CWA Reauthorization recognized broad jurisdiction over wetlands.
• 2001 Supreme Court Decision (Solid Waste Association of Northern Cook County [SWANCC]) finds that CWA does not extend to isolated non-navigable waters solely on basis of migratory bird use. EPA is expected to submit an Announcement of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in response to SWANCC.

USACE shares an enforcement role with EPA for CWA Section 404 permits; however, USACE administers the day-to-day program. In addition, USACE develops regulatory policy and guidance in conjunction with EPA, and conducts or verifies jurisdictional determinations. EPA has the following roles and responsibilities under CWA:

• Serves as ultimate arbiter on geographic jurisdiction of CWA;
• Develops environmental guidelines, policy and guidance;
• Approves and oversees state assumption⁴;
• Reviews permits, maintains Section 404(q) "elevation" and (c) "veto" authority;
• Serves as commenting agency during Public Notice Comment Period;
• Identifies exempt activities; and,
• Shares enforcement role with USACE.

Actions Since Workshop

The Corps and EPA issued the ANPRM on January 10, 2003 in order to obtain early comment on issues associated with the scope of waters that are subject to the CWA in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (SWANCC). The ANPRM requested public input on issues associated with the definition of "waters of the United States" and also solicited information or data from the general public, the scientific community, and Federal and state resource agencies on the implications of the SWANCC decision for jurisdictional decisions under the CWA.

The comment period for the ANPRM closed on April 16, 2003. The Agencies received approximately 133,000 comments, including both individual letters and form letters. For more information on the ANPRM or to obtain a copy of the ANPRM itself or the comments received, go to http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/swanccnav.html.

Case Studies

Several workshop participants were requested to present the approaches that have been successful in their states and/or regions, including:

• Washington State — Judith Lee (EPA) and Sharon Love (FHWA)
• North Carolina — Rob Ayers (FHWA)
• New England — Matt Schweisberg (EPA)

Washington State

Washington State has made significant efforts to streamline the 404 permitting process. In 1993 a MOU on wetlands was developed. A NEPA/404 Merger was then signed in 1995, and subsequently revised in 1996 and 2002 to incorporate several process improvements. The Signatory Agency Committee (SAC), comprised of the eight state and Federal agencies, is charged with oversight of the agreement. The goal of the improvements is to create a clear, consistent and efficient process that occurs within a predictable timeframe, provides a forum to exchange information, has committed participants and results in the completion of environmental impact statements (EIS) that adequately consider the environment and results in the delivery of transportation projects. SAC intends to develop further process improvements to better achieve its goals.

There are three steps of the merger process (see table below). Concurrence options include: waive, concur, non-concur (based on statutory authority). Comments may be submitted, however the comments are considered to be only advisory. WSDOT/project sponsor will respond to comments within 45 days. A formal issue resolution process exists to address issues, such as non-concurrence, lack of timely response, and agreement interpretation. The issue resolution process includes specific process steps, with timelines for each step. Required involvement of staff, supervisors, and executive management are outlined in the process. Changes can be made at each of the three concurrence points, as described in the table below:

Washington State also created a new state committee, the Transportation Permit Efficiency and Accountability Committee (TPEAC), with the authority to develop a streamlined, "one-stop" permit process. TPEAC's mission statement is as follows:

Coordinate transportation planning with environmental and land use planning processes at all levels of government so that transportation projects avoid, minimize, or otherwise mitigate impacts on the environment in order to reduce conflict and project delay, and help to ensure that subsequent permitting decisions are made in a more coordinated streamlined manner.

For more information on Washington State's efforts, visit: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Environment/Watershed/mitigation.htm.

North Carolina

In 1997, North Carolina developed an integrated NEPA/404 Merger Process. The process was revised in 2001 to incorporate a flexible mitigation approach, called the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). Currently, mitigation plans in North Carolina must be approved before the necessary permits are issued. The mitigation process often occurs late in the planning process and on a project-by-project basis, resulting in delays. The current mitigation process also lacks a functional replacement of impacts, an understanding of watershed needs, and consistent guidance from state and Federal resource agencies. NCDOT partnered with North Carolina's Department of Environment and natural Resources (NCDENR), the Wilmington District USACE, and other state and Federal agencies to develop EEP.

EEP will provide programmatic mitigation at the watershed level with functional replacement for unavoidable impacts, prior to project impact, and enhance the environment. Under EEP, environmental issues and needs, including potential impacts, are identified and considered earlier in the project development and design process. Up-front compensatory mitigation is developed years ahead for project impacts, allowing the permitting process to continue without delays. The organizational structure for administering and monitoring EEP includes various roles and responsibilities, including: policy and oversight team; liaison council; technical advisors; steering committee; program assessment and consistency team; strategic planning team; and operations managers.

Currently, there is an MOU that commits NCDOT, NCDENR, and the USACE Wilmington District to establish the EEP. Considerable resources have been dedicated by various agencies to thoughtfully develop the EEP. The transition to EEP is currently in progress, during which time stakeholder involvement and legal issues are being addressed. The initiation of EEP will begin as early as winter 2003. NCDOT hopes to have EEP fully operational by January 2004. EEP requires full commitment from all involved agencies.

New England

In New England, FHWA and USACE developed the "Highway Methodology Workbook" to facilitate the 404 permitting process. Two difficult projects in the 1980's led the agencies to improve the permitting process. The result was a highway methodology that is driven by the 404 regulatory process. Since its publication in 1987, anyone applying for a 404 permit must comply with the Highway Methodology that USACE uses for all projects, including non-highway projects.

The methodology identifies the numerous stages involved in the permitting process. There is a feedback loop to ensure that the methodology is working. At every stage there are meetings with all the parties to address any issues that may arise during the process. At each concurrence point, if any party has a concern, the disagreements are documented. However, USACE proceeds regardless of whether an agreement has been reached. Users of the methodology attest that resolutions are reached even when there is non-concurrence. EPA maintains its authority to veto any decision.

Potential Solutions

Workshop participants identified solutions for improving the integration of NEPA and permitting requirements.

• Concurrence Points — Concurrence points are critical for ensuring the process works well.
• Integrity of Merger Agreements — FHWA needs to determine how to preserve integrity of merger agreements in light of a new FHWA field structure. Many agreements were developed when FHWA had a system of regional offices.
• Project Description and Background — Project sponsors should provide a full and comprehensive description of the project and its history when submitting applications.
• Mitigation Banking Agreements — Better agreements and managed expectations are required to ensure that credits can be withdrawn from mitigation banks, as expected. States spent a considerable amount of money on mitigation banks, and are now facing some problems when they need to withdraw credits for projects.
• Location of Mitigation Banks — There are some locations that offer greater resource protection credits than others. Sometimes, resource agencies are not satisfied and or did not provide any input on where mitigation banks should be located. One successful example is on the Eastern Shore of Delaware, where the state DOT is purchasing farmland that would have otherwise disappeared to development, rather than build another wetland in the area.

Next Steps

• Assess how best to use credit in mitigation banks.
• Create task team to address mitigation bank issues, including use of credit, location of banks, etc. The team is comprised of the following people: Paul Garrett (team leader), Ann Roche, Yvonne Vallette, Dave Sullivan, Rob Ayers, Denise Rigney will recruit someone from EPA Region 3 Office.
• Integrate technology into Section 404 decisionmaking and for improving the LEDPA selection.
• Publicize successful processes and methodologies (in addition to the November 2001 and February 2002 Successes in Stewardship Newsletters).
• Possibly conduct domestic scan tour across nation to learn more about NEPA/404 Merger Processes.
• Provide electronic versions of agreements as reference tools for states developing agreements.
• Determine how to address cumulative impacts on Section 404 protected resources.

Actions Since Workshop

On December 27, 2002, the Corps and EPA, in conjunction with the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, and Transportation, strengthened their commitment to achieve the goal of no net loss of our Nation's wetlands with the release of a comprehensive action plan and improved guidance to ensure effective, scientifically-based restoration of wetlands impacted by development activities. The National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan (MAP) lists 17 action items that the agencies will undertake to improve the effectiveness of restoring wetlands that are impacted or lost to activities governed by clean water laws. Completing the actions in the plan will enable the agencies and the public to make better decisions regarding where and how to restore, enhance, and protect wetlands; improve their ability to measure and evaluate the success of mitigation efforts; and expand the public's access to information on these wetland restoration activities.

The need for guidance relating to the use of mitigation banking for aquatic resource impacts associated with transportation projects, as voiced during this workshop, was included as an action item in the MAP. EPA, in coordination with FHWA and the Corps, are currently finalizing guidance clarifying the use of the TEA-21 preference for mitigation banking. The guidance establishes factors for field personnel to consider in determining whether mitigation banking is suitable to compensate for the lost functions of wetlands and other aquatic resources impacted by Federal-aid highway projects. The guidance also addresses opportunities for early coordination between the affected agencies and streamlining the environmental review process for proposed highway projects.

For general information on mitigation or to obtain a copy of the MAP or an update on the release of this guidance, go to http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/index.html#mitigation.

³ Discharge of a pollutant is defined in section 502(12) as, "addition of, any pollutant to, navigable waters, and from a point of source."
⁴ New Jersey and Michigan are the only two states that have assumed the 404 program.

Topic 4: Recurring NEPA Process Issues

At the workshop, five teams of participants responded to questions related to five pre-selected NEPA process topics and then proposed next steps. Participants chose the topic of their choice. The five topics — or recurring issues — were based on the major issues identified by the participants in a survey completed before the workshop, and included:

• Purpose and Need Statement
• Alternatives Analysis
• Scoping
• Quality of Data and Documents/Level of Detail
• Mitigation

The summary that follows is organized by each recurring issue and provides the responses each team presented to the entire workshop participants.

Purpose and Need Statement

"What should the purpose and need statement cover?"
As a critical component of the transportation planning processes, purpose and need statements can affect funding decisions and subsequently the ability of FHWA and state DOTs to build projects. As a result, purpose and need statements should be well thought out and designed to allow a reasonable range of alternatives to be developed without precluding any reasonable alternatives. A well-designed purpose and need statement can also foster streamlining by addressing both NEPA and Section 404 purpose and need statement requirements early in the process.

The purpose and need statement should include:

• Succinct problem statement.
• Discussion of the problem that the proposed project is designed to solve.
• Description of the historical, social, physical, political, and community environment in which the project is to be built.

"How do you make a purpose and need statement broad enough to include a reasonable range of alternatives, but narrow enough to well-define the project?"
The CEQ regulations state that the purpose and need in an EIS "shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action." Transportation purpose and need is fundamental to alternatives development and analysis and therefore is the primary responsibility of the lead agency in defining the range of alternatives to consider in the NEPA process. Reasonable alternatives are subject to definition by other criteria including the type of resources involved, the degree of environmental impacts and other environmental requirements involved in the decision such as 404(b)(1) and Section 4(f). While the lead agency and the applicant are responsible for the basic purpose and need of a project, it is appropriate for other agencies to provide input related to the determination of reasonable alternatives.

"What problems have reviewers encountered with purpose and need statement?"
Developing a purpose and need statement is an iterative and evolving process. Problems sometimes arise and can include:

• Presenting only one alternative that fits, indicating to the public that a decision has already been made.
• Identifying too narrow or too broad a range of alternatives.
• Not being honest — if the purpose is economic development, this should be clearly stated.

"What problems have project proponents encountered with reviewer comments?"
Problems include:

• Incorporating new needs that emerge as the process evolves away from the original purpose and need statement.
• Overcoming the tendency of EPA and USACE to have problems with highway projects, as opposed to projects that increase bus access and rail expansion.
• Addressing non-constructive comments from resource agencies relative to purpose and need.
• Addressing a perceived "hidden agenda" of resource agencies to stop highway projects through objections with the purpose and need statement.

"How do you develop a purpose and need statement that is appropriate as the Basic Project purpose in a Section 404 Analysis?"
Suggested solutions include:

• Balancing the amount of information and number of alternatives (too many is unwieldy; too few create more problems) in the purpose and need statement.
• Using scoping as an early opportunity for agencies and the public to comment.
• Working with resource agencies early in the process to share information and shape the purpose and need statement and the alternatives analysis.⁵

"What are the next steps?"
FHWA and EPA identified the following next steps to help further cooperation and streamline the purpose and need statement process:

• Conduct regional meetings for people routinely involved in the purpose and need statement process.
• Remove extraneous material from purpose and need statements.
• Involve agencies early.
• Provide interagency training opportunities.

Actions Since Workshop

• In May 2003, a series of correspondence was exchanged between Department of Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta and CEQ Chairman Jim Connaughton on the issue of purpose and need. The result was a letter from CEQ clarifying the role of the lead agency in determining the purpose and need of a project. The letter states that "the lead agency-the Federal agency proposing to take an action-has the authority and responsibility to define the 'purpose and need' for purposes of NEPA analysis."
• One of the three Executive Order 13274 Task Force Work Groups is focused on purpose and need. The initial meeting of the work group was held in June 2003. The efforts of the interagency work group will focus on four primary issues: Crafting a Purpose and Need; Planning Integration/Tiering; Purpose and Need Integration and Coordination with other laws; and Economic Development. The work group is currently formulating their work plan, which will be presented, to the Task Force in July 2003.

Alternatives Analysis

"How do you narrow the range of alternatives?"
Suggestions include:

• Require all parties to pull environmental information into the process sooner.
• Garner resource agency input.
• Provide the right level of detail.
• Use tiering and corridor level analysis to identify decisions that need to be made now and decisions that can be postponed.
• Employ technology, such as GIS, in the planning and screening process.

"How can agencies ensure that alternatives under consideration address environmental and transportation concerns as early as possible in the NEPA process?"
Suggestions include:

• Focus priorities — while EPA prefers to present a preferred alternative during the public process, FHWA feels that this preempts the public process as the public will only focus on that alternative.
• Define timelines — FHWA and EPA agreed that further discussions are needed in order to define when to identify the appropriate range of alternatives during transportation planning, when to expand the level of detail needed, when to work with resource agencies to address environmental considerations made during the NEPA process, and when to encourage regulatory changes.

"What are the next steps?"
FHWA and EPA identified the following next steps to help further cooperation and streamline the alternatives analysis process:

• Insert broader environmental concerns into planning.
• Use tiered documents as a tool where appropriate.
• Write tiering success stories.
• Define what Federal agencies bring to the table.
• Discuss the ratings of the alternatives.

Scoping

"How can EPA's scoping comments be better focused to serve FHWA's needs?"
Suggestions include:

• Provide full disclosure.
• Receive EPA comments during scoping.
• Use checklists, such as a scoping matrix with approval signatures, to identify issues early and to ensure that no issues are missed.
• Develop a nationwide checklist.
• Use GIS, as they do in Texas, to supplement fieldwork and plot and rank projects in order of probable concern based on location.
• Develop a citizens' guide to NEPA.
• Have EPA act as an advocate and facilitator with MPO's.

"How can FHWA facilitate EPA's participation in the scoping process and of EPA's scoping comments?"
The primary suggestion is for project sponsors and/or FHWA to develop an annual prioritization of projects for EPA review.

"What constitutes the scope of a project?"
The scope of a project is the project's purpose and need as it relates to the transportation issues being addressed, the geo-spatial study area, the reasonable extent of impacts, the logical termini, the resources involved, such as watersheds, and the overall decisions being made.

"Should scoping include concurrences?"
No. Scoping occurs too early in the process to include concurrences.

"What are the next steps?"
EPA recommends that FHWA explore ways to keep the resource agencies apprised of state transportation project priorities and changes therein. FHWA and EPA identified the following next steps to help further cooperation and streamline the scoping process:

• Conduct scoping early and not at the last minute.
• Foster openness and full disclosure.
• Develop tools like a guide for citizens and a contact list.
• Advocate the use of GIS.
• Conduct annual meetings.
• Develop a checklist.

Level of Detail/Quality of Data

"What problems typically arise with data or documentation that impede streamlining?"
Problems identified include:

• Validity of data and information.
• Early input in scoping.
• Consultant misunderstanding of a project's purpose.
• Inappropriate amounts of information.
• Information is incomplete or not available when needed for review.
• Lack of reliance on CEQ regulations.

"What solutions have agencies used to close gaps or provide adequate documentation of an issue or impact?"
Solutions include:

• Research to identify needs, partnerships and collaborations.
• Early participation.
• Pre-scoping.
• Data needs assessments, as used in the Texas I-69 project.
• Expert panels that can comment on reasonably foreseeable effects and events.
• Appropriate and sufficient information that integrates other NEPA requirements.
• Measures to address incomplete and unavailable information.

"What are the characteristics of quality NEPA documentation?"
Characteristics include:

• Inclusion of substantial concurrence with reliable data.
• Early and up-front agreement on the issues to be analyzed and the appropriate level of detail.
• Identification of impacts at the right level and amount.
• Presentation of reasonable alternatives.
• Representation of all sides.
• Full disclosure.
• Readability.
• Use of advanced data management tools.

"How should the level of detail vary in a tiered versus non-tiered NEPA document?"
Although the group agreed that there is consideration variation in the level of detail in tiered NEPA document, they did not addressed this question further.

"What are the next steps?"
FHWA and EPA agreed to consider establishing an interagency group that will develop a data needs assessment for NEPA documentation.

Mitigation

"What are the characteristics of a good mitigation plan?"
Characteristics include:

• Inclusion of all impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative.
• Discussion of ADAM — assess, disclose, avoid, and mitigate.
• Sharing of GIS and other resources to look at landscape issues.
• Compensatory advance mitigation prior to impacts.
• Replacement of lost wetlands with wetlands of the same function and value, to the extent possible.
• Implementation of post-monitoring plans and contingency plans in the event that wetlands need adjustment.
• Partnerships with agencies, MPOs, and others.
• Wetlands banking, where appropriate.

"How detailed should a good mitigation plan be?"
Suggestions to determine the level of detail needed include:

• Use a watershed level of detail.
• Establish a sub-priority to replace functions lost in same watershed.
• Garner conceptual agreement on detail level with all agencies.
• Define wetlands function and how to replace them by quantifying impacts and proportions (e.g., acres by function/value).

"Does the lead agency have responsibility to mitigate all impacts?"
Maybe. Lead agencies must mitigate for direct impacts. Lead agencies may need to mitigate for secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts depending on impact specifics, such as the proportion of impacts.

"What are the next steps?"
FHWA and EPA identified the following next steps:

• Look not only at the watershed but also at the ecoregion/system level.
• Advocate advanced mitigation, where possible.
• Pool information when possible to identify and develop good mitigation sites.
• Look for compensatory measures that also satisfy NEPA requirements.⁶

⁵ While ideal, early involvement is not always practical due to staffing and resource agency monetary constraints.
⁶ FHWA has been directed by Congress to use banking first and must show that another option is better (e.g., geographically and functionally viable) in order to not use banking.

Topic 5: Indirect, Secondary, and Cumulative Impacts

Introduction

NEPA requires Federal agencies to consider the direct, indirect (or secondary), and cumulative impacts of a proposal or project alternatives in reaching a decision on advancing the Federal action.⁷ The agencies recognize the responsibility but quite often are confused and challenged by the difference in definitions and the various assessment methodologies tools, and procedures available to best meet the requirements.

Issue At Hand

The following issues illustrate the confusion and difficulty faced in indirect and cumulative impact analysis:

• Agencies understand and use the terms indirect, secondary, and cumulative impacts differently.
• Secondary, indirect and cumulative effects are often used interchangeably, when in fact they have very different meanings and requirements, depending on a number of factors.
• Agencies must deal with the different terminology of secondary, indirect, and cumulative impacts as defined for NEPA and other legislative or regulatory requirements.
• Agencies may not fully understand how to assess the probable impacts or agree on the assessment methodologies and tools available for certain situations.
• The state of the art or practice of impact assessment is not well defined.
• It is sometimes difficult for agencies to distinguish land use change, development and impact.
• It may be difficult to define the share of increased growth caused by highways and the impacts related to this growth.
• Responsibility for mitigation of indirect and cumulative impacts.
• Defining and analyzing impacts is complicated by a variety of issues that are outside of Federal agency control or responsibility.

Despite these issues, FHWA and EPA agree on a number of approaches necessary to understanding and improving our ability to consider and address indirect, cumulative, and secondary impacts:

• Agency and interagency guidance and training are needed to help the Agencies work together on these issues.
• Assessment methodologies for analyzing indirect impacts in the NEPA process are not as well defined as they are for direct impacts.
• Training related to analysis could be developed or sponsored by the agencies (such as the Region 1 and FHWA workshop)
• Interagency guidance on long-term management and on approaches for dealing with states with programmatic agreements is needed.

Both FHWA and EPA agree that they need to work together to address the challenges faced in analysis and review of the indirect and cumulative impact assessment and to agree on appropriate assessment methodologies for indirect and cumulative impacts.

Solutions and Next Steps

The agencies together will formulate the steps that can be taken to bridge the existing gaps between FHWA and EPA related to indirect and cumulative impacts. The agencies agree that we need to:

• "Get smarter" about different approaches and good process.
• Start with full disclosure and then taking on mitigation.
• Develop the steps to improve communication and cooperation between agencies to lead to a better process in the future.
• Ensure that assumptions made to develop plans are relevant to the context of the specific project.
• Discuss projects before they are put on the transportation improvement plan (TIP), thereby managing expectations.
• Differentiate between projects that are part of planned growth and projects that are unplanned and part of sprawl.
• Increase the role of FHWA in the planning process since FHWA funding plays a big role in land use.
• Be site specific.
• Develop an interagency training process on how to address and analyze impacts throughout the NEPA steps of scoping, impacts analysis, documentation/mitigation, and final EIS/EA.⁸
• Develop interagency guidance for evaluating the indirect and cumulative impacts of transportation projects. Such guidance can be used as a standard for state and Federal agencies reviewing indirect and cumulative impacts in NEPA documents.⁹
• Implement a well-defined analysis process to find the impact assessment model that fits a project's needs.

Conclusions and Next Steps

FHWA distributed a draft of proposed guidance, Questions and Answers on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA Project Development Process, for the review and comment of both agencies. Following the conference a few Division Office and EPA Regions provided substantive and helpful comments. The comments were considered and incorporated into the guidance where considered appropriate. The guidance was finalized and issued on January 31, 2003. EPA's proposed guidance on dispersed development intended for 309 Reviewers is currently being revised. The scope of the guidance has changed to that of a "primer," and will address the analysis of the environmental impacts of land use change associated with Federal infrastructure projects. EPA anticipates having a draft for internal review in September/October 2003.

In addition, FHWA and EPA will continue to discuss a wide variety of related issues, including:

• How to incorporate indirect and cumulative impact analyses into NEPA documents.
• How to communicate and document information in a way that is neither too broad nor too narrow.
• How to develop an interagency approach to addressing direct, indirect, cumulative, and secondary impacts that is not a cookie cutter approach but a case-by-case approach.

Actions Since Workshops

• After responding to comments by FHWA and EPA field staff, FHWA finalized the Interim Guidance: Questions and Answers Regarding Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA Process in January 2003. The guidance is now available at http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/guidebook/qaimpactmemo.asp
• One of the three Executive Order 13274 Task Force Work Groups is focused on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts. The initial meeting of the work group was held in June 2003. The efforts of the interagency work group are aimed at bringing field staff of the affected agencies to the same level of understanding of requirements and appreciation of responsibility for indirect and cumulative impacts. The work group is currently formulating their work plan, which will be presented, to the Task Force in July 2003.

⁷ The CEQ defines indirect and cumulative impact requirements in Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions for the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1500-1508).
⁸ The FHWA Maryland Division is using this strategy.
⁹ In 1999, NCDOT and NCDENR developed guidance and a training course for NEPA practitioners to use in addressing indirect and cumulative impacts.

Topic 6: Tiering

Introduction

Tiering is a flexible option to NEPA implementation that project sponsors can use to organize or phase decisionmaking for large or more complex transportation projects or proposals.¹⁰ Tiering can be used to integrate transportation planning and NEPA processes in phases: a first tier focused on broad, overall corridor issues, such as general location, mode choice, and area-wide air quality and land use impacts, and a second tier focused on site-specific impacts, costs, and mitigation measures.

The first tier usually results in an EIS and Record of Decision (ROD). Agencies can use tiering to conduct a broad level preliminary evaluation and to jump-start more detailed analysis if the broad tier indicates the project should go forward.

More and more agencies are using or considering tiering to integrate planning, NEPA, and public participation and interagency coordination but challenges remain. Some agencies are uncomfortable with the tiered or programmatic approach for several reasons:

• Tiered NEPA documents can be challenged in court.
• Tiering is labor intensive and tends to front load the evaluation process, despite saving time in the long run.
• No process for regular coordination yet exists.
• Confusion exists over how to deal with regulatory requirements such as 404 and the Endangered Species Act.

Potential Solutions

• Clearly articulate and document tier 1 and tier 2 goals.
• Make strategic mitigation commitments up front instead of during tier 2.
• Include legal counsel early in the process.
• Use programmatic agreements where appropriate to define responsibilities, goals, and timelines.

Conclusions and Next Steps

Tiering is still a new concept with no standard implementation process. Early success in using tiering is evident, and agencies are already sharing lessons learned. Peggy Casey, from the FHWA Missouri Division office, shared with the workshop participants Missouri's tiering experience with Interstate-70. Next steps to improve the tiering process include the development of a defined process and interagency training.

Topic 7: Air Toxics

Addressing the environmental and health impacts of air toxics released from mobile sources is an emerging issue. EPA studies have found that particulate matter 2.5 (PM 2.5) and other air toxics may cause cancer or other serious health effects. In late 2003, EPA is scheduled to purpose a PM 2.5 transport rule, which would be finalized in 2005. EPA is also initiating work on a rulemaking for controlling emissions of hazardous air pollutants from motor vehicles.

Not enough data currently exist to resolve several issues surrounding air toxics. Some of the missing data include:

• The levels at which adverse effects occur. It is difficult to detect air toxics on a micro level. Many studies cannot detect their existence at such small dosages.
• The exact environmental and health impacts of each air toxic. The most extensive air study to date, the MATE study in southern California cannot determine the effects of air toxics at the micro level.
• The best methods for addressing air toxics and their impacts in the transportation planning, project development, and NEPA processes.

While an air toxics analysis cannot provide pass/fail information for decisionmaking, providing data on air toxics during the NEPA process can be useful in describing environmental impacts, composing alternatives, and developing mitigation strategies.

Next Steps

FHWA and EPA are partnering on a variety of air toxics related efforts.¹¹ The two agencies are working together to develop global climate change policies as well as consistent policy on air toxics, including guidance on what pollutants can and cannot be distinguished at the micro level.¹²

In addition, FHWA and EPA will continue to discuss a wide variety of related issues, including:

• Conducting additional research on air toxic impacts at the micro level.
• Developing the research methodology needed to provide more data on the subject.
• Integrating NEPA and air quality regulations into FHWA and EPA processes.

Actions Since Workshop

• EPA held a technical NEPA conference with FHWA participation on emerging air issues in February 2003. NEPA preparers and reviewers should refer to the proceedings (contact gavin.jamesg@epa.gov) for information on air toxics, ground-level ozone, and transportation conformity.
• In June 2003, FHWA drafted an Option Paper titled Mobile Sources Air Toxics: Options for Assessing Transportation Project Impacts that EPA is currently reviewing.

¹⁰ Tiering is addressed in CEQ 1520.20 regulation and Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act.
¹¹ FHWA and EPA are following the lead of the Transportation Research Board, whose research agenda over next 4-5 years includes a significant focus on global climate change.
¹² There is a difference between PM 2.5 and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Unlike CO2, PM 2.5 is a regional pollutant and cannot be distinguished at the micro level.

WORKSHOP COMMITMENTS

FHWA and EPA agreed on most issues and pledged to work together to resolve them. Each agency continues to improve their work and strengthen working relationships. One example is for FHWA to explore ways to keep the resource agencies apprised of state transportation project priorities and changes therein. General commitments were made at the conclusion of during the workshop, including:

• Share presentations given throughout the workshop with the group. (FHWA)
• Foster early involvement throughout the process by continued discussions/interagency facilitated workshops. (All)
• Develop and disseminate a report/guidance from workshop (FHWA)
• Share information discussed with the rest of offices and other divisions (All)
• Encourage innovation in streamlining. (All)
• Communicate, communicate, communicate. (All)
• Develop a joint research effort to deliver tools to field staff. (All)
• Brief other agencies on topics discussed at the workshop (e.g. CEQ, USACE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries, etc.). (All)
• Share upcoming training opportunities. (All)
• Develop a centralized clearinghouse of training opportunities. (All)

In addition, next steps and recommendations were identified for each specific issue that was discussed. Refer to the table on the following pages.

Issue	Next Steps	Task Team and Members
Resources, Workforce, and Training	Establish a workforce-training group that will develop ideas for training, with an emphasis on cross training. Create a task team to summarize existing solutions and issues.	No one identified. Dominique Lueckenhoff (team leader), Susan Absher, Denise Rigney, Sandy Allen, Dan Johnson, Lamar Smith, and Naima Halim-Chestnut.
NEPA Process — Federal Agency Roles	Create task team to identify when a project is federalized. Create task team to write white paper on the areas of shared visions and examples of where agencies worked well together. Address the discrepancy between EPA and FHWA regarding consistency among EPA regions.	Lamar Smith (team leader), Joe Cothern, Butch Waidelich, and Dave Carlson. Stephanie Stoermer (team leader), Ben West, Denise Rigney, Steve Thomas, Dave Sullivan, and Dominique Lueckenhoff.
NEPA/404 Mergers	Assess how best to use credit in mitigation banks. Create a task team to work on use of credit from mitigation banks. Integrate technology into Section 404 decisionmaking and for improving the LEDPA selection. Publicize successful processes and methodologies (in addition to the November 2001 and February 2002 Successes in Stewardship Newsletters). Possibly conduct domestic scan tour across nation to learn more about NEPA/404 Merger Processes. Provide electronic versions of agreements as reference tools for states developing agreements. Determine how to address cumulative impacts on Section 404 protected resources.	Paul Garrett (team leader), Ann Roche, Yvonne Vallette, Dave Sullivan, Rob Ayers, someone from the EPA Region 3 office.
Purpose and Need Statement	Host focused annual meetings for the group. Conduct regional meetings for people routinely involved in the purpose and need statement process. Remove extraneous material from purpose and need statements. Involve agencies early. Provide interagency training opportunities.
Alternative Analysis	Insert broader environmental concerns into planning. Use tiered documents as a tool where appropriate. Write tiering success stories. Define what Federal agencies bring to the table. Discuss the ratings of the alternatives.
Scoping	Conduct scoping early, not at the last minute. Foster openness and full disclosure. Develop tools like a guide for citizens and a contact list. Advocate the use of GIS. Conduct annual meetings. Develop a checklist.
Level of Detail	Establish an interagency group that will develop a data needs assessment for NEPA documentation.	No one identified.
Mitigation	Look not only at the watershed but also at the ecoregion/system level. Advocate advanced mitigation, where possible. Pool information when possible to identify and develop good mitigation sites. Look for compensatory measures that also satisfy NEPA requirements.
Indirect, Cumulative, and Secondary Impacts	Distribute the draft Questions and Answers on Indirect and Cumulative Impact Considerations in the NEPA Project Development Process for review and comment by field staff (FHWA). Release guidance on mitigation strategies for dealing with disturbances caused by increasing development, sprawl, and automobile usage (EPA). Discuss how to incorporate indirect and cumulative impact analyses into NEPA documents. Assess how to communicate and document information in a way that is neither too broad nor too narrow. Develop a case-by case approach to addressing direct, indirect, cumulative, and secondary impacts.
Tiering Issues	Develop a defined process for tiering. Conduct interagency training on tiering.
Air Toxics and Greenhouse Gases	Partner on a variety of air toxics related efforts (EPA and FHWA). Conduct additional research on air toxic impacts at the micro scale level. Develop the research methodology needed to provide more data on the subject. Integrate NEPA and air quality regulations Ensure that NEPA procedures reflect current Air Quality regulations. Collaborate on the development of global climate change policies.

APPENDIX A — WORKSHOP AGENDA

Workshop Purpose: The purpose of the workshop is to identify and build on successful streamlining practices that support both EPA and FHWA's missions and to assess the challenges that limit our ability to define mutually acceptable solutions to recurring and emerging issues. We hope participants will leave the workshop with a better understanding of each agency's definition of stewardship, clarification of our respective agency's capabilities to deliver meaningful solutions, and an improved understanding of how we can work together. The workshop topics have been divided into three major groupings: Setting the Context, NEPA Issues, and Critical/Emerging Issues.

Day One: December 4th

SETTING THE CONTEXT

8:00-10:00 — Welcome
The goal for this session is to establish common understanding of each other's perspective on stewardship and assessment of streamlining progress to date. EPA and FHWA representatives will report on current key initiatives. This will set the foundation for workshop discussions

1. Introductions
2. Agency philosophy and historical perspective on streamlining and stewardship
   • Fred Skaer, FHWA HQ
   • Joseph Montgomery, John Meagher, EPA HQ
3. Information exchange
   • Status update on the Executive Order implementation: Pam Stephenson, FHWA HQ
   • Stewardship Innovations/Vital Few Goals: Lucy Garliauskas, FHWA HQ
   • FHWA Domestic Scan on Environmental Commitments: Lamar Smith, FHWA HQ and David Carlson, EPA Region 2
   • Update on CEQ's NEPA Task Force: Pat Haman, EPA HQ

10:00-10:15 — Break

10:15-12:00 — Resource, Workforce and Training Issues
This session will begin with a discussion to identify resource and workforce issues for each agency and share each agencies perspective on the problems. A panel of presenters will then showcase example of solutions to these issues. Following the panel, the group will discuss strategies to promote the use of these solutions. The desired outcome of the session will for participants to identify resource gaps and approaches to meeting those gaps.

1. Existing problem areas
   Discussion Questions
   1. Define existing resource, workforce, and training issues.
   2. What do we need to do to address these issues?
2. Existing solutions
   • Interagency Agreements: Susan Absher and Ann Roche, EPA HQ; Nova Blazej, EPA Region 9; Dominique Lueckenhoff, EPA Region 6.
   • Use of technology to fill resource gaps: Lamar Smith, FHWA HQ
   • Workforce capacity and collaborative decisionmaking: Lucy Garliauskas, FHWA HQ
3. Brainstorm other solutions
   Discussion Questions
   1. Are there other solutions to resource, workforce and training issues?
   2. How do we promote use of these solutions?

12:00-1:30 — Lunch

NEPA ISSUES

1:30-2:45 — NEPA Process
This session will begin with a brief overview of the transportation project development process and the Federal-Aid program. We will then divide into FHWA and EPA groups to discuss expectations and perceptions of each other's roles and responsibilities under NEPA. The groups will then reconvene to share and discussion expectations. The desired outcome for the discussion is for participants to have a better appreciation of each other's roles and responsibilities.

1. Project Sponsor — Project Management
   • Brief overview of Federal-Aid program and project development process: Lucy Garliauskas, FHWA HQ
2. Federal Agencies — Lead and Cooperating Agencies
   • Overview of requirements: Fred Skaer, FHWA HQ and Joseph Montgomery, EPA HQ
   • Discussion Questions
     1. FHWA — Define your expectations for EPA's role as a cooperating/review agency.
     2. EPA — Define your expectations for FHWA's role as a lead agency.

2:45-3:00 — Break

3:00-4:00 — NEPA Process — Continued

• Report back expectations to group and discuss

4:30-5:30 — Welcome Reception Hosted by Hotel

Day Two: December 5th

8:00-10:00 — NEPA/404 Merger
The second day will begin with a discussion on the integration and coordination of permitting requirements and NEPA. A panel will discuss challenges and opportunities in expediting the permitting process. Participants should leave with a better understanding of the Section 404 requirements and what does and does not work in NEPA/404 mergers.

1. Permitting requirements and Federal agency roles
   • Ann Roche, EPA HQ
2. How has the NEPA/404 Merger process worked?
   • Washington: Judith Lee, EPA Region 10; Sharon Love, FHWA WA Division
   • New England Methodology: Matt Schweisberg, EPA Region 1
3. Mitigation
   • Paul Garrett, FHWA HQ
   • North Carolina: Rob Ayers, FHWA NC Division

10:00-10:15 — Break

10:15-12:00 — Recurring Issues
This session will consist of a roundtable discussion focused on recurring issues. The selected discussion topics are based on the major issues identified in the surveys. Five groups will be formed and provided with a series of discussion questions on one of the five topics. The groups will then reconvene to share views on their issues and identify possible solutions.

1. Roundtable discussion focused on major issues identified in surveys listed below
   1. Purpose and Need
   2. Alternative Analysis
   3. Scoping
   4. Quality of data and documents/Level of detail
   5. Mitigation
2. Share group responses and identify how we are going to develop solutions

12:00-1:30 — Lunch

CRITICAL AND EMERGING ISSUES

1:30-2:45 — Indirect and Cumulative Impacts
The remainder of the afternoon will be focused on the discussion of indirect and cumulative impacts. A panel of speakers will identify agency positions and discuss guidance, land use forecasting methodologies, and mitigation. This session will offer each agency the opportunity to discuss short and long term plans for addressing this issue.

1. History of Issue
   • Lamar Smith, FHWA HQ
2. State Procedures/Guidance
   • Maryland: Dan Johnson, FHWA MD Division
   • North Carolina: Rob Ayers, FHWA NC Division
3. Federal Guidance
   • Guidance under development by FHWA: Lamar Smith, FHWA HQ
   • EPA's new guidance on dispersed development: Joseph Montgomery, EPA HQ
4. Land Use Forecasting
   • Use of Expert Panels: Rosemary Monahan, EPA Region 1
5. Mitigation
   • John Meagher, EPA HQ

2:45-3:00 — Break

3:00-4:30 — Indirect and Cumulative Impacts — Continued

1. Questions and answers for presenters
2. Group Discussion

Day Three: December 6th

8:00-9:00 — Tiering Issues
The morning will begin with a discussion of tiering. FHWA representatives will provide some background on the challenges and opportunities associated with processing tiered NEPA documents. The presentation will be followed with a group discussion on the matter. Participants should leave with a better understanding of tiering.

1. Brief overview of tiering: Pam Stephenson, FHWA HQ
2. Success Story — Missouri I 70: Peggy Casey, FHWA MO Division
3. Group Discussion

9:00-10:00 — Air Issues
This session will include EPA and FHWA representatives providing current agency positions on these issues and will conclude with a group discussion. The goal of the session will be to set parameters on the extent that these issues need to be discussed in NEPA documentation.

1. Global Climate Change, Air Toxics, & PM 2.5:
   Joseph Montgomery, EPA HQ; Bob O'Loughlin, FHWA WRC
2. Group Discussion

10:00-11:00 — Wrap-Up
The wrap-up session will allow participants to review how what we have learned will help us advance streamlining and stewardship. The desired outcome of the session will be to outline strategies to address unresolved issue and identify follow-up activities.

1. Summary of Workshop
2. Next Steps
3. Follow-up Activities

APPENDIX B — QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES

Report of Responses Submitted to the Volpe Center

October 30, 2002

Number of FHWA Responses: 19
Number of EPA Responses: 7
Number of SDOT Responses: 1

Appendix B Table of Contents

Agencies that Responded to the Questionnaire

Questionnaire Responses to Question 1

Questionnaire Responses to Question 2

Questionnaire Responses to Question 3

Questionnaire Responses to Question 4

Questionnaire Responses to Question 5

Questionnaire Responses to Question 6

Indiana Best Practice Case Studies

Sample of Questionnaire

Questionnaire Responses to Question 1

Successful or Innovative Streamlining

Frequently Cited Responses:

EPA

1. Using the NEPA/404 merger to help agencies invest in early coordination.
2. Developing interagency teams or holding DOT/FHWA/Resource Agency meetings on specific projects to create an integrated decision-making process.

FHWA and DOT

1. Creating streamlining MOUs with regulatory agencies (e.g., USACE, FWS) in order to streamline project development.
2. Developing programmatic agreements to expedite the review of Section 106 and Section 4(f) issues.
3. Expediting review and completion of categorical exclusions.
4. Using the NEPA/404 merger to help agencies invest in early coordination.
5. Developing interagency teams or holding DOT/FHWA/Resource Agency meetings on specific projects to create an integrated decision-making process.
6. Adding funded positions at resource agencies as a means toward effective communication.
7. Maintaining a strong relationship with SHPOs through frequent meetings or shared information.

EPA
Region 1

1. In Region 1, we experienced problems with projects in the late 1980s, the issue of delays, etc. with transportation projects came to a head about 1990. So, in the early 1990's, the Region 1 federal agencies got together (under the lead of the Corps) and developed the Region 1 District's Highway Methodology (published in 1992-1993). It has been quite successful in addressing avoidable delays by giving the process much needed structure, creating a record of key decisions, and meshing the NEPA/404 process together. The Highway Methodology was used as a model for other integrated processes, which followed around the country.
2. We have heard about other EPA regions using FHWA/DOT funds to supplement limited staff resources to work on transportation projects. We believe this idea could help us to be more actively involved, and involved earlier during the development and review of transportation projects in our region.

EPA
Region 3

1. The Mid-Atlantic Transportation and Environmental (MATE) Streamlining Framework is a good baseline for information on when and how environmental agencies may want to become involved in the transportation project development process. The Process Chart outlines the when, what and how of agency involvement. The Guidebook provides background on how to develop a collaborative and inclusive rather than regimental type process. Finally, the Data Guide identifies the methodologies and level of environmental data needed to expedite decisions. This paper represents the data that the resource agencies believe would is needed to inform environmental decisions in the NEPA process. All projects are different, as the data paper recognizes, and therefore, depending upon the type, degree, and magnitude of impacts, some projects could be expedited with lesser amounts of information. The Maryland SHA Streamlining process has taken the regional MATE framework and modified it to work for Maryland. Specific timeframes for project reviews are provided in the process.
2. The Corridor "O" project in Central Pennsylvania is a good example of a collaborative decision-making process. This project was exempted from NEPA and FHWA involvement, but the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation developed a streamlining process that included developing interdisciplinary teams made up of regulatory agencies, citizen advisory committee members, public officials, and transportation officials. During workshops these teams developed goals and objectives, evaluation criteria, and preliminary alternatives. By refining these alternatives based on each of their needs they were able to develop final alternatives, which led to a consensus. Although this process was not easy, it did result in the identification and concurrence with a preferred alternative by all parties and acceptance by the general public through numerous public meetings. This project and process shows that when people are working together to solve a problem in a way that meets their mutual goals, a compromise solution will usually be developed. The key was that everyone had a defined role and equal role in the process.
3. Finally, other good examples involve the use of GIS. Region 6's Geographic Information System Screening Tool is a good example of how to provide objective feedback during scoping phases of transportation planning and project development. Also, Maryland SHA's Secondary and Cumulative Effects Analysis that uses GIS as a tool to assess indirect and cumulative impacts from highway project is a good starting tool for cumulative impact assessment.

EPA
Region 4

1. The Corridor O Project (SR 322) in Phillipsburg, PA — I participated in a screening tour with Georgia DOT, Georgia FHWA and other resource/regulatory agencies to visit with representatives from Pennsylvania DOT and their consultants and hear about the streamlining process for the Corridor O project. PENNDOT is committed to a process that utilizes integrated decision-making by resource agencies, local governments, and other key citizen representatives at key milestones (i.e., purpose & need, baseline conditions, alternatives development, etc.)
2. I-69 Corridor — 1) EPA Region 4 (via the Southeastern Natural Resources Leaders Group) developed a "Delta Ecological Framework" utilizing GIS information from several natural resource agencies for use by State DOTs as they plan the new alignments of I-69; 2) three separate EPA Regions cooperatively developed a "Streamlining Coordination Package" for I-69. This package established some key common expectations from each of the three regions for NEPA documentation prepared for the I-69 project; and 3) Cooperating Agency for Segment 11 in Mississippi.
3. NC DOT NEPA/404 Merger Process — NCDOT has established a structured, consistent process involving all resource agencies based on concurrence points as project planning advances.

EPA
Region 5

Region 5 state DOTs rely on the NEPA/404 merger process to get high priority projects heightened attention from resource agencies. This is true so much so that EPA — Region 5 tends to equate NEPA/404 merger with environmental streamlining. I think DOTs find the process to be helpful in getting agencies to invest in early coordination. They seem to benefit from the concurrence point process. Issues do seem to be more clearly defined earlier than they would be otherwise. All streamlining projects in our six states have used NEPA/404 merging as a foundation to achieve shorter review timeframes. No one has attempted to quantify how much time is saved, and it may not even be possible, since the baseline you would be interested in comparing it to is for the same project where you are not using the NEPA/404 merger process. From our experience in Region 5, we have seen that there are a number of complex, controversial projects that seemed to have delays that would have benefited from a NEPA/404 merger process.

Since resource agencies have many responsibilities and limited resources, we have to prioritize our efforts on those projects that most require our input. EPA has benefited from resource agency meetings in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio that have provided status updates for all highway projects in the state. From this meeting, we know what projects are most likely to have impacts and we can focus our attention accordingly. Having highway and resource agencies' staff participate in field visits to major project sites/corridors can be a valuable means of improving common understanding of the project issues and stimulating ideas to resolve problems.

The Trunk Highway 169 project (still on-going) in Minnesota has been successful in bringing key resource agencies together. Purpose/need and alternatives issues have been well addressed through this enhanced NEPA/404 merger process. The expectations were clearly spelled out for the participating agencies in a streamlining agreement. That has been helpful. In particular, the resource agencies were asked to provide assistance in determining what methodologies would be used to assess environmental impacts. This was done as part of the scoping process. In Minnesota, this is formal process required by the state. Other projects in Wisconsin have been streamlined through the use of a project-specific NEPA/404 process without the benefit of a formalized agreement. These have also been successful in getting extra attention from resource agencies. Some of the expectations for their process weren't as transparent, so that had to be worked through. Through the process, relationships are built, project details are discussed, good ideas are exchanged, and red flag issues are identified earlier.

EPA
Region 7

1. Projects that utilize the NEPA process as a planning vehicle seem to fare better than those that have had extensive planning history prior to NEPA.

EPA
Region 9

1. EPA-Caltrans Interagency Agreement (IAG) and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Review of Priority Projects. Through this IAG and MOU Caltrans funds two NEPA Reviewer positions at EPA. These additional resources allow EPA to spend focused time on Caltrans projects thereby building partnerships and capacity and improving the flow of information.
2. The Merced Partnership for Integrated Planning pilot project (California). This project integrates transportation planning and resource protection early in the transportation planning process. The project is jointly sponsored by EPA, FHWA, Caltrans, and the local Council of Governments. This is an AASHTO pilot project.
3. State Route 132 (California). Caltrans is proposing a "hybrid-tiered" approach to the EIS. Funds are only available for a small portion of the project. However, Caltrans acknowledges that work will be done on the entire corridor. Caltrans is proposing an EIS that will include both a detailed analysis of segment of the project for which they have funding and a general analysis of the entire corridor. Caltrans presented this approach to EPA. We think this is innovative.
4. EPA Transportation Coordinator. EPA Region 9 has established a Transportation Coordinator position to coordinate internally and externally on transportation projects and to focus specifically on transportation streamlining.
5. Early project involvement is always helpful in streamlining projects. In Region 9, we routinely have early project involvement through our NEPA/Clean Water Act Section 404 Integration MOU.
6. Joint training. EPA, FHWA, and Caltrans share training opportunities. EPA has sponsored training in Purpose and Need and Air Quality.

EPA
Region 10

1. The SR99 Viaduct project in Seattle, by streamlining the Washington State 404/NEPA Merger process and developing a "one — stop" committee that is technical in nature and project-specific, adds process time to a minimum, keeps meetings small and productive, cycles people through only when they need to be there, and does a good job of helping all project info. on-line and available to all.
2. In Washington State, I have been involved in the Merger process that seeks to streamline NEPA and DOT review, I.e., implementation of concurrence points and interagency internal reviews of preliminary draft EISs. Continued ongoing support for WSDOT Liaisons to resource agencies.
3. CETAS in Oregon (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement on Streamlining). It is a more holistic, inclusive process, modeled on an improved "NEPA/404 Merger" construct, with concurrence points. Includes a vision for early involvement and is simple yet effective in its implementation.
4. Working the regulatory CWA 404 permitting side of transportation projects one of the significant steps forward that I have worked on in Washington State to attempt to streamline transportation planning and permitting is the merging of the NEPA documentation process with the CWA Section 404 permit process. Out of this collaborative action a number of hybrid merger actions have been experimented with along with a FHWA funded streamlining effort "reinvention of NEPA&. Unfortunately funding was stopped and full fruition of some of these efforts were not reached. The Merger has just been reauthorized and now goes under the name of Signature Agency Agreement or SAC. This is not perfect process, but has open doors that in the past were shut or did not exist. One important factor that we found out in these NEPA merger processes is that working at the NEPA development stage still did not get to the root of the delay problem experienced in transportation planning. We found that federal and state resource agencies need to be engaged earlier with the highway and land use planners in the transportation planning process. Early land use decisions were being made that significantly impacted the NEPA development and federal permitting process, causing delays and impacting alternative analysis later in the process.

FHWA
AZ

We have been working on several different streamlining efforts. We are currently at the final stages of a MOU with EPA dealing with Sole Source Aquifers. This will allow both agencies to better manage their respective resources. We are working with the Forest Service and ADOT on a statewide EA and MOU to deal with the invasive species on our roadways. This will allow the 3 agencies an opportunity to review and approve the location of projects and the identification of herbicides on an annual basis. We are also working with BLM and ADOT to develop a statewide EA to address ancillary construction activities. This will be a benefit to all 3 agencies, as well as, the taxpayer as the construction contractor will be able to get his permits in a much more timely manner. We are currently working with BLM and ADOT to up-date the AZ MOU dealing with the project development process. This includes (as attachments to the MOU) Operating Agreements for the NEPA process and for the ROW process.

FHWA
CT

Route 11 Streamlining Working Group — As a result of conflicts on the Route 11 corridor, a high level meeting was held on May 3, 2001 with the District Colonel of ACOE, Acting Regional Administrator of EPA, Director of USFWS, Acting Division Administrator FHWA, Commissioner of ConnDOT, Deputy Commissioner of CTDEP, and a representative of U.S. Congressman Simmons to discuss appropriate next steps for the project development process. Subsequent to this meeting, U.S. Congressman Simmons and EPA Administrator Todd-Whitman met and officially charged the federal, state and local agencies with creating a work group and plan to resolve each agency's concerns. FHWA was an active participant in this work group. The Work Group was charged with developing, within 60 days, new alignments, which all involved could accept and should the group fail this charge, the group was charged with narrowing the issues so the ACOE could make a decision on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA).

The group considerably narrowed the issues but was unable to find a new alignment alternative, which could be accepted by all parties. Following a September 4, 2001 meeting to explain the agencies position to the local officials, the ACOE issued a decision indicating two alignment options as meeting requirements for the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA) and the Local Officials unanimously endorsed one of these alignments. Though FHWA and COE have agreed on the LEDPA, EPA continues to threaten that the alternative is a candidate for the 404 Veto.

FHWA
IA

Those approaches that involve getting all of the agencies together as early as possible in the project development process so that the further development activities are in consideration of the concerns/issues of all of the involved partners. In some instances agreed upon time frames might be necessary, however, we have not yet found the need for that in Iowa.

FHWA
IN

1. The Indiana Division previously submitted "Indiana Case Studies" (see attached files) that were included in the FHWA Comments to the CEQ NEPA Task Force. These case studies included the following: Statewide Geographic Information System (170 GIS Layers), Indiana's Streamlined Environmental Impact Statement Procedures (EIS Procedures), FHWA-IN Section 106 Consultation Procedures, Goose Pond 7100 acre Wetland Banking Project, and Indiana Procedures for Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Assessments (CE/EA Procedures). We are also working on a Historic Bridges programmatic Agreement.
2. The most successful and innovative have been "Indiana's Streamlined EIS Procedures." By engaging INDOT and the agencies, and agreeing on a structured efficient inclusive process, we have avoided duplication of effort and unexpected delays after formal agency comment on our DEISs and FEISs. The structure has also allowed INDOT and FHWA to better guide the development of these major projects and be positioned to readily sign them when they are formally forward to us for signature.

FHWA
LA

1. LA 1 EIS — With intent draw other agencies into a pre-scoping meeting to develop environmental scope, kept them in the process and utilized a mitigation team with all permitting agencies represented.
2. We have accepted the COE NEPA documents (we made sure that 4(f0 issues were addressed) on three major high priority projects.
3. Though efforts such as statewide environmental summit meeting and DOT's efforts to develop manual to document streamlined approaches with input from Fed and state environmental agencies), rapport was established with all major environmental partners (federal and state) setting foundation for environmental streamlining initiatives.
4. Streamlining NEPA/404 processes by utilizing early/continues coordination and also major concurrence points on all major projects.
5. Utilized FHWA Programmatic 4(f) on US Coast Guard Fed funded project (One DOT effort J)
6. Funded other agency position (USF&WS) to get more timely reviews.

FHWA
MI

Early Coordination
Build Trust

FHWA
MT

1. In December 2000, an agreement was achieved on a conceptual design between the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, the Federal Highway Administration and the State of Montana through the US 93 Evaro — Polson Memorandum of Agreement. This agreement identified corridor design concepts including: lane configurations, design and operational features, and mitigation measures. The Memorandum of Agreement for the design concepts of the US 93 corridor is seen as a model for streamlining, context sensitive design and wildlife protective design features.
2. A national multi-agency effort is underway to develop a Wildlife and Fisheries Policies and Practices Hand Book. The handbook will set forth specific practices and policies for wildlife mitigation that comply with participating agencies regulations, goals and objectives while streamlining the development of transportation projects.

FHWA
NC

The foundation of any streamlining process improvement is built on common understanding that there is need for change. In undertaking such a task, the process steps need to be built on mutual trust with expected mutual gain. A successful process can only be attained through common vision from the very top of the organizations. Starting at the top is very important because the in-the-ranks folks are usually protecting their respective turfs and processes.

In North Carolina, the issue was identified as one of infighting between the agencies and the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and a resulting slippage of project lettings by the NCDOT. The infighting and ill will was directed at each agency involved in the process. In other words, everyone was pointing the problem at someone else. Efforts had been made to change processes within the ranks to little immediate effect. The senior professional staff undertook efforts to structure a high-level action plan that included involvement of the Secretaries of Transportation and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). As a result (and after concern raised by the Governor), the Secretaries of DENR and NCDOT met internally to address the issue and develop a course of action. One result of the meetings was to confirm that there was need for a fix. The Secretaries then engaged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Commander to address the problem with an agreement to work cooperatively.

With help of professional staff, there was a decision to follow a structured process improvement. This methodology required commitment, accountability, cooperation, and participation by all parties involved in the initiative. The structured process was essential in that it required a written confirmation and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) from the Secretaries and the Commander of the USACE which underscored their personal commitment and their expectation that staff would participate and would come up with programs of mutual gain.

Out of this came two detailed process improvement initiatives that are presently underway.

1. Merger01 (formerly "NEPA/404 Merger")
In brief, the Merger01 process improvement is a program to revamp the integrated NEPA/404 process. This process improvement has been underway since May of 2001 and is expected to close this coming December. The initiative has developed three process maps for differing types of projects. There are 36 detailed steps in the most complex process. Aside from the steps, there were approximately thirty-four action items that required redesign. Examples included plan format changes, training, policies of avoidance, communication, behavioral expectations, accountability and so on. These changes will significantly reduce, but not totally eliminate many delays. Even better the process improves the environment with mutual gain by all.

The Merger01 Process was chosen for this response since it is a further refinement of the already-successful NEPA/404 Merger process.

2. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP):
In a collaborative effort, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT), North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) agreed to collectively launch a process improvement initiative based on wetland, stream, and buffer mitigation. The purpose of the initiative was to improve the current mitigation process or establish a programmatic process that provides functional replacement at the watershed for ecosystem impacts of transportation development. In a series of activities based on a six-step process improvement methodology, a team of knowledgeable participants was chosen, the existing process was thoroughly evaluated and reviewed, all issues and concerns were defined, and recommendations to improve the existing process were developed.

The issues negatively impacting the current mitigation process were identified as inadequate communication; undefined roles and responsibilities; poor synchronization and coordination among and between the process and owners; difficulties with mitigation site development, construction, and monitoring; and a lack of clearly understood mitigation-success objectives.

These issues were identified as the principle causes of not meeting customer expectations and lower performance of the mitigation process. The root causes identified result from the re-occurring loops, bottlenecks, and timing problems in executing the existing mitigation (and permitting) processes. Upon the complete mitigation process evaluation and review, the process was redesigned and thirteen recommendations were presented and approved by the process sponsors.

The recommendations de-couple mitigation from the permitting process, allowing permits to be issued for unavoidable and minimized impacts without the reliance on individual project mitigation sites. The recommendations also call for the establishment of a new organization, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP). This EEP will better protect the natural resources of the state by assessing, restoring, enhancing, and preserving ecosystem functions and compensating for developmental impacts at the watershed level. The new mitigation process will potentially save agencies time and cost, while improving communication, planning, and environmental stewardship. The existing process for one mitigation project costs an estimated $593,836 and requires 28,680 working hours. The redesigned process for ten NCDOT projects with five mitigation sites costs an estimated $2,291,615 and requires 42,626 working hours.

The recommended implementation actions for the new service design address the interim and future needs of the program. The implementation design also addresses all the issues and concerns identified in the evaluation of the current process. When fully implemented, this program and process will be established as a role model for positive interagency relationships and will set a nationwide standard for mitigation at the ecosystem level for unavoidable and minimized impacts resulting from transportation and other development projects.

The EEP was chosen for this response based on the innovative process for: addressing mitigation at the watershed level; coordination among agencies; and the concept of mitigation in advance of construction.

FHWA
NH

Although we have been doing these activities before Environmental Streamlining was a gleam in anyone's eyes, we feel that our monthly meetings with the Federal and State natural resource agencies and separate monthly meetings with the SHPO are some of our most successful streamlining mechanisms. Typically, we are able through these meetings to identify, early on, projects that can move through the process quickly versus those that will encounter opposition or concern by these agencies.

We believe these approaches have application nation-wide, nicely fit with efforts to promote early interagency coordination, and have a substantial payoff in expediting projects that are free from controversy and give an early heads-up to the issues involved in other projects.

FHWA
NJ

As the new Environmental Coordinator for the New Jersey Division Office, I am not familiar with what streamlining efforts are currently being done here at this office.

FHWA
NY

Other than the programmatic Categorical Exclusion for "d" list projects that we have had for years I guess the best things are: 1) Canal Bridge programmatic for Section 106 (but too new to tell how it is really working); 2) An informal 4(f) "protocol" we have used (and furnish to the state) to determine when a 4(f) will be needed for data recovery for national register eligible archaeological sites; 3) a complex process agreement between the NYSHPO, NYSDOT and Division for screening potential historic sites and getting us through the 106 process including time frames for SHPO review and information sharing.

FHWA
OH

Categorical Exclusion Agreement

ODOT's CE programmatic agreement "pushes the envelope" allowing a variety of projects to be processed as low-level simple CEs rather than requiring preparation of complex environmental assessments or environmental impact statements. This increased flexibility is based on ODOT's past experiences and uses an impact-based approach for analyzing environmental resources rather than processing "typical" projects under a standard document format. ODOT's CE agreement provides a simple method of meeting the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and preparing high-quality documents. The agreement allows for ODOT's projects to be processed efficiently as either exempt projects, requiring no documentation, or as categorical exclusions using one of four levels. Typically, CE Level 1 and 2 projects involve culvert and bridge replacements, general highway improvements and construction of realignments or minor new highways. Projects with higher-level impacts are elevated to a CE Levels 3 or 4, based on context and intensity of the impacts. Many other types of projects can be processed as categorical exclusions and are defined in the programmatic agreement. A threshold limit has been established for impacts, right-of-way acquisitions, and relocations at each CE level to ensure statewide consistency throughout the twelve district offices.

Section 4(f)

The Section 4(f) Programmatic Agreement between the ODOT and the FHWA will reduce processing time and streamline approval of Federal actions involving temporary and/or permanent use of right of way from certain properties that are protected by 23 CFR 771.135 Section 4(f). These properties include parks, recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges and historic properties. Section 4(f) prohibits the use of land from these properties unless there is no feasible and prudent alternative to that use and the action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the properties resulting from such use.

ODOT coordinates approximately fifty Section 4(f) documents per year with the FHWA. Based on an analysis of document submission dates by ODOT to FHWA and approvals by FHWA, the average stay of Section 4(f) documents at FHWA is 28.5 days. Over the course of a year, the programmatic agreement will save approximately 778 project days for ODOT. Project delays will be reduced without compromising the Section 4(f) decision-making process. Additionally, ODOT will save time by reducing the administrative obligations of preparing transmittal letters, and copying materials for review.

FHWA
OR

1. Our CETAS (Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement for Streamlining) process, which is our next generation of our NEPA/404 merged process, has been the most successful. The process brings together in a common forum eleven Federal and State agencies to collaboratively work on our transportation projects. We have used the CETAS meetings to bring before the group a number of different topics that the group is interested in e.g. wetland banking, new Oregon Division of State Lands administrative rules, Nature Conservancy presentation, etc.
2. Another streamlining solution has been the paid staff by the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) at our resource agencies. Without them the program would be mired in a tremendous backlog. The paid positions have either been senior staff or very experienced staff and not new hires and their experiences have made the process a success.

FHWA
PA

1. Joint Community Advisory Committee/resource agency workshops where preliminary alternatives are designed. This not only offers an opportunity for streamlining the alternatives development phase, but also serves as a "classroom" for learning each other's values, roles and responsibilities. The agencies and citizens each learn from each other, which is valuable for the present project as well as future projects.
2. Field views with resource agencies in attendance. Often, better decisions can be made in the field when all parties can observe the resources in context and better understand potential impacts. This forum also lends to a menu of mitigation options that can go into project design. This early collaboration helps balance the differing desires and opinions of the resource agencies at an early stage in the project development process.
3. Programmatic Agreement for Section 106. Two programmatic agreements (PAs) exist in Pennsylvania to aid in processing certain types of minor actions (CEs). The PAs expedite review at the state and Federal level.
   Categorical Exclusion Form — Use a form has helped expedite completion and review of CEEs at both the state and Federal level. The form also serves as a tool to help project sponsors comply with state and Federal statutes. PENNDOT is furthering this concept by making the form electronic. This "Expert System" concept will contain screens and readily available reference material such as guidelines, handbooks, and Department Strike-off Letters.
4. Agency Coordination Meeting — This gathering of PENNDOT, FHWA and resource agencies on a monthly basis has proven to be a valuable tool for collaboration. It provides an open forum where presentations are made, opinions aired, and consensus sought on key points in the project development process.
5. Concurrent agency reviews — most reviews for EISs and EAs are performed concurrently and has proven to be a time saving exercise.

FHWA
TX

1. Setting up interagency teams (PSL, Safety, Wetlands Delineation) to help understand our processes, which ultimately streamline the process — A summary of these interagency teams attached.
2. Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 between Advisory Council, FHWA, TxDOT, and THC (SHPO) — This agreement allows the State to perform the preliminary analysis of eligibility and effect. A report is sent to the SHPO with recommendations for concurrence. Mitigation agreements are prepared and the results of these three are included in the NEPA decision document when it is submitted to FHWA for review and approval. FHWA meets with SHPO annually to determine whether or not the SHPO has any concerns over the previous year. FHWA retains responsibility for decision based on approval of NEPA document. Significant timesavings are realized with scientists directly involved in preliminary analysis and recommendations. FHWA participates in difficult issues as they are identified.
3. Project Working Groups: TxDOT, Consultants, Local Public Agencies, FHWA (Team: Engineer, Environmental Coordinator, Technical Specialists) — Teams are formed in preliminary project development stage for significant projects usually in urban areas. All stakeholders are at the table when issues, time lines, and decisions need to be made. Review of design scope, public involvement plan, purpose and need statement, logical termini, potential Section 4(f) sites, and other regulatory requirements are identified and discussed prior to any environmental documentation being prepared. Team is available to review draft portions of documentation as it is being developed. This process saves time by assuring that all stakeholders are aware of the issues as the project is being developed. Many regulatory challenges are averted early. Resource agencies can be asked to sit at the table to discuss specific resources as needed.
4. Environmental Resources Stewards/Leadership Team — Executive Leaders of the FHWA, State DOT, USEPA, USACOE, USFWS, USCG, etc. meet once a year to identify challenges in the integration of transportation projects and environmental resources (natural, cultural, and social). At the direction of the Leadership Team, special task forces are established to study issues and make recommendations to the Leadership Team for solutions to those issues. This approach assures top managerial support for environmentally sensitive transportation projects and provides a top down approach to decision making.
5. Quarterly Interagency Environmental Meetings — These meetings were established at to provide a forum for FHWA and the State DOT to discuss policies and regulations at issue for transportation projects. Participation was been expanded to include State and Federal resource agencies. This was intended to develop strong partnerships, develop an understanding and respect for each agency's mission, and to facilitate transportation project development while advancing the missions of the resource agencies.
6. FHWA Staff On Site With State for Design/Build Project — The Texas Toll Authority Division has a current design-build project underway. Providing an FHWA engineer on site to address environmental issues and commitments made in the NEPA decision throughout project design and construction saves valuable review and approval time. The FHWA engineer has authority to approve environmental reevaluations, determine if further analysis is needed, determine if further resource agency coordination is necessary, etc.
7. Assignment of EPA Staff for Transportation — EPA has assigned a staff person from the Region 6 Office in Dallas to be co-located in Austin where the FHWA and State Offices are located. This person has focused on transportation projects and how they relate to the EPA mission. Significant progress has been made in assisting FHWA to develop stronger partnerships with the Federal resource agencies. This person has been beneficial in facilitating the FHWA/TxDOT and EPA funding agreement to develop GIS baseline data for identification of environmental resources for the IH-69 project in Texas.
8. Texas Environmental Resource Stewards Scoping Team (Identification of Sensitive Ecological Resources by Resource Agencies) — The Executive Leadership Team directed a subgroup (scooping) team to determine if the resource agencies could work together to identify the sensitive environmental resources in the State. The anticipated product is a GIS layering of ecological resources. This data can be used by the transportation agencies as well as the resource agencies to meet the regulatory environmental requirements.
9. Programmatic Agreements for Tribal Coordination under NHPA Section 106 — This effort is currently underway to reach agreement with tribes for projects in the State of Texas. Several tribes have signed the PA's and others are expected to sign. The PA's identify they types of projects, which do not require Tribal coordination/concurrence of no effect.

FHWA
Western Resource Center

Riverside County, Master Plan for development and habitat preservation includes consideration and planning for the preservation of critical and sensitive habitat and advanced planning for transportation corridors to service the anticipated development. A truly integrated plan that is gaining the support of developers and the community

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

Adding ( funding ) transportation liaisons to staffs at permit/regulatory agencies has provided timely, knowledgeable and effective coordination ... That gets things done at the project level ...

FHWA
WY

1. Preparing long (30-40 miles) projects under a Corridor Letter of Consent process rather than project by project. (Not directly related to EPA).
2. Using an Issues Based Alternatives process that had more buy-in by most of the other federal and state agencies.
3. Developing Programmatic CE's to the greatest extent possible. (Not directly related to EPA).
4. Developing streamlining MOU's with other agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service where we consult their maps and proceed with projects without having to contact them on every project, and MOU's that outline procedures and environmental responsibilities of the agencies involved, especially the MOU's that say that it is FHWA's responsibility to comply with NEPA and that FHWA documents will be accepted by the other agencies.
5. Colorado's 20 year Programmatic Agreement for Short Grass Prairie with the FWS.
6. Programmatic EA form that FHWA WRC team developed two years ago. (Not directly related to EPA).
7. Public Involvement staff WYDOT recently hired in the Districts to have better contact with the public and to be more responsive.
8. Database management file search process with SHPO in Wyoming, easy access to data. User fee paid on quarterly basis rather than project by project. WYDOT sends cultural data to the database also. Many projects can be cleared with a quick review of the database and a letter to SHPO.
9. Good relationships with other agencies.

DOT
NC

1. North Carolina DOTs Merger 01 process redesign. It combines processes of approval between 5 agencies and should eliminate surprises in project delivery.
2. North Carolina DENR, DOT, USACE agreement to address mitigation comprehensively. This is a new division within DENR that will provide compensatory mitigation on an eco-regional basis. NCDOT's process to address secondary and cumulative impacts through partnership with DENR.

Questionnaire Responses to Question 2

Top 3 Issues or Challenges in NEPA Process

Frequently Cited Responses:

EPA

1. Lack of sufficient staff and funding.
2. Insufficient data for thorough analysis.
3. Unwillingness to consider agency-suggested alternatives.
4. Delay in timing of reviews and returned comments.
5. Lack of staff and information to proceed with NEPA/404 merger process.

FHWA and DOT

1. Lack of sufficient staff and funding.
2. High staff turnover at state DOT, FHWA, and resource agencies.
3. Mitigation for indirect and secondary impacts.
4. Lack of interagency cooperation and consensus.
5. Consultation on Section 106 and 4(f) is time-consuming and at times redundant.
6. Lack of staff or consultants experienced in environmental legislation, project development, etc., which creates further delays.
7. Delay in timing of reviews and returned comments.

EPA
Region 1

The top three issues/challenges in the NEPA process that affect our ability to advance timely project review or development include:

1. A lack of resources (people) to be as actively involved in every project as we might wish;
2. The general resistance by state DOT's to provide information necessary to understand the environmental impacts of a project. This serves as a barrier to us providing our input on the project.
3. The lack of serious consideration/thorough analysis of alternatives (e.g. upgrades on alignment, TSM/TDM, etc.) other than the preferred alternative also serves as a barrier to timely advancement of some projects;
4. it would be helpful if FHWA were to provide more leadership, in a facilitative capacity, in the process.

EPA
Region 3

1. There are many times when EPA will expedite reviews and provide comments in a timely manner. The FHWA or DOT will occasionally not respond to questions or concerns for a lengthy period, or until another expedited EPA review is requested. Sometimes the delays are due to issues with contracting, with data collection but other times the delay is for unknown reasons. Maryland SHA recognized this as a legitimate issue and has incorporated into their streamlining process a mechanism to ensure that comments are responded to in a timely manner and that they do not hold up project concurrences.
2. Workload and staffing are always an issue, which challenge EPA in reviewing NEPA and Section 404 projects. For the most part, EPA reviews Draft and Final EIS's, possibly EA's, FONSI's, and ROD's for most federal agencies and projects. To be involved in the project development process early to ensure that all environmental issues are addressed during the NEPA process, Region III would most likely be unable to participate as effectively without the assistance provided through the IPA agreements with the DOTs in our Region. Restricted travel budgets also would limit participation in meetings and field visits.
3. The third issue that would limit EPA's ability to review and comment or otherwise "advance" the project is the level and/or the quality of data provided for some of the decisions being made. The goal of streamlining is to make decisions in a concurrent manner rather than consecutively. However, the level of data should be commensurate with the decision being made and the NEPA process should recognize the addition data requirements of other environmental regulations. While we recognize that unlimited data gathering is unrealistic, it is also unrealistic to think that we will be making permit level decisions with typical NEPA level data in a process that was originally considered to be a planning tool. There should be recognition that additional data and specific resources may be required for certain projects, especially when those projects are expedited.

EPA
Region 4

1. Commitment by DOT to use a structured approach throughout the NEPA process, utilizing integrated agency/stakeholder involvement with concurrence points at key milestones.
2. DOT willingness to consider agency-suggested alternatives or design changes.
3. Agency personnel time and travel resources to sustain involvement throughout process.

EPA
Region 5

The key to timely project development and review is having adequate information about the projects. I think resource agencies could spend more time getting familiar with projects if they had more people to send to scoping meetings and field visits. In Region 5, it is frequently the case that we either learn about a meeting late or we have no one available to attend because they are committed to other projects. We like to have annual or semi-annual meetings with State DOTs so that we know what projects are on their schedule. That way we can make sure that we have staff available for those meetings that are a priority.

Once we have identified projects that are priorities for our agency, we need to find a way to sustain that person's involvement in the project both with respect to time and travel resources. It is helpful to have one person consistently involved with a project over the project development time (typically several years). That way another person doesn't have to come up a learning curve and everyone who is working on the project can begin to get to know one another and the way that they work. Personnel turnover is a real problem here because it disrupts the cycle mentioned above. Once again, annual meetings to discuss a State DOTs project forecasts are helpful to get new and old staff up to speed with project workload.

EPA
Region 7

1. Lack of resources (staff and travel) to participate in NEPA/404 merge process. (TEA-21 reimbursement opportunity did not materialize in Region 7).

EPA
Region 9

1. NEPA/404 MOU Concurrent Review Process. Poor or incomplete information is provided by FHWA when they request EPA's concurrence.
2. Basic NEPA principles not adequately addressed. For example, purpose and need statements, range of alternatives, project segmentation, cumulative impacts, mitigation.
3. Locally driven projects do not do a good job complying with NEPA and FHWA is not actively involved as the lead federal agency.

EPA
Region 10

1. An agreed methodology for complete cumulative/secondary impact analysis.
2. Differences in how FHWA and EPA view purpose and need in transportation projects. Early involvement is critical, especially with MPOs. Need to have staff resources and processes in place to enable early involvement. Definitions of "mobility" vs. "access" must be resolved at the earliest possible time.
3. Lack of agreement on how to integrate transportation, land use and environmental concerns/impacts in the NEPA process. EPA's input on these topics is sometimes dismissed by state DOTs.
4. Inadequately addressing environmental sustainability of transportation projects.
5. Timely training on cutting-edge concepts that address transportation sustainability, I.e., TDM, induced travel demand, land use planning.
6. Staff workload.
7. That the transportation planning process clearly identifies all alternatives that meet or partially meet the purpose and need of the transportation project(s) being proposed. This would include those alternatives brought up earlier in the planning process and were rejected for various reasons.
8. That transportation agencies better address correct and internal issues that block communications and coordination between transportation planners and their own environmental office.

FHWA
AK

1. Poor project management by state DOTs — specifically allowing project managers who have little or no NEPA (or other environmental requirements) understanding and little or no people skills and no appreciation for environmental stewardship responsibilities to direct the project development process.
2. An ineffective elevation process. This is reflected in three ways: (a) an unwillingness on the part of DOT personnel to initiate the elevation of issues; (b) a perception that elevation of issues is a failure on the part of those who initiate the process; (c) after elevation an unwillingness among management to deal with the hard issues — an elevation should not be sent back down to the "troops" to be worked out. I think a process that contains "automatic" triggers for elevation may deal with (a) and (b), but it won't deal with (c).
3. The way a highway project develops in a series of starts and stops. Routinely the resource agencies and the public are exposed to a project from outreach efforts and then it is months and sometimes years before they hear anything at all about the project. Then as the project goes into another phase, it goes out of sight for another long time frame. These starts and stops lead to problems in advancing the NEPA process and the project development process as a whole. A substantial contribution to this problem is the inherent changes in state DOT priorities, both in dedication of funding and personnel to a project.

FHWA
AL

1. Processing too many projects with lack of funding to complete. These include major efforts such as I-49, I-69, amongst a long list of unfounded high priority projects (not in the State's priority program)
2. Lack of local support and consensus on projects when controversial issues arise (sometimes causing tremendous delays).
3. Constant turnover in staff at ALDOT, FHWA, and other resource agencies involved in the NEPA process.

FHWA
AZ

1. Lack of resources. As the size of the program continues to grow, and as the laws and regulations continue to mutate, all agencies human resources have been stretched to the limit.
2. The inability of some individuals to separate their personal opinions and biases from those of their respective agency.
3. Turnover. It seems that every time we get people trained to the complexities of the program, they move on — so we begin again.

FHWA
CT

1. An outstanding issue for us is to be able to come to agreement with EPA and FWS regarding the calculation of the indirect and secondary impact area for wildlife habitat and mitigating for our impacts to this resource.
2. An outstanding issue for us is to be able to come to agreement EPA, FWS and COE regarding the significance of the wetland resources and the success of mitigating for the impacts to this resource.
3. An outstanding issue for us is for EPA and FWS to agree that the FHWA has reviewed the transportation elements of the study and determined that an upgrade on some facilities would not meet the purpose and need of the project and therefore would require a highway on new alignment.
4. An issue/challenge which affects our timeliness is the acceptance of NEPA Project Purpose and Need by EPA (and sometimes the COE) during 404 Review.
5. An issue/challenge is the lack of partnership among federal agencies to advance the transportation project.
6. An issue/challenge is there is no incentive or motivation for EPA to advance transportation projects.

FHWA
IA

We have been able to advance all of our projects as scheduled in the Iowa DOT's Five Year Plan.

FHWA
IN

The Section 106 and 4(f) issues seem to be the most time consuming and project delaying issues. The application of Section 106 to Rural Landscapes and the associated 4(f) protection does not always seem balanced. We are doing our best to avoid and minimize, but when 106 and 4(f) impacts cannot be avoided, the process seems to become unnecessarily cumbersome.

FHWA
MI

1. Exhausted resources protection and mitigation commitment.
2. Law suites.
3. Quality review (few staff , low quality writing, huge documents)

FHWA
MT

1. Permit violations on construction projects (not complying with terms and conditions, water quality violations )
2. Late involvement in the NEPA process by resource agencies.
3. State to state differences in administration of regulations (USFWS Not EPA)

FHWA
NC

1. Understanding the myriad of environmental legislation at the staff level:
   There are so many rules, regulations, statutes and legislation that it takes time for staff (at the FHWA and the NCDOT level) to become aware (much less knowledgeable) about these issues. An issue will become apparent during the review of environmental documents that requires additional responses and/or analysis/field work. This leads to increases in the time it takes to complete and approve environmental documents.
   It is more of a concern regarding implementation of federal-aid projects by entities other than the NCDOT. NCDOT has a number of programs whereby federal funding is awarded to local governments and (in some cases) non-profit organizations. In many cases, these entities may have never dealt with federal funds (and the associated requirements). Without rigorous oversight, this increases the likelihood that an adverse issue might not be addressed or a procedure may not be followed properly.
2. Lack of sufficient technical expertise in all areas of project development:
   In this day and age, professionals tend to specialize in one area of project development-as opposed to having a complete knowledge of all areas. For example, staffs tend to specialize in either environmental, design, ROW, construction or other fields of expertise. Even within these broad categories, there are further levels of specialization. For example, within the environmental realm there may be specialists in wetlands, endangered species, historic impacts, etc. This typically works well in large organizations where a project can be "handed-off" from one expert in one stage of project development to another expert in the next stage. The potential for problems increases where organizations (or even sub-units in organizations) are responsible for all stages of project development. This occurs to some extent within NCDOT as well as outside entities that receive federal funds. Even when outside assistance (such as consultants) is utilized, professionals still must possess sufficient knowledge to provide guidance to the consultants and review their work. This lack of sufficient technical expertise can increase the time required for project delivery simply due to mis-steps and errors resulting from a lack of knowledge.
3. Level of analysis (or lack thereof) in environmental documents:
   There needs to be a balance between providing enough information in environmental documents to adequately address pertinent rules and legislation, and providing too much information that distracts from the pertinent information.
   a. Too much analysis: Quite often, environmental documents (CE, EA, EIS-all of them) contain more background information and analysis than really needs to be included. For example, an environmental document may go to great lengths to explain the Endangered Species Act, provide background on the various species found in the county (including what they look like, how big they are, what they eat, etc.) and then state that this particular specie is not present within the study area. While this level of information may provide good reading, much of it is not really necessary. If a particular specie is not present, why not simply state it and not include all of the background information that is not required? By loading up the environmental document with information that (while interesting to some) is not necessary, it takes longer for the preparer to prepare the document, longer for the reviewer to review the document and sometimes makes it more difficult for the reviewer to locate the relevant information.
   b. Too little analysis: Quite often, it is difficult to ascertain whether an environmental document adequately addresses (or even addresses at all) a particular rule or law. It seems that the "big" issues (Section 404, Section 106, Endangered Species, etc.) often have their own "headings" and generally contain sufficient analysis to determine whether compliance has been satisfied. However, other rules, laws, etc. are often not afforded the same "status" and consequently are either lumped together or missing altogether. This forces the reviewer to scan large sections of the document looking for a sentence or two here or there that appears to address a law but it is not obvious.
   For example, a reviewer may be looking for consistency with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Often the environmental document will contain a listing of bird species either observed within the project area or expected to be found in a similar habitat, without addressing whether nests were found that might need protection under MBTA. While the fieldwork might have ascertained the presence or absence of migratory bird nests, the document does not provide sufficient information to verify consistency with the MBTA. Consequently, the reviewer typically makes a comment requesting additional information and a response is then required. It would be so much simpler and quicker if the environmental document simply had a heading called "MBTA" followed by a statement such as "No migratory bird nests were found in the project area. This satisfies the requirements of MBTA", or "Migratory bird nests were found and the following actions will be taken to ensure protection of such nests during nesting season".
   Another example involves Section 4(f). Quite often, there will be detailed analysis on Section 106 impacts, and another sentence or two elsewhere in the document that states "no adverse impacts to public parks, refuges ... ". Taking these two, disconnected analyses, the reviewer could infer that there are no 4(f) uses, but it would be so much easier to have a separate heading on 4(f) with a summary statement stating "there are no impacts to historic places, public parks ... thus the Section 4(f) requirements have been satisfied."
   There is on-going debate as to whether a particular rule, law, etc. should even be addressed if the project is not affected by it. Some argue "why address an issue if it is not applicable." The counter-argument is: "If an issue is not addressed, does it mean the issue truly is not applicable or was it left out of the analysis when it should have been addressed." The examples above could be applied to all of the federal requirements. By simply adding a separate heading and one or two sentences addressing why a particular rule, law, etc. is not applicable, it allows the reviewer to quickly locate the relevant law and assess the completeness and consistency. This would: reduce the amount of time it takes for the review; reduce number of comments by the reviewer; reduce the number of responses by the preparer; and generally make the document more reader-friendly and complete.
4. Lack of professional relationships between agency staff:
   The ability to advance timely project reviews could be enhanced by increased interaction among professional staffs. Several reasons may be contributing to this lack of relationships:
   a. Staff turnover: Whenever there is staff turnover, existing professional relationships are lost. It takes time and effort on the part of agency staffs to get to know other agency staffs. Not everyone is afforded opportunities to develop professional relationships with other agencies. In addition, sometimes staffs are not willing to take the time to develop such relationships. When staff turnover occurs, management should ensure that new staff get out and meet with other agency staffs to develop professional relationships. Making contacts with other agency staff and developing that professional relationship makes it easier to know who to contact as well as settle disputes.
   b. Mistrust among agencies: Often agencies are on opposite ends of issues. This can lead to mistrust and can hinder coordination and the development of professional relationships with the "enemy". Differences in agency missions should not lead to adversarial relationships. Rather, staffs should understand each other's missions and work cooperatively towards achieving solutions acceptable to all parties.
   c. Lack of "face time": Often, agency staffs never interact on a face-to-face basis with each other. A document may be sent and reviewed without either party ever meeting each other. The simple act of meeting with other agencies allows staffs to get to know each other, determine who does what, and leads to an increased comfort level when the need for discussion arises. It's much easier for one person to call another with a question or concern when the two parties have met and developed a professional relationship, as opposed to a faceless voice or simply an e-mail address.

FHWA
NH

1. The lack of support, and refusal to recognize the need for highway improvements by some resource agencies, particularly USEPA and USFWS. They often take obstructionist roles in project development. USEPA has on occasion lobbied some local officials to take a position against projects, as proposed by the NHDOT and worked in conjunction with environmental groups to facilitate their opposition to projects.
2. USEPA's recent pressure to get FHWA and the NHDOT to provide mitigation for secondary impacts associated with highway projects. They have an emphasis on so-called "sprawl" inducing activities and most new highways or highway expansion is viewed as sprawl-inducing.
3. Difficulty in reaching agreement over the size of mitigation packages, particularly related to wetland and wildlife impacts. This issue overlaps into the issue of providing mitigation for secondary impacts, as the resource agencies, primarily lead by USEPA have insisted that in order to get a wetland Section 404 permit, we must have extensive mitigation packages. For example, they are pushing for the acquisition of thousands of acres of land to offset impacts of less than a hundred acres of wetlands.

FHWA
NJ

1. Lack of knowledge of subject matter by the consultant
2. Section 106 consultation on adverse effect
3. Dealing with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit

FHWA
NY

1. Resource agency staffing limitations including state and federal agencies.
2. Funding limitations (projects on back burner)
3. Disconnect between the system planning process/phase and NEPA.

FHWA
OH

1. Water Quality 404/401 Permit/Coordination Issues (getting timely reviews/comments from Ohio EPA).
2. Redundancy of Section 106 and Section 4(f).
3. Degree of Alternative analysis in NEPA documents.

FHWA
OR

1. The State's shifting priorities at times politically driven determine the speed and the pace at which they pursue the NEPA documents. Much of which is outside of FHWA's control.
2. At times Oregon's State land use laws and regulations complicates an entirely complicated NEPA process. The State requirement to make land use findings before ODOT can process the NEPA documents and send them to FHWA often delays our projects.
3. The problems of how we handle and treat highway runoff is becoming an emerging problems in our urbanized areas e.g. Portland, Eugene, etc. Issues such as what design year rainfall do we plan for, what effective treatment facilities are available for use, what treatment level do we treat for, etc.

FHWA
PA

1. Although the early and often mantra for public involvement has validity, it has must be recognized as a reason why projects are taking longer to complete. Intensive and frequent public involvement events (meetings, hearings, presentations, group workshops, newsletters, interviews, etc.) take time to plan and implement — plus adds costs to the overall project development process.
2. Inability to resolve issues with resource agencies. Whether comments/responses are written in letters or meetings are scheduled for face-to-face resolution, much time is consumed when differing opinions arise. Often decision will not be made at the staff-level thereby prolonging resolution.
3. Multiple reviews of the same document. Often, a document is prepared by consultants (which goes through an internal QA/QC check), and then is reviewed by PENNDOT District staff. At times the latter consists of reviews by both the Design and Environmental units. Subsequently, the Central Office bureaus of Design and Environmental review the document, after which, the document is sent to FHWA for review. Upon compliance checks at FHWA, the document is sent to resource agencies for (concurrent) review. Each set of reviews can take upwards of 30+ days. If changes are made to the document at any point, the review cycle begins again.

FHWA
TX

1. Lack of early involvement in the project development process by resource agencies.
2. Reluctance of resource agencies to accept previous planning decisions in NEPA documents and to make commitments early in the project development process.
3. The philosophy of making our NEPA documents "bullet proof" to any legal challenges.

FHWA
Western Resource Center

1. Use of the 404 NEPA mergers seems to inhibit rather than expedite project planning. The requirement to gain COE, EPA and in most cases FWS concurrence on the early stages of the NEPA process gives too much weight to environmental issues to the point where the environmental issue are becoming the main driver to project planning. The NEPA 404 merger is in my opinion being used by the FWS and other resource agencies to insert FWS enhancement as a co-equal project purpose, to the point where in some cases the transportation component become a secondary need to the resource enhancement issue.
2. Needless delay in project review and approval at the point where the science indicates that there is a 95% certainty that the project is not likely to affect a resource. In my opinion, the resource agencies are too risk adverse even in the face of large net benefits to resources, with very small risks.

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

1. Insufficient , inexperienced environmental staff (at WFLHD as well as at regulatory agencies)
2. Highway Design Project Managers inexperienced in the environmental process ...
3. Inadequate scheduling/preparation to accomplish environmental compliance (sometimes we're behind before we start ... )

FHWA
WY

1. Waiting for agencies to digest all the technical information from consultants' resource analyses.
2. Getting consensus on issues and comments from within other Federal agencies such as the Forest Service. They struggle within their own agencies to find agreement between specialists. We have recently signed Liaison agreements with the Forest Service that hopefully will give one central contact who will coordinate and find consensus within the Forest Service. There seems to be a disconnect between management and technical specialists.
3. Conflicting agency policies and/or management objectives.
4. Finding practical mitigation on T-E issues that match the degree of impacts and timely processing of biological assessments and consultation with the FWS. Not using sound science.
5. The Letter of the Law gets in the way of allowing people to get together and come to consensus and make good decisions. Should be environmental coordination law not environmental policy law. Policy should not be the ultimate, coordination/customer service should be emphasized.

DOT
NC

1. Understaffing of resources to adequately participate in the process. For staffing of positions, finding someone with the correct attitude to make things happen.
2. Accountability of NEPA participants toward timely review and approvals. More importantly participants with attitudes of "how can we do this" as opposed to "why we can't do this".
3. The complexity of the NEPA process, the number of issues that must be addressed, the likelihood of "new information" that must be addressed, and these compounding issues that cause delay.
4. Regulatory inflexibility.

Questionnaire Responses to Question 3

Emerging Issues

Frequently Cited Responses:

EPA

1. Identifying successful mitigation approaches for secondary/indirect/cumulative impacts.
2. Air quality issues.

FHWA and DOT

1. Air quality issues.
2. Refinement of the NEPA/404 merger.

How to adequately address secondary/indirect/cumulative impacts.

1. Introducing an ecosystem level approach rather than wildlife mitigation on a project-by-project level.
2. Promoting timely review by resource agencies, considering their limited staff.
3. Funding options that allow a greater degree of flexibility in mitigation banking and studies for general planning questions.

EPA
Region 1

Evaluation, proper characterization, and mitigation for secondary/indirect impacts associated with transportation projects

EPA
Region 3

1. FHWA and EPA working together to build GIS databases and tools is an emerging issue. One way the federal government can assist states is through the development of tools and the gathering of data. Use of GIS as collaborative and screening tools will assist in scoping at transportation planning and project development phases.
2. A second emerging issue is Environmental Management Systems. All federal agencies are required to have an EMS in place by 2004. While many of these will address building operations, they should also address policy and project decisions. One area of EMS is monitoring of process impacts and remediation of any impacts to the environment. We should consider a pilot project that would track the level of impacts predicted in the EIS, after final design, pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction. If the type or magnitude of impacts were not correctly predicted in the EIS, then a new methodology for assessing impacts should be developed.

EPA
Region 4

1. Better use of planning and screening tools/methodologies in alternatives development.
2. Greater consistency from state to state on approach.
3. Consideration of secondary/indirect effects in NEPA documentation and identifying successful mitigation approaches for these effects.

EPA
Region 5

Streamlining executive orders, bills on environmental streamlining, and the daughter of TEA-21. Also, diesel exhaust from engines, air toxics, air conformity, the phase-in of the new air designations for ozone (8-hour standard) and fine particulates (PM 2.5), and land use changes associated with highway access are all important issues that may effect project timeframes because of their complexity.

We have also occasionally encountered difficulty on defining the level of information (environmental and performance) needed to discard different alternatives, especially those with fewer impacts. This is particularly an issue with tiered projects and wetlands permitting, where a NEPA/404 merger process is not used. For example, a highway agency may eliminate some alternatives in Tier 1 that may be environmentally less damaging, then face the possibility that it may have to resurrect some of those same alternatives during the subsequent wetlands permitting process because the Section 404 (b) (1) guidelines call for selection of the "least environmentally damaging practicable alternative."

EPA
Region 7

1. Cumulative impacts.
2. Critical ecosystems.

EPA
Region 9

1. Indirect effects
2. Cumulative impacts
3. Air toxics and new standards for ozone and particulate matter and impacts to sensitive populations.
4. Mitigation, dual environmental/transportation projects

EPA
Region 10

1. Should global warming be addressed in NEPA documents? Regions believe it must, FHWA does not.
2. Cumulative impacts, including agreed ways of calculating induced traffic and growth, air quality, sprawl, stormwater, low impact development (more proactivity), ecological connectivity.
3. Process, resources and "green flag" to allow input to inform land use and transportation planning
4. Need a cooperative partnership with FHWA. Right now, FHWA isn't helpful, or isn't as helpful as they could be. New approaches to improving communication, and analyzing past successes/failures.

FHWA
AZ

Air quality analysis and cumulative impacts.

FHWA
CT

1. The two agencies should be gearing up to achieve national consistency in the application of the 404(b)(1) Guidelines.
2. True merging of NEPA and 404. Example of the merger would be, the Purpose and Need under NEPA is the same as the Overall Purpose and Need under 404. Currently, the lead federal agency develops the NEPA purpose and need in conjunction with the State DOT, Federal resource agencies, State Resource agencies, the local municipalities, the MPO, and other interested parties at the Project Scoping Meeting. While the Corps of Engineers develops the Overall Purpose and Need without discussion and is typically "safety and capacity".
3. Other emerging issues include: a) Ecosystem and habitat conservation and enhancement b) Highway Congestion in all key corridors (Interstate Highway in Urban Areas).

FHWA
IA

1. Redefinition of jurisdictional wetlands under the SWANCC decision. Specifically dealing with prairie potholes within the 404 permit process.
2. Continuing work on Indirect and Cumulative impacts. We need greater mutual understanding of how these should be addressed in our environmental analysis.

FHWA
IN

Rural Historic Districts. It seems there is a lack of clarity regarding the application of eligibility criteria and the uniformity of application. I do not think that all 4(f)s are created equally. It sure would be nice if it was clear that maximum protection is afforded to truly unique historic resources. Some register eligible resources are protected, and then are torn down not long afterward. The system is not working as it should. We seem to be in pretty good shape regarding purpose and need, indirect and cumulative, wetland avoidance/minimization, etc..

FHWA
LA

1. How to adequately address cumulative and secondary impact analysis without in a realistic manner.
2. Air quality issues/explanations

FHWA
MI

1. Different Mission Statements and how to integrate them.
2. Personnel Shortage.

FHWA
MT

Currently, most wildlife mitigation is carried out on a project-by-project basis. For many species this limited distribution of mitigation opportunities does not provide adequate conservation options. Some species occupy very large natural ecosystems, and have habitat requirements that span large geographical areas. For these species an ecosystem level approach is required. A project-by-project approach perpetuates ecosystem fragmentation.

FHWA
NC

Refinement of the NEPA/404 process (discussed previously); and

Understanding the roles of each agency (see below)

FHWA
NH

We need Congressional direction, through legislation, on the issue of secondary impact mitigation to resolve this matter with USEPA. In the meantime a MOA at the Headquarters level between USEPA and FHWA would be helpful, as it does not appear that this secondary impact mitigation is a national issue, but rather a regional issue with USEPA. However, if it is not addressed and resolved quickly, it will become a national issue.

FHWA
NJ

1. Independent utility
2. Establishing boundaries for secondary and cumulative effects
3. Suburban sprawl

FHWA
NY

How to set practical time frames for review given resource agency staffing limitations. Related to that, is getting resource agencies more involved earlier in both planning and NEPA scoping. Note: we had set up a pilot to get earlier EPA Region involvement in NEPA and planning, but it turned out to be impossible given the fact that there was one person assigned by EPA to do this statewide for all projects in planning and NEPA stages. NYSDOT opted against it abruptly when we realized the severe limitations this imposed. EPA Region would have to have a full time person at the very least assigned to do this, and that wasn't the case. We realize this is a severe constraint on EPA too, but the real CEQ "cooperating agency" concept won't work without more staffing.

FHWA
OH

1. Flexibility in delegation of authority under NEPA CFR, etc ...
2. Developing more Programmatic Agreements and
3. Promoting timely reviews by resource agencies.

FHWA
OR

1. Watershed or eco-system mitigation versus project by project mitigation.
2. Urban highway runoff

FHWA
PA

1. NEPA compliance and corridor preservation/advance acquisition
2. Responsibility of waste and borrow environmental clearances
3. Responsibility of determining the thresholds of environmental resources for purposes of cumulative effects analyses
4. Congressional earmarking and its potential to emasculate NEPA
5. Level of detail required in the NEPA analyses to satisfy the COE, EPA, USFWS

FHWA
TX

1. Anything regarding conformity and new air quality standards.
2. Cumulative and Secondary Impacts.
3. Working out the differences (at a high level in D.C.) in our respective Agencies interpretation of regulations pertaining to Project Specific Locations (PSL).
4. EPA's decision to review Environmental Assessments and the related impact on each agency's workload.
5. Increased funding for transportation projects with no equal increase in staffing or funding for resource agencies.

FHWA
Western Resource Center

1. More flexibility in using project planning funds to extend project related studies to answer regional and more general planning questions. As an example, pile driving on the San Francisco -Oakland Bay Bridge offered an opportunity to definitively answer questions on the effects of pile driving on fish, yet the project only addressed itself in a limited way to this issue. The same ad hoc approach is being pursued by the Benicia bridge (though with much better planning and results). This issue needs a systematic and comprehensive approach and should be funded through pooled funds or as a separate study that gathers data from a variety of projects. The Cost to the Benicia Project alone for mitigation for fish impacts may be 20-30 million dollars. The cost of a well-done study with a little advanced planning might have been $200K. This issue will continue to come up on other projects until we do a definitive study of the issue. It might cost us between $200-500k to put this issue to rest, but the cost in mitigation and delays of one major bridge project alone would pay for it.
2. Better cumulative impacts analysis.
3. More flexible use and certainty in applying mitigation banking.
4. More risk acceptance (and explicit acknowledgement of risk) in issues of environmental impact
5. analysis, and in exchange a long term commitment, backed by funds to fix significant problems as they arise, coupled with a proactive coordinated use of pre project mitigation banking to enhance resources.

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

Need better , more complete: purpose & needs; cumulative impact analyses; project consistency with Western broad comprehensive/transportation plans.

FHWA
WY

During the current effort to Rewrite the CEQ Regulations, the whole NEPA process needs to be reevaluated and updated/revised to make a more streamlined process. Human issues should receive a greater emphasis. Give positive rewards for environmental protection efforts rather than just penalizing for violations.

DOT
NC

1. Indirect and cumulative impacts.
2. Greenways and connectivity of ecosystems. Mitigation options that allow some degree of flexibility is satisfying regulatory requirements. As programs acquire resources, we are fast loosing opportunities for mitigation. As we are losing resources, we are also loosing mitigation sites.

Questionnaire Responses to Question 4

Clarification of Policy or Procedural Issues Pertaining to FHWA/EPA Roles

Frequently Cited Responses:

EPA

1. FHWA's role as the lead federal agency, especially in providing oversight to identify key streamlining projects.
2. How to adequately mitigate secondary/indirect/cumulative impacts.

FHWA

1. Increased cooperation between FHWA and EPA with EPA taking a broader role in environmental protection instead of diverting transportation funds or goals.
2. Early involvement and coordination between FHWA and EPA.
3. Guidance on Environmental Justice legislation.
4. How to adequately mitigate secondary/indirect/cumulative impacts.

EPA
Region 1

1. A few regulation/policy issues could be addressed. They include: a) the confusion that arises (understandably) between the NEPA purpose and need statement and the 404 basic project purpose with the latter having a fair bit of confusion all its own; b) clearly in this region the transportation agencies and EPA have a different idea of what the word "practicable" means in the 404(b)(1) guidelines; c) disagreements about the reality of and need to mitigate for both indirect and secondary impacts.
2. Also, does streamlining mean making decisions as efficiently as possible or granting approvals as quickly as can be done? Is a process which leads to a relatively quick "no" on a project streamlined? If not, why not? It is our impression that FHWA interprets streamlining as meaning that project reviews need to be sped up and projects built.
3. We believe FHWA could take a more activist oversight role, weeding out state DOT projects that FHWA knows or comes to learn would cause significant environmental harm and are opposed by the federal resource agencies. These projects often are economically questionable as well, so FHWA's expanded activist role could include enhanced fiscal oversight to weed those out too.

EPA
Region 3

Current FHWA policy prevents or discourages the identification of compensatory mitigation for secondary and cumulative impacts. Although an analysis of these types of impacts is sometimes provided in FHWA NEPA documents, there is normally no way of addressing them where identified, short of outright avoidance or minimization. Other Federal agencies (e.g., the Corps of Engineers) do provide such opportunity for compensation when secondary impacts are projected. Are there any changes proposed to the structure of FHWA? There was a rumor that FHWA Resource Centers would be changing functions again.

EPA
Region 4

1. Level of FHWA involvement and oversight — in many cases EPA deals primarily with state DOTS with limited interaction with FHWA.
2. What is expected from EPA for participating as a formal "cooperating agency"?

EPA
Region 5

What information or process is part of establishing the purpose and need for a project is sometimes a key consideration or problem area for a project. Often resource agencies have questions about this because it relates to project alternatives. We believe that agencies often have good questions to raise about this. Dispute resolution processes may be applicable to solving unresolved questions about purpose and need.

It seems like FHWA has not always been able to take the lead on streamlining initiatives for whatever reason. Many states have not taken a leadership role. FHWA should assist State DOTs in identifying key streamlining projects for their state. Many states have not identified problems with existing NEPA programs but have identified other problem areas. For example, Michigan DOT and FHWA in Michigan have stated that the nexus between NEPA/conformity determinations is problematic with respect to delivery time because of the requirement to have state/metropolitan plans showing fiscal constraint. Plans have to include projects that have funding. Conformity has to be run on these plans and an attainment determination has to be reached before a FONSI/ROD is signed. Acquiring the necessary funding appears to be the step that slows many projects down not the NEPA process. Maybe something can be done to streamlining fiscal constraints/conformity and NEPA. Clearer guidance on how tiered projects should interact with the wetlands permitting program would be helpful also.

EPA regions and transportation agencies would benefit from discussion by EPA Headquarters Office of Air on the transition to new ozone and PM2.5 standards and how to accommodate that transition in NEPA documents and RODs in the next few years.

EPA
Region 7

Suggest that FWHA attendees read EPA's Policy and Procedures Manual for Review of Federal Actions Impacting the Environment.
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/policies/nepa/index.html

EPA
Region 9

1. FHWA as lead federal agency in relation to State DOTs and local sponsors. What are the responsibilities of the lead federal agency. What type of leadership role is expected of FHWA at the State Division Office level.
2. Transportation conformity requirements, especially project-level conformity issues in relation to the NEPA process, e.g. when is a conformity determination required and how does conformity apply to tiered documents and PM10 hot spot analyses.

EPA
Region 10

1. Development of purpose and need and the resistance (lack of flexibility) to change as new ideas, alternatives or information arises.
2. Indirect effects where state Growth Management Acts exist (they still exist and must be analyzed and disclosed).
3. Protection of farm and forest lands, rural areas
4. Access control
5. How the anticipation of a new or wider road stimulates land speculation and development. Momentum builds and leads to a pre-determined outcome.
6. Interagency coordination of the execution and implementation of the latest Executive Order: Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews.

FHWA
CT

1. The basic difference between our agencies is a major issue that needs clarification. FHWA strives to solve problems with the transportation system. EPA strives to protect the environment (human and natural). The agencies need clear requirements from their leaders regarding working and solving problems. To mandate that FHWA's Goals and Standards be the following and that EPA be another (seen below FHWA's Goals and Standards) put our agencies diametrically opposite each other. There needs to be a goal to pull in the same direction, work together to create opportunities and not opposition. There are opportunities to correct environmental problems, create a better environment but only if the agencies come together and meet in the middle with logical and reasonable views.

FHWA

We Strive To ...

• Meet the public's need for improved access and for safe, comfortable, convenient, and economical movement of people and goods.
• Be an environmentally conscious organization that practices active leadership in working with our partners to protect and enhance the natural and human environment.
• Improve the delivery and quality of our transportation programs and products.
• Develop, transfer, and implement technology through alliance with our partners and the international community.
• Improve surface transportation safety through a coordinated effort to reduce fatalities, injuries, property damage, and hazardous material spills.

Our Commitment to You: We want to meet your expectations and needs the first time and every time. To our partners, we pledge ...

• We will inform you of all major changes in policies and regulations quickly and clearly. Except in unusual cases, you will have at least 60 days in which to offer your views on proposed changes. Regulations will be realistic and impose only the minimum requirements. We will provide assistance if needed to comply with the regulations.
• We will make timely and accurate payment of all funds due to our partners and customers with whom we have a financial relationship. For those State partners with electronic signature, we will make reimbursement payment on the same day that you request it.
• We will provide greater flexibility to employ innovative financing techniques to stimulate increased investment in transportation.
• We will provide the best available training, technical assistance, and access to state-of-the- art transportation technology to meet your needs.
• We will provide an open and cooperative approach to considering and deciding changes that may affect practices, materials, or other aspects of transportation improvement activities.
• We will provide choices in sources of services and means of delivery.
• We will make information, services, and feedback systems easily accessible.
• We promise integrity in our business processes, openness to innovation, and objectivity in our evaluations.

To our customers, we pledge ...

• We will provide an opportunity to all persons and businesses affected by federally aided transportation improvements to present their views during the decision making process, and they will receive all services and benefits to which they are entitled under the law.
• We will minimize delay and maximize safety in and around construction activities.
• We will work with our partners to address identified safety problems in a timely and prioritized manner.
• We will work closely with our partners to enhance the condition and performance of our Nation's major roads and bridges with technology suitable for the 21st century.
• We will take full account of and minimize impacts on the human and social environment and on historical sites from federally aided transportation improvements.
• We will provide timely and accurate information whenever you request it. You will receive the requested information, or a specific commitment for future delivery, within 10 days of our receipt of your request.

EPA

While EPA's mission and goals are cosmically different. The mission of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment—air, water, and land—upon which life depends. EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• All Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work.
• National efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information.
• Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively.
• Environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy.
• All parts of society — communities, individuals, business, state and local governments, tribal governments — have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks.
• Environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive.
• The United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

FHWA
IN

I think it is important for EPA to understand the FHWA Planning Regulations and avoid the temptation to support project opponents by somehow trying to "kill" a project. The EPA role is an environmental evaluation role to assure a reasonable range of alternatives are considered and that the NEPA disclosure functions have been professionally accomplished. I have noted instances where "smart growth" or resistance to "economic development initiatives" seem to color EPA involvement.

FHWA
LA

1. How can we increase leeway in finalizing environmental documents when funding to complete ultimate project is not available (non-attainment areas).
2. The role of EPA on FHWA funded projects as a cooperating agency (how far to involve??).
3. The role of EPA in coordinating I-69 Corridor NEPA documents.
4. Does EPA want to be involved in wetland issues when the COE has been delegated 404 responsibilities?

FHWA
MI

Cooperating agency position

FHWA
MT

FHWA
NC

Staff need to understand the missions and areas of concern among the agencies. All sections of NCDOT that manage projects should be trained in the various laws/regulations involved in the project development process; good interpersonal skills from agency participants; early coordination between agencies; and developing professional relationships with key agency personnel.

FHWA
NH

Currently, we believe that the only issue that needs attention in regard to agency responsibility is USEPA's recent assumption of a role in sprawl and its mitigation. At the Regional level, they have identified a person as their "sprawl coordinator" and have moved rather forcefully into this issue. We view it as an opportunity for USEPA to insist upon greater mitigation packages, diverting limited transportation funds, to their goals of conserving large blocks of land from development. They are using their role in the Section 404 wetland permitting process to apply pressure for their position. We believe that this issue will surface more visibly with USEPA's comments on our recently released I-93 DEIS, as they feel that expansion of this existing corridor is a major sprawl issue. We have argued with them that public funding should not be used to mitigate for future actions by private parties that should have their own mitigation specific to their projects.

FHWA
NJ

1. EPA's policy on Environmental Justice and FHWA's Executive Order on Environmental Justice
2. Guidance on secondary and cumulative effects
3. Good SEC analysis from EPA
4. Role of EPA's comment on purpose and need statement
5. Guidance on independent utility and logical termini.

FHWA
NY

Though we don't have a problem with this, you could discuss the EPA Environmental Justice guidance and how it may be applied to other federal agencies. I don't think it should be applied, but have heard that EPA will apply it.

FHWA
OH

Clean Water Act and NEPA need a better merger. Currently, DOT's have to go through the NEPA process then another "NEPA — type" of a process for the 401 permits.

FHWA
OR

1. I understand that EPA has emphasis areas or topics and issues that they focus on from year to year. EPA should share these with our Headquarters so we in the field during our project development phase can work to accomplish some of these goals if we can dovetail these into our project as mitigation.
2. MPO planning and the Regional Transportation Plans are the basis that we develop transportation projects from. Because EPA normally does not have action in the MPO planning process they do not have a role in the planning process. The proposed transportation projects are the vehicles the EPA is left with to make changes in land use development decision. This is too late in the process and we FHWA are forced to question local land use planning and try to justify the need for the proposed improvement.

FHWA
PA

1. Recognition that the lead federal agency makes final decision upon weighing the opinions of the public; resource agencies; and cooperating agencies, and balancing project needs with impacts.
2. In giving Environmental Concern ratings, EPA is often sympathetic to the cries of resource agencies that do not have regulated resources, and gives the same weight to these resources as regulated resources.
3. The extent that EPA supports research activities as recommended by USFWS is unwarranted for NEPA decisions making.

FHWA
TX

1. Making air quality conformity understandable and logical. Also, see PSL comment in #3 above.
2. Common understanding of EPA's policies and procedures for review of transportation NEPA decisions. If the transportation agencies know how EPA views the review of NEPA documents, their measurement criteria, and their adequacy determinations, the transportation agencies can better assure that the decisions are adequately documented.

FHWA
Western Resource Center

Structural planning process problems in capturing local planning and public review that occurred prior to federalization into the NEPA process. Local planning accomplishes a lot of the NEPA process prior to a projects formal NOI, yet once the NEPA process starts we must pretend that the project does not have a history and start all over with a wide NEPA alternatives net, and public review of the project and process. There should be a way of formally adopting the previous planning (assuming it meets the criteria for NEPA including public review) and going forward.

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

1. Haw's role in mitigating for cumulative impacts
2. FHWA's commitment to wetland mitigation at a 1.5 to 1 replacement ratio ... where does functional equivalency come into play?

FHWA
WY

Has the Cumulative Effects analysis process really had a beneficial use where it actually affected WY project decisions?

Questionnaire Responses to Question 5

Inconsistencies in Application of NEPA

Frequently Cited Responses:

EPA

1. Variance over emphasis and usage of the NEPA/404 merger process.
2. Considerable differences among states or individual project-levels on choice of NEPA documentation approaches (e.g., an EA or CE versus EIS).

FHWA

1. Criteria and review process for EAs.
2. Differences in interpretation and attitudes among states.

EPA
Region 3

We do see differences in application of NEPA in different FHWA division offices and even among individuals. In Region III, until recently we have enjoyed a good working relationship with all FHWA Division Offices. We didn't always agree on particular issues but we always had an open dialogue especially as a part of the MATE task force. There have been some recent personnel changes in some of the division offices over the last few years that changed the tone of the working relationship. Not all of the division offices have been affected and it appears to be individuals rather than a divisional ethic. The tone appears to be more "us versus them" rather than the partnership atmosphere we enjoyed for many years.

EPA
Region 4

1. There are large differences among state DOTs (FHWA Divisions) in approach and level of interagency involvement throughout the NEPA process.
2. Considerable differences among states on individual project-level NEPA documentation — many state DOTs are relying heavily on CEs and EAs with few EISs.

EPA
Region 5

There are many differences in NEPA projects are managed across our Region. Some states use and appreciate the NEPA/404 merger process and others don't have a system to emphasizes early coordination with resource agencies. The states programs change within a state a great deal too because of political appointments or budget changes. It often doesn't seem like state DOT's learn from one another. It may not be possible given to political nature of the programs.

EPA
Region 7

Issues and ratings (summary paragraph document) do not suggest an EPA (Region-Region) inconsistency with respect to issues identified and level of concern communicated to FHWA. Degree of involvement at project meetings (scoping, public information meetings ... ) varies to a large degree across EPA due to a number of factors. Some of these factors are: available staffing, travel budget, competing demands, alternative communication modes — i.e., video teleconferencing). The degree of NEPA analysis undertaken (EA or EIS) by FHWA division offices may be a function of EPA Regional differences such as geography, level of urbanization, high stress on vanishing natural resources ...

Not an inconsistency of NEPA application ... but a related question — Why is EPA's rating of EISs used as a FHWA performance measure?

EPA
Region 9

1. Some FHWA State Division Offices are more likely to prepare EAs when other FHWA State Division Offices would prepare an EIS for similar projects.
2. Widely varying approaches to cumulative impact analyses.
3. The Region 9 NEPA/404 MOU is not used by AZ, NV, and HI, but is intensively used by CA.

EPA
Region 10

1. Yes. Portland FHWA Regional Office used to be very supportive of NEPA issues and played a valuable role. Ever since the decentralization of the Division offices, there has been lack of support, and on-going problems.
2. Each region has its own take on issues and projects. Yet the TRUNK Highway will require more inter-regional agreements.

FHWA
AK

In Alaska we work daily with the Anchorage Office of EPA, but whenever we need decisions out of EPA we have to go to Seattle and routinely have to start coordination over. We would like EPA Anchorage to be given authority to make decisions on AK projects.

FHWA
CT

From my knowledge and awareness of other projects in the United States, I would say there are definite inconsistencies with other EPA Regions. A project in Connecticut with 17 acres of impact is a "candidate" for the 404(c) veto authority but in other Regions would receive a permit with normal processing.

FHWA
IA

Yes. Now that we have some involvement with other than EPA Region 7 (now some involvement with Region 5) , it is clear that there are differences. Apparently, EAs are somehow reviewed in draft by Region 5 of EPA? At least they talk about a draft EA? There is no such thing as a draft EA except as an internal document, so there must be some review agreement that doesn't exist in Region 7? I also get the sense that Region 5 pursues far more empirical analysis of impacts. I'm not sure of that though, as we do not deal directly with that Region.

FHWA
IN

No. There are natural differences between individuals, but we have found that those are smoothed out by working with the next level in the supervisory chain.

FHWA
MT

Montana is fortunate to have an EPA office in Helena. The location of this office provides for an excellent day- to-day coordination. I have not experienced any inconsistencies.

FHWA
NC

Not applicable. Projects in North Carolina only work with one FHWA Division Office and one EPA region.

FHWA
NH

As a Division Office it is difficult to gauge the activities of other Divisions or EPA regions, but it is my impression that this sprawl issue is not significant in many parts of the country within USEPA yet.

FHWA
NJ

Yes, there are different personalities in EPA. There is also cultural differences, different political atmosphere and legal climate depending on locality.

FHWA
NY

Having worked with EPA Boston Region in my past FHWA position in Region One, I know they ask for a lot of things that NY Region doesn't, and they distrusted us and treated our agency goals as irrelevant. They were out to delay highway projects or convert them to transit. Working with both EPA Regions, I was in a position to see a stark difference in how they operated. I haven't worked with that EPA Region in about five years, but I doubt if it has changed much. I think you will want to hear from the Region 1 states on this, but they don't realize how much better it is to work with EPA NY Region.

FHWA
OH

At times, what USEPA considers to be a CE or an EA is not the same as what FHWA or the DOT would consider. USEPA appears to be "out — dated" in their understanding of what work goes into a CE project.

FHWA
TX

More inconsistencies are noted in dealing with the USACE and USFWS than with EPA.

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

EPA seldom has time to look at our EA's, so we have limited contact with them (in the NW) at the project level. (We're not complaining)

FHWA
WY

Yes just because of differences of human opinions from region to region, state to state.

DOT
NC

Yes, there is a lot of interpretation left up to the divisions and regions. No specific examples come to mind. Other agencies, particularly the USACE have a hands off attitude among divisions. Satisfying an agency in one state does not mean the same method applies in adjoining states.

Questionnaire Responses to Question 6

Suggested Speakers or Case Studies

EPA
Region 1

We suggest you consider the following potential speakers for this workshop. We would like more information about the objectives of the workshop and what is expected by way of results and what we will be expected to do with these results.

We would like to suggest that the workshop conveners consider taking advantage of the environmental and public policy facilitation services of the Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, at the University of Arizona to help make the workshop more productive for all involved.

Carol Cutshall, Director, Bureau of Environment
Wisconsin DOT
Bureau of Environment
4802 Sheboygan Ave, Room 451
Madison WI 53707-7965
carol.cutshall@dot.state.wi.us
608-266-9626

Carol Cutshall could talk about the controversial Highway 12 project in Wisconsin, and inter-agency efforts to reach agreement on secondary impacts of the project as well as mitigation. She also could talk about one of the mitigation commitments from Highway 12, which was a recent workshop sponsored by EPA and WI DOT to identify suitable methods for analyzing secondary impacts of projects proposed in the future.

Jeff Brillhart, Director of Project Development
NH DOT
John O. Morton Building, 1 Hazen Drive
Concord, NH 03302-0483
jbrillhart@dot.state.nh.us
603 271-1486

Jeff Brillhart could talk about the proposed widening of I-93 in NH, and the innovative method NH DOT used to identify growth in population and employment that the highway is expected to induce. He also could talk about NHDOT's proposed mitigation package, which includes technical assistance on land use planning for the 23 NH communities that are expected to experience increased growth as a result of the widening.

Sam Seskin, Principal Professional Associate
Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
400 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 802
Portland, OR 97204-1628
seskin@pbworld.com
503-274-9554

Sam Seskin could talk about methods for analyzing secondary impacts of transportation projects. He could review the methods available, including expert panels, allocation rules, use of comprehensive plans, and formal land use models. He also could present guidelines for selection of methods, describing the strengths and weaknesses of each method, as well as suitability for different types of projects. Finally, I believe he also could describe the LUTRAQ project in Portland, Oregon that evaluated alternatives to a highway in the region, and eventually resulted in development of a light rail system instead of the highway. (Note: Mr. Seskin might charge for his time and/or need to have his travel expenses covered.)

David Burwell, President and CEO
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP)
1100 17th Street NW, 10th floor
Washington, DC 20036
202-466-2636

David Burwell could discuss the reauthorization of TEA-21 from the position of STPP and their coalition partners. They have released an initial position statement outlining four key challenges that Congress needs to address as part of the TEA-21 renewal debate. The statement calls for the defense of the ISTEA and TEA-21 program frameworks along with new guarantees to make the funding programs more accountable, transparent and tied to performance. The statement issues a strong message that environmental, health, air quality, equity and historic protections must be preserved and strengthened as part of the TEA-21 renewal.

EPA
Region 3

PADOT District 2 Corridor O project — Orth Rodgers Consultants or a member of the team.
Gay Olsen — Maryland SHA Streamlining Process.
Someone from the Udall Center in Arizona to speak about Alternative Dispute Resolution.

EPA
Region 4

1. Bert Kisner (sp?), PENNDOT Area Engineer for Corridor O project
2. Kate Farrow, Orth-Rodgers and Associates — consultants working on Corridor O project; phone (610) 407-9700; kfarrow@orth-rodgers.com
3. Include a discussion on the development and application of the Mid-Atlantic process (or whatever it is called)

EPA
Region 5

Jim Kirschensteiner, FHWA-Michigan Division for successful streamlining using NEPA/404 merger

Susan Fox or Carol Cutshall of Wisconsin DOT to discuss the 10-agency Memo of Agreement on US Highway 12 in Dane and Sauk Counties, WI. This MOA allowed needed highway improvements to proceed while protecting the Baraboo Hills ecological resources from secondary development and promoting smart growth planning in the affected counties.

EPA
Region 7

1. A purpose of the workshop is to assess the challenges that limit our ability to define mutually acceptable solutions to recurring and emerging issues. What are the recurring issues?
2. Definition of stewardship? EPA's mission is "to protect public health and to safeguard and improve the natural environment — air, water and land — upon which human life depends." Merriam-Webster Dictionary: Function: noun. Date: 15th century. 1 : the office, duties, and obligations of a steward. 2 : the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially: the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care (stewardship of our natural resources)
3. Clarification of our respective agency's capabilities to deliver meaningful solutions: EPA's programs are moving in directions that will enable us to articulate the limitations of "places" with respect to their resiliency to particular stresses. (Cite critical ecosystems, cumulative impacts, GIS data holdings, remote sensing, ecological indicators).
4. Improved understanding of how we can work together. Perhaps the NEPA Task force can shed some light here.

EPA
Region 9

Jay Norvell of Caltrans District 10 would be a good speaker on the Merced PIP pilot project and the "hybrid — tiered" approach to State Route 132.

EPA
Region 10

1. Robert Falkenstein — retired FHWA, NW division of Portland, OR
2. Yvonne Vallette, or other representative from the Oregon CETAS group
3. Gene Cleckley, FHWA (former?), Eugene, OR
4. Defenders of Wildlife representative
5. Case studies in low impact development.

FHWA
CT

Paul Garrett on ecosystems and international successes

FHWA
IN

We would be willing to give a presentation on "Indiana's Streamlined EIS Procedures" ... they have been working very well for us and INDOT is very pleased as well We would be willing to speak about any of the attached Indiana Case Studies.

FHWA
LA

Gene Cleckly — experiences on I-69 and working with various EPA regional Offices.

FHWA
MI

James Kirschensteiner, FHWA Michigan

FHWA
MT

A session on the development of the Wildlife Habitat Handbook should be considered.

FHWA
NC

EEP: Bill Gilmore (formerly Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Manager for NCDOT—now the EEP Transition Manager) on the EEP. As an alternate, Rob Ayers (FHWA NC Division Environmental Programs Coordinator).

FHWA
NH

If you want to develop a national discussion of this sprawl issue, you could invite Ms. Rosemary Monahan of USEPA's Boston Office to your meeting to speak on sprawl,appropriate mitigation, and the responsibility of action agencies to mitigate for future anticipated secondary impacts.

FHWA
OH

Ohio DOT would be happy to step up to the plate. We would encourage USEPA and the FHWA team to use our CE process as a best practice that does not weaken NEPA in any way, yet still streamlines the process. Tim Hill and Andrea Stevenson would be the contact for Ohio DOT.

FHWA
TX

1. Ms. Dominique Lueckenhoff, EPA Region 6 — Ms. Lueckenhoff could discuss the value of having an EPA expert available to assist the transportation industry.
2. Dr. Nancy Kenmotsu, TxDOT — Dr. Kenmotsu is the Cultural Resources Section Director with the Texas Department of Transportation. She has invaluable experience with historic resources and transportation projects.
3. Ms. Irene Rico, FHWA Assistant Division Administrator, Virginia — Ms. Rico was intimately involved in the activities to establish environmental streamlining initiatives for the IH 69 project in Texas.

FHWA
Western Federal Lands

Would watershed & transportation planning by the FS or parkwide/transportation planning by the NPS be of interest to anyone ? The FS completed a national NEPA streamlining effort a few years back maybe the results would be interesting ( I don't know the specifics).

DOT
NC

North Carolina has some great programs within both NCDOT and NCDENR. I would suggest that inquiries on this matter be directed to Secretary Ross at NCDENR and to Chief Deputy Sheats and NCDOT.

Indiana Best Practice Case Studies (5)

INDIANA CASE STUDY

CATEGORY: Federal and inter-governmental collaboration

PROJECT: FHWA-IN Section 106 Consultation Procedures (106 Procedures)

PRACTICE: Enhance both the quality and timeliness of the Section 106 Consultation Process in Indiana. The 106 Procedures delegate development activities to project applicants and address Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) desire that FHWA make all legal findings and actively manage the 106 consultation process and decision-making.

AGENCY: FHWA-IN and INDOT

INVOLVED PARTIES: Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), ACHP, National Trust for Historic Preservation, and the myriad of Local Public Agencies (LPAs), their consultants, and associated consulting parties (including Tribes).

AGENCY CONTACT: Larry Heil, 317-226-7491, larry.heil@fhwa.dot.gov

DATES: Began: August 7, 2001 — Ended: ongoing

Context/Background: The ACHP and SHPO were concerned because they did not believe FHWA was as engaged as we needed to be to manage the 106 consultation process and serve as neutral arbiter of disagreements. The 106 Procedures addressed this concern and establish a structured efficient process that is acceptable to all parties.

Project Description: The 106 Procedures were adopted August 7, 2001 and are available on the Division website. The 106 Procedures delegate the maximum amount of authority to the applicant and establish deadlines and clarity of process to assure timely decisions. INDOT/FHWA-IN plan to fund two SHPO positions to facilitate timely SHPO review of FHWA undertakings. INDOT/FHWA-IN established a Historic Bridge Marketing website at http://www.in.gov/dot/programs/bridges/ and are offering 80% incentive funds to any applicant that is willing to implement preservation strategies. INDOT/FHWA-IN.

Internet Site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/procedur.htm

Value as a Practice:

• Results: ACHP & SHPO are satisfied with the more structured process, elimination of confusion is resulting in time savings and reduced costs, greater buy-in from consulting parties, productive efficient engagement of ACHP/SHPO to address outstanding issues
• Challenges overcome: Many projects were being delayed due to unresolved Section 106 issues. Project delays have largely been eliminated and all the agencies are satisfied with the more structured and inclusive process. Challenges remaining: An effort is underway to develop a Historic Bridges Programmatic Agreement to streamline the 106 consultation process for historic bridges.
• Source of information/references: FHWA-IN Section 106 Consultation Procedures are posted on the FHWA-IN website under "Our Policies and Procedures". Validation: Janice Osadczuk, Chief, INDOT Division of Environment, Planning, and Engineering, 317-232-5468, josadczuk@indot.state.in.us
• Recommendation as a best practice: FHWA-IN.

INDIANA CASE STUDY

CATEGORY: CE/EA

PROJECT: Indiana Procedures for Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Assessments (CE/EA Procedures)

PRACTICE: Enhance both the quality and timeliness of CE/EA transportation decisions. The EA procedures incorporate a "Community Advisory Committee" (CAC) mechanism to enhance community participation throughout project development so projects "fit" better into the impacted communities.

AGENCY: FHWA-IN and INDOT

INVOLVED PARTIES: Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), myriad of Local Public Agencies (LPAs) & their consultants, and the various agencies and community organizations involved in project development.

AGENCY CONTACT: Larry Heil, 317-226-7491,larry.heil@fhwa.dot.gov

DATES: Began: August 1, 2002 — Ended: ongoing

Context/Background: Many staff that prepare CEs and EAs are not clear regarding the documentation expectations and FHWA needed a better mechanism to direct EA development and engage community interest groups earlier in the process. The CE/EA Procedures integrate all environmental requirements into one document, clarify expectations regarding documentation, and give FHWA the mechanism (Project Coordination Team and Citizen Advisory Committee) to better direct EA development and involve local community interest groups.

Project Description: The FHWA Indiana Division and the Indiana Department of Transportation jointly developed Procedures to streamline development and enhance the quality of Categorical Exclusions (CEs) and Environmental Assessments (EAs). The procedures expand the programmatic approval of CEs by establishing impact thresholds below which FHWA-IN does not need to be involved. The procedures provide a consistent format for preparing environmental documents and both clarify and streamline the content needed to support informed/quality decisions. The CE/EA Procedures became effective August 1, 2002 and have been posted to the Indiana Division website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/procedur.htm.

Internet Site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/procedur.htm

Value as a Practice:

• Results: less time, less cost, greater public buy-in, changed culture, enhanced INDOT/FHWA/MPO direction of EA consultants
• Challenges overcome: Creating Procedures that addressed INDOT's need for timely project development, while enhancing FHWA and community involvement in development of sensitive projects.
• Challenges remaining: Establishing "Indiana Context Sensitive Design Policy and Procedures" in FY 2003 where the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) will continue to function after NEPA approval thru INDOT Design Approval to provide input regarding CSD features to be included in the final design.
• Source of information/references: CE/EA Procedures are posted on the FHWA-IN website.
• Validation: Janice Osadczuk, Chief, INDOT Division of Environment, Planning, and Engineering, 317-232-5468, josadczuk@indot.state.in.us
• Recommendation as a best practice: FHWA-IN.

INDIANA CASE STUDY

CATEGORY: Federal and inter-governmental collaboration

PROJECT: Indiana's Streamlined Environmental Impact Statement Procedures (EIS Procedures)

PRACTICE: Enhance both the quality and timeliness of EIS transportation decisions. An Environmental Streamlining Task Group convened in 2001 to re-engineer Indiana's EIS development process and incorporate the planning/corridor-study decision-making into NEPA. This activity served to fulfill the TEA-21 Section 1308 requirement to integrate the MIS into NEPA and the Section 1309 requirement to streamline EIS development without the necessity for FHWA rule-making.

AGENCY: FHWA-IN and INDOT

INVOLVED PARTIES: Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), R-5 FTA, R-5 USEPA, USFWS, USCOE, USCG, NPS, NRCS, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), IDNR State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM).

AGENCY CONTACT: Larry Heil, 317-226-7491,larry.heil@fhwa.dot.gov

DATES: Began: July 6, 2001 — Ended: ongoing

Context/Background: The Agencies were upset because significant decisions were being made during the planning/corridor-study process prior to initiating NEPA. INDOT, local elected officials, and the public were upset when contentious issues addressed during planning were revisited during NEPA. The perception was that INDOT and FHWA are wasting time and money and inordinately delaying the transportation decision-making process. The EIS Procedures establish "one decision — making process" that is both timely and responsive to agency issues.

In the past, INDOT would delay making difficult decisions until they became "politically hot", and then there would be a lot of pressure to accelerate the NEPA process. With the recent publication of the INDOT 2000 — 2025 Long Range Plan (see 2000-2025 Long Range Plan at http://www.in.gov/dot/pubs/ ), the NEPA process is starting earlier, projects have come out of an extensive needs analysis, and agencies are being engaged in a productive efficient manner.

Project Description: INDOT/FHWA-IN convened an Environmental Task Group in December 2000 and ultimately published Indiana's Streamlined EIS Procedures on July 6, 2001. These Procedures can be found on the FHWA-IN website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/procedur.htm and are highlighted on the FHWA Environmental Streamlining website at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/sept01nl.htm. The process effectively integrates the planning feasibility study and NEPA study into one seamless decision-making process and eliminates duplication of effort and the associated costs and project delays. The INDOT project-specific "2000-2025 Long Range Plan" utilized the Indiana Highway Economic Requirement System (HERS) to identify projects with the greatest return on the transportation investment. The 2025 Plan project concepts are then studied using Indian's Streamlined EIS Procedures to determine if a given project is feasible and to identify the least environmentally damaging transportation solution.

Internet Site: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/procedur.htm

Value as a Practice:

• Results: less time, less cost, greater public buy-in, changed culture, enhanced INDOT/FHWA/MPO direction of EIS consultants, productive efficient engagement of agencies to address their issues
• Challenges overcome: Creating EIS Procedures that addressed INDOT's need for timely project development, while enhancing FHWA, agency, and community involvement throughout the EIS development process.
• Challenges remaining: Build upon the "Stakeholder Involvement Group" success by incorporating a "Community Advisory Committee" (CAC) mechanism into the EIS Procedures in FY 2003. We also plan to establish an "Indiana Context Sensitive Design Policy and Procedure" in FY 2003 where the CAC will continue to function after NEPA approval thru INDOT design approval to provide input regarding CSD features to be included in the final design.
• Source of information/references: Indiana's Streamlined EIS Procedures are posted on the FHWA-IN website.
• Validation:Janice Osadczuk, Chief, INDOT Division of Environment, Planning, and Engineering, 317-232-5468, josadczuk@indot.state.in.us
• Recommendation as a best practice: FHWA-IN.

INDIANA CASE STUDY

CATEGORY: Technology

PROJECT: Statewide Geographic Information System (170 GIS Layers)

PRACTICE: INDOT retained the services of Indiana Geological Survey and is using approximately $1.3 million of FHWA Federal-aid to compile 170 layers of information that are commonly used for planning and environment purposes. The GIS layers are currently being maintained on the Indiana University/Indiana Geological Survey website at http://igs.indiana.edu/arcims/ims_index2.html. These layers will allow Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), INDOT, and consultants to enhance consideration of environmental issues at the early stages of project identification and development. Likewise, there will be an efficiency to INDOT consultants in that they will not need to individually solicit the layers of information for the respective agencies on a project-by-project basis.. INDOT will update the layers as agencies update their information in the future. The GIS is an incredible tool and we are just beginning to realize the benefits. The GIS layers will be competed statewide in approximately one year.

AGENCY: FHWA-IN and INDOT

INVOLVED PARTIES: USEPA, USFWS, USCOE, USCG, NPS, NRCS, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), IDNR State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), consultants, etc.

AGENCY CONTACT: Larry Heil, 317-226-7491,larry.heil@fhwa.dot.gov

DATES: Began: January 1999 — Ended: ongoing

Context/Background: INDOT initially developed 170 layers of GIS data for 26 Counties in the southwest quadrant of the State to assist in the development of the I-69 TIER 1 EIS (approximately 150 mile new Interstate between Evansville and Indianapolis). The power of the GIS tool became obvious to all involved, and INDOT decided to expand the project to cover all 92 Counties about a year ago.

Project Description: INDOT committed approximately $1.3 million to develop a Statewide Geographical Information System (GIS) that includes 170 layers of data from various resource and regulatory agencies ... the project is approximately 33% complete. This data will eliminate the need for INDOT consultants to individually "chase down" this information thereby resulting in significant cost and time savings over time. By making the information available to INDOT and MPO planners, sensitive resources can be avoided early when the greatest flexibility exists.

Internet Site: http://igs.indiana.edu/arcims/ims_index2.html

Value as a Practice:

• Results: The GIS has proven to be an incredibly powerful tool for I-69 Tier 1 DEIS project development. Other INDOT consultants and planners are just beginning to learn of the availability of the GIS layers since it was just posted to the Indiana University Indiana Geological Survey website a month ago The power of the new GIS is just beginning to be realized.
• Challenges overcome: Completion of the GIS for the initial 26 Counties established the framework for acquiring, storing, and manipulating the various layers. It will not be a big problem to expand it Statewide.
• Challenges remaining: It will still take approximately one year to expand the GIS from 26 Counties to all 92 Counties. The challenge will be to learn how best to use the GIS for statewide and metropolitan planning purposes. Consultants and other users will use the GIS immediately for NEPA development and a multitude of other purposes. INDOT will need to determine how to "house" and "maintain" the GIS once it is completed.
• Source of information/references: Indiana University Indiana Geological Survey website listed above.
• Validation: Janice Osadczuk, Chief, INDOT Division of Environment, Planning, and Engineering, 317-232-5468, josadczuk@indot.state.in.us
• Recommendation as a best practice: FHWA-IN.

INDIANA CASE STUDY

CATEGORY: Federal and inter-governmental collaboration

PROJECT: Goose Pond 7100 acre Wetland Restoration Project

PRACTICE: The Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) approached INDOT and FHWA about a year ago and requested that we partner with them to restore a 7100 acre prior converted wetland site in Green County southwest of Linton. The NRCS purchased a wetland easement for approximately $7 million and is investing an additional $3 million to restore the wetlands. The problem is that SR 59 bisects the site, and extensive "diking" would be required to keep from flooding SR59. NRCS indicated that the restoration would be much more successful if SR 59 and the associated bridges were elevated. An additional 500 plus acres of wetland could be restored, and the water levels throughout the complex would be able to fluctuate naturally with the seasons, thereby enhancing the quality of the entire project. INDOT agreed to partner with NRCS to raise SR 59 at a cost of approximately $10 million. A wetland banking agreement is being prepared so INDOT can utilize approximately 350 acres of wetland credits in the future.

AGENCY: NRCS, FHWA-IN and INDOT

INVOLVED PARTIES: USEPA, USFWS, USCOE, Indiana Department of Natural Resources (IDNR), Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), Ducks Unlimited, and Maurice Wilder (private land owner that granted wetland easement to NRCS)

AGENCY CONTACT: Larry Heil, 317-226-7491,larry.heil@fhwa.dot.gov

DATES: Began: January 2001 — Ended: ongoing

Context/Background: INDOT has wanted to develop and effective wetland banking process for years, and the various agencies (including IDEM) recently approved an Interagency Coordination Agreement(ICA) that serves as a framework for establishing wetland banks in Indiana. This project's so large, that it is expected to impact the migratory patterns of water fowl throughout the Midwest. This project seems like a good opportunity to significantly impact Indiana's environment in a positive way and establish a positive interagency relationship and framework to support future wetland banking successes.

Project Description: INDOT/FHWA-IN are partnering with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) to re-establish this prior-converted 7100 acre site. This is the largest wetland restoration project FHWA has ever participated in and biologist indicates it will positively impact migratory bird patterns throughout the Midwest. By letter dated August 10, 2001, the INDOT Commissioner committed approximately $10 million to raise SR 59 to facilitate the inundation ... the NEPA process is beginning and the project is expected to go to construction in 2005-07. NRCS already purchased the wetland conservation easement for approximately $7 million and this will serve as match for the project. INDOT expects to receive approximately 350 acres of wetland banking credits for a service area that includes the Indianapolis metropolitan area. These credits will result in eliminating permitting delays where wetland mitigation sites are not readily available.

Internet Site: none

Value as a Practice:

• Results: This will be the largest wetland restoration project that FHWA has ever been involved with. We believe it will significantly enhance the environment in Indiana and result in enhanced relationships between the agencies. This success will also establish a framework for future wetland banking successes as other potential restoration sites come available.
• Challenges overcome: The INDOT commitment of $10 million to raise SR 59 is an unprecedented and generous commitment to the environment ... there is no need otherwise, for work on SR 59. A consultant has been retained to work with NRCS to prepare the Wetland Banking Instrument. The initial field review with the agencies on elevating SR 59 and the preliminary Banking Prospectus is scheduled for August 29, 2002.
• Challenges remaining: We intend to complete the Wetland Banking Instrument and the preliminary engineering for elevating SR 59 by the end of 2002. The intent is to accelerate the roadway construction so that it is not necessary for NRCS to accomplish temporary diking.
• Source of information/references: FHWA-IN
• Validation: Janice Osadczuk, Chief, INDOT Division of Environment, Planning, and Engineering, 317-232-5468, josadczuk@indot.state.in.us and Rick Noble, NRCS, Project Mngr., 812-882-8210, ext. 8, rick.noble@in.usda.gov
• Recommendation as a best practice: FHWA-IN.

Sample of Questionnaire

EPA/FHWA Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop

EPA and FHWA have made good progress on environmental streamlining, but we need to renew and reinvigorate our efforts in light of the recent Executive Order on Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Project Review. The purpose of the workshop is to identify and build on successful streamlining practices that support both EPA and FHWA's missions and to assess the challenges that limit our ability to define mutually acceptable solutions to recurring and emerging issues. At the end of the workshop we will develop an action plan that outlines strategies for addressing issues raised. We hope participants will leave the workshop with a better understanding of each agency's definition of stewardship, clarification of our respective agency's capabilities to deliver meaningful solutions, and an improved understanding of how we can work together. Responses to the following questions will identify topics to be covered at the workshop. Please take a few minutes to provide us feedback. FHWA Divisions should seek the input of state DOT counterparts.

We are also using the services of the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center so please send your input to Cassandra Callaway by email at callaway@volpe.dot.gov or by fax at (617) 494-3064 no later than October 21, 2002.

QUESTIONS:

Identify the most successful or innovative streamlining approaches and solutions that you have been involved in or have heard about. Explain why you chose the examples that you did.

What are the top three/four issues or challenges in the NEPA process that affect your ability to advance timely project review or development?

What are the emerging issues that our two agencies should be gearing up to address?

Identify policy or procedural issues pertaining to FHWA and EPA roles and responsibilities under NEPA that need clarification.

Do you find inconsistencies in the application of NEPA by different EPA regions or FHWA division offices? If so, please explain.

Do you have any recommendations for good speakers or case studies to be presented? Volunteers? Suggested speakers, including state DOT representatives?

go to Appendix B table of contents

go to table of contents

APPENDIX C — WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

For questions or feedback on this subject, please contact Ruth Rentch at 202-366-2034. For general questions or web problems, please send feedback to the web administrator.