[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9635-9636]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     SAFTEA PLANNING AND MITIGATION

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, the bill before us today recognizes some 
of the challenges that face States and metropolitan planning agencies 
when developing plans for future highway projects.
  We have included natural resource and environmental factors for 
States and metropolitan planning agencies to consider when developing 
their transportation plans. They should consider protecting habitat, 
water quality and agricultural and forest land while minimizing 
invasive species.
  While I am most familiar with aquatic invasive species such as the 
sea lamprey and the zebra mussel that are wreaking havoc on my beloved 
Lake Champlain, nonnative species of vegetation have been degrading 
public and private property, degrading habitat, crops, and pastures.
  State transportation planning agencies can become active stewards in 
roadside management by phasing out the uses of nonnative vegetation and 
reestablishing native plants on our rights-of-way. In addition to 
considering invasive species during the planning process, this bill 
makes funding available for the control of invasive plant species and 
establishment of native species.
  To help States and metropolitan planning agencies assess the. 
environmental impacts of proposed highway projects we suggest 
consulting with other State and local agencies. Those responsible for 
land use management, natural resources, environmental protection, 
conservation and historic preservation should compare transportation 
plans with State conservation plans.
  This would include inventories of natural or historic resources and 
consideration of areas where wildlife crossing structures may be needed 
to ensure connectivity between wildlife habitat linkage areas.
  This commonsense approach will assure that transportation planners 
will consider the location of important habitat, wetlands and other 
natural resources at the earliest stages of planning for new roads. 
These provisions will make project delivery faster and more efficient.
  Currently, transportation projects are often planned without detailed 
information on core conservation areas, sensitive resources or 
important habitat that might lie within the selected corridor. These 
conflicts do not come to light until the environmental review process, 
which then becomes more expensive and time- consuming as transportation 
and resource officials try to reconcile infrastructure and conservation 
activities. These provisions will help transportation planners in 
avoiding unnecessary impacts on wildlife habitat and in mitigating for 
unavoidable impacts of a project.
  These provisions encourage States to utilize available wildlife 
habitat data and maps to inform the long-range transportation planning 
process. Planners would be able to identify potential concerns at the 
earliest stage of planning, when options for minimizing impacts are 
greatest and costs of doing so are lowest.
  Over 200 Americans die each year in wildlife-vehicle collisions, many 
more are injure4 and more than 1 million animals are killed on our 
roadways every day.
  State and Federal agencies spend considerable time and money both 
protecting natural areas and building transportation infrastructure. 
Unfortunately, conservation and growth efforts often happen 
independently and then come into conflict during the permitting and 
construction phases of a transportation project. These investments need 
to be coordinated. If conservation efforts are taken into account at 
the earliest stages of transportation planning, both priorities can be 
realized, in less time and at less cost.
  While none of us have a crystal ball that can show us what the future 
will look like, through consultation, transportation planners can get a 
picture of the broader landscape and see what the consequences of a 
proposed project might be. In some instances, potential environmental 
and habitat impacts can be avoided.
  The most significant threat to the biodiversity of this country is 
habitat loss. However, thoughtful, forward-looking transportation 
planning can go a long way towards reducing negative impacts and 
mitigating for unavoidable impacts. Over the next few decades, the 
decisions we make regarding highways and the ensuing loss of habitat 
will determine the fate of species and America's biodiversity. These 
provisions are aimed at helping to preserve that biodiversity through 
coordinated planning.
  Another provision focuses on improving environmental stewardship in 
transportation projects by expanding the current eligibility for 
environmental restoration and pollution abatement from only those 
projects undergoing reconstruction, rehabilitation, resurfacing, or 
restoration to any project, as well as establish eligibility for 
invasive species control efforts.
  Contributions to measures to control exotic and invasive plant 
species may precede, concur, or follow project construction if such 
measures are consistent with Federal law and State transportation 
planning processes. Finally, this bill recognizes that despite the best 
planning process, mitigation for impacts on habitat and natural 
resources from transportation projects may be necessary.
  To help provide for needed mitigation, the bill allows the States to 
establish habitat and wetlands mitigation funds for efforts related to 
mitigation activities. The fund would allow States to undertake larger 
mitigation efforts based on the total impacts of multiple projects 
rather than the smaller scale of a single project. These changes to the 
planning process and increased consideration of environmental impacts 
will improve future transportation projects while protecting the 
environment.
  This highway bill is about more than money. It is about balancing the 
needs of our Nation's transportation system with concerns about our 
natural habitats. We have done our best to strike that balance in this 
bill.

[[Page 9636]]

  Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Alexander). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________