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, [email protected].

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 [email protected] or me at
[email protected]. 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: [email protected]

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

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