1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

• This was the first meeting of the Roundtable.
• Self-introductions by attendees.
• The attendance list is attached.

• Sanford Jaffe, Director, Center of Negotiation and Conflict Resolution (CNCR), Rutgers University, welcomed Roundtable members and thanked them for participating. He promised that the process that is about to begin will be a full, frank and open one.

• Mr. Jaffe stated that the purposes of this first Roundtable meeting were threefold: 1) Introduce the concept of the Roundtable and meet the project team and other Roundtable members; 2) Discuss the entire process leading to the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and 3) Achieve consensus on some process issues regarding the way in which the Roundtable will function over the next two years.

• Mr. Jaffe said that he would always remain aware of constraints on members’ time and promised that meetings scheduled to end at 8:00 P.M. would go no longer than that (and, in fact, might end earlier if meeting goals had been met). Saying that he wanted the meeting atmosphere to be warm and open, he urged Roundtable members to address him as Sandy, and said he hoped that all would feel comfortable to use first names.

History and Outlook

• Martin Robins, Director, Transportation Policy Institute (TPI), Rutgers University, gave an overview of how the EIS process will function. He said that when Governor Whitman ordered the preparation of a full EIS for the project, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) reached out to TPI, to lead the EIS project team. Handouts were distributed (copies attached).

• It is expected that this will be a model for conducting future EIS processes. Mr. Robins stressed that we are beginning with a clean slate in examining project alternatives. The previous Preferred Alternative selected by NJDOT will have no greater standing than any other. The desire is to "open the lens" to see the widest possible array of alternatives, including both non-roadway and roadway solutions. Mr. Robins remarked that a great deal of development has come and will be coming to this area, but all agree that there is inadequate infrastructure to accommodate it. There are many issues which range geographically beyond the original project boundaries. It will be critical to understand more about why, when and where people travel within and through this area in order to make good choices about possible solutions.

• Mr. Robins stated that the project team is committed to a full and open public participation process, the central piece of which will be the Roundtable.

• Mr. Robins discussed the project team structure, as illustrated on the first page of the handouts. The Steering Committee includes NJDOT representation, as that agency is the client and as such has a significant voice in the project, but Mr. Robins emphasized that NJDOT has given authority for direction of the project to TPI and its team. TPI project staff are three individuals: Mr. Robins, Jon Carnegie and Andrea Lubin. The other Rutgers component is CNCR (Mr. Jaffe) which is responsible for running the Roundtable. Helen Neuhaus & Associates (Helen Neuhaus and Robert Goldstein) will manage the public participation component of the process. Ms. Neuhaus’s firm is based in New York City, but she has a long history of experience on New Jersey transportation issues. Another team member is Chitra Radin, who specializes in EIS and NEPA issues. Technical support will be provided by the firms of DMJM Harris (engineering and technical) and URS (travel forecasting). While the joint venture of Urbitran/Garmen will also provide support, Mr. Robins stressed that their role will be limited to readying local travel forecasting models for integration into the regional model.

• Mr. Robins discussed the two-year timeline for the EIS process, as illustrated on the second page of the handout. He stressed that NJDOT is serious about the two-year deadline for completion of the Final EIS. For this reason, he indicated it may be necessary to intensify and expedite the work of the Roundtable at certain stages of the process.

• Referring to the "Development of Draft EIS" portion of the time-line, Mr. Robins stated that at the second meeting of the Roundtable, members will begin the task of drafting a Problem Statement and project Goals and Objectives. This will be followed by development of detailed documentation of existing and future conditions.

• Patrick Lyons, representing Sensible Transportation Options Partnership (STOP), posed two questions: 1) Are contracts for firms on the project team available for public inspection? and 2) Will Roundtable members have the opportunity to question the assumptions used by technical support firms in developing their models? Specifically, Mr. Lyons made reference to problems that his organization found with work performed by DMJM Harris on the Environmental Assessment (EA) issued for the Millstone Bypass project. In that instance, there did not seem to be a willingness to share information about Harris’s assumptions. Mr. Robins responded to the second question in the affirmative, stating that in order to make the process transparent, it was essential for consultants to explain modeling assumptions in a manner that makes them understandable to the public. In response to the first question, Andras Fekete, NJDOT, stated that he would confirm whether or not the contracts could be made available: If so, he would make them available as soon as possible for anyone who wished to examine them. He also echoed Mr. Robins’ reply to the first question, saying that "models don’t make decisions" and emphasizing that such data would have to be made clear and understandable to the Roundtable and the public.

• Mr. Robins then discussed the third page of the handout, which is the "Charge" to the Roundtable. It states that this body, composed of community partners from the public, private and non-profit sectors, will be a central, but not exclusive, component of the EIS process. Mr. Robins drew members’ attention to the point that the Roundtable will act by consensus and that no votes will be taken. Elaborating on the stated goals for the first six months, he explained that the Roundtable’s "Rules of Engagement" will be decided upon at this first meeting, and that the second meeting will center on drafting a Problem Statement and beginning to develop a list of project Goals and Objectives. This will be followed by delineation of the scope of the study area and development of strategies and alternatives to solve the problem. The Roundtable will agree upon a process to screen these strategies and alternatives, then begin to screen and assemble a list of strategies and alternatives to be evaluated in the DEIS. Mr. Robins noted that it will be most important for the Roundtable to let the project team know what information it needs to make screening decisions.

• In response to a question from Mayor Phyllis Marchand, Princeton Township, Mr. Carnegie listed the four invitees to the Roundtable who were unable to attend this meeting: 1) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection 2) Chamber of Commerce of the Princeton Area; 3) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and 4) Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission (Jim Amon). All have indicated that they will be participating in future meetings. The fifth missing invitee is the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (MPO from northern New Jersey), which is currently under FHWA sanctions and cannot participate in the Roundtable until some time in the future.

• Helen Neuhaus, Helen Neuhaus & Associates, discussed the public involvement process, which began with interviews of stakeholders and interested groups and individuals. The project team has met with 51 individuals representing 27 organizations. Ms. Neuhaus remarked that the results thus far have been quite remarkable, adding complexity and context and underscoring the importance of a holistic approach to the project’s range of concerns. She emphasized that the interviews are a vital part of the EIS process, and she welcomed suggestions from the Roundtable about additional parties that should be interviewed. Documentation of these sessions has also begun, with individual meeting reports, as well as lists of issues, recommendations, and follow-up tasks being prepared. In the future, briefing papers will be shared with the Roundtable; a project newsletter and website will be created to provide information to the community; and public forums, including a Scoping hearing, will be held. She emphasized that these activities represent the initial phase of a continuing dialogue for collaboratively addressing project concerns.

• Mr. Jaffe turned the discussion to decisions about how the Roundtable will function with emphasis on the following:

• While there was some discussion of a later starting time, it was generally agreed that 5:00 P.M. to 8:00 P.M. was the best time for meetings. Mr. Lyons expressed support for 10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M. meetings, or at least the possibility of rotating meeting times. Mr. Jaffe suggested that Roundtable committees, with smaller membership, might decide to have earlier meeting times.

• There was consensus in favor of rotating meeting sites, although it was suggested that too many alternating sites might be confusing to participants. Mayor Marvin Reed, Princeton Borough, offered his Borough Hall as a site for the next meeting. Mayor-Elect Shing-Fu Hsueh, West Windsor Township, offered his Council Room, particularly for some future meeting where a large turnout by the public might be expected. Mayor Marchand offered that meetings could be held in the new Princeton Township Hall after January 2002. She also pointed out that rotation was a good idea, as it gave Roundtable members an idea of traffic conditions at various locations during the afternoon rush hour. Support was expressed for the idea of a site that was mass transit accessible, and it was acknowledged that Princeton Borough Hall is within walking distance of the Dinky train station. Eventually, it was agreed that, for the time being, Roundtable meetings would alternate between Princeton Borough Hall and the West Windsor Senior Citizen Center.

• Mr. Jaffe observed that it was originally contemplated that Roundtable meetings would be held every two weeks, but that this would have to be modified for the summer, as several project team members are unavailable in July. He proposed that the next two meetings be held on June 27^th and August 2^nd. There was some support expressed for the idea of always holding meetings on the same day of the week, and there also was some thought that a two-week frequency was too burdensome on members. Dates and locations for the next two meetings were ultimately decided upon, and a decision on the subsequent meeting schedule was deferred. The next two meetings will be held as follows:

• There was a lengthy discussion regarding the designation of one or more alternates for Roundtable members. Although Mr. Jaffe pointed out that it was important to strive for continuity and camaraderie among participants, it was generally agreed that alternates should be designated, in recognition of members’ busy schedules. It was further suggested that alternates should, if possible, attend and observe meetings prior to actually functioning as their groups’ representatives, and it was agreed that Roundtable members have the obligation to keep their alternates fully advised of the details of all issues under discussion. Mr. Jaffe summarized the Roundtable’s consensus on accepting two alternates for each member, with the provision that alternates attempt to attend meetings and keep aware of issues.

• There was discussion of the possibility of adding members to the Roundtable. Mr. Jaffe noted that some members are "umbrella organizations" and are therefore regarded as representing a number of different groups. One of these umbrella organizations is the Millstone Bypass Alert Coalition, whose representative, Jean Mahoney, argued that in order to have a fair and equal voice on behalf of all viewpoints, it may be necessary to add some organizations to the Roundtable. Ms. Mahoney specifically identified groups that had been granted "consulting party" status under the Section 106 process, as well as two other groups: the Harrison Street Neighborhood Association and the West Windsor Citizens for Bypass Alternatives. In response, it was noted that the Sierra Club, one of the "consulting parties," had been added to the Roundtable since invitations were circulated. The only remaining group with this status that is not represented on the Roundtable is the Washington Road Elms Preservation Trust.

• Mayor Carole Carson, West Windsor Township, pointed out that the West Windsor Chamber of Commerce, which represents many businesses on C.R. 571 should be considered for Roundtable membership. Several members agreed that this group should be added if they are not adequately represented by the Chamber of Commerce of the Princeton Area. Generally, it was agreed that Roundtable membership is not fixed and that the addition of members will continue to be considered as the process goes forward.

• Mr. Jaffe raised the issue of recognizing audience members to speak at Roundtable meetings. In response, Mr. Lyons stated that it would be perilous to ignore members of the public who wished to be heard, if indeed we were committed to an open and inclusive process. Donna Lewis, Mercer County, agreed but pointed out that there would be times when the body would need to function as a true Roundtable. She suggested that a specified period of time, perhaps at the beginning of meetings, be set aside for public comment. Many other members expressed support for allowing the public to speak, but not creating a "public hearing" atmosphere, in which speakers felt it necessary to "speechify" and make highly emotional appeals. Some members suggested that this could be avoided by not assigning a specific speaking period for audience members. Instead individuals could be acknowledged to speak at relevant times in the Roundtable’s discussions. Audience member Alan Goodheart, Harrison Street Neighborhood Association, was then recognized. Mr. Goodheart expressed his opinion that it is more important for members of the public to be able to listen at fully open proceedings than for each group to be given Roundtable membership. He specifically said that it was not important for him to be given a seat on the Roundtable, since his elected officials already represented him. Mayor Marchand and other Roundtable members thanked Mr. Goodheart for the generosity and eloquence of his remarks.

• After agreeing that members of the press are more than welcome to attend Roundtable meetings, there was discussion of whether the project team should actively reach out to the press. Ms. Lewis’ suggestions that a briefing be held prior to the next Roundtable meeting to bring the press up-to-speed received general support. While there was agreement that it is not necessary to routinely tutor the press on project issues and process, there was consensus for providing the press with agendas and meeting notices.

• It was agreed that Roundtable committees be formed as needed and that modelling might be a good topic for one such group.

• The group agreed to adopt a rule prohibiting the taping of meetings, as this might inhibit the free expression of ideas.

• All meetings will be documented and a written meeting report provided to Roundtable members and made available to the public upon request.

• It was agreed that the agenda for the next meeting will include consideration of a Problem Statement and, time permitting, a set of project Goals and Objectives. As a general rule, the project team will prepare and distribute draft materials to assist Roundtable members in their work five to seven days prior to a meeting. Although it might be difficult to comply with this timeframe for the June 27^th session, members will receive Roundtable Minutes, and a draft Problem Statement prior to the meeting.

• There was overwhelming support for transmitting documents via email, and it was agreed to double-space draft documents to facilitate annotations. Roundtable members were urged not to read anything into the content of draft materials, as they are intended only as a starting point. Project team members were urged to have ‘thick skins’ regarding the dissection of their materials.

Scoping

• Janine Bauer, Tri-State Transportation Campaign, noted that her group has made a formal request that the project be re-scoped. She observed that, since the Problem Statement to be considered by the Roundtable will be a pre-cursor to a new scoping document, it would logically follow that the new scoping document be published in the Federal Register. Her point was echoed by George Hawkins, Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association, who remarked that NJDOT would presumably be eager to republish, as the previously published scope may be in conflict with the new scope adopted by the consensus of the Roundtable. In the ensuing discussion on scoping, it was noted that the process will culminate in a formal scoping session that will be advertised to encourage broad public attendance and provision of input. Mr. Fekete explained that the Federal Register provides a description of the legal requirements of the scoping process and that copies of the relevant pages will be distributed to Roundtable members. Amy Fox, FHWA, added that links to this information can be found on the FHWA website.

The meeting adjourned at 7:15 P.M.