National Environmental Streamlining Initiatives

Proceedings of the
National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop for Federal Agencies

St. Louis, Missouri
November 28-30, 2000

January 2001

Prepared by:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Prepared for:
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Office of NEPA Facilitation
Washington, D.C.

Executive Summary

From November 28-30, 2000, more than 190 representatives from 12 Federal agencies, state Departments of Transportation (DOTs), and transportation and environmental groups participated in the first National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop held in St. Louis, Missouri. The meeting was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Interagency Environmental Streamlining Group. Environmental streamlining is a means of developing and implementing coordinated reviews for the advancement of highway and transit projects. This event was targeted at sharing the best practices in environmental streamlining nationwide.  The workshop highlighted Federal agencies’ perspectives on environmental streamlining from Headquarters and field representatives and provided a forum for open interagency discussion.  In addition, participants recommended refinements to the Environmental Streamlining Action Plan.

Over the course of the workshop, participants met in plenary sessions and in breakout groups " sometimes with their agency, and other times to discuss best practices on particular topics.  Some of the discussions covered how the agencies would revise and refine the Action Plan, responsible and effective management of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, cross-agency strategies and techniques for maximizing resources, effective mitigation agreements, what customers expect from the Federal resource agencies, and development of national dispute resolution procedures.

The main points that emerged during the conference reinforce the Action Plan and show that more work needs to be done to implement these practices in the field.  The main themes discussed during the workshop include:

• Field staffs need to buy in to the process.  Agencies need to be committed to being involved in the streamlining process. 

• Leadership is needed at many levels, but Headquarters offices need to set the tone for each agency.

• Alternate dispute resolution processes are needed and should be used as a tool to resolve issues.

• Best practices information and guidance needs to be communicated to resource agencies continuously and consistently. 

• Field staff want outreach and training (interagency training and regional workshops).

• Communication and early involvement is critical to the success of the NEPA process.

• Better methods of benchmarking performance are needed.

The workshop was a great success in terms of opening and strengthening lines of communication among and within Federal agencies.  At the conclusion of the event, several participants suggested that similar forums should be held at the state and local levels throughout the nation.  

Although the workshop was primarily aimed at Federal agency representatives, transportation and environmental interest groups were invited to attend.  The House of Representatives and U.S. Senate staffs, various state DOTs, Environmental Defense, and Defenders of Wildlife participated and shared their views with the Federal representatives.

Table of Contents

Introduction

Opening Remarks

Leadership Perspectives

Clarifying Expectations and Commitments

Mastering the Environmental Streamlining SATs: Strategies, Approaches, and Techniques

What Do Our Customers Want From Us?

Building a National Toolbox

Identifying Next Steps

Closing Sessions

Next Steps

Optional General Session - Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

List of Acronyms

Introduction

Section 1309 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA-21) requires the Secretary of Transportation to develop and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway and transit projects.  In July of 1999, seven Federal agencies " the US Departments of Transportation (USDOT), Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, and Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) " entered into a National Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).  This MOU commits the agencies to streamline environmental review processes in accordance with TEA-21 and other relevant environmental statutes in ways that reinforce their Federal responsibility to protect the environment.  The signatory agencies joining the USDOT in this agreement are responsible for reviewing environmental documents prepared under NEPA for a highway construction or transit project, and/or are required to issue a permit, license, and opinion relating to the project. By this MOU, the Federal agencies agreed to work cooperatively to reduce transportation project delays while enhancing and protecting the environment.  Agency representatives meet monthly and have worked to convert the National MOU into the Environment Streamlining Action Plan (ESAP).  The ESAP draft identifies five strategies, operating principles, and specific actions.  The headquarters representatives coordinate efforts with field contacts.     

• Program Efficiency: Establish timely, and where feasible, concurrent project reviews.  This requires active and rigorous coordination among Federal, state, and local partners through early, sustained, and continuous involvement of Federal and state resource agencies.
• Flexible Mitigation: Avoid environmental impacts where possible and use compensation, as well as region-wide or area-wide mitigation activities advanced by improved data inventories, and the development of programmatic agreements.
• Resource Management: Negotiate formal agreements among state and Federal partners.  Allocate resources to support early involvement, adequate staffing, interagency training, and information dissemination requirements through mutually agreed upon interagency priorities.
• Alternate Dispute Resolution: Keep projects on schedule through the use of conflict avoidance and resolution practices.
• Measuring Continuous Improvement: Measure continuous improvement and progress through best practices and evaluation techniques such as benchmarking, and performance standards.  Modify approaches to streamlining based on results. 

The Federal agencies have been working with field offices and stakeholders to revise the ESAP.  In an effort to advance the implementation of streamlining and to refine the action plan, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on behalf of National Interagency Streamlining Group hosted the National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop from November 28-30, 2000, in St. Louis, Missouri.  Participants were charged with setting a course of action for advancing efficient, responsible, and environmentally sound streamlining commitments.

Opening Remarks

The 3-day conference was kicked off with welcoming remarks from Lucy Garliauskas and Fred Skaer of the FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation.  Ms. Garliauskas welcomed all Federal agency representatives and other attendees to the training workshop.  She stated that the purpose of the workshop was to bridge the environmental streamlining gap between Headquarters and agency field offices.  This would be done by advancing the already existing MOU and Action Plan to the next step of producing tangible results.  Ms. Garliauskas called upon the participants to find some common ground for advancing what may appear to be non-intersecting missions of seven Federal agencies and the distinct objectives of environmental and transportation laws.  She noted, "if we are truly open to understanding each other’s missions we will come to respect each other’s roles and responsibilities.  Over the years, many of us have learned that respect is the foundation of trust, and trust opens the door to cooperation.  Cooperation leads to results."  Mr. Skaer concluded the opening address by stating that with interagency collaboration at this conference, and during everyday work, environmental streamlining efforts will result in success. 

Leadership Perspectives

Two panels were assembled during this session, aimed at providing context for environmental streamlining at the national level, and helping attendees understand the different perspectives on environmental issues that each agency brings to the table.  This understanding is the starting point for agencies to find ways to streamline reviews while still meeting their responsibilities of environmental stewardship.   

The first panel included Kenneth Wykle, FHWA Administrator, and Dinah Bear, General Counsel for the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), who gave an overview of the philosophy on National Environmental Policy Act and Federal responsibilities under environmental streamlining.  Key points discussed were that early involvement of all parties is essential for success of environmental streamlining, and that there is a need to enhance coordination between Headquarters and the field staffs.  The second panel consisted of representatives from a number of Federal agencies discussing their mission, roles, and responsibilities under NEPA for transportation activities and environmental streamlining.  An overview of each agency’s role prepared the agencies for breakout discussions about their perceptions and expectations for their involvement in carrying out streamlining.   

Panel 1: Overview of the Philosophy on National Environmental Policy Act and Federal Responsibilities Under Environmental Streamlining

Kenneth Wykle

Mr. Wykle, FHWA’s Administrator, stated that most recently, there are new and greater concerns with the timeliness of projects.  Many people feel that the environmental review for projects taking 8 to 10 years is too long and that the FHWA needs to rethink how business is performed.  The environmental review process is a critical piece of the timeliness of a project and the FHWA wants to be able to deliver projects much quicker. 

Mr. Wykle noted that complying with environmental requirements is very complex because there are approximately 40 different statutes for the environment and 9 of these statues pertain to transportation.  A strong partnership is, therefore, critical to the success of environmental streamlining.  Mr. Wykle views the National MOU as a team effort to improve environmental streamlining.  The closing statement of the National MOU reads, "We will strive to ensure that transportation projects are protective of and more compatible with the natural and human environment and we commit to continuously improve and streamline the processes used to develop those projects."  By signing the MOU, FHWA made two commitments: 1) to reduce project delays, and 2) to protect and enhance environmental quality.  To monitor progress, the environmental protection performance must be tracked on an ongoing basis.  Mr. Wykle encouraged the lead Federal agency to take full advantage of the lead role that they provide to other agencies.  The lead Federal agency should ensure that NEPA documents meet all legal requirements and assure that all agencies and stakeholders are coming together.  The lead agency should use streamlining as a "NEPA umbrella" to address a broad range of environmental issues.

Mr. Wykle indicated that there were many keys to achieving the objectives of the MOU.  He feels that environmental streamlining requires an active partnership and the willingness to compromise.  All involved parties must identify issues and work together early in the process in order to fulfill the MOU commitments.  This involves the willingness to make compromises, focusing on the work at hand, fully participating in discussions, reaching agreements, and negotiating "give and take" on various issues.  In addition, the agencies must build upon successes and promote creative solutions to reduce environmental constraints.  He encourages greater use of the Internet as a way for agencies to share ideas and display best practices for their individual organizations.

The ESAP is an important tool in carrying out the MOU commitments.  Mr. Wykle agreed it is time to update the Action Plan based on experiences.  In closing, Mr. Wykle said he looked forward to examples of successful projects.  He felt the training workshop would be a catalyst to accelerate changes in environmental streamlining.  With improved environmental streamlining processes, projects will be delivered more quickly while still protecting the environment.

Dinah Bear

Dinah Bear, General Counsel for the CEQ, agreed that this was a good time for the workshop to occur.  She pointed out that environmental streamlining is not a new concept to the Federal government or to FHWA.  Since 1979, CEQ has been encouraging Federal agencies to use the scoping process to identify issues early in the NEPA process.  In addition, CEQ has encouraged Federal agencies to integrate other environmental regulations under the NEPA umbrella.  Ms. Bear cited the merger of compliance with NEPA and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as an excellent way to achieve streamlining.  She encouraged the founding of additional programmatic approaches, such as MOUs and Memoranda of Agreement. 

Dinah Bear reflected on why in the year 2000 we are still struggling with environmental streamlining.  Despite the perception that environmental streamlining is failing, Ms. Bear said that environmental streamlining is in fact working.  The time for environmental review process for projects has become increasingly shorter over time.

Ms. Bear made two observations about Federal agencies’ struggle with streamlining.  First, early involvement of all parties is essential to succeed in meeting all the environmental requirements.  Second, while transportation and resource agencies continue to complain, she has observed a shift in the trend of complaints from agencies.  A decade ago, resource agencies were complaining about not being involved in the planning process.  Today, it is the action agencies who are complaining about resource agencies not being involved early in the planning process.  This lack of involvement is due primarily to limited resources.  Through TEA-21, Congress has tried to address this in part by allowing states to use Federal funds to reimburse resource agencies for efforts, such as early involvement, that expedite project reviews.  Ms. Bear encouraged everyone to actively try to pursue the resources they need rather than deciding that there are not enough resources available and never asking for them.

Ms. Bear identified the inability to resolve disputes in a timely manner as another obstacle to environmental streamlining.  In order to resolve this, she recommended that people be bold in their interactions during the environmental review process and articulate concerns about why the process is not going well.  Disputes between agencies and individuals need to be resolved quickly by elevating early and often.

In conclusion, Ms. Bear encouraged resource agencies to acknowledge the importance of transportation projects and advised everyone not to expect miracles; not all projects will be completed ahead of schedule.  She said that she looked forward to the openness and exchange of information that the workshop would bring.

Panel 2: Interagency Mission, Roles, and Responsibilities Under NEPA For Transportation Activities and Environmental Streamlining

Bill Fung, FHWA’s Wisconsin Division Administrator, moderated this session.  Panelists included: Mary Ann Naber, Program Analyst, ACHP; Fred Skaer, Director, Office of NEPA Facilitation, FHWA; Anne Miller, Acting Director, Office of Federal Activities, EPA; Jack Chowning, Program Manager for Regulatory Branch, USACE; Paul Brouha, Associate Deputy Chief for National Forest Systems, FS; and Don Peterson, Washington Office Transportation Coordinator, FWS.  Mr. Fung asked each panelist to present their leadership perspectives by describing their agency’s mission, responsibility under the NEPA process and role in transportation, and their philosophy on agency involvement in environmental streamlining. 

Mr. Fung opened the session with some general observations about the Midwest Regional MOU that has been signed by 13 Federal agencies, 6 state DOTs, and 8 state resource groups.  He indicated that the Midwest National Resources Administrative Group has begun to formally work together as a result of this MOU, but that it took 5-1/2 months to get all the needed signatures.

Mr. Fung felt that the creation of regional MOUs is a trend in environmental streamlining that began with the signing of the National MOU.  He indicated that there were tiers to these agreements, ranging from national to regional to state levels.  However, Mr. Fung believes that the substance of these agreements is at the local level, where they actually involve the people doing the work.  In some cases, when people at the local level may have good relationships with their counterparts at other agencies, a local MOU may not be necessary; however, in other situations, it can be very useful.

Mr. Fung then kicked off the panel discussion by posing a series of questions.  The first two questions included: 1) what is your agency’s mission and what is your agency’s responsibility under NEPA, and 2) what is your agency’s role in NEPA, and what is your agency’s role in carrying out environmental streamlining?  Panelists’ responses to these questions are presented in the following  table.  For the second question, Mr. Fung opened the discussion to other agencies present at the meeting; their responses follow the table.  Panelists were also asked a third question " how has the National MOU been shared with their respective local officers.  A short discussion of secondary and cumulative impacts also took place at the end of the session.  

Table: Questions 1 and 2, and Panel Responses

Additional agency perspectives on their roles, responsibilities, and on streamlining

FTA: Joe Ossi addressed the relationship between FHWA and FTA.  He stated that they were interconnected because many transit options are in the form of bus service, and buses need to operate over highways.  However, there are differences, in that FTA is largely a grant-making agency.  The purpose of these grants is threefold: 1) to provide mobility and relieve congestion, 2) to assist those not able to use automobiles on the Federal Highway System, and 3) to promote economic development, especially in urban areas. 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA): Harold Draper stated that TVA is the steward of the Tennessee Valley Watershed.  Under the authority of the Section 26(a) approval process, TVA issues permits for highways in 200 counties in 7 states (Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Virginia) that flow into the TVA region.  It oversees 54 dams and issues land easements.  TVA has responsibility for dams on short highways, has authority for relocation of transmission lines, and owns railroads.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): Steve Kokkinakis stated that NOAA conserves and wisely preserves coastal and marine resources.  They manage all federally protected fishery species in Economic Zone waters.  Thus, NOAA is involved in looking at the fishery management plans under the NEPA process for protected species such as salmon, whales, and turtles.  They also are involved with the fisheries council members, who allocate fishing quotas.  NOAA must therefore play a balancing act between fishing quotas and fishery preservation.

United States Coast Guard (USCG): Roger Wiebusch of the USCG Bridge Administration Program stated that the USCG was responsible for permitting bridges across navigable waters.  They have a NEPA oversight role in that they must provide for adequate navigation needs for the bridges and waters. The USCG works with the FHWA and prefers to get in early in the planning process to smooth potential difficulties.  They see themselves as both a lead agency and cooperative agency " leading when FHWA is not involved, and supporting when FHWA is involved.

Questions and Answers:  The following questions were asked by the audience.

How has the National MOU been shared with their respective local officers?

ACHP: Mary Ann Naber said the easy answer is that ACHP has no field offices.  However, the SHPOs are partners and the MOU was sent out over their broadcast system.  Additionally, the MOU will be a major agenda item at their national meeting in March.

FHWA: Fred Skaer stated that the MOU was sent out to all division offices, and that it was included in all performance plans.

EPA: Anne Miller said that the MOU is a subject of discussion at the highest levels of the organization and that the regional administrators are very aware of it.  The EPA has established interdisciplinary teams in the hopes of determining how best to implement the MOU.

USACE: Jack Chowning said that Headquarters sent out a 1-page memorandum describing the MOU, but admitted that they need to do more to distribute it to all affected parties.

FS: Paul Brouha said that they sent out a memorandum to all of the field offices; however, much more needs to be done, especially in terms of training and providing regional engineers.

FWS: Don Peterson stated that the National MOU needs to be translated into meaningful actions. The MOU was transmitted to all FWS offices invovled in transportation coordination issues.

What are EPA’s views on Secondary Cumulative Impacts?

A question was posed to Ms. Miller about EPA’s growing pressure to consider and mitigate secondary impacts.  A participant wanted to know if EPA felt that transportation was to be held responsible for these impacts.  Ms. Miller responded that, under CEQ regulations, projects are supposed to be looked at for direct and indirect impacts.  It used to be that only direct impacts were examined, but 10 years ago it was recognized that indirect and cumulative impacts were just as important.  She noted that with highway projects, the secondary impacts are relatively hard to assess because it is not always clear whether building highways leads to more development, or if development creates the need for more highways.  Ms. Miller further noted that this will be even more difficult in the future because of the changing demographics and growing populations.  She stated that secondary impacts need to have more attention paid to them.  Ms. Miller believes that, while it was admittedly hard to judge who was responsible for what share of the impact, it should definitely be considered in the planning process.

Mr. Skaer, Director of FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation, stated that there was certainly room for reasonable people to disagree on how to disclose these issues.  He noted that, in cases where the analytical process was not well developed, agencies should take advantage of the lead agency’s role.  Mr. Skaer stated that FHWA would not be true to their mission if they never mitigated secondary impacts; however, they should not be viewed as the "deep pockets."  His feeling was that there needed to be partnerships in determining a reasonable sharing of mitigation costs on a case-by-case basis. 

Clarifying Expectations and Commitments

During this portion of the conference, attendees met with other representatives from their agency in breakout groups and later made a presentation to the plenary session on their groups’ findings. Each group was charged to discuss their agency’s role in environmental streamlining and their expectations, as well as what is expected of other agencies.  Each agency was asked to identify successful and unsuccessful practices of environmental streamlining with respect to their agency’s responsibilities.  The goal of the session was to ensure that all agency streamlining contacts have a clear understanding of environmental streamlining and knowledge of their agency’s responsibility to advance the National Streamlining MOU.  Agency Headquarters representatives facilitated the breakout sessions.  Louise Smart of CDR Associates and Sarah Siwek of Sarah J. Siwek & Associates facilitated the plenary session reports.  Overall summary findings are based on all the agency presentations at the plenary session.  Examples of successful practices are presented in the table below.  

Federal Agency Breakout Session Discussion: Summary of Expectations

• Upfront work is necessary for successful environmental streamlining.  It helps establish relationships and build trust among the agencies.  Agencies need to clearly define the roles of each agency and confirm cooperating agency commitments.  Upfront work also is needed to define the interagency processes for the project, including the fit between NEPA and Section 404.  Finally, the level of effort needed must be defined and agencies must ensure there are sufficient staff resources to provide that effort, including working out funding agreements.
• Involvement of the resource and regulatory agencies is needed in the planning stage to provide broad-brush information on potential impacts and environmental concerns to head off potential problems and help transportation agencies determine what they will need to go through the process successfully.
• Efficiency can be gained by both engaging in programmatic, system-oriented efforts such as mapping of resources and watershed studies which can inform project efforts and determine which projects merit significant attention by the agencies and which do not.  This can help maximize the use and benefit of available staff resources.
• The agencies can take a proactive role in resolving issues, through participation in field meetings to look at options and make on-site joint decisions.
• Ongoing, regular communication is needed at all levels, including such activities as monthly staff or mid-level management meetings or quarterly executive meetings to review progress on projects and resolve outstanding issues.
• A dispute resolution process must be put into place to ensure that issues do not fester.  This process should include both a commitment to work the issue more effectively at the staff level and a plan to elevate unresolved issues so those with higher authority or broader agency perspective can resolve them.
• The state DOTs are essential players in environmental streamlining and need to be apprised of the MOU commitments and engaged in the interagency process.

Other Comments Made Throughout The Session

• FHWA Leadership: Is appreciated by other resource agencies.
• Agency Involvement: Everyone needs to be involved in environmental streamlining.
• Duplication: The surprisingly large amount of duplication implies that there is a lack of leadership in the process.  There is duplication of effort in Federal agencies’ evaluations.  EPA has a list of what other agencies do in the planning process.  It would be good to look at this as a starting point in reducing duplication.  For example, USACE does not use a single document for the permit.  Another example is that while FHWA will issue an EIS on a project, USACE will define it as an Environmental Assessment (EA).  To resolve incongruence at the end of the process, more detailed analysis and a checks and balances system with Federal agency documentation is necessary.  An emphasis on early coordination should help reduce duplication of effort.  Addressing duplication at the end of the process will require effort from all parties to smoothly end the process.  There is duplication at the end of the USACE permit process.  Sharing resource data bases also will help reduce duplication.
• Dispute Resolution: There is a need for dispute resolution.  MOUs need a specific elevation point when agencies need to raise the disputes.  Time limitations are needed for the dispute resolution process.  State DOTs complain that dispute resolution takes too long, so they avoid it.  In order to foster stronger working relationships among agency staff, staff should work together before going to supervisors and elevating the issue to dispute resolution.  The process needs to be improved at the mid-level (field and division offices).  The field and regional offices need encouragement to resolve problems to avoid unnecessary elevation to Headquarters.  New York DOT has a Process of Communication that is very helpful in dispute resolution, and has been especially helpful with the SHPO.  People are not always willing to compromise.  Elevation gives a fresh look at the conflict and may, in some cases, make it easier for a decision to be made.  The most important piece is the outcome, and many people may be losing sight of that.  It is necessary to accept the outcomes as they are being presented, which will cause the process to be simplified.  Elevation is a way to end the position entrenchment.  We are not as concerned with process as we are with outcome.  However, if we enter the process thinking that the outcome will be bad, then the process will suffer.  Agency staff needs more training in alternative dispute resolution.  Several agencies offer courses, including the National Highway Institute (NHI) and EPA.  
• Lack of Resources: It seems that there are not enough people or money to look at all the projects.  A method should be developed for avoiding looking at projects that only need CEs or EAs.  As agencies, we can look at the processes and narrow them down so we are able to spend more time on the important projects and/or issues that really need involvement.
• Environmental Quality: There is an impending crisis and growing conflict with environmental conservation as the "pavement (is) rolling across our country."  Instead of a project-by-project approach, we should all encourage the state DOTs to devote resources to use the state planning processes to develop environmental visions " which include historical preservation " across all jurisdictions.

Mastering the Environmental Streamlining SATs: Strategies, Approaches, and Techniques

This session included an overview of the five strategies for environmental streamlining, and panel discussions of two national strategies identified in the ESAP.  The remaining three strategies were the focus of the afternoon breakout discussions.  Ms. Garliauskas of FHWA moderated the panel discussions during this session.  She began by stating that the National MOU provides a common definition for the Federal agencies’ collective Federal responsibility. 

The National Streamlining MOU is a broad-principal-based document that states the congressional intent for environmental streamlining concerning timeliness, efficiency, and compliance.  The National Interagency Streamlining Group has met once a month for the past year and a half, and with input from field staff, developed strategies for implementing the National MOU.  The National Interagency Streamlining Group identified five strategies in the ESAP for implementing the National MOU.

Two of the strategies are nationally driven, either implicitly or explicitly stated in TEA-21, whereas the remaining three strategies are field based.  The panelists covered the two nationally driven strategies: Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) and Measuring Continuous Improvement. The other strategies were featured in breakout sessions that are discussed in the next section of this report.

Panel 1: Alternate Dispute Resolution.  Is Agreeing to Disagree an Option?

During this session, panelists discussed FHWA’s effort to develop a national policy for resolving conflict among Federal agencies and guidance for keeping projects on schedule through conflict avoidance and resolution.  Ruth Rentch, from FHWA’s Office of NEPA Facilitation, moderated the discussion.

To begin, Ms. Rentch noted that Federal agencies are hearing about the need for ADR from many people, and directions in which to proceed from various sources: 1) TEA-21 Section 1309(c) requires the USDOT to establish an ADR procedure; 2) the environmental streamlining MOU includes a commitment to develop these types of procedures; and 3) the EPA includes ADR as one of its five strategies.  The ADR system consists of four parts which were then further described by Dale Keyes.

Mr. Keyes, of the United States Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR), gave an overview of the role of the Institute and their staff of qualified neutrals.  Established by the US Congress in 1998, the Institute assists in the resolution of environmental, natural resources, and public lands disputes where a Federal agency or interest is involved.  As a Federal agency, the Institute has access to Federal infrastructure, but it is not an agent of any one agency and can provide neutral and impartial assistance.  The Institute provides a variety of services including telephone consultations, facilitation of infrastructure projects, and a small grants program to provide funding up to 50,000 dollars to pay for facilitation services.  The Institute has approximately 140 professionals who can be called upon to help.

The USDOT, along with USIECR, is developing a national dispute resolution system as directed by Section 1309(c) of TEA-21 for addressing disagreements between Federal and state agencies within the context of environmental streamlining.  Dale Keyes described the status and content of the document. 

The national dispute resolution system operates within environmental streamlining on specific transportation projects, during the environmental review stage, and on resolution of disputes.  The four components of the system include: 1) guidance on how to resolve disputes, 2) access to a roster of qualified third-party neutrals, 3) access to training, and 4) national procedures for elevating disputes. 

The guidance is currently being developed as the first component of the system.  In developing the guidance, comprehensive interviews have been conducted with interested Federal and state officials.  The guidance is not prescriptive.  It focuses on dispute avoidance and resolution among agencies, both state and Federal, and is not aimed at the public at large.  The principles of the guidance are to engage relevant agencies actively and continually, improve skills through

training and coaching, resolve disputes early and at low levels, recognize agency needs, missions and legal mandates, use third-party neutrals to assist in problem solving and dispute resolution, and elevate disputes to break impasses or resolve higher-level issues.

The topics of the document include approaches to management conflict, disputes during review of transportation projects, establishment of frameworks for dispute resolution, and training in problem solving and dispute resolution.  Establishing a framework for dispute resolution is critical.  The framework should perform the following functions: develop project timelines, establish guiding principles, define meeting protocols and ground rules, establish dispute resolution procedures, define procedures for upward referral, and create procedures for obtaining assistance.

The second component of the ADR system is the roster of third-party neutrals.  The Institute is in the process of assembling a roster of facilitators and mediators, developing a contracting mechanism, and developing training curricula for qualified neutrals and users of dispute resolution guidance.  Mr. Keyes is establishing selection criteria for assembling this roster, which should be a sub-set of the Institute’s roster of qualified professionals.  In addition, Mr. Keyes suggests recruiting additional members.

ADR training materials and courses make up the third part of the ADR system.  The fourth component is the national procedures for elevating and resolving disputes.  The national procedures are intended to be a mechanism for elevating disputes involving environmental review for transportation projects to the level of the USDOT Secretary.  The procedures will make operational Section 1309(c) of TEA-21, which provided statutory authority for this process.

A preliminary working draft has been prepared that sets procedures for elevation to the Secretary. The draft procedures were provided to everyone at the training workshop.  Mr. Keyes requested input on the draft procedures from Federal agencies.  He provided a questionnaire on national procedures for dispute resolution for attendees to complete.  In addition, Mr. Keyes announced that an optional general session was scheduled for Thursday, November 30, 2000, to discuss the draft National Procedures for Dispute Resolution.

Mr. Keyes highlighted the challenges and questions facing the Institute and USDOT as they prepare the procedures and asked for assistance from everyone:

• Qualification of Disputes - What types of disputes should be allowed to be elevated?
• Role of Non-Federal Agencies - Section 1309(c) really talks about Federal agencies, but should provisions be made to allow state DOTs to initiate the elevation process? 
• Role of Non-Transportation Federal Agencies - Should resource and regulatory agencies be permitted to elevate disputes using this process as well?  Would elevation within a USDOT process be advantageous to them?
• Degree of Flexibility - Should the procedures specify tight timelines for all review, consultation, resolution, and decision making activities?  Or should they allow flexibility by perhaps suggesting timelines but allowing extension by mutual consent of the affected agencies? 
• Definition of Resolution - How should resolution be defined?  Should it include "agreeing to disagree?"  Can it include process resolution with, for example, the Secretary closing the record for USDOT processes while the other agency pursues another avenue?
• Use of Assistance in Negotiation - To what extent should the Secretary and the head of the other agency be encouraged to obtain third-party assistance?  Should it be a requirement in order to spur resolution?
• Encouragement of Dispute Resolution at Lower Levels - What incentives could be used to encourage disputants to resolve disputes at lower levels while not introducing undue delays and not impeding elevation of appropriate disputes to the Secretarial level?

Following Mr. Keyes presentation, Louise Smart from CDR Associates presented the top 10 lessons for dispute resolution to work effectively.  They are listed in the box below.

Panel 2: Measuring Continuous Improvement

This panel presented progress on the national strategy of measuring continuous improvement. This strategy in the ESAP commits the agencies to measure continuous improvement and progress through best practices and evaluation techniques such as benchmarking and performance standards.  Panelists were focused on answering the questions of what is being measured, how is it being measured, and how they know they are measuring the right thing.  The presenters highlighted several studies currently underway, and discussed an interagency approach for accountability.  The two panelists for this discussion were Kreig Larson of FHWA’s Office of NEPA Facilitation, and Ken Hess of the Louis Berger Group.   

Mr. Larson introduced the session by providing some context for why measuring improvement is important.  First, Federal agencies need to measure improvement because best practice information as a body of knowledge is needed.  Second, there is a need for streamlining specific performance measures.  There is anecdotal evidence as to what works in terms of public involvement and development of purpose and need.  However, agencies are lacking statistical data to document how long it takes to complete the process.  He then gave a brief overview of several initiatives.

1. Pilot Studies: The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has selected 10 projects to test as best practices in cooperation with FHWA and EPA.  NCHRP project panel 25-24 has been convened to analyze and evaluate the implementation of these pilots. 
2. Attitudinal Survey: A national attitudinal survey is planned that will measure how satisfied stakeholders, on both the transportation and resource agency side, are with the process.  If a stakeholder is happy with the delivery of goods, then that stakeholder will probably think the process is fine.  However, the opposite is also true. 
3. Tracking EIS Ratings: FHWA’s 2000 Strategic Plan calls for an evaluation process, which includes a comparison and use of EPA’s rating of EISs.  In 1998 and 1999, a study was conducted to gather information on timeframes for projects that reached the Record of Decision. 
4. Study on CEs/EAs: NCHRP Project 20-7 (129) Synthesis of Project Delivery Times.  In this study, state DOTs were surveyed to determine the reasons for delays.  They limited their scope to projects classified as CEs or EAs.  These efforts all work to provide more quantitative information from which improvements in the deployment of transportation projects can be measured.  This study should be issued in a few months.
5. NEPA Time/Cost Analysis Baseline Study: Mr. Larson then introduced Ken Hess of the Louis Berger Group, who is involved in a FHWA-funded effort to develop a NEPA baseline for measuring continuous improvement.  Mr. Hess is tasked with developing and using research techniques for evaluating the NEPA process.  He presented the preliminary results of his work in depth.

NEPA Time/Cost Analysis Baseline Study

The overall objectives of the baseline study project are to:

• establish a baseline for the NEPA process time and cost;
• identify specific factors and conditions that impact upon NEPA and the entire project delivery process;
• conduct the research using "real" data in a statistically valid manner;
• develop a methodology that can be expanded and refined over time; and
• identify future data needs and improvements for continuing research in the future.

The research is focused on EISs, rather than CEs or EAs.  This decision was made for a number of reasons.  First, EIS data are available from a centralized data base.  Second, it allows for a statistical reduction of sampling error.  Third, EISs present the greatest potential for NEPA process delay.  Finally, the greatest potential, historically, for affecting the NEPA process is with EISs.  

The primary data sources used in the study were the Northwestern University’s Transportation Library EIS Database, FHWA’s Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) Database, and other publicly available Internet and commercially available software aerial photo and mapping data bases.  At least 100 projects were wanted for the sample.  These projects were randomly selected from among the 4,000 EISs contained in the Northwestern University data base.  These 100 projects were stratified by the four former FHWA regions.  They were also partially stratified by decade. 

The data collection process began with obtaining and reviewing EIS documents for the location and component elements of the project.  Next, the Type 1 FMIS records were obtained and matched to the EIS project documents.  Then it was determined whether or not the project was fully constructed.  For the projects that were fully constructed, Type 2 FMIS records were obtained and parsed, and these records were again matched to the EIS project documents.  The EIS documents for the project were reviewed for environmental and NEPA process data.  These data were all recorded on project data forms, and all relevant data were entered onto a computerized data base. 

This data base was then put to a statistical analysis process.  The first step was to perform descriptive statistics to establish descriptive parameters.  The differences in descriptive parameters were assessed among different FHWA regions.  New data variables were created as necessary.  Finally, the correlation between the NEPA process and other data variables was examined.

The major findings of the research are:

• The mean value of NEPATIME is 3.6 years.
  
  
• The median value of NEPATIME is 3.0 years.
  
  
• NEPATIME ranges from 4.7 years in Region 1 to 2.2 years in Region 10.
  
  
• The next highest NEPATIME values were for Regions 4 and 7.
  
  
• The next lowest NEPATIME value was for Region 8.
  
  
• NEPATIME comprises 28 percent of total project development process time.
  
  
• NEPATIME ranges from 2.2 years in the 1970’s to 5.0 years in the 1990’s
  
  
• NEPATIME with Section 404 process increases from 2.4 years to 4.3 years.
  
  
• NEPATIME with Section 4(f) process increases from 2.8 years to 4.7 years.
  
  
• NEPATIME with noise issues increases from 3.2 years to 4.4 years
  
  
• There were no findings with statistical significance concerning cost.

The recommendations derived from this analysis are to require descriptive information in FMIS in the records and to include EIS identification numbers in the FMIS records.

What Do Our Customers Want From Us?

A luncheon discussion was held to provide attendees with a slightly different perspective at the conference - that of their customers.  Kathy Laffey, FHWA New Hampshire Division Administrator, moderated a panel that included Ohio DOT’s Secretary of Transportation, who spoke on behalf of AASHTO, and staff representatives from the House Transportation and Infrastructure (House T&I) Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.  The group discussed customer expectations of Federal agencies during the NEPA process. 

Gordon Proctor, Director of Ohio DOT, began the discussion from the perspective of state DOTs.  He stated that, in general, DOT projects are not well understood by the public or other agencies.  There are misconceptions that a lot of new capacity is being built, that state DOTs are out to pave everything, and the staffs do not care about the environment.  In fact, approximately 85 percent of the state’s transportation dollars are spent on the preservation and maintenance of existing roadways and other transportation facilities, rather than on laying new pavement.  Many of these projects are routine, such as resurfacing, rebuilding, and restructuring existing roadways.

Additionally, the DOT staffs are interested in the environment and making sure that the projects they put forward succeed through the NEPA process.  Mr. Proctor indicated that since Ohio DOT routinely turns down four out of five projects, it is important to work closely with Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) and the public.  The critically important projects are usually approved after a self-screening process.  State DOTs do not build what the public does not want, or projects the MPOs have not included in their plan.  Projects have to be "the best of the best" and critically important because there is a lack of resources.  State DOTs want to see the environmental reviews for these projects work and ask that in project implementation, agencies consider seriously the analysis and work of the MPOs. 

Mr. Proctor recommended that agencies not hold grudges about past experiences with the NEPA process, since there are no winners or losers.  A sense of fair play among all of the agencies is needed to create a win-win situation in the efforts to preserve wetlands and the environment.  To achieve continuous environmental improvement, there needs to be an understanding from all parties involved, and ideas need to be shared about how to improve the process. 

Greg Cohen, Professional Staff on the US House of Representatives’ Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, followed Mr. Proctor.  Mr. Cohen focused his remarks on the basis for the environmental streamlining language included in TEA-21.  Members of the House T&I Committee have received complaints from their constituents that transportation projects are not going through the environmental review process quickly enough.  Additionally, members of Congress are only in office for a short period of time, and they want to see the results from the projects they fund while they are still in office.  They want to attend the ribbon cuttings and get credit for improvements they are bringing to their communities.  For these reasons, there is pressure to reduce the amount of time it takes to deploy transportation projects.  The language on environmental streamlining contained in TEA-21 is aimed at getting agencies to work better together to shorten the review time necessary so that transportation projects can move forward. Mr. Cohen did recognize that there are limitations to this process, and environmental streamlining is a difficult task. 

Megan Stanley, Counsel for the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was the final speaker during the luncheon.  She highlighted the main points the Senate hopes to achieve through environmental streamlining for transportation projects.  She agreed with the Federal agencies that the legislative intent of streamlining for transportation projects is to reduce the delays and also to protect and enhance the quality of the environment.  The American public is looking for both these objectives to be met simultaneously.  Environmental streamlining has existed "in theory" for a while, but it has not existed in practice.  The Senate intended that the language in TEA-21 would be a driver for encouraging real environmental streamlining and result in progress in moving transportation projects forward. 

TEA-21 does not change or weaken environmental standards; instead, it encourages agencies to improve the review process through better coordination on projects.  Ms. Stanley encouraged a coordinated environmental review process and setting time periods for review.  Congress expects agencies to achieve concurrent reviews in specified time periods, that are agreed upon by all Federal agencies, and that are all enforceable through a dispute resolution process.

Group Discussion

During a short discussion period, speakers were asked several questions.  A participant questioned what is Congress expecting for the future of environmental issues since Congress dropped the provision of delegation to states.  The response was that no heavy-handed approaches are expected; the progress is expected to be moderate and bipartisan. 

Another participant asked why was funding not given to resource agencies.  The funding was not given directly to the resource agencies because it is tied to time periods to be used as an incentive to improve project delivery.  In addition, there are only a few states that have arrangements or trusts for receiving funding. 

One attendee suggested that Congress should fund more research so that basic environmental issues can be better understood.  Decision makers need better information to make good decisions.  Committee staffers should take that information back to Congress and ask Congress to increase the amount of money the National Science Foundation spends annually on basic research for the environment. 

Finally, someone asked whether there is any recognition by Congress that there are other issues that cause project delays such as contracting times, study times, poor data resources, and other inherent problems.  The panelists responded that funding is one problem that can delay projects.  It is well noted that there are other inherent problems that need to be addressed. 

Building a National Toolbox

Attendees participated in one of three concurrent breakout sessions on the national strategies aimed at field-based implementation: Program Efficiency, Flexible Mitigation, and Resource Management.  Sessions consisted of panel discussions of best practices from around the country. Each breakout group was asked to take the lessons learned from those presentations and identify tools and templates that can be developed for use nationwide.

Breakout 1: Program Efficiency

During this breakout session a panel shared best practices that resulted in process, program, or project efficiency through early coordination, timely and concurrent reviews.  The participants discussed the presentations and best practices, leading to the development of tools that could be easily replicated and used to increase program efficiency nationwide.

Panel Presentations

Four presentations were given during this breakout session: Programmatic Agreements (PAs), the Mid-Atlantic Transportation & Environment Task Force (MATE), the I-93 New Hampshire Pilot, and Programmatic CEs. 

Programmatic Agreements

Mary Ann Naber, Program Analyst for the ACHP gave a presentation on programmatic approaches to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.  Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties, and to allow the ACHP an opportunity to comment.  The ACHP’s regulations, 36 CFR Part 800 (available at http://www.achp.gov), set out the process by which Federal agencies must comply with Section 106.  The process includes four steps: initiate the process, identify historic properties, assess adverse effects, and resolve any adverse effects.

Examples of three PAs were given: Washington, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.  Ms. Naber suggested that the environmental review process can be streamlined to include Section 106 using statewide PAs.  A PA can delegate Section 106 responsibilities to the state DOT, usually up to the determination of adverse effect.  Ms. Naber said the Washington agreement specifically commits the state DOT to maintain qualified cultural resource staff.  Under this type of agreement, state DOTs would not undergo Section 106 consultation for individual minor projects covered under the PA.  Tribal consultation would still be the responsibility of the FHWA.  Some states that have established PAs for Section 106 responsibilities are New Jersey, South Carolina, Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Washington.

The Pennsylvania PA for minor projects establishes tiers for delegated review, exempts projects with limited potential for adverse effects, commits state DOTs to maintain qualified cultural resource staff, provides for annual reporting and review, and expedites dispute resolution. 

The Vermont PA is an example that goes the farthest in delegating authority to a DOT.  Ms. Naber reported that the Vermont PA delegates primary Section 106 responsibility to the Vermont Agency of Transportation (VAOT) up to the standard treatment of adverse effects.  The agreement calls for a manual of ancillary standards and guidelines (now in draft).  The VAOT is committed to maintaining qualified cultural resource staff; addressing issues of mutual interest (surveys, data synthesis, etc.); and avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating adverse effects.  Ms. Naber indicated that through the Vermont PA, the FHWA and the VAOT are committed to the design of transportation systems that: 1) achieve a safe and efficient function appropriately placed in Vermont; 2) avoid, minimize, and mitigate adverse effects on cultural resources; 3) recognize that investment in cultural resources is critical to Vermont’s continued growth and prosperity; and 4) respond to the needs of Vermont’s communities.

In conclusion, Ms. Naber stated that further information could be obtained by contacting the ACHP by phone (202-606-8505), email (achp@achp.gov), or web site (http://www.achp.gov).  She also said a 2-day course entitled "Intro to Section 106" is offered through ACHP.

Following Ms. Naber’s discussion, there were several questions.  The topics of the questions included Tribal consultation, written procedures, and permitting.  Ms. Naber replied that Tribal consultation responsibilities are reserved for the FHWA because of sovereignty issues.  She said that many tribes work with DOT staff depending on the level of trust and communication. Ms. Naber said that written procedures are almost always included in PAs.  She also said that when the FHWA has satisfied Section 106, other agencies should see that as sufficient.  She recommended pulling in other agencies for PAs to accomplish streamlining

Mid-Atlantic Transportation and Environment Task Force

Denise Rigney, Transportation Program Coordinator at the EPA, made a presentation on the successful coordination of NEPA and other environmental laws and regulations among resource agencies in the Mid-Atlantic region.  As background, she stated that over 60 state and Federal laws or regulations and Executive Orders regulate a transportation project.  The regulations include, but are not limited to NEPA, Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Historic Preservation Act, and others.  Coordination of all the regulations has led to many problems and conflicts among the transportation development agencies and the environmental regulatory agencies (e.g., project delays, insufficient data, lack of trust, lack of early involvement of all agencies, etc.).  Solutions needed to be developed to address these issues.

Ms. Rigney stated that during a Highways & the Environment conference, key people such as transportation and environmental professionals came together to identify conflicts and develop solutions.  As a result, the integrated NEPA/Section 404 process was developed in 1992.  This process addresses concerns with coordination of wetlands regulation through early agency cooperation and involvement, reduces delays, has a dispute resolution procedure, and provides a record of agency decisions.  The group created a definition of an integrated NEPA/Section 404 process.  Lastly, a task force was formed and its cohesive mission was to address all concerns for everyone.

The TEA-21 executive summits, meetings of primarily regional and local leaders of transportation and environmental agencies, were held in 1999 and 2000.  At that time, the task force was transformed into the MATE Task Force in order to broaden the existing NEPA/ Section 404 coordination to successfully incorporate other regulatory requirements.  A cooperative agreement was developed that outlined the task force’s objectives and the environmental review process.  Ms. Rigney identified the goals of the cooperative agreement as follows: develop a streamlined process that encourages the participation of all stakeholders; remove constraints on agency budget and staff; integrate transportation and environmental priorities; continue dialogue on land use, growth, and transportation; establish conflict resolution procedure; and develop state specific interagency agreements.  In addition, MATE created a streamlining process framework as a guidebook.

Ms. Rigney estimated MATE membership at approximately 40 people, with 30 active members.  The members represent state DOTs, state resource agencies, FHWA Division offices, EPA, FWS, USACE, ACHP, and MPOs.  The task force efforts focus on environmental streamlining and how agencies could work together.  Major issues around which disagreement occurs include sprawl and cumulative impact assessments.

Ms. Rigney stated that the general environmental streamlining process is a connection between planning and construction, obeying the specific environmental regulations, bringing in additional stakeholders, and making sure scoping always happens.  According to Ms. Rigney, if there are any problems, stakeholders are encouraged to speak up as soon as possible rather than waiting or not bringing attention to the issue.

Ms. Rigney answered various questions.  She responded that she thought NEPA/Section 404 was a good process and should also address relationship issues.  In revising NEPA/Section 404, Ms. Rigney thought that NEPA was being emphasized as a decision making tool and that coordination is being started earlier on issues such as purpose and need, and working with the public.  She also indicated that MPOs are involved when looking at corridor planning.

I-93 New Hampshire Pilot

Following the MATE presentation, Megan Stanley, Professional Staff of the US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, discussed the I-93 New Hampshire Pilot, which is being used as a model for project partnering.  Ms. Stanley indicated that Senator Smith, Chairman of US Senate on Environment and Public Works, was made aware of the New Hampshire I-93 project, and wanted to ensure that the project did not suffer any delays.  He called upon local officials to start environmental streamlining using project partnering.  During the presentation, Ms. Stanley reviewed the history, definition and tools of partnering, how partnering is being used on the I-93 project, and what was done to date.

Ms. Stanley stated that the history of "partnering" came from the construction industry.  In the 1980s, the construction industry suffered from delays because of confrontations, negative feelings and distrust among owners and contractors.  The most notable example of "partnering" was the USACE.  This method is now used by Arizona DOT and other state DOTs.  This "partnering" method has reduced delays and built trust among agencies. 

As defined by Ms. Stanley, "partnering is a formal process for establishing ethical agreements and productive working relationships by using specific tools."  It can be a delicate process depending on people and communication, and it needs to be carefully developed and continuously improved.  "Partnering" takes time to develop and to work.  The elements of partnering include commitments from top management and field staff, equity, investing all stakeholder interest, trust, essential communication, knowledgeable participants, empowerment and the delegation of responsibility and authority.  Ms. Stanley said that partnering does not change any legal relationships; it is used to build trust and better communications.

The tools of partnering include workshops, a dispute resolution process, an evaluation system, and concurrence at key decision points.  The partnering workshop must be held during the scoping process in order to establish common goals and set a foundation.  Everyone in the workshop must participate.  Another important tool is to develop a dispute resolution process.  Next, an evaluation system is useful to constantly evaluate the process for improvement.  Last, there must be concurrence at key decision points so issues are not revisited in process.

The New Hampshire I-93 project, is an 18-mile, 2 lane segment in southern New Hampshire.  The project includes 5 interchanges, 36 bridges, and goes through 5 municipalities.  Ms. Stanley stated that the primary concern is with safety.  On July 31, 2000, a partnering workshop was held with the many groups involved in the I-93 project.  During the workshop, the partners identified cooperation, trust, and open communication was what they wanted to get from the partnership.  Issue areas of the project were also identified. The timeliness of the project was addressed with a schedule showing the review process steps with dates. New Hampshire has a NEPA/Section 404 merger already in place, and this helps to accelerate project partnering.  The partners also identified, up-front, the dispute resolution escalation process, an evaluation process, and the roles and responsibilities of the members of the project.  The purpose and need will be reviewed and signed by the "board members" in December 2000. 

Ms. Stanley concluded with the thought "if one bad project erodes trust in other projects " hopefully one good project can build trust."  In answer to a question on project scope, she indicated that the project would probably be a widening of the interstate within the existing right-of-way; however a broad range of alternatives is being evaluated.  The group had identified potential impacts in air quality and wildlife crossings.

Programmatic Categorical Exclusions

Rodney Vaughn, Environment Right-of-Way Engineer with FHWA’s Wyoming Division, described an approach to CE documentation.  His presentation was based on CE statistics from the Wyoming DOT.  The Wyoming DOT has an existing programmatic CE agreement.  Mr. Vaughn stated that in Wyoming, 97 percent of projects are developed under CEs.  The general types of programmatic CEs include, but are not limited to, safety, pavement rehabilitation, and work within the existing road template.  Of the 97 percent of CEs, 57 percent are developed under the programmatic CE agreement ("c" list) with little or no documentation and the other 40 percent are under the "d" list with documentation required.  The "d" list projects generally have documentation ranging from 2 to 15 pages.  Most states have, on average, 95 percent of projects categorized as a CE.

Mr. Vaughn stated that Wyoming is developing a programmatic CE template that will cover 99 percent of CEs that do not fit in programmatic agreements, in particular, the 40 percent that are being processed under the "d" list.  The documentation could include a purpose and need and existing conditions/traffic statistics.  It could also address typical resource areas such as recreation lands, wetlands, environmental justice, threatened and endangered species, and transportation issues.  The document would conclude with a mitigation summary.  These projects would not have alternatives that result in impacts that would cause changes in current and future land use patterns.  They would have minor anticipated changes and minor amounts of right-of-way.

Mr. Vaughn concluded the presentation with a question and answer session.  He indicated that the new Section 106 regulations have not yet been included in the draft Programmatic CE Agreement.  He also stated that most USACE permits are acquired after CE determination with reasonable assurance.

Group Discussion

Following the presentations, the group discussed potential products that could be applied nationally, and generated many ideas.  One of the potential products was the development of programmatic documents, particularly for the delegation of Section 4(f) and CE responsibilities to state DOTs.  Another idea was to develop a tool to answer the question of when should resource agencies get involved in the review process, similar to project partnering.  A detailed NEPA/Section 404 merger process also was suggested.  The group chose three products to develop and broke into sub-groups to brainstorm the features of the products.

Programmatic 4(f) Delegation:  The Ohio FHWA Division Office is looking into developing an agreement that will result in delegation of Section 4(f) responsibility to the Ohio DOT for programmatic 4(f) evaluations and determinations.  There was a general agreement within the group to have a programmatic 4(f) delegation that assigned Section 4(f) responsibility to state DOTs similar to the model being developed by Ohio.  A programmatic 4(f) delegation would only apply to CE projects when a PA is in effect.  Ohio’s Level IV CE projects would not be subject to Section 4(f) delegation.  This Section 4(f) delegation would include applications of temporary occupancy use, transportation enhancements, historic road/bridge, and bikeway negative declaration.  The delegation would not apply to Section 6(f) lands or USCG permits. 

Implementation of programmatic 4(f) delegation in Ohio would require a well-established programmatic CE process, training of Ohio DOT staff, and process review/check monitoring.  The potential barriers could be legal issues of delegation.  The positive aspects to developing a programmatic delegation are reduced review time by FHWA, DOTs not having to wait for FHWA (30 days), training for the DOT, and improved communications.  The proposed approach has been submitted to FHWA headquarters for approval.

NEPA Classification: Another tool identified by the group was a way to identify what types of documentation different projects require.  This NEPA classification would include criteria for Programmatic CEs, EAs, EISs, and Risk Assessments, and would be based on thresholds of impact on resources.  The programmatic CEs would apply to any project meeting the "c" list criteria.  The projects could include bridges off the Federal-aid system, transportation enhancements, and projects with no Section 106 adverse effects or relocations.  A project would not be processed as a CE if there were controversy from the public or other agencies.  Projects on the "d" list would require coordination of impacts/permits and interagency agreement. 

An EA would be used in conjunction with a risk assessment and interagency agreement.  An EA would be required at a minimum for projects involving historical bridges over navigable waterways.  An EIS would be prepared if the project were controversial or political.  Some suggested that an EIS should be prepared if the project were a bypass.  A risk assessment could also determine whether an EA or EIS is prepared.  The risk of potential impact on resources (i.e., air, water, wetlands, environmental justice, etc.) would be evaluated.  Based on this evaluation and state/FHWA thresholds, either an EA or EIS would be prepared.

NEPA/Section 404 Merger Process: The third tool discussed were the elements of a NEPA/Section 404 process needed to be successful in coordinating reviews and permitting in a consistent manner nationwide.  In order for the NEPA/Section 404 merger process to be successful, there were several elements that need to be addressed:

• Project partnering to encourage early involvement of the agencies. 
• A list of requirements and identification "red flag" issues by each participating agency.
• Field reviews to ensure that all details are being addressed. 
• Obtain concurrence at major decision points in the NEPA process.
• Use these steps in the process to obtain feedback.
• Define and use conflict resolution.

If a non-concurrence should occur, there need to be provisions to clearly identify why there is a non-concurrence and a list of possible solutions.  In general, the group stated that the "keys" to obtaining a permit needed to be outlined nationwide.

Breakout 2:  Flexible Mitigation

During this breakout session, a panel shared best practices that have resulted in and promoted avoidance, minimization, or effective mitigation techniques that could add to project efficiency and achieve better resource protection (e.g., area-wide or species-wide).  This group focused on the presentations and did not develop any specific tools.  The group did highlight that there are many innovative concepts being pursued across the country, and the summaries of the presentations were important for participants to hear.  Thus, this group’s plenary presentation was a short summary of the five presentations made during this session.   

Panel Presentations

The presentations given during this session included EFH Process in the Pacific Northwest, Streamlining Approaches to Comply with the Endangered Species Act, the Florida Pilot, Investing in Streambed Restoration, and Multi-Media Trading.

Essential Fish Habitat Process in the Pacific Northwest

Tim Haugh, Right-of-Way Environmental Specialist, FHWA, Alaska Division, presented the EFH Process in the Pacific Northwest.  He specifically focused on how Alaska has incorporated EFH requirements into existing processes to streamline the overall permitting process.

In 1996, Congress re-authorized the Magnussen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCA), which called for increased consideration of fish habitat in resource management decisions.  Congress established the EFH provisions to accomplish this goal, and defined EFH to include "those water and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, feeding, or growth to maturity."  The Act also required the NMFS to work with state and Federal agencies to minimize adverse impacts of any activities that could affect EFH.

Mr. Haugh indicated that several issues arose from this re-authorization.  One issue was how to make sure that these requirements were addressed in projects that were already well underway at the time of the re-authorization.  Also, given that EFH exists in Alaska, it was important to find a way to address the requirements on a system-wide basis, rather than on a project-by-project basis.  Alaska was trying to find a means to work smarter, not harder. 

Alaska DOT and the Alaska Regional office of FHWA worked with NMFS to find a feasible way to merge the existing NEPA/Section 404 merger with the EFH requirements.  Mr. Haugh stated that NMFS was very cooperative and did not make this a difficult proposition.  It took approximately 1 year from start to finish to hammer out an agreement on the issue. 

In January 2000, the Alaska Region of the NMFS found that the existing NEPA/Section 404 merger process agreement used for FHWA actions in Alaska could be used to satisfy the EFH consultation requirements of the MSFCA.  In this finding, a consultation process between the agencies has been spelled out, and the necessary conservation measures in a given project are supplied by NMFS.  If there is a finding of no adverse affect, no consultation is necessary.

Mr. Haugh stated that the agencies did struggle with some issues in reaching this agreement.  One was what would happen in the case of a substantial adverse affect.  He said this situation has not yet arisen, but there is a commitment to work through it cooperatively.  Another issue was how to avoid having projects that were already approved under NEPA slip through the cracks.  FHWA is striving to ensure that, when a project is re-evaluated, EFH is addressed, rather than simply signing off because there are no changes in the project.

An additional issue that is perhaps as troublesome is that while there is a formal written agreement that the Section 404 merger meets the EFH requirements, there is no guidance allowing NMFS to officially concur with a finding of no adverse affect.  Thus FHWA has to take a considerably more active role in the oversight of the assessments to ensure they are performed in a comprehensive manner.  While FHWA and NMFS have a very good cooperative relationship, and NMFS would certainly indicate that they disagreed with the FHWA assessment, there is no formal mechanism for this process.  (Note: Formal guidance is being developed by NMFS on the implementation of EFH requirement.)

Streamlining Approaches to Comply with the Endangered Species Act

Christy Johnson-Hughes, Fish and Wildlife Biologist at the FWS, gave the next presentation.  Ms. Johnson-Hughes presented three methods that can serve to streamline the Section 7 Consultation Process of the Endangered Species Act: early coordination, statewide strategies for habitat protection, and a project review strategy.  These methods have been successfully applied in Pennsylvania and could be applicable in other areas of the country.

To facilitate early coordination, Ms. Johnson-Hughes described a strike-off letter the Pennsylvania DOT established to evaluate the impacts of a transportation project on mussels, an endangered species in Pennsylvania.  The strike-off letter is submitted to the FWS for concurrence.  This does not replace a complete biological survey, but does allow for an initial determination.  It allows for early agreement at the front end of the project and eliminates the need for endless coordination.  The funding is allocated, and the process has been found to save time and money overall.

The second method, developing a statewide approach to habitat protection, was illustrated through the Draft Indiana Bat Conservation Strategy for Pennsylvania Transportation Projects.  This strategy was developed because it appeared that the Indiana bat habitat was everywhere in Pennsylvania.  The strategy contains a summary of the species history, along with the recovery needs and priorities.  It is anticipated that this draft will be reviewed and finalized at the end of the year 2000. 

Finally, Ms. Johnson-Hughes described a proposed project review strategy for addressing endangered species.  Pennsylvania DOT does not have a comprehensive GIS data base, although one is being developed.  Currently, two conservancies handle natural heritage information, but this information does not contain ecologically relevant buffer zones.  The data base under development will contain better buffer zone information.  It will not list specific names due to fears of poaching, but will mark sensitive areas.  This project is approximately 2 years away from completion.

Until such time as the data base is complete, an ecological review field team comprised of agency representatives and conservancy staff has been established.  This team can be used to assess the conditions in various proposed site locations.  The team will be able to determine if a given site is a likely habitat.  If a habitat were identified, project funds could be allocated and qualified surveyors hired earlier in the project review process, thus reducing the possible need to re-engineer and delay a project. 

The benefits of using these methods are that they streamline the Section 7 process, provides education on the issues, early involvement in the process, and they aid the statewide conservation of endangered species.  The costs are in terms of the processes being somewhat time intensive, the need for dedicated personnel, and the time required to develop methods and agreements.  It is very important to look at the process in a holistic manner.  It is likely that there will be many more species on the endangered list in the near future.  Any processes that are in place to facilitate the transportation development process while preserving endangered species will be beneficial to the entire community.

Florida Pilot

During the third presentation, Alan Powell of the EPA, discussed the Florida Pilot involving environmental streamlining.  The Florida Pilot project was looked at as a systems level approach to mitigation.  Specifically, he spoke about how in Florida, they are working to improve environmental decisions on an area-wide basis through a revised planning process.  Mr. Powell stated that Florida DOT wanted to improve it’s planning process.  As a result, Florida DOT, the  EPA, and other interested agencies began integrating the review and permitting process into NEPA and the transportation planning process.

The streamlining issue addressed by the Florida Pilot was that of integrating environmental resource concerns into the transportation planning process.  The problem was that Florida DOT developed the Long Range Plan (LRP), which led to the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) without consideration given to the environmental resource impacts of the transportation plan at the broader, systems level.  Currently air quality is the only environmental resource that is required to be systematically assessed as part of the transportation planning process.  This was a problem because decisions were being made as to purpose and need during the LRP and TIP process, and these decisions had to be redone as other information about environmental concerns was brought to bear later in the process.  The previous processes lent themselves to sequential actions, had long timelines, late agency involvement, and the risk of late project changes.  Late changes are difficult and costly.

On February 3, 2000, a summit meeting was held among Federal agencies committed to revising the Florida DOT planning process.  The "New Planning Process" was rolled out in mid-June and accepted in mid-July.  The "New Project Development Process" was accepted in mid-September, and pilot projects are scheduled to begin in early 2001.

The intent of the new process is to integrate statewide and metropolitan environmental resource and transportation needs into the LRP and TIP process.  In this integration, Florida is not looking at manpower or funding, but rather at the ideal world scenario. The NEPA process is being integrated with the LRP or TIP process.  To achieve this integration, Florida has a well-developed GIS data base with almost 200 layers.  The data base sets up a good screening process for the types of permits that may be needed.  Ideally, this will encourage state DOT planners and county commissioners to agree on tradeoffs for various projects.  Decisions about the transportation plans are not being made at this point in the process, but the process provides the interested agencies with information on the range of possibilities.  Public involvement is coordinated throughout the entire process.  It is currently a separate process, but will be integrated in January or February 2001.

Secondary and cumulative impacts were included in the development of the GIS data base.  It is very important to address these on a system-wide basis, rather than on a project-by-project basis. The data base helps to identify key resources that can be impacted, and minimize these impacts on a system-wide basis.

The new process results in concurrent actions.  It helps in the identification of issues that may cause roadblocks, but that can be resolved quickly in 85 percent of the projects.  All parties involved are able to agree that certain types of projects do not have to be dealt with at all.  The process also leads to a shortened time frame and early approvals in the permitting processes and NEPA.  An environmental technical advisory team (ETAT) does screenings and provides input on issue areas.  There are seven Florida DOT districts that hold group meetings throughout the year, with one ETAT for each district.  The stakeholders have thought of using the Internet to share information and comments.  This process is under development.

The key to the success of this process is the ETATs.  They are composed of transportation agencies, EPA, water management agencies, the State Fish and Game Department, marine fisheries, the USCG, MPOs, and others.  Local involvement also is being integrated with the ETATs, because it helps to address land use, a very important issue.  ETATs provide recommendations during the planning process and give information about the projects, allowing a more effective dialogue to take place between the planning and resources agencies early in the process.  The ETATs interface throughout the NEPA process and coordinate permit issuance during project development. 

In establishing the 20-year transportation plans, the ETATs screen the long-range plan and help determine cost feasibility.  Secondary and cumulative impacts are also addressed here, allowing agencies to come to agreement about how to address these impacts.  For example, watershed issues will be broached at this point, presenting a starting point for discussions on mitigation, rather than waiting until the very end of the process.  It is hard to know how much control transportation agencies have over secondary and cumulative impacts, but resource agencies can provide information on where key resources are, and there can be more of a focus on planning for secondary and cumulative impacts in those areas. 

After formal adoption of the LRP, the ETATs then do a similar TIP screen.  The NEPA purpose and need has been developed throughout the course of the process, allowing agency comment on an ongoing basis.  The expectation is that, as a result of this process, there will be 100 percent agreement on the projects that are included in the TIP.

Mr. Powell feels that the framework for the new process is fairly good.  Now, it is also time to perform a reality check, and determine what the next steps should be.  Florida needs to get MOUs signed among the participating agencies, and dispute-resolution process need to be set up. There are several logistical issues that still need to be overcome, such as how to standardize the computer technology among the various agencies.  They are also trying to establish a means to parallel the permitting process with the planning process.  This is a new process, but Florida feels that through early and current involvement, it will be able to eliminate or reduce duplication of effort.  It is hoped that with the implementation of this new process, it will be proved that Florida can have a good efficient transportation system and still protect the environment. 

At the conclusion of the presentation, Mr. Powell addressed several questions.  He stated that while mitigation was not a primary driver of the pilot, the process certainly has to do with mitigation, in terms of avoidance and providing a different way to deal with secondary and cumulative impacts.  There was no resistance to the process; everyone has bought in to it.  The MPOs are working closely with the ETATs, and the DOT planners work with the ETATs in non-MPO areas.

One question addressed the issues if a project budget is established early in the planning process but does not include the costs of mitigation, does not this become a limiting factor?  Mr. Powell stated that that is exactly the point.  This process allows for costs to be provided early, which helps in prioritizing mitigation decisions early in the process.

In conclusion, Mr. Powell indicated that statewide implementation of the process is planned. The MPOs are on different schedules for long-range planning, but this process will be implemented as the MPOs start their processes.

Investing in Streambed Restoration

The next presentation was given by David Franklin, Chief of the DOT Team in the Regulatory Division of USACE Wilmington District, regarding Investing in Streambed Restoration.  The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) budget is over $1 billion per year and this does not even include maintenance projects.  In the period from 1998 to 2006, the projected impact from transportation

on wetlands is 4,547 acres, and on streams is 923,201 linear feet.  After 1997, more attention has been paid to the stream impacts that resulted from regulated activities.  The science of stream techniques is evolving and from this basis, many pilot projects were initiated. 

Compensatory mitigation options available to NCDOT are project specific sites, mitigation banks, full delivery contracts (banks), and in-lieu-fee arrangement with North Carolina wetlands restoration program.  The in-lieu-fee arrangement coincided with the establishment of the NCWRP and the MOU was signed on November 4, 1998.  This MOU specified when, where, and how the NCWRP would be used within the regulatory arena.  The USACE determined that mitigation is acceptable through payment to the NCWRP.  A specified fee is paid to the NCWRP and, by accepting this payment, the NCWRP accepts responsibility for the mitigation.  

Stream mitigation is defined as the restoration, enhancement, or in exceptional cases, preservation of streams and their associated floodplains for the purpose of compensating for unavoidable adverse impacts to streams.  Activities included in stream mitigation are stream bank stabilization and erosion control; livestock fencing, watering facilities, and improved stream crossings; and fish habitat improvements.  Also included in mitigation practices are riparian re-vegetation/enhancement, stream restoration establishing stable channel geometry, and stream and riparian corridor preservation/buffers.  The goal of stream mitigation is to create a stable stream.

Mr. Franklin stated that channel restoration is an important part of stream mitigation.  It is necessary to establish the appropriate pattern, dimension, and the profile of a stream.  Channel restoration also includes the restoration of adjacent riparian buffers and also includes activities to promote stable channel form and overall ecosystem recovery.  Stream restoration involves the reconstruction of a stream on a new location or the reconstruction of the natural stream features within an existing stream. 

Mr. Franklin indicated that another very important part of stream mitigation is enhancement.  Stream enhancement improves or replaces specific stream functions by promoting stream bank stability, improving fish and aquatic habitats, and re-vegetating and protecting riparian areas.  These functions will help to improve the water quality in a stream and also improve the ecological function of the system. 

Another activity that is of interest to stream mitigation is livestock damage.  Livestock can cause severe bank erosion, which leads to sedimentation downstream, and they can also pollute stream water.  The solution to the livestock problem is to create a spring-fed water tank away from the stream for the animals to drink from and to put up livestock fencing to keep them away from the stream banks.

Another challenge is to find a way to make culverts more environmentally friendly.  One of these method is to place culvert inverts a minimum of 1 foot below normal stream bottom to allow for fish passage.  Another method is that of multiple-cell box culverts constructed in such a manner that low flows are diverted through only one cell.  Finally, baffles will be constructed at 15-foot

intervals in the bottom of box culverts carrying low flows, to accumulate natural substrate materials, reduce flow velocities and provide resting places for fish moving through the structures.  

In conclusion, Mr. Franklin gave credit to Dave Schiller with NCDOT and to Bob Johnson, Chief of the Asheville Field Office, for information and other materials used.  He also addressed several questions.

Mr. Franklin said that the USACE assigns credit for impacts and stream use on a linear foot basis of $125 per linear foot.  There is also a 2 for 1 requirement; you need to restore 2 feet of stream for every 1 foot impacted. 

One participant asked if in Kentucky with all of its mountains, how is NEPA concerned about the mitigation in this area?  Mr. Franklin replied that if a road were put in an area that has a stream, the water would be diverted and put into a culvert instead of a natural stream.  The USACE tries to avoid doing this to streams because the main goal is to try and get all streams back to their natural profile.

Mr. Franklin addressed the issue of restoring streams impacted by high storm water runoff degradation.  This is an issue that is being worked on in the North Carolina Stream Institute.  Urban impacts such as these need urban restoration; the USACE is seeing this issue more frequently and realize the need for a solution.

At the FWS in Missouri an in-lieu-fee arrangement was made that donated money to habitat restoration and bank restoration.  They began to develop an aquatic habitat mitigation bank for debits and credits on this arrangement. 

Multi-Media Trading

The final presentation was given by John Rogers, Senior Vice President at CH2M HILL, regarding multi-media trading.  If done well, multi-media trading should allow for the orderly restoration of watersheds at the least cost.  It has the potential to go beyond compliance in several media, the ability to provide economic development in more cost-effective land use patterns, the ability to simplify transactions to enhance the rate of restoration, and an opportunity to create a trading support system role between Federal government agencies. 

The presentation was begun with a series of question and answers based on the gap in funding, the major limit to economic development, and the least successful regulatory process over the past 20 years.  The final question was, what will be the largest new source of revenue for watershed protection in the next 20 years?  Responses to this question included funding for green house gas reduction, TMDL, habitat protection, and wetland mitigation banking. 

"We see an increasing need to find incentive-based approaches to watershed regulations to speed the restoration of ecosystem functions in the most cost-effective manner.  Without such an approach, our ability to improved our watersheds and allow for economic growth can be lost in the political chaos of competing objectives.  The following presentation is a scientifically based approach using credit incentives for TMDLs, wetlands, habitats and carbon sequestration to speed up ecosystem restoration and allow for economic development."

The acid trading program instituted by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 has provided a successful large-scale demonstration that systems of tradable rights can achieve equivalent (or better) pollution control at a fraction of the cost of conventional systems under certain conditions (primarily the technical feasibility of accurately monitoring pollution released).  Tradable rights systems have long been advocated by economists as a more efficient way to control pollution, but opposed by some environmentalists as a "license to pollute," which is morally unacceptable at least where issues of health are involved.  A "hybrid" or two-tiered system of regulation, with firm command and control limits to protect health, coupled with incentive systems, such as marketable rights, to create incentives for further reductions, offers solutions to this problem.

Marketing environmental benefits in an area has a few barriers to implementation.  The fragmentation of roles and the fact that there is no clear process to putting credits on these benefits are a few barriers.  Others are that there is no easy way to link the stakeholders and the partners, and there is no easy way to make decisions and tradeoffs among the parties involved.  There are many data gaps, for example in soil types, there are few valued partnerships, and there is no incentive for anyone to do more than the necessary minimum. 

Unfortunately, today most of the thinking about trading is piece meal, and we have found a need to look at the problem on a much broader basis.  In this new program, it was necessary to maximize opportunities and minimize threats to the environmental system in an area.  This can be done through understanding the "value tent."  A value tent is created by taking into account wetlands, soils, forests, and habitats both individually and in combination.  These also represent market opportunities to incentive ecosystem restoration.  The value tent varies in shape and size due to these conditions. 

There are many different markets in which these attributes can be credited to open or voluntary market, which has a very wide application, and closed markets also known as "Cap and Trade," which are driven by regulation.  Carbon and greenhouse gases, for instance, can be traded globally, whereas TMDL, air emissions, and wetland mitigation are regulated.  "Not everything can be traded.  Stakeholders must value it enough or demand is created by regulations to have value."

An example of this, would be an electric utility plant official talking to a farmer about the use of carbon from trees.  The farmer takes the money from the plant but can also take a stake from someone else downstream who gives him money for the nutrients (that are absorbed) from the same trees.  You can also retire a credit in this system.  An example would be that if a local community buys a habitat, they can sell it to another industry and take the money to buy another habitat or they can use the money to keep up theirs.

Quite often political boundaries cut through watersheds.  Streams often become political boundaries, which is another reason for taking a bigger picture approach to watershed planning.  Smart conservation within a watershed is a scientifically based approach to ranking natural areas for species richness, and habitat quality for mammals, birds, invertebrates, and plants.  The Natural Lands Trust and CH2M HILL developed this method.

A watershed in Georgia consists of forests, farmlands, and sprawl.  There are many different impacts that occur in these areas from the watershed.  Within the watershed there are designated unique habitat areas (resource areas of high priority), degraded wetlands, different soils that contribute to the rapid growth of trees and carbon sequestration.  There are also conservation areas, recreation areas with steep slope protection.  All these areas can develop different "value tents." 

A variety of activities such as riparian forest, wetland restoration, habitat preservation, and no-till farming can create opportunities for credits.  An example would be that "wetlands may or may not be good for carbon sequestration because they may give off more methane than they sequester."  The other three examples would get credit for this carbon, and all four of these areas would get credits for their habitat.  "Credits can also have different levels of quality. The quality of credits can vary depending on how measurable the action is and how high the level of sequestration is.  Credits have different currencies and units.  All of these can be integrated into a system for banking and exchange." 

Within this system, a process is necessary for creating common currency.  For every watershed, quantifiable objectives need to be set up in predetermined prioritization to be able to achieve the "biggest bang for your buck."  This prioritization can be set up according to relative importance with different rankings given to each environmental benefit.  For instance a unique habitat could be ranked with an importance of 100, wetlands an 85, TMDL streams an 80, management area a 40, and management systems for carbon a 15.

The prioritization of protection areas under each value tent sets up a cost curve for "valued areas" for tradable credits.  This helps to answer the questions should this benefit be put on the market?  And should we keep it at a high prioritization?  After the prioritizing has taken place, stakeholders and the public will have access to different maps (on the web) that would show the highest prioritized areas, as well as the areas with the highest returns.  These stakeholders would consist of people such as farmers, private land-owners, industry, land trusts, and local municipalities who would have access to the possible opportunities for credit sales on their own property.  

A web site would also have a directory of credit prices by credit quality.  To determine feasible credit value, both the value per credit and the number of credits available need to be taken into account.  A business-to-business web site directory would be available for people willing to sell these credits and people willing to buy them.  A board would be put into place to manage the credit buying and selling process and also to monitor the prices and change credit ratios if needed. "If we were able to set up a market-based approach for multiple credits, we could reduce the cost while meeting watershed plan goals in a small percentage of the time."

This program has many overall benefits.  It meets or exceeds water quality standards with the least cost pollution control.  There is a timely restoration of ecosystems with much lower transaction costs.  There is a potential to go beyond minimal compliance in some categories.  It has community-based ecosystem restoration and prioritization of watershed management plans.  It has better land use patterns and conservation, equitable allocation of treatment costs, planned growth, and a systematic process and user-friendly tools. 

In conclusion, Mr. Rogers answered several questions.  He indicated that the EPA does not support this idea yet but there have been talks about it. 

Mr. Rogers said that scientists determine the scale of importance and the market determines the credit value.  For example a carbon credit includes the product of trees sequestered, you can extend the life of this benefit in contractual ways due to how the product is used.  Mitigation is used in a similar fashion and can be used in the FS.  There are habitat conservation plans that have "valuable" areas in California and they are looking for people to run these areas because they are so valuable. The FS wanted to change the way they are planning.  Maybe it would be beneficial for them to use this system.  They have been having problems selling road-less areas for example, many places in Idaho; but now these areas can be looked at as valuable resources. 

Breakout 3:  Resource Management

During this session panelists talked about ways to effectively manage the interagency implementation of streamlining by using training, resources, and information sharing, effective mixed media impacts, and examples of Federal agency cost.  

Panel Presentations

Three presentations were given during this breakout session: Federal Funding Agreements, NEPA Interagency Training, and MultiMedia Tools.

Federal Funding Agreements

Susan Absher, Program Analyst, EPA’s Office of Federal Activities, gave the first presentation of the session regarding federal funding agreements.  She stated that streamlining is very important, but recognized that someone has to pay for advancing streamlining efforts.  She then began to identify some of the Federal resources available to states and Federal agencies.  Section

1309 (e) of TEA-21 recognizes that there is a lack of funds to effectively carry out streamlining

and thus, allows states, with approval from the Secretary of Transportation, to use Federal funds to reimburse Federal agencies "to meet time limits" (i.e., streamlining work).Other resources include the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, and agency-specific authority (e.g., Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956).  IPA was passed in 1970 and allows temporary re-assignment of staff between Federal, state, local, and tribal governments for up to 2 years.  The re-assignment can be extended beyond 2 years.  The Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968 permits Federal agencies, upon state request, to provide services.  Several agencies have taken advantage of this Act: EPA has signed agreements with Pennsylvania and California, FWS has signed 13 agreements, and USACE has signed two agreements.  The FWS Act of 1956 allows FWS to hire additional staff to carry out streamlining efforts.  Ms. Absher highlighted the agreement in Pennsylvania between FWS and the state as a best practice.

Ms. Absher strongly recommends that agencies use existing agency agreements as templates for developing agreements.  Interagency guidance on funding of streamlining agreements is available from FHWA.  A draft version of the Interagency Guidance: Transportation Funding for Federal Agency Coordination can be found on the Internet at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/title23.htm.  In addition, some agencies have created their own guidance or template agreements (e.g., FWS Director’s Order 108). 

Finally, Ms. Absher identified seven issues to consider when drafting funding agreements:

1. Reason for agreement.
2. Authority allowing agreement.
3. Responsibilities of both parties (state and Federal agency).
4. Tasks covered by funding agreement.  The agreement may include numerous tasks.
5. Coordination and dispute resolution.  The EPA and California submit quarterly progress reports in order to facilitate coordination.
6. Relation to any existing agreement.  Perhaps the existing agreement should be incorporated into the funding agreement.
7. Cost accounting and fund transfer.  There must be an established mechanism for transferring funds and tracking costs.   

Considerable discussion followed Ms. Absher’s presentation. One participant said that he thought TEA-21 allowed only interagency agreements between Federal agencies.  The panel responded that agreements are primarily between state DOTs and a Federal agency, typically FHWA.  Another concern was the time and labor required to develop and maintain Interagency Personnel Agreements.  Various people in the group spoke of their experience with Interagency Personnel Agreements and found that the benefits gained outweighed the time and labor required to establish them.   

Rick McCoy, from FWS in Pennsylvania, answered questions about the FWS agreement with Pennsylvania DOT.  Participants asked what percentage Pennsylvania DOT was paying, how many people have been involved in the work, how Pennsylvania DOT carries out quality control, and whether or not anyone has been removed from the list of qualified experts.  Mr. McCoy said that Pennsylvania DOT is paying 100 percent.  The money is paid into a fund and FWS draws on the fund.  Accountability is ensured through monthly reports and special agency meetings.  Then, someone asked if everyone who attends the meetings has the authority to make decisions and how do you enforce the decisions and agreements?  Mr. McCoy noted that this issue is still not totally resolved.  Some agency representatives refuse to make decisions without higher-level authority, despite Pennsylvania DOT demanding that people make decisions at the meetings. 

A participant asked if Pennsylvania DOT discussed using consulting services rather than hiring additional staff from FWS.  Don Peterson, FWS in Washington, D.C., said that Federal agencies and the FWS have the legal responsibility to implement Section 7 consultation process.

NEPA Interagency Training

During the next presentation, Lee Dong, Project Development Specialist in the FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation, discussed NEPA Interagency Training.  He informed the group that FHWA provides training courses throughout the nation.  The courses are delivered primarily through the NHI.  States must send a request to NHI in order to have a training course delivered to staff in their state or region.  In addition, the FHWA Resource Centers provide training courses throughout the year. 

FHWA provides both technical and process courses, for example, "NEPA and the Transportation Decision-Making Process" and "Public Involvement and Transportation Decision-Making."  There are also general planning courses and training on specific areas such as Sections 106, 404, and 4(f).  NHI and FHWA also provide technical assistance to agencies.  FHWA has issued Alternative Dispute Resolution guidance and an Environmental Guide Book (found on the internet at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/index.asp ).           

Other agencies provide similar training opportunities:

• FTA NTI at http://www.ntionline.com
• EPA’s National Enforcement Training Institute at http://www.netionline.com/
• FWS National Conservation Training Center
• CEQ NEPA Training Courses
• USACE classroom and distance learning courses, including wetland delineation courses for FHWA
• ACHP’s historical preservation and Section 106 courses
• US Department of Agriculture graduate school courses
• Courses provided through universities such as the University of Wisconsin at Madison and North Carolina State University

Participants asked who pays for technical assistance provided by FHWA Resource Centers.  Mr. Gamble, FHWA, responded that Resource Center courses are structured very similarly to NHI courses.  He added that the Resource Centers ask state DOTs to reproduce training materials and provide a training facility.  Another participant questioned if the Resource Centers ever assist on projects.  Mr. Gamble replied yes.  Finally, someone asked if there are any ideas to provide training on environmental streamlining as a package.  Mr. Gamble said that the MATE process task force has demanded and is developing this type of training.  Mr. Smith, FHWA, added that the Action Plan calls for training courses on cumulative impacts.  FHWA is hoping to develop this training together with EPA and CEQ.

MultiMedia Tools

The last presentation, MultiMedia Tools, was given by Lamar Smith, Team Leader on NEPA Oversight, FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation.  He began his presentation by noting that the Internet is a valuable tool for environmental streamlining.  The FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation’s streamlining web site at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/strmlng/index.asp offers a compendium of resources.  The objective of the site is to explain FHWA’s environmental streamlining goals, provide assistance (e.g., best practices) to Federal agencies and the public, and show progress to Congress in meeting environmental streamlining goals.  In addition, FHWA’s Office of NEPA Facilitation created a web site (RE:NEPA) designed to foster interaction and exchange of information between people interested in NEPA, or related topics.  This site can be found at http://nepa.fhwa.dot.gov/ReNepa/ReNepa.nsf/home.  The RE:NEPA web site is an interactive site, providing an area for individuals to pose questions and have discussions related to environmental streamlining.  Users can also join interest area email groups; group members automatically receive email notification of information posted to their interest area group. 

Participants asked Mr. Smith how he addresses misinformation on the discussion groups.  He responded that as the site administrator, he has the ability to monitor activity and content.  People will, however, have different opinions and Mr. Smith does not want to discourage information sharing. 

Group Discussion

At the conclusion of all the presentations and discussion, Mr. Newman, NHI, Mr. Gamble, FHWA, and Ms. Absher, EPA, asked the group to consider how they can use existing resources more effectively, what resources do agencies need, but are not available, how do they sell their outreach materials and convince people, and how to convince people that Federal funding agreements are beneficial.  The group brainstormed on products that should be in a toolbox for environmental streamlining participants to use, then prioritized the products.  Chris Newman reported on the top five products.

• Training Opportunities: Encourage participation in existing classes offered by other agencies - we need cross training in order to understand the activities of other agencies.  Provide training courses such as "Highway 101" and "USACE 101" so that all agencies gain a better understanding of how a particular agency operates and assesses environmental impacts. Regions 1 and 8 have held interagency "Highway 101" training.  Agencies need training on the Memorandum of Agreement.  How does it work?  How do we use it?   Include consultants in the training courses because they do much of our work now
• Streamlining Road Shows: Interagency teams taking success stories on the road (traveling salespeople).  Learn from MATE’s road ahows and implement on a national basis.  Selling other agencies and top management of streamlining benefits.  Emphasis on marketing.
• Management Leadership: Repeated emphasis needed at the Federal level.  Need encouragement and information from Headquarters’ staff on a continuous basis.  There is misconception among the field staff of what environmental streamlining means.  FHWA also needs to join with AASHTO to get their buy-in.  There needs to be accountability for environmental streamlining.  Headquarters should require environmental streamlining be tied into performance plans.  Monthly leadership team meetings would help clarify misunderstandings and provide the necessary leadership to advance environmental streamlining. 
• Agency Coordination Meetings: Organize more interagency team building and information sharing activities, such as interagency meetings at the state and national level, videoconferences, and project-specific orientations.  It is critical that agency representatives who attend interagency meetings are empowered to make decisions.  USACE hosts bi-monthly pre-application meetings for open, verbal input on projects.
• Information Sharing: 1) Share information on who is doing what.  Marketing is critical (web sites and tool kit).  Encourage use of the RE:NEPA web site.  Expand the capabilities of RE:NEPA.  Resources such as RE:NEPA need better advertising to agencies.  Do other agencies have Internet resources they can share?  Create protected project web sites or a listserve so that all the participating agencies can enter information on what they are doing regarding the project.  This will help facilitate concurrent review.  2) Provide benefits information (money, time, and impacts).  Develop a notebook of best practices.  We need to know who is doing what and how they are doing it.  Consider using consultants to document best practices.  3) Partner with AASHTO to spread the environmental streamlining message to state DOTs. We need to encourage state DOTs to tout their successes to their peers in AASHTO.  We could also use AASHTO Pilot Projects to advertise interagency agreements.  States really need actual agreements (templates).  Federal agencies need to share those agreements so that states are not re-inventing the wheel.  FHWA is putting those agreements on the RE:NEPA web site.

Identifying Next Steps

The Federal agencies broke into their respective groups for the second time during the training workshop.  The purpose was to reconvene at the conclusion of the training workshop to discuss what they had learned and to identify their next steps.  Specifically, Federal agencies were instructed to identify short- and long-term commitments to the key strategies of environmental streamlining, determine how to improve communication and reporting on agency streamlining process between Headquarters and field staff, and to refine the Action Plan and to set priorities. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers

In the National Action Plan, actions are defined for each key strategy to streamline the environmental planning process.  The issue is that each USACE district is at a different stage in environmental streamlining.  So short-term goals in one district can already be complete in another.  USACE will need Headquarters to dictate "all districts must be at this stage at this year." 

Short- and long-term commitments to implement strategies are to integrate our time lines with others.  Can have up to 2 years of preparation time before have a draft application.  Product: establish a time framework.  See the 1988 Red Book with time frames as a basis for further time line development.

• Look at additional staff resources to facilitate early involvement to expedite the environmental planning process.  To do this, ask for monies from the State DOTs and FHWA.  Issue: Federal agencies cannot accept monies from other Federal agencies unless Congress makes exceptions.
• Training:  Need a "Highway 101" to know the criteria and requirements for FHWA projects.  Need to know how FHWA defines an EA vs. EIS.
• Headquarters will support a USACE meeting of all the TEA-21 players to organize working sessions.
• Look at where there is redundancy in the planning process.  Develop a plan to alleviate duplication of efforts.

Goal: Address Other Breakout Sessions Strategies

• FHWA should devote more funding to the USACE.  Or, FHWA can have more staff to do advanced identification streams of work (i.e., wetland mitigation).  State DOT environmental departments need more staff, too.
• Headquarters needs to promote that districts establish local training programs for state DOTS, FWS, EPA, and FHWA.
• Establish an exchange program in which USACE staff can work for 2 weeks at FHWA and vice versa.  It was noted that such a program already exists but should be more advertised.
• Establish a primary FHWA/USACE contact with whom to do business.  Can do a little training with each other to build interagency teams.

Jack Chowning made the following commitments on behalf of USACE:

• USACE will provide the impetus to coordinate meetings at the district level similar to this national meeting at which they will develop training strategies for districts.  However, every district may not want to have a workshop.
• USACE will collect data in order to know how much time is spent on projects.  USACE will compare the length of time spent on projects that have a Section 404 merger and those that do not.
• Each district will report to Headquarters on a bi-annual basis of their success and roadblocks. USACE would like other agencies to prepare similar reports so that agencies will stop laying the blame on each other.
• Districts will post agreements and other materials on their web pages.

Environmental Protection Agency

The moderator was Pat Haman and the group consisted of approximately 15 staff members from Headquarters and regional offices.  Ms. Haman made the following commitments on behalf of her agency:

• Continue working with partners to co-sponsor environmental streamlining conferences and workshops.
• Continue to participate in NEPA/Section 404 mergers " creation or revisions.
• Work to provide information electronically.
• Offer assistance in bringing non-Federal stakeholders to the table.
• Continue working on interagency training efforts.
• Develop and promote best practices with partners.
• Continue to, and increase, work on cost reimbursements for streamlining work (positions, travel, etc.).
• Increase participation in transportation related workshops, meetings, etc., (e.g., the Transportation Research Board and AASHTO).
• Participate on AASHTO pilots -- when asked and as appropriate.

Federal Transit Administration

Ms. Roeseler began by explaining the structure of the FTA.  In addition to the Headquarters office, there are 10 regional offices.  These offices oversee over 600 grantees that include transit operators, MPOs, and state DOTs.  A very high percentage of the actions for which FTA is responsible are CEs.  Thus, FTA and its grantees have limited staff and expertise in environmental issues. 

FTA intends to find ways to raise awareness of environmental streamlining issues among its grantees, as well as find ways to increase its environmental expertise.  To this end, it intends to include announcements of environmental streamlining in the publication of the Federal Register. In its efforts to raise awareness, FTA will have a planning and program emphasis that specifically includes environmental streamlining.  It will encourage early consideration of environmental issues in the planning process.  One area in which FTA will focus resources will be the development of better data bases, similar to the complex GIS data base in Florida.  FTA planning funding can be used for the development of such data bases, and FTA will encourage that this money be directed toward this purpose, especially at the MPO level.  There already exists a collection of demographic information that has been used in the Access to Jobs programs; using this already-collected information will save time. 

FTA will also work to increase awareness through its outreach efforts.  It will make a point of raising environmental streamlining as a topic at all regular meetings.  This will increase overall awareness of the issue.  It will also encourage agencies to participate in environmental streamlining efforts which will save time and money.

Another method that FTA will use to increase awareness will be to strengthen its web site.  This effort will be applied to both FTA’s own web site and to the web sites of its customers.  FTA will work to ensure that the sites contain appropriate information and links for environmental streamlining.  FTA will make sure that its web site contains information to keep its grantees aware of training opportunities. 

FTA will work to make sure that matters of environmental streamlining are on the table at all ONE DOT meetings. It will work to help its agencies to achieve their strategic plan goals.  Through these efforts, FTA will improve the visibility of environmental streamlining, identify resources that are available for these efforts, and find improved ways for all agencies to work together.

Finally, FTA is committed to finding ways to better use its limited resources.  It will try to increase its usage of Interagency Personnel Agreements, as well as increasing other formal and informal cooperative agreements with other Federal agencies.  FTA is committed to working smarter, taking advantage of constantly improving technologies, and improving its relationships with its partners.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/United States Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service

The following short- and long-term commitments were made by the agencies:

• Be available for meetings, subject to available staff.
• Have baseline information available to DOT early on to provide improved information on statewide/watershed "big picture."  An example of this would be the EFH maps.
• Be available for streamlining training, subject to available funding and manpower.
• Provide interagency training to state DOT, FHWA division levels, and others on endangered species, Section 7, and other environmental requirements; seek out other agency coordinators to develop programs together (subject to available funds).  The training would be on programs as well as on species and local information.
• Stay engaged throughout the entire process; which may require an early agreement to be involved. 
• Pursue full-time funded positions to work exclusively on environmental streamlining activities for transportation projects. 
• Work with USACE on regional general permits programmatic approaches. 
• Enter into more NEPA/Section 404 merger agreements.  Develop a workable process.
• Provide technical assistance in new mitigation strategies. Award FWS employees for their endangered species efforts. Stay open to new ideas.

United States Coast Guard

Roger Wiebusch made the following commitments on behalf of the USCG: "Our short-term goals are to service cooperating agencies and be involved.  We participate in cooperation with coordination meetings and applicants.  We have come up with ideas of processing problems.  We are working within our agency to work with FHWA and people in Washington to make issues more current."

Forest Service

Joel Krause made the following commitments on behalf of the FS: "Our short-term goal about a year and a half ago was to have an action plan that committed us to being active agencies and involving other agencies in forest and transportation planning effect.  We are establishing key contacts in the Washington office.  We are in the process of updating the MOU with each state DOT, MPO, and other applicable agencies where we have national forest land.  We have 3 major data bases for national forest information (currently developing one for our own use) that will help streamline NEPA process, develop training for managers, and make budget requests to help implement environmental streamlining.  The long-term goals are to go beyond key contacts and develop a resource team to be active in TEA-21."

Federal Highway Administration

The FHWA participants made the following short- and long-term commitments:

• FHWA will take a leadership role in the process
• Plan local/regional workshops.  FHWA field staff said that this training workshop was excellent, but lamented that only a few of the regional partners participated.  State agencies also need to participate in the workshop.  Field staff would like to have a template for organizing a regional meeting.  Field staff also requested Headquarters’ presence at the regional level to show that there is leadership at the national level.  A state leadership presence will be equally critically at local and regional meetings.  Federal field staff emphasized that workshops need to be customized for the region and held locally because many state agencies will not fund interstate travel.  The meeting location should be in a neutral setting.  An FHWA representative suggested that NHI could organize a course for regional partners and use the course as a springboard for a regional meeting.  Finally, the group discussed how the regional meetings could be funded.  Headquarters’ staff said that it is not realistic that Headquarters could fund regional meetings.  FHWA Resource Centers may have resources to organize a workshop.  In addition, in-kind support, such as using a state facility, will help reduce the costs of hosting a workshop.
• Benchmark performance.  FHWA representatives want to know how the process is working at the national level.  This analysis will help FHWA better define the problem and understand the magnitude of the problem.  Benchmarking has begun; however, the methods need to be improved and linked with states’ tracking systems.  It was suggested that a future information system be supported at the national level with input provided at the division level.  FHWA’s web site, RE:NEPA has the capability to track activity at the state and national level. FHWA field staff informed the group of various states that have developed tracking systems (e.g., New York report card system, Ohio DOT, Maryland, Illinois, and Dan Harris in San Francisco).  The group agreed that a task force should be established to look at existing tracking systems in order to identify what is already developed and used in the states.  Headquarters, however, needs to dedicate resources to this task force.  There was discussion about what should be benchmarked.  Everyone agreed that EISs and EAs should be benchmarked, but there was debate regarding CEs.  Some people believe that CEs are too difficult to benchmark, while others believe that FHWA should track CEs because they move faster through the process and thus will improve the results of benchmark performance.  Everyone agreed, however, that FHWA should benchmark environmental sensitivity, as well as time.  A number of other concerns regarding benchmarking were expressed by field staff including:
  • Some projects are on schedule but are held up in environmental process due to political or consultant management reasons.
  • There may be negative political ramifications for states saying that a project has been stopped.
  • Make sure that it is not used as a weapon against states, but as a tool.
• Provide more training opportunities, preferably at no cost. 
• Think about the concerns of resource agencies and help them.  For example, more communication with EPA may help EPA better predict their workload. 
• Environmental streamlining will be an important agenda item for Division Administrators when they convene in Indianapolis the week of December 4, 2000.

The group then identified methods for improving communication within FHWA and with their partners.  Headquarters must have a presence in the field to show that there is leadership for environmental streamlining.  In addition, Headquarters needs to do a better job at delivering messages to Division Administrators.  Considerable outreach still remains to be done in the divisions.  FHWA plans to use the RE:NEPA web site to improve communication and information sharing.  Finally, FHWA recognizes that field staff members need to work with state DOTs to encourage them to talk with state resource agencies.

FHWA’s priorities, as identified by the group are to improve program delivery timeline, capture quality in performance reviews and improve environmental sensitivity, and improve communication.

Fred Skaer, Amy Jackson-Grove, and Kathy Laffey reported FHWA’s next steps to the audience. Mr. Skaer stated that the USDOT is committed to environmental streamlining.  Secretary Slater has identified environmental streamlining as one of his flagship initiatives and in the fiscal year 2002 budget, has requested an increase in funding for environmental streamlining activities.  FHWA understands that they need to be a leader in the process. 

FHWA is committed to tracking benchmarking performance, both time and quality.  FHWA recognizes that they need to identify state activity in tracking systems and develop a national tracking system that links to state tracking systems.  The tracking system will track EISs, and EAs.  There is some discussion on whether or not the system should track CEs. 

Ms. Jackson-Grove emphasized the need for regional workshops to bring partners together.  Regional workshops will be more customized to the needs of the stakeholders and will logistically be easier for more people to participate.  She asked that other agencies and state agencies work with FHWA to provide support for regional workshops.

Finally, Ms. Laffey stressed that communication with and by the Division Administrators must improve.  She will raise awareness among Division Administrators at a national meeting of Division Administrators the week of December 4, 2000.

Closing Sessions

Open Discussion: What have we learned?  What are our next steps?

During this session, attendees were asked to reflect on what they learned throughout the training workshop.  Participants were seated in a circle with a table located in the center of the room.  Topics could only be raised and discussed by participants who moved to the table.  The questions posed to the group were what was learned that was meaningful, and what are the next steps for you as individuals and as agencies as you interface across agencies and between field and Headquarters to advance and implement the Action Plan.  The main points raised during that session are as follows:

• Agencies need to be committed to being involved in the streamlining process
  • Environmental streamlining applies to all agencies.
  
  
  
• Leadership is needed at many levels
  • FHWA must take a lead in the NEPA process.
  • Field staff in all resource agencies need leadership from their Headquarters organization.
  • Projects need local leadership.
  
  
  
• Dispute resolution should be used as a tool to resolve issues
  • Relations need to be mended between people at the local level and the resource agencies.
  • The term "elevation" has a negative connotation.  People need to commit to resolving conflict at the local level, and solve problems from the bottom up.
  • Agency and local staff may need training to know how to resolve conflict effectively.
  • Outside facilitators may be helpful.
  
  
  
• Full involvement by all relevant stakeholders is essential throughout the NEPA process.
  • Agency staffs need the autonomy/authority to make decisions, and those decisions need to stick.
  • Agencies who participate need to help make the process work.  Frustration levels increase when people attend meetings but do not actively participate. 
  • Agencies who want to participate should be let into the process.  It should not be difficult for relevant stakeholders to be welcome into the process and find their seat at the table.
  
  
  
• Need to communicate best practices information to resource agencies. 
  • Interagency reporting mechanisms exist, but more work needs to be done to facilitate a two-way dialogue from field offices to Headquarters. 
  • Need to start documenting all the success stories.

Workshop Summary: Overview of the lessons learned and identification of future goals

Fred Skaer thanked everyone that took the time to attend the National Environmental Streamlining Training Workshop for Federal Agencies.  He stated that it is in everyone’s best interest to be successful with environmental streamlining.  The law was not written just for the USDOT, it was written for everyone.  It is specifically framed so everyone gets something out of it, including its two main points, 1) reducing project delays and 2) protecting and enhancing environmental quality.  If we are not successful in implementing environmental streamlining, negative things may happen to our environment. 

Mr. Skaer identified that, from this workshop, we have touched on a few present-day trends.

• Transportation programs in general are mostly related to systems preservation and the number of new transportation projects is very small.
• Environmental ethics are growing in both national and state DOTs.
• Major transportation projects take much longer today than 15-20 years ago.  

Mr. Skaer was pleased that so much valuable information came out of the breakout sessions.  In the FHWA breakout, they viewed themselves as two-faced showing their leadership vs. reactive sides.  FHWA does indeed "wear multiple hats" as a lead agency, an action agency, and a protector of resources. 

There are many tools and strategies for improving environmental streamlining; however, the whole concept needs to be better marketed.  New business practices are in order, the process needs to be re-engineered into a quality assurance mode, which will reduce the workload and will increase the programmatic approaches.  There needs to be an interagency action plan developed for environmental streamlining.  This plan would provide a framework for channeling resources and maintaining momentum in these efforts.  There also could be an annual report from these interagency frameworks.

Fred Skaer recommended that in order to go away with something useful learned from this conference, it will be necessary to implement the concepts learned into everyday projects.  Sharing stories of environmental streamlining successes would also be helpful.  Mr. Skaer believes the main point is to maintain a dialogue with peers from other agencies and your own agency so everyone can be kept up to date on all aspects of the projects. 

Next Steps

The discussions held over the 3 day training workshop solidified the concepts contained in the National MOU and Action Plan.  The main points brought up at the conference include the following items.

• Agencies need to be committed to being involved in the streamlining process.  Field staff needs to buy in to the process.
• Leadership is needed at many levels, but Headquarters offices need to set the tone for each agency.
• ADR processes are needed and should be used as a tool to resolve issues.
• Best practices information needs to be communicated to resource agencies and guidance provided. 
• Field staff want outreach and training (interagency training and regional workshops).
• Communication and early involvement is critical to the success of the NEPA process.
• Better methods of benchmarking performance are needed.

Agency Headquarters representatives will incorporate this information into a revised Action Plan and an annual report on progress in environmental streamlining.  For field staff, this conference helped in the process of developing agency buy-in.  However, agency staffs still need the support and tools necessary to make environmental streamlining a success.

Optional General Session - Alternative Dispute Resolution Procedures

Dale Keyes of the USIECR and Louise Smart of CDR Associates led a group discussion to gather stakeholder input on the development of a national dispute resolution system for addressing disagreements among Federal and state agencies within the context of environmental streamlining.  A Dispute Resolution Guidance Document is currently being developed by the USIECR under contract with the FHWA.      

The USDOT has undertaken efforts to develop guidance on how to resolve disputes, to make available access to qualified third-party neutrals who can provide professional assistance in resolving disputes, to provide training courses to help agency staff understand the dispute resolution guidance and to develop more effective negotiation and problem-solving skills, and to develop national procedures for elevating disputes involving Federal agencies to the Secretary of

Transportation per subsection 1309(c) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century.  The intent of the session was to talk specifically about the definition and implementation of a national procedure to implement the TEA-21 provision that states the following:

Dispute Resolution.  When the Secretary determines that a Federal agency which is subject to a time period for its environmental review or analysis under this section has failed to complete such review, analysis, opinion, or decision on issuing any permit, license, or approval within the established time period, the Secretary may, after notice and consultation with such agency, close the record on the matter before the Secretary.  If the Secretary finds, after timely compliance with this section, that an environmental issue related to the project that an affected Federal agency has jurisdiction over by operation of Federal law has not been resolved, the Secretary and the head of the Federal agency shall resolve the matter not later than 30 days after the date of the finding by the Secretary.

Approximately 30 people attended the session, representing the USDOT, USACE, EPA, and other Federal agencies.  

List of Acronyms