|
|
| Environment |
|
TOOLKIT HOME | |
Planning and Environment |
|
NEPA and Project Development |
|
Streamlining/ Stewardship |
|
Historic Preservation |
|
Section 4(f) | |
Environmental Competency Building |
||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
 |
|
|
Committing to ImproveParticipants discussed examples of where their agencies have been improving their collaborative efforts. Throughout the workshop, participants worked together to define issues they face in advancing their own environmental stewardship and streamlining efforts and shared future tools and creative approaches to achieve further success in these areas. FHWA identified the following next steps to advance interagency coordination through environmental stewardship and streamlining:
State DOTs recommended that agencies use the following actions to further their role as environmental stewards:
FWS proposed the following actions to improve their stewardship and streamlining efforts:
NOAA Fisheries set the following environmental streamlining and stewardship goals for their agency:
Documenting the WorkshopThe purpose of this document is to capture the information shared at the workshop, identify related issues and challenges, and present potential recommendations and next steps. This report reflects the statements and experiences of individuals and may not represent official FHWA, FWS, or NOAA Fisheries policy. This document contains the following information:
Setting the ContextFrom May 6 to 8, 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship Workshop in San Diego, California. Approximately 100 people participated in the workshop, which stems from the first Interagency Environmental Streamlining Workshop held in St. Louis, Missouri, in November 2000. The 53 FWS and 20 NOAA Fisheries participants came from Headquarters and from all of the FWS and NOAA Fisheries Field Regional Offices. The 18 FHWA, 1 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), and 5 State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) participants represented Headquarters and various areas of the country. The purpose of this workshop was to identify and build on successful streamlining practices that support FWS, NOAA Fisheries, and FHWA missions and to assess the challenges that limit these agencies' abilities to define mutually acceptable solutions for recurring and emerging issues. The intent was to improve participant understanding of each agency's definition of stewardship and capability to deliver meaningful solutions and to develop strategies for coordinating agency 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, and the FHWA's Vital Few Goals (VFGs), specifically the Environmental Stewardship and Streamlining Goal. EO 13274 emphasizes the importance of expediting transportation projects while being good stewards of the environment. As such, the EO complements and reinforces the strategic direction that FHWA established in its VFGs, which set expectations, measures, and methods for advancing an improved and efficient environmental review process and for demonstrating environmental stewardship. FWS, NOAA Fisheries, FHWA Headquarters, and State DOT staff set the context for this workshop by establishing a common understanding of each agency's perspective on environmental stewardship and by assessing environmental streamlining progress to date. Presentations by Fred Skaer (FHWA), Benjamin Tuggle (FWS), Phil Williams (NOAA Fisheries), and Gary Winters (California DOT (Caltrans)) provided agency perspectives on environmental streamlining and stewardship and identified existing opportunities to improve relationships among FHWA, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries. With this context in place, participants used the remainder of the three-day workshop to discuss issues surrounding numerous topics, including programmatic consultations, transportation development and the national Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes, indirect and cumulative impacts, and other emerging issues. Participants worked together to identify and explore the issues that influence working relationships. The purpose of this document is to capture the information shared and the specific recommendations and conclusions developed at the workshop. This report reflects the statements and experiences of individuals, not official FHWA, State DOT, FWS, or NOAA Fisheries policy. The "Environmental Streamlining and Stewardship" section of this document provides further explanation of FHWA's objectives and efforts. The "Issue-by-Issue" section provides a summary of issues that FWS, NOAA Fisheries, FHWA, and State DOTs identified as affecting their working relationships. This section also outlines the actions participants agreed to take to address the following seven issues:
The appendices include the following:
Environmental Streamlining and StewardshipEnvironmental streamlining and stewardship served as the central theme throughout the workshop. The workshop began with a review of the objectives of environmental streamlining and stewardship, which established a common foundation for workshop discussions. Environmental streamlining and stewardship are key components of both EO 13274 and Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). Both require that transportation and environmental review processes become more effective and efficient through interagency partnerships and communication. Specifically, EO 13274 directs Federal agencies to work together to promote environmental stewardship and process efficiencies by identifying priority projects for oversight and expedited review. Under EO 13274, US DOT requests priority project nominations from Governors, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), transit and airport authorities, and State DOTs. Projects chosen for expedited review must demonstrate regional or national importance and contain stewardship elements and innovative approaches. As of the date of this report, 13 priority projects, representing a diversity of project types, have been chosen, 10 of which are highway projects. 4 of these 13 projects have completed environmental reviews. The EO Interagency Task Force, created by the EO, continues to promote both interagency cooperation and the establishment of appropriate mechanisms to coordinate Federal, State, tribal and local agency consultation, review, approval, and permitting of transportation infrastructure projects.
EO 13274 also calls for the Interagency Task Force to review priority projects and provide the president with an annual report. This report:
Section 1309 emphasizes interagency cooperation through full and early agency participation, negotiated timeframes, dispute resolution, improved decision making, and expedited reviews. These streamlining objectives can be achieved through mechanisms that coordinate agency efforts. Programmatic agreements, State and local initiatives, flexible and creative mitigation, and environmental streamlining research are implementation tools that, when used effectively, will lead to improved stewardship and streamlining. Section 1309 emphasizes interagency cooperation through full and early agency participation, negotiated timeframes, dispute resolution, improved decision making, and expedited reviews. These streamlining objectives can be achieved through mechanisms that coordinate agency efforts. Programmatic agreements, State and local initiatives, flexible and creative mitigation, and environmental streamlining research are implementation tools that, when used effectively, will lead to improved stewardship and streamlining. Building from EO 13274 and Section 1309, FHWA recognizes environmental streamlining and stewardship in its VFGs, which shape the agency's strategic direction. Using an iterative process, FHWA Division Offices, Resource Centers, and Headquarters developed the Environment VFG, along with the VFGs addressing congestion and safety. FHWA designed the VFGs to advance process improvements while acknowledging that a "one-size fits all" approach may not be the solution. FHWA designed the Environment VFG to help achieve the following outcomes:
FHWA plans to work with State DOTs and State and Federal resource agencies to streamline the environmental documentation process by expanding on its VFGs through new guidance, training opportunities, peer-to-peer exchanges, and shared best practices and case studies. FHWA believes that the products of these vast efforts - good government, sound decisions, predictability, and innovation - will be further built upon by promoting the adoption of programmatics, the delegation of low-risk activities, the training of high-level agency staff, and the fostering of relationship building. go to table of contentsIssue-by-IssuePrior to the workshop, FWS, NOAA Fisheries, FHWA, and State DOTs field agency staff completed a questionnaire to identify the issues that affect their working relationships. (The survey and responses are found in Appendix B and C.) These issues include the following:
Topic 1: Transportation Project Development Process During the workshop, participants discussed areas of agreement and disagreement surrounding 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. Topic 1: Transportation Project Development ProcessQuestionnaire respondents recommended that the transportation agencies provide an overview of and clarify the transportation project development process to resource agency staff. The transportation project development process is composed of several phases, including planning, environmental review, and construction and maintenance. FHWA described and workshop participants discussed these project development phases in depth. PlanningPlanning factors stated within TEA-21 address protection and enhancement of the environment and energy conservation. This initial phase is a key component of the transportation project development process and includes determination of project purpose and need, implementation of preliminary studies, early coordination with other agencies, and initial public involvement efforts. Often guided by MPOs, the planning phase of the transportation project development process allows for the early identification and analysis of a variety of issues and deficiencies by all involved to plan for current improvements and future use. This planning in advance allows State DOTs and MPOs to better develop and evaluate alternatives based on demand management analysis for transportation infrastructure. Planning factors stated within TEA-21 address protection and enhancement of the environment and energy conservation, however, Federal resource agencies rarely have the capability to participate in this early phase. Hence, key decisions may be made without knowing what impacts may occur to natural resources. These decisions are generally not effectively negotiable during the NEPA review due to considerable amounts of investments of planning, concept design and political capital to complete this phase Planning is required of both State DOTs and MPOs. After conducting analysis and scoping activities, State DOTs and MPOs must prepare a long-range transportation plan and a transportation improvement program. Both the statewide and the metropolitan transportation plans are designed to look at long-term transportation investments with 20-year timeframes. In addition, the metropolitan transportation plan is financially constrained. Each plan includes multimodal operations and focuses on both economic and environmental goals. In contrast, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) and the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) are short-range plans, though they must be consistent with existing long-range plans. Both the STIP and the TIP conform to the State implementation plan and describe specific project design concepts and scopes.
MPOs, State DOTs, FHWA, FTA, and resource agencies can use this initial phase to foster and develop both stewardship and streamlining benefits before significant investments are made. Through early coordination, each of these agencies can gain a better understanding of the planning and environmental review process and strengthen interagency relationships1. Such interagency coordination, along with early public involvement, allows MPOs and State DOTs to address, in advance, such key issues as preferred mode selection, public scoping, and environmental justice concerns. FWS and NOAA Fisheries recommend that transportation agencies use the following advanced planning methods to achieve more effective results:
1 Due to the flexibility inherent in the planning process, FHWA recommends that resource agencies familiarize themselves with individual state and metropolitan planning processes. Environmental Review NEPA outlines the Federal responsibility to balance economic and resource issues. A project's purpose and need statement is the foundation of its environmental review and subsequent NEPA document, which analyzes the environmental impacts of each project alternative. Although FHWA approves the obligation of funds, it does not implement the NEPA process; instead, it oversees the process. NEPA outlines the Federal responsibility to balance economic and resource issues. A project's purpose and need statement is the foundation of its environmental review and subsequent NEPA document, which analyzes the environmental impacts of each project alternative. Although FHWA approves the obligation of funds, it does not implement the NEPA process; instead, it oversees the process. The principles of the transportation decision making process support the NEPA environmental review process by emphasizing public cooperation and interagency coordination. States rely on input from the public and resource agencies to accurately consider all alternatives and environmental impacts and to determine the preferred alternative. States also rely on resource agencies to determine critical resources and boundaries that have the potential to be impaired by a project. Resource agencies assist States in determining the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of a project. Subsequently, FHWA and the State DOTs use this input in their determination of the appropriate environmental documentation and mitigation measures for a specific project. Although each State follows the same FHWA regulations for requiring Categorical Exclusions (CEs), EAs, and EISs, States apply these regulations based on the unique environmental and transportation issues associated with the project. Although many critical decisions affecting resources are made during the initial planning process by State and local officials, it is during the environmental review phase when most resource agencies become involved. Even then, workload priorities and the availability of staff determine if and when resource agencies are able to participate in this second phase. With adequate staff and funds, resource agencies are able to work early in the NEPA process. However, decreasing funding and staff levels lead resource agencies to become involved later in this phase and limit their focus on fewer resources. Construction and MaintenancePaul Wagner of the Washington State DOT presented information about construction and maintenance, which are the two final stages in the transportation project development process. State DOTs are responsible for these actions and accountable for adhering to the Federal and State laws protecting the environment. Although DOTs are responsible for the development and maintenance of transportation infrastructure that meets environmental laws, many projects are built by outside contractors that act on behalf of State DOTs. In these cases, even greater coordination and communication are required to express what is and is not permitted on a given project. The majority of State DOT construction projects upgrade the existing system. Direct effects caused by these types of construction projects are often of greatest concern due to their noise, habitat, and erosion impacts. To avoid these impacts, State DOTs can use a variety of tools. Pre-construction meetings and construction training bring issues to the forefront in advance of actual construction. Erosion control plans, developed by the contractor and submitted to the State DOT for approval, can also be used to achieve environmental awareness and consensus. For projects that impact highly vulnerable environments, on site biologists can streamline the environmental process by immediately addressing critical issues. Practices such as vegetation control, ditch draining, and guardrail replacement are routine maintenance activities. In-water work, however, is of major concern due to their potential to impact the environment. As with construction, early coordination with and training of maintenance staff can help them learn how to minimize effects. State DOTs can also use performance-based monitoring to ensure that maintenance activities have limited environmental impacts.
Topic 2: Consultation and Technical Review with FWS and NOAA FisheriesSimilar to the overview of the transportation project development process, representatives from FWS and NOAA Fisheries, commonly known together as the Services, summarized the key aspects of consultation on ESA and EFH. Section 7 of the Endangered Species ActSection 7 of the ESA requires the Federal agency associated with a transportation project, called the Action Agency, to consult with the appropriate resource agencies (FWS and NOAA Fisheries) if the project has the potential to impact any endangered or threatened species or critical habitat2. By working with all of the resource agencies, the Action Agency analyzes the impacts of its proposed action and requests consultation for all actions, which may affect listed species or its designated critical habitat. Formal consultation is required for all actions that "may affect" listed species. The Action Agency provides a determination of "may affect" accompanied by supporting documentation often called a biological assessment. 2 Consultation must occur for funding, planning, permitting, and all earth moving or other physical construction. The Action Agency may conclude the formal consultation process informally if they receive concurrence from the FWS or NOAA Fisheries and they are able to document that the effects of the action are insignificant, discountable, or wholly beneficial and are not anticipated to result in incidental take. All projects that may result in incidental take must receive an incidental take statement, which is only available through a formal consultation, which concludes with a biological opinion. FWS and NOAA Fisheries have recognized several challenges in the ESA consultation process, including the following:
The Section 7 consultation process offers a number of regulatory streamlining opportunities to minimize or avoid impacts to habitat or species. For example, agencies can engage in early coordination and communication. This type of informal consultation can facilitate discussion on habitat and ecosystem concerns instead of single species management, further promoting environmental benefits. Other streamlining techniques include:
The Magnusun Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act of 1975 governs management of the nation's fish. In 1996, an amendment to the Act strengthened the link between habitat rebuilding and fisheries sustainability. Today, the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires the identification of EFH for managed species and measures the effectiveness of conservation efforts to enhance the habitat fish species need throughout their life cycles. Congress defines EFH as "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" (16 U.S.C. 1802(10)). Until the Magnuson-Stevens Act, no regulations existed that required other agencies to consider adverse effects on EFH. Federal agencies are required to consult with the Secretary of Commerce regarding any action they authorize, fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. The EFH consultation process is integrated with other agencies' processes and schedules, if agreed upon in pre-negotiation. For cases where existing processes cannot be followed, the EFH regulations specify what consultation process to use based on the degree of potential impact to EFH. While State agencies are not required to consult with NOAA Fisheries, they can, however, be approached for consultation by NOAA Fisheries. The underlying challenge inherent in all EFH consultations is minimizing human impacts while conserving ecologically important places, functions, and species connectivity.
Topic 3: Integration of ESA and EFH into NEPADuring this session, participants discussed the challenges and opportunities associated with integrating ESA and EFH into NEPA. The purpose of the discussion was to identify how resource agencies can be more involved in the development of transportation projects. Issues such as data needs and level of detail were among the most frequently cited challenges. Participants received information about the development of the Wildlife Habitat Handbook that intends to identify opportunities for integrating the processes. Successful examples of process integration were also discussed, including Oregon's Major Bridge Replacement Program - ESA Strategy, and Florida's Efficient Transportation Decisionmaking Process. ChallengesResource and transportation agencies often encounter challenges when working together on transportation projects. The following list provides a description of the challenges to improving transportation and resource agency understanding, implementation, and integration of ESA, EFH, and NEPA:
Participants identified several opportunities for integrating ESA and EFH into NEPA:
FHWA, in cooperation with Federal resource agencies and State DOTs, is developing a Wildlife Habitat Handbook. An interagency 2-day workshop was held in October 2002 that allowed agency staff to articulate their needs and concerns that could be addressed through the handbook. A draft document is scheduled to be prepared in 2004. The purpose of the handbook is to create a common interagency mission, with a focus towards fish and wildlife conservation measures. The handbook will stress the early integration of environmental and community values. Finally, the handbook will provide guidance to streamline the process to create high-quality decisions that will benefit all species. When completed, the handbook will serve as a resource to all stakeholders with the intended outcomes to include:
Critical to the success of the handbook will be multi-agency support of habitat preservation, incentives to direct transportation funds to ecosystem objectives, early coordination in planning stage, and decisions, opinions, and commitment based on "best available data." Successful ApproachesState DOT and FHWA Division Office representatives presented case studies of innovative approaches to integrating the requirements of ESA and EFH into NEPA. The presenters included Leroy Irwin from Florida DOT (FDOT), and Lori Sundstrom from Oregon DOT (ODOT). Each presenter conveyed unique opportunities for advancing environmental streamlining and stewardship through better integration of processes and requirements. Oregon's Major Bridge Replacement Program - ESA StrategyWith many of Oregon's highway and interstate bridges deteriorating at a rapid rate - more than 400 bridges will require replacement within 10 years to keep critical transportation routes open, including Interstates 5 and 84 - ODOT sought opportunities to address the crisis. The result is a programmatic approach to the various State - and Federal-level fish and wildlife environmental reviews, entitled Major Bridge Replacement Program. The size and significance of the bridge replacement program presents an opportunity to accomplish environmental stewardship and streamlining, and to apply the principles of CSS.
Managers and senior staff from State and Federal resource and transportation agencies, consultants, and contractors engaged in a 6-day multi disciplinary workshop. The participants represented the interests of archaeology, biology, bridge design, construction, erosion control, geotechnical, historic resources, hydrology, maintenance, project management, roadway design, socio-economics, wetlands, and water quality. As a result of this workshop, ODOT was able to share their consensus-driven programmatic approach with environmental specialists from across the country while receiving valuable input from other experts. The Major Bridge Replacement Program provides that ODOT will design impact avoidance and minimization into each bridge. ODOT will provide environmental and engineering baseline reports for each site before starting consistent and comprehensive coverage by NOAA Fisheries and FWS for the same bridge to facilitate permit strategies by spring 2004. Defining a "Green Bridge" is critical to the success of the program. ODOT will apply environmental performance standards that account for the environmental impacts of construction and the permanent bridge, including the effects of 75 to 100 years of maintenance activity. Florida's Efficient Transportation Decisionmaking ProcessIn February 2000, an Executive Summit was held in Atlanta, Georgia, for Florida and Federal agencies to garner support and commitment to create a new process for Environmental Transportation Decisionmaking (ETDM). Florida's ETDM process will incorporate agency interaction into the early stages of transportation planning. Avoidance and minimization strategies are identified earlier, and the cost impacts for these strategies can be built into the long-range transportation plan (LRTP). Interaction occurs through a multi-agency Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) established for each of the seven FDOT districts. The ETAT will consist of 12-20 representatives from agencies with statutory responsibility for transportation, land use, and ecosystem planning, permitting, or consultation on projects, and will seek a proper balance between these competing perspectives. The ETAT will screen projects prior to the LRTP and as projects enter FDOT's Work Program. During project development, the ETAT role shifts from advisory to permit coordination. The motivating forces behind the development of the ETDM Process were Section 1309 of Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and political endorsement and support from senior-level management at FDOT and FHWA's Southern Resource Center and Florida division office. When developing projects, FDOT must address approximately 40 Federal and State environmental laws. All agencies recognized that the process needed to be improved in order to protect and enhance Florida's resources. FDOT has demonstrated a strong commitment to manage growth and maintain connectivity for habitat. To date, three FWS and two NOAA Fisheries positions are funded by FDOT for 2-year periods, longer than the national average time period of funded positions. ETDM includes a State Alternative Dispute Resolution system. A key component of ETDM is the development and maintenance of a centralized database of digital information about the State's resources, which is maintained at GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida. The total estimated budget for ETDM program is $4.5 million. To date, Florida has spent 33 months and $1.3 million developing the program. go to table of contentsTopic 4: Various Topics for Small Group DiscussionsAt the workshop, participants were able to attend two discussion groups of their choice. These discussion groups were based on the following six critical issues identified by the participants in a survey completed before the workshop:
The summary that follows is organized by each emerging issue and provides information from the respective presentations and discussions. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) BackgroundThe MBTA prohibits the taking of birds, eggs, nests, and plumage without a permit. Under the MBTA, a strict liability act, no intent is needed and only direct take permits are allowed. There is no provision for incidental takes, and habitat mitigation is not supported, unlike in the ESA or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). If fully enforced, the MBTA can penalize people who do not abide by its rules. To avoid this, the purpose behind the MBTA should be communicated to the public and to transportation and resource agencies. Outreach and education can serve as a tool to further stewardship. For example, resident engineers knowledgeable about the MBTA will be able to recognize when it is necessary to bring a biologist to a project site.
FHWA is subject to the January 2001 EO for the Conservation of Migratory Birds (EO 13186), which directs executive departments and agencies to take certain actions that further implement the MBTA. However, since 2002, FHWA has been developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with FWS to establish a method that ensures all necessary action is being implemented to protect against take. The MOU will not include tracking language or guidance for State DOTs. Instead, FHWA recommends that FWS develop its own tracking system with State DOTs. As a result, State DOTs and FHWA Field Offices and Headquarters will be able to develop individualized coordination procedures.
FWS encourages FHWA and State DOTs to work together in contacting FWS at the beginning of a project, allowing both agencies to streamline the process and coordinate their actions. FWS is concerned, however, that FWS or FHWA may not be made aware of all projects if States do not contact FWS and if FHWA is not actively involved in the process. FHWA recommends that State DOTs take the following actions to improve their MBTA approach:
CSS/D is a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach that requires all stakeholders to develop a transportation facility that fits its physical setting and preserves scenic, aesthetic, historic, and environmental resources, while maintaining safety and mobility. CSS/D is an approach that considers the total context within which a transportation improvement project will exist. Inherent in CSS/D is flexibility in highway design, which fosters innovative engineering solutions. However, all successful solutions are not necessarily innovative. The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, AASHTO's National Highway System Design Standards, and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 promote the balancing of safety, mobility, economic, environmental, scenic, historic, community, and preservation values. CSS/D emerged as the means to make all of this work. In 1997, FHWA, with input from AASHTO and several environmental interest groups, developed the guide Flexibility in Highway Design to promote flexible design, interdisciplinary decisionmaking, and proactive public participation in the transportation process. The first national CSS/D conference followed in 1998, after which FHWA and AASHTO began supporting six CSS/D pilot programs in Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, Minnesota, Utah, and the FHWA Federal Lands Highway Program. Each pilot is integrating CSS/D into the planning, design, development, and construction processes and training nearby States in CSS/D. Questions and ConcernsDuring the highly interactive discussion, participants raised various questions and concerns with CSS/D, as follows:
Participants jointly developed recommendations to advance the application of CSS/D, including:
Ecosystem approaches consider the interaction of every organism with other living organisms and the non-living environment (e.g., predator-prey relationships, hydrology, disturbance regimes such as wildfire and flooding). FWS and NOAA Fisheries have long been developing watershed-based approaches. First, issues are identified (e.g., species, processes). Through this process, priorities are set; tools are then considered to address the priorities. Watershed-based approaches can produce an integrated recovery plan for multiple species within the same watershed, while also identifying habitat restoration opportunities and setting environmental priorities. Watershed plans have the potential to provide a context in which to assess transportation plans. While watershed-based approaches and regional transportation plans have long histories, the two are not integrated.
Participants raised various questions and concerns related to both available data from watershed-based approaches and the integration of watershed-based and regional transportation plans.
Participants offered several recommendations about using watershed-based approaches to improve transportation decisionmaking, including:
Stormwater and its effects on impervious surfaces cause biological concerns and ESA challenges. While stormwater runoff from highways varies in volume, all highway stormwater runoff causes three basic environmental concerns:
Stormwater runoff impacts, including peak flows and pollutant discharge, are exacerbated when it rains. Impervious surfaces may also suffer both hydrologic and geomorphic impacts. In turn, accelerated erosion, reshaped channels, increased sediment, and altered temperatures created by stormwater runoff can lead to further environmental degradation. These environmental concerns affect water quality and the spawning, survival, and migration of fish. In order to protect fish habitats and aquatic ecosystems, water quality and quantity must be protected. Habitats must be complex enough to meet the needs of a variety of species and they must be interconnected. While both the CWA and the ESA regulate impacts to water bodies and sediment, the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) can alleviate stormwater runoff impacts. Stormwater treatment practices also work to minimize pollutant input and changes in peak flow. RecommendationsFWS and NOAA Fisheries introduced a variety of approaches and recommendations for controlling stormwater runoff impacts. Since regulations vary nationwide, some regional guidance is not transferable. For this reason, control approaches should be regionalized. At the national level, FWS, which recommends that aquatic life criteria be developed to protect living organisms, is currently developing temperature criteria for bulltrout. State DOTs and resource agencies will be able to apply this guidance to all bulltrout habitats. NOAA Fisheries' Northwest Region Habitat Division has developed guidance to manage the effects of stormwater runoff. The guidance, which is based on scientific and commercial research, can assist State DOTs in making Section 7 consultation determinations. It also provides a framework for analyzing long-term effects on habitat and fish. Although this guidance is specific to the region's environmental concerns and the involved States' regulations, it is an example of a proactive approach that promotes the conservation measures and BMPs needed to minimize stormwater runoff impacts. The guidance includes minimization measures such as increased infiltration, preservation of vegetation, and protection and improvement of water quality and channel conditions. The region plans to modify the guidance as new issues and solutions arise. Many State DOTs have voiced the need for a consistent framework that can be applied to all State stormwater-permitting processes. Such a framework could help streamline consultations and the development of mitigation measures. In addition, many State DOTs have called for a cooperative effort by local, State, and regional parties to address urban water pollution. State DOTs do not have the sole responsibility to address urban water pollution, and solving this problem requires interagency communication and cooperation. FHWA, State DOTs, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries recommend the following actions to help minimize the impacts of stormwater runoff:
3 http://www.ctic.purdue.edu/KYW/tmdl/tmdlhome.html Reimbursable Agreements Background Some resource and transportation agencies have historically had weak working relationships. The early and active interagency coordination supported by reimbursable agreements, however, has improved relationships and fostered streamlining. Under reimbursable agreements, funded positions can begin early analysis and address resource-specific issues on behalf of FHWA or State DOTs at planning meetings and citizen advisory councils. To develop and maintain strong interagency coordination, reimbursable work plan agreements must be consistently managed and communicated. In addition, agencies must refrain from shifting priorities so that a common understanding of agency goals can exist.
The success of reimbursable agreements is often difficult to gauge. FHWA, State DOTs, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries recommend implementing performance measurements to assess the success of reimbursable agreements. Performance measures can further streamline the process by ensuring that consultations and resource issues are addressed and met in a timely manner. FHWA, State DOTs, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries recommend that performance measures focus on the adherence to timelines and the development of guidelines - two methods that can significantly streamline projects. Performance measures should also be flexible to allow greater environmental sensitivity to projects. FWS and NOAA Fisheries recommend that FWS and NOAA funded positions not be "graded" by transportation agencies due to differences in agency job responsibilities and oversight strictness. In addition, FWS suggests including expedited review as a performance measure as requiring such reviews provides transportation agencies with more assistance without setting detailed standards. Since each State DOT and NOAA Fisheries and FWS regional office functions differently due to unique staff and project demands, agencies need to be flexible when determining the level of oversight for funded positions. Transportation and resource agencies should work together to determine the role of transportation agencies in overseeing funding position, including their role in auditing and reporting. Workshop participants agreed that performance requirements should be created but vary in detail. Finally, FHWA suggested basing the determination of an appropriate candidate and the grade requirement of a funded position on the expertise level of the candidate and the purpose of the position. Aquatic IssuesDuring this session participants discussed the detrimental effects of pile driving and the implications for ESA/EFH consultations. Negative Impacts of Transportation Projects
Topic 5: Indirect and Cumulative ImpactsBackgroundAll Federal agencies must consider the direct, indirect (or secondary), and cumulative impacts of a project in order to satisfy NEPA requirements4. Impacts can be different on every project, and a variety of Federal guidance on meeting these NEPA requirements exists5. Confusion among agencies is widespread; agencies often use different definitions, assessment methodologies and tools, and procedures to meet these requirements. 4 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). 5 Available guidance includes CEQ policy, EPA, 309, EPA 315, NCHRP 403, NCHRP 466, and a FHWA position paper. Indirect effects, as stated in 40 CFR 1508.8 in CEQ's NEPA Regulations and in 50 CFR 402.02 in ESA, can often be predicted by analyzing the proposed action. However, as the chains of causation become more complex, it is difficult to predict the specific effects caused by land use, growth, and transportation. "Cumulative impacts" as defined under NEPA and "effects of the action" as stated in ESA are similarly defined and also must be analyzed for projects impacting land use, growth, and transportation. NOAA Fisheries does not formally interpret the definition of cumulative impacts for use in EFH, but instead applies the NEPA definition and guidance directly.
Transportation projects often catalyze growth-induced impacts. NOAA Fisheries and FWS recommends involving them in the MPO planning process and in regional planning efforts in order to assess more effectively these impacts and their long-term effects on species and to develop mitigation procedures. Both NOAA Fisheries and FWS field staff also recommend that State transportation agencies provide full disclosure of impacts and more details on existing projects, allowing FHWA to better predict impacts. The purpose and need statement of a project can alert transportation and resource agencies of possible indirect and cumulative impacts. For this reason, FHWA recommends that specific transportation details, rather than broad descriptions, be outlined in the purpose and need statement. FHWA and State DOTs also recommend that resource agencies provide more data to them during planning and project development in order to foster environmental stewardship through the creation of an ecosystem approach. Although NEPA requires that impacts be recognized, not mitigated, both conservation and mitigation measures should be considered. FHWA, State DOTs, FWS, and NOAA Fisheries agree that once growth impacts are disclosed, other alternatives should be developed. The relationship between a transportation project and its effects on the environment can be further explained by an example presented by Paul Garrett of FHWA — the National Wildlife Federation v. Coleman lawsuit highlighting Section 7 of ESA. Under this lawsuit, the plaintiff, a conservation group, sought to force FHWA and the Mississippi State Highway Department to modify the plans for a new segment of Interstate Highway I-10. The plaintiff alleged that the plans would adversely affect the last remaining colony of the Mississippi Sandhill Crane, an endangered subspecies of the Sandhill Crane6. In this case, the new transportation infrastructure was held responsible for induced growth and, in turn, impacts to critical habitat as designated in Section 7 of ESA. This example demonstrates the challenges that FWS and FHWA have faced in addressing indirect effects. Current and future partnerships among FHWA, State DOTs, and resource agencies present further opportunities to discuss the "when" and "how" of growth as an indirect effect. 6 Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973: A Significant Restriction for All Federal Activities http://www.elr.info/articles/vol5/5.50189.htm Additional Issues During the construction of a transportation project, an outside contractor is often responsible for the final project outcome. Resource agencies have voiced concern that the contractors may not acknowledge the impacts they are making on the environment. Since contractor impacts are the direct effects of Federal action, resource agencies suggest that a contractor's process be integrated into all interagency consultation. go to table of contentsTopic 6: Programmatic ConsultationsBackgroundProgrammatic consultations (programmatics) are useful instruments in creating partnerships to enhance streamlining, add predictability, and create a landscape approach to project development. Agencies can also use programmatics to evaluate the potential of future actions affecting ESA and EFH listed resources. By establishing standards, guidelines, or governing criteria to which future actions must adhere, programmatics can streamline future actions. Agencies can use formal or information programmatics in a variety of formats, including batched, traditional, and tiered. The requirements for programmatics include the following:
Pre-consultation coordination and cooperation are essential to developing and implementing successful programmatics. This early action allows for proposed activities to be adjusted during the project design phase, where the most flexibility exists to modify the project design. Pre-consultation also allows agencies to incorporate habitat needs into the project design, further expediting the Section 7 process. FWS and NOAA Fisheries encourage the development of design criteria to help identify threats to the conservation of listed species. In order for programmatics to be applied effectively, strong project-level coordination during the project development phase is needed to identify potential conflicts as early as possible. Continuous coordination and communication will ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need and are using the same assumptions. In addition, surprises that could delay the entire process will be avoided. The success of a programmatic is not based solely on continuous coordination and communication, however. As both FWS and NOAA Fisheries pointed out, the courts have rejected both tiered and amended programmatics. Over time, the courts have narrowed programmatic options by eliminating those that they claim are not feasible. Workshop participants agreed that a programmatic must include a specific and detailed analysis that ensures ESA compliance. Overall, workshop participants believe that consultation saves more time than biological opinions. go to table of contentsTopic 7: Mitigation/Conservation MeasuresBackgroundIn December 2002, the US DOT, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Departments of the Army, Commerce, Interior, and Agriculture issued a National Wetlands Mitigation Action Plan to improve the Federal government's performance of wetland compensatory mitigation7. The action plan, which does not preempt Section 404 authority, acts as Federal guidance on TEA-21's preference for using mitigation banking to fulfill the mitigation requirements under Section 404. In order to acquire FHWA funds for monitoring mitigation activities, monitoring must be in conjunction with a compensatory mitigation project or research project. In addition, past policies state that non-governmental organizations should not manage mitigation sites because they do not participate in the operation or management of projects. These policies also contend that Federal funds should not be used for the management of natural resources. 7 More information regarding the plan can be accessed through FHWA's website http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/wetland/rglmapg.htm Conservation Banking in California FHWA, Caltrans, and local agencies are working on several interchange improvements on Interstate 10 (I-10) in Riverside County. The project area includes a 2020.57-acre conservation bank. State and local governments fund multiple species conservation plans (MSCPs) in this area. While land for the bank was not initially acquired because it must be banked before Section 7 consultation can begin, the endowment and local entity funds needed for the bank are under negotiation. In addition, the involved agencies are developing a programmatic agreement, MOA, and complete list of conservation measures. The I-10 project has been successful due to its detailed focus. FHWA strongly supports such multi-project conservation planning and programmatics. Colorado Short Grass Prairie InitiativeTo protect Colorado's unique prairie ecosystem and declining species while streamlining ESA Section 7 consultation, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) entered into a MOA with FHWA, FWS, the Colorado Department of Natural Resources (DNR), the Colorado DNR Division of Wildlife, and The Nature Conservancy in April 2001. The MOA is unique for its inclusion of a conservation organization, its 20-year mitigation plan, its protection of habitat as opposed to an individual species, and its mitigation of future impacts at today's prices. The MOA calls for an estimate of the collective environmental impacts from proposed transportation projects over the next 20 years. The involved agencies estimate potential impacts using best available data, GIS mapping, and expert opinion. Conservation is achieved through best practices in design and maintenance — such as buffers around critical species — and through purchase and management of priority habitat. By contributing to multi-species recovery in an integrated fashion, Colorado agencies hope to aid the recovery of listed species and to reduce the likelihood of other species being listed under the ESA. go to table of contentsWorkshop Recommendations and Concluding CommentsAt the conclusion of the workshop, each agency identified the following outstanding issues and next steps in advancing interagency coordination through environmental stewardship and streamlining. FHWA
State DOTs
FWS
NOAA Fisheries
Appendix A — Workshop AgendaUSFWS/NOAA Fisheries
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Lee Dong (CA, NV, AZ HI, NE, KS, IA, and MO) Kreig Larson (AK, WA, OR, ID, MN, WI, IL, IN, OH, and MI Ruth Rentch (NY, NJ, PR, KY, TN, MS, AL, GA, FL, SC, and NC) Marlys Osterhues (MT, ND, SD, WY, UT, CO, NH, VT, ME, MA, RI and CT) Dawn Whiteside (NM, TX, OK, AR, LA, WV, VA, PA, MD, DE, and DC) |
202-366-2054 202-366-2056 202-366-2034 202-366-2052 202-366-5034 |
Number of FHWA Responses: 20
Number of FWS Responses: 20
Number of NMFS Responses: 3
Agencies that Responded to the Questionnaire
Survey Responses to Question 1: Top Three Issues of Conflict
Survey Responses to Question 2: Process Improvements
Survey Responses to Question 3: FWS/NMFS or DOT/FHWA Improvements
Survey Responses to Question 4a: FHWA — Clarifications for FWS/NMFS
Survey Responses to Question 4b: FWS/NMFS — Clarifications for FHWA
Survey Responses to Question 5: Best Practices
Survey Responses to Question 6: Key Coordination Issues
Survey Responses to Question 7: Suggested Speakers
| Note: Number of respondents per agency appears in parenthesis. | ||
| FHWA Divisions & Resource Centers | FWS Divisions | NMFS Divisions |
|---|---|---|
| (1) Division — Arizona (1) Division — Arkansas (1) Division — Colorado (1) Division — Georgia (1) Division — Idaho (1) Division — Indiana (1) Division — Iowa (1) Division — Montana (1) Division — Nebraska (1) Division — New Mexico (1) Division — New York (1) Division — North Carolina (1) Division — Oregon (1) Division — Pennsylvania (1) Division — Western Federal Lands (1) Resource Center — Midwest (1) Resource Center — South (1) Resource Center — West |
(1) Illinois - Chicago (1) Indiana — Bloomington (1) Michigan — East Lansing Field Office (1) Missouri — unspecified (1) Montana — unspecified (1) Ohio — unspecified (1) Oklahoma — Tulsa (1) Pennsylvania — unspecified (3) Region 1 — unspecified field office (1) Region 1 — Columbia NWR (1) Region 1 — San Luis NWR (1) Region 4 — Southeast (1) Region 5 — Northeast (Maine) (1) Texas — unspecified (1) Texas — Austin (1) Washington — unspecified (1) WSDOT Liaison — unspecified (1) Wyoming — unspecified |
(1) West
(1) West (1) Northeast (1) Office of Habitat Conservation |
| ___________ 18 Offices TOTAL |
____________ 18 Offices TOTAL |
___________ 3 Offices TOTAL |
| FHWA Division — Arizona |
MBTA, mitigation, staffing at FWS, building trusting relationship |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | Communication, Communication, Communication — lack of understanding and respect for each other's mission and responsibilities; using the same terminology but the definitions, and applications, are different. One of our biggest concerns with FWS is everything is adverse with "hardline" positions. There does not seem to be any real consideration of the value of the resource or willingness to be flexible. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado |
|
| FHWA Division — Georgia |
|
| FHWA Division — Idaho |
|
| FHWA Division — Indiana | The only concern in Indiana is related to the summer range of the Indiana Bat. Woodlots throughout the Midwest are summer feeding range for the Indiana Bat. In developing a new interchange for the Indianapolis International Airport, USFWS took the position that FHWA-IN and the local project advocates needed to mitigate for the 20-year growth area around the Indianapolis Airport ... thus the $5 million Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP). Our FHWA legal counsel does not believe that removal of trees when the bat is not present constitutes a "take". There were no trees within the footprint of our project that served as "nests" for the bat. The USFWS position is that if bats return from their caves in Southern Indiana, they may be stressed by not finding historical feeding areas when they return ... therefore, USFWS required an incidental take permit and extensive mitigation. For expediency, the project proponents agreed to the HCP, but FHWA-IN is concerned about the precedent. We look to legal decisions like "Arizona Cattle Growers' Association v USFWS" (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov , Opinion 99-16102, dated 12/17/2001), where the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set aside a USFWS action, as arbitrary and capricious, due to insufficient evidence of a "take". FHWA-IN does not believe the USFWS biological opinion/incidental take permit demonstrates that "a take was reasonably certain to occur" or an "actual kill or injury" will occur by removal of trees in areas where bats forage. The Supreme Court has interpreted "take" to mean "an act which actually kills or injures wildlife. Such an act may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patters, including breeding, feeding or sheltering" (50CFR17.3). Again, we do not believe that case has been made for the Indiana Bat summer foraging area ... in that case, removal of any woodlots in the Midwest may be construed as a "take." |
| FHWA Division — Iowa | We are very fortunate in Iowa to be able to say that there have been no areas of conflict with the FWS/NMFS. We hope that continues. |
| FHWA Division — Montana |
|
| FHWA Division — Nebraska |
|
| FHWA Division — New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — New York |
The top areas of conflict center around USF&WS staff unavailability, especially early in the process and lack of coordination between the Corps and USF&WS early in the 404 coordination process. When the State DOT negotiates with the USACOE and State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), later concerns of EPA and USF&WS are harder to accommodate. |
| FHWA Division — North Carolina |
|
| FHWA Division — Oregon |
|
| FHWA Division — Pennsylvania |
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
Coordination between transportation agencies and FWS/NMFS at appropriate time. Often early coordination does not occur in a timely fashion and valuable time is lost. |
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
|
| FHWA Resource Center — Midwest |
We need to initiate more programmatic agreements and conservation banks. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West |
|
| FWS Illinois — Chicago |
Here are some suggested thoughts/topics on the workshop agenda.
|
| FWS Indiana — Bloomington |
|
| FWS Michigan — East Lansing |
|
| FWS Missouri |
|
| FWS Montana |
|
| FWS Ohio |
Lack of early coordination on projects; not enough focus on minimization of impacts to streams, wetlands, wildlife habitat. |
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa |
|
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
Incomplete Biological Assessments, missing information, incomplete analysis of effects |
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 — San Luis NWR |
This office is a national wildlife refuge, and does not review transportation projects. But, we have been working with CalTrans (California Dept. of Transportation) on our own FHWA-funded (TEA) projects, and it has been the most bureaucratic process and agency I have ever dealt with in my 26-year career. So, I feel it is worthy of mention in this context. FHWA has been excellent to work with, and seem to be as frustrated as I am with CalTrans ... See item #3. |
| FWS Region 5 — Northeast |
|
| FWS Texas |
|
| FWS Texas — Austin |
|
| FWS Washington |
|
| FWS WSDOT Liaison |
|
| FWS Wyoming |
|
| NMFS West |
|
| NMFS Northeast |
We (in Milford, CT, working in NY, CT and RI) do not seem to have the same types of problems being experienced on the left coast. It MAY be the ESA species or the nature of the projects? Perhaps the differences reflect the programmatic evaluation/interface structures in use in the areas (see my responses). It clearly reflects the isolation of the various regions. We use the Highway Methodology and a good working relationship with our counterparts. In looking at what Lamont sent as an example, my responses may indicate we may be on different planets, not different coasts!
|
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation |
|
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:| FHWA Division — Arizona | Programmatic approaches to mitigation for certain species and permitting for MBTA issues |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | We are working on a programmatic approach for compensatory mitigation with USF&WS. If this comes about it will facilitate project development. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado |
|
| FHWA Division — Georgia |
|
| FHWA Division — Idaho |
|
| FHWA Division — Indiana |
INDOT has an early coordination programmatic with USFWS that establishes — standard mitigation and significantly reduces the number of projects where early coordination with USFWS |
| FHWA Division — Iowa |
We have in place a NEPA/404 merged process that has been very effective. We have an informal agreement that we will soon be formalizing regarding ESA section 7 processing. We'd like to see discussion of Section 7 programmatics. |
| FHWA Division — Montana |
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 Division — Nebraska |
ESA, MBTA |
| FHWA Division — New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — New York |
Clear guidance is needed on Essential Fish Habitat; Programmatic use of Natural Heritage "Red Flag" maps ESA T&E species location on CE projects not liable to have detrimental effects on species. |
| FHWA Division — North Carolina |
Need to stress the need to specifically address EFH and MBTA in environmental documents. |
| FHWA Division — Oregon |
|
| FHWA Division — Oregon |
Process Improvements —
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
The project schedule should provide the FWS/NMFS the opportunity to visit the project site before consultation is complete. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West |
|
| FHWA Resource Center — West |
ESA is always an issue, but we could focus on a proactive "safe harbors" type programmatic approach for certain FHWA funded projects. If we can develop air tight agreements with FWS on programmatic "Safe Harbor" agreements that allow us to introduce T&E species on project ROW as enhancement and advance mitigation without the problems they entail down the road when the project sponsor needs to move them, we could eliminate most of the time required to reach a section seven non jeopardy decision opinion. MBTA has not been much of a problem so far. NMFS has made EFH pretty easy, does not seem to be a problem unless it is ignored. CWA 404 permits would benefit form more nationwide and regional permits and we should aggressively pursue these. The way we do NEPA should be overhauled to incorporate the planning that the locals do prior to their being a defined federal project. NEPA needs to start as soon as the locals establish that there is a project that "may qualify" for federal funds. |
| FWS Indiana — Bloomington |
|
| FWS Michigan — East Lansing |
|
| FWS Missouri |
|
| FWS Montana |
|
| FWS Ohio |
MOA's for projects with minimal impacts |
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
We are just entering into the programmatic biological assessment arena for transportation projects. I would like to hear a discussion on the use of programmatics, how to enumerate take based on the use of the programmatic concepts, how to evaluate program activities that may be covered under a programmatic for impacts since the actual project is not described, just the type of activity and potential impacts in general, etc. I would like to hear from offices that have used programmatics for transportation projects, what has been covered, how was take enumerated, how were the programs covered under the programmatic considered for potential impacts, were all of the program activities proposed by the transportation agency incorporated in the consultation, what would they change if they had to start the programmatic process over again. |
| FWS Region 1 |
ESA-section 7, EFH, MBTA, NEPA, CWA-section 404 |
| FWS Region 5 — Northeast |
All of these programs could benefit from discussions of how to improve the processes. EFH is a particular struggle for the transportation agencies in Maine. |
| FWS Texas |
Our office reviews numerous bridge replacement projects each year, the majority of which do not involve stream channel work and only minor effects to the other resources. They are usually submitted as a "Categorical Exclusion& and we often do not provide comments. These minor projects may be worthy of a programmatic EIS or consultation. |
| FWS Texas — Austin |
|
| FWS Washington |
|
| FWS WSDOT |
|
| FWS Wyoming |
|
| NMFS West |
Section 7 consultation requirements and EFH-and the use of existing programmatic BAs |
| NMFS Northeast |
Project coordination and pre-application screening under the umbrella of the Army Corps of Engineers Programmatic General Permit Procedures (in use throughout the New England states for over five years). I LOVE it and so do the other players! |
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation |
Before addressing this question, there needs to be an understanding of how the USACE and FHWA generally interact with projects. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:| FHWA Division — Arizona | Staffing at FWS is an issue. Arkansas is considering funding a position in the Field Office FWS to handle AHTD (DOT) projects. Joint training. |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | Early involvement by agencies is still a problem on many projects due to staffing — levels, or lack thereof. It is not only the reviews but also the time to go out to the site and "walk" the project. FWS/NMFS does not always have the travel budget or the time to do a site visit of the proposed project. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado | There is a full time biologist from CDOT assigned to the FWS, which speeds up review time, and facilitates discussion on innovative projects. More of this time assistance is needed. Perhaps the FHWA should fund positions at resource and regulatory agencies off the top, before funds are allocated to DOTs., as there is so much reluctance to funding them on local levels. Also, if there were funds for FWS to travel to streamlining conferences to participate in them with their state counterparts, that would be helpful to getting acceptance of new ideas across the board. |
| FHWA Division — Georgia |
|
| FHWA Division — Idaho |
|
| FHWA Division — Indiana | We are quite satisfied with the USFWS responsiveness and participation in project development |
| FHWA Division — Iowa | See our answer to 1. above. No further comment |
| FHWA Division — Montana | Staffing levels at the FWS continues to be a problem. |
| FHWA Division — Nebraska |
|
| FHWA Division — New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — New York | Cross training of resource agency and DOT staffs — USF&WS training in Basics in Highway Design constraints and DOT training in USF&WS and NMFS rolls. |
| FHWA Division — North Carolina | All sections of NCDOT that manage projects should be trained in the various laws/regulations involved in the project development process |
| FHWA Division — Oregon |
|
| FHWA Division — Pennsylvania |
Organizational improvement
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
"Most of my conflicts occurred when NMFS/FWS would not comply with their own regulations — especially concerning response times. Insufficient staff to maintain schedules/follow their own regulations is a poor excuse. If they have insufficient staff to comply with their own regulations, their demanding processes should be streamlined until they can comply. Also, their thresholds for adverse effects are unreasonably low further complicating the consultation process." These comments are worth passing on, but let me offer my spin on it ... Over the years, insufficient staff at the FWS/NMFS have commonly created coordination problems and scheduling conflicts on our projects. During the past year or two, those kinds of problems are more spotty, because transportation liaisons have been established at the FWS/NMFS Offices in many of the 6 states that we work in ... and the workload is being better addressed (liaisons are probably the most effective environmental streamlining practice to date). Even so, the turnover problems and workload issues are still real in some offices in transportation agencies too. Some FWS/NMFS offices (the people) can be very conservative in their impacts assessment/effect determinations ... The science is not very advanced in some subjects, so natural resource folks opt for very environmentally friendly positions in consultations ... this can be real difficult, impractical and expensive to deal with from an engineering standpoint. |
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands |
Cross-training. Employees from FHWA residing in FWS and vice versa for a few months to understand the other agency better. |
| FHWA Division - Western Federal Lands |
A lot of folks on both sides need more training and experience on how highway projects impact natural resources and what are practical, effective and affordable mitigation for such impacts. Cross training would help. |
| FHWA Resource Center — South |
One issue that I'm beginning to realize is in the longevity of project managers and agency representatives. Both with FTE's placed in resource agencies — for limited terms, and the high-turnover rate in state DOT professional environmental staff. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West |
Better communicate our ability or rather lack of ability to control/influence local planning and resource agency perception of the role of highways in induced and cumulative impacts. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West |
|
| FWS Indiana |
|
| FWS Michigan — East Lansing |
|
| FWS Missouri |
|
| FWS Montana |
More staff at the DOT level would be great so they could monitor projects during and after construction to document compliance with environmental commitments. Similarly, if FWS had more staff, we could perhaps deal with issues on a larger scale than merely project-by-project. |
| FWS Ohio |
|
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa |
Training with both FWS and FHWA staff present. |
| FWS Pennsylvania |
Need more cross-training between resource agencies and DT personnel. We need to know more about how engineers plan highway projects and the engineers need to know more about our concerns and obligations under various Acts (See 4(f), historic preservation, highway design criteria, safety criteria, capacity calculations and projections, levels of service calculations, geotechnical constraints, sediment/erosion controls, EJ issues, ESA, FWCA, NEPA, CWA, MBTA, state regulations/laws). |
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
Guidance that is appropriate for transportation projects, both for the use of programmatics but also for effects analysis such as growth induced by transportation projects, effects on listed species as a result of project activities (such as effects on ecosystem from in-water work that could possibly increase sedimentation), potential types of monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, and effects) that could be installed in a BO as either T&C or RPM that produce worthwhile information for analysis of future projects. |
| FWS Region 1 |
Inter-program coordination, staffing levels, training Need better up-front work on resource inventory (GIS/data base), better cumulative effects information (GIS/data base), early avoidance of impacts through NEPA, better stormwater guidelines, guidelines for habitat banking for wetlands and threatened and endangered species, better guidelines for compensatory mitigation, compliance monitoring (compliance, effectiveness, validation), long-term in perpetuity protection of mitigation sites. |
| FWS Region 1 — San Luis NWR |
A year ago, I notified CalTrans that we had been funded for two turn pockets onto our national wildlife refuge with FHWA/TEA money, and was seeking and encroachment permit to do the work. The CalTrans project managers and engineers suggested adding our minor projects (funding = $250,000) to their large highway improvement project scheduled to go to construction in 2004. That certainly seemed to be the most cost-effective and expeditious way to handle the project — turning the funding over to CalTrans (often done) and having them handle all design, engineering, and contracting. And, it was indicated that an encroachment permit from CalTrans would take just as long; so, with time being the only thing to lose by linking projects, that became a non-issue. But, their environmental review people had problems with the concept because they would have to amend what work was already completed. A YEAR LATER, they have not decided yet if they want to add our minor turn lanes! There ARE NO environmental issues; I personally went to all the sites that they claimed were wetland fills (roadside ditches) and measured the size and extent of vegetation. It is mostly upland vegetation — with a lot of upland weeds. Together, the wetland plants comprise about 1/10th of 1 acre; in these "wetlands" full of oily water run-off and blown-out truck tires. Over a year ago, I documented to FHWA that we are in the midst of restoring 1,500 acres of agricultural lands to prime wetlands within 5 miles — and this certainly should be mitigation enough, if that indeed was even necessary. Archaeological review was already completed by CalTrans for their major project on their entire right—of—way — no issues there. We are now at risk of losing $250,000 of badly-needed money — for projects that can not be funded in any other way — and, have lost opportunity for additional funding for 4 more turn pockets. In the meantime, near-fatal accidents continue to occur when people are rear-ended trying to turn onto the refuge. This is the most ludicrous — and damaging — bureaucratic hold-up I have ever experienced. |
| FWS Texas |
Perhaps the forthcoming rule regarding incidental take by federal agencies under the MBTA should be discussed. It has the potential to slow down the process and may require additional staff and training. |
| FWS Texas — Austin |
|
| FWS Washington |
|
| FWS WSDOT Liaison |
|
| FWS Wyoming |
|
| NMFS West |
Agency coordination meetings with FHWA-NMFS-FWS in WA State and Transportation Team coordination with WSDOT. |
| NMFS Northeast |
.We need people to move the work and training to standardize our evaluations and subsequent solutions. We operate in a head-down mode with little national perspective. This makes us arbitrary and potentially capricious. |
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation |
Suggest looking into North Carolina programs, which have been successful. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:This question was directed at FWS and NWFS, but responses were also received from FHWA.
go to Appendix C table of contents| FHWA Division — Arizona | DOTs need to understand that Section 7 consultations are a federal agency responsibility. |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | We believe that it is important for all agencies to understand each other's mission, roles, and responsibilities; to respect differences and try to find a solution that will work for all. I have found that oftentimes we use language but it has different meanings to the different agencies — for example, the definition of mitigation in Section 7 as well as the definition of cumulative impacts (there is a distinct difference in terms of how FWS and FHWA staffs are being told how to address cumulative impacts — review the regulations, Section 7 and 23 CFR 771 for specifics). FHWA and FWS will never come to an agreement on those areas unless there is consistency in definition and application. We may not always agree on things but we should be able to come up with an equitable solution that will satisfy everyone's basic needs. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado | I think those responsible for developing consultation understand. They often seem to forget FHWA's role, and want to leave us out of the consultations. |
| FHWA Division — Georgia | In my opinion, transportation agencies understand the Resource Agencies' roles, however, the transportation agencies have trouble seeing the potential common ground/linkages between agencies and/or are reluctant to suggest or pursue these issues as "that would different than the way we've always done it." |
| FHWA Idaho |
|
| FHWA Division — Indiana | Agency missions and roles are well understood and there is an efficient engagement and use of agency time and resources. We host annual "Interagency Coordination Meetings" where we discuss the status of all major actions. "Indiana's Streamlined EIS Procedures" provide a structured mechanism to engage USFWS in P&N, alternatives screening, and preferred alternative to assure issues are addressed early (see EIS Procedures at www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv (FHWA-IN website) under "Policies and Procedures"). |
| FHWA Division — Montana | Transportation agencies could be better informed about FWS responsibilities |
| FHWA New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — North Carolina | Most of NCDOT seems to have a good understanding of the roles of the agencies, but some of the sections that are outside of the "normal" project development process may have little or no understanding |
| FHWA Division — Oregon | I believe except for the environmental staff the rest of the State DOT do not know what is required to advance their highway project under NEPA and ESA. The DOT staff just knows that their projects have to go through NMFS/USFWS and they place restrictions on the time they can work in the streams and the compensatory mitigation will add cost to their projects. Additional training or maybe a primer to educate the State DOTs might be helpful. |
| FHWA Division — Pennsylvania | All transportation agencies need to have a continual training course or access to a video library for ESA. Staff turnovers and inexperienced project managers (at the DOT and consultants) are not well versed in ESA. Therefore, decisions often are made that are not in concert with ESA regulations, deals are brokered, and public funding is spent on activities that are truly unwarranted. |
| FHWA Division — Western Lands | A better explanation of the difference in responsibilities between FWS and NMFS and when it is appropriate to contact each agency. |
| FHWA Division — Western Lands | Many transportation folks still look at NEPA and ESA as an obstacle rather than an opportunity to make a better project. Considering the high turn-over of personnel, more transportation managers (at various levels) are less knowledgeable and sympathetic about environmental compliance today than a decade ago. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West | We at the resource centers and at the division level and at the State DOT level understand it very well I think. Local (county) agencies probably less well. And of course there is always a staff turnover problem. I think there is a more profound misunderstanding of the FHWA role in local planning by the resource agencies. |
| FWS Indiana — Bloomington | State DOTs understand FWS role well at some levels, but it does not always get conveyed to other agency levels (e.g., District Offices) |
| FWS Montana | I do not think transportation agencies have a very good understanding of FHWA's responsibilities under ESA Section 7(a)1. Overall, I think the DOTs environmental staffs have a good understanding of ESA and NEPA, but their design and construction engineers do not have a very good understanding of their agency's responsibilities under these statutes. |
| FWS Ohio | FWS feels that in OH, FHWA has a pretty good understanding of FWS and NEPA. Further emphasis on addressing cumulative effects of projects is necessary to ensure that long-term impacts of highway impacts are being considered. Roads, etc. can have very significant impacts when constructed in previously undisturbed areas. |
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 | Washington State DOT has individuals that are very competent in the understanding of responsibilities that do produce ESA and NEPA guidance for their staff. Use of that information by their staff is a continuing process. |
| FWS Region 1 | I think Oregon Department of Transportation understands them well since we have been working collaboratively in a collaborative agreement on environmental and transportation streamlining for about 2 years. |
| NMFS West | NEPA understanding is OK-there is a gap in knowledge on ESA, especially the role action agencies play in the implementation of ESA. |
| NMFS Northeast | Depends on the locale. Generally, the State DOTs / FWA shows us a good program in the coastal zone, that coordination falls apart as one moves inland. |
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation |
Need to remember EFH and other consulting roles of NMFS of agency under FWCA and NEPA. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:This question was directed at FHWA, but responses were also received from FWS and NWFS.
go to Appendix C table of contents| FHWA Division — Idaho | FWS/NMFS lack understanding of project development and frequently request — information (or delay consultation asking for information) that is not available. This includes contractor operation plans, including blasting plans, borrow material sites, etc. |
| FHWA Division — Oregon | There is some knowledge by the USFWS/NMFS of the role of FHWA in the NEPA process. I do not know if they understand the concept of FHWA federal aid and our relationship with the State DOTs. I believe they think FHWA has more authority over the statewide and MPO planning process and how transportation projects are selected and developed. |
| FWS Michigan — East Lansing |
|
| FWS Missouri | Fairly well. The MoDOT handles almost all of the NEPA processing. 4(f) can be challenging. The 404/NEPA merge process has worked with limited success. I am not aware of any new merge projects in Missouri. |
| FWS Montana | Guidance would be helpful regarding when NEPA documents should include ESA documents. For instance, should a preliminary draft EIS, or draft EIS, contain the Service's biological opinion, or should the opinion just occur in the final EIS? Also, does FHWA have the ability to override the DOTs funding decisions and "dictate" to the DOTs that they will spend money in a certain manner. For example, if the DOT says they do not have the money to build a longer bridge, could FHWA make money available for the longer bridge? |
| FWS Ohio | FWS feels that we have a moderate understanding of the transportation planning process. We have discussed general planning with our state DOT on several instances, but do not have a firm grasp on the entire planning process. |
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa | Not clear — when is NEPA required? When do they provide us with NEPA documentation? |
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 | Fair but I could always learn more about the inter-relationships between government agencies. |
| FWS Region 1 | Again, since we work together on a routine basis and because of our proactive approaches, including agency cross-training, I think we understand ODOT and FHWA responsibilities fairly well but I am sure we could stand a great deal more interactive training between our respective agencies. |
| FWS Region 1 — Columbia | Are there Categorical Exclusions used by FHWA and what are they? |
| FWS Region 5 — Northeast | I could use a review of the planning and project development process. I have a fairly good handle on FHWA's role under NEPA. |
| FWS Texas |
I only understand the planning process and project development process from obstacles encountered from previous reviews. I understand FHWA's responsibilities under NEPA. A discussion on indirect and cumulative impacts related to transportation projects would be useful. A discussion on NEPA process should include equal consideration of impacts to fish and wildlife resources in environmental documents. |
| FWS Texas — Austin | How do MPO's feed into the process? |
| FWS Washington |
|
| FWS WSDOT |
|
| FWS Wyoming |
|
| NMFS West |
OK-I head our Transportation Team for the Washington Habitat Branch |
| NMFS Northeast |
We fully understand it and embrace it. Invocation of EFH has been a bumpy experience. The process stills requires that we hold hands and lead the way to a product with most DOTs and their consultants. Because we do so much at the State level, I do not hear from the FHWA on enough cases to understand if THEY understand it. |
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation |
Regional and Headquarters staff could benefit from an overview of the highway planning/development process. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:This question was directed at FWS and NWFS, but responses were also received from FHWA.
go to Appendix C table of contents| FHWA Division — Arizona | It might be good to get input from USFWS on what they have done with private — industry. USFWS has mitigation programs in place with paper companies for the Red Cockaded Woodpecker in Southern Arkansas |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | We are working on a programmatic approach for compensatory mitigation with FWS. If this comes about it will facilitate project development. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado | As identified above in projects where the FWS has been very creative and — cooperative, the Shortgrass Prairie Initiative, and the Prebles Meadow Jumping Mouse Bank. |
| FHWA Division — Georgia | The development of "standard" contract Special Provisions to protect manatees and sturgeons that are implemented on all projects in Georgia Coastal Areas, which acts as a Programmatic BA/BO even though it's not formally labeled as such. |
| FHWA Division — Indiana | 7100 Goose Pond Wetland Restoration Project in Indiana. INDOT is partnering — with NRCS ($10 million commitment from both agencies) to make this a success. |
| FHWA Division — Montana | Early involvement and the ecosystem approach used on the US 93 project in Montana resulted in more than 40 wildlife crossings. |
| FHWA Division — New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — New York | Case Study — New York State DOT Strawberry Island (in the Niagara River near Buffalo, NY) project. A USACOE,USF&WS, NYSDOT, and NSYDEC partnership effort to restore and protect an important fish spawning area from erosion by the Niagara River. Contact Kurt Weiskotten (518) 485-5320 or KWEISKOTTEN@gw.dot.state.ny.us |
| FHWA Division — Oregon |
|
| FHWA Division — Pennsylvania |
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands | I would suggest that Whalen Island in Oregon be cited as great example of wetland/wildlife habitat mitigation. This mitigation included the purchase of an island estuary. |
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands | Federal Land Management Agencies have conducted major watershed studies in the NW that provide valuable base line conditions and areas needing improvement in the ecosystem (it greatly aids the subsequent road corridor resource studies). More transportation support should be given for such watershed studies. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West | We need to de-link funds for mitigation banks from project funds. Mitigation banks to be optimally effective and to save money and more importantly time, must be in place and functioning years before a project begins construction. Ideally large regional banks should be established to cover anticipated mitigation needs for 5-20 years into the future. This requires advanced non-project specific funding |
| FWS Indiana — Bloomington | Goose Pond Wetland Reserve Program/State Road 54 Project |
| FWS Missouri | FWS along with USEPA, Corps, MoDOT and FHWA have developed a mitigation bank (141 Acres) to compensate for unavoidable highway project impacts under Section 404 permit program. |
| FWS Montana | US 93 Evaro — Polson on the Flathead Indian Reservation in NW Montana contains good efforts at maintaining wildlife connectivity for a variety of species. Construction has not yet begun on this project. |
| FWS Ohio | State Route 161 project in Franklin and Licking Counties, Ohio was a good example of avoiding impacts to streams, wetlands, and woodlands. In addition, ODOT has established several good wetland mitigation areas throughout the state. |
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa | Best Management Practices (BMP), having FHWA staff aware of potential impacts in the project area. |
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Texas — Austin | I-69 streamlining |
| FWS Washington |
|
| FWS WSDOT Liaison | SR 167 Extension Project — proposed approach to stormwater treatment that minimized floodplain impacts and restored habitat that goes outside the engineered/stormwater manual "box," meets water quality requirements and moves the environmental baseline towards recovery |
| FWS Wyoming |
|
| NMFS Northeast | CT I-95 and RI I-195 reconstruction efforts are good examples of the topics. |
| NMFS Office of Habitat Conservation | Good things going on in North Carolina. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:| FHWA Division — Arizona | Talking face to face and building trust. Management participation at certain meetings, and partnering |
| FHWA Division — Arkansas | Early involvement by agencies is still a problem on many projects due to staffing levels. All in all, the overall the working relationships between FHWA,Alaska DOT, FWS, and NMFS in the State of Alaska is pretty good. |
| FWHA Division — Colarado |
|
| FWHA Division — Georgia |
|
| FWHA Division — Idaho |
|
| FHWA Division — Indiana | Clear procedures and programmatic agreements that eliminate unnecessary consultation and efficiently utilize agency resources. |
| FHWA Division — Iowa | Early and continuous involvement in the development of transportation projects. Providing as complete information as possible at early points in project development. |
| FHWA Division — Montana | Early involvement in the NEPA process. |
| FWHA Division — Nebraska |
|
| FWHA Division — New Mexico |
|
| FHWA Division — New York | Early involvement of resource agencies. |
| FWHA Division — North Carolina |
|
| FHWA Division — Oregon | The key components are early coordination between the State biologists and the USFWS/NMFS biologists and a willingness by the State DOT to do the "right" thing for the protected resources in the development of their transportation improvements. The State DOT has to clearly demonstrate the purpose and need for the project and how they are truly developing alternatives that avoid the protected resources. The State DOT has to build trust and credibility and make sure promises and mitigation are kept. The State has reported better success with consultations where the Services have visited the project site in the field with the Project Team and heard about design and construction constraints first hand. This is also a prime opportunity for ODOT engineers and designers to hear about concerns and requirements from the Services. |
| FHWA Division — Pennsylvania | Understanding the needed end result and work together to get there. |
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands | Consultation and coordination early and often. |
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands | Mutual trust, and mutual understanding/respect of the other agencies' goals, objectives and processes. Good luck ... after years of talking and implementing streamlining, I'm not sure there are a lot of new initiatives out there that have not already been 'cussed and discussed. I think good, knowledgeable people willing to compromise are more important than policies, processes and procedures. |
| FHWA Resource Center — Midwest | We need to mutually agree on project scope. |
| FHWA Resource Center — South | Many project impasses tend to be the result of lack-of-trust, the sort of thing that is alleviated by long-term ownerships and professional relationships that develop between individuals who would be able to take projects from cradle-to- grave, instead of the erratic hand-off that typically occurs. Relationships between DOT and resource agency environmental staff can take years to cultivate, but can be lost with 2—weeks notice when more competitive career opportunities present themselves. |
| FHWA Resource Center — West | Trust, respect, experience. Interpersonal trust and respect are the foundations required to go beyond the "by the book" approach that rookies are often required to take. I've found that often in the resource agencies the newer less experienced staff tend to take a ridged no flexibility or imagination approach to regulations and compliance, whereas some of the more experienced staff especially those we have built trust with over time, are much more receptive to innovative approaches and working together for the benefit of the resource and the project. |
| FWS Indiana — Bloomington |
|
| FWS Michigan — East Lansing |
|
| FWS Missouri | Service's early involvement in the scoping process. Unfortunately due to staff limitations this is not the norm. |
| FWS Montana | Early coordination of all DOT divisions is very important. A good design may take into account environmental concerns, but if that design cannot be constructed using environmentally friendly techniques, problems will develop. It would also be very useful to have someone keep track of all the environmental commitments that are made throughout development of a project and then ensures those all get carried into the construction contract in a binding manner. |
| FWS Ohio | Coordination from the earliest concept of a project combined with funding of staff to allow us to complete an in depth review of the study area would facilitate better review of projects. |
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa |
|
| FWS Pennsylvania |
|
| FWS Region 1 |
|
| FWS Region 1 | Communication, early and often in project development, between the Services and the federal and state transportation agencies. |
| FWS Region 1 | A cooperative transportation agency that keeps the resource agencies involved in all the important project decisions that affect fish and wildlife and their habitats. |
| FWS Region 1 — Columbia NWR | For Refuges it is good to have a on-site inspector to deal with Contractors. Refuge workers are not knowledgeable in road specifications and having inspector visits keep projects running smoothly. |
| FWS Region 4 — Southeast | I'd like to see some discussion that deals with the lack of involvement/action on the part of state-level FHWA staff with highway projects. In our area, the FHWA is non-existent from an environmental standpoint ... they never show up at any meetings/conferences, including important ones dealing with wetlands and stream mitigation. Even the state DOT environmental staff complain about the total lack of involvement by these individuals. I cannot remember back far enough to tell you how many years it has been since I last saw in person an FHWA staff member (I think it was 1994). Maybe a chart or checklist that details the level of involvement by FHWA as perceived by the FWS, NMFS, state environmental agencies, and the regulatory community would be a good way to make this point. I assume, based on what I hear, that things are not a whole lot better in other states. |
| FWS Region 5 — Northeast | Early involvement, good information about project-related impacts to natural resources, transportation agencies better understanding their role under ESA and providing the necessary information to FWS/NMFS to allow effective Section 7 consultations to proceed in a timely fashion. |
| FWS Texas | Early coordination for significant projects. Most of the time all we see is the draft or final Environmental Assessment and have little chance for offering input on alternatives. |
| FWS Texas — Austin |
|
| FWS WSDOT | Good working relationships, effective communication skills, the right information (with an understanding that this is a moving target as scientific information becomes available and as transportation planning processes change), early coordination, dedicated staff. |
| FWS Wyoming | Early involvement. |
| NMFS Northeast | We are drifting apart due to workload and significance determinations. NMFS often leads the way in the coastal zone and we defer to FWS in inland sites. Because of that, we often don not attend the same meetings. The separation seems intentional at FWS. We have come to use their presence/absence to facilitate prioritization of the NMFS workload. |
Frequently Cited Responses:
FHWA:| FHWA Division — Arizona | John Harris, PhD. Arkansas Highway and Transportation Department. Endangered Species Coordinator and manages endangered freshwater mussel relocation projects in Arkansas. 501-569-2522, though I have not asked John if he would be willing to speak. |
| FHWA Division — Colorado | It would be most appropriate for Lee Carlson, Fish and Wildlife Service, Colorado Division, to give the presentation, do not you think? Since you are doing this for the FWS, and do not want many FHWA people there, I think he could speak convincingly to his counterparts, and that's what we need. However, unless there is funding for travel, I doubt that he would be able to go. Lee is here in Lakewood at (303) 275- 2370 and Leroy_Carlson@fws.gov. I would be happy to give him my slides and presentation. I'm sure he would want to modify it from a FWS perspective, but he would not have to start from scratch. Let me know if you want me to talk to him. I would be happy to speak on Shortgrass Prairie, or give my presentation to others who could speak on the subject. Marie Venner, a former CDOT employees and currently consultant for CDOT or Chris Pague of The Nature Conservancy, either do an excellent job. I will send information on how to contact them if you need it. |
| FHWA Division — Montana | A session on the development of the Wildlife Habitat Handbook should be included. I (Dale Paulson) would consider making a presentation. |
| FHWA Division — North Carolina | Bill Gilmore (NCDENR) |
| Division Oregon |
|
| FHWA Division — Western Federal Lands | There are some good folks at FWS and NMFS in the NW ... what kinds of topics or panels are you thinking of? |
| FHWA Resource Center — Midwest | You could get someone from USGS to do a presentation on GAP Analysis and various assessment tools. What is acceptable? |
| FWS Ohio | Tom Linkous — ODOT, 614-466-5075, Thomas.Linkous@dot.state.oh.us |
| FWS Oklahoma — Tulsa | Brian Yanchik — FHWA, Eastern Resource Center |
| FWS Region 1 | Paul Wagner, WSDOT is very good on ESA issues and how they relate to transportation projects. |
| FWS Texas — Austin | TX DOT — Landscape Design — The Use of Compost in Highway Construction (Barrie Cogburn, 512-416-3086, http://www.dot.state.tx.us/compost |
| FWS Washington | FWS: Jennifer Quan — Watershed Mitigation efforts in Washington; Effects of Impervious Surface and Stormwater on Aquatic Systems and Listed Species. Emily Teachout — SR 520 Translake Indirect Effects Analysis; Mitigation Banking for Transportation Impacts in Washington; Regional Planning and HCPs to Streamline Transportation Project Permitting Carolyn Scafidi — Programmatic Consultation Efforts in Washington State for Transportation Projects. NMFS: Craig Johnson — Assessing Indirect Effects of Transportation Projects. |
| FWS Washington | FWS: Emily Teachout and Jennifer Quan could present on any of the following issues: FWS/FHWA/WSDOT liaison program, case studies on segmenting/indirect effects, mitigation banking, watershed based mitigation, solutions to transportation/ land-use indirect effects through regional planning and HCP's, Impervious Surfaces/stormwater/highway runoff , Washington States NEPA/404 Merger Agreement, programmatic consultation Lynn Childers — could present on "Where has the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act gone and why are we not using it"? NMFS: Barb Wood informal Sec. 7 Washington State Transportation Programmatic Craig Johnson — land use/transportation indirect effects, interrelated/interdependent actions, secondary and cumulative for ESA and NEPA, and or ESA Section 7(a)(1) |
| NMFS | I would be willing to discuss the Corps sponsored PGP and pre-application screening procedures. However, our system is working, albeit, we have too few people and too much editorial oversight in our process. I do not think my attendance would help our problems in this region. You should consider using Army Corps of Engineer folks such a Dave Killoy at the New England District, Emilie Holland at RI DOT, and Bill Neidermeyer at FWS in Concord, NH |
Comments to MDT regarding environmental commitments process review being conducted by FHWA in Montana (8/2/02)
Note: The FWS — Montana respondent included remarks given on another occasion, which provide greater detail on the issues addressed in the questionnaire response.
This is all I can think of at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments during this review process. I would be happy to discuss any of these topics further if it would be helpful, and look forward to working with MDT and FHWA on ways to address these items, or others you may have.
go to table of contents|
Margaret Akamine Protected Resources Program Manager NOAA, Pacific Islands Region 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110 Honolulu, HI 96814 Phone: (808) 973-2937 Fax: Email: margaret.akamine@noaa.gov |
Yates Allen Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 4 4270 Norwich Street Brunswick, GA 31520 Phone: (912) 265-9336 Fax: (912) 265-1061 Email: yates_allen@fws.gov |
|
Sandra Allen Environmental Streamlining Manager FHWA, Texas J.J. Pickle Federal Office Building, Suite 826 300 East 8th Street Austin, TX 787010 Phone: (512) 536-5944 Fax: (512) 536-5990 Email: sandra.allen@fhwa.dot.gov |
Cassandra Allwell Planning and Policy Analysis Division USDOT Volpe Center 55 Broadway, DTS-46 Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 494-3997 Fax: (617) 494-3064 Email: allwell@volpe.dot.gov |
|
Robert Anderson Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 5 315 South Allen Street, Suite 322 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-4090 Fax: (814) 234-0748 Email: robert_m_anderson@fws.gov |
Rachael Barolsky Planning and Policy Analysis Division USDOT Volpe Center 55 Broadway, DTS-46 Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 494-3997 Fax: (617) 494-3064 Email: barolsky@volpe.dot.gov |
|
Ken Berg Field Supervisor FWS, Region 1 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503 Phone: (360) 753-4065 Fax: (360) 753-9405 Email: ken_berg@fws.gov |
Brian Betlyon Metropolitan Planning Specialist FHWA, Resource Center 10 S. Howard Street, Suite 4000 Baltimore, MD Phone: (410) 962-0086 Fax: (410) 962-3419 Email: brian.betlyon@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Jerry Bielfeldt Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 1 2800 Cottage Way Suite W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6714 Email: jerry_bielfeldt@fws.gov |
Susan Blackford Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 6 315 Houston Street, Suite E Manhattan, KS 66502 Phone: (785) 539-3474 x102 Fax: (785) 539-8567 Email: susan_blackford@fws.gov |
|
Raymond Bosch Biologist FWS, Region 1 1655 Heindon Road Arcata, CA 95521 Phone: (707) 822-7201 Fax: (707) 822-8411 Email: ray_bosch@fws.gov |
Janice Brown Division Administrator FHWA, Montana 2880 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59602 Phone: (406) 449-5302 Fax: (406) 449-5302 Email: janice.brown@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Michael Buntjer Biologist FWS, Region 2 2105 Osuna, NE Albuquerque, NM 87113 Phone: (505) 346-2525 Fax: (505) 346-2542 Email: mike_buntjer@fws.gov |
Joseph Burns Transportation Liaison FWS, Office of Federal Activities 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 358-2183 Fax: (703) 358-1869 Email: joseph_burns@fws.gov |
|
Dick Butler Fishery Biologist NOAA, Southwest Region 777 Sonoma Ave, Room 325 Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Phone: (707) 575-6058 Fax: (707) 578-3435 Email: dick.butler@noaa.gov |
Lee Carlson Field Supervisor FWS, Region 6 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361 Lakewood, CO 80215 Phone: (303) 275-2370 Fax: (303) 275-2371 Email: leroy_carlson@fws.gov |
|
Melissia Carter Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 6 400 Airport Parkway Cheyenne, WY 82001 Phone: (307) 772-2374 Fax: (307) 772-2358 Email: melissia_carter@fws.gov |
Robyn Cobb Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 2 6300 Ocean Drive — Campus Box 338 Corpus Christi, TX 78412 Phone: (361) 994-9005 Fax: (361) 994-8262 Email: robyn_cobb@fws.gov |
|
Julie Crocker Fisheries Biologist NOAA, Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Phone: (978) 281-9328 x 6530 Fax: (978) 281-9394 Email: julie.waldo@noaa.gov |
Alison Deans Michael CDOT Liasion FWS, Region 6 755 Parfet Street, Suite 361 Lakewood, CO 80215 Phone: (303) 275-2378 Fax: (303) 275-2371 Email: alison_michael@fws.gov |
|
John DiGregoria Biologist FWS, Region 1 6010 Hidden Valley Boulevard Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (760) 431-9440 x 208 Fax: (760) 431-5902 Email: john_digregoria@fws.gov |
Shannon Dumolt Environmental Coordinator FHWA, Oklahoma 300 N. Meridian, Suite 105 S Oklahoma City, OK 73127 Phone: (405) 605-6040 Fax: (405) 605-6170 Email: shannon.dumolt@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
John Engbring CNO Supervisor FWS, Region 1 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2606 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6464 Fax: (916) 414-6486 Email: john_engbring@fws.gov |
Janice Engle Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 1 1387 S. Vinnell Way, Suite 368 Boise, ID 83709 Phone: (208) 685-6951 Fax: (208) 378-5262 Email: janice_engle@fws.gov |
|
Gregg Erickson Chief, Office of Biology and Technical Assistance Caltrans Division of Environmental Analysis 1120 N Street, MS 27 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 654-6296 Fax: Email: gregg_erickson@dot.ca.gov |
David Felder Fish and Wildlife Biologist FFWS, Region 4 6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A Jackson, MS 39213 Phone: (601) 321-1139 Fax: (601) 965-4340 Email: david_felder@fws.gov |
|
Daniel Fenner Biologist FWS, Region 2 222 South Houston, Suite A Tulsa, OK 74127 Phone: (918) 581-7458 Fax: (918) 581-7467 Email: daniel.fenner@fws.gov |
Paul Garrett Ecologist FHWA, Office of Natural & Human Environment Room 400, 555 Zang Street Lakewood, CO 80228 Phone: (303) 969-5772 Fax: (303) 969-6727 Email: paul.garrett@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
George Gerstle Manager, Division of Transportation Development, Intermodal Branch Colorado DOT Empire Park, Building B 1325 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 604 Denver, CO 80222 Phone: (303) 757-9795 Fax: Email: george.gerstle@dot.state.co.us |
Michael Grady Policy Analyst NOAA, Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way, Building 1, NE Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 526-4645 Fax: (206) 526-6426 Email: michael.grady@noaa.gov |
|
Mary Gray Environmental Program Specialist FHWA, Office of Natural and Human Enviroment 711 S. Capitol Way, Suite 501 Olympia, WA 98501 Phone: (360) 753-9487 Fax: (360) 753-9889 Email: mary.gray@fhwa.dot.gov |
Dan Guy LCSW Team Leader NOAA, Northwest Region 501 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 103 Lacey, WA 98503 Phone: (360) 534-9342 Fax: (360) 753-9517 Email: dan.guy@noaa.gov |
|
Jon Hale Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 1 911 NE 11th Avenue Portland, OR 97232 Phone: (503) 231-2046 Fax: (502) 231.2050 Email: jon_hale@fws.gov |
Derek Hamilton Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 4 646 Cajundome Boulevard, Suite 400 Lafayette, LA 70506 Phone: (337) 291-3138 Fax: (337) 291-3139 Email: derek_hamilton@fws.gov |
|
Lawrence Hanf Senior Agency Counsel FHWA, Office of Chief Counsel 201 Mission Street, #2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 744-8272 Fax: Email: lawrence.hanf@fhwa.dot.gov |
Margaret Harney Team Leader FWS, Region 4 1500 Museum Road, Suite 105 Conway, AR 72032 Phone: (501) 513-4471 Fax: (501) 513-5580 Email: margaret_harney@fws.gov |
|
Tim Haugh Environmental Program Manager FHWA, Alaska P.O. Box 21648 Juneau, AK 99802 Phone: (907) 586-7430 Fax: (907) 586-7420 Email: tim.haugh@fhwa.dot.gov |
Eric Hawk Fishery Biologist NOAA, Southeast Region 9721 Executive Center Drive St. Petersburg, FL 33700 Phone: (727) 570-5312 Fax: (727) 570-5517 Email: eric.hawk@noaa.gov |
|
David Hirsh Program Analyst NOAA, Northwest Region 501 Desmond Drive, SE Lacey, WA 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9598 Fax: (360) 753-9517 Email: david.hirsh@noaa.gov |
Michael Horton FWS, Office of Federal Activities 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 420 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 358-2371 Fax: (703) 358-1735 Email: michael_horton@fws.gov |
|
Barbara Hosler Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 3 2651 Coolidge Road, Suite 1 East Lansing, MI 48823 Phone: (517) 351-6326 Fax: (517) 351-1443 Email: barbara_hosler@fws.gov |
Diana Hwang Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 1 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 Fax: (503) 231-6195 Email: diana_hwang@fws.gov |
|
C. Leroy Irwin Manager, Environmental Management Office Florida DOT 605 Suwannee Street, MS 37 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0450 Phone: (850) 510-5898 Fax: Email: leroy.irwin@dot.state.fl.us |
Lamont Jackson Biologist NOAA, Headquarters1 315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 713-1401 Fax: (301) 713-0376 Email: lamont.jackson@noaa.gov |
|
Craig Johnson Section 7 Coordinator NOAA, Headquarters 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 713-1401 Fax: (301) 713-0376 Email: craig.johnson@noaa.gov |
Gary Jordan Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 4 P.O. Box 33726 Raleigh, NC 27636 Phone: (919) 856-4520 x32 Fax: (919) 856-4556 Email: gary_jordan@fws.gov |
|
Lucy Jordan Supervisory Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 6 2369 West Orton Circle, Suite 50 Salt Lake City, UT 84119 Phone: (801) 975-3330 Fax: (801) 975-3331 Email: lucy_jordan@fws.gov |
Maiser Khaled Chief, District Operations North FHWA, California 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 498-5020 Fax: (916) 498-5008 Email: maiser.khaled@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
DeeAnn Kirkpatrick Fishery Biologist NOAA, Northwest Region 7600 Sand Point Way, NE, Building 1 Seattle, WA 98115 Phone: (206) 526-4452 Fax: (206) 526-4746 Email: deeann.kirkpatrick@noaa.gov |
Dennis Klemm Fishery Biologist NOAA, Southeast Region 9721 Executive Center Drive St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Phone: (727) 570-5312 Fax: (727) 570-5517 Email: dennis.klemm@noaa.gov |
|
Steve Kokkinakis Strategic Planning NOAA, Headquarters 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 713-1622 Fax: Email: steve.kokkinakis@noaa.gov |
Ed Kosola Realty/Environmental Officer FHWA, Nebraska Federal Building, Room 220 100 Centennial Mall North Lincoln, NE 68508 Phone: (402) 437-5973 Fax: (402) 437-5146 Email: edward.kosola@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Ken Lammers Ecologist FWS, Region 3 6950 Americana Parkway, Suite H Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 Phone: (614) 469-6923 x15 Fax: (614) 469-6919 Email: kenneth_lammers@fws.gov |
Louise Lawson Conference Coordinator USDOT Volpe Center 55 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02142 Phone: (617) 494-3344 Fax: (617) 494-2569 Email: lawsonl@volpe.dot.gov |
|
David Leal Biologist 2600 Southeast 98th AvenueFWS, Region 1 Portland, OR 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 Fax: Email: david_leal@fws.gov |
Scott Leonard Fisheries Biologist NOAA, Northwest Region 10215 W. Emerald, Suite 180 Boise, ID 83704 Phone: (208) 378-5708 Fax: (208) 378-5699 Email: scott.leonard@noaa.gov |
|
Alex Levy FHWA, Resource Center 61 Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, GA 30303 Phone: (404) 562-3669 Fax: Email: alex.levy@fhwa.dot.gov |
Mark Littlefield Chief, Watershed Planning Branch FWS, Region 1 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6600 Fax: (916) 414-6714 Email: mark_littlefield@fws.gov |
|
Michael Litwin Fishery Biologist FWS, Region 3 620 South Walker Street Bloomington, IN 47403 Phone: (812) 334-4621 x205 Fax: (812) 334-4273 Email: michael_litwin@fws.gov |
Lyn Maclean Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 3 BHW Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive Fort Snelling, MN 55111 Phone: (612) 713-5330 Fax: (612) 713-5292 Email: lyn_maclean@fws.gov |
|
Frances Mann Branch Chief FWS, Region 7 605 W. 4th, Room G61 Anchorage, AK 99501 Phone: (907) 271-3053 Fax: Email: frances_mann@fws.gov |
Gregory Mannesto Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 5 Box 307 Charlestown, RI 02813 Phone: (401) 364-9124 Fax: (401) 364-0170 Email: greg_mannesto@fws.gov |
|
John Marshall FWS, Region 1 2600 SE 98th Avenue Portland, OR 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 Fax: (503) 231-6195 Email: john_marshall@fws.gov |
Richard McCoy Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 5 135 South Allen Street, Suite 322 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-4090 Fax: (814) 234-0748 Email: richard_mcCoy@fws.gov |
|
Kelly McDermott Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 6 3425 Miriam Avenue Bismarck, ND 58501 Phone: (701 )355-8510 Fax: (701) 355-8513 Email: kelly_mcdermott@fws.gov |
Carlos Mendoza Field Supervisor FWS, Region 2 17629 El Camino Real, Suite 211 Houston, TX 77058 Phone: (281) 286-8282 Fax: (281) 488-5882 Email: carlos_mendoza@fws.gov |
|
Ben Meyer Team Leader, Fisheries Biologist NOAA, Northwest Region 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97232 Phone: (503) 230-5425 Fax: (503) 231-6893 Email: ben.meyer@noaa.gov |
Kevin Moody NEPA Coordinator FWS, Region 4 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30345 Phone: (404) 679-7089 Fax: Email: kevin_moody@fws.gov |
|
Tony Morton NEPA Coordinator NOAA, Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 980-3209 Fax: (562) 980-4018 Email: tony.morton@noaa.gov |
Nancy Munn Water Resource Policy Analyst NOAA, Northwest Region 525 NE Oregon Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97215 Phone: (503) 231-6269 Fax: (503) 231-6893 Email: nancy.munn@noaa.gov |
|
Mary Lynn Nation Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 7 1011 E. Tudor Road Anchorage, AK 99503 Phone: (907) 786-3519 Fax: (907) 786-3350 Email: mary_nation@ fws.gov |
John Naughton P.I. Environmental Coordinator NOAA, Pacific Islands Region 1601 Kapiolani Boulevard, Suite 1110 Honolulu, HI 96814 Phone: (808) 973-2935 Fax: (808) 973-2941 Email: john.naughton@noaa.gov |
|
Robert Newman Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 1 11103 E. Montgomery Drive Spokane, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 893-8017 Fax: (509) 891-6748 Email: bob_newman@fws.gov |
Robin Nims Elliott Chief, Branch of Federal Program Activites FWS 4401 North Fairfax Drive Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 358-2183 Fax: Email: robin_nimselliott@fws.gov |
|
Joseph Ossi Environmental Planner Federal Transportation Administration 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-1613 Fax: (202) 493-2478 Email: joseph.ossi@fta.dot.gov |
Marlys Osterhues Project Development Specialist Office of Project Development and Environmental Review FHWA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-2052 Fax: Email: marlys.osterhues@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Jennifer Papazian Environmental Engineering Division USDOT Volpe Center DTS-33 55 Broadway, Cambridge, MA 02124 Phone: (617) 494-3913 Fax: Email: papazian@volpe.dot.gov |
Peter Pattavina Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 4 247 South Milledge Avenue Athens, GA 30605 Phone: (706) 613-9493 Fax: (706) 613-6059 Email: pete_pattavina@fws.gov |
|
Jennifer Quan Biologist FWS, Region 1 510 Desmond Drive, SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 95803 Phone: (360) 753-6047 Fax: (360) 753-9008 Email: jennifer_quan@fws.gov |
Nan Reck NOAA, Headquarters 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 713-1401 Fax: Email: nan.reck@noaa.gov |
|
Kathi Rodrigues Senior Policy Analyst NOAA, Northeast Region One Blackburn Drive Gloucester, MA 01930 Phone: (978) 281-9324 Fax: (978) 281-9207 Email: kathi.rodrigues@noaa.gov |
Mary Ann Rondinella Environmental Specialist FHWA, California 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 Sacremento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 498-5040 Fax: (916) 498-5008 Email: mary.ann.rondinella@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Penny Ruvelas Section 7 Coordinator NOAA, Southwest Region 501 West Ocean Boulevard Long Beach, CA 90802 Phone: (562) 980-4197 Fax: Email: penny.ruvelas@noaa.gov |
Fred Skaer Director, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review FHWA 400 7th Street, SW, Room 3222 Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-2058 Email: fred.skaer@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Brian Smith Environmental Biology/Water Quality Specialist FHWA, National Resource Center 19900 Governors Drive, Suite 301 Olympia Fields, IL 60461 Phone: (708) 283-3553 Fax: (708) 283-3501 Email: brian.smith@fhwa.dot.gov |
Marjorie Snyder Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 5 300 Westgate Center Drive Hadley, MA 01035 Phone: (413) 253-8612 Fax: (413) 253-8482 Email: marjorie_snyder@fws.gov |
|
Doreen Stadtlander Senior Staff Biologist FWS, Region 1 6010 Hidden Valley Blvd Carlsbad, CA 92009 Phone: (760) 431-9440 Fax: (760) 930-0846 Email: doreen_stadtlander@fws.gov |
Pam Stephenson Project Development Specialist Office of project Development and Environmental Review FHWA 400 7th Street, SW Washington, DC 20590 Phone: (202) 366-2062 Fax: Email: pamela.stephenson@fhwa.dot.gov |
|
Stephanie Stoermer Environmental Coordinator FHWA, California 980 Ninth Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 498-5057 Fax: Email: stephanie.stoermer@fhwa.dot.gov |
Lori Sundstrom Section Manager, Environmental Services Section Oregon DOT 1158 Chemeketa Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Phone: (503) 986-3491 Fax: (503) 986-3524 Email: lori.l.sundstrom@odot.state.or.us |
|
Emily Teachout Transportation Biologist FWS, Region 1 510 Desmond Drive SE, Suite 102 Lacey, WA 98503 Phone: (360) 753-9583 Fax: (360) 753-9008 Email: emily_teachout@fws.gov |
Benjamin Tuggle Division Chief FWS, Branch of Federal Activities 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, VA 22203 Phone: (703) 358-2161 Fax: (703) 358-1869 Email: benjamin_tuggle@fws.gov |
|
Paul Wagner Biology Program Manager Washington State DOT P.O. Box 47331 Olympia, WA 98504 Phone: (360) 705-7406 Fax: (360) 705-6833 Email: wagnerp@wsdot.wa.gov |
Dean Watkins Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 2 P.O. Box 1306 Albuquerque, NM 87103 Phone: (505) 248-6666 Fax: (505) 248-6922 Email: dean-watkin@fws.gov |
|
Jeffrey Weller Regional Transportation Coordinator FWS, Region 4 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200 Atlanta, GA 30345 Phone: (404) 679-7127 Fax: (404) 679-7081 Email: jeff_weller@fws.gov |
Phil Williams NOAA, Headquarters 1315 East West Highway Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone: (301) 713-1401 Fax: Email: phil.williams@noaa.gov |
|
Alison Willy FWS, Region 1 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W Sacramento, CA 95825 Phone: (916) 414-6534 Fax: (916) 414-6713 Email: alison_willy@fws.gov |
R. Mark Wilson Field Supervisor FWS, Region 6 100 N. Park Avenue, Suite 320 Helena, MT 59601 Phone: (406) 449-5225 x 205 Fax: (406) 449-5339 Email: mark_wilson@fws.gov |
|
Gary Winters Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis Caltrans 1120 N Street, Room 40301, Mail Stop 27 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 653-7136 Fax: Email: gary_winters@dot.ca.gov |
John Wrublik Fish and Wildlife Biologist FWS, Region 4 1339 20th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 562-3909 Fax: (772) 562-4288 Email: john_wrublik@fws.gov |
|
Brian Yanchik FHWA, Resource Center 10 S. Howard Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 962-0104 Fax: Email: brian.yanchik@fhwa.dot.gov |
Robert Zepp Senior Staff Biologist FWS, Region 5 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 Phone: (410) 573-4536 Fax: (410) 269-0832 Email: bob_zepp@fws.gov |
|
Joseph Zisa Senior Staff Biologist FWS, Region 1 2600 SE 98th Avenue, Suite 100 Portland, OR 97266 Phone: (503) 231-6179 Fax: (503) 231-6195 Email: joe_zisa@fws.gov |
| Below is a list of available presentations given throughout the Workshop. To receive a copy of any of presentations below, please contact Rachael Barolsky at the U.S. DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center at 617-494-6352 or Barolsky@volpe.dot.gov. | |
| Topic | Presented By: |
|---|---|
| Conservation Banking: An Endangered Species Perspective | Michael Horton, FWS |
| Conservation Banking I-10 Interchange Projects, FHWA Riverside County, CA | Mary Ann Rondinella, FHWA |
| Environmental Streamlining and EO 13274:What does it Mean Outside of the Beltway? | Pam Stephenson, FHWA |
| Essential Fish Habitat | Kathi Rodrigues, NOAA Fisheries |
| FHWA's Environmental Vital Few Goals | Fred Skaer, FHWA |
| Indirect and Cumulative Effects: NEPA versus ESA | Craig Johnson, NOAA Fisheries |
| NEPA and the Transportation Decision Making Process | Tim Haugh and Pam Stephenson, FHWA |
| Overview of Interagency Consultation | Craig Johnson, NOAA Fisheries |
| Planning Overview and Linkage to NEPA Process | Brian Betlyon, FHWA |
| Section 7(a)(2) Programmatic Consultations | Michael Horton, FWS |
| Essential Elements of Environmental Stewardship | Benjamin Tuggle, FWS |
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.
Program Overview