    Transportation Planning: State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies
    Report Using Varied Methods to Consider Ecosystem Conservation
    (17-MAY-04, GAO-04-536).

    The nation's roads, highways, and bridges are essential to
    mobility but can have negative effects on plants, animals, and
    the habitats that support them (collectively called ecosystems in
    this report). Federally funded transportation projects progress
    through three planning phases: long range (20 or more years),
    short range (3 to 5 years), and early project development,
    (collectively defined as planning in this report) before
    undergoing environmental review (which includes assessing air and
    water quality, ecosystems, and other impacts) required under the
    National Environmental Policy Act. Federal law requires planners
    to consider protecting and enhancing the environment in the first
    two phases, but does not specify how and does not require such
    consideration in the third phase. GAO reported on (1) the extent
    to which transportation planners consider ecosystem conservation
    in planning, (2) the effects of such consideration, and (3) the
    factors that encourage or discourage such consideration. GAO
    contacted 36 planning agencies (24 states and 12 of approximately
    380 metropolitan planning organizations), as well as officials in
    22 resource agencies that maintain ecological data and administer
    environmental laws. The Department of Transportation and U.S.
    Army Corps of Engineers had no comments on a draft of this
    report. The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the
    contents of our draft report.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-536
        ACCNO:   A10048
      TITLE:     Transportation Planning: State and Metropolitan Planning
    Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider Ecosystem
    Conservation
         DATE:   05/17/2004
      SUBJECT:   Environmental law
    	     Environmental monitoring
    	     Environmental policies
    	     Federal/state relations
    	     Locally administered programs
    	     Public roads or highways
    	     State-administered programs
    	     Highway planning

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO Product.                                                 **
    **                                                              **
    ** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
    ** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
    ** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
    **                                                              **
    ** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
    ** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
    ** document's contents.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-04-536

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Requesters

    May 2004

    TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

    State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider
                                 Ecosystem Conservation

    GAO-04-536

    Highlights of GAO-04-536, a report to congressional requesters

    The nation's roads, highways, and bridges are essential to mobility but
    can have negative effects on plants, animals, and the habitats that
    support them (collectively called ecosystems in this report). Federally
    funded transportation projects progress through three planning phases:
    long range (20 or more years), short range (3 to 5 years), and early
    project development, (collectively defined as planning in this report)
    before undergoing environmental review (which includes assessing air and
    water quality, ecosystems, and other impacts) required under the National
    Environmental Policy Act. Federal law requires planners to consider
    protecting and enhancing the environment in the first two phases, but does
    not specify how and does not require such consideration in the third
    phase.

    GAO reported on (1) the extent to which transportation planners consider
    ecosystem conservation in planning, (2) the effects of such consideration,
    and (3) the factors that encourage or discourage such consideration. GAO
    contacted 36 planning agencies (24 states and 12 of approximately 380
    metropolitan planning organizations), as well as officials in 22 resource
    agencies that maintain ecological data and administer environmental laws.
    The Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no
    comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior
    generally agreed with the contents of our draft report.

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-04-536.

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    the link above. For more information, contact Katherine Siggerud, (202)
    512-2834, siggerudk@gao.gov.

    May 2004

    TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

    State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider
    Ecosystem Conservation

    Of the 36 transportation planning agencies that GAO contacted, 31
    considered ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, using a
    variety of methods. For example, Colorado conducts studies that
    incorporate ecosystem issues to guide future transportation decisions,
    uses advance planning to avoid or reduce impacts, and actively involves
    stakeholders. New Mexico uses planning studies to identify locations where
    wildlife are likely to cross highways and design underpasses to allow safe
    crossings. In the absence of specific requirements, federal agencies
    encourage ecosystem consideration in planning.

    Planners and state resource agency officials most frequently reported
    reduced ecosystem impacts and improved cost and schedule estimates as
    positive effects. For example, planners in New York changed a planned
    fivelane highway to a lower-impact two-lane boulevard after weighing the
    area's mobility needs and the project's impact on the surrounding habitat.
    In Massachusetts, resource agency officials said that addressing
    ecological requirements in planning improved schedule certainty during the
    federally required environmental review. Furthermore, planners and
    resource agency officials reported that working together has improved
    relationships between their agencies, thereby allowing ecosystem concerns
    to be resolved in a more timely and predictable manner. Officials also
    listed negative effects, such as higher project costs and more work for
    resource agencies.

    Most Frequently Reported Benefits from Considering Ecosystem Conservation

    Constituent support from agency staff, political appointees, or the public
    was the most frequently reported factor (27 instances) that encouraged
    planners to consider ecosystem conservation. For example, New Mexico's
    "pro-environment" culture reportedly encourages planners to consider
    ecosystem conservation. The cost in time and resources of considering
    ecosystem conservation was most often cited as a discouraging factor (23
    instances). For example, Colorado planners cited the significant amount of
    time needed to collect and maintain access to ecosystem data.

    Contents

      Letter

    Results in Brief

    Background

    Most Planners Contacted Reported Considering Ecosystem
    Conservation during Transportation Planning

    Planners and Resource Agency Officials Reported Mainly Positive
    Effects of Considering Ecosystem Conservation

    Support from Constituents and Transportation Agency Personnel
    Most Often Encouraged Consideration of Ecosystem
    Conservation

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

                                           1

                                          3 7

                                           9

                                           20

                                         23 28

    Appendix I Telephone Interview Questions for State and

      Metropolitan Area Planners 30

    Long-Range Transportation Planning 30
    State Transportation Improvement Program Planning 32
    Pre-NEPA Planning 33

    Appendix II Telephone Interview Questions for Resource

      Agency Officials 35

    State Transportation Planning 35
    Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning 35
    General Questions 35

    Appendix III Scope and Methodology

    Appendix IV	Methods Used by Twenty-Two Agencies to Consider Ecosystem
    Conservation

      Appendix V	Department of the Interior Comments GAO's
      Mission 44

      Tables

    Table 1: Phases During Which Transportation Planning Agencies Consider
    Ecosystem Conservation 11 Table 2: Factors that Reportedly Encourage
    Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning 24
    Table 3: Factors that Reportedly Discourage Consideration of Ecosystem
    Conservation in Transportation Planning 26

      Figures

    Figure 1: State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies Surveyed, and Whether
    They Reported Considering Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation
    Planning 5

    Figure 2: Reported Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation during
    Transportation Planning for 36 Planning Agencies 10

    Figure 3: Example of an Underpass Created to Allow Bears to Cross Highway
    Right-of-way without Danger of Collisions with Vehicles 14

    Figure 4: Effects of Considering Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation
    Planning Reported by Planners and Resource Agency Officials 21

    Abbreviation

    NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    May 17, 2004

    Congressional Requesters

    The nation's vast network of roads, highways, and bridges is essential to
    interstate commerce, economic growth, national defense, and leisure
    mobility. Yet the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, and even
    maintenance of the tens of thousands of miles of this transportation
    infrastructure each year can cause permanent environmental change by
    disturbing plant and animal habitats, creating barriers to animal
    movement, and producing other impacts. By one estimate, roads ecologically
    affect about one-fifth of the U.S. land mass.1

    Although federal agencies must assess the environmental impact of proposed
    federally funded transportation projects under the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA), state and metropolitan planners have the opportunity to
    consider these issues earlier during three planning phases: (1) as they
    develop long-range (20 or more years) plans; (2) as they develop
    short-range (3-5 years) plans known as transportation improvement
    programs; and (3) as they conduct early project planning.2 The
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century requires that planners
    develop these long-range plans and short-range programs and that the plans
    consider projects and strategies that will, among other things, protect
    and enhance the environment. However, the act provides no guidance on how
    planners should meet this requirement.

    You requested that we identify the extent to which planners consider the
    conservation of plants, animals, and the habitats that support them

    1R.T. Forman, "Estimate of the Area Affected Ecologically by the Road
    System in the United States," Conservation Biology (2000) 14(1):31-35,
    cited in Natasha C. Kline, The Effects of Roads on Natural Resources: A
    Primer Prepared for the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, (Tucson,
    Arizona: January 2002).

    2Approximately 380 metropolitan planning organizations perform
    transportation planning for areas having populations of 50,000 or more.
    State departments of transportation develop and implement statewide
    transportation plans and generally implement projects listed in
    metropolitan area plans. The National Environmental Policy Act requires
    that federal agencies assess the environmental impact of proposed actions
    that would significantly affect the environment. For a detailed
    description of how the act affects highway planning, design, and
    construction, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure:
    Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway
    Projects, GAO-03-534 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003).

    (collectively called "ecosystems" in this report) in transportation
    planning.3 In response, we asked transportation planners and others to
    identify (1) the extent to which state and metropolitan area
    transportation planners consider ecosystem conservation and how federal
    agencies are involved; (2) the effects, if any, of considering ecosystem
    conservation during transportation planning; and (3) the factors that
    encourage or discourage transportation planners from considering ecosystem
    conservation.

    To carry out this work, we reviewed laws and regulations relating to
    transportation planning and ecosystem conservation and spoke with
    officials of federal transportation agencies, resource agencies (those
    having responsibility for maintaining ecological data and administering
    federal environmental laws) and transportation and environmental
    conservation associations. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 24
    states and 12 metropolitan planning organizations, primarily on the basis
    of geographic diversity, to reflect a variety of ecosystems.4 We spoke
    with officials in each of our sample states' departments of transportation
    and metropolitan planning organizations to ascertain (1) the extent to
    which, if at all, they consider ecosystem conservation during state and
    metropolitan area transportation planning before they are required to
    consider the proposed project's environmental impact under NEPA; (2)
    anticipated and observed effects of considering ecosystems during
    transportation planning; and (3) factors that may encourage or discourage
    planners from considering ecosystems during transportation planning. To
    gain an understanding of the breadth and depth of each sample states' and
    metropolitan planning organizations' consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, we asked a variety of questions
    about how planners implement this approach, whether and how they involve
    stakeholders, what types and sources of data they consider, what positive
    and negative effects they have observed or expect to observe, and what
    factors encourage and discourage them from these efforts. (See app. I for
    a complete listing of these questions.) To obtain an additional
    perspective on the information that planning agencies reported, we
    contacted officials in resource agencies in 22 of our sample states.5 We

    3Because federal law already requires that states and local governments
    meet air and water quality standards, we did not include air and water
    issues in our review.

    4A nonprobability sample is a sample not produced by a random process.

    5We attempted to obtain resource agency perspectives in each of the 24
    states in our sample, but were unable to contact two of these agencies.

    asked these officials how they are involved in transportation planning,
    whether they collect ecological data and make these data available to
    transportation planners, what they believe are the effects of considering
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, and what factors
    encourage and discourage them from participating in transportation
    planning. (See app. II for a complete listing of these questions.)
    Finally, we reviewed transportation plans that were available from the
    state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning
    organizations in our sample. Although we requested planners' and resource
    agency officials' observations about the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, we did not evaluate the
    effectiveness of their efforts, or determine whether one agency's efforts
    were more effective than another's. We did not verify the statements of
    state and metropolitan transportation planners or resource agency
    officials because it was not practical to do so. The results of our work
    cannot be projected to all states and metropolitan planning organizations.
    In order to make reliable generalizations, we would have needed to
    randomly select a larger sample of states and metropolitan planning
    organizations than time allowed. We conducted our work from May 2003
    through April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government
    auditing standards. (See app. III for additional information on our scope
    and methodology.)

    The majority of the state and metropolitan planners that we contacted
    reported considering ecosystem conservation in transportation planning,
    and federal agencies encourage them to do so. (See fig. 1.) Planners in 31
    of the 36 agencies (86 percent) described considering ecosystem
    conservation at varying points in transportation planning using a variety
    of methods. Planners in four statesOregon, South Dakota, Colorado,
    and North Carolinadescribed extensively considering ecosystem
    conservation during planning through methods such as studies that
    incorporate ecosystem issues to guide future transportation decisions,
    advance planning to avoid or reduce ecosystem impacts, and active
    stakeholder participation. Twenty-two of the 31 said they conduct corridor
    studies or use project screening, among other methods, to consider
    ecosystem conservation.6 For example, New Mexico used corridor studies

    6A corridor is a broad geographic band that follows a general directional
    flow connecting major sources of trips that may contain a number of
    street, highway, and transit route alignments.

      Results in Brief

    to plan for, among other things, where bear and deer were likely to cross
    highways, and designed underpasses for them at these locations to help
    prevent vehicle collisions with wildlife. Planners in two agencies
    described focusing most of their ecosystem conservation efforts on
    ecological resources within areas of specific interest to their region,
    such as wetlands. Finally, planners in three agencies reported using
    mainly resource agency data and input from other stakeholders to determine
    whether their transportation plans could affect ecosystems, or
    incorporated in their transportation plans locally developed plans that
    consider ecosystem conservation. Planners in five agencies said they do
    not consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning before
    projects are subject to federal environmental review because, among other
    things, these agencies lack the time and resources or guidance on how to
    do so. Officials we contacted in state wildlife conservation or natural
    resource departments, as well as similar resource agencies, generally
    agreed that they assist transportation planners in considering ecosystem
    conservation during transportation planning. However, 11 of the state
    resource agency officials said they would like to be more involved in
    transportation planning or commented that communication with their state
    departments of transportation could be improved. Although federal law does
    not specifically require planners to consider ecosystem conservation in
    transportation plans, the Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service encourage state transportation planners to do so. The
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers often
    assist planners by providing ecosystem data or comments on transportation
    plans.

    Figure 1: State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies Surveyed, and Whether
    They Reported Considering Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation
    Planning

    The effects of considering ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning were mostly positive, according to the planners and state
    resource agency officials we interviewed. Specifically, planners in 29 of
    the 31 agencies that consider ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning, and 16 of the 19 state resource agency officials that we
    interviewed in the states that consider ecosystem conservation, described
    one or more positive effects on the environment. These positive effects
    include conserving habitat, reducing habitat fragmentation, or scheduling
    construction times to reduce impacts on breeding of certain species. For
    example, metropolitan planners in New York told us that they changed plans
    for a five-lane highway to a lower-impact two-lane boulevard after finding
    that the wider highway would significantly affect the surrounding habitat
    and that, according to an updated traffic study, the wider highway was not
    needed to ensure mobility. In addition, 12 planners and three state

    resource agency officials reported that considering ecosystem conservation
    in transportation planning leads to more certain project costs and
    schedules. In Massachusetts, for example, resource agency officials told
    us that addressing ecosystem conservation in planning improves schedule
    certainty as the project progresses through federally required
    environmental reviews. In 13 instances, transportation planners and state
    resource agencies reported that working together to address ecosystem
    issues in transportation planning had improved relationships between their
    agencies, which allowed environmental issues to be resolved in a timely
    and predictable manner. Officials also reported other positive effects,
    including better relationships with the public and a heightened awareness
    of ecosystem issues among transportation planning staff. On the other
    hand, eight transportation planners and one state resource agency official
    reported that addressing ecosystem issues during project planning resulted
    in negative effects, such as higher project costs and workload increases
    for resource agencies.

    Support from constituents and transportation agency personnel was the key
    factor that reportedly encouraged transportation planners to consider
    ecosystem conservation, while the cost in time and resources was the key
    discouraging factor identified. Of the 31 planners we interviewed who said
    they considered ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, 27
    cited support from staff in their own agencies, political appointees, or
    the public as an encouraging factor. For example, planners in Oregon and
    New Mexico told us that the state's pro-environment culture and citizens'
    concerns about protecting ecological resources encourage them to consider
    ecosystem conservation. Planners mentioned other encouraging factors that
    are similar to the positive effects they identified, such as more certain
    cost estimates and project implementation schedules and fewer adverse
    effects on ecological resources. The most frequently cited discouraging
    factor, identified by 23 of the planners we interviewed, was the time and
    resources required to consider ecosystem conservation. For example,
    transportation planners in Colorado and North Carolina told us that
    collecting and maintaining access to the data needed to consider ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, while beneficial, required
    significant time and resources. The time and resources required were also
    a factor that discouraged three of the five agencies that do not consider
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning. Other planners reported
    discouraging factors such as difficulty in obtaining stakeholders'
    involvement and pressure from proponents of development to move forward
    with projects without considering ecosystem conservation.

    The Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no
    comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior
    generally agreed with the contents of our draft report and provided
    technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.

                                       Background

    Federally funded highway projects are typically completed in four phases:

    o  	Planning: State departments of transportation and metropolitan
    planning organizations begin with a vision and a set of long-term goals
    for their future transportation system, and translate these into
    long-range transportation plans and short-range plans known as
    transportation improvement programs. Although not required by federal law,
    a state department of transportation may perform additional planning once
    a project is started, such as consulting with resource agencies to
    determine the project's potential ecosystem impacts. We refer to this
    final phase of planning as "pre-NEPA planning" in this report.

    o  	Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of
    transportation identify a project's cost, level of service, and
    construction location; assess the potential effects on environmental
    resources as required by NEPA; and select the preferred alternative.

    o  	Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of
    transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate
    utilities.

    o  	Construction: State departments of transportation award construction
    contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project. The
    Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century lays out general
    requirements for transportation planning and consideration of the
    environment. The act requires that state and metropolitan area long-range
    plans consider projects and strategies that will, among other things,
    protect and enhance the environment. It also requires states and
    metropolitan planning offices to provide the public with an opportunity to
    comment on the transportation improvement programs. Governors review and
    approve metropolitan transportation improvement programs within their
    respective states.

    However, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century does not
    specifically address how ecosystem conservation should be considered in
    transportation planning. The act does not require that long-range
    transportation plans contain projects and strategies that protect and

    enhance the environment, and provides no guidance on how planners are to
    consider ecosystem conservation. Although the Federal Highway
    Administration reviews and approves each state's transportation
    improvement program to, among other things, ensure that the plans meet the
    requirements of the act, failure to meet these requirements is not
    reviewable in court.

    Congress is considering the 6-year surface transportation reauthorization
    bill. Separate bills have passed in each chamber.7 The House bill leaves
    in place the existing legislation's framework of requiring planners to
    consider the protection and enhancement of the environment in their plans.
    The Senate bill provides more explicit language on environmental
    considerations and new consultation requirements for planners.
    Specifically, it indicates that protecting and enhancing the environment
    includes "the protection of habitat, water quality, and agricultural and
    forest land while minimizing invasive species." Additionally, the Senate
    bill requires that long-range transportation plans include a discussion of
    (1) the types of potential habitat mitigation activities that may assist
    in compensating for habitat loss and (2) the areas that may have the
    greatest potential to restore and maintain habitat types affected by the
    plan. Further, the bill requires planning agencies to consult with state
    and local agencies responsible for protecting natural resources.

    In addition to meeting the planning requirements of the Transportation
    Equity Act for the 21st Century and NEPA, planning agencies must adhere to
    a number of other federal laws pertaining to transportation and the
    environment before construction can begin on federally funded projects,
    including:

    o  	The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is intended to conserve threatened
    and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend. Section 7
    of the act requires federal agencies to ensure that projects they
    authorize, fund, or carry out, including transportation projects, are not
    likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or
    endangered species (including fish, wildlife, and plants) or result in the
    destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for
    these species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
    Fisheries Service administer and enforce this law.

    7Safe, Accountable, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2004,
    S.1072, 108th Cong. Title I(E) (Feb. 26, 2004), and Transportation Equity
    Act: A Legacy for Users, H.R. 3550, 108th Cong. Title VI (Apr. 2, 2004).

    o  The Clean Water Act of 1977 is intended to restore and maintain the

      Most Planners Contacted Reported Considering Ecosystem Conservation during
      Transportation Planning

    chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters
    through the prevention and elimination of pollution. Section 404 of the
    act pertains to wetland development.8 Under this section, the Army Corps
    of Engineers provides permits to transportation agencies whose projects
    affect wetlands. To obtain permits, applicants must first attempt to avoid
    adverse impacts to wetlands or, if this is not possible, to minimize the
    impacts to the extent practicable and compensate for any unavoidable
    impacts through mitigation.

    To comply with these and other laws, transportation planners may
    coordinate with a variety of state and federal agencies. They do so to
    obtain ecological data, such as information on threatened and endangered
    species and wetlands; advice on how to address adverse impacts of
    transportation projects; or both.

    Of the 36 transportation planners we interviewed, a total of 31 (21 out of
    24 in state departments of transportation and 10 out of 12 in metropolitan
    planning organizations) reported using various methods to consider
    ecosystem conservation during transportation planning. Some of these 31
    planning agencies begin considering ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning as they develop their long-range plans while
    others begin considering ecosystems conservation just prior to starting
    the federally required environmental review under NEPA. Four of these
    agencies reported using multiple approaches to consider ecosystem
    conservation, 22 stressed their use of corridor studies or project
    screening, 2 emphasized their consideration of the ecological resources of
    specific interest in the surrounding area, and 3 reported using methods
    similar to other agencies but do not use corridor studies or project
    screening or focus on specific resources. (See fig. 2.) Planners in 5
    agencies said they do not consider ecosystem conservation during
    transportation planning. In the absence of specific federal requirements
    to consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, federal
    agencies encourage state and metropolitan area planners to do so and they
    provide technical assistance.

    8Wetlands are generally defined as transitional areas such as swamps,
    marshes, bogs, and similar areas between open waters and dry land.

    Figure 2: Reported Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation during
    Transportation Planning for 36 Planning Agencies

    Note: Other methods do not include corridor studies, project screening, or
    focus on specific ecological resources.

        Planning Agencies Vary on How Early They Consider Ecosystem Conservation

    Of the 31 planning agencies that consider ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning, 21 (68 percent) first do so as they develop their
    long-range plans. (See table 1.) Four agencies (13 percent) begin
    considering ecosystem conservation as they develop transportation
    improvement programs. The remaining six agencies (19 percent) begin just
    before starting the federally required environmental review under NEPA
    (pre-NEPA planning). Twenty of 31 agencies reported considering ecosystem
    conservation at more than one point, and 14 reported considering ecosystem
    conservation during corridor studies that begin at varying times during
    planning.

    Table 1: Phases During Which Transportation Planning Agencies Consider
    Ecosystem Conservation

    Transportation Planning agency Long-range plan improvement program
    Pre-NEPA

                                State planning agencies

    o  Alabama

    o  Alaska x x

    o  Colorado x

    o  Delaware x x

    o  Georgia x

    o  Idaho x x

    o  Indiana x

    o  Iowa

    o  Louisiana x x

    o  Massachusetts x

    o  Mississippi

    o  Nebraska

    o  Nevada x x

    o  New Mexico

    o  New York

    o  North Carolina x x

    o  North Dakota x x

    o  Oklahoma x x

    o  Oregon x xx

    o  South Dakota x x x

    o  Utah x
    Metropolitan planning organizations

    o  Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Washington x x

    o  Butte County Association of Governments, California x x

    o  Capital District Transportation Commission, New York x x

    o  Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia x x

    o  Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, Arizona x x

    o  Greensboro Transportation Advisory Committee, North Carolina x

    o  	Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study,
    Georgia x x x

    o  Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, Massachusetts x x

    o  Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization, Texas x

    o  Yellowstone County/Billings Metropolitan Planning x

    Source: GAO analysis of interview responses.

    Four State Planning Oregon, South Dakota, Colorado, and North Carolina
    reported extensively Agencies Consider considering ecosystem conservation
    in transportation planning using Ecosystem Conservation several
    approaches. The Oregon Department of Transportation has

    included a policy in its long-range plan to, among other things, maintain
    orUsing Several Approaches improve the natural and built environment,
    including fish passage and habitat, wildlife habitat and migration routes,
    vegetation, and wetlands. The long-range transportation plans of Colorado
    and North Carolina each contain specific references to goals or policies
    to conserve ecosystems, while South Dakota's plan contains a less specific
    goal aimed at protecting the environment.

    Oregon planners said they meet monthly with state and federal resource
    agencies and with the Federal Highway Administration to discuss project
    proposals before beginning to address NEPA requirements. To plan for each
    project's potential impact, the planners said they obtain data from a
    variety of sources, such as field studies led by biologists, the Oregon
    Natural Heritage Data System, the National Wetlands Inventory, and the
    state department of transportation's ecological survey of all the roads in
    the state.9 The planners then use these data and a set of criteria
    developed by stakeholders to screen projects before programming them for
    construction.

    The South Dakota Department of Transportation becomes increasingly
    involved with federal and state resource agency stakeholders-including the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Army Corp of Engineers; U.S. Forest
    Service; South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks; and the South Dakota
    Department of Natural Resources-as a project evolves from a conceptual
    plan through final design. Initially, the department works with state
    resource agency stakeholders to obtain ecological data in geographic
    information system or paper formats that identify ecological resources
    located within the study boundaries and uses these data to avoid sensitive
    habitat.10 The department then develops plans to avoid, minimize, or
    mitigate the project's impact. Later, when more specific project design
    plans become available, the department works with resource agency

    9The Oregon Natural Heritage Data System is the state's most comprehensive
    database of rare, threatened, and endangered species. It includes
    site-specific information on the occurrences, biology, and status of more
    than 2,000 species throughout the state.

    10A geographic information system is a system of computer software,
    hardware, and data used to manipulate, analyze, and graphically present a
    potentially wide array of information associated with geographic
    locations.

    stakeholders to determine habitat locations, adjust project alignments to
    avoid habitat, or consider other design changes to minimize the project's
    impact before beginning the environmental review required under NEPA.

    The Colorado Department of Transportation has assigned one of its
    employees to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus on
    transportation issues, according to state transportation planners. The
    planners said that numerous stakeholders from federal, state, and
    nongovernmental agencies assist the department in determining species and
    habitat locations throughout the state and in focusing efforts on
    conservation and mitigation planning. The planners reported that the
    department is conducting advance planning to integrate ecosystem issues
    into corridor studies that they expect to develop over the life of the
    long
    range plan. They also said that Colorado has established a revolving fund
    to acquire habitat for mitigation before specific projects are actually
    developed.

    Finally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation considers
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning by making extensive use
    of resource agency personnel and geographic information system data.
    According to state planners, the department funds 33 resource agency
    positions to help identify and resolve ecosystem issues early in project
    development. The planners told us they use the geographic information
    system data to identify where ecosystems may conflict with transportation
    plans and determine the potential cost of addressing the conflicts. They
    said that the department, in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers,
    also identifies and acquires property for future mitigation. Finally, the
    planners said that the department assists small metropolitan planning
    organizations and localities in broad-based ecosystem screening on all
    projects to identify any ecological issues and potential costs associated
    with those issues.

    highways in the state. (See fig. 3.) Nebraska reviews ecological databases
    to identify potential impacts of planned transportation projects;
    considers avoidance strategies; and, if avoidance is not possible,
    documents the Most Planners Said They Twenty-two of the 31 planners who
    consider ecosystem conservation Considered Ecosystem during transportation
    planning conduct corridor studies or screen projects Conservation in for
    ecosystem impact. These planners survey ecosystems in the corridor

    and take steps to avoid or mitigate ecological impacts. For
    example,Transportation Planning planners in New Mexico, with data from
    their Department of Game andWhen Conducting Corridor Fish, used corridor
    studies to identify areas of high potential for animal-Studies or
    Screening vehicle crashes. Planners described how such planning studies
    led to the Projects construction of underpasses that allow bear and deer
    to pass beneath

    conflict so that project designers can develop mitigation measures,
    according to state transportation planners.

    Figure 3: Example of an Underpass Created to Allow Bears to Cross Highway
    Rightof-way without Danger of Collisions with Vehicles

    Some planning agencies screen out projects from their plans that would
    have undesirable ecosystem impacts. For example, metropolitan planners for
    the Merrimack Valley area in Massachusetts told us that they use data from
    a geographic information system in planning to identify ecological
    resources in the path of proposed projects. Using this information,
    together with public comments on the project, they determine whether the
    ecological impacts require that the project be redesigned or terminated
    prior to beginning the environmental review required under NEPA.

    Nearly all planning agencies that develop corridor studies or use
    ecosystem impacts to screen projects involve stakeholders in developing
    their plans. For example, Alaska invites federal agenciesincluding
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, National Park
    Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries
    Serviceand its Departments of Fish and Game, and Natural Resources
    to

    meetings to provide input for transportation plans. After a meeting, each
    agency has the opportunity to write a letter of concern about specific
    resources or areas. Metropolitan planning organizations, local
    governments, municipal officials, tribes, elected officials, and anyone
    else who has expressed interest in Alaska's transportation planning are
    also invited to review and comment on transportation plans.

    Of the 22 planning agencies that consider ecosystems by conducting
    corridor studies or project screening, 12 include ecosystem conservation
    as a policy or goal in their long-range transportation plans. For example,
    the Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization's long-range
    transportation plan calls for an assessment of the social and
    environmental impacts of the transportation plan's recommendations, and
    establishes the policy of removing projects with unacceptably high
    environmental or community impacts from planning consideration.

    In addition to considering ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning through corridor studies or as a means to screen potential
    projects, these 22 planning agencies reported using one or more of the
    following common methods either in addition to or in combination with
    corridor studies or screening:

    o  	using resource agencies as stakeholders in developing transportation
    plans;

    o  	considering the views of environmental interest groups in developing
    transportation plans;

    o  	using resource agency data to determine mitigation requirements,
    develop alternative locations, or to avoid planning projects with
    unacceptably high ecosystem impact;

    o  	using geographic information systems to determine ecological resource
    locations;

    o  providing funding for ecological impact studies;

    o  	having planning agency or resource agency personnel conduct site
    visits to determine or confirm the location of ecological resources; and

    o  	incorporating in transportation plans local plans that have considered
    ecosystem conservation.11

    Six of these agencies reported using at least 4 of the methods listed
    above. The remaining 16 used 3 or fewer methods. Because we did not
    evaluate the effectiveness of these methods, the number of methods used by
    a planning agency does not necessarily indicate effectiveness. (See table
    4 in app. IV for a summary of the specific methods that each agency
    reported using.)

        Two Agencies Focus on One or More Specific Ecological Concerns in the Area

    Transportation planners in Georgia told us they focus on preserving the
    state's wetlands through mitigation banking.12 The state department of
    transportation has established funding accounts to purchase land for
    wetland mitigation banking and to pay for consultants to design wetland
    mitigation banks, according to planners in Georgia. They told us that the
    department has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with a state
    resource agency for the long-term maintenance of these mitigation banks.
    These planners said that nongovernmental organizations, including The
    Nature Conservancy, Georgia Trust for Public Land, and Georgia
    Conservancy, help identify properties for sale and conduct on-site reviews
    of potential sites for wetland mitigation banks. Federal resource agencies
    assist by reviewing proposed land acquisitions to determine if the land is
    suitable for use as a wetland mitigation bank, according to the planners.
    They added that, when transportation projects are at the conceptual design
    stage, state resource agencies identify wetlands, streams, and endangered
    species habitats that could be adversely affected by the project and point
    out avoidance or mitigation opportunities.

    Planners in Montana's Yellowstone County/Billings metropolitan area told
    us that their focus is on the natural resources of the Yellowstone River
    corridor and the Rim Rocks. These planners said they consider ecosystem
    conservation in planning transportation projects that would affect these
    natural resources, primarily through consultations with stakeholders such
    as the Yellowstone River Parks Association, Bike Net, local government

    11This list includes only those methods reported by at least 2 of the 22
    agencies.

    12A mitigation bank is a site where wetlands, other aquatic resources, or
    both are restored, created, enhanced, or, in exceptional circumstances,
    preserved expressly for the purpose of providing compensatory mitigation
    in advance of authorized impacts to similar resources.

    representatives, planning boards, and neighborhood task forces. The
    planners said these planning boards and neighborhood task forces are
    involved throughout transportation planning.

        Three Agencies Consider Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning
        Through Other Methods

    The Delaware Department of Transportation, Butte County Association of
    Governments, California, and Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional
    Transportation Study (the metropolitan planning organization in Athens,
    Georgia) reported considering ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning by using some of the same methods used by other agencies but do
    not use corridor studies, project screening, or focus on a specific
    ecological resource. Each of these agencies includes ecosystem
    conservation as a policy or goal in its long-range transportation plan.
    Delaware Department of Transportation planners said they consider input
    from resource agencies and environmental interest groups and use
    geographic information system data to determine transportation projects'
    potential impact on ecological resources and develop alternatives as
    needed. Planners at the Butte County Association of Governments told us
    they receive input from resource agencies to determine mitigation
    requirements and use geographic information system data to determine
    ecological resource locations. Finally, the Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee
    Regional Transportation Study planners said that local land use plans
    consider ecosystem conservation as it relates to transportation and they
    incorporate the local plans in the metropolitan area's transportation
    plans.

        Five Agencies Do Not Consider Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation
        Planning

    Planners in the Arizona, New Hampshire, and Illinois departments of
    transportation, as well as metropolitan planners in Great Falls City,
    Montana, and Montachussett, Massachusetts, said they do not consider
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning and instead rely on
    compliance with NEPA to address ecological issues. The reported factors
    that discouraged these agencies from considering ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning include a lack of time and resources required or
    guidance on how to do so. These factors are discussed in more detail in
    the final section of this report.

    State Resource Agency Resource agency officials in 19 of the 21 states
    that consider ecosystem Officials Generally Agreed conservation in
    transportation planning generally agreed that they assist That They Are
    Involved in transportation planners in doing so. (We were not able to
    contact resource

    agency officials in the two remaining states.13) However, over half (11)
    ofTransportation Planning these resource agency officials said that they
    would like to be morebut Would Like More involved in transportation
    planning or that communication with their Involvement state's department
    of transportation could be improved. For example,

    officials of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation explained
    that they need to be involved early in transportation planning because the
    pressure from supporters of transportation projects often results in
    concerns about ecosystems surfacing as afterthoughts. Similarly, officials
    in Utah's Division of Wildlife Resources said that they are involved too
    late in planning because the project design is already set and budgeting
    for necessary mitigation sometimes has been inadequate.

    Federal Agencies Although federal law does not specifically require
    planners to consider Encourage Consideration ecosystem conservation in
    transportation plans, the Federal Highway of Ecosystem Administration
    encourages state and metropolitan planners to do so by Conservation in
    identifying and promoting exemplary initiatives that are unique,

    innovative, attain a high-level environmental standard, or are
    recognizedTransportation Planning as particularly valuable from an
    environmental perspective, according to the agency's fiscal year 2004
    performance plan. These could be planning or project-level initiatives
    that involve, for example, designing mitigation projects that support
    wildlife movement and habitat connectivity, developing watershed-based
    environmental assessment and mitigation approaches, or using wetland
    banking. The agency has identified eight such initiatives and plans to
    identify and promote at least 30 initiatives by September 30, 2007.

    North Carolina's Ecosystem Enhancement Program is one of the eight
    exemplary initiatives that the Federal Highway Administration has
    identified. In view of a rapidly expanding transportation program with a
    high volume of projects affecting an estimated 5,000 acres of wetlands and
    900,000 feet of streams over 7 years, North Carolina plans to consider and
    mitigate the potential impacts of many planned projects in a comprehensive
    manner by assessing, restoring, enhancing, and preserving

    13We asked transportation planners in each state in our sample to provide
    the name of the resource agency official that they most frequently
    contacted. Nevada planners did not provide a resource agency contact. We
    were unable to arrange an interview with the New York resource agency
    contact.

    ecosystem functions and compensating for impacts at the watershed level.
    This approach to ecosystem conservation aims to decouple ecosystem
    mitigation from individual project reviews.

    Federal Highway Administration officials believe that such integrated
    approaches help break down organizational barriers between state
    departments of transportation and state resource agencies. They added that
    publicizing exemplary initiatives helps show that addressing ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning improves working relationships
    between these agencies and facilitates interagency cooperation in the
    future. As noted in the next section of this report, many planners and
    resource agency officials that we interviewed cited improved interagency
    relationships as a positive effect of considering ecosystem conservation
    in transportation planning.

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also encourages state departments of
    transportation and state resource agencies to share project planning and
    ecosystem information to incorporate more forethought to wildlife
    habitats, before project designs are set and while flexibility still
    exists, according to agency officials. To this end, the Service, in
    cooperation with the International Association of Fish and Wildlife
    Agencies, has conducted several regional workshops on state wildlife
    conservation plans. Officials told us that during these workshops they
    discussed how the plans could be used to provide transportation planners
    with important information that they could consider in transportation
    planning.14

    The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal resource agencies
    also administer and enforce environmental laws and generally help state
    planners consider ecosystem conservation by responding to requests for
    data and providing comments on transportation plans. The federal agencies
    most frequently consulted by the transportation planners we interviewed
    were the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers.
    Transportation planners said they often ask these resource agencies to
    provide ecological data from geographic information systems or ecological
    maps to help identify and evaluate a project's impact. Many planners also
    said these federal resource agencies provide technical expertise or
    actively participate in transportation planning. For example, a

    14States are required to submit, or commit to develop, wildlife
    conservation plans by October 1, 2005, to be eligible for wildlife
    conservation grants under the State Wildlife Grant Program. According to
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service officials, all states have committed to
    develop these plans.

    New York Department of Transportation planner told us that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers provide technical
    expertise on the long-term impacts of transportation projects on
    ecosystems.

      Planners and Resource Agency Officials Reported Mainly Positive Effects of
      Considering Ecosystem Conservation

    Regardless of the ways planning agencies consider ecosystem conservation
    in transportation planning, 29 of the 31 transportation planners and 16 of
    19 resource agency officials we interviewed reported one or more positive
    effects of doing so.15 These officials listed fewer negative effects.

    Twenty-eight planners and resource agency officials reported that
    considering ecosystem conservation in transportation planning enabled them
    to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on ecological resources-the most
    frequently reported positive effect. (See fig. 4.) For example, planners
    and state resource agency officials reported

    o  	preventing irreparable habitat damage in New York by changing planning
    from a five-lane highway to planning for a lower-impact two-lane boulevard
    after a study revealed that the original project would be detrimental to
    the surrounding habitat, and updated traffic studies indicated that the
    wider highway was not needed to ensure mobility;

    o  	decreasing habitat fragmentation in North Carolina by using geographic
    information system data on state ecological resources during project
    planning to avoid or mitigate unacceptable potential impacts on habitat;
    and

    o  	working with the state resource agency in Nebraska to identify
    preferred times for construction in order to reduce impacts on the
    breeding of certain species.

    15This section reflects the results of 50 interviews out of a possible 60
    (24 state and 12 metropolitan planners, and 24 state resource agency
    officials). It does not include any views on ecosystem conservation that
    may have been expressed by the transportation planners and resource agency
    officials that we interviewed in the three states that do not consider
    ecosystem conservation, nor does it include the views of transportation
    planners in the two metropolitan planning organizations that do not
    consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning. Finally, we
    did not interview resource agency officials in Nevada and New York for
    reasons previously stated.

    Figure 4: Effects of Considering Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation
    Planning Reported by Planners and Resource Agency Officials

    Fifteen transportation planners and state resource agency officials
    reported that considering ecosystem conservation improves a project's cost
    and schedule estimates. For example, planners and state resource agencies
    reported

    o  	better project cost estimating in Colorado because planners become
    aware of, and can plan to avoid, unacceptable adverse impacts on
    ecological resources;

    o  	improved schedule certainty in Massachusetts, because addressing state
    resource agency requirements during planning provides more certainty that
    projects will not need to be redesigned to meet these requirements later,
    during federally required environmental reviews; and

    o  	improved preparedness to address ecological issues during the
    development of a project in California by identifying those issues early
    in planning.

    In 13 instances, transportation planners and state resource agency
    officials reported improved relationships between departments of
    transportation and state resource agencies. For example, improved
    relationships through partnership and coordination among stakeholders can
    help resolve environmental issues in a timely and predictable manner.
    Additional positive effects that planners and state resource agency
    officials cited include an increased awareness of ecosystem conservation
    among the transportation planning agency's staff, an improved public image
    of the department of transportation, and a stimulus to consider
    transportation alternatives such as transit.

    Compared with the number of positive effects attributed to considering
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, planners and resource
    agency officials reported relatively few negative effects. Planners in
    South Dakota and at the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments,
    Washington, told us that considering ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning requires additional cost and time. A resource
    agency official in Iowa said that working with planners to determine
    project impacts and select mitigation sites adds to the agency's workload.
    Finally, planners in Louisiana noted that the general public, as well as
    elected officials who support specific projects, become dissatisfied with
    the state department of transportation when environmental issues affect a
    project's delivery.

    Support from Support from constituents and transportation agency personnel
    was the

    most often reported factor that encouraged planners to
    considerConstituents and ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning. The cost in staff time Transportation and money was the most
    often reported discouraging factor for agencies

    that reported considering ecosystem conservation. Planners at three of
    theAgency Personnel five agencies, who said they do not consider ecosystem
    conservation in Most Often transportation planning, also cited the cost in
    time and resources, while

    the remaining two listed other discouraging factors.

    Encouraged Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation

    Planners Identified Twenty-seven of the 31 transportation planners we
    interviewed, who said Support from Constituents they consider ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, cited and Transportation Agency
    support from within their own agencies, from political appointees, or from
    Personnel and Other external constituents as a factor that motivated them
    to do so. (See table

    2.) For example, transportation planners in Mississippi told us that
    theirEncouraging Factors agency is committed to being environmentally
    aware, and that this culture

    has encouraged them to consider ecosystem conservation in planning.
    Metropolitan planners in Albany, New York, noted that their corporate
    culture provides a strong foundation to consider ecosystem conservation as
    they develop transportation plans. Similarly, metropolitan planners in
    central Virginia said that the planning commission's staff are concerned
    about being good stewards and maintaining a balance between transportation
    and other concerns.

    Table 2: Factors that Reportedly Encourage Consideration of Ecosystem
    Conservation in Transportation Planning

    Number of planners Encouraging factor reporting

    Constituent support and support from transportation agency personnel

    More certain cost estimates/schedules for project implementation

    Fewer adverse impacts on ecological resources

    Improvement in the public's perception of the transportation agency

    Improved relations with resource agencies

    Other (each was mentioned only once)

    Source: GAO analysis of interview responses.

    Note: We asked planners to list the three most important factors. This
    table includes responses from planners in the 31 agencies that consider
    ecosystem conservation during transportation planning.

    The views of elected officials and agency heads were another facet of
    constituent support. For example, the governor of New York has strongly
    encouraged planners there to improve their environmental performance, and
    the governor of New Mexico has initiated a new program that explores
    several environmental issues, according to planners in those states. This
    support from elected officials has influenced planners in these states to
    consider ecosystem conservation during transportation planning. Finally,
    planners in Delaware and Oregon emphasized the importance of their agency
    leaders' support for ecosystem conservation.

    In addition, the general public's attitude toward ecosystem conservation
    motivated planners to consider ecosystem conservation during
    transportation planning. Planners in Oregon and New Mexico attributed
    their consideration of ecosystem conservation partly to the pro
    environment culture in their states. They told us, for example, that
    citizens are concerned about wildlife protection and view the natural
    environment as a major asset to the state. Metropolitan planners in
    Albany, New York, told us that citizens are concerned about excessive land
    consumption which is one factor that encourages them to consider ecosystem
    conservation during transportation planning.

    Transportation planners also listed encouraging factors that were similar
    to the positive effects that were discussed earlier in this report. For
    example, 18 planners said that they were encouraged to consider ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning by expectations of

    more certain cost estimates and construction schedules. Nine of these
    planners also listed positive effects that centered on developing more
    accurate cost estimates and determining more predictable project delivery
    dates. Similarly, seven planners listed having fewer adverse effects on
    ecological resources as an encouraging factor, while five of these
    planners also listed this as a positive effect. Planners also listed
    improved relationships with the state resource agencies as an encouraging
    factor as well as a positive effect of considering ecosystem conservation
    in transportation planning.

        Planners Identified Time and Resource Requirements and Other Discouraging
        Factors

    Although most of the planners we interviewed reported that considering
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning was beneficial, doing so
    presented challenges. Chief among these challenges was the staff time and
    money required to consider ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning, reported by 23 planners, including those in Arizona, New
    Hampshire, and Montachusett, Massachusetts, who do not consider ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning. (See table 3.) An Arizona planner
    said that state reductions in funding and staffing have discouraged the
    department from considering ecosystem conservation during transportation
    planning, adding that the planning department staff has been reduced by 75
    percent since the mid-1990s. New Hampshire planners said they do not have
    sufficient funds to enter into long-range studies. Therefore, there is
    pressure to wait until NEPA, which requires, among other things, an
    assessment of the impact of proposed transportation projects on the
    natural and human environment.

    Table 3: Factors that Reportedly Discourage Consideration of Ecosystem
    Conservation in Transportation Planning

    Number of planners Discouraging factor reporting

    Time and monetary/staffing resources required

    Difficulty obtaining stakeholder involvement/guidance

    Political/proponent pressure to move ahead/lack of political support

    Inappropriate to do so during long-range planning

    Negative public response/public expectations

    It is not required

    Other (each was mentioned only once)

    Source: GAO analysis of interview responses.

    Note: We asked planners to list the three most important factors. This
    table includes responses from planners in all 36 agencies that we
    contacted.

    The staff time and money required was also the major discouraging factor
    for those planning agencies that do consider ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning. For example, planners in Colorado and North
    Carolina told us that, while beneficial, it takes a significant amount of
    time and effort to develop, maintain, and provide access to the data
    required to consider ecosystem conservation during transportation
    planning. Additionally, some metropolitan area planners told us that small
    planning agencies are particularly hard-pressed, because of their small
    size, to consider ecosystem conservation. For example, a metropolitan
    planner in central Virginia noted that the limited funding his agency
    receives for long
    range transportation planning precludes more focused activities to address
    environmental factors, even though the agency would like to do so.
    Similarly, metropolitan area planners in Athens, Georgia, told us their
    ability to conduct detailed ecological analyses during planning is very
    limited because they do not have enough staff.

    Difficulties in obtaining involvement or guidance from stakeholders was
    the second most often cited discouraging factor, according to the planners
    we interviewed. This was the chief discouraging factor mentioned by a
    planner in Montachusett, Massachusetts, a metropolitan planning
    organization that does not consider ecosystem conservation before project
    developers prepare environmental impact assessments under NEPA. The
    planner stated that the planning organization lacks guidance from the
    state or federal agencies on the priority of ecosystem conservation. The
    planner noted that the planning organization addresses all federal
    requirements in

    transportation planning, as well as those issues the state emphasizes, but
    ecosystem consideration has not been one of them. Planners in Utah, a
    state that does consider ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning, told us that resource agencies prefer to comment on projects
    that are better defined than is typically the case when they appear in
    transportation planning documents. On the other hand, a Utah resource
    agency official told us that his agency would like to be involved in these
    earlier planning phases, but the state department of transportation does
    not notify it early enough in planning.16

    In addition, some planners told us that they lacked guidance from
    stakeholders, namely state resource agencies, on how to consider ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning. They noted that long
    term or comprehensive plans for managing the state's ecological resources
    would help them make decisions about what resources to consider during
    planning; however, their state resource agencies had not completed such
    plans. A few of the state and federal resource agencies we interviewed
    noted, though, that some states are developing wildlife conservation plans
    as part of a new federal program or other habitat management plans that
    they believe will be useful to state departments of transportation.

    Third, pressure from political leaders or project proponents to move
    forward in spite of ecological concerns, or because of competing
    priorities, also discouraged planners from considering ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning. For example, planners in North
    Carolina told us that developers give little credence to environmental
    concerns. Economic development in Iowa takes precedence over ecosystem
    concerns, according to a planner there. A state resource agency official
    in Oregon echoed these sentiments, stating that, in some instances,
    regional transportation planners and the state department of
    transportation value improving economic development over conserving
    ecological resources.

    A few other planners cited additional discouraging factors. Local
    expectations that a project will be built, regardless of ecosystem
    concerns, is a discouraging factor, according to a transportation planner
    in North Carolina. Also, planners in three jurisdictions noted that
    circumstances might change between early planning for a project and its
    implementation.

    16We did not attempt to reconcile the differences between the statements
    of Utah planners and resource agency officials.

    This was the chief discouraging factor for Illinois, where planners do not
    consider ecosystem conservation before NEPA. Finally, planners in Great
    Falls City-County, Montana, a jurisdiction that does not consider
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, stated that their
    existing policy is to rely on NEPA to assess the ecosystem and other
    environmental impacts of proposed transportation projects.

    The Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no
    comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior
    generally agreed with the information in a draft copy of this report and
    provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.
    See appendix V for a copy of the Department of Interior's comments.

      Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
    contentsearlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30
    days after the date of this letter. At that time we will send copies of
    this report to congressional committees with responsibilities for highway
    and environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary
    of the Interior; the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; the
    Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Commander, U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will
    also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be
    available at no charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
    contacteither James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at
    siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834. Key
    contributors to this report were Jaelith Hall-Rivera, Rebecca Hooper,
    Jessica Lucas-Judy, Edmond Menoche, James Ratzenberger, and MichelleK.
    Treistman.

    Katherine Siggerud Director, Physical Infrastructure

    List of Congressional Requesters

    The Honorable Thomas R. Carper United States Senate

    The Honorable Jon S. Corzine United States Senate

    The Honorable John F. Kerry United States Senate

    The Honorable Carl Levin United States Senate

    The Honorable Ron Wyden United States Senate

    The Honorable Earl Blumenauer House of Representatives

    The Honorable Rosa L. DeLauro House of Representatives

    The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest House of Representatives

    The Honorable James L. Oberstar House of Representatives

    Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area
    Planners

    Before each telephone interview with officials at state departments of
    transportation and metropolitan planning organizations, we provided
    participants with the following questions and encouraged them to review
    the questions and to invite others as appropriate to participate in the
    interview in order to provide as accurate and complete answers as
    possible. Question numbers preceded by "SLR" are those referring to the
    development of the long-range transportation plan. Questions preceded by
    "ST" are those referring to the development of the state transportation
    improvement program. Finally, questions preceded by "SPN" refer to a phase
    of project planning that immediately precedes NEPA, which we termed
    "pre-NEPA planning." Questions for metropolitan area planners were
    similarly numbered except that they began with the letter "M" to easily
    differentiate between the state and metropolitan planners' questions and
    responses.1

    1) Please answer a, b and c, and follow the instructions as applicable.

    a)	Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the creation of
    the long-range transportation plan? Yes or No. If yes, answer all SLR
    questions. If no, answer SLR 7 and SLR 8. In either case, please also
    answer b and c below.

    b) 	Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the creation of
    the state transportation improvement program? Yes or No. If yes, answer
    all ST questions. If no, answer only ST 8 and ST 9. In either case, please
    also answer a and c.

    c)	Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA
    phase, or at any other time other than during and after NEPA? Yes or No.
    If yes, answer all SPN questions. If no, answer only SPN 7 and SPN

    8. In either case, please also answer a and b.

    (Answer if applicable.)

    SLR1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the
    creation of the long-range transportation plan?

    Long-Range

      Transportation Planning

    1Questions asked of metropolitan area planners were identical except where
    noted.

    Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area
    Planners

    SLR2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider
    ecosystem conservation in the long-range transportation plan (federal or
    state agencies, non-government organizations, other)?

    SLR3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider
    ecosystem conservation in the long-range transportation plan?

    SLR4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the
    development of the long-range transportation plan?

    SLR5) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state
    considers ecosystem conservation when developing the long-range
    transportation plan.

    We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in developing the long-range transportation plan.

    SLR6) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or
    negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in the long-range transportation plan.

    We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage
    consideration of ecosystem conservation in long-range transportation
    planning.

    SLR7) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in
    encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as the long
    range transportation plan is developed.

    SLR8) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most
    important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as
    the long-range transportation plan is developed.

    Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area
    Planners

      State Transportation Improvement Program Planning

    We would like to learn about how your state considers ecosystem
    conservation as it develops the state transportation improvement

    2

    program.

    (Answer if applicable)

    ST1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the
    creation of the state transportation improvement program?

    ST2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider
    ecosystem conservation in the state transportation improvement program
    (federal or state agencies, non-government organizations, other)?

    ST3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider ecosystem
    conservation in the state transportation improvement program?

    ST4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the
    development of the state transportation improvement program?

    ST5) Do you use project criteria that incorporate ecosystem conservation
    when determining which projects will be placed on the state transportation
    improvement program?

    ST6) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state
    considers ecosystem conservation when developing the state transportation
    improvement program.

    We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in developing the state transportation improvement program.

    ST7) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or
    negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in the state transportation improvement program.

    We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage
    consideration of ecosystem conservation in the creation of the state
    transportation improvement program.

    2In the metropolitan planning organization interviews, we asked the same
    questions but about the transportation improvement program.

    Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area
                                        Planners

      Pre-NEPA Planning

    ST8) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in
    encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as the state
    transportation improvement program is developed.

    ST9) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most
    important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as
    the state transportation improvement program is developed.

    We would like to learn about how your state considers ecosystem
    conservation as it begins project development-after the project has been
    listed on the state transportation improvement program, but before the
    NEPA process begins. As previously discussed, we call this phase the
    "pre-NEPA" phase.

    (Answer if applicable)

    SPN1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the
    pre-NEPA phase?

    SPN2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider
    ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA phase (federal or state
    agencies, non-government organizations, other)?

    SPN3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider
    ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA phase?

    SPN4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the pre-NEPA
    phase?

    SPN5) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state
    considers ecosystem conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.

    We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.

    SPN6) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or
    negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.

    We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage
    consideration of ecosystem conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.

    Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area
    Planners

    SPN7) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in
    encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation during the
    pre-NEPA phase.

    SPN8) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most
    important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation
    during the pre-NEPA phase.

    Is there anything else that you would like to tell us about considering
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning?

    We would like to contact someone in the state resource agency (Department
    of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Protection, etc.) that
    is most involved with your agency in considering ecosystem conservation
    during the transportation planning process. Please provide the name,
    official title, and contact information.

    Appendix II: Telephone Interview Questions for Resource Agency Officials

    State Transportation Planning

      Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning

    General Questions

    Prior to each interview with officials at state resource agencies, we
    provided participants with the following questions and encouraged them to
    review the questions and to invite others as appropriate to participate in
    the interview in order to provide as accurate and complete answers as
    possible. "RA" precedes all question numbers so that we could easily
    distinguish questions and responses as those pertaining to resource
    agencies.

    RA1) The _____________ state department of transportation told us that
    your agency is involved in transportation planning. Please describe your
    involvement.

    RA2) How did your agency become involved in state transportation planning?

    RA3) Is your agency involved with metropolitan planning organizations in
    considering ecosystem conservation in the transportation planning process?
    If yes, please continue. If no, please skip to RA7.

    RA4) In what ways is your agency involved with metropolitan planning
    organizations in considering ecosystem conservation in transportation
    planning?

    RA5) What metropolitan planning organizations are you involved with? (If
    you do not know the names of the metropolitan planning organizations,
    simply list the number that you are involved with.)

    RA6) How did your agency become involved in metropolitan planning
    organization transportation planning?

    RA7) Does your agency collect or generate ecosystem data? Yes or No.

    If yes:

    Is it available to state departments of transportation? Is it available to
    metropolitan planning organizations?

    We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in any phase of transportation planning.

    Appendix II: Telephone Interview Questions for Resource Agency Officials

    RA8) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or
    negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning prior to NEPA.

    We would now like to ask you about factors that encourage or discourage
    your participation in the consideration of ecosystem conservation in
    transportation planning.

    RA9) Please list the three factors that you consider to be the most
    important in encouraging your agency to participate in consideration of
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning.

    RA10) Please list the three factors that you consider the most important
    in discouraging your agency from participating in consideration of
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning.

    RA11) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about considering
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning?

    Thank you.

                          Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    To obtain a basic understanding of how transportation planners consider
    ecosystem conservation in transportation planning and how federal agencies
    are involved, we discussed transportation laws, regulations, and planning
    procedures with officials in the following agencies:

    o  	Federal Highway Administration in headquarters and Phoenix, Arizona;
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in headquarters, Phoenix and Tucson,
    Arizona, and Denver, Colorado; and Army Corps of Engineers in
    headquarters, Baltimore, Maryland, and Phoenix, Arizona.

    o  	State departments of transportation, resource agencies, and
    metropolitan planning organizations in Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin,
    Mississippi, and Colorado; the metropolitan planning organizations for the
    Washington, D.C., area and Pima County, Arizona; and state departments of
    transportation and resource agencies in Florida and Maryland.

    o  	The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,
    Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, The Nature
    Conservancy, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and
    Defenders of Wildlife.

    At each of these locations, we also obtained and reviewed transportation
    planning documents. We defined ecosystems as plants and animals and the
    habitats that support them. We defined planning as activities associated
    with developing the federally required long-range transportation plan,
    short-range transportation improvement program, and the nonfederally
    required project planning that some jurisdictions perform just prior to
    beginning the environmental review required by the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA), as well as any activities, such as corridor studies,
    that are performed concurrently with, but independently of, federally
    mandated transportation planning activities. Because federal law already
    requires that states and local governments meet air and water quality
    standards, our inquiry did not include identifying whether state
    departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations were
    considering these issues in transportation planning.

    To identify (1) how state and metropolitan area transportation planners
    consider ecosystem conservation and how federal agencies are involved, (2)
    the effects these planners have seen from this consideration, and (3) the
    factors that encourage or discourage them from doing so, we developed a
    set of questions to ask transportation planners selected through a
    nonprobability sample of 24 states and 12 metropolitan planning

    Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    organizations. We divided the nation into eight geographic zones
    containing a roughly equal number of states to ensure that our sample was
    geographically and ecologically diverse. To ensure that our sample
    included states with a variety of population sizes, we used census data to
    divide states in each zone into three subgroups according to population-
    high, low, and medium. We then randomly selected 1 state from each of the
    24 subgroups to obtain a 24-state sample, which included the following
    states:

    o  Alabama

    o  Alaska

    o  Arizona

    o  Colorado

    o  Delaware

    o  Georgia

    o  Idaho

    o  Illinois

    o  Indiana

    o  Iowa

    o  Louisiana

    o  Massachusetts

    o  Mississippi

    o  Nebraska

    o  Nevada

    o  New Hampshire

    o  New Mexico

    Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    o  New York

    o  North Carolina

    o  North Dakota

    o  Oklahoma

    o  Oregon

    o  South Dakota

    o  Utah

    To ensure ecosystem diversity among the 12 metropolitan planning
    organizations in our sample, we divided the nation into quadrants
    containing a roughly equal number of states. Then, to ensure that our
    sample would reflect the varying extent to which metropolitan planning
    organizations consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning,
    we used the results from our 2002 survey of all metropolitan planning
    organizations. The survey asked how much consideration, if any, they give
    to the impact of transportation projects on environmentally sensitive
    lands, such as wetlands, when they develop their transportation plans.1
    According to their answers, we divided the metropolitan planning
    organizations in each quadrant into three subgroups: (1) those that
    indicated little or no, or some consideration; (2) those that indicated
    moderate consideration; and (3) those that indicated great or very great
    consideration. We then randomly selected one metropolitan planning
    organization from each of the 12 subgroups, resulting in the following
    sample:

    o  Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Washington;

    o  Butte County Association of Governments, California;

    o  Capital District Transportation Commission, New York;

    o  Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia;

    1U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection: Federal
    Incentives Could Help Promote Land Use That Protects Air and Water
    Quality, GAO-02-12 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001).

    Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    o  Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, Arizona;

    o  Great Falls City-County Planning, Montana;

    o  Greensboro Transportation Advisory Committee, North Carolina;

    o  Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study, Georgia;

    o  Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, Massachusetts;

    o  Montachusett Regional Planning Commission, Massachusetts;

    o  Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization, Texas; and

    o  	Yellowstone County/Billings Metropolitan Planning Organization,
    Montana.

    To gain an understanding of the breadth and depth of each sample state's
    and metropolitan planning organization's consideration of ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, we developed a variety of
    questions about how planners implement this consideration, whether and how
    they involve stakeholders, what types and sources of data they consider,
    what positive and negative effects they have observed or expect to
    observe, and what factors encourage and discourage them from these
    efforts. (See app. I for a complete listing of these questions.) Through
    telephone interviews, we asked planners to address these questions for
    each of three phases of transportation planning: (1) as they develop their
    long-range transportation plans, (2) as they develop their short-range
    transportation improvement programs, and (3) in the project planning stage
    that immediately precedes the environmental review under NEPA.2 Planners
    reported similar effects of considering ecosystem conservation in
    transportation, planning and similar encouraging and discouraging factors
    across these three phases. Therefore, we did not report answers to these
    questions by phase. Appendix II contains the questions that we asked
    planners who we interviewed in state departments of transportation and
    metropolitan planning organizations. We also reviewed the available long
    range transportation plans of each state and metropolitan planning
    organization in our samples to determine whether these plans contained
    goals related to ecosystem conservation.

    2We asked all planners the same questions. We did not provide the planners
    with sets of possible responses from which to choose.

    Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    To obtain the perspectives of state resource agency officials, we asked
    officials at each department of transportation in our sample to identify
    the official at the state resource agency who was most involved with the
    department of transportation during planning.3 We conducted telephone
    interviews with resource agency officials in 22 of our 24 sample states,
    asking these officials how they participate in considering ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, whether they collect ecological
    data and make these data available to transportation planners, the effects
    that they can attribute to considering ecosystem conservation, and the
    factors that encourage or discourage their participation.4 See appendix II
    for a complete listing of the questions that we asked resource agency
    officials.

    In analyzing our interview responses, we used content analysis and
    consensus agreement among four analysts to categorize similar responses,
    and grouped state and metropolitan planning organizations accordingly. To
    increase the reliability of our coding of responses, we used consensus
    agreement among the same four analysts. We did not verify the accuracy of
    the information that we obtained in our interviews or determine whether or
    how the consideration of ecosystem conservation that planners described
    affected transportation projects or ecosystems because it was not
    practical to do so. However, the variety of questions that we asked of
    transportation planners, combined with the perspectives of resource agency
    officials, mitigates the potential that our results portray more extensive
    consideration of ecosystem conservation in transportation planning than
    may actually exist. Although we requested planners' and resource agency
    officials' observations about the effects of considering ecosystem
    conservation in transportation planning, we did not evaluate the
    effectiveness of their efforts, or determine whether one agency's efforts
    were more effective than another's. The results of our work cannot be
    projected to all states and metropolitan planning organizations. In order
    to make reliable generalizations, we would have needed to randomly

    3Because state resource agencies are organized in a variety of ways,
    independently identifying the appropriate resource agency contact in each
    of our 24 sample states was not practical.

    4We asked each resource agency official the same questions. We did not
    provide these officials with sets of possible responses from which to
    choose. Nevada did not provide a state resource agency contact, and the
    New York state resource agency contact did not respond to requests to be
    interviewed. Because Idaho Department of Transportation officials told us
    that their primary resource agency contact was with the Boise office of
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we interviewed an official at that
    agency, rather than a state resource agency official.

    Appendix III: Scope and Methodology

    select a larger sample of states and metropolitan planning organizations
    than time allowed.

    Appendix IV: Methods Used by Twenty-Two Agencies to Consider Ecosystem
    Conservation

    Note: The twenty-two agencies included in this appendix are those that
    employ corridor studies or screen projects for ecosystem impact. The list
    of methods used does not include every method used by these agencies. It
    includes only those methods reported as used by two or more agencies.

    Note: We included these specific comments in this final report, where
    appropriate.

    GAO's Mission 	The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
    accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
    examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
    and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
    Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
    commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
    accountability, integrity, and reliability.

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is

    Obtaining Copies of through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov)
    contains abstracts and full-

    GAO Reports and text files of current reports and testimony and an
    expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine
    to help you locate documentsTestimony using key words and phrases. You can
    print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
    graphics.

    Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
    correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
    Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
    To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
    select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
    heading.

    Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents.

    GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed
    to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
    20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

    Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***