Transcript for Webinar:  ATPPL Manual Overview
Date:  Wednesday, January 17, 2007, 2:00 – 5:00 EST


Scott Faulk: Thank you very much. Welcome everybody. As she said, my name is Scott Faulk, and this is the Webinar for the Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Land. So you'll be hearing me refer to this as ATPPL because in Washington we like to abbreviate just about anything we can, so it's a mouthful, so we're going to be referring to it as ATPPL. And now I'd like to send it over to Eric Plosky of Volpe DOT to give us some technical introductions about this. 

Eric Plosky:  Hi there, and thanks Scott. This is Eric Plosky from the Volpe Center of the US Department of Transportation; hello to everyone's who on the call today. We just had a couple of technical notes to make sure that everyone knows how to use the features of the Webinar and how to fully participate. Because we have so many people on the phone, as you can see on the-- for those of you who are able to actually login to the Webinar screen, we'll be cycling through a PowerPoint presentation that evolves, as well you should see on your screen right now. If you have had some difficulty logging in to the Webinar site, as can sometimes happen, we have circulated to some of the folks who registered by email a PowerPoint and a PDF version of the presentation we'll be going through, and it’s also available on the ATPPL website. So if you're on the phone and you don't have access right now to the presentation you can go to the ATPPL website, which is www.fta.dot.gov/atppl and there's a link on there to download that. But essentially for those who can see on the screen, we're now looking at the second slide of the PowerPoint, and as I say there are three parts to the Webinar. Because there are so many folks on the line, as the operator said we're in a listen only mode. If you have questions on the content of the presentation, you can use the Webinar interface at the lower-right part of the screen there's a box that you can use to enter questions. After typing the question in you can click the 'ask' button and it will be sent to Scott and the other folks at FTA and the Federal Land Management agencies who will be handling the Q and A later on. As I said, there is also the PowerPoint on the Webinar portion, it's available on the FTA website if you don't see it otherwise, and if you are interested in asking a question, but you are unable to login to the Webinar, or you need another way to submit a question, you can send it by email to austinc@volpe.dot.gov. Last thing I wanted to mention before I turn it over back to Scott is if you have a technical problem or issue with the Webinar while its running, while we're on the line here, please call the help desk and they can help you get that set up properly. And the help desk number is - - - . I think that should cover the technical issues, Scott back to you. 

Scott Faulk: Okay, great. Thank you Eric. So now we're wanting to move onto slide three and I just want to give you an agenda for today's Webinar. To kick off today's Webinar we're going to have an introduction from Terry Rosapep, a FTA Deputy Associate Administrator for Program Management, he's going to discuss some of the background of the program, and then I'll discuss the goals and eligibility and requirements of the program. And then I'm going to hand it over to Dwayne Weeks, a Community Planner here at FTA who's going to walk through the application process. After that I'll provide an overview of the fund administration, and then we're going to open it up for some question and answers. So I anticipate that we'll present for about  minutes to an hour, and then leave about another hour for question and answers. So without further ado, I'd like to turn it over to Terry Rosapep to give us a little bit of background. 

Terry Rosapep: Thank you Scott. First I just wanted to thank everybody for participating in today's Webinar on the Alternative Transportation Program. Everyone's involvement can only help strengthen the program, and help us to achieve the results that we're all trying to do with projects in parks and federal lands. Many of you are probably already familiar with the program, you may have submitted applications during its first year, hopefully you were successful in that. A little later Scott's going to give us some statistics on the types of programs that actually got funded, give you a better idea again of where you have the most likelihood of success. For those of you that are new to the program, just a little history, it was established as part of SAFETEA-LU, which is the authorizing legislation for all surface transportation programs. The program itself was included in that in response to what had been an earlier study conducted by DOT and the Department of the Interior that had identified over $ billion of necessary alternative transportation improvements in the parks and federal land. So based on that study this program was established from SAFETEA-LU. The program goals have been established in legislation, among those are conservation in the parks and for land resources, and a key goal obviously is reducing congestion and pollution throughout the federal land. And sort of an overriding goal is just improving the overall visitor experience for everybody by providing alternative transportation, and meeting these other goals, it should be of benefit to everyone. The program is authorized through FY at about $  million, so over the course of the next few years hopefully the appropriations will take us to that level. The program itself is administered by FTA in cooperation with DOI and the Forest Service, and early last year and interagency team had been set up with all the agencies to actually get the program started. That group set program goals, they established criteria, they set up the initial process for solicitation for projects, and then actually went through the evaluation and made recommendations to ultimately the Department of the Interior which has the final say on project selection. We are very pleased during the first year in terms of the close collaboration between the departments. These kinds of efforts are always a little tricky when you have multiple departments with responsibilities for program delivery, but it's worked out, I think, exceptionally well. I think we've got some good projects for this first year. I know within FTA we have several staff from several of our offices that are really dedicated to the program, they have a strong personal interest, they've been spending a lot of time on it along with the staff from the other federal agencies, we're off to a very good start here. And our hope would be that if we can continue the effort that we started this first year, and we can continue to show good oversight of the taxpayers' dollars, and that the projects we're selecting actually deliver the results, that we can maintain this program as a discretionary program. I think what's unique so far is that none of the funding has been earmarked, and that in itself is unusual for what are supposed to be discretionary programs. With the new congress and their attitude, I think that we have quite a bit of confidence that in fact we can maintain this program as a discretionary one throughout the life of it. And more importantly if we can actually select good projects and start giving results, when it comes time to reauthorize the program in, we can not only continue it, but hopefully get an extension of it. 'Cause while we appreciate the $  million that was authorized, if you think back to the original study that was done, there was needs of over $ billion. So the $  million is nice, but it doesn't get us all the way to the top. So hopefully we can at least get this program going and make a case for it in the future. We're going to get into the details on the schedule for this program, but it is very ambitious again. I think you're going to see that new project applications are going to be due in about a month, so we actually probably best get on with the Webinar today so you can hear about the program and then give us your questions that we're going to try to answer towards the end. And if we can't answer them today, then we'll get back to everybody as soon as we can. With that I'm going it back to Scott. 

Scott Faulk: Okay, thank you Terry. Before we go further, I just want to let everybody know who all is in the room with me. As you know, Terry Rosapep, but also Henrika Buchanan- Smith who is the Team Leader of Transit Program Management, Dwayne Weeks is also here from the Planning Department, and also we're joined by Lou DeLorme from the U.S. Department of Interior, Nathan Caldwell of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Linda Force, Bureau of Land Management, Jim Evans from the National Park Service, and Ellen LaFayette from the U.S. Forest Service. So we're all here to help answer any questions that you may have. And now let's go ahead and get started. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: We also have Julie Atkins from the Planning Office and Matthew Lynch from Program Management and Tawanna Glover from Planning Office in the room as well. 

Scott Faulk: Okay, now just to give you some background about this program, it is a very competitive program. As you can see, last year we received about  project proposals requesting more then $ million. And in fact we ended up funding about  planning and implementation projects, giving out a total of $ . million in grants. You can see that were for planning projects, and were capital or implementation projects. We tried to strike a balance between large projects, small projects, and medium sized projects, so as you can see the program is competitive and we hope that we receive some really great proposals. Now to give you some background about the goals, the first goal as mandated by law is to protect and conserve natural, historical and cultural resources. We're trying to protect fragile vegetation, endangered wildlife, unique rock and mineral formations and scenic vistas. We plan on doing this by getting people out of their cars and into alternative transportation. And we mean alternative transportation such as shuttle buses, ferry boats, bicycle paths, pedestrian trails, all of this can reduce the footprint and impact of transportation on these natural resources that we're trying to protect. The second goal is to increase the enjoyment for visitors to parks and public land. You know, when people go to a park they don't want to sit in traffic and have to breathe in a lot of pollution and have to worry about congestion and worry about parking their cars, so we want to get less cars in the parks. And we also want to make the parks more accessible to people with disabilities. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: We're moving to slide nine now. 

Scott Faulk: So in order to accomplish these objectives, several ATPPL program goals have been established. These goals translate into criteria by which project proposals are evaluated and selected for funding. So ATPPL will not fund projects beneath the definition of alternative transportation that do not meet the following goals : ( ) you need to demonstrate that there's a true need for alternative transportation. Like I said, it’s competitive, so we like to work with the [most] meritorious projects as possible. Another thing is financial sustainability and efficiency; we encourage the use of external funding with Partnerships for Alternative Transportation. The other one is sound, integrated planning, and Dwayne will go into this in detail, but the projects need to be well planned out. And also we like to have project variety. We want to fund projects which are geographically diverse, have a balance between urban and rural projects, the size of the projects, new projects versus providing additional funding to existing projects. So those are the managerial goals. And now we're going to move on to slide ten, which are some more information on the legislative requirement, which are DOT and DOI form an interagency team, which we've done, and I'm very excited to be a part of this team. This team meets on a regular basis and we provide technical assistance, we conduct research and development, and we have developed criteria for planning, funding and selecting an annual program project. So also required by law, DOT in consultation with DOI is required to submit a report annually to congress both house and senate, which report goes to congress in February and kind of lays out what we've funded and justifying how we've spent the government money. So that report goes to congress in February. So now we're going to flip to switch to slide . Another requirement for funding is that projects are incorporated into metropolitan and statewide planning, and rather then going into all of that, I encourage everybody to check out this website, which is listed as www.planning.dot.gov/state.asp. This lays it all out, all the requirements and it's a very useful guide, so I encourage everybody to check that out. And now we're going to go onto slide, and I just want to talk to you a little bit about how we're going to communicate with everybody. There are several different ways that we plan on getting the word out about this program; the first is through the Federal Register. We're going to use the Federal Register to announce the beginning of the project application cycle as well to list projects that are going to be receiving funding. So when we come out with the list of grantees we're going to publish it on the website, on the Federal Register. So I encourage everybody to keep a look out for that, and that should be coming out this summer. Also the ATPPL website will be used as a central reference point. It's kind of a clearinghouse of information, they've got a lot of useful documents, there's a frequently asked questions section on there, and I just encourage everybody to check it out. Training programs such as Webinar are going to be conducted on an as needed basis, so we'll send out more information about that when other things are planned. And I just want to let everybody know that everybody that's on the team of the ATPPL team is available for contact with. So if you see the December th Federal Register notice, it lists everybody by agency, and I know that any one of us would be happy to work with you one on one in answering the questions that you have. So please see the December th Federal Registry notice for the list of names and numbers. And also general news, updates and announcements are going to be distributed via email. And now we're going to flip to slide . Now I'm going to talk to you a little bit about where we fund projects. In accordance with the law areas eligible for funding include any federally owned or managed park, refuge or recreational area that is open to the general public. This includes the National Park Service units, the National Wildlife Refuge System units, the Bureau of Land Management recreational areas, the Bureau of Reclamation recreational areas, and the National Forest System units. Now we're flipping to slide . Now who is eligible? This is a great question, but eligible applicants for funding include any federal land management agency, such as the National Park Service units, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Forest Service, and the National Forest System unit, as well as any state, local or tribal government with jurisdiction over land in the vicinity of eligible areas, acting with the consent of the relevant federal land management agency. Now we're going to flip on to slide . There are two types of categories that we fund. One is planning and the other is implementation or capital. And this would be a good time to bring up the fact that operating assistance such as funding for fuels and vehicle driver salary is not eligible. But I'd like to talk to you just a little bit about planning, now switching to slide . So eligible planning projects include alternative transportation planning studies, traffic studies, visitor utilization studies, transportation analysis, and environmental studies. Dwayne will get into a little bit more of this in detail, but these are the types of projects that are available for funding. And now onto slide . Implementation projects, or capital projects, are projects that in general involved purchasing, designing or constructing alternative transportation facilities or equipment. So we have broken this up into three different types of categories under capital; there is general, fixed guideway and buses and others. So you can see that there are a lot of different ways to get involved in this program, and I'll go through each one with you now. So under general capital expenses, this is expenses related to the acquisition or construction of a facility as well as transit related intelligent transportation system, and expenses associated with the deployment and/or commercialization of alternative transportation vehicles that introduce innovative technology or methods. And now we're going to flip over to slide, where we talk about the second capital project, which is fixed guideway and bus projects. And fixed guideway can be defined as transportation that runs on a dedicated right of way such as a light rail or trolley or a bus rapid transit. Now as far as eligible fixed guideway projects, this would include the development of a new fixed guideway project and also funding for rehabilitation, modernization or expansion of an existing fixed guideway system. The second category of this category is eligible buses or shuttle projects, which include the purchase, rehabilitation and replacement of buses as well as the purchase of clean fueled vehicles. Also under this would be considered construction of a bus shelter. And now on to slide . The last category or "Other" which is kind of a catch all, but this includes non-motorized transportation systems including facilities for pedestrians, bicycles and non-motorized watercraft. So it kind of encompasses any of following projects: Anything that enhances the environment, prevents or mitigates an adverse impact on natural resources, improves visitor mobility and accessibility, reduces congestion and pollution as well as conserves natural, historical or cultural resources. Now on to slide . I would just like to bring up non-motorized transit projects such as trails. Well trails are eligible as long as they meet the following criteria: They need to reduce the number of vehicle trips in the parks or public lands, they need to provide a high degree of connectivity to other transportation systems, and they need to improve safety. Now recreational trails that do not connect to other modes of transportation will not be considered for funding, so they need to be connected to a bus stop or a metro stop, some other mode of transportation. So now I would like to send it over to Dwayne Weeks to discuss the project application process. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Before Dwayne begins, I just wanted to clarify a little bit where we talked about who's eligible to apply, because I'd like stick with what the law actually said. One of the things that was missing from the slide which earlier on in the slide presentation we define what and eligible area is, so you can always go back to one of the first few slides. And it defines an eligible area as any federally owned or manage park, refuge, or recreational area that is open to the general public. And then it lists including some specific entities or agencies are called out. But when we talk about eligible applicants it's divided into two sections, and those are applicants that are eligible include any federal land management agency, which manages an eligible area. So in order for a federal land management agency, or in order for an agency to be eligible, they have to manage an eligible area. So I didn't know if there would be any agencies that may fall through the crack of not being specifically called out in the list, but the key is land management agencies that manage an eligible area, and if you would go back to reading what a eligible area is, to determine if you fit within that category. 

Man: Just to clarify for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, if anybody on the line that's representing a national fish hatchery, unfortunately for you, the law specifically says units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. So we'd be glad to answer any questions about that off this Webinar, you can call me on my contact number, it's given out. But unfortunately for hatcheries, you are not included in this legislation. So the only fish and wildlife service areas that are eligible are units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Scott Faulk: Okay Dwayne, are you ready? 

Dwayne Weeks: Yes thank you Scott. My name is Dwayne Weeks, I'm with the Federal Transit Administration Office of Planning and Environment. I'm going to discuss a project application process and an evaluation criteria for the Alternative Transit in Parks and Public Lands Program. Basically we're building upon the lessons learned from last year. Last year was our first solicitation for proposals, this year we have new and improved proposal forms and some revised evaluation criteria developed by a very capable team, including Julie Atkins, Tina Hodges and our Federal Lands Management Technical Working Group, among which our representatives include Lou DeLorme, Nancy Cardwell, Linda Force, Mark Caldwell and Ellen LaFayette. If you have any questions about any of the criteria of questions, feel free to contact your agency representatives as you start filling in the proposals and the application forms. Anyway, the first step basically is to determine what type of project that we want to propose for funding, planning or implementation. We are looking for planning projects that involve evaluation of alternatives or doing regional transportation plans, or coordinating with local transit agencies with proposed services within a federal land management area or parkland. For implementation projects we're looking at projects that are moving people, you know, they're constructing something, they are building infrastructure to support that actual movement of people from point A to point B. And we would consider a project, determine whether it really meets into the planning or implementation criteria, and select the correct form. Last year we had a few planning projects that had implementation forms, and a few implementation projects on planning forms, so do your homework, review the proposed forms and the guidance and select the correct form. Again with planning, when we're looking at the evaluation of planning proposals, we have an emphasis on purpose and needs. Is this project really necessary? What is the problem at hand? Is it a mobility problem? Is it an environmental issue? Is it environmental impact? Or is it a quality of visitor experience? What kind of data do we have to support that? Why is it necessary to evaluate transit alternatives, or enhance transit services to a proposed site? When we're evaluating these planning studies, we're really placing an emphasis on purpose and need. For the implementation, we're looking for good projects with a sound cost estimate, a good financial plan, a strong implementation strategy and local partnerships. Coordination with local transit providers, local government agencies, private sector participation. So that's kind of setting the framework for the types of proposals that we anticipate receiving for the FY process. We're going to now move to slide and discuss some of the planning criteria. You'll notice at the top we have our overall planning project rating, which is going to be a quantitative rating, and you can see down below we have a weight of % under Demonstration of Need. Looking at, you know, the visitor transportation experience, the environmental conditions. When we talk about visitor transportation experience, we're looking for examples where there's a large travel time delay, level of transportation congestion, visitor delays, people that are having to circle around the parking lot for awhile because the parking areas are over capacity, or existing transit facilities that are heavily overused. We're also looking at environmental conditions. Are there documented impacts regarding flora or fauna, people parking in areas where they shouldn't that are impacting wildlife, using inappropriate facilities to access the park because the existing facilities are not capable, air quality or visual impacts as a result of people driving through too many facilities. We're looking for basically a strong demonstration of a need for the planning study. Then we are also looking at to a much lesser degree, how the planning proposal is going to address these impacts, what types of alternatives are going to be looked at, what are the alternatives to reduce traffic impacts, enhance the visitor mobility. What alternatives will be assessed and how will the planning study address issues such as protection of natural resources, or how proposed alternatives will be assessed towards meeting reduced environment impacts and better air quality or visual impacts. We are also looking for financial feasibility and local partnering for funding planning proposals. How will the planning proposal assess the cost effectiveness of the various transportation alternatives, and how will it address the goals and objectives with park or public lands unit? So when we're looking at the planning proposals, we're really stressing the purpose and need and the impacts on hand. And the proposals that are going to rank higher are going to be those that do a good job providing some assessment of the existing conditions, and demonstrating why they need to do a planning study to address the identified alternatives. We're also going to be looking at the financial feasibility of local partnerships, and the methods of which the alternatives will be analyzed to enhance visitor mobility, experience, and improve the environmental benefits. Now we'll move onto slide . With regard to our implementation proposal rating, the criteria are weighted much more equally between demonstration of need with %, visitor mobility and experience at %, environmental benefits at %, and financial feasibility at %. When you're doing your proposals, you want to take a look at how well you're project is going to address these areas. You also want to document what your existing conditions are regarding your visitor transportation experience and how well you're proposal is going to improve things like your existing transit travel demand, parking capacity constraints, environmental conditions regarding reducing the impact on flora and fauna, how well will the proposed transit investment remediate identified existing conditions on the sites? There can be a thing such as visitor benefits in terms of travel time towards reaching sites, or reaching areas that previously were inaccessible. There are going to be cases where people would not have been able to access the park areas because of constrained existing transportation capacity. We recognize that a lot of areas are only going to have issues during peak visitation times. Sometimes these are seasonal in the peak summer months or peak winter months, and really ought to demonstrate those impacts during those times, you know? Whatever you can do to document the existing peak conditions would be helpful. Things can include photographs of people waiting in long queuing lines, visitation numbers or vehicle counts, other quantitative measures. Basically we're looking for good documentation regarding these benefits. For environmental benefits, we're looking at how the proposed transit project is going to improve over the existing condition, what type of environmental impacts will be remediated, the kind of things that have, which may include decrease in accidents, improved safety, better accessibility to areas of the park, or public land unit, basically increased visitors with decreased impacts on the environmental resources at hand. Finally, we're also looking for proposals that demonstrate strong financial feasibility. We're looking for a good solid financial plan with at least five years of funding identified not only for construction but for operations and maintenance of the proposed system, and partnerships, spending other folks’ funds is very important to us. Any way you can identify local funding leverage from either other public sector or private sector entities is going to weigh heavier against other projects that may not have identified a local funding partner or have other finances available to help construct or operate and maintain the existing system. You know? So this is kind of an overall framework for the rating for the implementation proposals, and again we're comparing these against every other proposal nationally, keep in mind what strength you have for your particular situation that address these weights, and include those in your proposals. We're now going to move on to slide. Basically here are some helpful hints for the project evaluation process. The best thing you could do is to tell the story. Why is this project really necessary? Why do we need to have it? Who benefits from the proposed project? Is it visitors, residents, the environment, and how do they benefit? Are there increased numbers of visitors that will be able to access the site? Will it reduce the number of autos going through the park area? Will it reduce the stress on the parking facilities, and how do they benefit? You know, use your previous studies. A lot of our proposals received last year cited previous feasibility studies and previous assessments, take whatever information you can from previous studies that were done at the site. You don't necessarily need to feel out every last blank within the proposal form, but do the best you can and reference the information that you have available to make the case for the project. Again, we're expecting a much greater demand for funding then there will be supply, so the projects that weight the highest are going to be those that really filled out the forms and put a lot of thought into their application proposal. We are looking for a clear definition of the project, the length, mode, the number of stations, the number of vehicles, a good solid capital cost, and operating cost estimate. Guess estimates are only going to go so far, particularly when compared to some other place that has a detailed estimate or a bid document showing what the vehicles are really going to cost, or what the stations really going to cost. And what's also helpful is a map of the project and the area so that those of us sitting here in the ivory tower in Washington can have a better idea of what's going on on the ground and out there in the field. It's kind of hard for us to read some of the proposals that have great language in them, but mentally it's hard to picture how severe the issue is unless we have some good maps and data to support that. Now we're going to move on to slide. Regarding the financial plan, we really need to make it real. Develop a good financial plan showing the capital and operating funding for a five year period. You know, financial sustainability is a big deal in this area where we have our constrained financial resources. We need to look at using the actual cost estimate and request only the amount of funding really necessary for that year. We don't want to play the cycle of winning the Lotto and just ask for the amount of money we could possibly get and hope to get that much. Provide a good solid cost estimate for FY and ask only for funding that you need for that particular project for that year. Again, within the financial plans we're looking for the capital funded over five years, and that's not just ATPPL funding, that's other sources of funding for the project that are necessary to construct it. Likewise with operating funding, any funding you may get from fare box proceeds, private sector participants, advertising, other local maps, you want to document that in the financial plan for the project and for maintaining the system. Again, those proposals that come in that show strong leveraging of state, local or private sector funding are going to weight heavier then the projects that are just requesting  % ATPPL program funds. So pay attention to these, you know, and as you develop your planning or implementation proposal, do the best you can with the financial plan. Again, we recognize everybody is not going to be able to fill out every blank, but do the best you can with the resources you have on hand, and do a good realistic financial plan. Again any supporting documentation showing the commitment of funds from either private sector participants or local transit agencies, or other local governmental entities are going to add greater weight to the financial plan that's submitted. Now we're going to move on to slide . This presents kind of an overview of the evaluation process that we're going to be using for. Again, the project proposals are due February th. Any proposals submitted after that day will not be considered until next year, so it's important that you send in your proposals to your respective land management agencies prior to February th. We anticipate probably a flood that day, but I would work on your proposal in advance and have it ready before then. This will be followed by an internal agency screening review by the various land management agencies. Each agency is going to undertake its own internal screening and prioritization process to make sure those proposals submitted are consistent with their own agency management goals. Once that agency review is complete, the screened proposals will be distributed for the technical working group. That consists of representatives from the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, the Forest Service, with some representation from the Federal Transit Administration. This group is going to evaluate and rank the proposals based upon the criteria in those proposal forms and highlighted on the slides presented previously. We're going to rank those proposals from the highest ranking to the lowest ranking by the technical working group. Once those ratings are compiled we'll divvy out the projects from the highest to the lowest, and we'll determine which projects should receive funding based upon the amount of funding available and those project rankings and the distribution of funds. The highest ranked funds will be recommended to the Department of the Interior; finally those selections will be concurred by the Department of the Interior and concurred to by FTA hopefully by very early summer of  . And that pretty much summarizes our evaluation process for. On to slide. In summary, work with your partners to develop the best proposal that you can. Use the data that you have available to support the benefits of your project, cite your sources, your previous studies, do the best you can with the proposals. Develop a strong financial plan. Again, we like to spend other people's money, and see what you can do to leverage local funding. Projects that have strong local financial plans and commitment are definitely going to carry a lot of weight. And just craft the best project proposal that satisfies and meets your identified purpose and need, that really meets the goals and objectives of the project. And that pretty much concludes my portion of the presentation. We do have some sample forms; there are two types of forms. There's the planning proposal form and implementation proposal form. Again, these are different forms that apply to different types of projects. Review what you plan to request funding for, make sure you have the right form that applies to the situation at hand, and use that form, and provide it by the deadline of February th. 

Scott Faulk: Great, thank you Dwayne. This is Scott Faulk by the way. We're going to move on to slide . So that's the application process, and now I just want to touch on a little bit about once you are awarded some funds, I want to talk to you a little bit about how you're going to be receiving those funds. So if you are a federal land management agency, you're going to be required to enter into an interagency agreement with FTA. FTA will administer one interagency agreement with each federal land management agency receiving funding. These interagency agreements are going to be operated s a reimbursable agreement. And then recipients who are state or local government entities will be required to apply for the ATPPL funds electronically through FTA's electronics grant and awards management system or a team. Our regional office will be more then happy to help walk you through this process, I encourage you to check out our website at www.fta.dot.gov and that lists all of our regional offices, and you can call them up and they'll walk you through this process. And now onto slide . As you know there's a lot of strings attached to using government funds, and rather then boring you guys I'd rather just give you a website that lists out everything that's required for using government funds. So you can see the website online right now, and it's a really good document, it provides everything you need to know about it, so please check that out. But like I said, our regional offices would be more then happy to work with you, or feel free to call me and I'll be happy to work with you on a one on one basis. And now onto slide . So, I just want to let everybody know that there is a program manual about this program, its going to be finalized shortly and posted on the website, which is basically Alternative Transportation in Parks and Public Lands  , it covers everything from A to Z and also provides some sample language that we pulled from proposals that were strong from last year. So I think that it’s really good, and it will be on our website as soon as its finalized. And also on the website is some frequently asked questions that I think is useful, and like I said, there's a lot of other links on there that kind of give you more information about this program. And now, I would like to open it up for some and Q and A. We've been receiving a lot of questions throughout the presentation, and we'll try to scroll up to the top of these questions, and then we're just going to start running down them. Do you all have questions for us? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: We do have some questions here that we may want to begin with. I don't know where these came from, so I probably won't be giving you credit for your question, but we will address them. One of the first questions we have was :

Smith: Can funding from this source be used to pay for agency staff time on approved projects? And again, the projects, there are two types of eligible projects, planning projects and capital projects. In planning projects sometimes you may be using your staff to actually do some of the planning studies, and of course that time is eligible as a part of the activity. The biggest thing is that you make sure that your budget that you come in for after the award is consistent with your project proposal. So you really want to put the information in up front. When we're talking about capital expenses, if we're consistent with what FTA, how we manage our <inaudible> program with requirements attached to the extent practical to this program, we do allow for some project administration of capital projects, but we do look for a practical level. We typically look for about % when we're doing grant applications because if you're building an intermodal terminal, then we're looking for, you know, we understand that there may be some administration costs that are in direct relationship to the amount of capital that goes in. But if you're purchasing two buses, then we also look at the amount of the project to make sure that it's a practical expense. You know, we don't want to pay for a year's worth of staff time for a bus procurement, but we will pay for the amount of time that's necessary to complete the activities. We have some guidance that we put out for those projects that are being implemented by FTA through TEAM, where we do tell our readers to use a Project Admin line item. I'm not sure how that's showing up in our inter-agency agreement, but you really just want to make sure that you lay the cost out in your proposals because it's easy enough for us to say "Well we're funding the project but only a certain amount of project admin," then it is for us to try to put it in after we've done a proposal. So I would say put that in your proposal knowing that we will allow for some practical level of project admin as it relates to capital, and if you're actually using your staff to implement your planning activities, then just include that staff time into the cost of doing the planning. The second question that we have asks about, and this is really something administrative that can be worked out after the call, and it's for interagency agreements and the reporting requirements for FY  if the agreements were not yet in place. So that's something that we can deal with off line because it really only affects those people in procurement that are dealing with those interagency agreements. We have a third question that says "If a National Park Service unit has an eligible project but the National Park Service doesn't want to submit it because they have other priorities, can another eligible federal agency submit it in partnership with the National Parks Service unit. I can let an entity, someone, maybe Jim, from the National Parks Service answer this. My reaction is the federal land management agency is to apply for federal land that they manage. And so I don't see how another federal land management agency would go around the National Parks Service and submit their projects. But Jim, you may want to address that. 

Jim Evans: Thank you Henrika. They all have to be filtered through the regional office if they're a National Park Service. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. I mean, and I didn't know from that question whether two federal land units were bumping up against each other, but we would still want to make sure they were in coordination and consultation with the National Parks Service if that was the case. 

Man: Henrika, that could probably be two questions. If they wanted to go hand in hand and the two projects that were inside one bureau and inside another one, then I guess the-- Let's say the Forest Service had a project that dealt with the Park Service, and the Park Service didn't want to submit it, but the Forest Service did, if that's the question I think the answer would be that the Park Service would probably reconsider. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Well right.

Man: Or deal with it sponsoring it by the Forest Service. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. And I guess that would all come down to the Forest Service being willing to financially sustain the project. 

Man: And also, if there are two agencies that are submitting the project jointly, there is a possibility for a couple of units in Virginia to do that. Applications have to be submitted to both agencies, not just one or the other. There's not one lead agency in that case, so suffice in this particular case is that Park Service unit and Fish and Wildlife Service unit, they'll have to submit one to the Park Service and one to Fish and Wildlife Service. Hopefully we'll work it out where both of them will be either approved or not approved, but that's the way that has to work. We're not going to accept one whole project from one agency that affects two agencies. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: The next question is: can you provide examples of winning proposals that FTA thought were strong on both technical merits and project concepts. I believe, Scott, you may be able to speak to this, are we providing that on the website? 

Scott Faulk: Yes we are. Like I said, it is in the program manual, and we just extracted some of the really good language that we found in last year's proposals, and that will be on the website shortly. So please check back in a week. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Then there's a comment that most parks do not conduct traffic studies as part of their planning, can parks use proxy data or information from local governments to address FTA's technical questions regarding congestion, delays, visitor mobility etc.

Dwayne Weeks: Yes, I mean if you don't have the data, you don't have the data. But if some other local entity like a state department of transportation or a metropolitan planning organization, or a transit operator, has data regarding the number of transit riders, the number of vehicles, or the projected future level of congestion, use that data. You don't necessarily have to go out there tomorrow and start counting cars or anything, but reference other sources wherever possible to identify data that builds up the need for your project, or justifies why it should receive funding.

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay, next we go onto should every project provide narrative for every implementation evaluation factor? Example, a project to expand a bus stop might impact visitor mobility, accessibility and safety, but not visitor education, recreation and health benefits. Where in the proposal should the need for and benefits of the existing system-- Okay, wait a minute, that's the second part. That's the first part: should every project provide narrative for every implementation evaluation factor?

Dwayne Weeks: If your project doesn't have any benefits for that particular evaluation factor, I mean, it's not necessary to provide information to back that up if that in fact does not exist. But you might acknowledge how well the project meets the other goals, or the other evaluation criteria. If you're short in one area, work on the areas that the project does have a lot of benefits, particularly visitor experience. I mean, if they're sitting underneath a shaded area and you're located in Washington State where it rains all the time, that's going to benefit visitor experience, where as it may not have any impact at all on overall speed or mobility or transit travel demand. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: The second part of the question really just talks to where in the proposal should needs or the benefits of the existing system be, and I think that if we go back to those charts that you went over earlier in terms of each evaluation factor, how much the weight it holds, and what should be described in that, that that may have answered that question. These are some that we received in advance. If not, shoot it back up there and we'll go at it again, but I'm going to move onto the last part of that question where it asks if standard FTA circular definitions apply to the finite vehicle life, and I would say that the answer to that... 

Ellen Lafayette: Hey Henrika, this is Ellen. I just rejoined the call and I wanted to make sure you can hear me. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I can hear you. 

Ellen Lafayette: Thank you. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: So yeah, for the purpose of this program being administered by FTA and using FTA program requirements, then our vehicle life guidance guidelines would be applicable to this program as well. And for those of you who may not know where that information is, you can go to the FTA website, fta.dot.gov go to publications and guidance, circulars, look up Grants Management Circular, which is, and our vehicle life criteria is included within that circular. Moving onto the next list of questions, the first one we got is: 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: How likely is it that non-motorized transportation systems would be funded? In other words is there a particular emphasis area for FY funding? To my knowledge, currently there is no particular stated emphasis areas for FY . We tried to capture all of what goes into the consideration in the Federal Register notice. The factors that Scott laid out when looking at non- motorized transportation will be evaluated in regards to these types of projects, and however looking at the program manual, which will eventually be published, I mean, and put on our website, where we talk about the law specifically states that the Department of Interior has the ability to use factors to determine what their priorities are. It lists specific factors, and then if you go down to the end it lists any other factors that the Department of Interior considers appropriate. So at this time, we don't have any specific interest areas that we're going for in evaluating all of the projects based on a criteria that we set forth in this call. But we will acknowledge that the law does allow for priorities to be used in the final, ultimate decision of what's funded. 

Dwayne Weeks: I got one more question about trails and we’ll go ahead and answer that now. <inaudible - over talking> connecting bus and subway terminals, but don't necessarily replace cars, would that qualify. I just want to reiterate that % of what we're weighting your responses are on the needs. So if there's not truly a need, then they're not going to rank as high as others. Did anybody else have anything that they wanted to add about trails? 

Scott Faulk: <inaudible> budget like that would be eligible, they could submit it and see how it stacks up against other projects. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. I think if we all look at it, even though there may not be a noticed reduction I guess, because a lot of times there's cars go off the road, cars on the road, but it seems like if there's access created for transit use that there should be some benefit. That you should be able to show some benefit in terms of reduction of...

Dwayne Weeks: The trails that are going to rate highest are going to be those that show connectivity to the existing transportation system, and augment existing facilities that support a transportation purpose. When we start looking at trail proposes submitted, the ones that rank higher are going to ( ) demonstrate the best purpose and need, and demonstrate the greatest utility of transportation projects.

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: The second question was how does the lack of congressional appropriate affect this program for FY  , and this is not just affect the parks program, it affects all of FTA's programs. If we do go into a situation where we're operating under a year long continuing resolution we'll still go forward with the program evaluation, but funding would just be capped off at the ' level. That may mean with the next round of solicitation that additional ' funds may be lumped in and available for us when we give ' projects, but right now the effect that we would see is that instead of moving forward with the ' level as authorized in SAFETEA-LU, it would be capped and only giving out awards for the $ million or the $ million that was authorized in FY , under a year long continuing resolution. The next part is:

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: How do national parks whose projects occur entirely with their federal jurisdiction need to interact, if at all, with local MPOs? The answer is that the metropolitan and statewide planning requirements do attach to this program, and if you're awarded a grant under this program, then you have to work to make sure it's included in the appropriate planning documents be it the [TIP or the STIP] for your project. make sure it's included in the appropriate planning documents be it the TIP or the STIP for your project. 

Scott Faulk: And if it's not a metropolitan planning area we process. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Next we had a question: If a non- profit is the ultimate recipient of ATPPL funds, and I'm assuming that you mean through contract, because that's how they would be eligible, the recipient would be the land management agency or the state, tribal or local government that's acting, who has property and vicinity to the land management agency, and a non-profit receiving the money would only be getting the money through some type of contract or service agreement arrangement with that entity. But if they are the ultimate recipient of the funds, are there additional FTA reporting requirements or FTA spending restrictions that the non-profit needs to be aware of that are above the standard clause? For this question I would have to look a little more-- The reporting requirements would be the same because the entity responsible for the received the grant directly from FTA. Now, you would need to make sure that you put down the <slow?> down requirements so that you would have the information at hand to report to to make sure that you put down the <slow down?> down requirements so that you would have the information at hand to report to FTA, but the ultimate responsibility for the reporting still lies with that person that's a grantee, or that entity that's a grantee, or that entity that's receiving the money through the interagency agreement. Jim Evans:

The statement of work would be incorporated into the cooperative agreement. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: And the reporting requirements would still be, in your case as a land management agency, it would still be the land management agency's burden to report, and you would just get the information necessary from those non- profits. We have a question:

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: When can we expect to receive our FY funds? It depends. 

Man: Well the word is today, at least from the National Parks Service, the interagency reimbursable agreement was signed this morning, and so we're hoping with the financial system we have set up on the park side, it should be available in the next days or so. 

Man: In actuality, those units aren't going to receive any money in their budgets. What they're going to get is reimbursable authority, contract authority. So if somebody's out there in Fish and Wildlife Service land, or Park Service land is expecting and actual entry into their station budget, they will be sorely disappointed. What will be set up is that your regional offices or some other entity, there will be a reimbursable account which you can charge money. No money will show up in a station budget, which is good because then the managers of that station will not have to spend it. You should know your money, the money is most likely in your regional office, and you'll get charge in it. So don't expect an entry into your station budget. Right Jim? 

Jim Evans: Right. 

Scott Faulk: Okay, is that in regards to the expiration of funds? These funds are good until expended. They're not going to go away. I see a question here:

Scott Faulk: What about FY funds? Don't worry, they're not going anywhere, just when everything is up and running, you can just go ahead. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: But we do want to encourage you to apply for the funds. Because, I mean, typically with FTA after grants are active, or if you apply for the money, you get the money and it just sits there for years, it goes on an inactive list with us. But one of the things that as we report on programs, as congress ask us information, a lot of times they want to know what's our progress in getting the money out, or getting the projects on the road, so the longer they stay there, then in some instances the less amount of information we have to give congress. So we do want to encourage everyone to get projects up and running as soon as possible, although funds are available until expended. 

Ellen Lafayette: I'd like to share with folks what's happening with the Forest Service ones. We are developing-- We've got an interagency agreement that will be established in each regional office, and I'm working with the Washington office, grants and agreements people, to determine who exactly signs those right now. But we do have the agreements and that money should be out within the next month. 

Scott Faulk: I was just going to say, it is important to maybe know your funds, but if we go into and it's time to reauthorize the program and there's a whole lot of unexpended funds there, we will not get the program extended, and we certainly won't get an increase in the program if we're not using the money we're getting. So it's to everyone's advantage to get it and spend it, and I would hope actually if you get a project and you're spending those funds, don't come back for another project because we can't afford to let the money sit around. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I guess that feeds right into-- Did you want to address that? 

Dwayne Weeks: I wanted to talk about some of the other planning questions that we've received. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay, but just since we're on that, somebody asked about the status of the MOA, and currently... 

Lou DeLorme: It's in DOI's hands, and we're going through the signing process now, and I hope to have it signed in a surname process now, and I hope to have it signed in a couple of weeks. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay, now we can move on 'cause we need to start addressing the questions that were placed. 

Dwayne Weeks: This is Dwayne Weeks again, and I'm going to discuss some of the questions that came up about the evaluation process, and some of the planning studies during the Webinar, and one question that came up:

Dwayne Weeks: When evaluating the needs, are we looking for the needs for the entire project, or just the part being requested for funding? What difference would additional funding add to the transportation system? Basically, we're looking for the need for the project that we're requesting funding for. We don't want to look at the overall picture unless this is such an integral part that the whole proposal couldn't happen at all. Last year we received a number of applications for portions of projects, but they weren't entire projects. What we'd like to see is that we have the demonstrated purpose and need for the proposal that the applicant is seeking the ATPPL funding for, and not one portion of a broad overall plan. Another question:

Dwayne Weeks: Can planning studies be program level, or are they only project level studies? Really it's going to depend upon the purpose and need, you know? What is the transportation problem that we're actually looking to address with this planning study? If it's a regional issue and a strong case can be made for the need of a large scale planning study to coordinate local transit providers to provide transportation from outside areas to employment within a public land area or a land management area, that's a need, a strong need for a regional study. However in many cases it's going to be looking at an evaluation of alternatives to address a problem identified at maybe a particular entrance to a land management area, or a site-specific area. One thing that's been pointed out to me by a lot of land management experts is that most of these sites are huge, and the transportation problem usually impacts one small portion of the overall area. Therefore wouldn't you want to focus on that area that has the greatest problems? But it's going to go on a case by case difference. Another question:

Dwayne Weeks: Can planning money be used for outside project management team to focus on a system implementation, or do the funds need to stay in-house? It's going to depend basically upon how you plan to address this problem. A lot of agencies do contract with consultants, and do contract with transit providers to provide service within their land management area, and that's perfectly acceptable to us. However, I want to note that there needs to be strong coordination and agreement with the land management area and the particular unit that they want to proceed with the study. We want to makes sure that any type of planning study is coordinated with the MPL's, the local government entities, and the land management area regardless as to who is the ultimate project sponsor of that study. So those were the planning questions that we received. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: OK, now I'm going to try to begin at the beginning, we only have I think a few more questions to address. 

Scott Faulk: Well first off, the question about why do we use the Federal Register to get the word out about the program? Mostly that's our own transportation protocol. We feel this reaches a broad range of people interested in the program. If we sent individual letters to people I think we'd be excluding others, so we feel that the Federal Register gets the word out the best way possible. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay, one of the first questions is again a question about trails projects, and I think as you know, this program really we're only in the first year of implementation, so really past performance, we don't have a lot of data to give you on that. But as of last year we funded one, and again we will evaluate them based on a criteria, we've set out the types of trails that are eligible under the program, which I think goes to a question we have further down that asks about a federal wetland. It seems to me that that would be a recreational trail and not the type of trails that we would be interested in, that are eligible under this program are trails that have connectivity to transportation. 

Nathan Caldwell: <inaudible> trail in that question. Those 

Man: <inaudible> trail in that question. Those are not going to get <inaudible>. 

Woman: It's a good thing to do, but it's not a 

Caldwell: I would encourage you to look up the transit enhancement project and if it's related to that, that may be an eligible project, but not this program. an eligible project, but not this program. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: We had one question that asked about tribally owned lands on an Indian Reservation, could they be considered eligible for this program? And again, I tried to walk through earlier what an eligible area was, and then what would be an eligible federal land management agency. State, tribal and local governments are only eligible to receive funds if their land is in the vicinity of an eligible area, which is federally owned recreational park, and they have the consent of the federal land management agency. So if a tribal area does not fit within those requirements, then it would not be considered for ATPPL funding. However under our Section  letter program, we do have a tribal transit program. We went out with a solicitation, we're in the process of announcing our ' awards, and we will shortly be going out with another solicitation for ' . So that may be an alternative funding source for the type of project that you're interested in. So again, like I said, you have to look at what the eligible area is, and whether you have a project that's in the vicinity of one of those federal managed areas. And outside of that, you need to look for other funding sources like our Tribal Transit Program. Someone asked about how the regional evaluation flows into the overall evaluation. If you have a strong regional evaluation, how does that flow into the overall evaluation? Dwayne, you may want to talk to that, because you really flowed through the process of how that gets you to the national competition. 
Dwayne Weeks: Yeah. If the land management office screens your proposal and ranks you well, you're proposal will advance to the next step where the technical working groups weights, and the proposal states upon the criteria. And it all plays in, you know? Once we put all the proposals together and have the different representatives in a room, we tried to do an impartial job to put the projects in the order based upon the individual evaluation criteria. However, a regional office is going to evaluate those proposals just in that region, they're not going to have the benefit of looking at all the proposals submitted nationally, and while that proposal may be strong, or not so strong in that particular region, it may fare very well against all the other projects nationally or vice versa. We do take the input of all of our regional division office, and all of our partners, into account, but ultimately it's going to be that working group and the Department of the Interior that does the ultimate project selection. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. So we also had a question about ITS and what ITS components of VRT be considered for funding? ITS with FTA programs is always considered a capital part of the program, and would be eligible for funding under the program. Dwayne, I know you've addressed a lot of the planning questions, there was one particular one. Did you address whether a planning study had to be project related or for it to be program related? 

Dwayne Weeks: Uh-huh. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay. 

Dwayne Weeks: Regarding the questions on documentation, we've had several requesting do they need to support all of their support documentation, or can they reference it with the proposal? We would prefer that you reference the documentation in your proposal. If we received copies of every support documentation, we would be swamped with a lot of documentation. So just reference that in your proposal. Maybe you have a couple of pages from the executive summary, but we have a page limitation on the proposals, and we don't want to receive a mountain of previous studies. But just "plagiarize." 

Julie Atkins: There was another planning question :

Julie Atkins: If planning project presents an opportunity to increase project presents an opportunity to increase visitation is that considered solving a transportation problem? transportation problem? 

Dwayne Weeks: It could. If the issue is access and you have a valuable recess that has no access at all, and you submit your planning proposal showing how you evaluate alternatives to improve access to that site, looking at various transportation modes, and documenting how that's going to benefit visitor experience or environment benefits, you could make a strong case for why that project should receive funding under this program. 

Man: In converse, it could also impact visitor experience, and also impact resources. And so there's some prospect that if it's for the balancing in terms of the scoring would, you know, push it more towards unacceptable. 

Scott Faulk: So the answer yes. You have to be ranked with all the other projects that come in, and especially if its opening up a new area in visitation, and it's going to impact those resources negatively, that's one of the things that we're looking to try and alleviate, so we have to look at it on its merits and impact. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I realize that when we earlier talked about ' funding, I didn't address ' funding for those projects that are being implemented, they're to be implemented through grants with FTA's regional office and team for the state, tribal or local entities that are applying directly to FTA for the funding. Those funds are the requirements in terms of getting it incorporated into the TIP and the STIP, and you're ready to apply and move forward on those projects, the money is there and you can forward on those projects, the money is there and you can apply for the funding. We talked about ' , it says :

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: When do we expect money to be available to the field, so I'm assuming that it's coming form the land management agencies, but its our goal to have projects announced by June, and I would think that we would learn from the process that we've gone through with our interagency agreements this time, and that hopefully we'll be able to get money-- those agreements signed in a more timely fashion, but again this is the first year of the program and everybody's doing the best they can to learn one another and be able to get these agreements signed. But hopefully with the next round of funding, we will be informed by this process and you will see the money available to you in a faster timeline. That's all I have to say, anybody else have anything to say? Somebody asked an outside project manager for [BRT]? So of course consistent with all of our programs if you want to use contractor support that’s just a procurement action and you contractor support that’s just a procurement action and you can do that. 

Dwayne Weeks: Provided that it's coordinated with your local land management agency and your proposal is in . . . 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith : Well, it should be in the proposal. 

Scott Faulk: Have we got any trails with ADA-accessible buses in.. 

Scott Faulk: Have we got any trails with ADA-accessible buses in successful projects? Again, I think we made that pretty clear. I mean, we deal with trails and if they meet the criteria and they do link to modes of transportation, they will be considered, focused on the need for the trail. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: For me that question probably requires a little more digging into, because I think its asking if it's a requirement that's out there whether we use ATPPL money for it or not, and will be allow ATPPL money to be used for the implementation of a current federal requirement? And I think that we may have to do some consultation on that. I don't know-- The laws I don't think specifically, I haven't read that it specifically states that you couldn't do that, but I think we have to talk about it. So look to the Q and A's that we're going to post on the website for a concrete answer to that question. I know I can't answer it at this time. 

Dwayne Weeks: We have a question about if there are problems with entering data into the gray area of the form which can restrict the number of characters entered, does that matter? Just print the form out and write in the number if it's greater then the number of fields that the form will allow. We'll take a look at the fields and see if there's any that you would need far in access of the number of characters allowed, but it would be rare. But we'll look in to that, but if you really feel that you have to have that number in there, print the form out and just write it in that 

Julie Atkins: During the results of the questions, or a comment about adding fields such as travel reservations, tribal plans, things like that to the actual proposal form, and I plans, things like that to the actual proposal form, and I think that that can be addressed by looking at the eligible applicant and the eligible areas, and that actually you can be a project sponsor of the tribe, but then you have to have some part of your jurisdiction, and be acting in consent with the land management area in order to receive this funding. So that is the reason why that those fields are not incorporated into the proposal forms. 

Scott Faulk: Now, in regards to does a new interagency agreement need to be entered into each year? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Well the answer is yes to that. I think the next question where they ask:

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Under what circumstances should a state or a local partner apply directly for ATPPL funding, what are the benefits and what are the draw downs? Some of those decisions that you have balance on a local level. I would suggest that you look at the requirements document that's on our ATPPL website to see what the requirements are if you apply directly to FTA and agreement. One of the biggest differences is if you do an interagency agreement you're subject to the oversight of the federal land management unit, but not subject to triennial federal land management unit, but not subject to the tribal review or the certification review, or the different review that FTA would have you under. But a lot you, the state and local and tribal governments, may already have established relationships with FTA, so this may not be a burden to you. But I do think that that's a local decision that you just requirements of the program to see what best benefits you locally. 

Caldwell: Just as an example, one planning project that was 

Scott Faulk: Just as an example, one of the planning projects that was awarded last year went to Lee County Transit in Florida. Part of the jurisdiction is Sanibel Island, and a large part of Sanibel Island is Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge. The three entities decided that Lee County should be the lead project sponsor with the consent of Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge because they had already had vendor relationship with FTA. And so they received-- in a situation like that we thought it was best that they just receive the money directly from FTA. And again we had a situation similar with Commerce City, Colorado and Rocky Mountain National Wildlife Refuge. In situations like that, and that's when you may benefit, you should go directly through, get your money directly through FTA. Again, the application has to come in to a federal land management They have to come through Fish and Wildlife Service, Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, BOR or Forest Services. 

Man: Okay, the other question was on the application 

Man: Okay, the other question was on the application process when it asks:

Man: Do you plan to request additional ATPPL funding in future years? Is this meant for projects which need to be phased over more then one year? It's one project per application. If you're going to have a project that is multi years, then that's just still considered one project. Now I think they're talking about if you're going to apply for a second additional project. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right, and that is what they're asking. And of course what we're looking for a lot of times, you're defining the larger picture and you may be applying for a minimal segment that you may be able to operate, or that it may be-- But you do plan to in the future apply for additional funds. So that's what we want to get at, if you're describing a larger project but you're actually funding only a small portion of that project, but you do intend to apply in the future for additional funds, we just like to know that. part. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. 

Scott Faulk: Okay, does money for marketing an existing park transit system qualify? What type of implementation project is it, Bus or Other? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: It's neither. 

Dwayne Weeks: We have not received a proposal for marketing existing transit systems, and we're actually, one of the goals of the program is to fund new systems that resolve and identify a problem, or planning for future systems. And one of the things we want to report back to congress is how many people are riding the system, and how we're improving the visitor experience, and how we're addressing environmental issues. Marketing may not fit into that very well, you know, in terms of the overall programmatic goals. It's not a capital program, it's not implementation of a project, and it's not necessarily planning. So I wouldn't advise submitting that type of application for this for funding. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: And I think as we see, we talked about this being the second year of the program, and we talked about receiving applications for $ million when we only have $ million last year, so over the years you may see priorities shift, but right now there is definitely a need for rehabilitation and new services as opposed to something like marketing. So right now that wouldn't rate well in the program.

Ellen LaFayette: But what about marketing a new system and determining the feasibility? That would be more of a feasibility study right? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. If what you're doing is planning to see if there is a need or feasibility for a new system, then that's a planning activity. And I'm thinking of marketing as like an advertising push out there for we…

Caldwell: Market research as part of a planning study is eligible. A marketing program for an existing service just to get more riders is not. The market research as part of to get more riders is not. The market research as part of planning is the idea still you're trying to develop a capital project, which <inaudible>. better. 

Scott Faulk: We have this question:

Scott Faulk: What assistance are we getting from large public land agencies dealing with transit getting from large public land agencies dealing with transit in the field and development of key elements for the reauthorization process such as <inaudible> process similar to the regional planning agents for commute to work? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I mean, we really haven't started yet. We will all work together and coordinate on reauthorization of the program because we're focused on getting out the program right now. 

Scott Faulk: I think regional authorities would say if we work 

Man: I think regional authorities would say if we work collectively we'll be more powerful then if we each go our separate ways. So I know that there will be a lot of collaboration between everybody. 

Ellen LaFayette: Within the federal lands management agencies, the federal land group has started on the reauthorization, and they do intend to include something concerning the ATPPL program. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right. And so we'll make sure that we're coordinating consistent across the board as we move forward, but just from a larger work group, interagency group position, we haven't yet began to work on that. 

Man: That will be coming together this summer. [laughter] 

Scott Faulk: Just so everybody knows, this Webinar is being recorded and it will be posted on our website. So people can go back and download the PowerPoint, but also just listen to what we're saying today. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Okay, we have a question that’s:

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I'm interested in the development of proposal for the ATPPL program. My situation is rather unique in that I fund raise for a public river walk that is owned by a city, can I submit a proposal for the foundation? City owned property is not eligible under the program, so in order for it to be an eligible area it has to be a federally owned park or recreational area. So that would...

Ellen LaFayette: If it was adjacent, I think it would be, wouldn't it? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Well, if it's adjacent and with the consent of the federal land management agency then of course they could apply for the funding. But just reading the question on it's face, they're talking about a river walk that's city owned property, and they just wondered if this was a funding source for that. 

Man: There's got to be a clear federal land management agency connection in there somewhere. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: And then the other problem is would there just be a recreational use. So without more information that shows a nexus with a federal land management unit, on the face of that question I would think that it would be an ineligible project. 

Operator: Did you want to take questions on the phone? 

Scott Faulk: The presenters are the only ones that have speaking capability; everybody else should just submit their questions through the Webinar or email them. 

Ellen LaFayette: When I read the questions Henrika, I think there may be a need for some clarification on those questions. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Which is true for some of the questions. And I guess at this point you could try to, if you need clarification on your question you could try to submit another question. If not, then try to submit it to the email site that was provided earlier, and we would clarify it in our Q and A's. We have a question here that talks about ' planning money with the intent of then applying for implementation money in ' . They say:

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I hope that the fact that the ' money is today still not available to units does not make our eligibility for implementation money less competitive. That would only be the case, I mean, typically if you're implementation is based upon the data that comes out of your planning and you have not yet done your planning, then that would probably make the proposal not score as high. But if you've used other funding sources and you're just waiting to reimburse yourself, you've actually implemented your planning study and you have the data to inform your ' application, then that would be fine. But we want to make sure that we don't put the cart before the horse, so if you haven't done the planning, then that may make the immediate need for the ' implementation not score as high. 

Terry Rosapep: Okay the next question is: What's that actual rating of the program goals related to balance of urban, rural, geographic size and cost of the project? Well like I said, we do try to find a balance, maybe Dwayne could give us a little bit more information about this? 

Dwayne Weeks: Ultimately we want to provide funding for the best projects that are ready to implement right now. We're looking to fund those projects that are ready to go, and have a good solid financial plan, a good solid definition of the project. Once we've ranked the projects based upon the evaluation criteria, we are going to look at the distribution of the projects amongst areas. I suspect that we'll have a lot of projects throughout the United States. Last time around the distribution in terms of geographic area was pretty widely disbursed and pretty uniform between rural and urban areas, and geographically across the United States. We don't have a specific weighting in mind. We are      going to try to strike a balance but again, we're going to let the project proposals speak for themselves, and then come back and look at what the results show

Scott Faulk: Fantastic. Okay are national heritage area is affiliated with national parks system eligible? We've laid out the criteria pretty well. If it's open to the general public, and it is a federal land management area, it needs to be a government owned park, so yes that's eligible. So the question is:

Scott Faulk: Did I understand you correctly that in- house projects and administration costs for planning, design and construction contracts should be included as a separate line item in the ATPPL grant application? 

Weeks: We'd have to look at that on a project by project basis and how it applies to that specific project, and what are the costs. I mean, every project's going to be different. 

Scott Faulk: In the Parker River planning project, they put in $ ,  for project administration as a line item. That      would go into the project to support it. [Inaudible conversation] 

Weeks: So it looks like that's all the questions that we've received. 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Did we answer the one about did they understand correctly about in-house project admin? Okay good. Well then it looks like that's all the questions we've received. 

Scott Faulk: Is that it? Well, it’s been fun,. . . and we have one more. Are areas along National Wild and Scenic Rivers eligible? 

Man: If they're within a unit of Park Services, Wildlife Services, BLM or BLR or Forest Service, they’d be eligible, but I think on the face, no. [Inaudible conversation} 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: And when you're looking to determine eligibility from any of the program guidance that we put out, you must first look at the definition of eligible area and see if you fit within that. If its not a federally owned area, federally owned parks or recreation area as defined by law, then that's the first indicator that it's not eligible under the program. Then you move to the next step in terms of who is eligible to see if you fit within that framework. 

Scott Faulk: Here's a follow up: Some National Park Services sites including National Heritage areas have some or all of their land owned by non-federal agencies. Must eligible projects be on land that is  % federally owned? 

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: I don't know if they're talking about a split here? Now we've talked about projects that cross between the vicinity of a state and local, tribal areas that bump up against a federal land management unit, I'm not clear about what the  % federally owned, if it's %, I don't know. 

Man: If it's a transportation system that doesn't go on federal land it wouldn't be eligible. 

Man: But what if it service federal land? 

Man: I didn't know that it had to physically necessarily be on federal property as long as it was serving... 

Ellen LaFayette: You know, these questions might be better answered by a smaller group from the technical review committee.

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: And we're going to do that. We're going to vet these questions and post official answers on the website.      

Man: Yeah, and I want to encourage that particular unit to coordinate with their regional office and let them-- They'll start working at that level. Ellen LaFayette:

Well I know the one on the National Wild and Scenic Rivers, I mean, I know the Forest Service manages a lot of those.

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Right, and it may. It's just said wild and scenic rivers. Had it said federally owned wild and scenic rivers, then we probably would have given it a      different answer. I think what's missing there is whether it's a federally owned or owned some other way. 

Ellen LaFayette: Versus managed.

Scott Faulk: Okay, so in regards to some of these gray area questions, talk to your regional offices, but I'm always available. I might not have the answer, but at least I can help you work through this. So again, just let me kind of give you my information. My email address is scott.Scott Faulk@dot.gov, or you can call me at  - - . I know everybody here that's working on it is really excited. We hope that everybody takes advantage of this opportunity and we all look forward to reviewing your project application, which are due February the th. 

Man: Going to the one about would a planning project which aims to do the master planning required to improve a forest scenic byway to a national scenic byway designation be considered, the answer is clearly no, but I just don't think we answered that.

Ellen LaFayette: What one was that?

Weeks: Would a planning project which aims to do the master planning required to improve a forest scenic byway to a national scenic byway designation be considered? I don't know if that would qualify as alternative transit in a parks and public land. It may not rate well compared to a number     of other project proposals.

Ellen LaFayette: It depends on what you're trying to do. I mean, we had talked about developing a special designation in the national forest scenic byways using as alternative transportation ones. You know the special designation, if they had alternative transportation on them as a special designation or something. But I think that would be the only time that something like that would even come close.

Henrika Buchanan-Smith: Well again just to say we've enjoyed the call and you all, we see that everybody has put a lot of thoughtful questions out. We do plan to give official answers to the questions that have been received during the Webinar and post them to the ATPPL website, and I'd just like to encourage people who still have questions to go on the website, read the requirements of the program. We do have the slides from this PowerPoint presentation posted, and we do anticipate posting a program manual that further details the criteria of the program in the near future. So I would just like to encourage everyone to really go on that site and utilize the information there. 

Woman: We'll address any technical issues that folks are having with actually filling out the form. There have been a couple of questions about the gray areas for the forms, so I'm going to go back and do that right after this. 

Scott Faulk: Great. Thank you very much for participating, I hope you enjoyed it. Also on our website will be a little link to give us feedback about this Webinar, I mean, I'd like to know what you think, if you thought that this was useful and if we should do more of these. So please let me know what you think of this.