Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles Thompson, I am Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation and the Chairman of the AASHTO Standing Committee on the Environment. I'm here today first of all to thank you on behalf of the state transportation officials across the country for the vision and foresight you have shown through the enactment of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
In only a few short weeks we will celebrate the first anniversary of the signing of TEA-21 and I can tell you that the record levels of funding you have made available are being put to use in Wisconsin and in every state to improve the safety, efficiency, and mobility of your constituents. And every bit as important as the 40 percent increase in highway and transit investments, is the firewall you put in place to guarantee that the revenue motorists pay into the Highway Trust Fund is fully used for the transportation improvements they expect us to provide.
We at AASHTO recognize that you will face tough decisions this year as you work on appropriations legislation, but let me emphasize that the protection and the preservation of the firewalls you created in TEA-21 is as important to the future of our transportation system as the creation of the Highway Trust Fund was when the Interstate system was first envisioned. It is your contribution to the economic prosperity and vitality for generations to come.
My purpose this morning is to discuss with you the need to make those transportation dollars work in the way that you envisioned through simplifying and streamlining our project delivery process. There is no question that we at the state level share with the same intensity your desire to protect and improve the quality of our nation's environment. We are working daily to deliver transportation services that maximize mobility with minimal disruption of natural and human resources. We want our transportation projects to be in the forefront of sound environmental practice, not because it's a federal mandate, but because it's the right thing to do, and because it benefits the communities we all share. We also want to be able to deliver the transportation projects which people have a right to expect in an timely manner, unencumbered by overlapping and redundant regulation.
This issue was a major focus of AASHTO's activities during the discussions of TEA-21, and we met with your staff to discuss possible options.
In the Conference report accompanying TEA-21, Congress made clear that it was not satisfied with "the delays, unnecessary duplication of effort, and added costs often associated with current practices for review and approving surface transportation projects."
You listened to our concerns when you drafted TEA-21 and acted in several ways to streamline and simplify these project planning processes. We are now at the point to use a common phrase "where the rubber meets the road." The Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration are preparing to write the regulations to implement the statute that you created, and we are concerned that those regulations reflect your intention to simplify and to streamline, while maintaining the integrity of the environmental laws.
We are urging that the federal approach reflect three basic principles:
--Federal agency guidance should rely on the language of the statute, rather than embellish that language with regulation. States need the maximum flexibility possible to implement the law in their own way because what works well in Wisconsin may not work at all in Arizona.
--When regulations are required by law, they should be developed through partnering with the states, the MPOs, and the stakeholders who must implement them and they should be permissive rather than restrictive, to allow the flexibility needed for creative solutions.
--The balance in planning and programming authority between federal, state, MPO, local and other implementing agencies established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) should be continued and maintained.
We hope that these principles would serve as a guide as well for the implementation of the TEA-21 streamlining provisions. The planning factors required for state transportation plans were reduced from 23 to 7, and for metropolitan planning the factors were again consolidated from 15 down to 7. Your message was clear - make it simple, make it work.
Congress decided to eliminate the Major Investment Studies (MIS) as a stand alone requirement. We don 't want to see federal agencies resurrect it by regulatory fiat. We at AASHTO urge that the states be allowed to develop their own approaches regarding how to achieve the goals of the MIS.
Coordinated Environmental Reviews
A particularly critical element of streamlining is the opportunity that has been provided in Section 1309 of TEA-21 to coordinate the environmental review processes of federal agencies. Transportation projects undergo a rigorous environmental review under the the provisions of the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Many require the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. But once that hurdle has been cleared, still more await in the sequential reviews of other agencies.
Layer upon layer of federal reviews and oversight that have accumulated over time have created a process that literally takes years to complete. Let me cite some examples:
In my own state of Wisconsin, the Stillwater Bridge Project has been under review since 1985 and is still at a standstill because of conflicting federal agency decisions. After it was approved by the Federal Highway Administration, the National Park Service, the Minnesota and the Wisconsin Departments of Transportation invested $14 million for right-of-way acquisition and other implementing costs. Yet the future of the bridge is still uncertain because of subsequent agency proposed rulemaking for Wild and Scenic Rivers. The National Park Service and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation have conflicting demands on whether to take out or retain the bridge.
The Florida Department of Transportation has been attempting to widen a 20.4 mile stretch of US-1 between Key Largo and Florida City for the last 30 years. The project is needed to improve traffic safety on the route which has a very high accident and fatality rate. It is also needed for purposes of hurricane evacuation, as well as improved traffic flow, and navigation.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement was completed in March of 1992. Federal Highway Administration approvals were given in 1992. Wetlands mitigation was completed in 1995. But the federal permitting process from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been underway for five years. A supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is now being demanded, to which the state and the FHWA object. The project is at a standstill.
Another example is the Route 6 improvement project in Connecticut. Since planning for this project began in the 1960's, more than 180 different alternatives have been considered while different federal agencies have made conflicting findings about the environmental impacts.
In TEA-21 you have called upon the Secretary of Transportation to develop a concurrent process so that federal agencies are brought in at the outset during the scoping process to review projects simultaneously. This change was vitally needed, but federal agencies are slow to change and reluctant to surrender their prerogatives. The change will come about only with your continued oversight and encouragement.
AASHTO urges the U.S. DOT to develop as soon as possible a nationwide, coordinated Memorandum of Understanding regarding streamlining that would be signed by all federal agencies with approval or review authority over surface transportation projects. The State highway and transportation departments who implement the Federal highway and transit programs need to be involved in this process. AASHTO is concerned that in the FHWA and FTA paper titled "TEA-21 Planning and Environmental Provisions: Options for Discussion", there is no discussion of State involvement. State DOTs would like to work with the DOT in the development of such an agreement. A copy of AASHTO's comments to the FHWA and FTA on the Options Paper is provided.
The MOU should provide for reasonable but prompt deadlines for completion of reviews and decisions by Federal agencies. To the extent any other Federal agency does not meet its deadline, U.S. DOT should promptly intervene to conclude the review process as soon as possible.
The MOU should ensure that decision-making should occur at the lowest responsible level in each agency and in a timely manner. Those closest to the issues should be empowered to make the decisions. When disputes arise, they should be moved up the channels of review quickly. Once a dispute is resolved the agreement should be honored by all involved agencies as projects advance.
The U.S. DOT and other Federal agencies should cooperate to ensure that their regulations are consistent and complimentary, and that redundancy is removed. Some examples of the redundant regulations under which we now operate include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section (4f) of the U.S. DOT Act, and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Executive Order 11990.
In addition to the national level cooperative agreement, U.S. DOT should go still farther to allow the States to include approaches such as partnering, MOUs and general permits with other federal agencies to improve coordination and shorten the environmental review and permitting process. We do not propose any shift in responsibilities among the federal agencies and where states already have existing processes, which are working well, they should be allowed to continue.
We would urge that the U.S. DOT develop an outreach and training program including shared decision-making, team building, and conflict resolution for the coordinated environmental review process.
Yet another opportunity provided in TEA-21 for expediting the project review process allows states in extraordinary circumstances to provide funding to federal agencies for the staff work needed for accelerating the review. We at the state level recognize that manpower is needed to make things happen, and we are willing to do our part. In order to help states take advantage of this provision, we would urge the DOT to develop a model agreement to be used to implement this opportunity in the near future.
Let me turn from the way things ought to be to the way things are, and to point with pride to some very important initiatives already in place in state departments of transportation.
We have been very encouraged by the spirit of cooperation that has been evident in recent meetings AASHTO has held with the Federal Highway Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency to discuss ways to work together as organizations. On February 24, we were proud to brief the agencies on three outstanding examples of transportation projects that have met and surpassed environmental requirements in an efficient and timely manner, through the collaboration of transportation and environmental partners. These projects are located in Washington State, Missouri, and Pennsylvania.
The Washington DOT project involved a joint effort of the state transportation agency with EPA's Region 10 office. The project involved capacity building to incorporate the watershed approach and early environmental permitting into the decision-making for transportation planning and project development. The project demonstrates what can be achieved through such a cooperative process between transportation and environmental officials.
The second project dealt with cooperative transportation and environmental efforts for the Ozark Mountain Highway, U.S. 119, in Branson, Missouri. The third project dealt with several initiatives of the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, including the development of a "Collaborative Decision-Making Toolbox" for projects, which also demonstrated the possibilities in a cooperative transportation and environmental process. These projects clearly identified what can be achieved through early involvement of reviewing agencies, the application of better science, and the application of better methods of environmental mitigation. The most impressive fact is that in every case the projects went beyond mere compliance with statutes to develop better solutions for the community, and it was done in a shorter time frame to bring those solutions to the public.
Another issue that came out of that discussion was the desire of all three agencies to develop what we are calling Environmental Vanguard Initiatives, which are transportation projects that will demonstrate the art of the possible in environmental streamlining. At its meeting on April 18 in Little Rock, the AASHTO Board of Directors approved a proposal for AASHTO to work with the U.S. DOT and EPA to identify and support eight to 10 such projects around the country and we will meet soon with the federal agencies for further discussions. The goal of this effort will be to collaborate in the development of new approaches and share the benefits realized throughout the transportation and environmental communities.
As yet another example of our own desire within AASHTO to promote the best in environmental practices we are launching our own Best Environmental Practices competition to highlight outstanding examples of state DOTs working in partnership with other agencies or organizations to produce transportation projects that improve both the mobility and the environment of their communities. Under this proposal, each of the four AASHTO regions will have a competition during their summer meetings for best State DOT environmental practices. The winner from each of the four AASHTO regions will then compete at the AASHTO Annual Meeting to be held October 1-5 in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The eight best practices identified during this competition would then be incorporated into a report of best practices that AASHTO would distribute to the transportation and environmental communities. We will provide copies of this report to the Committee when they are available.
Grandfather Ruling of Concern
Mr. Chairman, I do want to comment on one other area of concern to AASHTO and its member departments, the solution to which may have to come from your committee. As you know, on March 2 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a decision that overturned several provisions in the third set of "conformity" amendments developed by EPA, including so-called "grandfathering" provision. Both you and AASHTO urged EPA to appeal the Court decision by the April 16 deadline. EPA chose not to do so, and instead is developing revised guidance.
AASHTO is concerned that this revised guidance will seriously affect the delivery of highway projects in several areas of the country. Although the EPA maintains that any adverse impacts can be addressed administratively, several issues are problematic. One is the determination of when a federal highway project is considered to be "funded" which is the measure whereby EPA would determine if additional conformity analysis would be required before a project could proceed.
Under the EPA guidance, AASHTO is concerned that the definition of a "funded" highway project will halt completion of certain key highway project segments. In addition to potential safety implications, this guidance could ironically result in poorer air quality in some parts of the country. In Georgia, for example, construction of a remaining highway segment in an overall highway project will be stopped. This will result in a two-lane section of highway tying into improved four lane segments on either side. Public safety problems will likely occur on either end of this segment when traffic must merge from four lanes into two lanes. This will result in traffic back-ups of idling cars rather than the free-flowing traffic that would be provided if the four lane segment had been constructed. This will result in "hot spots" of worsened air quality.
We urge your continued oversight of this situation, and after further review of its implications, we may seek your assistance in a legislative remedy.
In summary, AASHTO looks forward to assisting in the prompt implementation of the streamlining of the environmental and permitting process. We believe it can achieve the development of safe, cost-effective, and environmentally sound transportation solutions rather than projects designed to fit a succession of independent and sometimes redundant regulatory requirements. We encourage communication, coordination, shared solutions, elimination of redundant requirements, and overall process improvements. AASHTO member departments stand ready to assist the U.S. DOT in this important undertaking.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. We will be pleased to respond to questions now or in writing.