|
|
| ||||
| |||||
| |||||
|
Efficient Transportation Decision Making Streamlined Transportation Planning (Foresight, Winter 2001) Four pilot transportation projects in Florida are being planned over the next two years using a cooperative process known as Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM). The ETDM process will bring agency interaction forward into the early stages of transportation, identify critical issues early, and facilitate early issuance of permits. Over the past 18 months, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) worked with the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration and other governmental organizations to develop the ETDM process. The stage was set by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which contained provisions for a streamlined approach for conducting National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reviews. 1000 Friends recently completed a series of five regional forums around Florida to discuss this process. Public comment from the forums is available at www.1000friendsofflorida.org under "Transportation." The FDOT's four pilot projects include one focusing on the Environmental Impact Statement for the Green River Parkway in Martin County. The second, planned for Hillsborough County, will test the Long-range Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program portions of ETDM. The third, in Collier and Lee Counties, will test the secondary and cumulative impact aspects of ETDM. The fourth project will test the ETDM process in a non-urban county in FDOT District Five. To promote agency interaction in the early stages of transportation planning, agency reviewers will be able to access an interactive project database on the Internet. Substantial data also will be available for view by the public. NEPA decisions and construction permits would be issued together at the end of the project development stage of FDOT's process. If you have any questions about the pilot projects or the ETDM process, please contact Larry Barfield of the Florida Department of Transportation, by email at larry.barfield@dot.state.fl.us or by phone at 850.922.7217. Transportation Workshops Held Around Florida (Foresight, Fall 2001) Efficient Transportation
Decision Making (ETDM) was the subject of five regional forums held around
the state in late August and early September. 1000 Friends conducted the
meetings to educate nongovernmental groups about the Florida Department
of Transportation's (FDOT's) evolving revised coordinated environmental
review process for highway and mass transit projects.
1000 Friends received a grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to
hold these educational meetings. Florida
Department of Transportation's Proposed Efficient Transportation Over the past fourteen months, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) has been working to develop a refined and improved methodology for making transportation decisions. 1000 Friends of Florida hosed a series of five regional forums to bring FDOT and non governmental organizations together. Our goals were to explain proposed revisions to the existing process, receive public input on how the proposed process addresses the problems citizens have faced in commenting on and affecting road projects in the past, help develop much improved, more effective public participation in the transportation planning process, and highlight new project information resources. Following
are summaries of the Regional Efficient Transportation Decison-Making Forums
held in Oakland Park, Orange Park, Panama City, Sanford, and Sarasota in August
and September, 2001.
Summary Staff
Attending: Charles Pattison and Alex Magee, 1000 Friends of Florida Organizations
Attending: League of Women Voters Mr. Pattison opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. He explained the purpose of the forum and how 1000 Friends of Florida got involved in this project. Mr. Barfield then gave a few remarks about FDOT's efforts and turned the presentation over the Mr. Turton. Mr. Turton gave a power point presentation on the ETDM process and the role of citizen/non governmental organizations in the process. Mr. Turton clarified that dispute resolution on red flagged issues would be required before the project gets programmed. This is a major change from the existing process. Lee Ann Jacobs gave a brief overview of the Community Impact Assessment process. The following comments resulted from the presentations: • It is unclear if the public can currently access the GIS website. Response: The agency partners are currently looking at it and making comments. It is not available to the public yet. • Please clarify if the public is going to be able to ask questions on-line at this GIS website. Response: We want public comments to be screened by agencies. We are a little worried about Internet spam. We are trying to find an effective way to get info out to the public and a way to get your comments. • Florida has a transient population. New people may bring in useful information, and for them to be told it is too late to bring up those issues if they haven't been around since the beginning of the process, seems to be shortsighted. Response: Each project will have a database that will grow over time and provide an historic track to help keep people informed of what has already occurred. If the project isn't too late in project development, new information could still be considered. • If this process is efficient, MPOs will have to buy into it. How will we get them the information so that they will do this? Local leadership needs to get involved in this. Response: Public involvement at the MPO level is going to change. The Citizens Advisory Committee will not be the only source of public input anymore. It is not going to be just workshops - people will be able to get information on-line. Also through the CIA process, MPOs will be able to find out how various parts of the area get their information. Then the MPOs can use those avenues to get information out in a way that people use. Plus, the database will help provide a factual base for politicians to use to avoid changing a transportation plan because of political pressure. FDOT is currently working to try to develop a framework for making sure that public comments are received effectively. • Currently, when projects move into the PD&E stage, contacts included the Project Manager and the project consultant. Then when the project moves on, the contact people change. Can we use ETDM to get a quarterly or monthly status report of the project? That way, people can follow the project and know when the contact person changes. Also should each county or local government have an ETDM contact? Response: That would be a very good idea to have a local contact person to help with help with keeping track of projects. • Do not use the TIP format for any status report for ETDM for projects. Need a simple "From - To" description of the project and a contact name. This would really help keep track of project progress. Response: Good question. FDOT is going to be running four pilot projects to help see how this new ETDM process works and what needs changing. Title 6, which deals with discrimination, is a major issue for CIA - part of this process is to locate these communities early on. • It is not clear how or when the public gets involved. The whole concept seems to be leaning towards the role of agencies. Public involvement is left behind. CIA is the key and needs to be incorporated in the new process graphic before project need to show public input. Agencies tend to talk among themselves and community wants fade. Communities should help determine needs and be given as equal weight as the agencies. Response: Excellent point. What has been done so far has focused heavily on the agencies. Now FDOT is at the point of being able to come out to the public and get their input. That is what they are trying to do through these forums. • It is unclear how the ETDM will be applied to existing projects. Response: We are not planning on going back to examine projects in the current work plan. In 2003, TIP projects will be looked at. Then when the Long Range Plan is updated, it will go through the ETAT process. Full implementation of the ETDM process won't actually occur until we move through a full MPO cycle. The process may move up some aspects for existing projects. For example, permits may be accelerated. Permitting under the ETDM process would be done at the same time as the NEPA decision. • This is a new way of doing things but it is exciting. If you can get the public involved, you will get better results at the end. Response: Thank you for that comment. • It is unclear if all projects will be covered by this process. All public transit projects, for example, are not federally funded. Response: So far, the focus has been on federally funded projects. But these forums have identified projects that may not have federal funds but are still significant. There is a growing sense that those regionally significant projects would have ETAT review. • It is unclear
whether the ETDM process will have any impact on prioritizing projects or on
modal split. • There is a real need for marketing in the effort to get people involved. Response: Marketing is very much involved. This GIS database also allows public involvement at a time convenient to the public. For access to this database though, you need a high speed connection, such as a T1 connection. Most homes may not have this type of access. It may have to be provided at an organization's office or in public buildings such as libraries. • Every city, through the comprehensive planning process, has neighborhood planning areas. The key is how to organize the community to be informed about planning issues. Response: That is true. Additionally organizations may want to designate someone who has the ability to access the database to track things for that organization. • This process puts a lot of emphasis on technology but not a lot of emphasis on how people will get to that information. Coordinating different cities along a multi-jurisdictional project is very important. Different communities have different ideas of how they want that road segment going through their area to look. There needs to be more work at putting a community at ease with an agency that is historically perceived as imposing ideas. Response: We have concentrated on agencies in the immediate past because it took a long time to work through their issues. But now it is the time to work on public involvement particularly as we enter into the pilot projects. We can use these projects over the next two years to help focus on public involvement. It is a very important part of this process and that is why the CIA process came about. • This process is high on technology and people will buy into that. But you still need an alternative format for getting information to the 49% of the people that don't have computers. Response: That is a good comment. The CIA should identify those alternative formats. • In recent MPO certification processes, it was clear that the federal government is high on evaluating success. You need to consider having some method for evaluating the success of the ETDM process. Response: The FDOT website has some information about this issue. • Almost every house has a TV. Could you use Public Service access on a District basis to say here is what is coming to your community in terms of transportation issues? People will channel surf. Response: Good idea. • There is a disconnect from Needs to TIP. For example, Broward County says they want transit but the money goes to road building. Pork barrel projects emerge out of nowhere. Will this process help? Response: ETAT will perform a review of the LRTP and a system summary report will come out. At the TIP stage, ETAT will review TIP priorities on an annual basis. TIP amendments will have to go through an ETAT screen before programming. • It is important not to lose the regional focus in transportation planning, particularly where Regional Transportation Organizations (RTOs) have been created. Will RTOs be on the ETAT? Response: Each District will determine which agencies are significant in their area and to be included on the ETAT. If the RTO is in your area, it may be on the ETAT. • It is unclear who determines if a project should be red-flagged. Response: Each agency reviewing a project will check a box that determines the color based on the significance of their individual concern. • There are often situations where the public doesn't want a project. For example, people don't want more lanes because that removes the rural setting of their area. How does the ETDM process resolve this type of issue? Response: This needs to be addressed at the land use level. Land use drives transportation. The secondary and cumulative impacts will be reviewed on a system wide basis at the LRTP screen by ETAT. The community could also go to the agencies to see if they would consider red flagging the project. • In the South Florida region, we don't have a lot of land left. Projects to expand the urban area will be limited because of this fact. It is more important for the region to have a vision of where it wants to be. And it is important that the ETAT should be a multi-disciplinary effort that reflects consensus of that regional setting versus individual District settings. Response: That is a good point. • Districts
need to do a better job of conveying to the public that a "roadway project"
often includes more than a road. It often includes bike/ped facilities, lighting
etc. • Consider looking at a way of using an icon to identify projects that stemmed from citizen input. That would help citizens see that participating does make a difference. Response: That is a clever idea. • It would be interesting to also identify projects that arose from a consensus basis. Response: That is a good idea. In addition to the verbal comments above, the following written comments were submitted: • The ETATs should be incorporated into the Technical Advisory Committee (staff of agencies/local governments) to the MPO as a standing committee. This will avoid duplication. (St. Lucie County Community Transit representative) • Transit agencies need to be represented on the ETATs as they now are on the TACs. (St. Lucie County Community Transit representative) • I thought the power point presentation was well done and prepared. The speakers took their time to address all questions and were informative. (FDOT District IV Transportation Engineer representative) • Send information using the local electrical bill providing contact person, e-mails or Internet connection. (Kimley-Horn & Associates representative) • If not planned, can the website include some local community groups for the area that an interested individual could contact for more in-depth info and ability to provide input through a group? For instance, a new person to the issue can find local "involved community group" - this could just be a list of groups that have been proactive in the public meetings. (Martin County Conservation Alliance representative) • Try to get newspapers to provide gratis a monthly or quarterly summary of projects and citizen involvement. For example, in our community on Sunday, the paper has two pages of School Digest telling of special programs, awards, needs etc. of each school in the county. (Martin County Conservation Alliance representative) • Why can the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers allow residents to review CERP but our computers will not have the high-tech connectors to access the FDOT info? (Martin County Conservation Alliance representative) • My compliments on this program and the presenters. (Martin County Conservation Alliance representative) • The community decision process, such as the transportation decision making process, should be part of the high school "government" course content. (FDOT District IV Senior Transportation Planner representative.) • Think about how to provide the LRTP/TIP info to potential new home buyers and new business owners. Future transportation projects should be part of their location decision consideration. (FDOT District IV Senior Transportation Planner representative.) • I am looking forward to working on some streamlining "pilot" projects. (FDOT District IV PD&E Project Manager representative.) Mr. Pattison closed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. He thanked everyone for their participation and insightful comments. Summary Staff
Attending: Charles Pattison and Alex Magee, 1000 Friends of Florida Organizations
Attending: Keep Putnam County Beautiful Mr. Pattison opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. He explained the purpose of the forum and how 1000 Friends of Florida got involved in this project. Mr Barfield then gave a few remarks about FDOT's efforts and turned the presentation over to Mr. Turton. Mr. Turton gave a power point presentation on the ETDM process and the role of citizen/non governmental organizations in the process. Lee Ann Jacobs gave a brief overview of the Community Impact Assessment process. The following comments resulted from the presentations: • It is unclear if the GIS website is up and running. When will it be available to the public? Response: The GIS website is running but currently only available to agencies. There is a public website available through the FDOT Central Environmental Management Office site. The GIS site will be available to the public in January, 2002. • For those MPOs that have updates due in 2004, there is a concern that there will be enough time to become familiar with the new ETDM process and still meet the update statutory deadline, since statewide implementation of ETDM will not occur until 2003. Will MPOs be required to use ETDM for these updates? Response: ETDM will be used in these updates. FDOT is working with the MPOAC and individual MPOs to make sure the deadline can be met. • It is unclear how the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) would help an elderly person with their concerns or transportation needs. Response: The CIA process would target good public involvement avenues for the various groups within a community. Public input forums would target the elderly at locations and times convenient for them to insure their needs and comments are included in transportation decisions. • The roads that will be covered by the ETDM need to be clarified. Are county or local roads going to go through ETDM? Response: Only regionally significant or federally funded roads would go through the ETDM/ETAT process. It is hoped that over time, given the success of ETDM, local governments will create their own local ETAT systems. • It is unclear how the ETAT will actually work - will it be a single unit within FDOT or will it be placed in each District? Response: Agencies will designate who and how many ETAT people will represent that agency. It could be one for the whole state or one for each district or something in between. These people wouldn't all be located in a specific unit - they would be based in their individual agencies but be given ETAT responsibilities. • There are a lot of projects already in the pipeline. For example, in Putnam County, Highway 20 and Highway 17 are in various stages of improvement. Will this new process be applied to them? Response: The MPO representative said that Highway 17 would go through this new process, but Highway 20 is too far along for the ETAT process to apply to it. • FDOT needs to make sure that rural counties and communities have the same opportunities under this new process as the urban counties. There should also be provisions for agencies that are not state agencies per se but are "agencies" to be included in the process. An example of such an agency would be the Clay County Council on Aging. Response: This process is intended to try to bring the human environment into the process early on. • Some FDOT districts have multiple agencies covering their counties, for example 3 Water Management Districts. How will this affect the makeup of the ETAT? Response: It will be up to the agencies; however it would make sense that each WMD would only look at those projects within their area. • Consideration should be given to putting a time line for meetings, public input forums and other target dates for each project as part of the ETAT site. This would be very helpful for people who are accessing the information on this site. Response: That is a good idea. • Hopefully this process will consolidate and coordinate public input processes at the District level. Response: It should do that. It may also over time help to consolidate multiple agency public input processes so that one meeting may be held to get input on FDOT and DEP issues, for example. • Today, most information is obtained at public meetings. The frustration form that is that the meetings are held after decisions are already made and the public is asked to look at three options. This process could help with this problem. Using the libraries is a good idea, at least in Putnam County, as there are libraries in all parts of the county.
• It was great to hear that we will be able to have input early. (Keep Putnam Beautiful, Inc. representative) • I notified the members of the First Coast MPO. Unfortunately this is Commission night in Clay, Duval and St. Johns Counties. I was not noticed about the meeting but saw the listing in e-forum. (First Coast MPO representative) Mr. Pattison closed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. He thanked everyone for their participation and insightful comments. Summary Staff
Attending: Charles Pattison and Alex Magee, 1000 Friends of Florida Organizations
Attending: Bay County Audubon Society Mr. Pattison opened the meeting and welcomed those in attendance. He explained the purpose of the forum and how 1000 Friends of Florida got involved in this project. Mr Barfield then gave a few remarks about FDOT's efforts and turned the presentation over to Mr. Phillips. Mr. Phillips gave a power point presentation on the ETDM process and the role of citizen/non governmental organizations in the process. Lee Ann Jacobs gave a brief overview of the Community Impact Assessment process. Mr. Barfield clarified that the ETDM process works within existing laws and statutes. If, after the pilot stage, legislative changes are found to be needed, FDOT can go back and make amendments, including going to Congress. Senator Graham has been very interested in this effort. The following comments resulted from the presentations: • The term "Scoping" has two meanings. One meaning refers to the scoping that is required for NEPA purposes, and the other meaning deals with what is required to develop a contract for a project consultant. Response: The scoping for the NEPA review is what will be replaced by the ETDM process. • It is not clear how this process is changed from the current one. It seems as if most of this is already done in the current process. Response: Most of the same things are done in the current process but they are done much later. ETDM will move agency comment and input from the permitting stage up to the long-range planning and work program stages. • The ETAT composition is unclear. Will agencies have one person per district? Response: It will be left up to the individual agencies to decide how many people will be assigned to the ETAT. Some may appoint one person for the whole state while others may have someone for each district. The members will be appointed by the Secretary of each agency and will have the authority to act on behalf of the agency. They will follow the project from planning through permitting, to insure that information is passed along at each stage. This is the key to success in doing things more efficiently and protecting the environment. • The ETAT seems to be comprised of agency representatives. Will organizations such as Audubon or other non-governmental organizations have a role in ETAT? Response: They will not be members on the ETAT but will have access through the FDOT member, MPO member or state agency member. • There is heavy reliance on the FGDL for site information. Will this database be an evolving one? Response: The data base will be updated from time to time based on whether agencies have new data or not. This may be done on a yearly basis versus on a daily basis. As agencies call up the data base for ETAT purposes, if they realize the data is old, they should update it. • It is unclear what roads will be covered by the ETDM process. Will local roads be covered? Response: If there is a FDOT connection, it will be reviewed through ETAT. If there is a local road that goes into the Long Range Transportation Plan as a regional project, it will be reviewed through ETAT. The West Florida RPC Director of Transportation Planning indicated that in their three MPOs, local roads that are of a certain magnitude (generally project cost) get included in the Long Range Plan. • It is unclear whether the ETDM process applies to all projects or just capacity improvement projects. Response: If it
is in the Long Range Transportation Plan, it will be reviewed. But the focus
will be on major projects, not shoulder work for example. Response: Bridges will be in the LRTP if they come through FDOT. Projects in rural areas outside of MPOs will also go through the process because they come through FDOT. • It is unclear whether bike/ped projects or trail projects would go through ETAT review. Response: They would go through the process but early on, minor projects would be signed off by agencies as having no issues and they wouldn't have to have further ETAT review. • It is unclear where ETDM ends. Response: It goes all the way to maintenance. Construction people should have the same data as the ETAT. If a problem during construction pops up, FDOT will use a feedback loop to ETAT members to get their input. • Clarify what public access to the data base means. Response: The public can view the data but not enter information. • Many of these data layers are incomplete, especially on private land such as St. Joe's property. You have to be very careful interpreting them, particularly with respect to species presence. Response: The GIS data will not preclude an agency from going out into the field for site visits. Agencies are hoping that this process will weed out "no problem" projects from projects with problems. An ETAT member can pick "No Involvement" and won't be involved anymore, and then spend more time on projects where they have concerns. • You mention site visits. Clarify who will actually go out in the field. Response: The ETAT person or their agency field people would conduct the visits. FDOT will be conducting four pilot projects to test and tweak this ETDM process. • Clarify if the agencies that have expertise will be providing the appropriate data layers for the GIS system. Response: Work is being done to ensure that the data layers are the best data that is available - a lot of time is being spent on this. Agencies are involved in this effort. • It is unclear whether financial information will be included on the GIS data base for various projects. Response: Yes, costs will be there but cost is only one of the factors that should be looked at. You also need to balance the social, environmental and cultural factors. • Under this system, the public cannot enter comments into the GIS System. There should be a screen or option that lets public know how to make their comments (name, address, e-mail, phone number etc) Response: There will be such a screen. • It is unclear what will prevent public comments from getting watered down due to personal preferences or politics. What is the incentive for people to know that their comments are being considered? It will be hard to know this if the public has to go to different people depending on what the project is. Response: There will be a CIA person within each District that citizens can contact. This is a good point which we will try to resolve. • Santa Rosa County and others have half of their land area in an MPO and half not. How will ETAT work in this situation? Response: The process will be the same - the only difference would be if FDOT is the lead or the MPO is. • Libraries are not a good avenue for getting information out in North Florida. Schools are an avenue that we don't take advantage of enough. Response: Thank you for that information. • The process will give the MPOs a balanced picture of projects. The information will be more specific at an earlier stage and this is going to be helpful. With respect to citizens, this should reduce the runaround for help because a point person will be identified. RPCs should be included on the ETAT. Additionally, West Florida RPC has an e-mail list that sends out a notice when their website has been updated. FDOT should consider something like this for the ETDM site. Response: Thank you for the comment. • In the GIS data base, there should be a box for citizens to check that they want to be notified if a project comes into a specific area. Response: That is a good idea. That would be a simple way to let people stay aware of what is happening. • It is unclear how this process will deal with changes in public opinion over the time period it will still take to develop and build a project. Response: The Community Impact Assessment process will continue over time and will be updated over time. • Clarify how this ETDM process differs from the MPO process now. Response: The role of the CAC will remain pretty much the same. After the CAC looks at the needs assessment, those projects would then go through ETAT review and the CAC could follow that. • Clarify who funds the ETAT and who will sit on it. Response: Anyone with state or federal review will sit on the ETAT and they will be supported financially by their individual agencies. There is some limited federal funding for new positions under federal law if an agency doesn't have enough manpower. • Clarify if this process helps with the problem of special interests getting involved early and running the show. Response: This does not address that issue- that is politics. • This process doesn't address the real issue that most people just don't get involved. How will this help get public input? Response: That is the role and point of the CIA process. • I like this process because it provides an avenue for organized groups to have some input. It is just a fact that much of a community is just not interested. The job is to make knowledge available to them. Response: Thank you for the comment. • The only way to stop the cycle of late stops is to get that person who would be concerned about bulldozers in their yard involved five years before the bulldozers come. Need some public relations and public information actions. Need to give the MPOs resources to do this. Response: Thank you. • The issue of how the ETDM process will interact with the state clearing house function should be looked at. Response: This is being done. Consideration is being given to perhaps using the advance notification process differently. • Clarify how the CIA will interact with neighborhood groups working on a revitalization effort and trying to get community values inserted in FDOT projects. Will the CIA person proactively reach out to these groups? Response: The CIA will proactively come to such a group if the project shows up. Even if all the agencies check "no involvement", FDOT who is the advocate for the human environment can still raise a red flag based on community concerns. • The true test of this process will be if projects actually change as a result. In addition to the verbal comments above, the following written comments were submitted: • Use the information kiosks that are deployed with the ITS program to allow public access to the ETDM system. (West Florida Regional Planning Council/MPO representative) • Use of the Public TV channels is one means to disseminate information without the need for meetings. This could also be a method to reach citizens without available transportation; however manpower could be a tough issue. This would also potentially address a segment of the population not on-line. (West Florida Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Planning representative) • Need to build in periodic reviews since many of the parameters are not static; these items include public opinion, future land use, population distribution, government boundaries (city limits). (West Florida Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Planning representative) • Need to involve the Department of Defense on the ETAT. (West Florida Regional Planning Council Comprehensive Planning representative) • State and local regulations all call for citizen involvement and all planning processes have this element. There are many tools and opportunities out there: CACs, how-to-manuals. The problem comes form several areas: 1) public apathy (they need to see the bulldozer); 2) mistrust of the process (big developers drive the ship); and 3) lack of information (not enough advertising). There is a need to develop interest and participation of an informed citizenry. The job is: 1) marketing and publicity; 2) getting them to understand the importance of their early inputs; and 3) getting timely information to them. This is a Public Relations/Information need. (Institute of Senior Professionals representative) • Add screen to explain to public how they can make a comment - names, addresses, e-mails. (NWFRPC MPO Public Involvement Coordinator) • Add military communities in Northwest Florida to the ETAT because they own big land areas and are very environmentally engaged. Contact me for specific names. (NWFRPC MPO Public Involvement Coordinator) • GIS data layers are incomplete or non-existent on some lands, for instance St. Joe lands. Field surveys in the absence of good environmental data is crucial. (Bay County Audubon Society representative) • We feel that environmental factors, e.g. destruction of wetlands, rare plant an animal species and their communities, should be given more weight in the decision process than some other factors - economic, for example. (Bay County Audubon Society representative) • Designate a single point of contact that all interested parties can reach for all project information. (Commuter Service of North Florida representative) • Use marketing
studies to locate community profile and gather input on particular projects.
(Commuter Service of North Florida representative) Mr. Pattison closed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. He thanked everyone for their participation and insightful comments. Summary Staff
Attending: Charles Pattison and Alex Magee, 1000 Friends of Florida Organizations
Attending: West Volusia Audubon Mr. Turton gave a power point presentation on the ETDM process and the role of citizen/non governmental organizations in the process. Mr. Turton clarified that the ETDM process will result in construction permits being pulled earlier in the process than is done now. Permitting will be done at the completion of PD&E with the NEPA record of decision, not when a project goes into Design. This change is trying to address a Congressional concern about a nationwide disconnect between the NEPA decisions and permitting Lee Ann Jacobs gave a brief overview of the Community Impact Assessment (CIA) process. The following comments resulted from the presentations: • It is unclear when the GIS system will be available to the public. Response: The GIS system will be up and running in October. In January 2002, four pilot projects will begin. Statewide implementation and use will be in about two years. The system will be available to the public in January 2003. • There should be NGO environmental representation on each ETAT. Environmental groups don't really see themselves as a special interest that needs to be balanced. One of the main purposes of creating this ETDM process is to protect the environment. There are a limited number of statewide groups with really good expertise with respect to environmental issues - perhaps they could serve on individual ETATs. Response: That is a good question, but the question is how would you chose which group was put on ETAT? (The Volusia MPO representative also added that the ETAT is not just environmental; it is a holistic approach. CIA is there to identify who is the community and the values of that community. And those community values may not be those of environmental groups. It puts the onus on the MPO to do a real balancing act and puts the onus on the public to really participate). • There are excellent planning tools for the environment on a regional/state basis but there is no requirement for the MPO to use them. Environmental issues are factual. NGOs have more flexibility than agencies who have to deal with the political arena and NGOs could act as a watchdog on the ETAT to ensure that politics don't bind agencies. Politicians don't really represent the public. In the current process, the public is finding out about projects at the PD&E stage. The new process is good because it brings information out sooner but having an environmental NGO on ETAT would help funnel public desires in to the process. Response: The MOU being executed between state agencies says that when there is a red flag associated with a project, dispute resolution must occur before the project is programmed. But we will discuss the issue of an environmental NGO representative on the ETAT further. • As a long time participant in lots of workgroups, agency representatives tend to repeat what the agency head or political party in power wants them to say, not necessarily what is right. I am not sure how you get around this. You need to make sure that parameters for agency representatives on the ETAT allow them freedom to say what they really mean and not what is politically expedient. Response: FDOT is working to develop a framework for the public involvement process to complement ETDM. We will be sending that information out to the participants of these forums for their input. ETDM represents the environment while CIA is there for the human environment. • It appears that the analysis of road projects will incorporate social/environmental justice issues. Is that a go/no go issue for a particular project? Response: FDOT will be trying to identify groups that have been left out in the past and bring them to the table. This info will be part of the data base. (The MPO representative stated that it is difficult to get these groups to tell what they want - you tend to get comments on what is not wanted). • The public
doesn't understand the transportation Response: Part of the solution is marketing. Part is going to a group's regular meeting rather than holding a central meeting. We all need to think about public involvement in an imaginative way. • Red flag projects will be subject to dispute resolution under the ETDM process. Please clarify what that means. Response: We are still working on the details. Hopefully ETAT can work things out among themselves. But if resolution at that level can't be done, it will go to the agency heads in the local area, then to state agency heads, and then ultimately to the Governor. • There are some projects that just should not be built. Can there be a resolution that a project would be dropped and not built or is the focus on compromise so that a project can be built? Response: The focus is on conflict resolution which could result in a project not being built, switching to another mode etc. ETDM looks at the secondary/cumulative impacts at the LRTP stage. • The purpose of this process is to get public input before projects get put into the work program, and to find out what issues are associated with the project early on. Response: That is correct. • Bumping dispute resolution up within an agency won't necessarily resolve dispute. Before going to agency heads, it would be better to send it to a hearing officer, an unbiased person, to hear the facts and provide resolution. Response: That is a good suggestion. FDOT is trying to keep the dispute resolution at the local level as much as possible. Hopefully, earlier public involvement will keep the need for dispute resolution from happening very often. • It is important to have a NGO on the ETAT. They would serve as a link to informing other groups in the public arena and could help with the job of getting information out. Response: We have heard a lot of comments regarding how groups can find out about transportation projects. For the better known groups, it is likely that the District would have you on an e-mail list to let you know when a new phase or action associated with a project is coming up. • It is unclear how you are going to handle public input once this process goes on-line. Response: We are concerned about having the system compromised by Internet spam; this is why the public at this point can look at the information but not enter date directly. Public input will be channeled through the FDOT ETAT contact or other agency members. • Perhaps you could consider setting up courtesy rules for the use of the Internet site. Response: That is a good idea. • It is unclear how thresholds will be set regarding what significance gets placed on a project, i.e. flagging. Response: Flags won't be given thresholds. The agency reviewer will use professional judgement and knowledge of the local area to know the importance of the resource and apply the significance. The project summary report will identify responses to these issues. • Clarify if the agencies have decided what information they need in the GIS data base. Response: That is being done right now. • It is unclear if ETAT members will ever have meetings. Where is the human contact? Response: They will have meetings over significant issues but for the most part, reviews will be done individually from desks. Agencies have said they don't have the manpower to keep up with what needs to be done. They hope the GIS will help them identify which projects don't have problems so they concentrate on the projects that really require their attention. Site visits would still be done. The existing public involvement process will still go on and agencies may go if they feel a need. It is hope also that MPOs will use tools to bring information to you - information vis cable access channels or coming to a regular NGO meeting. We want to change the way public involvement is done. • Some of the data layers are not good. Is there going to be some way to update them? Response: The University of Florida is just the receiver of the information. ETAT agencies responsible for data are responsible for updating the information in the GIS layers. • It is unclear whether there has been any coordination between this process and the Advance Certification process. Will this result in a duplication of effort? Response: FDOT is trying to get agencies not to duplicate each others' efforts but to focus on what is really important. • The ETDM process seems to put a lot of onus on the MPOs. Response: MPOs, if you look at the current process, do 14 months of work in a 12 month process for TIPs. Consideration is being given to changing to a 2 year TIP cycle. We are also looking at ways that FDOT can provide more actual help and assistance to the MPOs. • If a project goes through this ETDM process, is there an understanding that the project will get permits at the end? Response: Absolutely not. • It would be a good idea to reach some compromise about NGOs on the ETAT - NGOs could help the public understand projects. Response: We will discuss this further. • Relying on individuals reviewing information on the computer eliminates what you can learn from someone else face to face, the spontaneous understanding or ideas that come from interacting with someone. Response: That is an interesting comment. People do have different skill levels for the written word. • It is very important to ensure that reviewers understand relationships and the feel of a community that you can only get from a site visit. Response: That is a good point. Reviewers will still be able to go on site visits as they feel necessary. • Public computer access to the GIS data base could be provided in MPO offices and also in universities and schools. Response: Good ideas. • Regarding the environmental justice issue, consider expanding the CIA assessment to look annually on a regional basis to help with this issue at the LRTP stage. Response: FDOT is currently working on a new PD&E manual chapter on CIA for the long range planning level to do just this. • Clarify whether the public will have access to the GIS database during the four pilot projects. If access is not provided, FDOT is losing the opportunity to test how well that system works in providing information to interested citizens. As access to the database is one of the things that FDOT is touting as a new way for improving public involvement, access to this data should be provided during the pilot project stage. Response: This is the first time this comment has been raised. Currently the public would not have access to the GIS data base during the pilot project stage unless the affected MPO wants to allow it. But that will be reconsidered. In addition to the verbal comments above, the following written comments were submitted: • I highly commend FDOT for the direction this process has taken- it has the potential to be a national model. (Defenders of Wildlife representative) • I would like to see one or two environmental group representatives to be included in agency meetings and would like an NGO representative on each ETAT. (Defenders of Wildlife representative) • The setting
of thresholds will be critical and it is important to keep NGOs involved in
this. • Conflict resolution should be handled by independent, non-political hearing officer type mediator before it goes to agency heads. (Defenders of Wildlife representative) • Set up T-1 computers available to the public at state agencies, MPO offices, and universities. (Defenders of Wildlife representative) • Expressway Authorities do not have to comply with local land use plans. Will these roads go through the ETAT process? Also does this process look at the secondary and cumulative impacts of road development. Roads often spur growth as a result of their development and it is important that these impacts be looked at during the transportation decision process. (East Central Florida Regional Planning Council representative via the telephone)
Summary Staff
Attending: Charles Pattison and Alex Magee, 1000 Friends of Florida Organizations
Attending: Manatee Audubon Society
Mr. Turton gave a power point presentation on the ETDM process and the role of citizen/non governmental organizations in the process. He explained that this process would not require any rule changes. The following comments resulted from his presentation: • Project impacts appear to be broken down into natural, social, and cultural impacts. The built or human environment already appears to outweigh the natural environment because there are two categories for the human environment versus only one for the natural environment. Why not break the natural category into two subcategories? Response: It is not the number of subcategories that is important, it is the issues that will be looked at. • Who does the land use planning and look at the secondary impacts of decisions? We constantly get roads to nowhere and then development follows. FDOT may have a better system but if secondary/cumulative impacts aren't looked at, the results won't be any better. Response: This needs to be done at the planning stage by the local governments and MPOs. • Will this new process help in situations where property is purchased under a program such as CARL to protect the natural resources, and later FDOT proposes to build a road which cuts through this property? Response: This process should help with those issues as the reviewing agencies can bring up those conflicts earlier in the review process. • Everyonewon't have access to the improved data located on the website. FDOT should work with public libraries to have an ETDM or ETAT hot button that comes up on the individual library home page, to make it easier for people using library computers to get the information. Response: This is a good idea. • There needs to be a defined process for keeping the public informed over time. If FDOT is seriously going to use a data base, there has to be a real effort to keep the data base updated. In the past, names changes or corrections to other FDOT mailing lists have never been made. FDOT also has to make sure that the website is updated promptly. Response: Yes. • The presentation implies that only state or federally funded projects go through the ETAT process. It is unclear whether all projects go through the ETAT review process or only state projects. Most new alignment construction that raise environmental concerns are done by local governments. FDOT is now in the business of adding lanes to additional corridors. This new process will not help local governments or MPOs get agency feedback any earlier than they get it now if only state or federally funded projects go through the process. Response: FDOT stated that only state or federally funded projects would be going through the ETAT process. The FHWA representative stated that local projects would be included in the long range plan submitted by the MPOs (and FDOT in rural areas) for the first screen by the ETAT. Thus ETAT members would have the ability to raise comments about local projects at the same time as they were reviewing the state/federal projects. • The presentation does not address how public input will be weighed. For example, say there are two possibilities for a road - one goes through a neighborhood and one goes through a swamp. The whole neighborhood comes out against the road in their area and only a couple of people come forward on behalf of the swamp. How will this input be weighed? Response: It is anticipated that the environmental agencies on ETAT would be supporting the swamp. Citizens need to continue to use their contacts within these agencies to further their causes- ETDM does not eliminate the need for maintaining these contacts and relationships.
• To protect our wetlands when planning the roads and housing, it is important to avoid disturbing the wetlands, swamps, saw grass or lakes. It is best to build up around them or build a bridge over them. (Manatee County Historical Commission representative). • The ETAT is an excellent concept. It has the potential to make government much more efficient, and make information on projects more readily available. (City of St. Petersburg representative.) • An interactive forum, similar to that for agencies, needs to be provided for NGO and public comments to be input. This should be the primary mechanism for early identification of community and social impacts/issues. This input should be evaluated and summarized in the project report along with the agency comments. (Lee County MPO representative.) • MPOs should have the opportunity to subject non-state, locally funded projects to the ETAT review. (Lee County MPO representative.) • MPO and Manatee County Commission meet during daytime work hours. (Sierra Club representative.) • There were terrible FDOT questionnaires for the Upper Manatee River Road widening and 6-lane $62 million bridge over Ft. Hammer Rd/Bridge - there was no way to tell what people want. How do you access on the Internet what people want? (Sierra Club representative.) Mr. Pattison closed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. He thanked everyone for their participation and insightful comments, and reminded everyone of the importance of staying involved, particularly at the early stages of comprehensive planning and long range transportation planning.
|