Executive Decision Making for Transportation Capacity: The Multiagency Context (2014)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9C h a p t e r 3 In addition to the staff-level practitioners, the audience for TCAPP includes the leaders of the organizations that need to be engaged in collaboration. These leaders and their agencies each have unique interests, geographic organization, organiza- tional hierarchies, and cultural leanings. By understanding the various segments of this diverse market, the C22 team can craft potential messages that are relevant to the backgrounds, moti- vations, and contexts for members of the target audience. This section discusses key considerations in the overall context for collaboration and interest-based problem solving. Further, it identifies and describes the leadership cadres in the various organizations that are important in implementing a collaborative approach for advancing transportation capacity projects. This description of the context within which leader- ship is displayed is organized according to the following orga- nizational groupings: • Federal agencies; • Native American tribes; • State governments; • Metropolitan area governments; and • Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). This is a vast and diverse audience, encompassing an exten- sive federal government, 564 tribal entities, 50 state govern- ments, 381 metropolitan areas, and thousands of NGOs. While the agencies’ missions are distinct, they are often overlapping, and the agencies approach issues relevant to transportation from different perspectives. In addition, the leadership struc- ture and decision-making authority surrounding transporta- tion varies among the agencies. Add this to the inconsistent geographic boundaries of divisions or districts, and it can lead to a confusing situation for partnering agencies. As such, the detailed information that follows is fairly lengthy. It is the hope of the authors that a reader will go directly to the agency of interest and delve into relevant details. For those readers seeking an overview of audience characteristics, Table 3.1 provides an overview of the federal agencies, including their missions and how they are organized into regions or divisions. Information was compiled primarily from web research of the various organizations profiled. When questions arose, clari- fication, interpretation, and contextualization were obtained via e-mail exchanges and telephone conversations, as needed. the Context for Collaboration When agency leaders create a climate of collaboration that spans a broad spectrum of project and process interactions and that aims to build productive long-term relationships among the agencies, this climate facilitates efficient and effec- tive transportation decision making. By sending the right message through their words and actions, leaders will secure a greater level of partnership among the front line staff of each organization. While the TCAPP Decision Guide focuses on capacity projects from planning through transportation improvement programming and project development, the reality is that the leadership of federal and state environmental resource and permitting agencies is not likely to get personally involved in any but the most highly visible transportation projects—and even then, not until that project faces a serious problem. Lead- ers rarely engage in the substantive issues involved in trans- portation planning. A more likely—but still rare—situation is for environmental agency leaders to get involved in approv- ing and launching the products of initiatives to change busi- ness practices, processes, and relationships involving two or more key agencies (3). These programmatic agreements offer the potential of achieving positive outcomes for the agencies involved while saving staff time and budget, reducing project timelines, and avoiding interagency conflicts. While these programmatic initiatives can take years to con- summate, they can pay dividends to the agencies for decades. For example, a national initiative to merge the NEPA process used by FHWA with the permitting process of the U.S. Army The Audience

10 Table 3.1. Federal Agency Missions and Organizational Structure Agency Name Mission Senior Executive Title Organizational Structure Federal Highway Administration To improve mobility on our nation’s highways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery. Administrator 3 Regions (52 Field Service Offices, adhere state or district boundaries) Map: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/field.cfm North (CT, IL, IN, IA, ME, MA, MI, MN, MS, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV, WI) South (AL, AR, DE, DC, FL, GA, KS, KY, LA, MD, MS, NC, OK, PR, SC, TN, TX, VA) West (AK, AZ, CA, CO, HI, ID, MN, NE, NV, NM, ND, OR, SD, UT, WA, WY) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE Mission: Provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen our nation’s security, energize the economy, and reduce risks from disasters. USACE Civil Works Mission: Contribute to the national welfare and serve the public by providing the nation and the Army with qual- ity and responsive development and management of the nation’s water resources; protection, restoration, and management of the environment; disaster response and recovery; engineering and technical services in an environmentally sustainable, economic, and technically sound manner through partnerships. Assistant secretary of the Army 8 Divisions (37 District Offices, do not adhere to state boundaries) Map: www.usace.army.mil/Locations.aspx North Atlantic (6 district offices) South Atlantic (5 district offices) Great Lakes and Ohio River Division (7 district offices) Mississippi Valley Division (6 district offices) Northwestern Division (5 district offices) Southwestern Division (4 district offices) South Pacific Division (4 district offices) Environmental Protec- tion Agency To protect human health and the environment. Administrator 10 Regions (adhere to state boundaries) Map: http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/where.html Region 1 (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT) Region 2 (NY, NJ, PR, US VI) Region 3 (PA, DE, MD, DC, VA, WV) Region 4 (KY, TN, NC, SC, GA, AL, FL, MS) Region 5 (OH, IN, IL, MI, WI, MN) Region 6 (AR, LA, OK, TX, MN) Region 7 (IA, MO, NE, KS) Region 8 (ND, SD, MT, WY, CO, UT) Region 9 (NV, AZ, CA, HI) Region 10 (WA, OR, ID, AK) Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. Secretary 8 Regions (adhere to state boundaries) Map: http://www.doi.gov/pmb/oepc/reo.cfm Boston, Mass., Regional Office (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ) Philadelphia, Pa., Regional Office (PA, DE, MD, VA, WV, OH, IN, MI, IL, WI, MN) Atlanta, Ga., Regional Office (NC, SC, KY, TN, GA, FL, AL, MS, PR, US VI, Guam) Albuquerque, N.M., Regional Office (AR, LA, OK, TX, NM) Denver, Colo., Regional Office (ND, SD, NE, IA, MO, KS, CO, MT, WY, UT) Portland, Ore., Regional Office (WA, OR, ID) San Francisco, Calif., Regional Office (CA, NV, AZ, HI) Anchorage, Alaska, Regional Office (AK) (continued on next page)

11 Table 3.1. Federal Agency Missions and Organizational Structure (continued) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. Director 8 Regions (generally adhere to state boundaries) Map: http://www.fws.gov/where/ Pacific Region (ID, OR, WA, HI, Pacific Islands) Southwest Region (AZ, NM, OK, TX) Great Lakes-Big Rivers Region (IL, IN, IA, MI, MS, MN, OH, WS) Southeast Region (AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, PR, SC, TN) Northeast Region (CT, DE, ME, MD, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, RI, VT, VA, WV) Mountain-Prairie Region (CO, KS, MN, ND, NE, SD, UT, WY) Alaska Region (AK) California and Nevada Region (CA, NV, Klamath Basin of Oregon) National Park Service The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future genera- tions. The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. Director 7 Regions (adhere to state boundaries) Map: www.nps.gov/aboutus/images/nps_regions_1.jpg Northeast Region (ME, NH, VT, MA, NY, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA, WV) National Capital Region (DC) Southeast Region (NC, SC, KY, TN, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, PR) Midwest Region (OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, MS, AR, ND, SD, NE, KS) Intermountain Region (OK, TX, CO, WY, UT, NM, AZ) Pacific West Region (WA, OR, ID, NV, CA, HI) Alaska Region (AK) National Marine Fisheries Service Stewardship of living marine resources through science-based conservation and management and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. Assistant administrator 6 Regions (adhere to state boundaries) Map: www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/coordinators.htm Alaska (AK) Northeast (ME, NH, MA, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE, MD, VA) Northwest (WA, OR) Southeast (NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, MS, LA, TX, PR, VI) Southwest (CA) Pacific Islands (HI, Guam, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands) U.S. Forest Service To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Chief 9 Regions (generally adhere to state boundaries) Map: www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/regions/index.shtml Eastern Region (ME, NH, VT, MA, RI, CT, NY, PA, NJ, DE, MD, WV, OH, MI, IN, IL, WI, MN, IA, MO) Southern Region (DC, VA, NC, SC, GA, FL, KY, TN, AL, MS, AR, LA, OK, TX) Rocky Mountain Region (SD, NE, KS, part of WY, CO) Northern Region (ND, MT, northern ID) Intermountain Region (Southern ID, part of WY, UT, NV) Southwestern Region (AZ, NM) Pacific Southwest Region (CA, HI) Pacific Northwest Region (WA, OR) Alaska Region (AK) Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation promotes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of our nation’s diverse historic resources, and advises the president and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. Executive director No regional designation

12 Corps of Engineers began in the mid-1980s and did not fully mature until after 2000. The NEPA-404 merger concept was largely ineffectual until a complaint that delays in the 404 pro- cess were preventing highways projects from contributing to the economic recovery from the 1990-to-1991 recession. Agency heads and top field executives from partner organizations con- vened at a summit, pledging to forge regional agreements to implement the NEPA-404 merger. By the end of the decade, NEPA-404 merge processes were in place covering most of the country. Other programmatic initiatives seek simply to give agency staff permission to experiment and innovate along certain lines. One example is Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, an interagency framework developed by the staffs of FHWA and seven federal environ- mental agencies that culminated in a report signed in 2005 by leaders at all eight agencies. More information can be found at www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp. An important context for interagency collaboration is the nature of long-standing relationships among the agencies. The relationships are complex and varied, and an understanding of the major undercurrents in these relationships can help in craft- ing effective collaboration messages. To better understand the dynamics between transportation and environmental agencies, FHWA commissioned a survey by the Gallup Organization. The results of the 2006 transportation and resource agency manager survey, summarized in Table 3.2, underscore the con- clusion that relationships could be improved by a number of trust-building measures on both sides of the transportation- environmental agency table. Respondents were asked for their overall general assessment of the sister agencies with which they worked. Transportation managers were asked general questions about the resource agencies and resource managers were asked general questions about transportation agencies. Federal agencies Nine federal agencies (listed in Table 3.3) are involved in sat- isfactorily addressing key regulatory processes for transporta- tion capacity projects. The TCAPP Decision Guide explicitly Table 3.2. What Transportation and Environmental Agency Managers Think of Each Other Ratings Somewhat Agree (%) Strongly Agree (%) Resource Agencies Rating Transportation Agencies Understands your agency’s mission. 41 26 Cares about your agency’s mission. 34 16 Is committed to doing quality work. 43 33 Has competent staff. 51 27 There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies. 35 18 Is committed to making the environmental review process a timely one while ensuring environmentally sound projects. 33 19 Is willing to compromise. 37 11 There is a sufficient level of communication between your two agencies. 36 19 Is committed to protecting the environment. 30 16 Transportation Agencies Rating Resource Agencies Understands your agency’s mission. 40 20 Cares about your agency’s mission. 27 10 Is committed to doing quality work. 43 30 Has competent staff. 43 22 There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies. 30 14 Is committed to making the environmental review run efficiently. 30 13 Is willing to compromise. 26 4 There is a sufficient level of communication between your two agencies. 39 14 Is committed to transportation improvements. 16 12 Source: www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/Gallup/05-07_report/ch7_Genl_Managers.htm. Survey for FHWA, Gallup Organization, 2006.

13 addresses two major processes involving federal agencies: the NEPA process and the 404 permit process. The Decision Guide assumes that these two processes have been merged so that common elements such as purpose and need and analysis of alternatives are handled in a single integrated process. Other common federal processes that affect the timing and out- come of project approvals are those involved in complying with the following laws: Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, the Endangered Species Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Recognizing the need to address the issues in these areas efficiently, FHWA has a long- standing policy and practice of demonstrating compliance with these and other less common federal environmental laws through the analyses, coordination, documentation, and decision making carried out under a NEPA umbrella. The following sections describe the leadership context and structure for each of the federal agencies listed above. Each agency description addresses the following items: mission; vision; strategic plan; organization chart (link provided); leadership (head and field); and backdrop for collaboration (including notes on interagency relations, institutional cul- ture, and recent initiatives). The leadership description includes those key positions likely to interact with transportation decision makers for capacity projects and the transportation program in general. It is important to note that, in most cases, transportation issues do not constitute a major element of their job respon- sibilities. The leadership description also indicates which positions are political appointments and which are career appointments and places them in a hierarchical ranking, as illustrated in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 helps in interpreting the lead- ership descriptions and backdrop for collaboration. In mak- ing comparisons among the various types of appointments and how best to approach an agency, it is most instructive to Table 3.3. Federal Agencies and Their Involvement in Regulatory Processes Agency NEPA 404 4(f) ESA NHPA Federal Highway Administration c c c c c U.S. Army Corps of Engineers c c c c Environmental Protection Agency c c Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary c c c c U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service c c c National Park Service c c National Marine Fisheries Service c c c U.S. Forest Service c c Advisory Council on Historic Preservation c c Source: Cambridge Systematics, 2011. Table 3.4. Leadership Rank by Type of Appointment Type of Appointment Hierarchy/Rank (in Descending Order) Presidential appointment (political slots, some requiring Senate confir- mation), noncareer appointment I II III IV V Senior Executive Service Career appointment Senior Executive Service GS-15 GS-14 GS-13 Military General Lieutenant General Major General Brigadier General Colonel Lieutenant Colonel look at the positions within the context of each agency’s hier- archy. Their geographical and organizational structures matter. Agency: Federal Highway Administration Mission To improve mobility on our nation’s highways through national leadership, innovation, and program delivery. Vision Our agency and our transportation system are the best in the world.

14 Strategic Plan In 2010, FHWA updated its strategic plan (www.fhwa.dot.gov/ policy/fhplan.html). Collaboration is explicitly called out as one of FHWA’s core values. Under the program delivery goal, FHWA has an objective to develop and continually improve FHWA’s ability to deliver its programs in a way that reduces impacts on the environment and maximizes opportunities for enhancement. Organization Chart See www.fhwa.dot.gov/about/org/. Leadership FHWA is headed by an Administrator, who is presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed, Level II on the executive scale. The FHWA deputy administrator is a noncareer Senior Executive Service (SES) appointment. The executive director, a career SES position, is the top career official of the FHWA and the one who leads FHWA during political transitions. The executive director has historically been an engineer, but nonengineers have filled this position. The associate admin- istrator for policy and the chief counsel, two noncareer SES political positions, frequently get involved in environmental issues at either a project or policy level, especially those in which members of Congress are actively engaged. Regarding its major program area, federal aid to the states, FHWA divides the nation into three geographic regions, each headed by a career SES director of field services. The nation is further subdivided into 52 federal aid divisions (one for each state, plus Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico), each headed by a division administrator. Division administrators are all at the GS-15 level, except those in California, Texas, and Florida, which are career SES slots. Directors of field services evaluate the performance of division administrators but do not have techni- cal line authority over divisions. They sometimes get involved in project or program matters when protocol demands that a higher-level official than a division administrator represent FHWA. The vast majority of FHWA’s field leadership have an engineering background and have spent the majority of their careers with FHWA. Backdrop for Collaboration FHWA institutionalized collaboration through its oversight of the NEPA process, employing concepts of lead and coop- erating agency and intensive interagency cooperation and public involvement under the “NEPA umbrella.” Other initia- tives promoting collaboration include the FHWA support and development of CSS as a project development philosophy and its long-time relationship with the Institute for Environ- mental Conflict Resolution. FHWA also focuses on the envi- ronment by embedding it in other goals, especially program delivery. Agency: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Mission • USACE Mission: Provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen our nation’s security, ener- gize the economy, and reduce risks from disasters. • USACE Civil Works Mission: Contribute to the national welfare and serve the public by providing the nation and the U.S. Army with quality and responsive development and management of the nation’s water resources; protec- tion, restoration, and management of the environment; disaster response and recovery; engineering and technical services in an environmentally sustainable, economic, and technically sound manner through partnerships. Vision A great engineering force of highly disciplined people work- ing with our partners through disciplined thought and action to deliver innovative and sustainable solutions to the nation’s engineering challenges. Strategic Plan The Corps’ strategic plan for civil works explicitly embraces a watershed approach and stresses collaboration as one of the key elements of this approach (www.iwr.usace.army.mil/ About/History/CivilWorksStrategicPlan.aspx). Organization Chart www.usace.army.mil/about/HQORG/Pages/HQStructure .aspx. Leadership The civil works element of the USACE responsibilities is overseen by an assistant secretary of the Army (civil works), a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed position, Level IV on the executive scale. Also prominent on environmen- tal issues is the principal deputy assistant secretary, a non- career SES slot. These two individuals are not part of the USACE per se, but have oversight responsibilities within the Department of the Army. Their backgrounds vary, but they often come from state government, Congress, or White House backgrounds and can have academic backgrounds in various fields.

15 The head of the USACE itself is the chief of engineers, an army lieutenant general. The civil works program is headed by the deputy commanding general for civil and emergency operations, a major general, with a civilian, career SES slot as the director of civil works. Other headquarters positions involved in the transportation program are chief, operations division (career SES), and the chief of the regulatory branch (GS-15). The military positions tend to be held by officers with engineering degrees who have had some prior experi- ence with USACE as well as assignments in other parts of the U.S. Army. The civilian slots are usually long-time USACE employees. Many have an engineering background, while the regulatory branch chief tends to have an environmental background. The United States is subdivided into eight divisions and further subdivided into 37 districts. Each division is com- manded by a division commander, an army major general, brigadier general, or colonel, depending on workload and complexity of the division. Reporting to them are district commanders, also known as district engineers, who are army colonels or lieutenant colonels. These army officers are engineers with varied military backgrounds. The dis- tricts are the focal point for issuing 404 permits, a function that is managed by district regulatory chiefs, who are typi- cally at the GS-14 level but may be at the GS-15 level in large districts. Regulatory chiefs tend to have environmental backgrounds. Backdrop for Collaboration As its name implies, the Corps of Engineers is an engineering organization, built on a long tradition of military engineers (West Point was the nation’s first engineering school). The leadership must pay attention to both military construction and civil works, and environmental protection and enhance- ment has evolved to become a USACE emphasis. From a leadership perspective, the Corps is unique among federal agencies in terms of its military/civilian dichotomy. At the highest level, USACE military leaders interact with a number of civilian politically appointed assistant secretaries of the Army. The assistant secretary for civil works—the one who is relevant to the transportation world—is just one of several assistant secretaries of the Army who oversee the policies and operations of the Corps. USACE has a long history of supporting collaboration and has recently developed a report, Building Strong Collaborative Relationships for a Sustainable Water Resource Future: National Report. The current USACE director of civil works played a substantial personal role in this report. The USACE engineering history and culture have helped in creating positive relationships with FHWA and state DOTs, which have historically been engineering organizations. Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Mission To protect human health and the environment. Strategic Plan EPA recently released its fiscal year 2011–2015 strategic plan. To accomplish the goals outlined in the plan, EPA has a num- ber of crosscutting fundamental strategies. The one of greatest interest to TCAPP is strengthening state, tribal, and inter- national partnerships. More information is available at www .epa.gov/planandbudget/strategicplan.html. Organization Chart See www.epa.gov/aboutepa/organization.html. Leadership EPA is an independent federal agency (not a department) headed by an Administrator, a presidentially appointed, Senate- confirmed post, Level II on the executive scale. The deputy administrator also is a presidentially appointed, Senate- confirmed slot, but is Level III on the executive scale. EPA has nine assistant administrators, all of whom are presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed, Level IV on the executive scale. Of greatest interest are the assistant administrator for enforcement and compliance assurance, assistant administrator for water, and assistant administrator for air and radiation. Within those offices career leadership include the director of the Office of Federal Activities that deals with NEPA matters in other agen- cies, the director of wetlands, oceans, and watersheds, and the director of the Office of Transportation and Air Quality. These are all career SES slots. The political leadership above typically have an environmental background with states, nongovern- mental organizations, and congressional committees and often have been with EPA earlier in their career. Law and public policy degrees are fairly common. Career executives typically have an academic background in environmental policy and science and have considerable tenure with EPA. EPA has 10 regions, each led by a regional administrator, a political, noncareer SES slot, who is assisted by a deputy admin- istrator, a career SES slot. Each region then has different names and titles for the next organizational subdivision; however, it is typical to have separate subdivisions that address NEPA reviews, water issues, and air quality. The division director at the regional level would typically be at the GS-15 level. Backdrop for Collaboration EPA has done a great deal of work in interest-based negotia- tion and collaboration, including extensive internal training.

16 One product of this effort was a cooperative grant program for environmental justice collaborative problem solving. Agency: Department of the Interior Mission The Department of the Interior (DOI) protects and man- ages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; pro- vides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to Native Americans, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities. Strategic Plan DOI recently released its fiscal year 2011–2016 strategic plan. See www.doi.gov/bpp/data/PPP/DOI_StrategicPlan.pdf. Organization Chart See www.doi.gov/whoweare/orgchart.cfm. Leadership The Secretary (presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed, exec- utive Level I) and deputy secretary (presidentially appointed, Senate confirmed, executive Level II) are supported by six assistant secretaries, five of whom have line authority over the subagencies of the department (collectively called bureaus). Of particular note to the transportation program are the assistant secretary for policy, management and budget; the assistant secretary for fish, wildlife, and parks; and the assistant secretary for Indian affairs. All of these positions are presiden- tially appointed, Senate-confirmed, executive Level IV slots. These political appointees generally have an academic background in law, policy, or liberal arts and have previous job experience as leaders of state agencies, NGOs, or as elected officials or Congressional staff. Another headquarters posi- tion of note is the director of the Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (career SES), who oversees the depart- ment’s review of NEPA actions of other federal agencies, including synthesizing comments and concerns of the vari- ous bureaus within the department. This person usually has an environmental management background. Leader- ship of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service are described in detail in subsequent agency profiles. The department has eight regional offices that are organi- zationally attached to the headquarters Office of Environ- mental Policy and Compliance. These offices are headed by regional environmental officers who are at the GS-15 level. Backdrop for Collaboration Section 4(f) is one issue that DOI handles that can have an important effect on a transportation capacity project timing and outcome. DOI also gets involved in approving replacement land under the Land and Water Conservation Act process. Agency: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Mission Work with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing ben- efit of the American people. Vision Unite all Service Programs to lead or support ecosystem- level conservation. We will achieve this by becoming a more technically capable and culturally diverse organization; through involving stakeholders; through scientific expertise; through land and water management; and through appro- priate regulation. Organization Chart See www.fws.gov/offices/orgcht.html. Leadership The director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) is a Senate-confirmed presidential appointment, Level V on the executive scale. The position is usually filled by a career mem- ber of USFWS or by the head of a state fish and wildlife agency. The incumbent almost always has a background in the bio- logical sciences. This position is the only noncareer (political) leadership position within USFWS. The director is supported by two deputy directors and 11 assistant directors. The two that have the most interaction with transportation are the assistant director for fisheries and habitat conservation and the assistant director for endangered species. Another of the leadership corps who presents opportunities for collaboration is the director of the National Conservation Training Center. These three positions are career SES positions and are typically filled with individuals with long tenure at USFWS who have backgrounds in the biological sciences. USFWS has eight regional offices led by regional directors, who manage the full USFWS portfolio in their geographic areas. Managing program issues involving endangered spe- cies and wildlife refuges often represent their biggest time commitment, in addition to generalized leadership and man- agement duties. These are career SES positions, and USFWS considers them to be executive leadership positions.

17 At the subregional level, USFWS splits into different pro- gram responsibilities. Wildlife refuges are a major staffing component. However, the principal program area that inter- faces with DOTs is the Ecological Services Offices. These offices are typically one per state and are headed by a field supervisor. USFWS considers these to be senior leadership positions. They are typically filled at the GS-14 level. Backdrop for Collaboration USFWS has an internal leadership development document, USFWS Leadership Competency Development Model, that offers a pathway for employees at all levels to develop the skills and experiences needed to reach the top levels of the organization. This model offers insights into how a collabo- ration message might be packaged to be relevant and appeal- ing to USFWS senior and executive leaders. USFWS strategic documents emphasize partnering with others. While typi- cally this model relates to partnering with private landowners and NGOs, it nevertheless provides a starting point for any mes- sage that emphasizes a collaborative model for interacting with outside entities. Agency: National Park Service Mission The National Park Service (NPS) preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. NPS cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and the world. Strategic Plan The NPS strategic plan has a number of strategies for accom- plishing its goals. One strategy emphasizes collaboration with partners of all kinds, including federal and state agencies. See http://planning.nps.gov/document/NPS_strategic_plan.pdf. Organization Chart See www.nps.gov/aboutus/upload/nps_org.pdf (also www .nps.gov/aboutus/organization.htm). Leadership NPS is led by a director, who is presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed. This position is Level V on the executive scale and is frequently filled by a career employee and some- times by a state park director. The remainder of the leadership cadre within headquarters are career SES officials and include two deputy directors, two assistant directors, and five associate directors. Of greatest importance to the transportation pro- gram are the deputy director for operations, who oversees the regions and interacts extensively with park road issues, and the associate director for cultural resources, who oversees the office of the keeper of the National Register of Historic Places. NPS leaders usually have spent their career with NPS and have academic backgrounds in history or natural resources. NPS has seven regions, led by regional directors who occupy career SES slots. The regions oversee the Park Service units, of which there are 394, including 58 national parks, and part- nership programs with states, such as the wild and scenic rivers program. An NPS unit is managed by a park super- intendent, who is responsible for all matters relating to one or more units. Superintendents of the most politically important units are career SES slots, with other slots being at the GS-15 level or below. Backdrop for Collaboration NPS has a long-standing relationship with FHWA due to their partnership on the park road program. Agency: National Marine Fisheries Service (also known as NOAA-Fisheries) Mission Stewardship of living marine resources through science- based conservation and management and the promotion of healthy ecosystems. Vision The American people enjoy the riches and benefits of healthy and diverse marine ecosystems. Strategic Plan The introduction to the strategic plan emphasizes partner- ships. More information is available here: www.nmfs.noaa .gov/mb/strategic/. Organization Chart See www.nmfs.noaa.gov/org_chart.htm. Leadership The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is led by the assistant administrator for fisheries, a noncareer SES slot that

18 is filled from within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or from outside organizations, such as coastal state departments of natural resources. The remain- ing headquarters leadership positions are career slots and include the deputy assistant administrator for regulatory programs (SES), who oversees the director, Office of Pro- tected Resources (SES), and the director, Office of Habitat Conservation (GS-15 level), both of whom manage programs that interface with transportation. Their backgrounds are in biology, natural resource management, and law. NMFS has six regional offices that are led by regional admin- istrators. All but one are career SES slots; the Seattle regional administrator is a noncareer SES position. Regional adminis- trators have varied backgrounds, including natural resource management, ecology, economics, engineering, and law. Agency: U.S. Forest Service Mission To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. Vision • We are recognized nationally and internationally as a leader in caring for the land and serving people. • We are a multicultural and diverse organization. • Employees work in a caring and nurturing environment where leadership is shared. • All employees are respected, accepted, and appreciated for their unique and important contribution to the mission. • The work is interesting, challenging, rewarding, and fun— more than just a job! • We are an efficient and productive organization that excels in achieving its mission. • Responsibility and accountability for excellence are shared by employees and partners. • The American people can count on the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to perform. Strategic Plan The strategic plan stresses the importance of partnerships as a way for the USFS to leverage its effectiveness in stewardship, research, and interagency coordination. See www.fs.fed.us/ publications/strategic/fs-sp-fy07-12.pdf. Organization Chart See www.fs.fed.us/plan/par/2005/docs/par-appendixes-back- 2005.pdf. Leadership The chief of the USFS is a career SES position. The incum- bent invariably comes from within USFS ranks and generally has an academic background in forest management. The chief is supported by an associate chief and five deputy chiefs. Of these five, the deputy chief of the National Forest System is the position most likely to engage with transporta- tion issues. These are career SES positions with incumbents coming to the jobs with significant field experience and back- grounds in forest management. USFS has nine regional offices led by regional foresters who report directly to the chief. Regional foresters are respon- sible for leading and coordinating among the national forests in their respective regions, including an emphasis on natural resource and social programs and land use coordination with neighboring state and local authorities. Regional foresters are career SES positions. The national forest system consists of 155 national forests and 20 national grasslands. Each national forest is managed by a forest supervisor, who has line authority for all functions within the national forest, including recreation, timber, and natural resource management. Forest supervisor slots are typically filled at the GS-15 level. Most of the national forests are in the western United States. Backdrop for Collaboration On national forests, USFS has a statutory authority to man- age for multiple objectives, some of which are conservation oriented and some of which seek to use the resource (through recreation, timbering, mining). USFS uses partnering and collaboration techniques to resolve these competing interests. USFS has documented this approach in a Partnership Guide, which it developed in cooperation with the National Forest Foundation. In the transportation arena, USFS interacts extensively with FHWA’s Federal Lands Highway Office, which partners with USFS to develop federal roads within the national forests. USFS also deals extensively with state DOTs and local govern- ments which administer roads that penetrate the national for- ests. This interaction often involves coordination on NEPA, Section 4(f), and Endangered Species Act issues and may involve negotiations regarding rights-of-way on national forest lands. Agency: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Mission The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) pro- motes the preservation, enhancement, and sustainable use of

19 our nation’s diverse historic resources, and advises the president and the Congress on national historic preservation policy. Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan explicitly calls for ACHP to facilitate col- laboration and partnerships between federal agencies and other parties as a way of advancing historic preservation (www.achp.gov/docs/strat_plan.pdf). Organization Chart See www.achp.gov/staff.html. Leadership ACHP is a small independent agency. It is governed by a council with part-time members and consists of the follow- ing: eight members appointed by the president, a member of an Indian tribe or native Hawaiian organization, a governor, a mayor, nine federal agency heads, the architect of the Capi- tol, the chairman of the National Trust for Historic Preserva- tion, and the president of the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers. The staff is led by an executive director, a career SES slot. Other leadership positions include the director of the Office of Federal Agency Programs and the assistant director for fed- eral permitting, licensing, and assistance. The persons occupy- ing these positions tend to have backgrounds in history, architecture, and law. Backdrop for Collaboration ACHP has collaborated with FHWA on programmatic mat- ters, such as how to handle the issue of the Interstate Highway System turning 50 years old and potentially being subject to historic preservation reviews. tribal entities As of October 1, 2010, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) listed 564 federally recognized tribal entities. “Tribal entity” is a term used to encompass tribes per se and other organiz- ing units such as native Alaskan villages. Collaboration with tribal entities on transportation capacity projects can involve two principal situations: (1) projects that are proposed to be located on Indian lands, or (2) projects that affect tribal inter- ests outside of tribal lands, such as off-reservation sacred sites or ancestral areas. Occasionally, a transportation project requires coordination with many tribes. Such was the case with the South Lawrence Trafficway in Lawrence, Kansas. This project required the Kansas DOT and the FHWA to contact hundreds of tribes with an interest in Haskell Indian Nation’s University, one of two BIA-administered universities nationwide. In this case, the project was adjacent to the uni- versity and affected areas historically used by students for spiritual purposes. Effective collaboration with tribes involves both cultural and historical sensitivity and a thorough familiarity with legal constructs governing the relationship of federal and state gov- ernments with tribes in general as well as with specific tribes. A fundamental concept is the government-to-government relationship between the tribe and the federal government. Best results are found when federal agencies await a tribe’s consent before delegating coordination responsibilities to state agencies. In those cases in which a collaboration protocol has not been established, it is helpful to build time into the process to arrive at a mutually acceptable understanding. Col- laboration is also enhanced when federal and state agencies build in time to research and understand any treaty obliga- tions that the federal government might have to specific tribes. One area of federal law in which tribes have assumed an increasing role is the National Historic Preservation Act. Amendments to the law established that tribal historic pres- ervation offices would function analogously to state historic preservation offices. BIA maintains a directory of leaders of the tribal entities (www.bia.gov/idc/groups/public/documents/text/idc- 001866.pdf). Each tribal entity has its own governance struc- ture with executive and legislative functions taking many forms. Leaders go by such titles as chairman, president, chief, and governor. State Government In contrast to the federal government, transportation is a highly visible issue in state government. Governors get directly involved in some matters. The state DOT is typically one of the most influential agencies. State environmental agencies are apt to have a more cooperative attitude toward advancing the DOT’s projects, legislatures and legislators are more involved in transportation programs and projects, and state transportation commissions can play an important role in advancing projects. All these factors point to a number of entities that can be influential in promoting or retarding the adoption of collaborative approaches: • Governors; • Legislatures; • State transportation commissions; • State transportation executives; • State environmental, resource, and planning agency execu- tives; and • State-chartered turnpike and toll authorities.

20 Because of the wide variety of state situations, it is not fea- sible to identify specific organizational structures and positions comprehensively. Instead, this report attempts to describe the organization and leadership concepts in play at the state level across the country and uses examples to illustrate these points. The majority of these examples are taken from case studies of five states: California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Mississippi. These states were selected on the basis of several factors, including • Geographic diversity; • Range of population and land area size; • Range of complexity of state environmental laws; • Centralized and decentralized state-level transportation decision making; and • Range of collaboration experiences. It also is interesting to note the diverse educational and professional backgrounds of leaders at the state level—and the different approaches agencies take to selecting their lead- ers. Some organizations typically hire individuals with long professional careers within their agency; others are more likely to recruit executives with strong management expertise or with backgrounds in political leadership or advocacy. The training and professional experience among these leaders shape their expectations about their agency’s business approach and inform their values and perceptions about the utility of collaboration. Governors It is not uncommon for governors to get involved in trans- portation matters, including not only policy matters involv- ing funding and legislation, but also in project decisions as well. Governors will directly promote specific capacity proj- ects, often as a measure that supports economic development in a certain area of the state. As such, the governor’s attitude about collaboration can be a critical determinate to the cli- mate in which state agencies, in particular, will operate dur- ing the governor’s tenure in office. If the executive message is that a speedy completion is the only thing that matters, then state DOTs may burn precious relationship capital with agen- cies and the public in order to complete a project quickly. If the governor also emphasizes working together to get a good outcome that gives weight to environmental and community factors as well as transportation needs, the relationship among state agencies is likely to be improved. The Maryland Intercounty Connector is a case in point. For this project, the governor not only set a tone that demanded collaboration across state agencies, but he also reached out to federal and local governmental leaders and was committed to a philosophy that assumed that considerable project funding would be devoted to an environmental stewardship package. As a result, the project became the means by which a number of worthwhile environmental improvements were imple- mented. These measures went well beyond traditional envi- ronmental mitigation measures. Working through the National Governors Association (NGA), governors have articulated a commitment to collabo- ration. For example, the NGA Natural Resources Committee recently adopted Policy Position NR-01 on environmental management that explicitly advocates the use of collaborative processes to break down barriers and find solutions. Legislatures Like governors, state legislatures and state legislators often weigh in on individual transportation projects and some- times debate the role of collaboration in advancing the trans- portation agenda. Most state legislatures have transportation committees in which these discussions typically take place. State legislators discuss issues of national scope through the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). While the NCSL Transportation Committee has not taken a policy position on collaborative approaches per se, it has recom- mended that federal transportation legislation replace pre- scriptive environmental requirements with incentives for states to achieve environmental quality standards through transportation projects. The roster of the NCSL Transporta- tion Standing Committee offers a list of several hundred state legislators from almost all states with an interest in transpor- tation issues. All of the case study states except Mississippi are represented on the committee. State transportation Commissions At one time, state highway commissions or boards played a critical decision-making role in virtually every state. In some states, the commission or board members are elected. In other cases, they are appointed by the governor or legislature, or they are members on an ex officio basis because of another position they occupy (e.g., state auditor). The commissions often selected and oversaw the chief highway executive. Today, transportation commissions often have a limited number of narrowly prescribed responsibilities. The majority rely on state DOTs for staff support, while some commissions have their own independent staffs. Appointees to state trans- portation commissions have varied backgrounds, with law, politics, business, and transportation industry backgrounds predominating. Of the case study states, Mississippi has the strongest role for its commission. The Mississippi Transportation Com- mission (MTP) is comprised of three elected commissioners

21 representing three different geographic areas. The executive director of the Mississippi DOT serves at the pleasure of the MTP; the governor has no executive authority over the Mis- sissippi DOT. The MTP is the policy-making body for the Mississippi DOT and must approve the location of all new highways. Commissioners frequently get personally involved in projects in their geographic areas. The California Transportation Commission (CTC) has 13 members, 11 of whom are voting and two of whom are non- voting ex officio members. Nine of the voting members are appointed by the governor, one by the Senate Rules Commit- tee, and one by the speaker of the California Assembly. The CTC programs and allocates funds for surface transportation improvements throughout the state. The CTC has its own staff, consisting of an executive director and about 15 other transportation professionals. Colorado has an 11-person Transportation Commission. The commissioners are appointed by the governor to stag- gered 4-year terms and represent specific geographic districts. The commission has general policy-making duties but does not get involved in project-specific decision making. Maryland has a State Transportation Commission (STC) that has 17 members. Ten are appointed by the governor; the other seven serve as ex officio members, based on their also being members of the State Roads Commission (SRC). The STC has a strictly advisory role, providing advice to the Mary- land DOT secretary on policy and program matters. The SRC’s main role is in condemnation proceedings. In those states where the commission has a strong over- sight or advisory role, it can provide support for collabora- tion by influencing the actions of state DOT executives, the legislature, and the governor. State transportation executives Today, state transportation chief executives in most states come to their jobs via political appointment by the governor. Some require the confirmation of the state legislature. In rare instances, they are appointed by the state transportation com- mission (e.g., Mississippi). While historically the chief execu- tives of state DOTs have been engineers, this has been changing over the last several decades; many chief executives now have financial, legal, planning, or political backgrounds. Many states engage in a formal search process in looking for new chief executives and usually look both within the career ranks of the state DOT and to outsiders. When filled from outside the DOT, the new chief executive often has transportation experience in federal, local, or metropolitan government, public agency consulting and contracting, or working with the state legislature or Congress. Often the selected candidate has a varied background. The chief executives of state transportation agencies go by various titles: secretary, director, commissioner, and executive director. In all cases but Nebraska, the chief exec- utives head a transportation agency. Nebraska has a Depart- ment of Roads. For a full list, see the membership of the AASHTO board of directors at www.transportation.org/ Default.aspx?siteid=37&pageid=310. In most state DOTs, the rest of the leadership team is com- prised of career employees. This includes such positions as deputy secretary/director, district/regional/area director, and the directors of major functional areas, such as program/ project development, operations, or finance. Most states con- tinue to have a chief engineer, although increasingly this title goes along with another more organizationally descriptive title, such as deputy director. Interpreting the organization of state DOTs can be challeng- ing. Terms such as agency, department, division, office, and branch mean different things in different states. The roles of geographic units within the state also vary from state to state. These substate units can be called districts, regions, or areas. In the larger states, the substate units often directly handle project and program development, while relying on the central office primarily for policy guidance and technical assistance on com- plex issues. In smaller states, these units may only handle main- tenance and other operational responsibilities. In California, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) is an executive department, but it is part of a larger agency, the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, headed by a secretary. The Caltrans director is appointed by the governor and requires senate confirmation. Historically, Caltrans directors have come from both within and outside the department, with neither path predominating. Virtually all of the other leadership positions in Caltrans are filled by career employees. This includes 12 district directors, who report to the Caltrans director and are responsible for project delivery within their districts. Engineers tend to predominate among the district directors, even though it is not a job requirement (aside from the deputy director of project delivery/chief engi- neer). The Caltrans organization chart is found at www.dot .ca.gov/orgchart/departmentalorgchart.pdf. The Colorado DOT is led by the executive director, appointed by the governor. Recent executive directors have tended to come from outside the department, but with sig- nificant transportation experience. Other key central office posts include the chief engineer, who oversees the six regional offices, and the director of the Division of Transportation Development, who manages statewide environmental and intermodal planning programs. The regional offices, managed by regional transportation directors, are responsible for proj- ect delivery. The Colorado DOT organization chart is at www .coloradodot.info/about/CDOT-org-chart/view. The Maryland DOT is one of the most multimodal of state DOTs. It is headed by the secretary, who is appointed by

22 the governor and confirmed by the state senate. Typically, secretaries are not career employees although some secretar- ies have substantial tenure with the DOT, including the cur- rent secretary, who has a finance background. The secretary has six modal administrators, including the administrator of the State Highway Administration (SHA), who is appointed by the secretary with the governor’s approval. This position has historically been filled by individuals with engineer- ing backgrounds, even though this is not a requirement. Another key leadership position within the SHA is the dep- uty administrator for planning, engineering, real estate, and development, who heads the group responsible for delivering projects to construction. This is a statewide function handled centrally; district offices primarily handle maintenance and operations functions. The deputy administrator also holds the title of chief engineer. The Maryland DOT organiza- tion chart is at www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/24dot/ pdf/24dot.pdf. The Minnesota DOT is headed by the commissioner, appointed by the governor for a term that coincides with the governor’s term. Most commissioners have an engineering background. The deputy commissioner and chief engineer is the number two slot in the Minnesota DOT and is a career slot. The Minnesota DOT district offices take the lead on proj- ect delivery and work closely with others through area trans- portation partnerships, mandated by Minnesota law. Each district is headed by a district engineer. The organization chart is at www.dot.state.mn.us/information/orgchart.html. The Mississippi DOT is led by the executive director, who is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the MTP. The gov- ernor has no line authority over the Mississippi DOT. Past executive directors have come from within the department and from outside. An engineering background is not required, although some past executive directors have been engineers; others have liberal arts or other academic backgrounds. The deputy executive director/chief engineer, oversees the Office of Highways, occupies a career slot, and is an engineer. Report- ing to the chief engineer is the assistant chief for preconstruc- tion, also an engineer, who is responsible for developing new highway capacity projects. In Mississippi, the seven district offices play a supporting role to headquarters on new capacity projects. The Mississippi DOT organization chart is at www .gomdot.com/Home/AboutMDOT/Divisions.aspx. State environmental, resource, and planning agency executives State environmental and resource agency structure varies from state to state, but the predominant model seems to be one that is patterned roughly on the federal model, with air quality and water quality responsibilities residing in an environmental protection agency (similar to the federal EPA) and wildlife park, and historic preservation responsibilities in a natural resources agency (similar to the U.S. DOI). State for- estry responsibilities are more often in a natural resources agency than in an agriculture agency—a departure from the federal model. States also have no organizational concept analogous to the permitting authority of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Any state-level water quality permitting author- ity tends to be in the state environmental protection agency. While in general, state environmental and resource manage- ment responsibilities are housed in executive agencies that report directly to the governor, it is not unusual to have some areas overseen by boards, whose members are appointed by the governor, legislature, or some combination thereof. A few states, such as Maryland, have statewide planning agencies that get involved in transportation projects as a result of growth management mandates, such as the Maryland smart growth legislative requirements. In cases such as this, the state planning agency can be a catalyst for synchronizing transpor- tation capacity improvements with land use decisions made by local governments. The chief executives of most state agencies serve at the pleasure of the governor, often with the head of subagencies doing likewise. For example, both the secretary of the Califor- nia Natural Resources Agency and the director of its subordi- nate Fish and Game Department are gubernatorial appointees. These individuals usually have a professional background in the area for which the agency is responsible. The vast majority of leadership positions below the agency head are career slots filled most often from within the agency. Individuals selected for these positions usually have a background that includes technical experience relevant to the agency’s mission or rele- vant management/administrative experience. Leaders of state environmental and resource agencies spend their time governing matters under the purview of their agency, most not directly related to transportation. Their agencies interact with the state DOTs at staff levels, with several man- agement levels between them and the front-line staff. Due to staffing constraints, it is common to have a single individual at a state environmental agency handle all transportation matters in his or her functional area. This can cause a workflow bottle- neck, which can impede efforts in collaboration. State DOTs sometimes provide staff or consultants to overcome this staff- ing constraint, but report that these individuals often have lim- ited authority to sign key documents or make approvals. State-Chartered turnpike and toll authorities FHWA data show that there are more than 300 toll roads, bridges, and tunnels in the United States. These facilities are owned and operated by a number of public and private

23 entities. The membership roster of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association shows 74 tolling entities, including 13 state DOTs, in the United States. While some of the public toll authorities are housed within the state DOTs, many are organizationally independent with a governing board and a relatively small staff. They tend to do much of their work through consultants. These toll authorities are an important target audience for the TCAPP Decision Guide because they are an increasingly important implementer of highway capacity projects. Further- more, their culture is often quite different from that of the state DOTs, despite their leaders having similar backgrounds and skill sets. This difference in culture is chiefly because toll author- ities have much more focused interests; instead of administer- ing a vast system of highways statewide, they tend to manage a few, very well-defined facilities. As a result, they tend to mobilize around specific projects. They concentrate their efforts on advancing the projects within a predictable timeframe because financing terms require that toll revenues become available by a certain date. This can translate into a greater willingness to spend money on environmental measures and community amenities as a way of getting a project approved. Government in Metropolitan areas Federal transportation law requires each metropolitan area with a population greater than 50,000 to have a MPO that serves as a forum for state and local governments to deter- mine transportation needs and to develop transportation improvement programs. This process is required to be con- tinuing, comprehensive, and cooperative and accordingly is sometimes called the “3C planning process.” Effective col- laboration is at the core of the process. According to a 2009 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), there are 381 MPOs across the country, with the majority repre- senting small metropolitan areas (Figure 3.1). Organizationally, MPOs have a policy body, which makes critical decisions, and a staff, which does data collection and analysis and prepares work products and decision docu- ments. The MPO board’s most important responsibility is to approve two documents: the long-range transportation plan and the transportation improvement program. The MPO board is made up of representatives of local gov- ernments, state government, and publicly owned transporta- tion providers such as transit authorities. Local governments are typically represented by both elected officials and execu- tive branch officials. While many board members have a background in the transportation profession, many do not. They come from the diverse professional backgrounds typi- cally found in local government: lawyers, public administra- tors, educators, and so forth. MPO staffs can number as few as one or two or more than 100. The staff is usually headed by an executive director who has a background either in transportation planning/engineering or in urban or regional planning. According to the GAO study, 71% of MPO staffs are organi- zationally housed within a larger organization, such as a local government or a regional council of governments; 18% are organizationally independent; and 11% have some other arrangement. Besides meeting the basic federal requirements, MPOs often have other responsibilities. For example, 70% have some land use planning responsibilities, 37% implement transportation projects, 32% do environmental planning, and 16% have a role in transit operations. In addition to the MPOs, collaboration on capacity proj- ects requires the active engagement of the local governments themselves. Several entities must be considered. On the exec- utive side is the local government’s chief executive, such as a mayor (in a strong mayor form of government), county exec- utive, and city or county manager. Other executive positions include the directors of the transportation or public works department (typically engineers) and the planning depart- ment (typically urban or regional planners). The local gov- erning body (e.g., city or county council) and citizen-appointed planning commissions also can play important roles in trans- portation capacity projects. These noncareer local officials come from diverse backgrounds, reflecting the range of expe- riences of the local citizenry. Nongovernmental Organizations Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) can have a substan- tial role in the development of transportation capacity proj- ects. Most often, NGOs serve as advocates for project outcomes Source: GAO analysis of Census data. 11%, Large (Population of 1 Million and Above) 43 MPOs 36%, Medium (Population of 200,000-999,999) 139 MPOs 52%, Small (Population of 50,000-199,999) 199 MPOs Figure 3.1. Number of MPOs by population represented. (Note: Percentages do not add up to 100% due to rounding.)

24 that conform with their particular mission and vision. This often involves process requests for information and analyses that can influence governmental decisions in a way that is favor- able to the particular NGO’s goals. Sometimes NGOs form specifically to influence a specific transportation project. Thousands of diverse NGOs become involved in transporta- tion matters; it is not feasible to provide a list or even a good breakdown of the full array of these organizations. Neverthe- less, insights into the NGO world are available through such sources as the Surface Transportation Policy Partnership (STPP), an NGO that serves primarily to focus the NGOs on transportation issues. STPP lists more than 500 organiza- tions, mostly NGOs, as signatories to the Alliance for a New Transportation Charter. These NGOs—many national, but most state or local—subscribe to a charter that endeavors to influence national, state, and local transportation policies in ways that open up the transportation decision-making pro- cess to citizens and result in more nontraditional outcomes. The list of Alliance members provides a good snapshot of the NGOs that are interested in transportation matters, but is incomplete in portraying the full range of NGOs. See www .transact.org/ANTC/signers.asp. Fundraising is one of the constant realities in the NGO world. Revenue sources include member contributions and foundation and governmental grants. For some NGOs, their ability to raise funds works against being too involved in col- laborative endeavors with certain entities. They view their role more as arm’s-length participants with the ability to pro- vide views early in the process and to mobilize opposition when policies, programs, and projects take a form that is objectionable to the NGO (e.g., Sierra Club local chapters). Other NGOs, however, rely heavily on strategic partner- ships to leverage their effectiveness. The NGOs bring funding and expertise to the table and rely on other partners (e.g., governmental agencies) to bring major financing and comple- mentary skills to the table. These NGOs are often more likely to collaborate with DOTs and other agencies on specific endeavors that help advance the NGO’s agenda. They often steer clear of either supporting or opposing projects and other endeavors of the DOTs beyond the specific partnership efforts in which they are engaged. The Nature Conservancy and the Conser- vation Fund are examples of NGOs that have engaged in partnerships with DOTs. NGO leadership typically consists of a strong executive presence and an active or less active board. The role of volun- teers is a very important influence in some NGOs. Back- grounds of those in the leadership ranks vary, with national NGOs having a large proportion of attorneys, public policy experts, or professionals with an academic background allied to the core mission of the NGO. NGO boards represent donors and individuals who have recognized technical and program expertise. Conclusion The breadth and diversity of the institutions that are engaged in TCAPP are mirrored by the variety of perspectives and backgrounds among their leaders. Understanding the culture and assumptions of these organizations will be critical in craft- ing TCAPP messages that resonate across this broad leadership landscape. Some of the key observations from this scan of organizational leaders include • Organizational missions are distinct from each other, and often are seen as in conflict. Further, the specific history of interagency interaction among different agencies varies considerably. While some agencies have productive work- ing relationships, some are entrenched in patterns of poor communication and mistrust. These differences in mission and historic relationships set the context for today’s leaders. • Leaders at different levels of government are engaged hands on in transportation capacity projects to varying degrees. Generally state and regional government/agency leaders are more often directly involved in project development at some level than are their federal counterparts. • Because top executives of transportation agencies are typi- cally removed from the day-to-day details of project devel- opment, the specific institutional barriers and inefficiencies encountered are not necessarily obvious. It, therefore, will take effort to communicate the benefits of changing agency processes to promote collaboration. • For agency leaders outside the transportation world, trans- portation issues are rarely their primary issue. Therefore, capturing their initial attention will be a critical hurdle for TCAPP to overcome. • The direct engagement of an individual leader who cham- pions cooperative approaches can have tremendous influ- ence in changing institutional processes and promoting interagency collaboration. Articulating the value of TCAPP and engaging leaders in its implementation will require demonstrating to these indi- viduals that TCAPP will directly support them in achieving their personal goals and primary institutional missions.