U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

32–989 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

S. HRG. 115–419 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FRAMEWORK FOR 

REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2018 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota 

JONI ERNST, Iowa 

DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska 

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, 

Ranking Member 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois 

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland 

RICHARD M. RUSSELL, Majority Staff Director 

GABRIELLE BATKIN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 1, 2018 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 1 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 2 

WITNESSES 

Chao, Hon. Elaine, Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation .................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 12 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 14 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 33 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 33 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Markey ......................................................................................... 34 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 35 

Response to an additional question from Senator Moran ............................. 37 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Van Hollen ................................................................................... 38 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 42 

James, Hon. R. D., Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ................. 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper .............................. 53 

Response to an additional question from: 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 55 

Senator Capito ........................................................................................... 55 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 55 

Senator Van Hollen ................................................................................... 56 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 59 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 61 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan With PPP Comments to Democrats, Eno Transportation Weekly, September 29, 2017 .................................. 236 

Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say, Politico, February 

14, 2018 ................................................................................................................. 239 

Here’s How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize America’s Infrastructure, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, accessed March 15, 2018 ................... 243 

(1) 

THE ADMINISTRATION’S FRAMEWORK FOR 

REBUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE IN AMERICA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2018 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. John Barrasso (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Barrasso, Inhofe, Capito, Boozman, Wicker, 

Fischer, Moran, Ernst, Sullivan, Carper, Cardin, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and Van Hollen. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Good morning. Today, we will discuss the 

need to modernize our Nation’s infrastructure and President 

Trump’s plan for rebuilding infrastructure in America. 

This Committee has historically taken the bipartisan lead on infrastructure issues in the Senate. I am very pleased that Secretary 

Chao and Assistant Secretary James have come to our Committee 

first to discuss the infrastructure principles shared by President 

Trump on February 12. 

Our infrastructure drives the health, well-being, economy, and 

prosperity of the Nation. We depend upon it to move people and 

goods, to get to our jobs, to protect our homes from floods and disasters, and to provide our families with clean water. 

For too long, we have not prioritized the needs of these infrastructure systems. Funding has not kept pace with our infrastructure; needs and burdensome Federal regulations have slowed efforts to spend the money efficiently. 

The time has come to make a significant investment in our 

roads, bridges, ports, and water systems. The Administration’s plan 

proposes to spend hundreds of billions of dollars of Federal money 

to generate well over $1 trillion of infrastructure impact. 

Part of this can be accomplished by cutting Washington’s red 

tape. President Trump’s plan prioritizes streamlining. This will 

allow needed projects to start quicker and finish faster for lower 

costs. 

As States, counties, and towns wait to obtain permits from 

Washington, costs for projects rise, and time is wasted. It should 

not take a decade to permit a project that takes only months to 

build. We need to speed up project delivery. 

2 

The President’s plan calls for a 2-year or less limit for Federal 

approvals on projects. That is a common sense approach. Only in 

Washington is 2 years considered a quick turnaround. We need 

regulatory streamlining so we can build these projects faster, 

smarter, better, and cheaper. The President’s plan also makes the 

infrastructure needs of rural America a priority. 

A significant portion of the Federal money proposed in the President’s plan is designated specifically for rural States. Rural communities need to have an equal seat at the table as we address infrastructure needs. What works in Baltimore or Chicago may not 

work for smaller communities like Cody, Casper, or Cheyenne, Wyoming. We need an infrastructure plan that includes projects for 

both. 

Better roads and water systems across America help us all. Everyone benefits from safer highways and dams in rural communities. Any plan should have significant and sustained funding levels for rural areas. 

On the Environment and Public Works Committee, we are making good bipartisan progress on legislation to address America’s 

water infrastructure. We are working side by side on water infrastructure legislation that we plan to pass later this year. We need 

to expand that bipartisan cooperation to roads and bridges as well. 

America prides itself on its ingenuity and commitment to provide 

infrastructure that meets the needs of its people. I believe we can 

work in a bipartisan way on legislation that will make our infrastructure even better. That process begins today by hearing more 

about the President’s plan. 

I would like to thank both Secretary Chao and Assistant Secretary James for joining us today and for the insights they will provide for the Committee. 

I would now like to recognize our Ranking Member, Senator Carper, for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Good morning. It is great to see our Secretary, and I want to be 

among the first to congratulate our new Assistant Secretary with 

the Army. Thank you for your willingness to serve, and we look forward to working with you. It has been a joy to work with both of 

you through the confirmation process. 

Welcome, and we are glad to see you. 

I am disappointed to learn that Administrator Pruitt is unable 

to testify before us today despite EPA’s important role in the improvement and development of drinking water and wastewater infrastructure. Having said that, we are delighted that the two of you 

are here. I thank you for joining us. 

As we consider a potential infrastructure bill, it is helpful to hear 

from you, and we were glad to finally receive the Administration’s 

proposal last month. My statement says it will largely be up to the 

Congress. I will be honest with you. It is up to you—the two of 

you—as well. It is up to the Administration. It is up to a lot of people. This is a shared responsibility. 

3 

A big part of it is on us. We have a pretty good working relationship here. Hopefully, that will help us along the way. 

The Chairman and I agree on a lot of things. We disagree on one 

or two. However, we agreed on the need for the Federal Government to be a good partner to States when it comes to investing in 

our infrastructure. 

As a former Governor and State Treasurer, I know it is hard to 

ask a State to go from an 80-20 funding formula, for example, for 

roads—80 percent Federal to 20 percent States; it is hard to flip 

that and go from 80-20, where the Federal Government plays the 

major role, to 20-80 where the States are expected to put up the 

80 percent. It is hard to make up that slack. 

Some of us in the Senate met with a bunch of Governors on Capitol Hill this week. We had a good conversation about this. They 

are concerned, and you might imagine why. They are not anxious 

to accept that view. I think folks in Wyoming and people—Governors and so forth—would all be reluctant to take that deal. 

It is one of a number of places where I think the math of the 

Administration’s plan does not add up. Last week some economists 

up the road from us in Philadelphia at the University of Pennsylvania modeled the Administration’s proposal, and have been modeling it for a while. They found out that at most it would spur an additional $30 billion in State, local, and private infrastructure spending. Think 

about that—an additional $30 billion in infrastructure spending. 

That is a far cry from what the Administration is promising. 

On the campaign trail, I think the President basically is saying we are going to put $1 trillion into infrastructure. The folks at the 

University of Pennsylvania at the Wharton School of Business are 

saying, I don’t think so. 

I am also concerned about the Administration’s proposal to give 

projects incentive awards based almost entirely on the percentage 

of non-Federal money they would raise, regardless of project quality and benefits. I think we might want to rethink that. I think 

there is something to be said for more money for the leveraging of 

non-Federal money with the Federal money but project quality has 

to be among the considerations. 

Does this make it safer? Does this reduce pollution? Does this 

make easier for us to get from place to place and that kind of 

thing? Particularly, I am disappointed though by the degree to 

which the Administration is focusing on sweeping rollbacks to our 

Nation’s bedrock environmental protections. 

I am committed to delivering projects quickly. I know you are, 

too, but safely guarding environmental projections does not always 

achieve time savings. In fact, I think it rarely does. Doing so would 

potentially put our communities at risk and can deprive the residents who would be most affected by these projects from making 

their voices heard. 

There are a number of ways to speed up projects. Putting on my 

old Governor hat, we were able to do those without environmental 

harm, including many this Committee helped enact into law and 

that this Administration is choosing, at least thus far, not to implement. For example, we could ensure that permitting agencies have 

enough funding to quickly complete reviews. We could enhance coVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
4 

ordination tools and implement new authorities in 2020 that Congress already passed. 

Unfortunately, the Administration has done the opposite by proposing to cut permitting agencies’ budgets and slashing funding for 

the Department of Transportation’s Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Center by two-thirds. That does not really speed us up. 

That does not give us the expedited process we all want. 

Congress—thanks to the efforts of this Committee—created the 

Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council in 2015 to coordinate and expedite permitting. That was in 2015. I am told that 

no executive director of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council has been appointed. It has been 3 years. 

Major rulemakings at DOT would implement streamlining provisions in the FAST Act and the MAP–21 Act, that I and many of 

our colleagues have supported, has not been finalized. It has been 

3 years, and in some cases, 5 or 6 years. Frankly, one of the best 

ways to speed up projects is to provide long term funding, program 

certainty, and make grant awards in a timely manner. 

Listen to this. Time and again, research has shown that inadequate funding is the most common factor delaying water and 

transportation projects. Unfortunately, so far this Administration is 

holding up grants and delaying funding decisions. DOT released a 

funding notice for the INFRA Grant Program 8 months ago but 

still has not awarded the $1.5 billion Congress provided for that 

program. It has been 8 months. 

In the first three-quarters of 2017 EPA awarded only a third as 

much grant funding as the agency did over the same period of time 

in 2016. The Department of Transportation’s 2019 budget proposes 

cutting funding for all new transit capital projects, all new transit 

capital projects, to cut Amtrak funding and to just end the TIGER 

Program, which I think most of us think is a pretty good program. 

For an Administration allegedly interested in efficiency in infrastructure—we are, too—it is frustrating to see so many critical programs being canceled, mismanaged, or underfunded. It is particularly hard to take this Administration’s proposal to spend $200 billion on infrastructure seriously when that proposal is paired with 

a budget that would cut $240 billion from existing infrastructure 

programs. 

Instead of funding our Nation’s aging water infrastructure, the 

President’s fiscal year 2019 budget proposal for the Corps of Engineers provided by Secretary James is down approximately 4 percent below the fiscal year 2018 request. For the first time in 20 

years the President’s budget for construction for this important entity is below $1 billion. 

In addition to these budget cuts, the Administration authorized 

no new starts in investigations to fund project studies and no new 

starts in construction. That is cutting off the pipeline for new Corps 

of Engineers projects. 

These cuts are disturbing given the Corps’ backlog. I mentioned 

this 2 weeks ago, Madam Secretary, in our meeting with the President at the White House. 

The Corps’ backlog is $96 billion and growing. My understanding 

is we are looking at a budget proposal around $6 billion. We have 

a backlog of $96 billion, and we have a budget proposal for the 

5 

Army Corps of $6 billion. It will be a while before we get through 

that backlog, Mr. James. 

Worse, the proposal would shift the burden for financing these 

projects almost entirely onto local stakeholders. Can some of them 

do more? You bet they can. Should they do more? You bet they can, 

but we have to be realistic, too. 

Our country depends on water infrastructure investments in part 

because such infrastructure helps expand our GDP. We need to do 

that. Each Federal dollar spent on civil works programs generates 

$5 in revenue to the U.S. Treasury, and—listen to this—$16 in economic benefit. 

The current budget proposal ignores the inherent Federal role 

the Corps plays in stabilizing our economy, the important role. 

These proposals are placed on the Corps and the sectors of our 

economy it supports through what could be a death spiral if we are 

not careful. The Administration appears to ignore these clear benefits in developing their budget proposal while selectively using a 

benefit to cost ratio to kill nationally significant projects. 

In closing, let me briefly discuss revenues. Secretary Chao, when 

you testified before us last May you told us that the Administration’s Infrastructure Task Force was looking at two issues, permitting and pay-fors. To be honest with you, I was surprised when I 

finally saw the Administration’s plan devoted 15 pages to permitting while the word pay-for failed to appear even once. Maybe I 

missed it, but I do not think so. 

My colleagues have heard me say more than a few times that if 

things are worth having, they are worth paying for. For decades we 

have relied in this country on a user fee approach to pay for much 

of our infrastructure, especially our transportation infrastructure, 

roads, highways and bridges. In years to come we will see an ever 

growing number of electric and fuel cell powered vehicles on our 

roads that do not use gasoline or diesel fuel. 

In anticipation of that growing trend, 3 years ago we adopted 

right here in this Committee legislation that called for a multistate pilot alternative revenue mechanism to fund roads in America. We call it Vehicle Miles Traveled or words to that effect, the 

road user charge. Over the next several years we should grow the 

number of States in that pilot and eventually run a national pilot 

of that funding approach. 

Eventually we are going to morph away from taxing gas and diesel. We will have all these hydrogen projects on the road eventually 

and all these electric projects on the road. They are not going to 

buy any diesel fuel or gasoline, but we need to make sure they are 

going to be paying their fair share. 

Unfortunately, that proposal is still a few years away. Meanwhile, we have a growing shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund to 

address. 

Fortunately, several of us were in a meeting I alluded to earlier 

with the President and our Secretary last month when he repeatedly declared his strong support for a 25 cent per gallon increase 

in the Federal gas tax on gasoline and diesel fuel. That could become one important additional source of funds to help us pay for 

the improvements we need. 

6 

At first, I thought he was kidding, Madam Secretary, but he was 

not. When I talked to him later, he indicated he had been talking 

about this for weeks. 

Bo Simpson had something like roughly 4 cents increase in gas 

and diesel tax over 4 years, going forward. I presented that to the 

President 2 weeks ago, as you recall, and he said, that is not 

enough, Tom. We need to do more. Twenty-five cents, we should do 

it now. 

He said he would give us air cover, political cover, and I thought, 

God bless you, Mr. President. If he is serious about that, if he is 

serious about something along this line, we can do a deal here. We 

can get this show on the road. 

Finally, let me say I believe there are others as well that would 

find that bipartisan support. With the Administration’s support 

and the President’s promised leadership, I hope we will be able to 

find agreement for a much needed source of new revenues to fund 

our critical infrastructure needs while we also pursue other promising ways to get better results for the transportation dollars we 

spent. 

In those 15 pages I talked about of permitting reform, there are 

some good ideas. There are some that are not, but there are some 

good ideas there, too. 

I understand figuring out how to pay for things is always the 

hard part, but we were not sent here to just attack all the easy 

things. We were sent here to do some tough things, to have difficult 

conversations, and make tough choices to achieve better outcomes. 

I heard yesterday from our colleague and friend, John Cornyn, 

with whom I was with in the gym this morning. He told us he does 

not know if Congress will have time to do something on infrastructure in this session. I gasped when I heard that, shared with me 

by a reporter the other day. 

I talked with Senator Cornyn about that today. He did not think 

he had said that. That is great. I hope he didn’t because we have 

plenty of time, and we ought to have plenty of time to do infrastructure and transportation. That is what people sent us here to 

do. They want us to do the hard things. 

If we do, with apologies to Mark Twain, we will amaze our 

friends and confound our enemies. Let us do both. 

Thank you so much. Thank you for letting me go on. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I would like to now welcome our guests: Hon. Elaine Chao, Secretary, United States Department of Transportation; and Hon. R. 

D. James, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. 

I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written testimony will be made a part of the official hearing record. We ask 

that you please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we may have 

time for questions. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony beginning with Secretary Chao. 

Madam Secretary. 

7 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELAINE CHAO, 

SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. CHAO. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to be 

here today. 

Infrastructure is the backbone of our world class economy. It is 

the most productive, flexible, and dynamic in the world. It is a key 

factor in productivity and economic growth. Yet, the challenges are 

everywhere. 

With respect to surface transportation infrastructure, traffic con- gestion and delays cost drivers nearly $160 billion annually. About 

one-quarter of our Nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or in 

need of improvement. More than 20 percent of our Nation’s roads 

are in poor condition, and the transportation needs of rural America, which account for a disproportionately high percentage of our 

Nation’s highway fatalities, have been ignored for too long. 

That is why 12 government agencies have been supporting the 

President on a comprehensive Infrastructure Initiative, which the 

President announced as a priority in the 2018 State of the Union 

address. Transportation is just one component. The Initiative includes—but is not limited to—drinking and wastewater, energy, 

broadband, and veterans’ hospitals as well. It is designed to change 

how infrastructure is designed, built, financed, and maintained in 

communities across the country. The goal of the President’s proposal is to stimulate at least $1.5 

trillion in infrastructure investment, which includes a minimum of 

$200 billion in direct Federal funding. The guiding principles are 

to: one, use Federal dollars as seed money to incentivize infrastructure investment; two, provide for the needs of rural America; three, 

streamline permitting to speed up project delivery; and four, reduce 

unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. 

In addition, a key element of the proposal is to empower decisionmaking at the State and local level. They know best the infrastructure needs of their communities. 

Half of the new infrastructure funds would go toward 

incentivizing new State and local investments in infrastructure. A 

quarter of the Federal funds will be dedicated to addressing rural 

infrastructure needs, as prioritized by State and local leaders. As 

a former Secretary of Labor, I am pleased to note this plan also has 

a work force component to help workers access the skills needed to 

build these new projects. 

The department is also implementing the President’s One Federal Decision mandate announced in August 2017 to help speed up 

the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs. In fact, the Department is working on a new process to handle the permitting of 

complicated, multi-agency projects to meet the President’s new expedited time line. 

In addition to permitting reform, the department is doing its part 

to help grow the economy and create jobs through regulatory reform. Costs associated with new DOT regulations decreased by 

$312 million in 2017, and the department is on track to decrease 

these costs by at least $500 million in 2018. 

By incentivizing new investment in infrastructure, eliminating 

overly burdensome regulations, providing support for rural AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
8 

ica, and streamlining the permitting process, the department is 

helping to improve our quality of life and build a brighter future 

for all Americans. This Administration looks forward to working 

with all of you on these very important issues affecting our country’s economy, vitality, productivity, and also quality of life. 

Thank you again for inviting me, and I will be happy to answer 

any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chao follows:] 

9 


32989.001

Honorable Elaine Chao 

U.S. Secretary of Transportation 

Secretary Elaine L. Chao is the 18th U.S. Secretary of 

Transportation, and comes to the Department with extensive 

experience in the transportation sector. Early in her career, 

she specialized in transportation financing in the private 

sector. She began her career in public service working on 

transportation and trade issues at the White House, then served 

as Deputy Maritime Administrator, Chairman of the Federal 

Maritime Commission, and Deputy Secretary of the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

Secretary Chao understands the critical role ofthe Department 

in ensuring the safety of our country's transportation 

systems. She is also keenly aware of the key role infrastructure plays in our nation's economic 

competitiveness, and in strengthening economic growth in both the urban and rural areas of our 

country. 

Secretary Chao has a distinguished career in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. An 

immigrant who arrived in America at the age of eight speaking no English, she received her 

citizenship at the age of 19. Her experience transitioning to a new country has motivated her to 

devote most of her professional life to ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to build better 

lives for themselves and their families. 

This is Secretary Chao's second cabinet-level post. She served as the 24th U.S. Secretary of 

Labor from 2001-2009, the first Asian-American woman to be appointed to a President's Cabinet 

in American history. As U.S. Secretary of Labor, she focused on increasing the competitiveness 

of America's workforce in a global economy, promoted job creation, and achieved record results 

in workplace safety and health. 

Prior to the Department of Labor, Secretary Chao was President and Chief Executive Officer of 

United Way of America, where she restored public trust and confidence in one of America's 

premier institutions of private charitable giving, after it had been tarnished by financial 

mismanagement and abuse. Secretary Chao also served as Director of the Peace Corps, where 

she established the first programs in the Baltic nations and the newly independent states of the 

former Soviet Union. 

Secretary Chao earned her MBA from the Harvard Business School and an economics degree 

from Mount Holyoke College. Honored for her extensive record of accomplishments and public 

service, she is the recipient of36 honorary doctorate degrees. 

Secretary Chao is a resident of Jefferson County, Kentucky. Prior to her appointment as 

Secretary of Transportation, she was a Distinguished Fellow at Hudson Institute. She is the 

eldest of six daughters born to Dr. James S.C. Chao and the late Mrs. Ruth Mulan Chu Chao. 
10 


32989.002

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ELAINE L. CHAO 

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION BEFORFTfiF 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE HEARING ON 

The Administration's Framework for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 

March I. 2018 

Chainnan Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today regarding our new infrastructure initiative. 

Infrastructure is the backbone of our world-class economy-the most productive, flexible, and 

dynamic in the world. It is a key factor in productivity and economic growth, which has provided 

millions of hard working Americans with a standard of living that is the envy of the world. Yet 

today, these gains are threatened by aging infrastructure that is increasingly congested, in need of 

repair, and unable to keep pace with technological change. 

The challenges are everywhere. With respect to surface transportation infrastructure, traffic 

congestion and delays cost drivers nearly$ !60 billion annually. About one-quarter of our 

Nation's bridges are structurally deficient or in need of improvement. More than 20 percent of 

our Nation's roads are in poor condition. And the transportation needs of rural America. which 

account for a disproportionately high percentage of our Nation's highway fatalities. have been 

ignored for too long. 

That's why 12 government agencies have been supporting the President on a comprehensive 

Infrastructure Initiative, which the President announced as a priority in the 2018 State ofthe 

Union address. Transportation is just one component. The Initiative includes, but is not limited 

to, drinking and wastewater, energy, broadband and veterans' hospitals as well. It is designed to 

change how infrastructure is designed, built, financed and maintained in communities across the 

country. 

The goal of the President's proposal is to stimulate at least$! .5 trillion in infrastructure 

investment, which includes a minimum of$200 billion in direct Federal funding. The guiding 

principles are to: I) usc Federal dollars as seed money to incentivize infrastructure investment; 2) 

provide for the needs of rural communities; 3) streamline permitting to speed up project delivery; 

and, 4) reduce unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. In addition, a key element of the 

proposal is to empower decision making at the State and local level, who know best the 

infrastructure needs of their communities. Half of the new infrastructure funds would go towards 

incentivizing new State and local investments in infrastructure. A quarter of the Federal funds 

will be dedicated to addressing rural infrastructure needs, as prioritized by State and local 

leaders. And as a former Secretary of Labor, I'm pleased to note this plan also has a workforce 

component, to help workers access the skills needed to build these new projects. 

We're already applying these principles to one of the Department's major existing infrastructure 

grant programs, Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA). I'm pleased to say communities 
11 


32989.003

have responded positively by modifying their proposals to reflect these new criteria. This 

quarter, the President has generously decided to donate his annual salary to the Department's 

INFRA grant program. INFRA directly reflects the President's priorities by providing dedicated, 

discretionary funding for projects that address critical issues facing our Nation's highways and 

bridges. Under the INFRA program, States and localities that secure some funding or financing 

of their own are given higher priority access to Federal funds. In addition, INFRA also reserves 

at least 25 percent of its funding to be awarded to rural projects. 

The Department is also implementing the President's "One Federal Decision" mandate, which 

will help speed up the delivery of new infrastructure and reduce costs. The new process is 

designed to more effectively and efficiently handle the permitting of complicated, multi-agency 

projects to meet the President's new timeline to complete environmental reviews in two years, 

while preserving environmental protections. The Department is working on a new process to 

handle the permitting of complicated, multi-agency projects to meet the President's new 

expedited time line. 

In addition to permitting reform. the Department is doing its part to help grow the economy and 

create jobs through an aggressive regulatory reform agenda. Costs associated with our new 

regulations decreased by $312 million in2017, and we're on track to decrease these costs by 

$500 million in 2018. So, we are on track to save taxpayers nearly $800 million in regulatory 

burdens in 2017-2018 alone. A new Mercatus study concluded that DOT removed more 

regulatory restrictions than any other cabinet department in the President's first year. 

By incentivizing new investment in infrastructure, eliminating overly burdensome regulations, 

providing support for rural America, and streamlining the permitting process, the Department is 

helping to improve our quality of life and build a brighter future for all Americans. 

Thank you again for the invitation to appear before you today. This Administration welcomes the 

opportunity to work with you on these issues of critical importance to our country's 

infrastructure, so our economy can continue to grow and create good jobs for America's working 

families. 

I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 

# 
12 


32989.162

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"The Administration's Framework for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America." 

March 1, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Secretary Elaine Chao 

Chairman Barrasso: 

I. Secretary Chao, the President's infrastructure plan relies on leveraging new federal 

spending into a much larger value of investment. Can you give us some examples of 

programs within your department that demonstrate how the proposed $200 billion of new 

federal spending can grow into well over $1 trillion of overall investment? 

Answer: 771e infrastructure proposal describes multiple programs that work together lo 

increase the amount we inFest us u society into i11fi·as1ructure. The largest l!f'lhese 

programs is the 'Incentives' program, at S 100 billion De.\'l~>;ned as a discrelionarv gran/ 

progmm. the primm)' ('}'ifcrion that will be used to <'Valuate applications is how well the 

applicant /evemges thl!se dollars with non-Federal investmentfi·om Stale, local, and 

private sec/or partners. 

This levemge selection criterion was modeled qjier a program we launched last year. 

ca//ed INFRA. We are currently assessing 1.\'FRA applications and aim to make 

.1e/ections later this Spring. 1-Vhile /everaf!ing non-Fedemlfi.mding is oul,v one c!f'a 

handful ofselection Cl'iteria, we expect that the JSFRA awarded pr{!fects will 

dcmonstrwc the high-ieFel~ of' non-Federal investlllel'llthal is achievable when 

incenlivi::iug project .IJIOIISors through competition. 

Another example is the Traii.IJ.lOrtation ln[i-as/mcwre Finance and Irmovalion Act 

fT/FL-l! credh program. In rece/11 years, each Sf l!f'Federalfimdiug has allowed IJPIA 

to provide approximatelv Sf -I in credit assistance. and support up to S40 ~~{lola/ 

infrastructure inve.\'lmenl. including other Stale. local. and private sector investmellts. 

2. Secretary Chao, the President's infrastructure plan encourages the participation of the 

private sector to achieve a more robust investment in infrastructure. What organizational 

changes are needed within the Department of Transportation to reap the greatest benefit 

from public-private partnerships and other innovative financing initiatives? 

Answer: As the newlyfiJrmed Build America Bureau continues 10 mature, we wi/1 /Je 

expanding our technical assislance and direct support capacilv to help develop more 

puh/ic-private partnersJnjJs (f' JsJ. with an emphasis on /Jroadening the portji>lio of'/'3 

projects to include more /rami/. station and port projects. 

I'Js can also hencjit.fi'om <'xpandedjilwncing mc:chanisms.fiJr projects Fia holh lhe 

TIFJA and RRIF credit programs. Facilitating private parTicipation in transportaTion 

projects and encouraging innovative financing mechanisms that help accelerate project 

Page 1 of 34 
13 


32989.163

Jelivi'IJ' are key objectives tJ(both programs. For example, since The T!FIA J>rogram 's 

inct:plion it has attracted private co-investment in thefimn oldehl or et{Uity.finoncingfhr 

over 20 large-scale ir!fi·astruc/Ure prr!iects across !he country. 

Toward that end, the Prt'sident 's plan includt's S 14 billion to be made amilahlefiir the 

expansion o(existing credil programs to address a broader range ofinfmsrrucrure needs, 

givi11g Stale and local govermnenls increased opportuni()' lo sponsor or direcr~vfinance 

large-scale infi·astructure prr!jects under l<>rms thor are more advantageous than in rhe 

financial market. This will also serve to increase private participarionwhere it makes 

sense. 

3. Secretary Chao, in addition to expediting project approvals, improvements can be made 

to the inner-workings of federal agencies. Too often, forms, stewardship agreements and 

other approvals add to the burden of States trying to improve infrastructure. Madame 

Secretary, can I count on your support for improving practices within the Department of 

Transportation to reduce the regulatory burden on State agencies? 

Answer: Yes. The com:em llwt you raise has also l>een brought 10 our attention by some 

(!four State IJOTpartners. We are wrremly reviell'ing our stewardship and ovasighr 

agreement templates to ensure rhey are consislenl with currenT law ant! t!o not 

inad,·errenr(v impose addiTional unnecessarv requiremenrs on Slaws as thev se.:k /o 

improve their lranspol'llllion infrastrucrure. 

lYe recognize that many tvpes (!(agency policies can plact> unneccssarv burdens on our 

stakeholders. in addition to our mlemakings. and we are carqfullv rel'iewing those l)'pes 

of actions as part oj'the Department's broader regulatorv refimn e/ji>rts. 

4. Secretary Chao, I want to thank you for the Department of Transportation's exceptional 

work using federal funds to improve infrastructure. Can you describe some of the 

institutional barriers and challenges that slow down project development and delivery, 

and what the Department can do to address those challenges? 

An.vwer: There are numerous barrias lo efficient project deliv<:rv. For example, th<> 

current environmenlal review and permilling process is complex and pmject .1pon.wrs 

can find it difficult to understand which requiremems apply to their projects. A wide 

variety (J(agcncies are responsihlefhr environmental laws and regulatiom, meaning that 

pl'(y·ect .1ponsors must polential~v work with a number of' Federal agenci<'s to compleie 

numerous enviromne>ltal documt>nts to advance a single pnlject. flow llwse 

environmewallml's and rl'gulations are applied can he inconsiSlelll and unprl'dicwhle 

across agencies. In addition, projects are not always reviewed concurremly, hut 

sequemiallv. This add\' a tremcndou\' amount olrim<' in the revieH' process that is 

frequ<'ntlv unnecessarv. 

DOT is addressing the challenges within our own Deparlment. The Infrastructure 

Permitting Jmprovem.:nt Cemer (lPIC) is the central resourcejiJr streamlining dcliFerv 

Page 2 of 34 
14 


32989.164

<!fall DOTprujecls. /PiC advances mellwdv thatjacililate efficient environmental 

review and approval ojjJmjecls, encouraging innovative solutions to complex projects. 

We coordinate with project deliveiJ' sttdlacross all our modes. sharing best practices. 

and colla!JOrate with the 16 r;·edcral agencies that comprise the Federal Permitting 

Jmprovemem Steering Council. established hv F~-!S7~41. W<' also manat.e and mai/ltain 

1he Federal Permillin:;: Dashboard 

Huwev<!r, these effilrls arc within the Depart me/It a/1(1 recent rejimns alone are not 

enough to achinv !he 2-ycar time.fiYtme under the /'resident's Executive Order and 

lnfi·aslructure Initiative. !hat is why the Administration is proposing additional chan!!es 

to the project deliWIJ' proc<'ss. 

Ranking Member Carper: 

5. In your written testimony and opening statement, you state that "a key element of the 

proposal is to empower decision making at the State and local level, who know best the 

infrastructure needs of their communities." While I don't disagree with the goal oflocal 

empowerment, I question how the Administration's proposal--over half of which is for 

grants awarded by Federal agencies- would represent an increase in State or local 

decision-making. 

As you know, the Federal Highway Administration does not currently decide which 

projects a State advances for construction, and, moreover, since the Intermodal Surface 

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), each successive reauthorization has 

emphasized flexibility. 

a. Isn't it the case that the Federal-aid highway program is a Federally-assisted, 

State administered program that empowers States and locals to make investment 

decisions? 

Answer: Y<'s. The f?ederal-aid highway pro)!ram is aj(,Jerally-assisted, Stateadministered partnership he/Ween the fl!WA and tile Stales. FHWA apportions 

1he vasr majority !approximately 92 pacent! ofF<'deral-aid hit.hway.fimding to 

Stales. From thae, Swtes. and in some cases foca!ilies, select <'fi)!illle projects on 

which to use those 1·1•deroljimds. 

/11 addition to thefimdin)! components (!/the plan, provisions{iJr inf'rastructure 

improvement incfud<' many policy provisions to empower State and focal officials 

in how they numage existing assets and develop new assets. A key difference 

between the Federal-aid highway program and the lnji-astructure lnitialive 's 

fncentit·cs program is that the latter provides suhstanlia! additionaljlexihifity to 

project sponsors regardint. the scope (if eligible projects and if!frastructure asset 

classes. 

Page 3 of 34 
15 


32989.165

b. Knowing that TIGER grants are so popular, and so successful because local 

communities, especially smaller ones, are able to directly apply for federal 

funding, why does the Administration propose eliminating TIGER when TIGER 

already accomplishes the Administration's stated goals? 

Answer: We know how popular TTCil:R grants are with members o(Congress: 

however, TIGER is neither designed nor Iorge enough to address the Sutinn 's 

eompr<!llellsivc in/rustructure needs. For example. TIGER addresses only certain 

surface transportation il!/i-astruemre cmd hcJs not been used to spur addiiiona/ State, 

local and prirate sector investment on the scale o(the Presidcnl 's plan Pro;ects 

original(v c/igibleji1r TIGER grants will have the opportunitv to applv anti 

com;wtejilrfimding included in the Administration's ln/i'astructure Initiative. 

?he proposal provides an additional S20U billion OV<'r th<' n<!xt ten years fiJI· 

increased Federal spending. includingjimdingfiw merit-based transportation 

inji·astructure projecls, a11d will pmvide an importal/l capahililyfhr the 

Department to address our nation·.,. urgent transportatio11 inji·astructure needs at 

!he stale and local level 

6. In Chairman Barrasso's second question to you, the Chairman unfortunately relied on 

outdated numbers to support the claim that highway projects take 6.5 years on average to 

approve. 

Since you were not able to correct the record at the hearing, I want to provide you the 

opportunity to confirm more recent and relevant data from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). 

The information on the Federal Highway Administration's website of"Estimated Time 

Required to Complete the NEPA Process" indicates that in fact the median completion 

time for highway EIS projects is just 3 years and 8 months. 

Please confirm that the FHW A analysis on highway project review times is the most 

recent and accurate data, and will you commit to correcting misinformation about highway 

reviews in the future? 

Answer: 'lilere are multiple sources ofinfbrmation on time to cOIIlplete l'J'is. ?he Fl'lll~-1 

website 1 assume you are referring to reflects a median time ol-1-1 montlisjiH' 20/6 

(compared to the Fl'IHA 's 2013 MAP-2 l Section 1323 Re[)(ll'l to Congress that included 

an Ul'erllge EL'>'proccssing time of73 1110nth1). FHH~4 changed its methodologvjil!' 

measuring time.fi'omaverage ro median In our DOT Booklet "The !'resident's lniriazive 

fbr Rebuilding America,., we cite gowrnmem-wide slatisticsfrom GAO a11d Nalional 

Association oj'Environmenlal Pn(kssionals that lh<' average time to complete an EJS is 

4. 6 or 5. 1 years, respective~v. Th<' point is thai it continues lo wke 100 long and that 

rejimus are needed. I think we cmt all agree !hal we should remed)' inefficiencies in !he 

process thar do no! eliminate important envirotml<!llfal protections. 

7. A successful negotiation on CAFE-<me that does not end in litigation-must involve the 

state of California, and must also involve level participation of both the Environmental 

Page 4 of 34 
16 


32989.166

Protection Agency as well as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration within 

USDOT, and strong leadership from you as Secretary ofUSDOT. Unfortunately, as I 

relayed at our hearing, I have heard reports that indicate that negotiations with California 

are not happening in a meaningful way, and one reported barrier has been the failure of the 

NHTSA staff to answer technical questions raised by EPA staff about the fuel economy 

"Volpe" model developed by NHTSA. 

I recognize that you did not understand the question at the hearing, so I want to provide 

you another opportunity commit to do two things as this process moves forward: 

a. Will you direct your political and career staff at NHTSA and USDOT to quickly 

and completely answer all questions raised by EPA staff about the NHTSA model 

and its assumptions? Answer: We will work closely with the EPA. 

b. Will you commit the Department to work closely with EPA AND with California 

and actively negotiate standards that all sides can support? 

Answer: We will carejitlly consider 1he i11p1ll olal/ stalwholders. includinf; 

Califilrniu. 

8. In response to a question from Senator Cardin about the federal government's 

commitment to maintain its infrastructure, you stated that the federal government only 

funds 14 percent of highway improvements in the U.S. 

Later, in response to a question from Senator Markey, you then stated that the federal 

government only funds 16 percent of highway improvements in the U.S. 

However, according to the most recent Conditions and Performance Report from the 

Federal Highway Administration, the direct expenditures from the Federal government 

represent 21.4% of all spending on roads and bridges in America. Further, this figure 

includes all expenditures on roadways, including both the roadway expansion and other 

capital projects eligible for Federal funding, as well as the traffic services, highway 

patrols, and maintenance work such as snowplowing-none of which is eligible for 

federal spending. Looking at just the capital projects, federal funding represents 43%-

nearly half of total highway expenditures. 

Do you concur with the accuracy of the data published by the Federal Highway 

Administration and will you to commit to using the correct information in future 

testimony? 

Answer: Wt' concur with the accuracy o/FHWA 's data. \Fhich supports the point that the 

Federal govemmult CO/I.I'iSI<!IIt~vfundv a distincl minori~v o(totul experulituresjbr 

ir!fi·as/rttclurc. 

Page 5 of34 
17 


32989.167

9. In response to a question from Senator Markey, you stated that "the 80-20" federal share 

only applies to the Interstate. You repeated this same assertion on Tuesday, March 6 at a 

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing. 

This statement ori the Federal-share is incorrect, and more importantly, it provides the 

false impression that further devolving the federal role and limiting federal contributions 

is somehow aligned with a limited role that currently exists. 

As I hope you are now aware, the 80-20 Federal share exists for all Federal-aid projects, 

with the exception of"sliding scales" States, interstate projects, and safety projects, 

among other exceptions, that increase the Federal share- not decrease. 

We must also be clear about the differences between the Federal share and the overall 

Federal contribution, and about the overall significance of Federal funding to 

infrastructure improvements. While federal highway spending represents just 21% of all 

money spent on the nation's roads and bridges each year, the capital expenditures data 

from the Federal Highway Administration shows that federal funds on average support 

nearly half of state department of transportation outlays on road and bridge capital 

improvements. In fact, in some states such as Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, 

federal funds represent more than 70 percent of total highway improvements. 

Is there anything further on this topic that would you like the opportunity to correct for the 

record? 

An.vwer: The Administmtion 's inilialive isjhcused on addn!.\'Sing !he cmmrrv 's need' 

across all t)pes ofcore ir!fi'aslructure. nwuely mads, bridges, railways, warerwayv, ports. 

wafer utilities. electric lllililies. browlTumd. superfimd cleanup sices. amu11g mhers. 1/wse 

needs are so immense that all parties musr conrri/Jute. Th<' degree (!(fi:deral involvem<'nl 

injbwneing Iiwse t1'J1l'S of it?fras/mcrure mries wide~v. bw is consislenth· th<' mi~oriry. 

The Presidenr 's pion proposes the deve/opme/11 of real partllership relationships. 

10. In response to a question from Senator Fischer as to whether there is "anything specific on 

rural interstates" in the Administration's plan, you did not respond directly to her question 

at the hearing. Instead, you noted that the Administration only sent infrastructure 

principles and not legislative text. 

This would seem to imply that the Administration's plan does not contain specific 

language on rural interstates. But indeed, there is a specific mention of rural interstates in 

the Administration's principles. 

To qualify for rural performance grants, a State like Nebraska would be forced to leverage 

both its formula funds with a Federal credit program, and then "reward rural interstate 

projects through the infrastructure incentives program". The incentives program would be 

measured in large part by how successful the project is at attracting non-Federal resources. 

Page 6 of 34 
18 


32989.168

Would you confirm this reading of the Administration's proposal and add any additional 

relevant information on this topic? 

Auswer: No. the AdminisTration's proposal provides sixnificant support .fill' rural areas. 

MosT significantlv. the Rural ln/i'astructure Formula program provides S-!0 hill ion in 

block granls to srare governors lo address !he mral injiustructure needs in their stare. 

which could include mral illler.I'Tatcs. No match is requiredjbr thesefimds. Jn addition to 

thcjimnula program, the Administration's proposal/or Rural !'ofiimumce Grams would 

onlv require a Stare lo meet one or more ~~lthe criteria oplions below. 

In order to qualif>'fhr rural pojiJrmance grants. a State would he required to: 

Publish a comprehensive rural infraslrucrure investment plan (RIIP) within 

!80 davs l!f'n:ceiving mral/hrmulafund>. The RJIP would demons/rare lurw 

the Stare ·s imended rural projccts align with lh<' evaluation criteria inrhe 

il!/i'astructure incenrives program. including Stale. local and private sector 

invcslment in eligible projecrs. 

Demonstrate rhe qual it)• of any investme/1/s planned with ruml 

JWijimnancejimds. 

Demons/rare pe1:fiJrmance in leveragingfiJrmula distrihutiolls with Federal 

crl'dil programs and rewarding rural int<?rstate pn~jects rhrough the 

il!!i'aslructure incmtiFes program. (f'iote: ~this-is rt,ji:rs ro all types of' 

eligible asset classes. noljust illl<'rstate highways. Also, rhis is inl<'nded ro reflecr 

mulri-swte injiYTstmcrure ofallr;p<'S, rhar serve regional needs rather than being 

/bcused onjurisdictional boundaries, whi<.:h are somerimes misaligl!cd to 

inf"rastmcrure i11vestment needs.!. 

Demunstrale the State's perfiwmancc in utili:::arion o/'Ruralfll/i'astructure 

Programjimnulafumk consislentlrililthe RI!P bused on stmed gmeral 

criteria. 

II. In a document released after your testimony on March 5, available at: 

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/t!les/docs/brictingroom/305216/infrastructure-initiative-booldet.pdf, the Administration justifies its 

infrastructure proposal by saying: "Federal transportation funding is allocated and 

managed in a way that raises project costs while providing few incentives for efficient use 

of funds to achieve measurable outcomes." The infrastructure incentives program, on the 

other hand, weights the ability of the project to secure non-federal funds at 70 percent, 

while "evidence to support how projects will spur economic and social returns on 

investment," or the public value of the project, is only weighted at 5 percent. It is likely 

that this weighting will incentivize the construction of new, revenue generating 

infrastructure (like toll roads), but will result in lower scoring for repair projects. 

There are substantial repair needs in our nation, and repair and maintenance projects are 

shown to have more immediate and lasting benefits compared to new construction. This is 

Page 7 of 34 
19 


32989.169

why the bipartisan, performance-based framework from the last two transportation bills, 

prioritized road and bridge condition as a national goal. 

In a previous hearing before this Committee, you said that the President's top priority is 

rebuilding, repairing, and maintaining the nation's infrastructure. However, the vast 

majority of the projects that will improve our infrastructure- the repair and replacement 

of roads, bridges, and existing water infrastructure -won't work as public-private 

partnerships because they won't attract private investments. 

a. Does maintenance of existing assets continue to be a top priority for the 

Department of Transportation, and a top infrastructure priority for President 

Trump? Answer: Yes. 

b. Does weighting the public value of the project at only 5 percent provide an 

incentive for the most "efficient use of funds to achieve measurable outcomes"? 

Answer: Yes. 

c. Is the Department's proposal for incentives likely to result in a "fix-it-first" 

approach to maintaining our existing system? 

Answer: 'lhe Admiuislrillion belieFcs 1hese l)'f'I'S ojfi.mdiny, decisions and 

priorities are hesl decided and imp/onerued a1 the slate and local level. 

d. Is the focus on leveraging non-Federal investments likely to result in investment 

in maintenance and repair projects? 

~Yes . .Vew reFcnuejilr ir!fi·astructure can stemjrom a range o{sources. 

This includes, but is not limited to. the individual asse/ itself.' Also. the Incentive.\ 

program gives significant weight fin· purposes (!!rating applicmions/in· nl'w 

revenue committed toward operations. mainlenance, and rehabilitation. 

12. In response to a question from Senator Inhofe, you alluded to the authorities created via 

the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (FPISC). Established in 2015, the 

FPISC is intended to move larger infrastructure projects through a review process more 

efficiently and develop new procedures to standardize interagency consultation and 

coordination practices. 

The FPISC Executive Director is a presidentially-appointed position that is currently not 

filled. Why has this position not been viewed as a key priority to help accelerate project 

delivery? 

~ Thl' Departme111 is on lhe Pamillillj!. Council. ami works close/)• with I he FI'/SC 

()(jice t!fthe Execwive Director in advmtcitlj!.the FAST Act Title 41 measures to improve 

the permilling procl's.1· and Project Delivery. A.1· you may know. the Department also 

manage.\· and maintaim thl' Permilling Dash hoard created I~)' FAST Act Title./ I. 

Page 8 of 34 
20 


32989.170

However. tile Department is not involved in the selection or hiring of an Execllliw 

Director. 

13. In response to a question from Senator Sullivan, you mentioned that project developers 

conservatively budget three percent is added in direct construction costs for each year of 

delay. 

On the Federal Infrastructure Dashboard, there are 18 "paused" transportation projects 

with a reason listed for the pause--II list a lapse of funding, and 6 projects cite a 

necessary action by the state, local, or tribal entity, as a cause of their delay. Given this 

dataa. To what extent is funding shortages, the need for a state, local, or tribal action, or 

the need to address community opposition to projects, the cause of delay for large 

transportation projects? 

b. Will a focus on new federal streamlining address the delays that result from lack 

of funding, community opposition, or the need for a state, local, or tribal action? 

Answer: There are over 200 Department prtJjects on the Permilling Dashboard. As you 

poi Ill out some are shown as pausedjin· various reasons cited /Is you are aware, there 

are mam: reasons that projects are delt(ved. i11cluding due to inejliciency ill the 

<'nvironmentul review and pamitting process: howe Fer, ''pauses" on the Permitti11g 

Dashhoard reflect delavs that are entirely oulside o/'lhej(:dera/ goFernment 's conrrol. 

Reforms that target these inl'j(idencies while cominuing to mailllain necessmJ' 

c>nviromnemal protections, will accelerate project de/ivciJ', savejimds that can be used to 

advance tiles!' and other critical projects. and achiev<' illlf>rovcd outcomes for the 

environmciil a11d communiTies. These refimns will reduce project coszs as well as provide 

predictabilit~· ru zhc process. thereby inc<'ntivizing public and non-public investmellf. 

14. You stated that the Administration has "fully implemented" all project delivery provisions 

except for those still to be implemented in 2 remaining regulations to implement the FAST 

Act. 

a. Would you please clarify how you define when a provision oflaw is "fully 

implemented"? In other words, does full implementation include publishing 

guidance and memoranda that help communities to implement these provisions? 

b. Would you please provide my staff with a list of statutory provisions from MAP21 and the FAST Act that have been fully implemented, including all anticipated 

regulations, guidance, and memoranda? 

c. Has the Department of Transportation independently evaluated the accelerated 

project delivery provisions in place to determine the efficacy of these tools 

already provided by Congress? 

Page 9 of 34 
21 


32989.171

Answer: Mv re.lptmse was lo explain those provisions ofMAP-21 and I·ASTActthal ar~ 

in ejfi!Cl, implemented, and being enfbrced. As stated, with those lwo exceplions, all 

Accelerating Project Deliver:vprovisions of! hose Acts arefitlly implemented. We 1rould 

be glad to provide vour srajf'with a list olstatutory provisions under those Acts that haFe 

heenfu/1~· implemellfed and any anticipated guidanceli·egulalions. ?11ere are no 

a/llicipa!ed regulations owside of those twoji!wl rules I previouslv nored. both l!lwhich 

are lo bejina/i::.ed this summer. We previously provided your Sll{jla detailed swrmwrv t!/' 

the provisions covered bv those two rules. 

15. The largest program in the Administration's proposal puts the onus on local and state 

taxpayers by changing the federal match on new interstate construction projects from 90 

percent to 20 percent. 

This requirement in the Administration's proposal for local governments to raise money or 

engage in public private partnerships (P3) will be a challenge for many local governments 

that do not have the authority to raise funding locally or to partner with private entities in 

P3 arrangements. Those powers must be granted by the state. 

Are you concerned that this uneven playing field will allow some communities to access 

funding while others get left behind through no fault of their own? 

~ AI /Jest. FedcraljimdingjiJr in/i'as/ructure represents a minoriiJ• oftorol 

spending. Spending across puhlic infrastructure is approxilllarely ]()percent hy !he 

Federal f<O>'ermuem and 80 percent hy State and local go>'emlllents. The President:~ plan 

supports tradilionalfimdinf,! levels. 

The President's proposal does no/ in any wav change !he existing ma!ching requirr:menls 

ji>r the Pedcral-aid highwav program: each swte will continue /o reed Fe their current 

flighwav Trust Fund dollars. The Presidmr·.\. proposal is f(Jr addiliuna/Jitnds and we 

want to partner wilh th(! slates. 

Furthermore. the proposal provides up 10 ]() pacenl Fedcraljimding as a percent of' new 

reFenue, not prtJiect coS/. 

16. Our 21st century infrastructure needs are very different than our 20th century 

infrastructure needs were. Your infrastructure proposal sets aside funding for loans for 

transformative projects that presumably are intended to help meet modern needs of 

communities. What types of projects and modes of transportation specifically do you 

believe are needed in the 21" century? 

Auswer: As part of the l'residenr 's Jnilialivefiw Rebuilding lnkas/mc/urc in America. the 

TramjimnatiFe l'roiecls l'mgram would prtJl'ide Fedeml.fimding and rechnical assislance 

fiJr hold. imwvative, and transjimnutivc infrastmclure projects !hat could dramatical!v 

improve infrastructure and have sif!nificant positive impact on the Narion, a ref! ion . .'>'wtc, 

or metropolitml area. 

Page 10 of 34 
22 


32989.172

The Program proposes S20 billion infimding that would be awarded on a competitive 

basis TO ambitious. 1'.\]iloratory, and ground-breaking project ideas that are likely to be 

commerciallv viable, hut that possess unique wchnical and risk clwractaistics that 

otherwise deter privati! sector investment. 

/he Department o{Commace (DOC) would serve as the Chairji1r the purposes of 

program administralion and could reque.\'1 other rei evan/ Federal agency employ<'es to 

1·erve on a rcmporary ossignmenlto assist inlhi! adminisrrmion o(lhis program. 

I 7. Currently, state and local governments receive and control 92 percent of Federal aid 

highway funds via formula and make the vast majority of decisions regarding the 

procurement and use of these dollars. You have raised questions about the inefficiency in 

existing programs and the current use of Federal resources. These are important questions 

of oversight, transparency and accountability, and I share your goal to improve the 

transparency and accountability for projects receiving Federal aid highway funding. 

Congress included a provision in the FAST Act -Section 1402 -designed to do just this. 

a. Would you give us an update on efforts to implement and utilize Section 1402 of 

the FAST Act to improve the transparency and accountability ofthe use of 

Highway Trust Fund revenues? 

Answer: FHIYA is currently working on the reports under Section l./02 ofrhe 

FAST Act, which are a high priorityji1r the agency to implement. For th(! 

semiannual report 011 apportioned and allocated.fimding, the draji report data is 

curremly heing validated. We expecr to complete this by rhe o1d ~~(Apri/2018. 

wirh reports /wing n:rroactively preparcdfbr the <'nds ojjiscal years 2016 and 

2017 a11d then reports being prepared on a soniannual basis theret~/ier. For the 

annual project data report, rhe data requirements art' currcn!lv being researched 

a11d discussed with lh<' programmer.\·./iJr FHf.VA ·s Fisu1l Management 

lnjimnation Sysrem rFMIS). it is expecred that the project duta reporl will be 

cornplered in the comingfcw months. 

b. What additional steps does the Administration plan to take to ensure that projects 

receiving Federal funding under this proposal are procured, designed, and 

constructed in the most transparent and accountable method possible? 

Answer: We will continue to moniror the l!{jecrive and ef/iciem use IJj"Fcderalaidjimds Through f1IIVA :v Risk-l>ased Stewardship and Oversight (RBSO) 

Program. which impi<'ments 23 U.S. C. / 06rg). b!!hrmarion ah1mt the RBSO 

Program. and other stewardvhJjJ activities, is available at 

https://www.fhwll.dot.gm-iktleralaid!stewardship. 

18. The most recent disaster relief bill includes incentives for states to increase resiliency to 

extreme weather, and a National Institute for Building Sciences report found that federal 

investment on hazard mitigation has a 6: I return on investment. Is there opportunity under 

Page 11 of34 
23 


32989.173

the Administration's plan to incentivize or require that those projects are built higher or 

stronger to withstand storms, heat and other extreme weather that wears infrastructure and 

can put communities at risk? This could mean requiring critical infrastructure to be 

elevated above the 500-year flood elevation, or incentivizing use of green infrastructure 

features that can reduce runoff, improve water quality, and reduce strain on sewer and 

stormwater systems. 

Answer: The lf'!(iYistruclllre Initiative is designed to change how inkaslrw::ture is 

designed. built . .financed and maimained in communities across 1he country. Th<! 

Deparlment {~ committed to increasing its effecriveness in ensuring that infrastructure is 

resilien/ and expects recipiellfs ofFederai.Jimdl· lo incorporwefu/ure operaliom and 

maimenancc cosrs associated with a project's /i/1'-cyc/e imo rhe planning and preparwion 

of' a projea Ful'/hermore. t/11! lnct'lllives Program has /111 emphasis on incmporaling !he 

dl!ve/opmcn/ and us<' oj'ni!W and rapid~r evolving infi'astructurl! lechnology /o improve 

cos/ and pelji)rtlwnce. 

Th1~v Administration welcomes rhe opporlllnilv to work wirh you on these issues of critical 

importance to ow· COUIIIIJ' 's infi·asrructure, so our economy can continue to grow and 

create goodjobsfor America's workingjimlilies. 

19. Providing alternatives to transportation by car can connect communities to jobs and 

commercial areas, creating economic opportunity while reducing wear on congested road 

systems. Alternative fuel vehicles can also make communities more resilient to disasters 

when they strike. Impacts of extreme weather events can be widespread, as we saw when 

areas across the South experienced gas shortages in the wake of last year's hurricanes. In 

light of this, is there a national security and resilience benefit to the deployment of 

alternative fuel and electric vehicles and their supportive infrastructure, and what is the 

appropriate balance between funding for roads and funding for public transit? 

Answer: ,\4odemi::ing our il1fi'as/ructure across the board is critical to ensure our 

coWiliJ' rellluins competitive and sate. That's why the Administration's proposal urilizes a 

comprehc'nsive approach to infrastrucrure. bevo11d transporlalion. ill order to address our 

diPersc needs nationwide. 

20. The Department's Inspector General released a report in January of this year that offered 

some critiques of the Federal Highway Administration's guidance on infrastructure 

resilience. Their report pointed out that DOT has not defined "resilience improvements" 

or provided guidance to states for making decisions about incorporating resilience 

upgrades into emergency relief projects. It also noted that the Department had not set up a 

process to track State DOTs' efforts to include resilience improvements into their 

emergency relief projects. 

a. How is DOT addressing these concerns and what are you doing to better enable 

the states to make needed resilience improvements in their ER projects and in 

their broader long-range transportation planning? 

Answer: We are addressing these conccms with severo/ aclions: 

Page 12 of 34 
24 


32989.174

1. 1-fe are i11the process a/revising the Emergencv Reliej'(ER) procedures and 

guidance to address ()f(i 's audit repon recommendations. Spec(fical~v. these 

mmerials will include improved d1;finitions /o better clar!fi: that resilience 

improvements lll((V he funded using ER programfimds in response 10 qualijj.'i11g 

emergency events as well as specific guidance on how to incorporate resilie11ce 

into qualifi,ing ERproiects. The ERprogram allows repairs that are considered 

betterments when the betterment can be economical(vjustijied as providing a 

dir<'ct savings w the ER program by being more rcvilient and thereby reducing 

the likelihood t!fjiuurc damages thm will require ERjimding. 

2. We have also slilrted a third round of resilience srudies, in addition to 

pmviding technical assistance to .'>'tate DOT1· and Ml'Os regarding inwgration of 

resilience imo planning and pmject develor>lll<'llt. 

3. We are movingfimvard with !Ill ejjim lo i&nt/6' hest practices In: States in 

building resiliency in their response to cme1genc:v events. These practices 1rill be 

capll.wed and shared wiihfedeml, state, and local agencies through regular 

owreach evems. 

b, To what extent are states and MPOs currently identifYing resilience improvements 

in their long-range transportation plans and in their Transportation Improvement 

Programs? 

1. Tile F>1STAct and the Statewide, Nonmelmpolitan. and },fetropolitan 

Transportation !'lanning rule (Jfi(V 2 7, 20 16) added resiliency and reliability of 

the transportation system as a Statewide and J.fetropolitan Transportation 

PlarmiJig.ftlctor. 

This requires Stales and MPOs to carl)' out a cominuing. cooperative. and 

comprehemiFe rransportation planning process that pro1'idesjiw consideration 

and impleme11tation o("projects. strategies. and so'Viees rilat will improve the 

resiliency and reliahility of' the transporration .\ystem and reduce or mitigate 

stormwater impacts of"swjdce tronsporwtion. 

2. States and Ml'Os arc required to consider in their pla11ning process any 

rea.wnable altemalivesji11'jaeilities rhat /l(lve heen repeatedly damag<'d by an 

cmergencv eve Ill. In general, FHWA 's ER Program is providedfor the rcpoir of" 

o damagcdfitcility to its pre-disasta condition. 

Ouring the planning process. FHWA ·s ER program mayjitnd repairs to improve 

a damagedfi/('ility ro current geometric and cmtstmcrion standard1· in addition to 

hetterments. ln this manner, resilience improvements mav also be funded using 

ER program fundi· and should he captured in plans and programs. 

Page 13 of 34 
25 


32989.175

3. In their Mezropo!ilan Transporl111ionl'lans (A1Tl'sJ, Ml'Os ure: 

• Required 10 include an assessmenl of capital im•e,·tmenl and of her 

strategies to reduce the vulnerabilily oftlle existing liYIIISf.Wrlalion 

infrastmcture to natural disasli'rs. 

Encouraged lo consult with agencies and ojTicials I'<'.IJ!O!lsih/efi!r natural 

disaster risk reduction 

4. FHWA has conducted several pilot slmiies in parlnashipll'ilh manv MI'Os to 

assess tlwir vulnerabililie.\' and consider tlwm as par/ ofrlwir transponation 

decisio11-making pmcesses. 

We see these pilots serving as examples for other Aff'Os in meezing the !;:•1ST Act 

requirements regarding resi/iencv and reliabilily qfthe transportation .~vstem os a 

Statewide and Me!ropolitan Transpor/arion Plarmingj/Jcrur. 

21. If you've ever visited my state, you may well have crossed the Indian River Inlet along 

Route I. The bridge that crosses the Inlet today is far different from the bridge that people 

relied on prior to Hurricane Sandy. Storm damages to the original 1934 bridge 

necessitated a replacement as early as 1940. The newer bridge lasted eight years, but then 

collapsed from ice flows. It was rebuilt again in 1952 and suffered many years of storm 

damage and storm repairs. 

When Sandy dealt the final blow to this critical highway asset, a new stronger and more 

storm-ready bridge had already been erected alongside of it, so those who had to cross the 

Inlet were spared the burden of finding other longer detours. 

a. Does your Department have a sense of how many other highway assets across the 

country are in the same perilous state as our old Indian River Inlet bridge? 

Answer: Over the years, FJIH·~j has worked wirh the American Association of 

Stat<! and Highway Transportatio11 OjJicials rAASHTO; and Slate D07:~ to 

sig11ijicalll~v improve the ability ofengineers lo beltl!r understand. predicl. and 

design/ill' surge, scour. wave and otherfi)nes associated wirh coasTal storms. An 

imporwm insight is thai. like !he d!!lails of the Indian River Inlet, every coa.l'lal 

/ransportation as.wtfctces unique charoe/aisrics and challenges !hat make them 

more or less susceptible to these storms. rVhat might workfi!r the Indian River 

Inlet bridge may not be suirable jilr other coastal assets. As a result. we also 

pro mole and suppor//ools and programs. such as !he Collahorll/ive 

lfvdrau!ics: Advancing to the Nexz Generation of Engineering (Cli:LVU~) 

iniliative. pari ofthe -1'11 round ofillnovalions under the Ew!IJ' Day Coums rEDC.J 

iniliative. that allow Stale DOT\·. which are much more familiar with !heir a.1·sets, 

to be in a much be iter position tojim~ca\'1 vulnerability. This a/lon·s FJJWA und 

bridge owners to apply risk-based. dma driven approaches /o hes/ consider such 

Page 14 of 34 
26 


32989.176

vulnerahilities at/he over /2.000 hridges withi11 I 5 nautical miles of our nalion 's 

coasl.\' (including Great Lukes). 

b. What is the Department doing to assure that the bridges we are planning and 

building today can actually endure the storms of the future? 

Answer: FHWil provides bridge lnmers with a multi-leveljimne<mrk that 

ensures consistent design and construcrion standard1· and practices. Through 

Federal regulations, State DOE are required to use a suite ofAASHTO 

standardsjin·the design. cons/ruction, and inspection of'hi~>;hwav bridges on the 

Nalionol Highwav S~:~·tem (NfiS). (Jff'!he NHS, Slate DOTstandard1· applv. bw 

in general Stale DOT standardsjil(fillthe .4ASFITO requirements. 

A rigorous process that involves all 50 State DOT\, the DOTsfbr !he District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico. and the Federal Highwav Adminislration regular~v 

maintains. updates. and revises these standard~. Recogni:::ing new siluations and 

changes, muladvancements in approaches and conditions. the process considers 

and incorporates research results. changes in methodologv, ii1110Fathms, new 

materials, lessons learned and other sources of'ir!fi.Jrmation that might affect or 

contribute 10 contcl'/l. ?i1 illustrate, ajier Kmrina, AASHTO and F!!WAjoiiii~V 

developed guidance .1pecific111ions ro inCOIJIOrate <:fleets t'f'wav<'fill'ces upon 

brh(~es. 

I:Vit/1 regard 10 nwural extreme events likeflooding or earthquakes .specifically. 

the AASHTO standard.1· use probabiliry models rofi.Jrecast effect.\' on a bridge. For 

example, design standards require bridges to evaluate scour!br the l 00-year 

flood event and checkjilr the 500-vear event. 

22. While Congress and the Administration work to enact this out-of-cycle comprehensive 

infrastructure funding bill this year, we are also thinking about the upcoming 

reauthorization of the FAST Act, which expires in a little over two years. Does the 

Administration plan to transmit a reauthorization proposal for the surface transportation 

programs? 

Auswer: This Admini.l'trmionfirm~v believes that lnfiYISfructure is a lnjwrrisan issue a11d 

H'<' lookjbrward to working with Congress not onlv on legislarive texl/i)/' the 

il!li'astructure bill, thai addresses muny.filmls of'il'!fi·astructure beyond swface 

llWI.\jlOrlatioll. bw also a long-ti!rm rcalllhorization proposalfiJr swjace transportation 

.1pecijical/y. as appropriale. 

23. In 2016, there were 37,461 men, women, and children killed on U.S. roads. During the 

first decade of the 21st century, over 400,000 people died on America's roadways, while 

millions suffered life-altering injuries. 

a. What is U.S. DOT doing to improve safety on U.S. roads? 

Page 15 of 34 
27 


32989.177

Answer: l'l1e Oepartment has adopted o systemic, safetv 1/WIWgemem system 

tSMS! approach to improving transporwtion safe tv that relies on identifj:ing and 

prioritizing risks. sclecling cOWilemwasures 10 address sc~/'etv issues, and 

impi<'IIWnting those countermeasures. To improve rowiwqv sq/i?ty, we will 

eontinue to: work eflectivelv with State. local. Tribal. and private partners: 

reduce safely risb hy addressing human behavior, vehicle sa{elv, and 

il?fi·astructure: improve sq(ety dar a cmalysis to guide decisions: develop. promote. 

and employ sqfi:ty cou/llermeasures: ensure that automarion bring> significant 

.w~fizty h<'nejhs: and purvue per:fiJrmance-hased /'ill her than prescriptive 

rl!gulations. This includesfill'lhering the svstemic safi'ty stmlegies ow lined in che 

U\'D(}l'.'ltratl!gic Plan. 

b. Does U.S. DOT have any roadway safety plans in the upcoming future to reduce 

fatalities and serious-injuries? 

Answer: The Department recemly released its Strafl!gic !'!an. which outlines a 

num/u:r o{strategies to w.ldress mullimodal.w?fe(v issues, including roadwav 

saji!tV. C'SDOT plans co: 

I. ldelltifi.' the riskf(Tctors that contrihute tojhlalitics ami sl!rious it?iuries 

and implement l!vidl!ncl!-hased risk e!iminmion 1111d mitigation slmlegies; 

Improve the collection. nwllagcment. and imegration o{data on 

lransporwtion-relatedfiltalities and serious injuries. and !heir f>rccursors. 

to enhance safi!(v analysis: 

3. Collahomle with swkeholders lojii.\'IL'r behavior anrl infhtstruclUrc 

changes that impmw safe(v; 

4. Address the disproporlionate lransponation safe tv risks in rural 

communities: 

5. Establish a Depanmental commiiment ro continually improve 

transporTation safe tv byfiJStering a positive tmnsportationsa/izry culture 

across the transporcation sec/or; 

6. Evalume the ef!Cctiveness t!lrisk management stmlegies in rl'ducing risk: 

and 

!'romote 1l1e me ofper:/iii'IIUlnce-hased safe tv standard,· and mew·ures. 

FHWA, ,'\'117X·1, and FMCSA work IFUh Slates as they submit roadw(~V safe~v 

plans w.fulfi/1 Fedaal-aid and safetr grant program requirelllerlf.l' to ensure that 

Srares use svstemalic approaches to reducingfaralities and serious-injuries. 

FHWA completed a MA!'-21 required rulemaki11g on Safecv l'e1:fimnance 

Afanagt11zent. wilich has .five per:/iJrmancl! measures on madwayjiJtaliries a11d 

serious irljury cotmls and mtes. ineluding a ,1pecijic breakout/i.Jr non-motorized 

users. Slates estaMished their slalewide targels.fiw calendar year 2018. 

c. What work is U.S. DOT completing with specific regard to the safety of 

vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and bicyclists? 

Page 16 of 34 
28 


32989.178

Answer: A multimodal pedestrian and bicycle safely committee assisTs in 

coordinating non-motori::ed user safety. and we are takin?. action through 

behavioral. vehicle. and i1Jfrastrueture sq/i'ty to address !he increase. The FAST 

Act authori:::cd a new non-uwtori:::ed gran/ program. and V HTSA awarded /!.rants 

ro ::3 eligible STates, Puerto Rico. and the District of' Columbia in FY 2018. 

NI-17SA is also evaluating strategies to build public supportjiJr education and 

enfiJrcemelll proJ!!Yims through demonstration projects. For vehicle .w~/i!!y, 

Nfl1:'1A is conducting research on Pnlestrion Crash Avoidance and Jfitigatiou 

technolo?.ies to reduce crashes. 

We issued the F:4S7~Act required Sa/i,tv(iw All [hers Report in January 2018 that 

.fiJcuses on the most vulnerable users. and identified eight multimodal policy and 

program areas rhat Stare departments oj'rransportation can adopr and implement. 

Addiriona/lv. FHW4 updated their lisT !!/Proven S<tfi,tv Co1.m1enneasures in 2017 

and added pedestrian leading il'llervals 10 the other vulnerable user injrastrudure 

safetJ' stralegies. We conlinue our focused approach to pedesrrian and bicycle 

safe tv by providing specia/i::ed rechnical assiswnce 10 States and cilies wilh !he 

most critical pedesrrian and hicycle sq/ety issues. Through the Fostering 

Innovation in Pedestrian and Bicycle Tmnsportation Pooled Fund Study. FI-/WA 

is partncring wilh crmtribwing Stales to supplelllelllexisting research venues and 

.Jill important bw missin?. research gaps. 

d. How is U.S. DOT bringing innovative, new ideas to roadway safety? 

Amwer: The use r!fdatajbr policv decisions is an important a.\]Ject 10 improving 

roadwav sa/i:ty. and the Departmel/t n:centlv launched the Safe tv Data lnitiatiw 

to modnni::e our data analysis and inte)!rate traditional datascts with mew ''!Ji?. 

Data,. sources to gain insights into transportation safety. We believe we cm1 

identij"y and better understand patterns !!{risk and help State and local parTners 

take swps to reduce tl1is .1ystemic risk hv working with.firms that analy:::e Big 

Data. researchers. national 01ga11i::atiolls, and State and local parmcrs. 

The Every Day Counts rEDC) initiative promotes the use of'innovativc. new ideas. 

1/w EDC is a Slate-hosed model/hat identifies and rapidly deplovs proven. yet 

uuderuti!i::ed innovations 10 enhance row.iH·av sa/i:ty amongst otlwr.fi>cu.\· areas. 

Examples in the ::0 17-]() !8 program include Data-Driven Sqjetv Analv.~is and 

ii'aje 7i·ansportmionfi>r EFery Pedestrian. which includes pedes/rim! sr{iCty 

countemu:asures at unr.:orurolled cro.\·sill!!. locations and un-signa/ized 

irtl<!rsectknls. 

e. Are there new partnerships and efforts to make U.S. roads safer? If so, explain. 

Answer: FHI.Y'A. NHTS:4. and FMCSA.fiJrmed a partnership with the non-prr!fit 

Xationaf Saf'ety Council and created the Road to Zero coalition. The goal (!lthe 

coalition is to elimiuate trqflicfata!ities hy 2050. and the Coalition comprises 

more than 600 members from roadway, behm•ioraf and vehicle sajeTv 

organizations. nonprofit J!rr!Up.l. puh/ic health officials. and technology 

companies. NHTSA and FHf.r~1 commilledjimdv ro support grants thi'Ou/!.h the 

coalition, and awardedfunds 10 imwvative proposals. 

Page 17 of34 
29 


32989.179

More recelllly. NHTSA launched an initiative 10 com bar drug-impaired driving on 

U.S. roads. On March 15. ]()fc'l. NH7X4 hosted a public meeting to elevate the 

dialogue, increase awareness. andfiJsta the exchange olideas and solutions thai 

will make an impact. This Call to Action convem:d stakeholdas including sa/i:ty 

partners. Swte and local elected officials, data and polic:v experts, law 

enjim:el!tent and crimina/justice prokssionals. toxicologists. and drug 

recognirion experts. 

24. In April of2016, the U.S. Department of Transportation submitted a report to Congress 

that recommended that no changes in Federal truck size and weight laws and regulations 

be considered until data are be obtained on the safety of these mammoth trucks. 

a. Has the U.S. DOT obtained this data? 

Answer: In 2017. we contracted with the Tnmsportation Research Board (TR!JJ 

to develop a research roadmap to address deficiencies in data and modeling 

ajji?cting truck size and weight analysis. This Road map will he delivered hiler 

this year rlate Slmtmel' .. (?ad)'fili/20/R; in a puhlicji>rlllll hy 7RB. This Roadmap 

is no/ a daw coll<'clion effi>rl. Ajier deliFeJy ofrhe Road map. th<! Dqwrflltellt will 

!hen cons ida authorities. costs. and limelinejiw implemenlation o(jwograms w 

address the research roi/ilmap rl'commeru./ations. 

b. If not, can you assure this Committee that U.S. DOT will continue to recommend 

against increasing truck size and weight laws and regulations until this data is 

obtained, evaluated and published for public review? 

Answer: At !his time. the D<!j)(trtmenl has no/ c:hanged irs position regarding 

Congressional action on tlu: alternative vehicle configurations included in tile 

Comprehensive Truck Si=e and Weight Limils StudF. T/wre are no additional 

analyses hl'ing conducted rhar are imended 10 result in u repon to ( 'ongress. 

J'h<' study, a r<'quiremen/ of"MAP-:! I, has concluded. J'he Deparlmel/t commilted 

to producing a study 1hat was trm!.lparem. accuraw. objective, a/1(1 dala-driwn. 

The .final r<'portfbr tile sttury: included results !hat stcmmed.fi-om improt•cments ill 

models and data sincl' the last Fedaal szudv in this area. As 110/<'d in !he repol"l. 

thae colttinll<' ro he issues pertaining to data aFailability, data qualilv. and 

models that limit the level ol anyfulllr<' mwlyslv in critical research ore as, 

including sa/ely. compliance. and !he long-term ejfi>cl.\' of various tmck lypes on 

hridges. While the Deparrmt!lltjitlly utilized the dara and models available to rhe 

maximum exwnt practicable. it is simp(v 1101 possihle to apply these results on o 

nalionwide hasis. nor is it possible to reach national conclmimts. J'he completion 

of the currellt TRB research I'O(J(Imap will help infiwm swps 10 obwin data and 

models necessary.fiJJ' any.fillure evaluation of' the impacts of larger and heavier 

11'1/Cks. 

Page 18 of 34 
30 


32989.180

25. We all share a goal of deploying automated vehicles (AVs) in a way that will reduce the 

unacceptable number of deaths and injuries that occur each year on our Nation's roads. 

However, during the 2016 Los Angeles Auto Show an AV could not operate because it 

could not read faded lane markings. Numerous experts believe that significant upgrades 

to our Nation's roads are required for the safe and efficient operation of AVs. 

a. Has the U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) determined the amount of 

funding that will be needed to upgrade our Nation's deteriorating infrastructure to 

accommodate the safe operation of automated vehicles? 

~ US DOT has initiated rhe process ofidemib·ing rhe gaps that need1· robe 

addressed through 1'tlrious modal "1 Vjiicused requestsfbr comment.\'iinfi>rmation 

(RFCRFlsJ. 71w Deparlment is seeking commelllsfi·om our stakeholders and AV 

experts w uru./erstaml zhe capahilirin and limiwtions ojAVI'. This injimnation 

will in turn irl/i>rm the Department on .1·e/ling priorities on how 10 address 

illflnwructure needs to .wfi'ly accommodate A V1 in our ;\'mion 's ir(fj·astntcture. 

b. If so, how much of the overall national cost needed to upgrade highway 

infrastructure to be "A V-ready" will be forthcoming from the Federal 

Government? 

Answer: The Department is in the process t>f'identifjojng zhe capabilities and 

I imitations 11/A 1'~1 1 hrough various modal AVji)(:used RFC/RFls. TMs injimnation 

will in turn inform the Departmml in selling priorities and ident!/j•ing the.fimding 

need1· to safelv integrate Ah in our Narion's ir!fi"astructure. 

c. Should wide-scale deployment of A Vs occur before those infrastructure upgrades 

are completed and you can assure the public that our Nation's roads can safely 

accommodate AVs? 

Answer: AV imegmriun and il?fi-astructure upgrades could occur in parallel, 

assuming liwre is co/lahurwive dialog II<! between the Department and the A V 

experts. l11e needed infi·asfnlctw-e upgrades are di'pendent upon A V's technical 

requiremellts and the operational requirements. To understand these 

requirements and the general infi'astmcture needs of'AVs. the Department has 

released AVji1cused RFCiRFis to gain external srakeholder input. 

:\!any oj'tl1e vehicles currently availahle in the US marketplace are SAE Level 1 

& 2 auwmoted whicles. industry <'XJWrfs speculate that Ll'vel 3 & 4 vehicles 

could be on the Xation 's roads in the Jwxtfivc-tl'n years. Level 5 vehicles perhaps 

in more than 10 years. The Department would need to conduel various research 

effi!rts and work 11'ith indusliy to Ul!dersrand the needs i!(AVsfrom our 

infi·astrucwre. Tht> Departme/11 is currenrly identifj'ing these needs.from our 

stakeholders through various RFCs and RFis. Once the Deparfmem has gone 

through this exercise, we will he in a he/fer position to estimate how much 

funding would he needed ro accommodate "i Vs in our Nation's il?fj·asfructure. 

Page 19 of34 
31 


32989.181

26. One of the hardships for funding rural infrastructure is the difficulty of attracting private 

investment. Private companies certainly benefit from public infrastructure in good 

working condition, but those same companies are unlikely to invest in that infrastructure 

unless there is a steady revenue stream. With that in mind, how does the Administration 

propose incentivizing companies to invest in this rural infrastructure? 

Answer: lYe recognize that private investment won't alwavs make sense/ill' even' IJ'Jie ol 

project in eFe;y stale. That is 1Fhv the !nfi'astructw·e Initiative includes a mhusr Federal 

fimding programji1r ir!/i'as/ruc/urc ini>Oth urban and rural arms. Additional tv. it is !he 

intent o(/he inlrastructure i11cemiv.:s pmgram to aurae/ rural{i1cused investors hy 

rewarding rural multi-slate projects a11d unlockfurrherjinancial support lhrough rural 

pe~jbrmance granrs.fiJr slates thai demonstrate perj(mnance in many au/comes areas. 

including levaagingfbrmula distributions with Federal crr>dit programs. 

Onefi1rm of'private inveswwm, public-private parmerships. orl'3s. are ahout much more 

them toll roads. Thev have also proven succe.\'.~jidjill' projects that are non-rolled or 

otherwise have in.nd/icienl or uncertain project-related revenue streams. 

Availabilitypaymenrs are u wav to support1wrHolled or tolled projects. l :nder this 

model. the private partner receiFes scheduled payment.l'.fi·omthe prt!iect ,lponsor over the 

period of' the conrract. The source of these paymel/l.l' can be either rw:es or road user 

charges. Umal~v tlw pavmenls are tied to complcting construction milestones orfiw 

meeting operations and mainTenance pe1jiwmancc stcmdards. 

This type l!larrangemem cm1 workjust as well in rural areas CiS in urhan areas. In recent 

years. rural 1'3 projecTs in Ohio. Indiana. and I'ennsylwmia haw all used aFllilability 

paymellfs. 

27. Throughout the Administration's plan, transportation infrastructure projects must compete 

equally with other critical infrastructure such as water and sewer, broadband, and in one 

new program, space. This, combined with the draconian cuts proposed in the 

Administration's budget to transportation infrastructure, will likely result in significant 

reductions in spending on transportation projects. 

a. Will you please describe the rationale behind diverting transportation funds in the 

budget to new programs that may not fund transportation? How will doing this 

lead to repair of crumbling transportation infrastructure? 

Answer: ?he Admi11isrrmion 's plan is in addirion to existingfimdillg programs. 

with the goal olcomprehensively addressing the signijicam infrastrucl/lr<' needs 

of' our cow tO)'. f.Vith 5200 billion of direct Federal ,IJWnding leading to as much 

asS f.j trillion intoral investment. all infras!ructur<' srands ro !llmeflt 

signijicctnt!y. 

Page 20 of 34 
32 


32989.182

b. Why and how will these new programs fund our transit and rail systems better 

than existing federal programs like TIGER, Amtrak, and New Starts/Small Starts? 

Auswer: Under the lt'!fi'(Jstruc/Urc Initiative. transit pn!jects will be able 10 

compere with everv otl1er mode t~f"transportationjhr projectfimding. 

The Federal Govanment provides approximotely S 12 hi/lion annually in funding 

fbr transit !>)'stems, accountingfiw 25 percent o{/otal publicjimdingjbr trw lsi/ 

and 42 percent o{capitalfimding. 

The li?fi·i!slructure Initiative is designed to provide additional tools andflexibility 

so that transit .1yste111s utilize perfimnance-based. long-term investment plans. 

whife leveraging Federaljimd~ ·with suswinable local revenue sources. Passenger 

mil and traiiSil projects will benejitfi·om additional sustained local revenues. 

28. When you testified in front of our committee on May 17 of last year, you indicated that 16 

agencies were participating in the President's infrastructure taskforce. At the hearing on 

March I, you indicated that there are 12 agencies supporting the initiative. 

a. Please list the !2 agencies currently supporting the Administration's infrastructure 

work and the 4 agencies that were supporting this work last year and are no longer 

participating. 

Amwa: A.1 the Adminil·fmtion derelorwd ils lnfrasltucture lnilimive over the 

past .;·car. if worked 1ri1h 11wm· kdcral agencies/ill· input info ideas as to how lO 

advunn' ali infi·asrmc/ure. like muds, hridgcs, and aiJjJO!'/s. as well as drinking 

and H'tJ.,'tc·watcr 'ysrem.;,·. wuferH'{~\-:~. t·ratcr rc:.;ources. energy, rural 

infi·ustructure. public l11ntl>. veterans hospiwls. and /lrmmficld and Supcrjimd 

sires. in o num11cr !hat wil/.,timulatc new invcslmem. shorten/he approvul 

J'roccs.l. address rural inji'lts/ruc/urc needs, empower Sw1c and local au1horitie1. 

and train !ftc American Workfim:e ofthejiilure. Those age11cics most direct{F 

involved in infrastruczure ddiw:rr al'l' those that are on the Permitting Council 

created under the I·>ISTAcl and identified on !he Permitting Dashboard 

b. Please indicate why these 4 agencies are no longer part of this effort. 

Answer: ,1s indicated above. the Administration developed its Infrastructure 

Inifiative with inputfhnn uwrzvfi?deral agencies involved in delivering 

infrastructure projects. Noji?deral agencies have been eliminatedfrom this 

process though those most direcr~v involved in injrastructure deliverv. including 

environmental review and permifling. have been more engaged as the process 

progrl'ssed. 

29. My prayers are currently with everyone affected by the pedestrian bridge collapse at 

Florida International University. 

Page 21 of34 
33 


32989.183

a. Will you please commit to provide information as it becomes available? 

Answer: l'es. 

b. This project used an innovative process for construction, including new 

materials. What, if any additional safety review, did this project undergo prior to 

and during construction? What was the FHWA's role in reviewing the 

construction method and materials for this project? What was the state's role? 

Answer: I haw asked the Department's lmpector Cienerallo examine J.!'iwther 

the project owner and the design-build team and contrac/ors responsib!efi!r the 

design. plmming, construction. insta/1ation and testing t!f'lhc pedestrian bridge 

complied with all spec[f/cations and requirements applicable to this prt!fect by 

virtue o{lhe Departmem's provision of'Fedcraljimding. 

Senator Capito: 

30. Secretary Chao, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permits do not fall within the 

Department of Transportation's jurisdiction. However, I believe Section 404 policies are 

of concern to your Department as there have been cases of permits for federal road 

construction being effectively vetoed by the EPA's refusal to affirmatively approve or 

deny the permit application. 

a. Would the reforms called for in the President's infrastructure plan to end EPA's 

veto authority over CWA Section 404 permits ensure that these decisions are 

handled with due process and in an objective and timely manner? 

b. Would you agree that providing this certainty and efficiency is especially 

important now given that we can expect to see an increase in both the scale and 

number of new projects after the passage of an infrastructure package? 

~ Clean Water Act (CWA) Section -104 permits an' ufimpol'lance /o this 

Department. The rejbrms in the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative eo/1/inue to 

ensure enFironmell/alprotections remain in place while improvillt< the efficienc)-" oft he 

process. Due process and objectivity would exist. Additiona/lv, lw placing time limits on 

the Federal Govanment·s comp/eiion of' the review process, and including appropriate 

enji!rcemem measurf!.\" to ensure rhattimdines are heing mct, the reji!rms allow projecl 

sponsors to constructproiec/s in a rime!v and cost-eff{:cJive marmer. 

Senator Fischer: 

31. Secretary Chao, the Incentives Program includes a look-back provision, allowing states 

that have increased revenues in the last three years to receive credit for new funding 

sources. In 2015, Nebraska approved a six-cent increase in the state gas tax, which will 

increase incrementally each year from 2016 to 2019. Under the president's proposal, 

would Nebraska receive credit toward the Incentives Program for each increase in the state 

gas tax over the four years, or only for the 20 15 approval of the state gas tax increase? 

Page 22 of34 
34 


32989.184

~ The proposal provides a look-hack period to award applicants./iir actions that 

align with the goals l!l'the Incentives program hut that occurred prior lo enaelment 1!{'rhe 

program. As envisioned, the look-back period would be three years h(!/iire !he date of' 

application to the program, a !I(/ the determination would he made based on the 

implemenTation date (or take ejJ£-ct date) 1!/'the new reFenue source. The proposal seeks 

to strike an OfJpropriale halance between rewarding recelll actions and incentivi::ing the 

c·reation of' new revenue to address the :Vat ion's infi·astructure need1·. The Department 

looksjiwward to working with the Congress 011 this issue. 

Senator Markey: 

32. President Obama issued a directive that instructed the federal government to take climate 

impacts, such as sea level rise and extreme weather, into account when building or 

rebuilding infrastructure. This order was repealed by President Trump last year. Also last 

year, extreme weather disasters, including Hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, caused 

more than $300 billion in damage nationwide. Making investments in climate resilient 

infrastructure now will be far less costly than making them in the future and will protect 

taxpayers. A report published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 2017 

found that by working now to protect roads from climate change-related impacts, we can 

cut costs by more than 75 percent over this century. 

a. Do you agree that rising sea levels and storm surge damaged our infrastructure 

over the past year? 

b. If yes, do you agree that anthropogenic climate change has contributed to rising 

sea levels and extreme weather that is becoming more frequent and more severe? 

c. Do you agree that it makes fiscal sense to spend taxpayer dollars on infrastructure 

projects that are designed to withstand the worsening future impacts of climate 

change, to avoid having to rebuild them over and over again? 

Answer: Protecting our Nation's highwav infinvtruclUre is a Department priority. as is 

a fiscal responsil>ili!y. The Deparrmem is committed to increasing its e.ffi:ctiveness in 

ensuring thai infi·astructure is resiliem and expects recipiems of'Federaljimds to 

incorporatefitture operations and maintenanc<' costs associated with a project's /if'ecycle into lhe plmming and preparation of a project. The Department allows use q{ 

Emergmcv Relief' (ER)jimdsji!r the repair and reconstruction to current design and 

construction standarcf.,, which are conti11uous~v updated to reflect improvements and 

efficiencies in design and com·tmction practices, thaeb)' impnwing highway 

ilr/i'astructure r<'silience and ensuring wise use (!favailable ofir!/iYts/ruc/urefimding. 

33. The Administration's infrastructure proposal would allow only one agency, the lead 

agency on a project, to conduct an environmental review, potentially excluding the EPA or 

other agencies that protect our environment and natural resources. 

a. Can you provide additional detail on how this one agency review process would 

work? 

Page 23 of34 
35 


32989.185

b. Would that mean that your Department would be solely reviewing some projects, 

potentially excluding the EPA from reviewing the impacts on our environment on 

projects on which it may have otherwise been involved? 

Answer: Executive Order rEO! 13807 establishes a One F<.'deral Decision policvfor the 

environmental review a11d permitting processjiJr maior in{rastructure projects. One 

Federal Decision means I hat each maior infi-astructure project has one lead Federal 

agency which is responsiblefiu· navigating the project through the Federal enl'ironmemal 

review and permitting process. It does nOT mem1that other agencies are exclllliedjimu 

review. The Administration ·s lnf'rastructure Initiative build1· on the EO with a One 

Agenc)', On<' Decision proposal. This proposal places a time Tinlil on the Federal 

Gowrnmenl '.1· completion of' the review process. But again it do.:s not exclude agencies 

,from revit'W, 

34. According to a 2012 Congressional Research Service report, approximately 96 percent of 

projects approved by the Federal Highway Association involve no significant 

environmental impacts, and as a result, require limited assessment under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

a. Can you provided updated estimates on what percentage of projects under the 

purview of the Department of Transportation require NEP A documentation, 

analysis, or review? 

Answer: All Department projects require NEI'A documcmation, analysis. or review. 

While, as you suggest, most projects meet NEPA requirements through a Cmegorical 

J:.xclusion. they are not exemptfi'om VEPA. U11der NEJ'A, the level (!(review required 

depl'nds on the potential sig11ijicance of the envirrmmental ~fleets olthe project. 

Senator Merkley: 

35. Secretary Chao, in response to my question about how your overall budget can be 

considered an aggressive infrastructure plan if it actually constitutes a net loss to 

infrastructure funding, you stated that "if you look at 2017, it's actually not a cut. 2018 

went up, and therefore that's how you consider it a cut." 

a. My question was whether the Administration's infrastructure plan and budget 

constitutes a net loss for infrastructure programs over a ten-year period- not in 

reference to any single fiscal year. Please clarify your answer. 

b. If the Administration does not view its infrastructure plan as a net loss to 

infrastructure over a ten-year period, can you please clarify how much the Trump 

Administration cut from current funding levels for each of the following programs 

in the FY 19 budget request: 

• TIGER grants 

Page 24 of34 
36 


32989.186

• Highway Trust Fund 

• Capital Investment Grants 

• Amtrak 

• Army Corps of Engineers 

• Community Development Block Grants 

• HOME 

• Public Housing Capital 

• Economic Development Administration 

• Aviation 

• Rural Water & Wastewater Grants 

~ The !'resident's Budget makes smart, strol<'gic inFestments in 

in/i'a.wructure to improve our long-term compeTitiveness. The Budget also 

respects taxpayer dollars by reducing or efiminating programs that are either not 

working as inte11ded. unnecessarv. or lack a clear Federal nexus. With rt>spect to 

lransportation il'!fiYrsrruclure progroms. while rhe Budget proposes some 

reductions, rhe Budget does not propose any reductions to J.Wogramsjimded our of 

the lfighwa)' Trust Fund Cuts that are cited over a 1 0-year period are 

particularly inflated by assumptions r<'garding spendiugfor cerlain programs 

beyond curremly authorized levels. For example, the Department projects !he 

Highway Trust Fund will remain solve /II through at least FY2020, and solvency 

issues bevond that dates musr clearly he addressed. 

36. "Buy American, Hire American" was not mentioned in Administration's infrastructure 

plan for transportation and water projects, infrastructure grants, relocation of utilities, or 

requirements for airport improvement program, among others. During the hearing, you 

assured me that the Buy America was being implemented. Please give examples of how 

the Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American is being 

implemented by the Department of Transportation. 

a. On page 22, the infrastructure plan proposes: "Amending titles 23 and 49 to 

provide targeted flexibility pertaining to the application of Federal requirements 

where the project funding is primarily non-Federal. .. " Would this flexibility 

include waivers for Buy America and Davis-Bacon? 

b. Similarly, on page 24, your plan proposes "Amending this requirement for 

smaller projects that predominantly are outside the Federal-aid highway right-ofway would eliminate Federal procurement requirements for these infrastructure 

projects. This would allow States to use their own procedures to implement these 

projects." 

Which Federal procurement requirements would be eliminated? Would Buy 

America and Davis-Bacon be eliminated? 

Page 25 of 34 
37 


32989.187

c. On page 29, for water infrastructure your plan proposes "Amending the law to 

provide targeted flexibility pertaining to the application of Federal requirements 

where the project funding is primarily non-Federal." 

Would this flexibility include waivers for Buy America and Davis-Bacon? 

Answer: On Apri/18. 20/7, the President si[!ned E\eculiFe Order J.F88, Buy American 

and llire American, to ensure that Federal procurement and Federal assiswnce awards 

maximize !he use o{f!oods. producls. and uwwrials produced in !he Cnitt'd S!a!es. 

including iron. sleel, and nwmt/ilctured g()(ul1·. 7/ie E.rewliv<' Order required all Federal 

agencies to assess !he compliance with existing Buv American lmFs and 10 develop and 

propose policies lO strengthen Buy America implementulion and ('Ompliance. 

fiursuaru 10 !he Executive Order. DOT is working closely wi!h its gran lees and 

slakeholders to ensure thai domestic cont<:nt is maximized in all proj<:cts wilizing Federal 

assislance. DOT's modal administrations work with pmject sponsors to apply their 

sialulory Buv America r<'quiremencs. As purl of' I his process. DOT's modal 

administrations help project sponsors to idl'lllifj' (llld local<! pol<!llliaf domestic 

mant(filcturers.fbr producls and materials necessary to comple!e proje.:ts. 

Both tit!!' 23 anti rille .J9 provide a processfilr waiving Buy America requirements. In 

cases whae a waiver o/'fhe Buy America requir<'lllents mav be applicahl<', DOl'.I'Oiicits 

public comment through ils Wt'hsit<!, and in some cases. a Federal Regi.l"!er notice on 

whether graming a waiFer is appropriate. 

DOT is com milled to en/i>rcing Buy America laws and ensuring that domestic con/em is 

maximi::.ed. Since this Administration took office. DOT has issu<'dfi'wer Buy America 

waiFers 1han it had ill recent years. 

Senator Moran: 

3 7. Secretary Chao, 

a. The Administration's Infrastructure plan makes an important investment in our 

country's infrastructure. A significant percentage of the investment in transportation 

is earmarked for new capacity and transformational projects. While new capacity is 

important, maintaining and preserving our current roads, though not exciting, is just 

as critical, particularly in large states like Kansas where our extensive road network is 

exposed to extreme weather and substantial agricultural traffic. 

b. I understand that a dollar spent on pavement preservation for a road early in its useful 

life can save several magnitudes of that dollar ($8-$10) on rehabilitation, decrease the 

natural resources expended, all the while extending the life of the road in better 

condition for drivers. 

Page 26 of34 
38 


32989.188

c. Will the Administration's plan incentivize funding for preserving our current roads 

and require funds expended for new construction to include ongoing preservation in 

order to ensure that the investments achieve their intended long term benefits? 

The Administration's Legislative Omlinefin· Rebuilding b!fi·ustructurc in America is 

a11 owli11e qfprinciples and not legislative text. ir!fi·astruc/ure and thejimdingjilr 

ir!fi'astrucrurc is a bipartisan issue and all options are on the table. 

The Infrastructure Initiative is designed to change how infrastructure is designed. 

built. {illal/ccd and mainzain<>d in communities across tile country. The Department is 

committed to increasing its c;ffi!ctiveness in ensuring that recipienls <!lFederalfi.1rui1· 

incurporatejillure operations and maintenance costs associated with a project ·s likcvcle into rhe planni11g and preparation of a project. 

71w Incentives program provides substantial new Federalfimdingfiir both new 

constnu:tioll and preservation. The Incentives Program has an emphasis on 

incorporating the development and use o/new and rapidly evolving i11frastrucwre 

technology to improve cos/ and pcrfimnance. 

This Administration welcomes the opportunitv to work with you on these issues o/ 

critical importance to our countrv ·s inji-astructure 

Senator Van Hollen: 

38. The President's infrastructure proposal calls for $200 billion in federal investment in our 

nation's infrastructure but does not specify where this funding is coming from. 

Is this amount new federal dollars, or money that is being reallocated from other accounts 

within the federal government? If it is reallocated money, can you tell me what accounts 

will see reductions to account for the $200 billion total? If this is new funding, how does 

the Administration plan to raise the funds? 

Answer: The Administration ·s plan is in addition to existing progmms. We lookjorward 

10 engaging with Congress on a bipartisan basis lo iilent!jj' JH(V:fil/'s over the JO~vear 

proposed period, in order to address !he coullil)''s signijica!lt infrastruc/ure need1·. 

39. The proposal assumes that a $200 billion federal investment over 10 years can generate an 

additional $1.3 Trillion in infrastructure investment. 

How was the $1.3 trillion amount calculated? What assumptions were made to get to that 

amount? 

~ SIOO billion in Federalfimds will go lo the compelitive Jnf'rastructure lncmtives 

Program grants !hat match up to 20 percent l!{new revenue generated bv the applicant. 

Page 27 of34 
39 


32989.189

that H'ou/d lead to ar least 5500 billion and perhaps 5800 hi/lion in /oral inwstmcm. 550 

billion will he availablejill' capital inveslmellts that support projects in rural areas. 

including U.S tc:rritories and Tribal co!lununilies. and $20 billion will provide 

compelitivcfimdingfbr tran.\fiirmalive technologies and wchniques. This 5 ~o hill ion. wilh 

1he F.:dcral Cic!l'errmzem picking up l>etween 30 and /00 pacenl o{projcct costs. can 

leverage about S20 10 S30 billion. so to/a!.~ almost S I 00 billion S 1./ hi/lion will be used to 

expand the capacity of existing Federal infi·astrucwre credit proJ<rams which haFe 

significan/ multipliers oflhe Federal inFeslmenl. One <llthe credil programs, th<' 

Transportation Infi·astrucl/lrt' Finance and Innovation Acl program. has achieved a 

leverage ratio of-10-to-I. Assuming a slightly smaller rmio could add anotha 5500 hi/lion 

in tow/ inves/nu:lll. Allocating 56 hi/lion ro hroadt>nth.: use <~lprimle activitv hond~ can 

generate another S I 00 hil!itm. bringing th<! total illl'cstmenlto well overS I trillion. Th<! 

.final 5](1 billion will he used to estab/is/1 a Federal Capital Financing Furuljiw The 

purchase !!{real property. Thesejigures also ignore th<' millions oldollars ll'c believe will 

be saved hy our n~fiJrms to .kderal revieu• and permitting, which increases the i111pact cif· 

our proposal even .fill'! her. 

40. During a recent meeting, The President was quoted by Senator Carper as stating that he 

supported increasing the federal gas tax. Quoting my Ranking Member, Senator Carper 

stated that, '"'He said that he knew it was a difficult thing for legislators to support and 

said that he would support the leadership to do that and provide the political cover to do 

that." The Chamber of Commerce even supports increasing the gas tax. (See Politico 

Article and Chamber plan) 

a. Were you at that meeting on February 14, 2018 when the President expressed his 

support? 

b. Did the President express his support for an increase in the gas tax during that 

meeting? 

c. Do you support an increase in the federal gas tax? 

d. Do you support indexing the gas tax to inflation? 

e. What specific measures do you support to address the shortage in receipts to the 

Highway Trust Fund? 

Answer: The AdminisTration ·s LcJ<islative OutlinejiJr Rehuilding lr!fi·astructurc in 

America is an oulline !J(princip/es and not/egis/alive text. lnfrastmcture and the 

funding/ill' infi-clstmclure are bipartisan issues and all Utilions are 011 tlw Jab/e. 

This Administration u•<!lcomes the opportunity to work with you on tfwse issues <!f'critica/ 

importance to our counlrv ·s iY?frastrucl/lre. so our economy can coni inue to grmr and 

c;reale goodjobsji1r America·.,. workingfami/ie.\'. 

Page 28 of34 
40 


32989.190

41. Historically, the federal government has taken a leading role in building transportation 

infrastructure, including our national railroad, interstate highway and transit systems. 

The Administration's plan deviates from the federal government's normal role by 

relying on local government and the private sector to provide the majority of 

infrastructure investment. Last fall, it was reported that President Trump stated he no 

longer believes that Public Private Partnerships (P3's) will solve our infrastructure 

funding needs. (see Eno Article) 

a. Do you believe P3's can act as a substitute for real federal funding for 

infrastructure? 

Answer: The /ldmiuistralion is committed to encouraKing deliVI'IJ' of 

/ramportation iY(kastructure via the most innovative and ejf/cient means 

available across the country. 

The !n/rastmcture lnitialiV£' includes the newS I 00 billion Incentives Program 

which will maximize inveslrneut and a1/ract signijicam, new, 110n-Federal rt>venue 

streams dedicated 10 injrastructure inres1ments. 

The ln/rastrucrure lnitiatil'e willtwtjim:e Srates to utilize P3s. 

We know and acknowledge tlwt !'3s provide additional optionali~vfbr delivering 

ir!fi·astructure prt!iects, but the !' 3 approach is not a solutionjilr all 

transportation infrastructure challenges. 

There i1· a bro"d spectrum <(lpowmial opporrunitiesfi>r private investment in 

infi·astructur<' 1111d if is important to recognize that there is 110t a one-si::e~fits-all 

approach. 

The Administration will continue 10 work with external stakd10lders to halancc 

the risks and opportunities in delivering!' 3 projects. 

b. Are P3 projects a realistic funding sources in rural communities? If so, how? 

Answer: The Rurallnf'rastructure Program incentivizes states to partner with 

local and private investmentsfiir completion and operation of' rural infrastructure 

projects. While we recogni::e that private investment won't ahHm~ make st'nsejilr 

eve~r IJ1.>C <!fj.>r<Ji<'Cf in eve~r stat<'. such parfnaships can bring innovation and 

sustainable capital in a fast and affiwdahle manner. lnfiicf. earlierjimus olP 3s 

ore th<' actualframework that built om rural il'!fiYtstructure in prior centuries, 

including 1/ie il1!acollfinemal railroad\· throughout rural America, as well os 

rural electr(ficathm and rural telephone connections. Thai is whv the Initiative 

includes a robust Federa/fimding program fi>r infi'asJructure in rural areas. 

One filrm oj'private investme/11, 1mblic-private partnerships, or !'3s. are about 

much more than roll romil'. Thev have also proven succes.lfitljhr projects that are 

Page 29 of 34 
41 


32989.191

non-tolled or otherwise have insl!fjicienl or unccr/uin project-relmed revenue 

slreaiJIS. 

Avai/uhilirv payl!len/s are a wrn: to support nori-/olled or tolled prr!jects. Under 

this model. the private partner recein~s scheduled paymentsfimn !he project 

sponsor over the period oft!IC con/rae/. Usuallv the panll<'ills are tied to 

colllplering construction milestones orji!r meeling opera/ions and maimenance 

perfiwmance s/andard1·. 

This type o{arrangemenl can work just as well in rural areas as ill urhan areas. 

In recent )'ear.1·, rural P3 projecls in Ohio. indiana, and l'o111svlvania have all 

used availability payments. 

42. Unfortunately, too many communities, especially in rural and urban areas, lack the tax 

base to generate adequate revenues to keep pace with the costs of maintaining and 

building schools. As a result, we have schools with leaky roofs, mold, failing heating and 

air conditioning systems, inadequate ventilation, lead in water pipes and wall paint, and 

asbestos in the ceiling and floor tiles. School facilities are not mentioned in the 

Administration's plan. 

a. Will the President support setting aside a portion of this critical investment to 

address the needs of our schools in the worst condition across the nation? 

b. Do you support setting aside a portion of this critical investment to address the 

needs of our schools in the worst condition across the nation? 

c. Do you or the President support funding to add additional layers of security to 

these same schools? 

Answer: Schools are not directlv melltioned in !he Administration's infi'astructure 

proposal. However. the Adminisiration certain~v acknowledges the illlJ~Ortance <!f'our 

nation's school svstem and many <!l the proposal's asset classes can he applicahle co 

schools, c!.lpeciallv water utililic!s 011d broadband. hoth qfwhich are necessmJ)iw 

lnodern educ<ltional.filcilities. 

43. The Rural Infrastructure Plan is 25% of the total cost ofthe proposal ($50 million over 10 

years). This program would allocate 80% of those funds to the states based on a "formula" 

and the other 20% would be reserved for rural performance grants within eligible asset 

classes and according to specified criteria. 

What is the proposed formula for these grants? 

Auswer: Thl! Adlllinistration is vcrvfiicused on the unique il·!fiYISiructure needs of rural 

America. 

Page 30 of 34 
42 


32989.192

The intelllion o/The rural program is To provide needed resources to areas thai are 

clearly rural inlerms t?(proximity lo urban areas and populaTion density. 

The President's lJ?frastmclure Outline stales rhar the sta/ute would create a '·rural 

formula,., calculated bas<!d on mrallane miles and rural population adius!ed lo n;flecl 

policv objectives The intent !?(lhejimnula is to reflect both where rural citizens live 

(population componenT) and 1rlwre rum/ infi-ctslruclure exists that supports curre/11 

economic activity o·urallane mile.\) Each Stale would receive no less than a specified 

starutory minimum and no more rhan a specified stmutory ma~imum o/the Rural 

h1ji·asrructure Progranl.fimnulafunds. automatically. 

In add ilion. jimds made available to Stales unda this proJ!ram would b<' distribuTed as 

Mock J!IYIIIts 10 he usedji)/· injiY!Struclure projects in rural areas with populations I!/ less 

!han 50.000. 

44. There are 37,000 construction workers from El Salvador whose authorization to work will 

be ended in September 2019 as a result of losing their Temporary Protected Status (TPS). 

Another 14,000 construction workers from Honduras are at risk of losing their TPS when 

a decision is made about their designation in May. 

How will large infrastructure projects be impacted by the loss of construction workers 

who currently hold Temporary Protected Status? 

Answer: The Temporary Protected Status rTPS) is a.fimn !!/humanitarian relief" which 

applies to calain nationals ojjmrticular countries who were present in the US durin!! a 

desiJ!IIated period I<( lime. 

This prOJ!Nim resides withi11 the Department o(Homela11d Security and Secretary Kirs(ien 

Nielsen and /look jimvard ro working with ConJ!ress on this maller. 

Senator Whitehouse: 

Streamlining Provisions in Previous Highway Bills 

45. President Trump's proposal would gut important reviews from environmental laws and 

would force a complete re-write ofNEPA. MAP-21 and the FAST Act included a 

combined 40 different regulatory "streamlining provisions," some of which are still being 

implemented through rulemakings and guidance, The Inspector General at USDOT 

released a report finding that any regulatory changes would only slow the implementation 

of the provisions already passed. In the hearing you discussed two rulemakings related to 

streamlining that should be finished by the summer, but there are other guidance's and 

memoranda outstanding. 

Please provide a full list any outstanding rulemakings or other actions required by 

the "streamlining" provisions ofMAP-21 and the FAST Act. 

Page 31 of34 
43 


32989.193

~ As I stated 111 the hearing. we haFe completed all Ina two required F4ST Act 

rule makings. and those are in the process and are projecred to he completed this summer. 

11wse two exceptions are: ( 1) a rulemaking to rr!/lec/ changes to rhe 23 U.S.C /39 

environmenral review process and apply the process to railroad pmjects 1 FASTAcr 

Sections 131)./ and 11503!: and (2J a rule making ro implemell/ the i\'EPA Pilot that would 

allow States participating in the SUijace 1iY111sportalion Project Ddiverv Programzo 

substituw Stale lawsjilr NEPA and 23 U.S. C. 139 rJ.>lSTAcl Section 1309). Please note 

that/he OIG reporl you re.fi!r to is a snaps hoi in time and misleading. It is curremfy out i?f 

dalr!, relics upon a list oj'proposed aclions that has hee11 modified. and ignores rhe/(1ct 

that remaining provisions are in cffi'c/ and being implenwnted concurrell/lv with 

completion qlthe rulemakings. 

46. The FAST Act included a provision that created the Federal Permitting Improvement 

Steering Council, chaired by an Executive Director appointed by the President. The FAST 

Act also established new interagency procedures and transparency measures to improve 

the federal environmental review process. 

a. What is the status of this Steering Council? 

b. How many times has the Steering Council met since President Trump's 

inauguration? 

c. Was the Steering Council consulted in the development of the administration's 

infrastructure proposal? 

d. When will the President plan to appoint an Executive Director? 

~ The Fedaall'ermi!Iing lmprowment Steering Council rF!'JSC) isfi.t!ly active. 

We at the De pan men/ work closely with til<? FI'ISC Office ol E-recutive Director in 

adwmci11g /he proiect deliverv provisions of Title./ I oj'1he FAST Act (!·AST--1 I J. and 

meel with FPJSC on a regular has is through quarterly Council meeti11gs. monthly (hut 

currently week~~/ ('hie[' Environmental Review and l'amillillg Officer ((.'ER/'0) 

mee/ings. and weeklv work group meetings. Our staff also comllumicalc with stajffi·om 

its Office (>l£-recll/ivc Director ofien. and meet weekly on m<maRemellt and enhancemem 

!?{the PermiTting Dashboard. I Jowever. we C{/IWOI .lj>eak TO the level of'consultation that 

FPISC had in relation to the Administration's infi-cts/ruc/ure proposal. Also. the 

Department is not im•ulved in the selection or hiring of' an Etecwive Dir<'ctorji>r the 

FPISC 

Federal Spending 

47. President Trump's infrastructure plan proposes $200 billion in grants to encourage state, 

local, and private investment in infrastructure. However, it would also would cut over 

$240 billion from successful programs like TIGER and the Highway Trust Fund. 

a. Why does the President's infrastructure plan not include additional funding for 

successful programs like TIGER? 

Page 32 of34 
44 


32989.194

Resiliency 

Answer: Neil her the President's Infrastruclllre Plan nor his Budge! propose 

reductions to the autlwri::ations ~~t:fimnulajimdlji'Oln tlte Highway Trusc Fund 

The TlGER .li.wreticmarr gnml Jlrcl!!ram slthslarltiall,~· d11plicatcs Niher sw:face 

IIYinlymrto.'ion gran/ ami lotm pM~'tiiiiS, iNelm.fing high1rtll>' ami o':wnsilfet~•milo 

_fitnth,-The Infrastruclure proposal provides an addiliona! 5200 hi !lion owr !he 

nex/te/1 yearsfi>r increased Federal .1pendi11g. includingfimdingji>r mait-hased 

trm1spol'lalirm inji·aslructure pnJiecls, and will pro Fide an importal/t capabi!i(y 

fi)/· !he Dei!Ur/mt'/11 /o address our nation :s· urgentmmsporlatioll inji·astruL'lure 

needs a/ !he stale and loca/levd. 

b. Did you, or will you, consider increasing the gas tax to fund infrastructure, as 

some Republicans in Congress have proposed? 

Answer: As I have sla!ed hcfim:. it is all on the tah!efor discussion. 

c. Is the President serious about a 25-cent increase in the gas tax, and if so, where 

does it fit into the infrastructure plan? 

Answer: As I have stated bejiwe, if is all ontln: tablejilr discussion. 

d. The American Society of Civil Engineers estimates that we need an additional $2 

trillion in infrastructure investments over the next I 0 years to get our 

infrastructure back to a satisfactory level. How does a net federal funding cut of 

$40 billion, as proposed by the President, help fix America's backlog of 

infrastructure projects? 

Answer: Cuts that are cired over a 10-year period are particularly ir!flated hy 

assumptiun1· regarding spendingfiJr certain programs heyond currently 

autlmri=ed !ePels. For exalllple. the Department a11d the 2019 Budget project/he 

Highwov 7h.tst Fund will remain solvent rhrough at least FY2020. and solvenly 

issues beyond that date must clearlr be addrt>ssed. 

48. My state's Coastal Resources Management Council is planning for nine feet of sea level 

rise along Rhode Island's coast by 2100. To prepare for this much water overtaking our 

shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, reinforce bridges that are 

exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and retrofit lowland wastewater treatment 

plants. These improvements are not cosmetic; they are essential if my state and others 

along the coasts have any chance meeting our needs over the next 50 or I 00 years. If we 

want to invest significant federal money on infrastructure, we should make sure those 

investments will survive for a useful period of time and not be consumed or degraded by 

rising seas. 

a. The President's infrastructure plan does not mention the terms "coastal,'' "sea 

level rise,'' "storm surge," or "saltwater intrusion" once. How does the 

Page 33 of 34 
45 


32989.195

administration plan to support the specific investments needed to fortify our 

coasts against the consequences of climate change? 

b. Should existing programs like TIGER and F ASTLANE put a higher priority on 

grants that help protect our coastal infrastructure from sea level rise? 

c. Without the Federal Flood Risk Mitigation Standard in place, and with a 

proposal to undercut the NEPA process that requires federal agencies consider 

climate change, how does the administration propose designing and funding 

infrastructure projects that will survive projected future conditions, like higher 

seas and changes in precipitation? 

Answer: The lniliative is desi~ned to change how in/i-astructur<' is d<'si~ned. !JUilt, 

jinanced and mainlained in communili<'s across !he cowi/IJ'. 71w lnilialive includes, bw 

is no/ lim ired to. drinking and wastt>water, which 1rou/d includ<' projects to increase !he 

resiliency or adaptahilily ofwarer .systems. 

Page 34 of34 
46 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

Mr. James, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. R. D. JAMES, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS 

Mr. JAMES. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, and Ranking Member Carper. 

I am honored to testify before you today on the Administration’s 

recently released infrastructure plan and the water resources needs 

and challenges of our Nation. I look forward to working with you 

to advance the delivery of our Nation’s water resources infrastructure through innovative approaches and streamlined processes. 

The Army has played a significant role in the development of the 

Nation’s water resources in the past. The Army maintains our Nation’s coastal navigation channels, inland waterways, dams, navigation locks, flood control levees, and hydropower plants. 

These projects help prevent flooding in our river valleys and 

along our coasts and facilitate the movement of approximately 2 

billion tons of waterborne commerce. They also provide 24 percent 

of the Nation’s hydropower. 

Much of our Nation’s infrastructure is aging, as you know, and 

requires significant amounts of resources to maintain. The traditional approach to constructing and maintaining these projects is 

not sustainable. 

The Administration’s infrastructure legislative principles released on February 12, 2018, provide a common sense approach to 

addressing these issues. The legislative principles directly applicable to the Civil Works mission fall within six general areas. 

The first is water resource infrastructure. The Administration’s 

principles would remove barriers and provide new authorities to 

expedite the delivery of infrastructure projects through a variety of 

mechanisms focused on revenue generation, streamlining project 

delivery, and innovative acquisition approaches. 

The second area is inland waterways. For this area, the combination of new and existing revenue streams combined with non-Federal partnerships would enable greater efficiencies and innovations 

for our Nation’s inland waterways. 

The third area is associated with incentives in the form of grants 

to non-Federal entities. These are intended to encourage innovation, accelerate project delivery, and increase State, local, and private participation. 

The fourth area pertains to the Water Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act. This Act provides for incentives in the form of 

low cost loans, which are intended to encourage innovation, accelerate project delivery, and increase State, local, and private participation. 

The fifth area involves environmental reviews and permitting. In 

addition to broad environmental and permitting reforms, the principles would further streamline the Civil Works Section 404, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 408 programs 

to timely support decisions while maintaining the environmental 

protection provided by the law. 

Finally, the last area applicable to Civil Works’ responsibility is 

divestiture. The infrastructure legislative principles authorize FedVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
47 

eral divestiture of assets that would be better managed by State, 

local, or private entities. The Administration’s infrastructure proposal is an opportunity for the Army to apply new financing approaches and streamline the processes to meet current and future 

needs of the Nation. 

I recognize the importance of streamlining environmental reviews with the goal of shortening timelines to an average of 2 years 

while still protecting the environment. In particular, I am looking 

to eliminate redundant and unnecessary reviews, concurrencies, 

and approvals. 

In addition to the Administration’s legislative proposal, I will 

look internally at the Civil Works organization’s authorities, policies, regulations, and procedures to identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness. I want to stop focusing on the 

process and focus on the results. 

Simply put, the Army must ensure that we put the Federal funds 

we are entrusted with into the ground effectively and efficiently. To 

me, let’s move the dirt is the goal. 

In closing, the time has come for us to focus on outcomes as we 

rebuild America. The way we use our water resources significantly 

impacts the economic advantage afforded to us by our river systems. It will determine if we protect and restore the capital assets 

afforded healthy ecosystems, and it will determine how we protect 

life and property from the coast to coast threat of flooding. 

I look forward to working with this Committee in the future to 

improve the ways that we can invest in our water resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. This 

concludes my statement. I look forward to taking any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. James follows:] 

48 


32989.004

The Honorable R.D. James 

Assistant Secretary of the Army Civil Works 

Washington, D.C. 

President Ronald Reagan appointed R. D. James as a Civil 

Engineer civilian member to the Mississippi River Commission in 

1981. He was reappointed in 1991 by President George H.W. 

Bush, and in 2003 by President George W. Bush. He was 

reappointed for a fourth term in 2017 by President Barack Obama. 

While serving as a member of the Mississippi River Commission, 

Mr. James has toured and inspected civil works engineering features and engaged 

water resources stakeholders across the greater Mississippi Drainage Basin, which 

encompasses 31 states and more than 250 major river and tributaries, draining 41 

percent of the United States. He developed superior expertise in inland navigation and 

flood-control development by fostering strong ties and in-depth understanding of 

conditions along every major tributary of the Mississippi River: the upper Mississippi 

River, the Ohio River, the Missouri River, The Arkansas River, the Illinois River, the 

Tennessee River and the Cumberland River. In 2009, Mr. James received the 

prestigious Bronze de Fleury medal for his significant contributions to Army engineering. 

During the commission's inspection trips, Mr. James collaborated with the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers leadership at the district, division and national levels, to include 

Chiefs of Engineers and Assistant Secretaries of the Army for Civil Works, as well as 

numerous governors, U.S. Senators and Representatives, in each of those areas 

promoting improved flood control and navigation. His duties with the Mississippi River 

Commission also resulted in overseas missions to represent the United States in fact 

finding and engineering solutions with the Mekong River Commission. In this capacity, 

Mr. James travelled to Thailand, Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia. 

Mr. James served as president of the Southern Cotton Ginners Association in 2009 and 

served on the Board of Directors and Executive Committee of the Southern Cotton 

Ginners Association 1993-2001, the Cotton Producers of Missouri 1999-2005 and the 

Board of Directors of U. S. Bank of Sikeston, Missouri 1981-1995, the Board of 

Directors of Osceola Products cottonseed oil mill 1984-1997. He also served the New 

Madrid County Board of Education 1981-1997, serving as president 1986-1997. 

Mr. James received the Sikeston Area Chamber of Commerce 2007 Agri-Business 

Award and was the New Madrid County Outstanding Conservation Farmer in 1987. He 

received his degree in Civil Engineering from the University of Kentucky in 1971. While 

attending the University, he was employed with the Kentucky Department of Water 

Resources Engineering office 1970-1971. 

He and his wife Virginia have two children, Albert C. Riley James 1972, and Virginia 

Elizabeth James 1977 (deceased 1996). Mr. James was born on January 29, 1948 in 

Fulton County Kentucky and was raised in Hickman, Kentucky. 
49 


32989.005

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

COMPLETE STATEMENT OF 

THE HONORABLE R.D. JAMES 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR CIVIL WORKS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ON 

Rebuilding Infrastructure in America 

March 1, 2018 
50 


32989.006

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee 

I am honored to testify before you today on the President's recently released 

infrastructure plan and the water resources needs and challenges of our Nation. I was 

recently sworn in as the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. I look forward 

to working with you to advance the delivery of our nation's water resources 

infrastructure through innovative approaches and streamlined processes. 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has played a significant role in the 

development of the Nation's water resources. The Civil Works program of the Corps 

has three main missions: commercial navigation, flood and storm damage reduction, 

and aquatic ecosystem restoration. In this regard, the Corps works with our Nation's 

coastal ports to maintain their channels, operates and maintains the inland waterways, 

supports State and local flood risk management activities, works to restore significant 

aquatic ecosystems, and operates and maintains multipurpose dams, as well as the 

reservoirs behind them. There are about 250 million day-visits a year for recreation at 

Corps lands and reservoirs, making the Corps one of the top Federal recreation 

providers. 

The infrastructure that the Corps maintains includes 13,000 miles of coastal navigation 

channels (including the channels of the Great Lakes), 12,000 miles of inland waterways, 

715 dams, 241 locks at 195 navigation sites, 14,700 miles of levees, and hydropower 

plants at 75 locations with 353 generating units. These projects help provide risk 

reduction from flooding in our river valleys and along our coasts, facilitate the movement 

of approximately two billion tons of waterborne commerce, and provide up to 24 percent 

of the Nation's hydropower. 

Much of this infrastructure was constructed in the first half of the twentieth century and 

today requires a significant amount of resources to maintain. The traditional Civil Works 

approach to constructing and maintaining these projects is not sustainable. The Corps 

estimates that it could take over 100 years for the Corps to construct all currently 

authorized Civil Works projects under the current approach. 

One of the President's top priorities is to rebuild and modernize the Nation's 

infrastructure. The President has proposed a $200 billion Federal commitment to 

stimulate at least $1.5 trillion in new infrastructure investment. The goal is to secure 

long-term reforms on how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and 

maintained. By streamlining project delivery and removing barriers, we hope to 

incentivize and expedite the delivery of our Nation's infrastructure. 

The President's infrastructure legislative principles were publicly released on February, 

12, 2018. The legislative principles directly applicable to the Corps' Civil Works 

responsibilities fall within six general areas: 

(1) Water Resources Infrastructure- These principles would remove barriers and 

provide new authorities to expedite the delivery of infrastructure projects through 

2 
51 


32989.007

a variety of mechanisms focused on revenue generation, streamlining project 

delivery, and innovative acquisition approaches. 

(2) Inland Waterways- The combination of new and existing revenue streams 

combined with non-federal partnerships would enable greater efficiencies and 

innovations for our nation's inland waterways. 

(3) Incentives- Incentives in the form of grants to non-federal entities are intended 

to encourage innovation, accelerate project delivery, and increase State, local, 

and private participation. 

(4) Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA)- Incentives in the form 

of low-cost loans are also intended to encourage innovation, accelerate project 

delivery, and increase State, local, and private participation. The legislative 

principles would expand the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

authorization and budget authority to include non-Federal flood mitigation, 

navigation, and water supply projects. 

(5) Environmental Reviews and Permitting - In addition to broad environmental and 

permitting reforms, the legislative principles would further streamline the Corps' 

Section 404/10 and Section 408 programs to support timely decisions while 

maintaining environmental protections provided by law. 

(6) Divestiture The infrastructure legislative principles authorize Federal divestiture 

of assets that would be better managed by State, local, or private entities. One 

of these assets is the Washington Aqueduct, which the Corps currently owns and 

operates. 

The President's infrastructure proposal is an opportunity for the Corps to apply new 

financing approaches and streamline processes that enable needed change to meet 

current and future needs of the Nation. The current paradigm for investing in water 

resources development is not sustainable and can deter rather than enable local 

communities, states, and the private sector from making important investments on their 

own, even when they are the primary beneficiaries. The Administration's infrastructure 

proposal and other reforms in the Budget, such as reducing the Harbor Maintenance 

Tax, would facilitate local decision-making by those who know best what investments 

are needed and improve how we as a Nation invest in water resources. 

Further, we recognize the importance of establishing a "one federal decision" structure 

for environmental reviews with the goal of shortening environmental timelines to two 

years on average while still protecting the environment. In particular, we appreciate the 

need to eliminate redundant and unnecessary reviews, concurrences and approvals, as 

well as the importance of firm deadlines to complete reviews and make decisions. As a 

member of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council (Permitting Council), 

which carries out the statutory responsibilities identified in Title 41 of the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST-41), the Corps has committed to work with 

3 
52 


32989.008

fellow Council members in support of the goals of FAST-41 to improve the timeliness, 

predictability, and transparency of the Federal environmental review and authorization 

process for covered infrastructure projects. In addition, as a Council member, the Corps 

has committed to incorporate the objectives of FAST-41 and Executive Order (EO) 

13807 "Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and 

Permitting Process for Infrastructure Projects" into their agency's directives, manuals, 

policies and plans, as applicable and to the extent practicable. 

In addition to the President's legislative proposal, I strongly support efforts by the Corps 

to look internally at its organizations, authorities, policies, regulations and procedures to 

identify opportunities for increased efficiency and effectiveness. 

For example, Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, as amended, and 

codified in 33 USC 408 (Section 408) provides that the Secretary of the Army rnay, 

upon the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, grant permission to other entities 

for the permanent or temporary alteration or use of any Corps Civil Works project The 

Budget includes significant funding to support Section 408 reviews. The Corps also has 

implemented the following improvements to the Section 408 review process: delegation 

of Section 408 decisions to the lowest level possible (resulting in more than 95% of 

Section 408 decisions being made at the Corps district level) and further clarifying when 

Section 408 permission is required, when Section 408 permission is not required, and 

when the requirements of Section 408 may be met by another Corps process and/or 

authority (resulting in the reduction of redundancies). 

The time has come for us to focus on outcomes as we rebuild America. I look forward 

to working with this Committee and the Corps to improve the ways that we invest in our 

water resources, and ensure the Corps remains an elite engineering organization 

dedicated to collaborating with non-federal partners, by implementing the President's 

infrastructure plan. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Committee. This concludes my statement 

look forward to answering any questions you or other Members of the Committee may 

have. 

4 
53 


32989.196

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

"The Administration's Framework for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America." 

March I, 2018 

Questions for the Record for Assistant Secretary R.D. James 

Ranking Member Carper: 

I. One of the President's top priorities is rebuilding, repairing, and maintaining the nation's 

infrastructure. However, the vast majority ofthe projects that will improve our 

infrastructure, including the repair and replacement of existing water infrastructure, won't 

work as public-private partnerships because they do not have a dedicated revenue streams 

and overall cannot attract private investment. How does the infrastructure plan address 

the projects that are your top priority? 

Answer: The Budget funds the priority work ofthe civil works program. Much of this work 

involves our existing projects. The Budget gives priority to maintaining the key features of the 

infrastructure that the Corps owns and operates, such as on the inland waterways. It invests in 

dam safety, in the channels of our major ports, to help communities reduce their flood risks, and 

to restore significant aquatic ecosystems. 

The goal of the President's infrastructure plan is to secure long-term reforms on how 

infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained. By streamlining project 

delivery and removing barriers, we hope to incentivize and expedite the delivery of our Nation's 

infrastructure, for a wide range of projects, including investments in water resources. 

2. The Civil Works Investigations appropriation account funds studies of future projects. It is 

the lifeblood for new Corps civil works projects. The President's budget proposal moved 

dredge material management plans and dam safety manuals, traditionally paid out of other 

appropriation accounts, into the investigations account. Not only does this move take up 

budget ceiling space for new studies, which are the first step of future Corps projects, but 

it potentially adds time and process without any benefit. If we cut back on investigations 

it seems we are essentially ending the construction of needed economic development, 

flood protection, ecosystem restoration and navigation projects. This is concerning for our 

country's long-term economic viability. In your opinion, isn't it a problem to flood the 

investigations account with non-relevant expenses and irresponsible for the 

Administration to not support any new starts? 

Answer: The intent behind moving Dam Safety Modification Studies and Dredged Material 

Management Plans from the Construction and Operation and Maintenance accounts, 

respectively, into the Investigations account in the FY 2019 Budget was to improve transparency 

and accountability of Corps investigations and present a more holistic presentation in the Budget 

of the Corps' overall study efforts. The Corps undertakes a dam safety modification study to 

evaluate options for constructing a modification to an existing Corps dam to address a safety 

concern. These studies are similar to most ofthe other studies funded in the Investigations 

account, in which the Corps is evaluating options for constructing a modification to an existing 

Federal or non-Federal water resources project. Dredged Material Management Plans are 

Page 1 of 11 
54 


32989.197

planning documents that ensure maintenance-dredging activities are performed in an 

environmentally acceptable manner, use sound engineering techniques, and are economically 

warranted. These plans address a full range of placement alternatives thereby ensuring that 

sufficient placement capacity is identified for the next 20 years. 

The proposal did not, and should not, have any impact on the level of funding provided for other 

civil works program work. There was no reduction of the amount of funding made available for 

other feasibility studies or for preconstruction, engineering and design work. The decision to 

fund an activity is independent of the account. In other words, the activities competed for 

funding and were chosen for inclusion in the Budget regardless of the source of the funding. 

When activities were migrated from the Operation and Maintenance or Construction account to 

the Investigations account, the funding was moved along with the activity. 

These kinds of investigations are not subject to the limitations on new starts. The proposal to 

move their funding to the Investigations account did not have any bearing on the decision not to 

fund studies that would be a "new start" if funded. 

3. Poplar Island, located in the mid--Chesapeake Bay, has become a national model for 

environmental restoration. At this site they are using an innovative solution for dredged 

material management is resulting in the restoration of a once vanishing island, creating 

habitat for the Bay's diverse wildlife and bird species, and a safe harbor for the Bay's fish 

and shellfish resources. Poplar Island was authorized initially as an ecosystem restoration 

project, but under the FY 19 President's Budget proposal the project will be paid for out of 

civil works navigation appropriation account. We are told this switch could potentially 

have the impact of killing the project since the Navigation business line focuses on the 

least costly alternative for the disposal of dredge material, and placement of dredge 

material on Poplar Island is more expensive than open bay disposal. How are you going 

to ensure that this project- authorized by Congress- is treated the way Congress intended 

under the Ecosystem restoration account when it will be managed by navigation? 

Answer: The reclassification of the Poplar Island project as under the navigation business line in 

the FY 2019 Budget reflects the underlying purpose of this project, which is to provide a way to 

dispose of the materials dredged from the channels of the Port of Baltimore and increases 

transparency for the American taxpayer. While there are aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits 

derived from this project, the Poplar Island Project serves as the primary dredged material 

disposal site for the Port of Baltimore, and is funded with discretionary appropriations from the 

Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This change in classification more accurately presents the total 

funding request for the Corps- both for the commercial navigation program and for the aquatic 

ecosystem program. The Budget does not propose any change in the cost share or management 

of the project, and the Corps will continue to implement it in accordance with the project 

authorization. 

Page 2 ofll 
55 


32989.198

Senator Boozman 

4. Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act provides that the Secretary of the 

Army, after public notice, may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-federal 

public entity, public-utility to expedite the permit review process. In 2016, Congress 

expanded this authority to railroad carriers, however, before this expanded authority can 

be used, the Corps of Engineers must issue guidance. More than a year has passed since 

Congress expanded section 214 to railroad projects and we are still waiting for the Corps 

of Engineers to issue new guidance. Please provide an update on the expected date for 

issuing the guidance and delegation of authority memorandum. 

Answer: Implementation Guidance for section 1125 of the Water Resources Development Act 

of2016, which added railroad carriers to the Section 214 authority, was signed on January 19, 

20 18. The delegation of authority memorandum is under development. 

Senator Capito: 

5. Assistant Secretary James, as the President outlined in his infrastructure plan, greater 

efficiency is needed in the permitting process. This is particularly true for Clean Water 

Act (CWA) regulatory reviews, some of which can pose major obstacles for infrastructure 

projects. The proposal calls for ending the EPA's veto authority over Section 404 permits 

and clarifying that the USACE has sole authority for making final jurisdictional 

determinations. 

a. If Congress implements these reforms, would this eliminate future uncertainty 

resulting from CW A Section 404 permits being preemptively or retroactively 

vetoed? 

Answer: Yes. 

b. Would it also allow for the continued environmental protections provided by the 

Section 404(b)(l) guidelines and 401 water quality certification processes? 

Answer: The removal of section 404(c) would not affect the requirement to comply with the 

Section 404(b )(!) Guidelines or affect the section 40 I water quality certification process. 

Senator lnhofe: 

6. How many authorized water projects for which the USACE is the project lead have 

required a Sec. 40 I water quality certificate over the past 5 years? 

Answer: The Corps has obtained Section 40 I certifications for 783 projects in the last five 

calendar years (20 13-20 17). 

7. How many Sec 401 water quality certificates required more than one year for completion 

from the filing date of the initial application? Please provide a list of all projects for 

which the certification took more than one year. 

Page 3 of 11 
56 


32989.199

Answer: Nine, listed below 

• Walton County, Florida 

• Port Everglades Navigation Deepening Project, Broward County, Florida 

• American River Watershed, Common Features Project, Natomas Basin Sacramento and 

Sutter Counties, California 

• Sutter Basin, Sacramento, California 

• NV Truckee Meadows Flood Control Project, Nevada 

• American River Common Features, Sacramento, California 

• West Sacramento Flood Control Project, West Sacramento, California 

• San Diego County 

• Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project, Los Angeles, California 

8. Have any authorized water projects for which the USACE is the project lead been denied a 

Sec. 401 water quality certificate over the past 5 years? Please provide a list of all of these 

projects. 

Answer: The State of Florida denied issuance of a Section 40 I water quality certification for one 

project, Wares Creek Dredging Project, Florida. There are other projects for which the state 

agency initially denied, but ultimately issued a Section 40 I certification. 

9. Have any authorized water projects for which the USACE is the project lead refiled a Sec. 

40 I water quality certificate after an initial filing? If so, please provide a list of all of 

these projects and the date of the initial filing and all subsequent filings. 

Answer: The Corps refiled an application for a Section 401 water quality certification on two 

projects: 

• South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, FL 

o Initial filing 3-Aug-16; refiled 8-Jan-18 

• South Florida Ecosystem Restoration, Broward County Water Preserve, FL 

o Initial filing 3-Aug-16; refiled 19-Jan-17 

10. Have CW A sec 40 I permit delays resulted in any projects exceeding their sec 902 limits 

over the past 10 years? If so please provide a list of those projects. 

Answer: No 

Senator Van Hollen: 

II. The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island Supplemental Chiefs Report, the original Chiefs Report 

and the Baltimore Harbor and Channels DMMP are in your office for review. 

Page 4 of 11 
57 


32989.200

Please provide your insights on any issues with this project that would prevent it from 

moving into the design phase (PED- pre-construction engineering and design). 

Answer: The Mid-Chesapeake Bay Island project will be considered for future funding along 

with other programs, projects and activities competing for available resources across the 

Nation. The Corps uses performance metrics in allocating its funds. Thus, we would consider 

funding for this project, along with all other Corps programs, projects, and activities across the 

Nation. 

a. Will you support a new investment decision to budget for design (PED) for MidBay in fiscal year 2020? 

Answer: The Corps uses performance metrics in allocating its funds. We consider all of the 

potential work in the civil works program for funding. Thus, we would consider funding for this 

project, along with all other Corps programs, projects, and activities across the Nation. 

b. Would you support extending the authorization for Mid-Bay given that PEDis not 

likely to start in time to make an obligation for construction prior to its automatic 

deauthorization in June of2021? 

Answer: In accordance with Section 1001 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as 

amended, the Secretary is required to provide an annual list of authorized water resources 

development projects which "have received no obligations during the 5 full fiscal years 

preceding the transmittal of such list." Congress is the only entity with the power to remove a 

project from the deauthorization list. 

12. The President's FY19 Budget submission includes funding for Poplar Island but has it 

budgeted under the Navigation Business Line rather than the Environmental Business Line 

- as it has been in the past. 

a. Who made the change? 

Answer: This proposal is part of the Budget. It is a technical proposal, meant to improve the 

way that we track our overall budget authority, obligations, and expenditures in the civil works 

program. 

b. What is the intent of the change? 

Answer: The budget reclassification increased transparency for the American taxpayer. This 

project was previously classified as aquatic ecosystem restoration (AER), and while there are 

AER benefits derived from this project, the Poplar Island Project serves as the primary dredged 

material disposal site for the Port of Baltimore, and is funded with discretionary appropriations 

from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund. This change in classification more accurately presents 

the total funding request for the Corps commercial navigation program. 

Page 5 of11 
58 


32989.201

13. Projects with navigation as a purpose have benefit to cost ratios, but projects with 

environmental restoration as a project purpose do not have benefit to cost ratios. 

a. What impact, if any, will this business line reclassification have on the ability of 

Poplar Island to compete for funds with navigation dredging projects? 

Answer: None. 

14. The President's budget for FY 19 for Poplar Island is $21M, this is $41 M less than needed 

to complete the last dike enclosure contract for the expansion, why was the funding for 

this last contract omitted from the budget? 

Answer: The immediate need in FY 2019 was to fund inflow of dredged material for wetlands 

and island cell development. 

15. In your prepared testimony you address the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), and state 

that reducing the tax, "would facilitate local decision-making by those who know best 

what investments are needed and improve how we as a Nation invest in water resources." 

Two months ago in a hearing held by this Committee, I had a dialogue with your 

predecessor, Mr. Ryan Fisher, wherein he affirmed that the administration would support 

an effort to make sure that more of the HMT funds that were raised actually go for that 

purpose. 

a. In light of that conversation, why is it that the Administration is now proposing to 

reduce the tax when the Port community has been consistent in their message that 

they need to receive more of the HMT that is currently being collected, not 

Answer: The Administration's intent is to better align annual receipts with recent appropriations 

levels. The reduced tax rate may also make the United States more competitive in a global 

marketplace and reduce the costs of goods to consumers. 

b. Can you explain to me how taking resources away facilitates local decision 

making? 

Answer: Resources are not being taken away. With a lower tax rate, ports are free to assume the 

difference in fees at their facilities, which could be used to generate funding for self-directed 

investment. 

16. In November 2016 following the election, the American Association of Port Authorities 

provided recommendations to the Trump transition team regarding the HMT. They stated 

that a priority should be to, "Modernize and fully maintain federal navigation channels by: 

making harbor maintenance tax (HMT) spending a priority; continuing the goal toward 

full use of the HMT; ensuring equity and fairness ofHMT distributions; increasing 

funding for HMT maintenance spending in the FY2018 budget request, including funding 

for Donor and Energy Transfer Ports; devising a permanent solution as part of tax reform 

or other legislation for ensuring all annual HMT revenues are spent;" 

Page 6 ofll 
59 


32989.202

a. Did anyone in the Administration consult with the Port community regarding 

this proposal? 

Answer: The Corps meets regularly with our project sponsors, including the ports, and 

considered available data in making this proposal. 

Senator Whitehouse 

17. The Corps' FY19 proposed budget requests $1.481 billion for its Flood and Coastal Storm 

Damage Reduction program. Of that, only $40 million is marked for coastal projects. The 

remaining $1.451 billion is marked for inland projects. This 37:1 funding discrepancy is 

even worse than the FY18 budget proposal. I brought up this issue with you during your 

confirmation process and was disappointed to not see any improvement in the FY19 

proposed budget. How will the Corps rectify this discrepancy between coastal and inland 

projects under the Corps' flood and coastal storm damage reduction work? 

Answer: The civil works program has three main missions- commercial navigation, flood and 

storm damage reduction, and aquatic ecosystem restoration. The Corps uses performance 

metrics in allocating its funds. Within flood and storm damage reduction, the Corps also gives 

priority to the safety of its dams, to maintaining the key features of the other infrastructure that it 

owns and operates, and to projects that address a significant risk to public safety. Generally, 

these factors account for most of the funding in the Budget for this program. 

18. The Corps is barely mentioned in the President's infrastructure plan. What role do you see 

the Corps playing in the future of America's infrastructure? 

Answer: The Administration's Infrastructure Initiative seeks to modernize the Nation's 

infrastructure by reforming how infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered and 

maintained. The traditional Civil Works approach to constructing and maintaining water 

resources infrastructure projects is not sustainable. Under the Infrastructure Initiative, for 

example, the Corps would work with EPA to ensure that resident Corps expertise was utilized in 

EPA's administration of an expanded EPA WIFIA program to include flood mitigation, 

navigation, and water supply. Elsewhere, the Corps is looking to modify internal processes that 

will increase the leveraging of constrained Federal funds and streamline delivery to meet current 

and future water resources challenges. The Corps is also seeking to better utilize WRDA 2014 

Section I 043, as amended, which authorizes the Corps to transfer funds to the non-federal 

sponsor of a project and to allow them to construct the project. These new tools would better 

enable States and local entities to address their priorities. 

19. Extreme weather events put infrastructure at risk. In Rhode Island, Superstorm Sandy 

almost caused Narragansett Bay to breach the water supply for the City of Newport. The 

March 2010 storms flooded the Pawtuxet River, overtopping the Warwick Wastewater 

Treatment facility and sending untreated wastewater into surrounding neighborhoods, the 

neighboring river, and eventually Narragansett Bay. What do you see as the Army Corps' 

role in helping cities and towns respond to these increasingly frequent extreme weather 

events and ensure the safety ofthe nation's critical infrastructure? 

Page 7 of 11 
60 


32989.203

Answer: In 2013, the Corps released a report on "Coastal Risk Reduction and Resilience." The 

report describes a range of approaches to develop solutions that will reduce flood risks in coastal 

areas, including natural or nature-based features (e.g., wetlands and dunes), nonstructural 

measures (e.g., policies, building codes, and emergency response such as early warning systems 

and evacuation plans), and structural measures (e.g., seawalls and breakwaters). 

In addition, for all of its projects, including those along the coast, the Corps considers ways to 

use engineering to help reduce vulnerabilities (such as the risk of project or component failure) 

and considers the dependencies among project features (their impacts on each other) over both 

the short- and long-term life of the project. 

20. My state's Coastal Resources Management Council is planning for nine feet of sea level 

rise along Rhode Island's coast by 2100. To prepare for this much water overtaking our 

shores, we need to protect evacuation routes from flooding, reinforce bridges that are 

exposed to corrosive saltwater and storms, and retrofit lowland wastewater treatment 

plants. These improvements are not cosmetic; they are essential if my state and others along 

the coasts have any chance meeting our needs over the next 50 or I 00 years. If we want to 

invest significant federal money on infrastructure, we should make sure those investments 

will survive for a useful period oftime and not be consumed or degraded by rising seas. 

The President's infrastructure plan does not mention the terms "coastal," "sea level rise," 

"storm surge," or "saltwater intrusion" once. How does the administration plan to support 

the specific investments needed to fortify our coasts against the consequences of climate 

change? 

Answer: The Corps has developed and implemented guidance and supporting methods and tools 

to address the risks associated with changing conditions such as extreme weather. We use them 

in the technical assistance that we offer communities to help them reduce their flood risks. They 

also inform how we plan, engineer, operate, and maintain our projects. 

The goal of the President's infrastructure plan is to secure long-term reforms on how 

infrastructure projects are regulated, funded, delivered, and maintained. By streamlining project 

delivery and removing barriers, we hope to incentivize and expedite the delivery of our Nation's 

infrastructure, for a wide range of projects, including investments in water resources. 

In addition to our established Civil Works process to evaluate and address the nation's water 

resources infrastructure needs, the Administration's Infrastructure Plan recommends innovative 

ways to leverage various forms of financing. Opportunities to include grants are an area under 

consideration as a possible means ofleveraging constrained and critical Federal funds with nonFederal funding to meet the current and future coastal and inland water resources challenges 

head on. 

21. Without the Federal Flood Risk Mitigation Standard in place, and with a proposal to 

undercut the NEPA process that requires federal agencies consider climate change, how 

Page 8 ofll 
61 


32989.204

does the administration propose designing and funding infrastructure projects that will 

survive projected future conditions, like higher seas and changes in precipitation? 

Answer: In evaluating options and formulating its project proposals, the Corps considers how 

such conditions may change in the future. Under our policy and technical guidance, we evaluate 

and consider the effects of a range of possible changes in sea levels and related total water levels 

(e.g., tide, surge, waves) throughout the project life cycle. 

22. Under your leadership, even if the President refuses to accept the realities of climate change, 

will the Army Corps take a more forward thinking approach to project designs that will take 

into consideration future conditions instead of just the current conditions? 

Answer: Corps policy requires that engineering decisions for major infrastructure be based on 

long-term performance, reliability, and durability over a I 00-year life cycle. Consideration of 

future conditions is a standard part of the Corps planning process. 

23. With structures like the Fox Point Hurricane Barrier and Point Judith Harbor of Refuge in 

Rhode Island, the Corps has focused on the functionality of these structures under current 

conditions instead of long-term durability. However, future sea level rise and strong storms 

will likely overpower these and other Corps structures along the coast. 

Given the long lag time in identifYing a new project to its completion, do you agree the 

Corps should be thinking now about the improvements and new structures that will be 

needed? 

Answer: Recognizing the particular challenges faced by coastal projects, in 2013, the Corps 

completed screening level assessments using a web-based tool that interfaces with Corps 

geospatial databases as well as authoritative data and information developed by other agencies, 

including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the US Geological Survey (USGS). About 500 

projects constructed, owned, and operated by the Corps nationwide were identified as being 

vulnerable to changing sea levels. 

24. If so, how could this forward-thinking mentality be incorporated into the Corps' cost-benefit 

analysis it uses to prioritize projects? 

Answer: In evaluating options and formulating its project proposals, the Corps considers how 

conditions may change in the future. The cost-benefit analyses that we perform generally reflect 

consideration of a range of such potential future changes. 

Our vulnerability assessment processes addresses a related, but different concern. It is helping us 

identifY existing projects that may require adaptive measures now or in the future due to such 

changes, and to identify ways to establish priorities among these potential investments. 

Senator Wicker: 

Page 9 of 11 
62 


32989.205

25. The Administration's goal of streamlining National Environmental Policy Act's 

regulations at multiple agencies to achieve NEPA compliance will help eliminate many of 

the unnecessary problems with the approval process. However, multiple agencies still 

have conflicting regulations and differing policies regarding requirements for approval on 

a project which negatively affect the timeliness, predictability and transparency of the 

process. For example, I have a major flood control project in Mississippi's capitol region 

that has been under discussion for the past 30 years and we are approaching the end of a 

long approval process with the Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies. 

a. As it relates to large infrastructure projects, such as the aforementioned flood 

control project, how can the Corps take a more active leadership role in 

streamlining decision-making and uniform application of requirements among all 

of the federal agencies involved in meeting NEPA requirements? 

Answer: The Corps Civil Works program has been working since 2012 to streamline its internal 

planning processes for water resources projects, such as by establishing time and cost limits for 

most studies. The Corps also is working to streamline its processes by working with other 

federal agencies. For example, the Corps is working with the Environmental Protection Agency, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and other Federal 

agencies to identify ways to improve Federal regulatory processes under Executive Order 13807 

(Establishing Discipline and Accountability in the Environmental Review and Permitting Process 

for Infrastructure Projects). 

b. If a Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Study is performed on a project that 

incorporates an existing federal flood control project can the need for a Section 

408 Permit be explicitly eliminated? 

Answer: Where a non-Federal entity is seeking approval to construct a non-Federal project or a 

non-Federal modification that would affect an authorized Corps project, Section 408 applies. In 

such cases, the non-Federal entity can use any documentation developed by the Corps (e.g., 

through its project planning process or its regulatory program) to support the Section 408 

request. 

c. Can the Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 

Environmental Protection Agency create a single document with all of the 

requirements for compliance with NEPA so that there aren't different standards 

and requirements between agencies? 

Answer: Corps Civil Works is working as part of the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering 

Council to implement the "One Federal Decision" goal of completing all necessary NEPA and 

other necessary environmental compliance actions in approximately 2 years. The Corps internal 

streamlining efforts discussed in response to Question 25a, are consistent with the One Federal 

Decision approach of the EO, and share many of the same goals with regard to early 

coordination, establishment of schedules and timeliness of decisions. 

Page 10 of 11 
63 


32989.206

26. One area not directly addressed in the Administration's proposal is the conflict between two 

different standards used by the Corps of Engineers and the OMB to determine a favorable 

Cost-Benefit Ratio. The Corps has considered a project to have a favorable Cost-Benefit 

Ratio at one level while OMB utilizes a different interest rate resulting in a much higher 

threshold. 

a. Can the Corps commit to fully supporting a project based upon its CostBenefit Ratio? 

Answer: Section 80 of WRDA 1974 requires the Corps of Engineers to use a certain discount 

rate, which fluctuates annually, when it evaluates and formulates a proposed water resources 

project. This discount rate is 2.75% for FY 2018. In developing the Budget, the Corps uses a 

7.0% discount rate for the construction of commercial navigation projects, and for the 

construction of some of the projects in the Corps flood and storm damage reduction program. 

The 7% discount rate, based on OMB Circular A-94, is appropriate for evaluating competing 

investments, both within the civil works program and across federal agencies. The Corps uses 

other metrics as well in the Budget, such as for projects funded to address a significant risk to 

public safety, and for projects that primarily provide aquatic ecosystem restoration benefits. 

Page 11 of 11 
64 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much to both of you. We appreciate you being here today. 

Many of the members of the Committee are here looking forward 

to asking questions. Before we do that, we have two pieces of 

housekeeping. 

One is, in order to assist Chairman McCain in his absence, Senator Inhofe is going to be chairing the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing today. I ask permission of my Republican counterparts that as he arrives, he be allowed to be recognized for questions at that time. 

The second is that we have a series of three roll call votes beginning at 11:45 a.m. It is my intention to complete our hearing by 

noon in order for all of us to fully participate in the voting on the 

floor. 

With that, Madam Secretary, thank you again for being here. 

Earlier this year Congress passed a budget that designated an extra $10 billion a year for infrastructure. As the head of the governmental department that spends the most Federal dollars on infrastructure, would you agree, Madam Secretary, that an extra $10 

billion per year would make a substantial difference to States, including Wyoming, Delaware, and others, and is a good start in our 

efforts? 

Ms. CHAO. There is approximately $4 trillion in infrastructure 

needs in this country, so every dollar counts. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. I am showing you a chart, Madam Secretary. 

As you can see from the chart, on average, highway projects take 

the longest time to complete the environmental impact statements, 

longer than rail, longer than public transit, longer than electricity 

transmission. It is the highway projects, on average, that run 6 and 

a half years. 

Do you agree that streamlining is critical in terms of speeding 

up the needed investment in our Nation’s highways? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely. There are many private pension funds 

that are very interested in investing in public infrastructure. Yet, 

in a number of States, the private sector is disallowed from participating in the financing of public infrastructure. That is one issue. 

Two, while I see a great deal of enthusiasm from the private sector, pension funds, and others to participate, one of the hurdles 

they face is the lack of ready projects to be financed. If the permitting process can be speeded up and also from a common sense, less 

bureaucratic way of doing things, they can be streamlined, and it 

will actually make more projects available for the private sector to 

invest. 

Senator BARRASSO. Mr. James, the Committee has already held 

two hearings this year related to enacting the Water Resources Development Act legislation. In light of those hearings, it is clear that 

the Corps needs to have the right tools and flexibilities to carry out 

water infrastructure projects. 

If implemented, how would the Administration’s infrastructure 

framework ensure the Corps has the proper means at its disposal 

for important water infrastructure projects? I can think of one in 

Wyoming, the Jackson Hole ecosystem restoration. How do we 

make sure those are delivered efficiently, effectively, and at the 

lowest cost for the American taxpayer? 

65 

Mr. JAMES. Mr. Chairman, you just discussed with the Secretary 

the situation I feel has held up our way of doing business in the 

Corps for a long time. That is the fact of multiple agencies overseeing the environmental impact statements as we go through developing those. 

Under President Trump’s plan, there would be one agency in 

charge of that, one decision, one agency, and the agencies will work 

together with the understanding that they do not have 6 years to 

complete an environmental impact statement. 

As far as the other things the Corps does, part of it is planning, 

designing, engineering, and finally getting to contracts and construction. We are trying. The Corps has already internally made 

great steps and strides toward improving their process. 

I am working with General Semonite and his key staff. We will 

further dig into that and try our best to address it so that those 

processes do not take as long, and what money we are afforded can 

then be put in the ground rather than in the process. 

Senator BARRASSO. We appreciate General Semonite being here. 

You have testified a number of times before the Committee. 

Thank you for being here with us today to join in the discussion. 

Mr. James, current authorities allow the Corps to receive funding 

from other entities such as natural gas companies and railroads to 

augment existing regulatory resources. It is done so that permit 

evaluations can be expedited under Section 404 of the Clean Water 

Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 

What benefits or drawbacks do you foresee if this authority were 

to be expanded to allow the Corps to receive funding from any nonFederal entity to augment existing regulatory resources? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I would like for you to give me the opportunity 

to let my staff get back with you immediately on that. I have 

thoughts, but I do not want to give you the wrong information on 

that, if you will, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. I would also ask that they look into if there 

are any additional considerations that would help the Committee 

understand what additional authorities would help the Corps further expedite the processing of evaluating the regulatory permits. 

Mr. JAMES. Absolutely. We will work on that and get back to you. 

I appreciate that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Secretary, you have only been on the job for a 

short while, and you have shown great wisdom in your response to 

that last question. When you do not know the answer, say so. Tell 

us you will get back to us, and make sure you do. That would be 

great. 

Secretary Chao, I mentioned in my opening statement that the 

folks at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School of Business—including an economist who I think was a former Bush 

Treasury official—evaluated the Administration’s claim that $200 

billion in spending will somehow produce $1.5 trillion overall. 

The folks at the Wharton School of Business stated that the Administration is off by 98 percent. In other words, for every $100 it 

has claimed, the amount of money being generated, funds being 

generated from this proposed spending, 98 percent of that will 

66 

never materialize. Other experts, including the Heritage Foundation, of all people, have looked at Wharton’s report and say it is 

spot on, which kind of surprised me. 

Let me give you a chance to respond to these experts and briefly walk us through how we take $200 billion and turn it in to $1.5 

trillion even though States tell us they are cash strapped, and we 

know the vast majority of projects to repair or replace infrastructure will not attract private investment. Explain how that works. 

Ms. CHAO. Obviously, we disagree with both the Heritage Foundation and the Wharton Institute. It actually takes people with 

real life business experience to know how it works. 

We see it in the TIFIA loans, with the Build America Bureau, 

and also with the RRIF loans. We give $1 that leverages $14, basically in credit, and of the $14, there is 40 times leveraging overall 

investment spending. We see it every day in the Build America Bureau. 

Senator CARPER. I am not from Missouri, but on this one, you are 

going to have to show me. 

Madam Secretary, the department elite has a key role in negotiating a win-win situation outcome on fuel economy and greenhouse 

gas tailpipe standards with California. I have been concerned that 

no real negotiations with California have occurred to date. 

I am also concerned about press reports that the Administration 

may choose to weaken the standards far more than any automaker 

has asked for. I have asked them all. I have asked Detroit, I have 

asked 10 of them, what do you need in terms of standards. They 

said not as much as the Administration apparently thinks we are 

asking for. We are not. 

We need a win-win situation here. This is ripe for a win-win situation. I want to ask your commitment to do two things. I do not 

think they are too difficult things to do. 

As the process moves forward, let me ask you to commit to do 

two things. One, I have heard that the Transportation Department 

and EPA staffs are not working together as well as they can and 

should in this regard. 

I just want to ask if you will direct your political and career staff 

to answer all of EPA’s questions about the Transportation Department’s model and analysis quickly and completely. That is my ask. 

Ms. CHAO. I would be more than glad to answer transportation 

questions. As for what happens at the EPA, I will talk with the Administrator, but it is up to him. 

Senator CARPER. I want to make clear I am asking you to direct 

your political and career staff to answer all EPA’s questions about 

the Transportation Department’s model quickly and completely. 

That is what I am asking. 

Ms. CHAO. I will do what I can, but I do not understand that 

question. If it is another jurisdiction, I cannot make them answer 

that. 

Senator CARPER. We are asking your department to answer the 

questions asked by another part of the Administration, EPA. 

Ms. CHAO. Right, and I cannot do that. They have to answer 

their own questions. 

Let me also disabuse you of the idea that we are not working together on this, because we have been. In fact, we have held almost 

67 

daily meetings at the White House with EPA and the Department 

of Transportation on this issue, and California. 

In fact, I have had the Acting NHTSA Administrator, Heidi King, 

fly out to California several times in an effort on our part to try 

to come together and understand and work together with California. From our point of view, I feel quite confident that we have 

really tried. 

Senator CARPER. Madam Secretary, I am going to ask you to hold 

it right there, because what I have repeatedly heard from EPA, 

from within the Department of Transportation, and from the folks 

in California, the CRRV, that there are no active negotiations underway, that the give and take you are telling us about is not occurring. Let us have an off-line conversation about that. 

What I have heard is deeply concerning, and I want to make sure 

you are hearing the same thing I am hearing. 

Ms. CHAO. If that is happening, I want to know about it, so 

thank you for bringing that up. 

Senator CARPER. We are talking about permitting reform. We 

have done a lot. We need to do more. My hope is we will have an 

oversight hearing that actually looks back to 2012 legislation, what 

we asked for and what has been done and one that looks at 2015 

legislation, what has been asked for and what has been done. 

I will ask three questions for the record. Why has the Administration failed to appoint an executive director to the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council? You have had several years 

to do that. 

Why has the department not finalized all the MAP–21 and FAST 

Act streamlining rules? In some cases, you have had 3 years. In 

other cases, you have had 5 or 6 years to do that. 

Why has the Administration proposed to cut the budget for permitting agencies, including the DOT’s Infrastructure and Permitting Improvement Center? 

Those are legitimate questions. We do not have time to respond 

to those today, but those are good questions and need to be answered. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Carper. 

I would like to submit for the record about TIFIA and RFIA because the history of these programs has successfully demonstrated 

that Federal funding can be significantly leveraged. We have testimony from Jennifer Aument to this Committee in July 2017. 

Without objection, that will be submitted. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator CARPER. May I make a similar unanimous consent request to submit the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School 

analysis that indicates only 2 percent of the moneys in fact would 

be generated? 

Ms. CHAO. I would be more than glad to provide comments to 

that as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

68 


32989.009

Key Points 

• President Trump recently released his updated infrastructure plan along with the Fiscal Year 2019 

Budget. The plan proposes to increase federal infrastructure investment by $200 billion to provide 

incentives for a total new investment of $1.5 trillion in infrastructure. 

• However, based on previous experience reviewed herein, most of the grant programs contained in the 

infrastructure plan fail to provide strong incentives for states to invest additional money in public 

infrastructure. Indeed, an additional dollar of federal aid could lead state and local governments to 

increase infrastructure total spending by less than that dollar since state and local governments can 

often qualify for the new grant money within their existing infrastructure programs. We estimate that 

infrastructure investment across all levels of government, induding partnerships with the private sector, 

would increase between $20 billion to $230 billion, including the $200 billion federal investment. 

• We estimate that the plan will have little to no impact on G DP. 

Summary 

The White House's newest infrastructure plan proposes to increase federal spending by $200 billion to 

stimulate a total of $1.5 trillion in new spending across all levels governments and the private sector. However, 

based on past evidence, much of the new federal aid would lead to state and local governments increasing 

total infrastructure investment by less than the value of the aid itselt We estimate that total new infrastructure 

investment would increase between $20 billion to $230 billion, including the $200 billion federal investment. 

There will be little to no impact on the economy. 

The White House FY 2019 Infrastructure Plan 

Introduction 

USAFacts reports that the value of America's investment in one type of infrastructure, transportation, has 

waned from an average annual growth rate of 2.4 percent in the 1990's to 1.9 percent over the 10 years 

ending in 2015. President Trump proposes to reverse this trend by increasing federal investment in 

infrastructure. 

Penn Wharton Budget Model (PWBM) previously reported a static estimate of $200 billion in new 

infrastructure spending in the White House Fiscal Year 2018 Budget as well as dynamic estimate of three 

options for investment in infrastructure. Our previous dynamic analysis of possible infrastructure plans ignored 

potential offsetting cuts to other federal infrastructure spending contained in the President's FY 2018 budget, 

which we reported in our static analysis. In other words, our dynamic analysis treated the entire $200 billion in 

the FY 2018 budget as additional federal spending. Ignoring potential federal offsets is a conservative 

assumption that gave the FY 2018 infrastructure plan the greatest chance of producing economic growth. 

This brief reports our dynamic analysis based on the White House infrastructure plan that was recently made 

public by the White House along with the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget. Relative to the FY 2018 infrastructure plan, 

1/10 
69 


32989.010

the FY 2019 plan contains more details about how the $200 billion in new federal aid will be spent to 

encourage additional investment by state and local governments as well as the private sector. Like our previous 

dynamic analysis, we conservatively ignore potential federal offsets, thereby assuming that the $200 billion in 

the FY 2019 represents additional federal spending. Nonetheless, we show that the more specific 

implementation details contained in the FY 2019 plan will likely lead to a total increase in infrastructure 

spending of less than $200 billion due to offsets that can now occur at the state and local level. 

In particular, we review the economic literature that provides estimates of state and local government 

responses to federal aid. Those findings suggest that a substantial share of the types of federal aid contained 

within the White House infrastructure plan would cause state and local governments to increase total 

infrastructure spending---including the federal aid---by less than the federal aid award itself The reason is that 

state and local governments can often qualify for federal grants within their existing infrastructure programs 

(sometimes called the "fungibility of spending"). As a result, a large part of federal grant money---even if 

targeted for infrastructure---simply produces a positive "income effect" for state and local budgets, allowing 

states and localities to spend more money on non-infrastructure programs. Based on estimates in the past 

literature, we develop a range of the FY 2019 plan's likely net effect on total infrastructure investments. We 

then report our estimates of the economic impact. 

Overview of The White House Infrastructure Plan 

President Trump's newly released infrastructure plan proposes that the federal government invest 

over 10 years to provide incentives to generate a total new investment of··. i · in infrastructure by 

federal, state and local governments and the private sector. As shown in Table 1, federal spending will occur 

through a variety of programs. Three-fourths, or $150 billion dollars, of federal spending on infrastructure is 

explicitly designated for matching grants and block grants. 

Matching grants are federal aid grants tied to a particular project or spending category. The value of the grant 

is proportional to the relevant state and local government spending. The White House infrastructure plan also 

has caps or limits on these matching grants. Once the state or local government spending hits the cap, the aid 

provided by the matching grant is exhausted. Block grants in the White House infrastructure plan are grants 

given to states. Block grant funding is not tied to specific infrastructure projects and is available for state and 

local governments to use at their discretion for qualifying projects. 

The remaining $50 billion in the White House infrastructure plan will fund high risk transformative projects, 

expanded federal credit, private activity bonds and a federal capital revolving fund. 

Table 1: Elements of the White House Infrastructure Plan 

2/10 
70 


32989.011

Federal 

Planned Spending as a Federal Portion of 

Element Description Spending Total 

(in Infrastructure 

billions) Project Cost 

Designed to encourage state and local 

governments to invest in revenue-producing 

Incentive infrastructure projects. Includes a look-back period Up to 20% of 

Grants for revenue previously raised. Aid to any single $100 new project 

state is capped at 10% of the total amount revenue 

available. 

Rural Formula 

States get $40 billion in block grants, remanining 

Funds 

$10 billion similar to incentive grants designated $50 

for rural infrastructure. 

Transformative 

Grants and technical assistance to develop projects 

Projects 

that are likely to be commercially viable but are $20 30% to 80% 

too risky for private sector investors. 

Expanded credit programs and loan availability for 

Infrastructure transportation, railroads, water, and other projects. 

Financing Allow the private sector to invest in public $20 N/A 

Programs infrastructure via tax-exempt bonds, capped by 

state. 

Federal A fund to help federal agencies purchase real 

Capital property so that large irregular real property $10 100% 

Revolving purchases do not compete with annual opperating 

Fund needs. 

Real Property Expedites the sale of non-productive, federally- N/A N/A 

Reforms owned property. 

Reduce 

Deferred A fund used to maintain federal lands and 

Maintenance sustained by receipts from leases to develop N/A N/A 

on Public energy and mineral resources on federal lands .. 

Lands 

Streamline 

Accelerates project delivery. Permits 

N/A N/A 

Total $200 

Source: Legislative Outline for Rebuilding Infrastructure in AmerlGl 

3/10 
71 


32989.012

An explanation of each type of grant is helpful for interpreting Table 1. 

Incentive Grants: These grants, totaling $100 billion, are matching grants with caps that provide aid to state 

and local governments. The federal government offers these grants to support new, more efficient 

infrastrudure projeds that are also supported by new revenue streams such as user fees. Each state is limited 

to $10 billion in incentive grants. Furthermore, the incentive grant for each project cannot exceed 20 percent 

of new non-federal revenue generated by the project. Existing projects are eligible to receive incentive grants 

based on the amount of non-federal revenue the state already raised, up to a total of $5 billion for all projeds. 

Rural Formula Funds: These grants, totaling $50 billion, are grants available to states for qualified rural 

infrastructure projeds in categories such as transportation, broadband, water, and power. From this $50 billion 

fund, $40 billion are block grants given directly to state governors to spend on qualifying projects at their 

discretion. The remaining $10 billion are similar to the incentive grants, but designated for projeds in rural 

areas. 

Transformative Projects Program: This program offers $20 billion to be allocated to both technical assistance 

and grants. The purpose of this aid is to encourage infrastrudure investments that deliver new services or that 

embody new, untested technologies and ideas. These projeds are less likely to be developed independently by 

the private sector as well as state and local governments because of their inherent riskiness. 

Infrastructure Financing Programs: These programs, totalling $20 billion, encompass a wide range of initiatives 

designed to lower the borrowing rate, reduce administrative costs, and increase loan availability for 

infrastrudure projeds. The programs are available to fund projects developed by the private sed or as well as 

state and local governments. 

Federal Capital Revolving Fund: This $10 billion fund will be made available for federal agencies to buy 

property. Instead of allocating money out of an annual operating budget to purchase property, a federal 

agency can avail itself of this funding. With equal, more digestible payments spread out over the subsequent 

15 years, the agency can pay back the revolving fund out of its operating budget. This fund is designed for use 

by federal agencies, not state and local governments. 

State and local Government Responses to Federal Infrastructure Dollars 

States have discretion over their own budgets. So, when the federal government awards aid to states for 

infrastrudure, state and local governments can, if they want, shift their own spending and revenues to fit what 

they think are their most pressing needs. When the federal government provides an extra $1 to state and local 

governments for infrastrudure spending, state and local governments have a number of choices on how to 

adjust their spending. Including the extra $1 in federal grant money, state and local governments can increase 

total infrastrudure spending by: 

• More than $1 

• Exadly by $1 

• Less than $1 

Evidence for "More than$ 7" 

il:;,;,., survey estimates of state and local government responses to federal aid. They find 

only one study, Bowman (197 4), in which total spending increases by more than the federal aid. Bowman 

4/10 
72 


32989.013

(197 4):, in which total spending increases by more than the federal aid. Bowman (197 4) finds that each dollar 

from a federal matching grant for West Virginia schools increases total spending, including the $1 from the 

grant, by $1.06--an additional 6 cents above previously planned spending levels plus federal aid. 

Knight (2002):> and Bowman (1974) claim that the limited evidence in favor of more than $1 increase in state 

spending may be due to the limited availability of matching grants without caps. Matching grants without 

caps encourage states to allocate more of their spending to infrastructure because the grants lower the state 

and local governments' cost of investing in additional infrastructure across the entire range of the projects. 

DelRossi and Inman (1999); find that changes in the cost of infrastructure investment have a strong effect on 

legislators' demand for the size of infrastructure projects. By contrast, block grants do not appear to change 

the price of an additional dollar of infrastructure investment and so are more infra-marginal in their impact. 

Therefore, an additional dollar of aid in the form of a block grant is not going to increase total infrastructure 

spending by more than a dollar. Matching grants with caps behave similarly to block grants. If the state or 

local government exhausts its matching funds, the price the government pays for further infrastructure 

investment is the same as it is in the block grant. 

Evidence for "Exactly by $1" 

Alternately, one dollar of federal aid might lead to one more dollar in total infrastructure spending. Inman 

(1971 )'lfinds that a dollar more of federal aid leads to about a dollar more in total spending. Similarly, Weicher 

(1972)·'· finds that each dollar in additional state aid to municipalities increases spending from federal, state, 

and local sources of about 90 cents, just short of a dollar. 

Evidence for "Less than $7" 

The majority of the studies, however, find that total infrastructure spending from local, state, and federal 

sources increases by less than $1 for each additional $1 in federal aid. In this case, state and local governments 

may shift some or all of the resources that would have been spent to other priorities. Although total spending 

goes up by less than a dollar in all of these studies, the range of these estimates is wide. 

Most of the studies suggest that for every dollar in federal aid, total spending goes up by an intermediate 

amount, often around 50 cents. Weicher (1972) looks at state government grants to school districts and finds 

that each dollar in aid is reflected in about a 40 cent increase in educational spending. Gramlich and Galper 

(1973)u finds similar numbers for state governments and large urban governments---43 and 25 cents 

respectively. A dollar of state grant money to West Virginia schools increases total spending by SO cents 

according to Bowman (1974); Missouri schools spend about 58 cents according to Olmsted et al. (1993).7 

Feldstein (1975)-''· finds that a dollar of state grant money to towns in Massachusetts increases total spending 

by about 60 cents, Case et al. (1993)'' finds that grants across 45 states yield about 65 cents in additional total 

spending for each dollar in aid. More recently, Singhal (2008)1 ,., finds that for every dollar from the tobacco 

settlement---similar to a federal block grant---about 20 cents is spent on anti-tobacco programs. 

A final set of studies finds that total spending goes up very little or not at all in response to federal aid. Knight 

(2002) uses a statistical methodology to show that, once legislative preferences are accommodated, total 

spending may not change at all in response to a change in federal aid. Carlino and Inman (2016)11 find that 

only 13 cents of that dollar of federal aid sticks to infrastructure spending, leading to 87 cents being shifted to 

other state spending, debt reduction, lower taxes, or higher state reserve funds. 

Applying the Empirical Literature to the FY 2019 White House Infrastructure Plan 

5/10 
73 


32989.014

We now map the evidence for state and local spending reviewed in the previous section to the individual 

components of the White House FY 2019 infrastructure plan outlined in Table 1 above. Because the previous 

literature indicates a potential range of state and local spending estimates, we consider three spending 

scenarios---Low, Medium and High---that are ordered by increasing amounts state and local spending in Table 

2. 

Table 2: Three Options for State and Local Government and Private Sector 

Response to Federal Aid for Infrastructure 

DOWNLOAD DATA 

White House 

Federal Spending Plan 

Program (billions of 

dollars) 

Incentive Grants 100 

Rural Formula Funds 50 

Transformative Projects 20 

Infrastructure Financing 20 

Programs 

Federal Capital Revolving 10 

Fund 

Federal Spending 200 

Net Total Spending 1,500 

Net Change to Infrastructure Spending by 

Federal, State and Local Governments Under the 

White House Infrastructure Plan, 

(billions of dollars) 

Low Medium High 

0 50 100 

0 25 50 

0 20 40 

10 20 30 

10 10 10 

200 200 200 

20 125 230 

Note: Under each of the above options the federal government spends $200 billion. 

When the five programs are added together, Table 2 shows that we estimate that total infrastructure spending 

will increase by $20 billion in the Low spending scenario, $125 billion for the Medium scenario, and $230 for 

the High scenario. Of course, some of the FY 2019 infrastructure plan components will produce relatively more 

"bang for the buck" within each of the three spending scenarios, which we now discuss: 

Incentive Grants: The incentive grants in the FY 2019 infrastructure plan do not provide strong incentives for 

state and local governments to invest additional money in infrastructure. These grants are mostly matching 

grants with caps, which will not change the cost of additional infrastructure once the grant is exhausted. In 

addition, states could qualify for incentive grants with existing qualifying programs or change the parameters 

on previously-planned projects, neither of which would represent any new investment. As such, these incentive 

grants are actually closer in design to block grants. The majority of the studies in the literature related to these 

types of grants suggest an increase to total spending of less than $1 for each $1 of federal grant money. For 

6/10 
74 


32989.015

each $1 of federal grant money, we assume that total spending increases by $0, SO cents and $1 dollar for the 

Low, Medium and High spending scenarios, respectively. Therefore, $100 billion incentive grants generate low, 

medium, and high values of $0, $50, and $100 billion in new public infrastructure, respectively. 

Rural Formula Funds: The White House infrastructure plan explicitly labels the $40 billion in state aid as block 

grants. The remaining $10 billion in rural formula funds are similar to the incentive grants, which, as noted 

above, are actually similar in design to block grants in the FY 2019 infrastructure plan. Therefore PWBM uses 

the same ranges for rural formula funds and incentive grants. The $50 billion in rural formula funds generates 

$0, $25, and $50 billion in new public infrastructure. 

Transformative Projects Program: This program is designed to assist in developing newer, riskier projects. As 

such, these funds and grants are less likely substitutes for other state needs. Therefore these programs are 

probably going to generate more infrastructure than the incentive and rural formula grants. For this category, 

PWBM places more weight on the studies that show that $1 of federal aid leads to $1 in total additional 

spending. These projects are also different than traditional infrastructure investments because they are riskier. 

Riskier projects will produce a wider range of values for the infrastructure being developed by this program. 

Therefore, PWBM uses a range of $0, $20, and $40 billion dollars for the value of the public infrastructure 

created through this $20 billion federal program. 

Infrastructure Financing Programs: The White House plans to use this program to improve the availability of 

loans and the borrowing rate to promote infrastructure investment from the private sector and state and local 

governments. Lower interest rates and greater credit availability results in a lower cost of building 

infrastructure and encourages additional investment. The literature, which focuses on how state and local 

governments respond to federal grants, probably understates the additional infrastructure generated by these 

types of credit programs. Part of a possible increase in infrastructure investment, however, will be muted as 

state and local governments change their existing projects to take advantage of this program. Some state and 

local governments will take planned infrastructure projects that rely on alternate funding and instead apply to 

these infrastructure financing programs for project funding. Therefore, PWBM applies a wide range of 

estimates for how state and local governments respond to this program: $10, $20, and $30 billion dollars by 

this $20 billion federal program. 

Federal Capital Revolving Fund: This fund provides money for agencies to buy physical assets such as land 

and buildings. Some of these assets may have been bought through the existing procurement process. 

However, as the new fund allows agencies to repay these loans over 15 years, those funds will be available 

again to purchase more assets. State and local government projects are mostly unaffected by this program. 

PWBM assumes that the full $10 billion allocated to this program is turned into additional public infrastructure. 

Economic Effects 

As in the previous literature and our previous dynamic brief of possible infrastructure plans, we model 

investment in public capital as a complement to private capital. In other words, more public capital investment 

raises the productivity of private capital and labor. 

The economic effects of the FY 2019 infrastructure plan are shown in Table 3, assuming that the federal share 

of $200 billion is deficit financed. By 2027, public capital rises by between 0.1 and 1.2 percent, across our three 

(Low, Medium and High) spending scenarios. However, debt is 0.5 to 0.9 percent higher as well. Even though 

public capital is modeled as a complement to private capital, higher debt dampens private capital accumulation. 

7/10 
75 


32989.016

When deficit-financed, the White House infrastructure plan, therefore, has no effect on GOP, potentially even 

slightly reducing it. 

Table 3: The Effects of $200 Billion of Federal Investment in Public Capital 

Funded with Higher Deficits on Key Variables Relative to Current Policy in 

Year Shown 

DOWNLOAD DATA 

Net Change 

to Hours Average Public Private 

Infrastructure Revenue Debt 

GOP(% Worked Hourly Capital Capital 

Year Spending by (% (% change) (% Wages Services Services 

Federal, State change) change) (% (% (% 

and Local change) change) change) change) 

Governments 

Low -0.1 0.9 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 

2027 Medium 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 -0.1 

High 0.1 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 -0.1 

Low -0.1 0.7 -0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.1 -0.2 

2037 Medium 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 -0.2 

High 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 -0.1 

Note: The $200 billion In federal infrastructure investment is financed with higher deficits. Consistent with our 

previous dynamic analysis and the empirical evhJ~nce, the projections above assume that the U.S. economy is 40 

percent open and 60 percent closed. Specifically, 40 percent of new government debt is purchased by foreigners. 

The government ls assumed to focus spending on "shove! ready" projects and so, the above projections assume 

double the spending rates and building rates applied by CBO (2 0 16). Consistent with empirical evidence, the 

projections above assume that the elasticity of output to a change in public capital is 0.05. The projections above 

assume a high rate of return to private capital. Projections that assume a low rate of return to private capital are not 

materially different. Revenue estimates change with the distribution of taxable income that reflect a dynamic 

economy. 

Table 4 shows the economic effects, assuming that the federal share of $200 billion is financed by user fees, 

which is modeled as an efficient lump-sum tax on households over the next 10 years. Public capital rises 

between 0.1 to 1.2 percent by 2027. Since the $200 is not deficit financed, debt actually falls by as much as 

0.1% due to a growing economy and tax base. The combination of more public capital and lower debt leads to 

a modest boost to private capital and an economy that is slightly larger than under current policy. 

Table 4: The Effects of $200 Billion of Federal Investment in Public Capital 

Funded with User Fees on Key Variables Relative to Current Policy in Year 

Shown 

DOWNLOAD DATA 

8/10 
76 


32989.017

Net Change 

to Average Public Private 

Infrastructure Revenue Debt GDP(% 

Hours 

Worked Hourly Capital Capital 

Year Spending by (% (% change) Wages Services Services 

Federal, State change) change) (% (% (% (% 

and Local change) change) change) change) 

Governments 

low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

2027 Medium 0.1 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 

High 0.2 -0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.2 0.1 

low 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 

2037 Medium 0.1 -0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 

High 0.1 -0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.8 0.1 

Note: The $200 billion in federal infrastructure investment is financed with higher deficits. Consistent with our 

previous dynamic analysis and the empiricu.l evidence, the projections above assume that the U.S. economy is 40 

percent open and 60 percent closed. Specifically, 40 percent of new government debt is purchased by foreigners. 

The government is assumed to focus spending on "shovel ready'' projects and so, the above projections assume 

double the spending rates and building rates applied by CBO (2016). Consistent with empirical evidence, the 

projections above assume that the elasticity of output to a change in public capital is 0.05. The projections above 

assume a high rate of return to private capital. Projections that assume a low rate of return to private capital are not 

materially different. Revenue estimates change with the distribution of taxable income that reflect a dynamic 

economy. 

Conclusion 

President Trump has presented a broad outline for infrastructure policy with a federal commitment of $200 

billion. We find that most of the $200 billion will not be spent on programs that encourage state and local 

governments to vastly expand spending on infrastructure. As a result, the plan has a very small impact on the 

size of the economy. The plan produces slightly better outcomes when funded by user fees than when deficitfinanced. 

PWBM thanks Robert P. Inmon for his helpful comments and suggestions. 

1. Bowman, John H. "Tax Exportability, Intergovernmental Aid, and School Finance Reform:' Notional Tax 

Journal27, no. 2 (1974): 163-73. ' 

2. Knight, Brian. "Endogenous Federal Grants and Crowd-out of State Government Spending: Theory and 

Evidence from the Federal Highway Aid Program:' American Economic Review 92, no. 1 (March 2002): 

71-92. https://doi.org/1 0.1257/000282802760015612. •·' 

3. DelRossi, Alison F., and Robert P. Inman. "Changing the Price of Pork: The Impact of Local Cost Sharing 

on legislators' Demands for Distributive Public Goods:' Journal of Public Economics 71, no. 2 (February 

1, 1999): 247-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/50047-2727(98)00071-1. •' 

9/10 
77 


32989.018

4. Inman, Robert P. "Towards an Econometric Model of Local Budgeting:· Proceedings of the Annual 

Conference on Taxation under the Auspices of the National Tax Association 64 (1971 ): 699-719. 

5. Weicher, John C. "Aid, Expenditures, and Local Government:' National Tax Journal 25, no. 4 (1972): 573-

83. ' 

6. Gramlich, Edward, and Harvey Galper. "State and Local Fiscal Behavior and Federal Grant Policy:' 

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 4, no. 1 (1973): 15-66. • 

7. Olmsted, George M., Arthur T. Denzau, and Judith A. Roberts. "We Voted for This?: Institutions and 

Educational Spending:' Journal of Public Economics 52, no. 3 (1993): 363-76. • 

8. Feldstein, Martin S. "Wealth Neutrality and Local Choice in Public Education:· The American Economic 

Review 65, no. 1 (1975): 75--£9. • 

9. Case, Anne C., Harvey S. Rosen, and James R. Hines. "Budget Spillovers and Fiscal Policy 

Interdependence: Evidence from the States:' Journal of Public Economics 52, no. 3 (October 1, 1993): 

285-307. https://doi.org/1 0.1 016/0047-2727(93)90036-S. c· 

10. Singhal, Monica. "Special Interest Groups and the Allocation of Public Funds:' Journal of Public 

Economics 92, no. 3 (April1, 2008): 548-64. https://doi.org/10.1 016/jjpubeco.2007.05.005. • · 

11. Carlino, Gerald, and Robert P. Inman. "Fiscal Stimulus in Economic Unions: What Role for States?" Tax 

Policy and the Economy 30, no. 1 (January 1, 2016): 1-50. https://doi.org/1 0.1086/685592. • 

10/10 
78 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you coming to me. I am chairing the Armed Services 

Committee hearing at this time, but what we are doing here is so 

significant. I am very excited and positive about it. 

Just to clarify, we have been in contact with our committees, two 

committees, Commerce and Environment and Public Works, the 

White House, and the Administration many, many times. We got 

a good running start, and good things are happening. 

I was encouraged by the President’s proposal. I think we can all 

come together, and there is no better evidence of that than a joint 

Wall Street Journal article written by Senator Whitehouse and me 

just last week. 

I ask unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record at 

this point. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

79 


32989.019

2/28/2018 Both Sides of the Aisle Want Better Roads and Ports- WSJ 

DOWJONE'S.,A'<EWSCORP(OMPANY,. 

DJIA25029.20·t50''' S&P500271Ul -lll~',y US10Yr9/l1Yiek12i164'oilo 

1i•< "''Ill'" !<>t Y""' P"IS"Mi non COI1'1ffi('{G<n! us~ only. T<> <JNgt f"<>Se~~.a# eapie• f<>< <ii•lrtb<Ai<m ~' PI' o~~eO!l""'· di~lll• "' c'Us<amur~ ""~ 

Mp:l!www.dj•eponis.cmn 

~<lpsi~W•)ComiO>I10i•s~o!h-sldos4-lh<""l"'""w.)n\.bel!rlr-N•d•-"lr>d-Jlort.·151~2S.OB3H 

COMMENTARY 

Both Sides of the Aisle Want Better Roads 

and Ports Conse-rvative Republicans and progress1ve Democrats can find cofT'mon grour1d on mfrastructure. 

I'HOTO !STOO::/GETTY!MAG\:5 

By James Jnhofe and Sheldon Whitehouse 

Feb. 71, 2018 6'13 p.m. ET 

During his Stale oflhc Union addrC'SS, Prcsidcni Trump called for a brondbipartisan 

Infrastructure package, pledging to improve the nation's infrastructure and invest in the 

fl.1tnre. lfyou bellevr the news reports on partisan bic-kering in Washington, this bipartisan 

approach might seem impossible. But we know that it can, ami will, happen. 

WPSPl'V<" on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction 

ovt'r most infrastmcture bills. Its members include staunch conservatives m1d strong 

[Jrogressives-like us. Despite our differences, the committee has produced some of the largt>st 

anrl most t'tfectiw bipartisan !rgis.lation oft he- past decade, such as laws to spur transportation 

and wa(pr projects and to harmonize the regulati011 of toxic substances, 

Now we nt>ed todoit again. There's a strong link between infrastructure investment and a 

robust economy that creates jobs. The American SociC'ty of Civil Engineers e,~timates that 

unless the U.S, st01rts making smart investments now, by 20Z5 the <:ountry will have forgone 

$a.9 trillion in gross domestic produrt, $7 trillion in business $ales and 2.5 million American 

jobs. 

Thr timr. is right to close the infrastructure gap. America's eronomy is strong and poised to 

continue growing if Congress can work together tomah smart df'C.L<;ions.ln the past few weeks 

we've heard a lot from our colleagues, Republicans and DPmorrats alike, about their respective 

pl"iorities. The path to success is to start with shared goats. 

The two of us beheve thal ste~te and local leaders should identify <mtl select the projects that are 

most needed in their commw1ities. There is no one-size-fits-all federal solution for 

infrastructure. Local communities know best what they need, whether it's to upgrade a 

wastewater facility in Warren, R.I., or repair a levee in Tulsa, Okla. 

Money should be specifically designated for rural infrastructure. The unique needs of rural 

communities often make it difficult for them to comp<>te with urban ones for private financing 

or traditional funding. By specifically designating resources for states to use in their rural areas 

-on roads or drinking and wa.stC'Wat"'r systems-we can f'nsnrc they have the means to 

upgradE' and build. 

https:l/www. wsj. com/articles/both~sid es-of~the-aisle~want-better -roads-a nd-porls-151 92 54 B3B 

Crude01161.S5 .z.:U"''" 

1/2 
80 


32989.020

2/2812018 Both S!des of the A1s!e Want Better Roads and Ports - WSJ 

foastal cammunities face their own challenges. Bridges and water-treatment plant!l' near the 

shore can confront hurrkane winds and saltwater flooding. Bond ratings account for these 

risks, meaning coastal cities and counties face higher costs to finance public projects. A smart 

infrastructure plan would emphasize investment in coastal structures and systems, including 

the great ports that support jobs in fishing, shipping and trucking. 

One way to provlde greater autonomy to cities and states would be to expand ('l\isting 

bipartisan programs. The Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act ofl998 

helps communities obtain low-interest loans to maintain roads or build a new highway. This 

program should be opened up to other forms of infrastructure, such as airports and inland 

waterways. 

Finally, Congress should streamline the process for approving new projects, so that critical 

ones can get off the ground faster. The Treasury Department reports that among the major 

obstacles to c-ompleting infrastructure projects are inefficient l'I!Views and lack of consensus 

among public and private entities< 

Changing the process so that all stakeholders are brought to the table early on would hr.lp 

bAlance competing interests while still add~ssing safety and environmental concerns. That 

would allow infrastructure projects to move forw<trd more quickly, enabling communities and 

businesses to make smart, timely investments. Meanwhile, the executive bnmch h<~.s its own job 

to do to improve its multiagency review process. 

This is just the beginning of a long road to a truly comprehensive and bipartisan infrnstructure 

bilL There are many policy areas about which Republicans and Democrats will need to debate 

nnd compromise, but that doesn't d~ter us. We believe in getting results for tht' Am('rican 

people-and that starts with linding common ground. 

Mr. Inhofe is a Republican senator from Oklahoma. Mr. Whitehouse is a Demorratic senator 

from Rhode Island. 

Appeared in the february 22, 2018, print edition< 

~O!IJ<'Uhl U<IP1,<1Hf Dow """"s &.""'~ ComO>lrty, 'n.: A'l Rlq•~• R~'"""':J 

nlb. <Cf'l' '"'lor )'Out ~·~~~~~1. "ON-<.'<!mmsrcL/1! u•o <>nl)> To o•d«c pr~~ol.oll·~ r~n.ty<:oop •~ Je< ;J;s:,.b!.Mn I~ 'I"'~ oo!II'Oqlm\, .;!"'"'" or cwwrrntr• >'!<" 

htlpi,"""""~l'epr<lli~.~A>n> 

https://w .... w.wsj.com/articleslboth~sides~of-lhe-alsle-want~better -roads-and-ports· 151 9254838 212 
81 

Senator INHOFE. I am very serious when I say this, Madam Secretary, because Senator Whitehouse is one of the more progressive 

Democrats. I am a conservative Republican, and we agree on this 

stuff. 

There is an old document nobody reads anymore called the Constitution that tells us what we are supposed to be doing here, defending America, and they called it post roads back then, so we 

have every intention of doing that. 

The Harvard Harris Polls show that 84 percent of Americans responded that we need to invest more in our infrastructure, and 

then they talk about different methods of paying for all this. 

I do think when we look at this we need to consider the additional revenue that will be coming in as a result of the increase in 

economic activity. It works out for each 1 percent increase in economic activity; it develops about $3 trillion over 10 years of additional revenue. 

This worked back in the middle 1960s with Kennedy and certainly worked with Reagan. That needs to be considered. 

Secretary Chao, I will be looking forward to working with you. 

Our Oklahoma Department of Transportation has shared with me 

that for each year of delay of a project, 3 percent of cost actually 

goes up. Timing is important. 

When funding is scarce and hard fought to earn, it can really 

limit what our States and local entities can accomplish. I appreciate the Administration’s recognition of this fact with their focus 

on project delivery reform. 

We did a great job in the FAST Act with a lot of the project delivery reforms. It was huge, so we got a lot more miles done than we 

would have otherwise. At that time, I chaired this Committee, and 

Senator Boxer was the Ranking Member. We did accomplish some 

things. 

Can project delivery be both timely and environmentally sound? 

I would ask you to respond to that, if you would. 

Ms. CHAO. Of course. Out of the 30 different regulations required 

by the FAST Act, everything has been done except for two. They 

should be coming out by June of this year. 

On the other issues about one Federal decision announced last 

August 2017, this actually addresses more than the FAST Act. It 

addresses multi-departmental, multi-agency coordination. 

We are finding as we implement what the FAST Act has asked, 

there are larger problems about permitting that spans the entire 

Government, which is why we need to tackle the rest of the permitting processes in the other departments on a multi-agency basis. 

Senator INHOFE. Your first response, people should pay attention 

to that. We have actually done that. It has been done now, so we 

can do it again. 

Secretary James, I do have a question I want to ask you concerning the Corps of Engineers. However, it is a long one, so I am 

going to submit that for the record if that is all right. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me this priority. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

82 

I wanted to start with Mr. James by asking you about the tribal 

villages along the Columbia River that we had a chance to discuss 

before. These are the villages that were flooded by building dams 

on the Columbia River. We rebuilt the city that served the Caucasian population but did not fulfill our commitment to the Native 

American tribes to rebuild their villages. 

I think you indicated some interest and support for this. I just 

wanted to check in and see if you are prepared to help champion 

getting this long overdue commitment done. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. I do think that is the right thing for this 

country to do. The tribes that were moved out of their homeland 

areas have been promised housing in other places. We should do 

that as a Nation. There is no question about that. I look forward 

to working with you in the future and will help with your efforts 

in doing that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. I sure appreciate that. 

Secretary Chao, I wanted to ask you about the basic question of 

Buy America and Buy American referring to U.S. sourced steel and 

inputs for what we build as a U.S. Government and Buy America, 

U.S. sourced steel and other products for projects funded by American grants, U.S. Government grants. 

In his inaugural address, President Trump said, ‘‘We will follow 

two simple rules, buy American and hire American.’’ Is the President still standing by this pledge for buy American? 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely, at the Department of Transportation. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, because here is the thing. Buy 

America is not mentioned at all in your infrastructure proposal. It 

is not mentioned in the context of the transportation and water 

projects; it is not mentioned as a requirement in the infrastructure 

grants; it is not mentioned in the issue of relocation of utilities; and 

it is not mentioned in the requirements for the airport improvement program, so on and so forth. 

Can you pledge to insert Buy America and Buy American into 

these proposals so that we will buy American made steel? 

Ms. CHAO. There is an executive order outstanding on January 

20, so I think it is quite clear that is governed by a different authority. But you make a good point, and I will certainly consult 

with the White House on that. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Actually, unless it is in the legislation issuing these grants, it will not actually be compelling. I 

would like to work with you to achieve that vision and that objective. 

Ms. CHAO. If I may add one other thing, we are actually applying 

the Buy America to all these grants, so thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I appreciate that a great deal. 

The second thing I wanted to explore is the challenge of whether 

we are simply moving chairs around on the deck of our infrastructure Titanic. In that regard, I have a chart I would like to show 

you. 

This chart shows that the President’s budget is taking a total of $280 billion out of infrastructure: out of the TIGER grants, $5 billion; out of the Highway Trust Fund, CBO estimates $164 billion; 

out of the new starts, almost $20 billion; out of Amtrak, $7.6 billion; Army Corps of Engineers, $14 billion; CDBG, $30 billion; 

83 

home grants, incredibly important to so many areas for housing, 

$9.5 billion; public housing capital, $19 billion; the Economic Development Administration, so important in rural areas, $2.5 billion; 

aviation, $3.6 billion; and rural water, $5.1 billion. 

These total $280 billion. If we look at what is going on here, we are cutting $280 billion for infrastructure here and adding $200 billion over here. That is a net loss on infrastructure. How does that 

fulfill the vision of an aggressive infrastructure program? 

Ms. CHAO. I think there is a disagreement about the purpose and 

use of Federal funding, which is obviously a discussion point for us 

and why we are all here. 

The numbers you mentioned are compared to the 2018 fiscal 

year. If you look at 2017, it is actually not a cut; 2018 went up, 

and therefore, that is how you consider it a cut. Nevertheless, the 

FAST Act increases the mandatory portion by more than 4 percent. 

Overall, the DOT budget is pretty much the same in 2019 as well. 

The $200 billion that has been moved has been inserted into the 

infrastructure proposal which is in another part of the overall Federal budget. 

Senator MERKLEY. I thank you for your answer. I am not persuaded by it. It appears to me we are not making the type of commitment we are pretending to make. I will close with this because 

my time is up. How quickly it passes. 

Folks back home are saying—let me get this straight. We take 

our resources and build something. The Federal Government puts 

in a tiny amount of money, and then they take credit for it. This 

is the 80-20 versus the 20-80 split we heard previously. 

They are saying, we simply do not have the 80 percent, so we 

will not build under this structure. Quite frankly, they consider it 

a bit of a farce to put in a tiny bit of money and then claim credit 

for the entire thing. There is a lot of concern that this is not really 

going to fly in terms of motivating or enabling infrastructure that 

we desperately need. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Merkley. 

Senator Moran. 

Senator MORAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

Madam Secretary and Mr. James, thank you for being here. 

I have just a couple of comments before I ask questions of the 

Under Secretary. 

For you at the Department of Transportation, I want to raise the 

topic of hours of service, a topic that never seems to end, at least 

in my life as a representative of a rural State in particular. For you 

Madam Secretary, I want to raise the mandate on the electronic 

logging device. 

There is a 90-day extension that expires March 18, a few days 

from now. I need your help with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 

Administration working with the livestock industry to delay the 

implementation of ELD. 

This really is an hours of service issue, and how do you haul livestock, live animals, and comply with the mandate, the hours of 

service law. From a humane and common sense point of view, what 

we have to date does not work, but the rubber, so to speak, is hitting the road because of the ELD mandate changing the method by 

which truckers record their hours of service. 

84 

There is a petition pending, a request for a delay. March 18 is 

around the corner. That is a 5-year delay request, but this issue 

needs more attention than just this issue of electronic logs. I thank 

you for your nodding yes and hope that is a suggestion that you 

will help us try to find a solution in the matter of just a few days. 

Ms. CHAO. I am very concerned about this issue. I have heard a 

lot on this issue from various rural Senators and Congressmen. Exemptions or waivers are one way, but we are also tied legislatively, 

so we hope to work with you on addressing that on a larger basis. 

Senator MORAN. We are working legislatively in the appropriations process, potentially in the omnibus bill, but March 18 is a 

very short period of time. They have allowed a 90-day delay, which 

gets us to March 18, which we appreciate, but it does not go far 

enough. 

Second, Madam Secretary, in your confirmation hearing, I submitted to you a question about the commercialization of rest areas. 

You indicated in your written response that you would adhere to 

the existing law. 

Congress has voted on the issue of commercializing rest areas, 

and overwhelmingly—I think the vote was 86-20 that voted against 

this commercialization. 

I do not have a specific question, but I would just highlight for 

you your answer to me. The present plan in front of us from the 

Administration does include commercialization proposals. 

Again, as a rural legislator interested in those local businesses 

and franchisees, we have a concern about that commercialization 

and the competition that could come in an unfair way. 

Ms. CHAO. I hear you. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you, ma’am. 

To the issue of water resources, in 1 minute, 58 seconds, I want 

to raise two topics with you. One is the way that lack of resources 

is a common denominator, a complaint that you would have and 

that I would have in regard to our ability to do water resource 

projects. 

I wondered about the process by which the Army Corps of Engineers has now gone to a three phase process in what used to be 

a two phase process. We now have the feasibility phase, the PED 

phase, and the construction phase. 

Mr. James, my question is has there been any consideration of 

reducing those three phases to two? Because once we get through 

the first two phases, which take a period of time, then there is no 

money for the construction phase. Can we shorten the first two 

phases into one in the hope that those projects are not lingering 

as long as they do today waiting for the funding? 

Mr. JAMES. Those are internal negotiations going on inside the 

Corps of Engineers. To answer your question, those are three completely different things. We are looking at streamlining. We know 

we want to quit wasting a penny here if we can and add the pennies and put a dollar to ground. That is what we want to do. I have 

the commitment from General Semonite, and we are going to do 

that. 

However, the three phases you talk about I think we will streamline each one of them, but I am not sure we could do away with 

85 

both of those, I mean one of those, because they even have different 

types of engineers and planners working on them. 

Senator MORAN. I thank you for your answer. If you will follow 

up with me, that will be fine. 

Mr. JAMES. I will do that, sir. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you very much. 

My final point to you is I have noticed a particular problem we 

have in Kansas related to the Corps. I will not ask a question because I am out of time. But I would highlight for you, we have ongoing dam work that the surface of the dam is a State highway. 

That requires a detour over the dam for the next several years 

while construction is ongoing. 

There are no resources to provide the detour route around the 

dam construction the Army Corps of Engineers is involved in. We 

need the Army Corps of Engineers to work more closely with State 

and local governments in advance of making the decision so that 

a solution can be found for alternative routes. 

Mr. JAMES. That is very reasonable. 

Senator MORAN. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Moran. 

Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank both of our witnesses. 

Secretary James, I want to talk about our high priorities for 

Maryland and our region in regard to environmental restoration 

and sites for dredged material. I asked you a question specifically 

about Poplar Island, which is an ongoing project in the President’s 

budget. I first want to acknowledge General Semonite’s letter that 

I received this past week in which he has completed the Chief’s report on Mid Bay, which is the next staging area to continue the 

program. 

I appreciate General Semonite’s comment, ‘‘I consider this a very 

important project for our ecosystem and navigation system.’’ That 

is what Poplar Island was authorized for, the first of its kind that 

would be a win-win situation for our navigation and for our environment. Congress specifically authorized it for that purpose and 

has funded it. 

I understand in the President’s budget submission, he reclassifies 

the project to compete solely on navigation rather than on the dual 

purpose and provides $21 million of funding which is an inadequate amount of money. We hope to address that during the appropriations process. 

I am not sure legally what basis the President has in the budget 

submission to change the authorization by Congress. I would just 

ask your cooperation to please check the legality of that but more 

importantly, to work with us because the bottom line is we want 

to be able to continue this policy which has been extremely successful for navigation and environment where we have the local community strongly supporting the site locations, and we have been 

able to maintain our channels. 

My request is if you would personally take a look at this, work 

with us, and work with the regional delegation so that we can 

make sure Poplar Island can receive what it needs for its last 

86 

diking and be able to complete its mission. We then hope to transition to Mid Bay. 

Mr. JAMES. How much time do I have? 

Senator CARDIN. If you are going to tell me, I agree with you 

completely, you can take as much time as you want. 

Mr. JAMES. I have been briefed on this area, the dredging and 

the Poplar Island situation. I could not answer that if you posed 

it as a question right now for sure. My staff will get back with you 

on the specifics, and I will be happy to work with you as we go forward. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. 

Mr. JAMES. I have an overall theme and feeling on dredging and 

dredge disposal in our country. The fact of it is that a lot of our 

dredged material placement is turned down and not allowed because of ‘‘environmental objections.’’ It actually prevents dredging, 

due to the increase in cost, from taking place. It is not just up the 

north coast; it is all around. As we move forward, as I can get out 

of the cradle, I intend to talk to the other permitting agencies 

about that and see if we can agree on a way forward. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate that. 

I will return the question; how much time do you have? If you 

do, I would invite you to join me, Senator Van Hollen, and others 

to visit Poplar Island. I think seeing it would be extremely important in understanding what has been achieved by keeping our 

channels open but also the restoration of a major part of the 

Chesapeake Bay, a former habitable island that now is a plus for 

our environment. 

I welcome working with you on that issue but recognize that 

Congress specifically did authorize that project. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. The second point I want to make, Mr. Chairman, in the remaining seconds, is to Secretary Chao. 

I am not going to go through all the revenue issues. I do not understand how we are going to get to $1.5 trillion. I do not understand the $200 billion because I think it is recycled money, so we 

are not really putting up any more. 

I say that recognizing that we have challenges. In the Washington region, I have a special interest. I commute back and forth 

from Baltimore every day. It is a challenge. We need better transit; 

we need better commuter rail; we need better ideas on rapid rail. 

Obviously, we have to work with the community to make sure 

that what we do is consistent with what the community wants, but 

we need to have the resources in order to move those forward. 

These are substantial investments that under the current funding 

laws are going to be a challenge to get. We need additional funding 

in order to achieve that. 

The last point I really want to put on the table is that we have 

a tremendous backlog in maintenance. Before we build a lot of new 

roads and bridges, are we sure that our current roads or bridges 

will not collapse? Do we have a commitment to maintain our infrastructure as part of this initiative? 

Ms. CHAO. The overall funding for roads and bridges in America 

is assumed 84 percent by the States and local areas. Actually, the 

87 

Federal funding is only 14 percent. Putting that aside, I think 

maintenance is very important. We want to work with you on that. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin. 

Senator Ernst. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to thank Senator Moran for bringing up the EDL mandate issue. I want to go a little further and ask Madam Secretary 

if there is a specific date on which the DOT will be getting back 

to our livestock haulers on that. 

Again, the time period is running out. It is just about 2 weeks 

away. We do need to have an answer there. Do you have a date 

that we can expect the DOT to respond? 

Ms. CHAO. I think the larger problem is the hours of service. If 

we do anything, it will be another extension. 

Senator ERNST. OK. 

Ms. CHAO. Another waiver. 

Senator ERNST. Waiver. 

Ms. CHAO. That is not a permanent solution, so we need to have 

a legislative fix of some sort. 

Senator ERNST. I do agree. We can expect that waiver to occur 

before the mandate runs out? 

Ms. CHAO. I am sympathetic. 

Senator ERNST. OK. We hope to see that. 

Ms. CHAO. A decision will have to come up before March 18. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Secretary. I did hear from a hauler 

yesterday that they are very, very concerned about this. Thank you 

for that. 

I would like to also visit with you, Secretary, about rural 

broadband. I was really glad to see that the Administration recognizes the importance of rural broadband deployment and making 

it eligible for funding in the framework of a rural infrastructure 

program. 

The Federal broadband loan and grant programs, such as the 

FCC’s Universal Service Fund High Cost Program and the USDA’s 

Rural Utilities Service, are already in place. I am wondering, why 

then did the Administration decide not to do direct funding through 

the existing programs? 

Not all States are going to have the level of expertise or programs in place to efficiently build out their broadband. I do understand the significance of doing block grants to the States, but why 

are we not utilizing existing programs? Do you maybe have some 

thoughts there? 

Ms. CHAO. I will look into that. I have not seen it, but you 

brought it up. Basically, 25 percent of the funds will go to rural 

America, and then it is going to be up to the Governor and the 

States as to how they want to spend that. Broadband obviously is 

one area we would encourage them to pay some attention to. 

Senator ERNST. Absolutely. Broadband is very, very important to 

rural areas. I do understand that we will have a quarter of the dollars allocated for the infrastructure package going to those rural 

areas. 

However, we also want to make sure there is expertise involved 

with building out some of those broadband networks. We will enVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
88 

courage you to go in and look at that or those working on that program just to make sure those dollars are as efficiently used as possible for rural areas. 

Ms. CHAO. Let me add one more thing. That goes through the 

FCC. 

Senator ERNST. Yes, thank you. I appreciate that. We will want 

to work with the FCC on that, but we are glad it was included in 

the infrastructure package. 

Secretary James, of course I am going to bring up one of my favorite topics, our Cedar Rapids flood mitigation project. It does 

apply to a number of other Senators as well that have projects affected by the benefit to cost ratio. 

I sent a letter to you and General Semonite in early February 

looking for answers to some of the questions I have about how the 

Corps determines which low BCR projects are funded under the 

significant risk to human safety exception. 

I have posed this question numerous times to both General 

Semonite and Director Mulvaney. We have not really figured out 

how those determinations are made for that safety exception. Do 

you have an update on how those determinations are made and 

when I will be receiving an official response? 

Mr. JAMES. No, ma’am. Since your letter, I have not been updated on that. I did ask the question, and the answer at that time, 

which was a short answer because we were weaving through everything, was that there has not been one excepted since 2012, I think 

it was. 

That is not a very good answer, and I am not giving you that for 

an answer. If you will allow me a few more days to get deeper into 

it myself, I will give you a call, meet with you, or whatever and 

try to figure this out. 

The way the budget is written and the other factors that go into 

making that determination of BC ratios just will not fit for the 

Corps to legally do that work right now. However, I want to look 

forward with you and work a way forward to see what we can do 

on it. 

Senator ERNST. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. If it does require a 

legislative fix, we need to figure that out so that rural areas, those 

low cost of living or low property value areas do have a fighting 

chance to be considered. 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, ma’am. I cannot suggest that to you, but I can 

give you any information you ask for. 

Senator ERNST. Yes. As far as the safety issue as well, a life in 

Iowa is just as valuable as a life in California or New York. 

Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Secretary, last month the NTSB issued reports on two 

rail accidents that occurred last year in Queens, New York, and 

Hoboken, New Jersey. In these reports, the NTSB found that engineer fatigue caused by undiagnosed severe obstructive sleep apnea 

resulted in the crashes in both instances. 

This is not a new issue. The engineer of the train that derailed 

in the Bronx in 2013 also suffered from undiagnosed sleep apnea. 

89 

This is a problem in other modes of transportation as well, including trucking. 

Addressing this problem is on the NTSB’s most wanted list for 

transportation safety improvements. All of this is why I was very 

troubled when the Department of Transportation announced it was 

withdrawing a proposed rule on screening rail engineers and truck 

drivers for obstructive sleep apnea. 

Given you have withdrawn the proposed rulemaking, what does 

DOT intend to do to address this very real and urgent safety concern? 

Ms. CHAO. Senator, since you brought it up, I will take another 

look. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. Thank you very much. I am very grateful. 

The second issue is about the Federal Transit Administration, 

which is an agency of your department. It has issued a rating of 

medium to low for the Gateway Program’s Hudson Tunnel Project, 

which is the second lowest possible rating. This rating means that 

the project is not eligible to move forward to the next phase in obtaining a Federal New Starts grant. 

How did the FTA take into account the funding the States of 

New York and New Jersey have committed to providing for the 

local share of the project, which is 50 percent, over $6 billion? 

Ms. CHAO. First of all, this rating was done by the career folks, 

so it occurred in the FTA multi-layers before it even comes up to 

the political appointees. 

No. 2, we are not anxious for a fight on this. But for New York 

and New Jersey to consider funds debt that we have given them 

as part of their equity back to us is something that we disagree 

with. In our calculation, New York and New Jersey are putting in 

5 percent not 50 percent. 

We will continue to talk about this. But using TIFIA loans and 

RRIF loans as part of equity is not how we define equity. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Right. But the Administration has spoken 

about a desire to have more local skin in the game when it comes 

to funding infrastructure projects, so that the Federal Government 

is not bearing the full cost. Do you think that Federal loans which 

require repayment by the State or the local entity count as having 

skin in the game for the purpose of providing local cost share? 

Ms. CHAO. It is like a mortgage. If you have to put in 20 percent 

mortgage, and you get another loan and you put down your down 

payment as for the 20 percent, that is not really equity. That is 

just another second mortgage that further encompasses the house. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Right, but if you are only putting in loans 

and not putting in any funding through grants, it means that we 

are paying for the whole project. 

Ms. CHAO. No, because our loans are 50 percent, so you are 

counting back the 50 percent we are giving to you in loans as equity. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Right, but we are paying for it. The same 

way you actually own the house, you own the house. 

Ms. CHAO. Over time, but there has to be some equity in there. 

I do not want to argue with you because this is a huge issue. It 

is huge to you, it is important to me, so let us continue to work 

90 

on it. I think it is a further definition of what equity is and what 

the local participation is. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. OK. How would you like to work forward to 

move this project forward? 

Ms. CHAO. I am open to your suggestions as well but perhaps we 

should get our groups together. I will have our staff work with your 

staff. 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Let us do that. Thank you. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. 

Senator Capito. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank both of you for being here today. 

Madam Secretary, I am very excited about the Administration’s 

attention to rural development, particularly in infrastructure. I am 

pleased about the 25 percent proposed funds that would address 

the unique needs of rural America. I echo Senator Ernst’s feelings 

on the broadband issue. 

Let me ask a question. We have received a lot of questions on 

how you are going to match this, what States are going to do, and 

what private entities are going to do. Obviously, in a State like 

West Virginia, private investment would be very difficult to attract. 

Because the Administration says raising new non-Federal revenue will be given a 50 percent weight, I live in a State that is very 

challenged, cash strapped, and rural; however, last year our voters 

voted via referendum to approve a sale of $1.6 billion in road 

bonds. You might ask how we did that. We did it with a lot of push 

from the Governor and the Secretary of Transportation. We also 

did it because there was a feeling from the ground up that we 

needed to do something about our deteriorating infrastructure on 

the State level. 

At one of our institutions in West Virginia is a radio guy named 

Hoppy Kercheval, and he came up with a great advertising theme. 

I am recommending this to you. It was FTDR. He just played it 

every day on statewide radio. It stands for fix the damn roads, and 

it worked. 

I want to make sure, even though this was passed last fall, that 

when we move forward with this infrastructure, we are going to be 

able to retroactively grab that money as part of our match. I know 

it is in the infrastructure proposal, but when it talks about years 

0 to 1, you only get X percent. It is unclear how much weight we 

are going to be able to have for the $1.6 billion we have, as a cash 

strapped State, already put into something we feel very passionate 

about. 

I would just bring this to your attention. I do not know if you 

have a comment on this, and where you think this goes. The States 

that have already made this move do not want to be left out and 

only be looking forward instead being able to look retroactively to 

a year or two previous. 

Ms. CHAO. I want to compliment West Virginia for its creativity 

and innovation. It can be done as has just been shown. Two, I also 

understand that not every rural region or State can have that kind 

of access or can do that. 

91 

That is why the rural component of the infrastructure proposal 

is not competitively bid but would be somewhat on a formula basis. 

Of course that is subject to the will of Congress. What you are talking about is a look back. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Ms. CHAO. The look back currently is 3 years. 

Senator CAPITO. Right. 

Ms. CHAO. But I hear you, and I will go back to the White House 

and talk to them about it. 

Senator CAPITO. Just a little more specificity in the rural area. 

I know I have been in numerous meetings with you and others 

where those of us who represent rural areas really emphasize the 

difficulty of attracting that private capital. 

Thank you. 

Secretary James, I wanted to talk to you about our waterways 

and the fiscal year 2019 budget request from the Corps. The Lower 

Mon locks, which are important obviously to moving cargo down 

through the Ohio River, were built in 1907. They are very antiquated and need repair. Our barge operators have already supported a tax increase, but they are not seeing the dollars coming 

to the areas most frequently utilized. 

I would like to ask you why does the Administration not propose 

spending any money on the Lower Mon Kentucky or Chickamauga 

projects in fiscal year 2019? 

Mr. JAMES. The reasoning, as I understand it in my short time 

being on the job, is they do not meet the benefit-cost ratio that is 

required for those kinds of work. 

Senator CAPITO. Are you saying it is down on a priority list, or 

are you saying we are just going to close them, and let them deteriorate to where they can no longer be used? What is the long term 

plan here? 

Mr. JAMES. I do not have that yet, ma’am. 

Senator CAPITO. Maybe we could work together on it. 

Mr. JAMES. I would be happy to work with you further on it. I 

apologize, but I just do not have a grasp on that. I do know that 

is why no work has been done on them, and they have not been 

budgeted, because of their BC ratio. 

That is about it that I know right now, but I would be happy to 

go forward working with you. 

Senator CAPITO. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Capito. 

Senator Van Hollen. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary James, first of all, let me thank you for your testimony. 

I just want to associate myself with Senator Cardin’s comments 

and questions with respect to both the success of Poplar Island in 

the Bay and the Mid Bay project. They are really important to 

navigation for the channel for the Port of Baltimore. 

I look forward to working with you and your team. We have been 

and will look forward to continuing to work with you and your 

team on that. 

Secretary Chao, thank you for your testimony. 

When it comes to modernizing our infrastructure, this is an issue 

that brings people together. I remember the night President Trump 

92 

won. The one substantive issue he talked about was modernizing 

our infrastructure. A lot of us would have liked to see us move earlier, but we are glad to try to move forward now. 

I guess my question does go to the simple budget math. One, I 

have serious questions about the leverage ratios in what used to 

essentially be a Federal program. Our highway program is 80-20. 

You have flipped that on its head for the purposes of this new proposal to 20-80. 

I support many of these private-public partnerships. You and I 

have worked together on the Purple Line in Maryland. We believe 

that will be a successful private-public partnership, but if you look 

at the funding sources, almost half comes from the Federal Government. 

That was really required to leverage both the State and local 

component as well as the private component as part of that project. 

I think there are very serious questions about the leveraging math 

that is being used. 

I have a question about the overall budget math, following up on 

Senator Merkley’s question because it really does seem like an effort to give with one hand. Of course we cannot give in terms of 

this transportation plan because we do not know the funding 

source for the Federal share, and taking away with the other. 

What is your estimate of the current 10 year shortfall in the 

Transportation Trust Fund? 

Ms. CHAO. As I mentioned, the mandatory part of the department increases 4 percent, so pretty much the budget is the same. 

It is also the same compared to fiscal year 2017. It ramped up for 

2018. That is what people are comparing to but in 2017, that was 

always the level. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I serve on the Budget Committee. We just 

had OMB Director Mulvaney recently. 

Ms. CHAO. The $200 billion actually is put in for the infrastructure. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I know that is a separate fund. You are 

putting in $200 billion, but we do not know what the source of 

funding exactly will be, but you are cutting, as Senator Merkley 

pointed out, in other parts of the budget, well over $200 billion in 

infrastructure. 

For example, you were just talking to Senator Capito about rural 

areas. You cut $5.1 billion in the 10-year budget out of rural water 

and wastewater grants. When you add it all up, including the 

shortfall. 

Ms. CHAO. That is not in my budget. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I know, but it is the case, is it not, that 

one of the uses of the $50 billion that can go to rural areas is for 

rural and water infrastructure? Isn’t that part of the plan? 

Ms. CHAO. My infrastructure portion is only transportation. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I am talking about this whole plan. Senator Capito raised the importance of the $50 billion plan. One of 

the eligible uses for that is water and sewer. The President’s budget cuts $5.1 billion from that pot of money. That is just one example. 

The other big one is the shortfall in the current transportation 

program that allows for Federal 80 and State 20. My question is, 

93 

do you have any plan as the Secretary of Transportation to fill that 

estimated $160 billion shortfall over the next 10 years? 

Ms. CHAO. That whole issue about the Highway Trust Fund has 

to be addressed because it is solvent until 2020 because of the 

FAST Act. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I just want to know if—as of today—you 

have a plan. 

Ms. CHAO. I want to work with Congress on that. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. 

My last question, Mr. Chairman, goes to following up on Senator 

Carper’s question. 

The President has now said on a number of occasions that he 

does support an increase in the gas tax to fund this $200 billion 

plan. My question is very simple. Does the President mean what 

he says about increasing that? 

Ms. CHAO. You should ask the White House. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Have you been in meetings with him? 

Ms. CHAO. Yes, I have. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. Has the President told you he supports an 

increase in the gas tax? 

Ms. CHAO. I think you need to ask the White House. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I am asking you. 

Ms. CHAO. I do not divulge conversations with the President. I 

think every Cabinet member will say that. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. OK. We are talking about a $200 billion 

plan which many of us think is already too small to start. The leverage assumptions, many of us think, are way off, but even that 

$200 billion is right now a hallucination until we have a real funding source. I am just curious if the President meant what he said. 

Ms. CHAO. I agree with you we need to find pay-fors. That is very 

important. There is no agreement on that, so we need to work on 

that. 

Senator VAN HOLLEN. I am just wondering if the President has 

found a pay-for, which is what he has said, in the gas tax. But we 

will follow up, if he has not told you, the Secretary of Transportation. 

Ms. CHAO. You will have to ask the White House. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen. 

On Nebraska Statehood Day, the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is Nebraska’s 

birthday, and I am pleased to be here. I thank the panel for coming. 

Secretary Chao, I was pleased to see that the Administration included provisions to delegate review and permitting authorities to 

the State. This builds on the work Congress did with SAFETEALU and also with MAP–21 to delegate that NEPA authority to the 

States. 

My Build USA Infrastructure Act includes similar provisions. 

Under my proposal, the States would be given the purview over the 

design, permitting, and construction authorities currently under 

the Federal Highway Administration. 

In your view, what do you see as the benefits of delegating these 

authorities to the States? I see them as being able to stretch curVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
94 

rent tax dollars so we can move forward with infrastructure 

projects. 

What is your view, Madam Secretary? 

Ms. CHAO. First of all, State and local authorities know best 

what the needs are within the community. We want to be a partner 

to the States. Two, as you mentioned, they know best also how to 

leverage, work, and partner with other sources of capital and revenues. 

Senator FISCHER. Right. Many of us tend to focus on where new 

revenue is to come from. One of my deepest concerns is how we can 

better spend the revenue, the taxpayer money, we are already 

charged with spending in a responsible manner. Thank you. 

As you know, Nebraska is currently in the process of assuming 

NEPA authority for transportation projects. Can you provide me 

with an update on that process? 

Ms. CHAO. It has been a great pleasure to work with Nebraska. 

You need to go back to the Department of Transportation and let 

them know we have really enjoyed working with them. We hope to 

sign the MOU very shortly. 

Senator FISCHER. Oh, good. That is wonderful to hear. 

We tend to benefit from consistent formula funding for infrastructure projects in the State. It seems unlikely that Nebraska 

will benefit from some of the President’s proposals when it comes 

to incentive programs or transformative projects. 

Would it be correct to say the President’s infrastructure proposal 

intends to supplement current infrastructure funding mechanisms 

such as the Federal Highway Administration’s formula funding 

programs instead of replacing those programs? 

Ms. CHAO. You are absolutely right. The dollars we are talking 

about are on top of what is in the budget ordinarily and on a formula basis. 

Senator FISCHER. As I was looking through the proposal, 80 percent of the funding under the Rural Infrastructure Program would 

be allocated to the Governors to provide States with flexibility. You 

mentioned that earlier. It is based on a rural formula. 

My question here is the rural formula is based on rural lane 

miles and rural population. But how does the Administration plan 

to define rural for the purposes of this funding? I know across the 

Federal Government there are many, many definitions for rural. 

What are you specifically looking at? 

Ms. CHAO. You were also talking about leveraging the funding. 

We are very concerned about rural America. On the specific question, I have to confess, someone told me, and I cannot remember 

now for the life of me. Let me get back to you with an answer on 

that. 

The whole issue as to how we define it, I think, but rather than 

speculate, I was told this, and I just cannot remember. I will get 

back to you on that. 

Senator FISCHER. That would be great. For example, a lot of 

times, rural gravel roads are included in a formula, paved roads; 

the current definition used by the Federal Highway Administration, I would be interested to know if you are looking at the USDA, 

some of their definitions of rural as well. 

If you could get back to me, that would be great. 

95 

Ms. CHAO. I will certainly do so. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. 

Also on the rural infrastructure program, the proposal included 

language to develop rural interstate projects. An important interstate expressway project we have in Nebraska is in our panhandle. 

That is the Heartland Expressway. It is part of the larger Portsto-Plains Corridor that runs north to south across this country. 

When it is completed, the Heartland Expressway will provide 

greater access for our agricultural products to the country and help 

to have this multi-lane, divided highway access. Can you elaborate 

on how rural interstate projects would qualify for rural funding 

under the President’s proposal? Is there anything specific on rural 

interstates, especially when they connect through States from Canada to Mexico, like the Ports-to-Plains Project? 

Ms. CHAO. The department has sent guidelines and principles. 

We did not send legislative language. That is an indication that we 

want to work with the Congress on how to define some of these 

things. 

Senator FISCHER. We will look forward to working with you on 

that. 

Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. 

Secretary BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Fischer. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

Welcome to both of the witnesses. 

Let me start by saying we have heard a great deal in the course 

of this hearing about rural infrastructure. I would like to focus a 

little bit on coastal infrastructure. America has coasts. Some of us 

represent States that have coasts. 

Along those coasts, we are seeing very serious predictions of very 

considerable sea level rise, including predictions that continue to 

come from the Federal Government under this Administration. 

Working with NOAA, Rhode Island is looking at as much as 9 feet 

of vertical sea level rise by the end of the century. 

If that were to happen, Amtrak is gone through Connecticut. The 

map of my State would have to be redrawn. A considerable amount 

of our wastewater infrastructure, which tends to be low because of 

where it stands in the gravity flow, has to be relocated. Coastal 

highways, coastal evacuation zones, and flood maps mean an enormous amount of work has to be done to prepare for what we now 

have been very strongly told by the Federal Government is coming 

at us. 

I am a bit concerned that words like coastal, sea level rise, or 

storm surge—things we have to live with and prepare for—do not 

appear in the infrastructure plan. I am hoping that as we develop 

this plan, you will be accommodating of that fact and of our coastal 

States’ needs that infrastructure be designed, redesigned, and 

maybe even relocated for the foreseeable prospect of that kind of 

damage. 

Ms. CHAO. Senator, you and I have talked about this issue. I 

know that it is highly important to you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I may not be the only one. There are a 

bunch of us that are coastal. 

96 

Ms. CHAO. You have brought this up many times with me. I had 

not thought about that, so let me take a look at the outline. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. I just want there to be a little 

reflex in your mind that whenever you hear rural, you also think, 

rural and coastal, rural—oh, and coastal. 

With the Corps, unfortunately, we are not much better off, Mr. 

James. The Corps’ proposed fiscal year 2019 budget asks for about 

$1.5 billion, $1.481 billion to be exact, for its Flood and Coastal 

Storm Damage Reduction Program. 

Out of that, $1.48 billion, we can identify $40 million that is 

marked for coastal projects. The remaining $1.44 billion is marked 

for inland projects. When you look at what is coming at our coasts, 

when you look at what NOAA is telling us to expect, when you look 

at what the Department of Defense is telling us to expect, when 

you look at the preparations the Navy has to make for its Navy 

bases, it is really hard for me to understand why there has to be 

a 37 to 1 ratio in favor of inland projects over coastal projects. How 

do you defend that to coastal States? 

Mr. JAMES. Sir, I remember discussing this with you during my 

confirmation hearing. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I can be like a bad penny; I keep turning 

up on this stuff. I think every one of my colleagues would be equally exercised if an essential feature of their State was overlooked 

completely by a factor of 37 to 1. 

Mr. JAMES. My answer to you on that suggestion is that it is not 

37 to 1, it may be 37 to 1 of the entire dollars, but all of the 

projects are processed and considered the same, whether they be 

coastal or inland. That tells me there is just a lot more inland 

projects that require flood damage assistance than coastal. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I do not want to be in a position in which 

the budget does not authorize funding for coastal projects, that it 

is $40 million out of $1.4 billion, with the result that people do not 

apply because they look at that budget and say, it says in huge letters the coastal communities are not welcome here. 

Maybe they are not participating because they take a look at this 

and say, oh, my gosh, this is all for inland and upland stuff. That 

is an invitation for us to stay away. I do not want to be in a situation where we are not getting projects because of the budget, and 

you are saying that is because there are not enough projects in 

there. 

There is a circularity to that argument that leaves coastal communities in real trouble. I do not think coastal projects should be 

second class citizens in your budget by this kind of a factor of 37 

to 1. 

I know Mississippi is important. I know it floods. I know there 

are upland floods in other places. But for crying out loud, when you 

are looking at a 9 feet sea level rise coming along our coasts, there 

is a lot of infrastructure work that needs to be done to prepare for 

that. 

I hope you will find a way to send a signal to our organization 

and to coastal communities that coastal projects are, in fact, welcome here and are, in fact, a key, a critical part of the Army Corps’ 

task. 

97 

Mr. JAMES. I have no problem with that. That was not my personal thinking to begin. I was just trying to explain to you if we 

had 100 flood risk damage reduction projects in this country and 

50 were coastal and 50 were inland, from what I understand right 

now, it would be equal application to those two areas. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We will see. That is not what the signal 

is from the budget. 

I just want to close by saying I do not ascribe this to you. I do 

not think you personally have any distaste for coastal projects. We 

have talked our way through this before. I have full confidence in 

your personal judgment, but the Army Corps is a big bureaucracy, 

and 37 to 1 is a very big signal in a budget. I will leave it at that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. JAMES. Senator Whitehouse, as important as it is to you, I 

will get with the Chief and his team, get with my team, and let 

me get back with you. If I have said anything that is not right or 

if I was right, let me make sure. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that. You have been great to 

work with. Thanks. 

Mr. JAMES. Let me make sure. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Sullivan. 

Senator SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate, Madam Secretary and Secretary James, your being 

here. I think the Administration’s principles on infrastructure actually were a really good start. We appreciate the opportunity to 

work with you. 

I want to reinforce what Senator Carper said earlier. I was a bit 

surprised by the leadership in the Senate, on my side, on the Republican side, saying they did not look like they were going to have 

time. We should make more time. If we do not have time, let us 

work weekends. 

Every American believes this is important. I think it is a great 

opportunity for bipartisan support. I am not sure what my leadership was talking about, but I think this is a huge priority. I know 

it is for you, Madam Secretary, and the President. Let us get to 

work. We should create time. This is a good opportunity. You are 

seeing it here in this hearing. 

Secretary Chao, I want to thank you for the Alaska visit and the 

summit we had on infrastructure. The Sterling Highway is now 

starting to move forward. It only took 25 years of permitting 

delays. Other than that, it is starting to look good. 

In your previous comments this morning on the importance of 

permitting, you touched on it a bit. Can you talk a bit about this 

whole idea of the funding actually for infrastructure in some ways 

can be a function and will be a function of how aggressively we address permitting reform, meaning if you have significant permitting reform? 

You know I have a bill, the Rebuild America Now Act. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record an op-ed I had with the 

head of the Laborers International, Terry O’Sullivan, on the importance of permitting reform. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

98 


32989.023

3/1/2018 

Justin ... 

Top GOP donor sought 

$75M fee if DOJ ended 

probe into Malaysian 

scandal: report 

!NTE~NATIOI\IAL-JhAG<l 

US denying refugee 

applications by Iranian 

Christians despite 

Trump order: report 

INTEil:I\II>TIONI>l-11M·-,~M'D 

Twitter puts out call for 

ideas to improve 

'health' of platform 

House panel: Russia 

aimed to disrupt US 

energy markets using 

social media 

Scaramucci blasts 

'General Jackass' Kelly 

for driving away Trump 

staff 

Matt Schlapp says 

Mercedes 'very open' to 

replacing Hope Hicks 

BtOGBRIHINGROO.., 

Sanders allies endorse 

Texas candidate 

attacked by DCCC 

10 questions about 

school safety 

View Latest Opinions>> 

Infrastructure package must include permitting reform I TheHi!l 

Infrastructure package must include 

permitting reform 

!IY SEN. DAN SUlliVAN (II•ALASI(AJ_ ANt> lEIIRY O'liUU!VI>N, OPINION CONTil:!OUTORS - 02{12/16 10.\S AM EST 

TI-U:VIEWSEXPR£SS£1)8YCONTRtSUTOIISARJiTHEIROWNAN!IHOTTHEVIEYI'OFTk£Hltl 

231 SHARES 

pl;oc><sc !ike m Alaska. there are ent1re comrnumties that don't even h~VG 

our schools are crumbling. 

We can do much better for our c1t1zens, and we be!1eve that the Trump 

adrnHoistration's focus on infrastructure presents our nation with 

process that adds years and costs to projects- sometimes resu!tmg m the 

deoth of those pro)eots altogether. 

passed m 1970, The act mandates emnronmental1mpact statements {E!Ss) 

be conducted on proJects that have significant 1m pact on the 

environment E'JSs were meant to 1nc1ease public mput and transparency 

fo1 

resulting lrtan 

opaque process accessible only to lawyers and bureaucwts. Public input 

not served by th1s broken process 

local governments and private businesses then have to n<:JVIgate reams of 

http:llthehill.comlblogs/congress~b!oglpolitics/373384·infrastructure·package-must-incJude-permitting-reform 113 
99 


32989.024

3/1/2018 

GOP strategiSt confronts 

ex-Trump staffer: Tm ... 

Infrastructure package must include permitting reform 1 TheHiU 

federa!regu!atJOns. 

growth opportuni\tes are m1ssed and our nation's crumbling ,nfrastructure 

gets worse. 

So what's to be done? A bill lhat Sen. Sui!Nan 1nttoJuced. the Rebuild 

America Now !\ct. prov1des a dotadod and sound bluewmt for hx1n)! the 

problem 

The bill w11! prov1ck rca!ist1c dead!m~~s for NEPA rev1ews, expands 

exclusion of those rev1ews for emergency and v•tal infrastructure proJects 

-like the rebuilding currently underway m areas h1t by hurncanes, as well 

as 'fl cmnmumt1es 1n Califorma that have been dcc1m.ated by wildfires. 

Addit!Dnal!y, the bill simplifies NEPA documents and lm11ts needless 

our country 

One of the many lessons we learned from the Amenc,<n Recovery and 

spent on prowcts that weren't necE'ssary or have s1nce been abandoned 

and or rrmed 1n controversy. 

An Incredible $200 

Intra Bonus Just For 

Using This Card 

particularly the Amenciln worker. Amencans were provd to bUild the 

Pentagon m 16 months, the H0over Dam m f1ve years, and the 1.SOO·mde 

Ahska-Canadmn H•ghwe~y m only e1ght months. 

Amenca 11sed to be known as a country that built great structures on time 

and on budget. If rea! federal pern\lttln~ reform IS part of a b!Oad·basecJ 

Infrastructure imt1a.t1ve, we can b(~ that country aga:n 

Sui/Nan IS the JUnior senator from Alaska and Terry O'Sulilwm 1s pres1d(~nt 

of the Laborers' lnromatlonal linton of North AmenC<l (LIUNA), 

hUp://thehill.com/blogs/congress~blog/politics/373384-infrastruc\ure-package-must-indude-permitting-reform 213 
100 

Senator SULLIVAN. Madam Secretary, can you touch on that, how 

permitting reform is actually, in some ways, a driver of how much 

money we are going to be able to get with regard to particularly 

private sector money into broader infrastructure in America? 

Ms. CHAO. As was mentioned, with every year’s delay in permitting, there is an increase of a minimum of 3 percent. Project costs 

increase every year the longer they are stretched out. 

Second, the permitting aspect, we are not talking about not protecting the environment; we all care about the environment. We 

are talking about common sense ways to reduce duplicative, redundant, sequential permitting which can actually be done concurrently, or we can have sister agencies share information. 

As of now, within the Department of Transportation, one office 

in Transportation does their own study; they do not share with another office at the Department of Transportation, thereby lengthening the whole process. The other thing also with permitting is 

the private sector, which is very eager to finance a lot of these public infrastructures, would be deterred if indeed permitting were to 

add years of delay and increase their risk. 

Senator SULLIVAN. On highways, the average time it takes to 

permit a bridge in New Jersey, New York, or Rhode Island is like 

6 or 7 years. If we could bring that down to 1 year or a year and 

a half, you will have less uncertainty and more private sector dollars. 

By the way, as you know, Madam Secretary, the UK, Canada, 

and Australia all permit infrastructure projects in a year, year and 

a half, or 2 years. This is not something radical. The radical position is how delayed we are. Isn’t that the case? 

Ms. CHAO. Yes. In fact, when you talk about Sterling Highway, 

when I went to visit Alaska, it was actually 35 years in the making, to get that to a remote Alaskan village that really needed help. 

Senator SULLIVAN. You are not going to get private sector money. 

Thank you. We want to continue to work with you on that. 

Secretary James, I wanted to talk briefly about wetlands. My 

State has over 60 percent of the Nation’s wetlands—60 percent in 

Alaska for the whole country. We have wetlands totaling approximately 270,000 square miles. That is larger than the State of 

Texas. 

When we have Section 404 permitting requirements with the 

Corps and EPA, and the mitigation requirements that come with 

that, it is almost always a disproportionate cost and delay with regard to infrastructure in Alaska. 

We will have some questions for the record. I wanted to ask you 

very quickly, a number of us have been looking at the Clean Water 

Act, relevant regulations from the Executive agencies from both 

Democrat and Republican administrations previously that give 

Federal agencies sufficient flexibility and latitude to take Alaska’s 

unique circumstances into consideration of wetland permitting 

processes because the vast majority of the wetlands in the country 

reside in my State. 

It just takes an inordinate amount of time to get through the 

Section 404(c) permitting. Can I get your commitment, Mr. Secretary, to work with us on these kinds of flexibilities that we beVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
101 

lieve already exist in the regs and the laws, to work with you and 

your office on this kind of flexibility on Section 404(c)? 

Mr. JAMES. Yes, sir. I would be happy to. 

Senator SULLIVAN. I want to thank you again, and General 

Semonite, on the work you have done with regard to the Port of 

Nome. You may have heard just recently there was a cost share 

agreement between Nome and the Corps for the study of the port 

there. I think we have made good progress on that. I appreciate 

that. 

Mr. JAMES. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. 

I would like to point out the vote is going to start in about a 

minute. We still have four people to ask questions. We have 5 

minute rounds. I am going to have to ask you to please hold it 

within the 5 minutes for each of those. 

Senator Markey is next. 

Senator MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I welcome you here, and clearly we want to have a huge infrastructure program that opens up in our country. We need it desperately. 

The way I look at the formula in the Trump proposal is that it 

takes $200 billion in existing Federal infrastructure money and repackages the same money as a new program. Then, in step two, it 

flips the formula from 80 percent coming from the Federal Government and 20 percent from local and State government to 20 percent coming from the Federal Government and 80 percent that 

would come from the State and local governments. 

Maybe it is like the miracle of the loaves and fishes; it did work 

2,000 years ago. But I just do not think it is going to work here 

where the local governments cannot come up with 80 percent of the 

money and the reason we need national infrastructure bills is that 

they need the help and they need the Federal Government to come 

in. 

I will be honest with you. My fear is I just think that Wall Street 

will say, we will come in and help, but they will have to be paid. 

That is going to be tolls they are going to want to impose on drivers, on communities as a way of getting paid. That is how Wall 

Street operates. 

As a result, it changes the relationship between the infrastructure in our country and ordinary citizens. I just think they will 

wind up being tipped upside down and having money shaken out 

of their pockets ultimately to pay for infrastructure that historically, under the 80 Federal and 20 local funding, was subsidized by 

the government in order to make sure the roads are there for everyone. 

I have a big problem with the math. I just do not think it is 

going to work. I agree when Wharton and the Heritage Foundation 

agree upon something, and they are agreeing with Ed Markey, that 

there is new recombinant political DNA that is out there that requires a better explanation of how these projects will get built. 

I do know that Wall Street would love to have the National Environmental Policy Act to just be gutted and be dramatically watered 

down. That is what this infrastructure proposal does. It takes the 

102 

constitution of the environment for the last 50 years, the National 

Environmental Policy Act and makes fundamental changes. 

One, it would cut the amount of time the public has to sue over 

bad projects from 6 years down to 150 days. That would be great 

if you want to be a Wall Street firm and get a quick return on your 

investment. 

However, if you are a community, and all of a sudden you hear 

there is a brand new road coming through a whole section of town, 

and you are told you have 150 days to mount a battle against a 

Wall Street law firm that is just going to truncate your rights, that 

is going to be, I think, something that is very disastrous for local 

communities all across the country. 

Second, the bill also expands the ability of agencies to simply decide that certain types of projects have no environmental harm at 

all; the agency decides it. It is a single agency, by the way. One 

agency would make the decision. 

Secretary Zinke would be able to decide that pipelines can go 

through parks, and the other agencies would not be able to get into 

the middle of that. Similarly, the EPA would be truncated in their 

ability to be able to make decisions that were appealable because 

the Secretary of Transportation would make all of these decisions, 

and the agencies would not be involved. 

I just have a problem with the formula. I would like to give you 

a chance to respond to it because that is the core of it. The money 

is not sufficient, and the environmental reviews are truncated. 

Ms. CHAO. I do not have that. 

Senator MARKEY. Whatever you can do. 

Ms. CHAO. I think it is important to emphasize that we want to 

do this on a bipartisan basis. As we go forward, these are issues 

you are concerned about. Let us talk about them. 

Senator MARKEY. I still have 12 seconds to say that if it is not 

changed, if there isn’t a fundamental change made, then citizens 

are going to wind up with their environmental protections being 

watered down. They are going to be tipped upside down and have 

money shaken out of their pockets to pay for the fees in our country. 

Ms. CHAO. As I mentioned, we have no intention of diluting any 

environmental protections. If you look at the bureaucratic way in 

which permitting occurs, a lot of it does not make sense. They are 

redundant, duplicative, replicate one another, and discourage communications among sister agencies. There are many, many ways in 

which the permitting process can be streamlined and improved 

without compromising on environmental protection. 

Second, on the roads and bridges, the 80-20 rule only applies to 

interstate; 84 percent of the roads and bridges that are in each 

State are funded by the State. The Federal Government’s share is 

only 16 percent. Overall, infrastructure is traditionally actually 

funded by the States. It is only for the interstate that the Federal 

portion comes in. 

Senator MARKEY. Which is the essence of this. 

Ms. CHAO. The infrastructure is everything actually. The infrastructure proposal is whatever a local community wants. They decide and make a targeted appeal to this competitive process. The 

more creative and innovative they can be in financing, meaning if 

103 

they can get more private sector and other party involvement, they 

actually will be in a better position to win the Federal grants. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Markey. I appreciate 

your questions. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. We appreciate your hard work. We 

also appreciate the fact that you are honoring your commitment to 

make yourselves available periodically. It is very, very helpful. 

Secretary Chao, I would like to ask you a question. It is not 

under your purview in the sense that this is a water question. 

However, since you are such a major player in the infrastructure 

package, I really think we are in a situation now where you cannot 

think in terms of just one thing. 

We can put in our roads, runways, and railways, but if you do 

not have the water infrastructure to back that up, it simply does 

not work. We are in a situation now where things are aging, and 

there is a tremendous need. 

Senator Booker and I have introduced the Securing Required 

Funding for Water Infrastructure Now, the SRF WIN Act. We have 

had tremendous success with outside organizations and multiple 

sponsors in Congress. 

We are trying to make it such that we allow the State Revolving 

Funds—the SRFs—to bundle multiple drinking water and wastewater projects together and submit them to the EPA for approval 

through the Water Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act, 

the WIFIA Act, the WIFIA Program. 

Because every State is AAA bond rated, and all of our projects 

have ratepayers, the SRF WIN Act really answers some of the concerns of Senator Markey in the sense that we can have tremendous 

leveraging ability. These are not grants. These are actually getting 

paid back. 

As a result of that, I really would encourage you, as you are putting together these things, to look at this. Hopefully, the Administration can support, and hopefully you can support it in an effort, 

as I said, to take the dollars we can and leverage as much as we 

can in a common sense way. 

Ms. CHAO. I will bring this back to the White House and also the 

EPA Administrator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Secretary James, it is good to have you here also. 

Arkansas is a rural State that relies heavily on agriculture, as 

you know very well. In fact, we are the No. 1 rice producing State 

in the country, third in cotton, and the list goes on and on. Ag is 

No. 1 in our State, as it is in so many other States throughout the 

country that we forget about, and adds about $16 billion to our 

economy. Many hardworking Arkansans rely heavily on the inland 

waterways and ports to ship their crops across the Nation and export them all over the world. 

Tell us the consequences for rural and agriculturally dependent 

States if we do not invest in our Nation’s inland waterways and 

ports. Do you feel that the Administration’s principles for infrastructure properly address America’s inland waterways? 

104 

Mr. JAMES. I do feel that the infrastructure bill does address the 

waterway system. His submission of that bill to us allows us to be 

able to move forward. It does cover our inland waterway infrastructure. 

You and I know this. For the other members and for the record, 

if the inland waterway of the McClellan-Kerr Arkansas River shuts 

down, everything from mid-Oklahoma down to the Mississippi 

River would be shut off. It is a huge amount of prosperity, a huge 

amount of interstate commerce that comes from that. 

The same goes for every other running navigable stream in our 

country. A lot of them are provided by locks and dams as most of 

our inland waterway infrastructure is in locks and dams. The Mississippi below Cairo, Illinois, is not; it is a free flowing stream 

which requires a lot of maintenance due to the major flooding that 

the lower Mississippi Valley receives. 

Without the navigation, there is no way. Grain would be spoiled 

on the ground, and our balance in trade would quickly go out the 

back door. Because, as I understand it, for years and years and 

years now the balance of trade has been supported by the agriculture community. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you very much. 

Thank both of you again for your hard work. We appreciate it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Booker. 

Senator BOOKER. Thank you very much. 

Out of respect for my colleague, I want to try to go really quickly. 

First, just a hearty thank you to both of you for your testimony, 

your commitment to your jobs, and the mission of our country. 

Secretary Chao, I am grateful to have you here again. Thank you 

for your willingness to engage with my team and the other four 

Senators dealing with this Gateway project. You have been incredible. We had a meeting at the White House with the President just 

on this issue. You came to Senator Schumer’s office for what I 

thought was a very constructive dialogue. 

You indicated to Senator Gillibrand that to deal with some of 

these issues, we probably need to get our teams together again. 

Would you be willing to commit to meeting again with Senator 

Schumer and us as we did a few months back? 

Ms. CHAO. Of course. 

Senator BOOKER. Great. 

Ms. CHAO. I would also add that Gateway is not one project. 

There are nine projects involving $30 million. 

Senator BOOKER. Multiple projects. You and I are both familiar 

and do not need to state for the record, but time is running. 

The second thing is, you committed also that you will come up 

and visit us and see the project. We have had Republicans and 

Democrats do it. It is stunning to go through the tunnels and see 

the crisis. That commitment stands, right? 

Ms. CHAO. I have been trying to do that. 

Senator BOOKER. I know. You and I have been trying to work our 

schedules. 

Third, the multiple projects that are involved, I heard the back 

and forth between you and the Senator on loans, how they are 

counted and the like. Is that the standard now for all projects in 

105 

America that the Federal commitment does not count as a State 

commitment, the loans? Is that new? 

Ms. CHAO. I am not so sure this is new. It has always been that 

way, No. 1. Second, we would disagree; there was never any Federal commitment. It was a verbal commitment, a verbal sentence 

given at a rally, a political rally no less. There was no commitment 

from the Federal Government. 

Senator BOOKER. No, no, I understand. But the downgrading is 

because of? 

Ms. CHAO. It has always been this way. Loans are not counted 

as equity. 

Senator BOOKER. That contradicts your Web site. Can I read 

what your Web site says? 

Ms. CHAO. OK. 

Senator BOOKER. From the FHWA Web site, it says ‘‘TIFIA, the 

proceeds of a secured TIFIA loan, will be used for any non-Federal 

share of project costs required under Title 23 or Chapter 53, Title 

49.’’ That is what your Web site says. It contradicts what you are 

saying here. 

Ms. CHAO. Then I need to look at it. Thank you for bringing it 

to my attention. I will take a look at it. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. Take a look at that. We should have a fair 

standard because I know these programs. This would crush every 

area of our country if you shifted that to what you represented to 

the Senator. Your Web site says this, and my familiarity with that. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you for bringing it up. That is not my understanding, but let me take a look at it. 

Senator BOOKER. I really appreciate that. 

The last thing is to champion the great work you guys are doing. 

The Department of Transportation’s efforts on the Gateway Tunnels’ environmental impact statement has been amazing and inconsistent with what everyone has been saying, let us cut the regulatory time. 

My understanding is the Gateway Project Development Corporation has finalized their environmental impact statement and is on 

track for a final EIS pending DOT approval at the end of March. 

This is an incredible achievement. They are literally cutting in half 

the typical amount. This is actually you all cutting bureaucracy 

and cutting time. I just want to make sure of commitment by the 

Department of Transportation and everything is on schedule to 

achieve something we all can brag about as testimony to the 

Trump administration’s cutting red tape. Can we make sure we get 

that done by March 31 as was committed? 

Ms. CHAO. I would love to promise you that. I don’t know whether I can. I will take a look at that. 

Senator BOOKER. OK. Because we have made incredible time. 

Out of respect to my colleague, I will end early. 

Ms. CHAO. Thank you. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Duckworth. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. I thank Senator Booker for being so generous with his time. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Carper. 

Secretary Chao and Secretary James, it is so nice to see both of 

you again. 

106 

Secretary Chao, I see a lot of philosophical similarities between 

the President’s infrastructure proposal and the goals of DOT’s Infrastructure to Rebuild America Grant Program established last 

year, the INFRA Grant Program. 

I understand both seek to align Federal investments with national and regional economic goals. There is some emphasis on 

leveraging Federal funds with non-Federal funding, including public-private partnerships and also to promote innovative solutions to 

improve project delivery. Is it fair for me to say that? 

Ms. CHAO. Yes. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. As you know, the 75th Street Corridor Improvement Project in Chicago, which is part of the CREATE 

Project, meets all of INFRA’s program goals. The project provides 

robust national and regional benefits, would increase national 

freight and passenger railway activity, and is reflected by the support of nine different Midwestern States, each of the Class I railroads, and numerous corporate interests. 

In fact, a study by the University Illinois highlights that threequarters of the CREATE Program’s impacts would actually occur 

outside of the Midwest. More than 65 percent of the project costs 

are already committed through a public-private partnership. 

Given the robust support and alignment of the goals of all levels 

of government, the environmental review and record of decisions 

are also complete, so the project can move forward as soon as you 

give it the green light. I am asking that you give this critical 

project your full consideration as you finalize the INFRA grant 

awards moving forward. 

Ms. CHAO. I will certainly do so. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you. Do you have a sense of when 

the INFRA awards might be announced? 

Ms. CHAO. We have to get the TIGER grants out which will 

hopefully be in the next 2 to 3 weeks. After that, then we will turn 

to the INFRA so hopefully by the summertime if not sooner. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. OK. Back to the infrastructure proposal, 

the Administration is calling the plan a major investment in our 

Nation’s infrastructure. Yet, as my colleagues have noted, the 

President’s fiscal year 2019 budget cuts more infrastructure than 

would be invested. 

How is this a major infrastructure investment when you propose 

spending less than we already do? 

Ms. CHAO. I think this is a policy difference. We can talk more 

about that. What is important is that this infrastructure proposal 

needs to be done on a bipartisan basis. If we can separate out from 

the budget, go forward, and take a look at the infrastructure, we 

very much look forward to working with both the majority and the 

minority in the Senate and the House. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. We are going to need more than $200 billion to be able to move forward. 

Ms. CHAO. Absolutely we are. That is where we need to have the 

private sector involved, and we need to leverage the funds. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Also, I would like to state that I join my 

colleagues who mentioned their concerns for our livestock haulers 

with the EOD deadline coming up. I have heard from people in IlliVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:00 Jan 03, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\32989.TXT SONYA
107 

nois who haul cattle, hogs, and even equine. This is a real issue 

in our ag States. I would appreciate your attention to that. 

Mr. James, as I know you are aware, our inland waterways have 

long enjoyed a Federal-private partnership through a diesel fuel 

tax paid by barge operators that covers 50 percent of the cost associated with maintaining and modernizing our locks and dams. 

I was troubled to hear that the Administration’s budget seeks to 

alter that longstanding relationship by promoting a per vessel fee 

to fund our aging locks and dams. Again, as you know, that is a 

non-starter for commercial operators who would bear the cost. 

Would it be easier and more practical to consider alternatives 

that allow the Corps to keep some of the revenues that you already 

generate but are required to deposit into the U.S. Treasury like 

recreational fees and hydropower revenue? 

For example, with the hydropower revenue, you generate around $1.5 billion that goes into the Treasury. If we could keep a small 

percentage of that within the Corps of Engineers, you could actually apply some of that to some of the associated cost with the 

maintenance. 

Mr. JAMES. Senator, that is an interesting proposal that I have 

heard many times throughout my career, even before I became the 

ASA. It is a very interesting proposal. I would be willing to look 

at some numbers with you or the Committee at any time that 

would be of interest to you. It is very interesting to me. Thank you 

for that question. 

Senator DUCKWORTH. Thank you very much for your interest. 

That is all the questions I have. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much. 

I appreciate the members being here. 

I have a request for a submission for the record. We, at the Committee, received numerous requests for submissions for the record 

from different organizations impacted by the infrastructure policy. 

In order to ensure the full breadth of the policy options are included in the record, I ask unanimous consent that they be added 

to the record. 

Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

108 


32989.025

February 5, 2018 

The Honorable Mitch McConnell 

Majority Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Speaker 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Chuck Schumer 

Minority Leader 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi 

Minority Leader 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Majority Leader McConnell, Minority Leader Schumer, Speaker Ryan, and Minority Leader Pelosi: 

As leading associations in the construction industry, we write to express our support for urgent and 

necessary reforms to our nation's broken immigration system and to thank you for your leadership in 

prioritizing this issue in the 115th Congress. We are encouraged by the momentum that is building on 

Capitol Hill and in the White House to pursue key reforms that enhance our security and promote 

America's economic prosperity. However, border security measures must also be accompanied with 

broader and bipartisan reforms to immigration policy that addresses the workforce needs of our 

nation's employers. 

The recovery of the United States' economy and renewed investment in residential, commercial, and 

infrastructure development over the last few years has been a welcome change for construction 

businesses. However, this turnaround is exacerbating already significant labor challenges in the industry. 

Systemic labor shortages rank at the top of companies' lists of most significant problems and are already 

contributing to rising costs in construction. Despite our efforts to recruit and train American workers, 

the construction sector faces a very real growth and afford ability crisis if work is increasingly delayed or 

even cancelled due to a lack of domestic labor. 

Our organizations unequivocally oppose illegal immigration, and for almost two decades have 

repeatedly asked Congress to address the problems in the legal immigration system in the U.S. to create 

a sensible and practical way for our industry to access legal foreign-born workers. True immigration 

reform must include a mechanism for construction industry employers to get the temporary foreign 

workers they need when American workers are unavailable. Our industry must be able to access a 

program where we can hire legal, foreign-born workers in order to supplement the U.S. construction 

workforce when the economy needs them. 

Nowhere is the worker shortage more starkly illustrated than in the hurricane recovery efforts taking 

place in Texas, Florida, Puerto Rico, United States territories in the Caribbean, and in the wake of 

devastating fires and mudslides in California. Unfortunately, current temporary worker programs such 

as H-28 offer almost no support to the construction industry, and do not reflect the real needs of an 

industry that operates year-round in the United States. As a solution, we strongly urge Congress to 

establish a new market-driven visa for temporary foreign workers to enter the United States when the 

economy needs them, and fewer when our economy contracts. A successful guest worker program will 

help alleviate the current labor shortage in the construction sector, quicken our ability to rebuild 
109 


32989.026

communities and infrastructure from a spate of natural disasters, and support the overall economic 

growth of this nation. 

We also recognize the need to establish a fair, efficient and workable national employment verification 

system that provides confirmation of the work authorization status of prospective employees but that 

also ensures liability protections for employers who comply in good faith. A workable verification system 

will provide one set of rules for employers to follow no matter their location in the United States, will 

give robust liability protection to employers who use the system in good faith, and will ensure that all 

U.S. employers are held responsible for the work authorization status of their direct employees. Our 

organizations continue to strongly support the reintroduced Legal Workforce Act, which recognizes the 

concerns of the business community by including strong safe harbor protections for employers and, of 

significant importance to companies operating in the construction field, continues the requirements of 

current law by mandating all employers be held responsible for the work authorization status of their 

direct employees, maintaining current liability for employers who knowingly use subcontract labor to 

circumvent immigration law. We urge both the House and Senate to support the Legal Workforce Act as 

a part of any effort to expand employment verification requirements in the U.S. 

At the same time, Congress must address the presence of the undocumented population in a respectful, 

common-sense manner that aids- not exacerbates- the workforce needs of industry sectors like 

construction. We believe there is an opportunity to create an earned path toward legal permanent 

status or citizenship for undocumented workers who meet certain requirements, particularly those 

"Dreamers" who were brought here as children and have voluntarily come out of the shadows to pursue 

an education, establish careers, and serve our country in uniform. 

Other foreign-born workers have been granted provisional legal status and work authorization that has 

allowed them to remain in the United States for decades, but their ability to continue doing so is in 

jeopardy. An estimated 51,000 individuals holding temporary protected status (TPS) from countries 

including El Salvador, Haiti, and Nicaragua work in the construction industry and have filled a small part 

of larger workforce shortage gaps. With TPS designation for these countries set to expire soon, the 

sudden exodus of legally authorized workers from the construction sector will only exacerbate existing 

labor shortages and lead to project delays at a cost to taxpayers and consumers. Congress has the 

opportunity to act now to ensure these hardworking individuals continue to participate in the American 

workforce at a time when they are most needed. We urge Congress to work with the administration to 

find an opportunity to extend TPS status for deserving nations, and to provide an opportunity for TPS 

designees who are productive members of the workforce to remain in the United States. 

Our industry recognizes and supports efforts by lawmakers to address the nation's interest and needs in 

the area of border security. However, we are greatly concerned with political moves and government 

threats to put hard-working American companies in the middle of the political fight on the issue. Border 

security measures that include the construction of a wall on the southern border must protect 

construction contractors from discrimination or retaliation by government officials intent on highlighting 

their displeasure about the underlying policy. Recently, state and local governments have introduced 

efforts to discourage federal contractors from building a southern border wall by blacklisting firms from 

future state or local public works contracts. This would set a dangerous precedent and, unless 

unchecked, emboldened state and local officials could further discriminate and retaliate against 

companies that perform any number of critical, national security tasks for the federal government. 

These proposals undermine the constitutional supremacy of the federal government and federal 
110 


32989.027

immigration legislation must ensure necessary protections for fair and open competition when it comes 

to U.S. government contracts. 

Each of the aforementioned issues and reform proposals are important in their own right, but must all 

be a part of a broader effort to successfully address our nation's persisting immigration challenges while 

preserving our growing economy. Our organizations stand ready to work with you on advancing 

immigration reform that enhances security and also addresses our country's workforce needs. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. 

Respectfully, 

Associated Builders and Contractors 

Associated General Contractors 

Leading Builders of America 

National Association of Home Builders 
111 


32989.028

February 27, 2018 

TRUCKLOAD 

CARRIERS 

ASSOCtA"riON 

The Honorable john Barrasso, Chairman 

The Honorable Thomas Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

The Truckload Carrier's Association (TCA) represents the truckload segment of the motor 

carrier industry, which is comprised of dry van, refrigerated, flatbed and intermodal 

carriers. Our members operate in the 48 contiguous states, as well as Alaska, Mexico and 

Canada. As a major part of an industry that has over 524,000 companies operating millions 

of power units and generates more than $38 billion in annual revenue, TCA and its trucking 

company members are concerned over efforts to include language on increasing trucktrailer lengths into a forthcoming infrastructure package. 

As you know, our country faces the tremendous challenge of supporting the "backbone of 

the U.S. economy", which can simply be defined as our nation's infrastructure. The process, 

undertaken by this committee, will be tasked with developing sound solutions geared 

towards improving upon a maze of roadways, waterways and rail transit that many have 

deemed in disrepair, crumbling and a far cry from the premiere freight delivery platform 

that it had once been. As the committee embarks on this unenviable task, many theories as 

to how best address our nation's truck size provisions will surely be brought to the 

forefront when discussing productivity solutions that aid in freight delivery. Unfortunately, 

the theory that the trucking industry will gain productivity through increased truck-trailer 

sizes is a notion which will benefit only a small population of our nation's freight industry. 

The truckload segment of the trucking industry is vast, representing over 524,000 motor 

carriers equating to roughly 75 percent of the freight moved by truck, based on revenue. In 

saying that, our industry recognizes the benefits that would be bestowed upon our LessThan-Truckload (L TL) counterparts by adding additional cubic feet of freight space and 

how those benefits add to productivity, however, we would be remiss if we did not mention 

that the truckload industry would yield little to any advantage of the added cubic space that 

a Twin 33 foot trailer would bring about. Due to the vast differences in freight delivery 

models, the metric of mandating Twin 33 foot trailers almost exclusively benefits L TL 

freight, thus putting the truckload segment of the industry at a competitive disadvantage: 

E. Braddock Road i A!exundna, VA 22314 T 703,838, 1'950:; F 703.836.6610 l tca@ttuckload.Ol'Q f wv..w.trucldoad.or'g 
112 


32989.029

The trucking industry is deeply divided on this issue. For many years, truckload and L TL 

have been diametrically opposed on length increases, even as the industry has modernized 

and changed configurations in the past. When the trucking industry experienced a previous 

trailer conversion from a 48 foot trailer to 53 foot trailers, the financial burden was 

dramatic and any change from 28 or 53 foot trailers would be no different. Due to pricing 

models and logistics configurations, the truckload segment of the industry would face little 

to no opportunity to regain any dollars invested in new 33 foot trailers. A change to 33 foot 

trailers would be considered voluntary, the shipping community will automatically 

transition to carriers with the most cubic space for their goods, rendering our nation's fleet 

of 53 foot trailers antiques. 

lntermodal truckload carriers will be put at a disproportionate disadvantage if a shift from 

28 to 33 foot doubles were to be mandated. LTL advocates view this increase in length and 

freight capacity as an opportunity to remove trucks from our roads. You will indeed find 

that twin 33 foot trailers will do the exact opposite. In an effort to supplement and improve 

upon intermodal operations, our nation's railroad container cars have been developed to 

accommodate the most prominent trailer configurations that exist within trucking today, 

the 28 and 53 foot trailers. You will soon realize that any change to these prominent trailer 

sizes will not only render existing truck trailers obsolete, but its corresponding railroad 

counterparts as well. 

Most noticeably absent from the discussions surrounding 33 foot trailers is the effect that 

the configuration will have on our population of drivers. As an industry that continually 

searches high and low for qualified drivers to operate our vehicles, the driver ramifications 

of operating fleets consisting of 33 foot trailers would be severe. In order to operate a 

doubles configuration, drivers must receive a doubles/triples endorsement on their 

commercial driver's licenses (CDL), by completing further training and testing. Not only 

will new drivers entering the industry have to obtain the endorsement, but we will have to 

retrain our existing and ever shrinking pool of drivers. We believe that the increased 

freight capacity of a double 33 foot trailer configuration will render the single 53 foot 

trailer obsolete, which will drive the need for retraining drivers. 

The truckload industry and its long haul operations are logistically set up for longer trailer 

configurations rather than articulating smaller trailers bound by dollies. The majority of 

loading docks are designed to accommodate trailers that travel in reverse to these docks. 

The Twin 33 foot trailer configurations have proven problematic to back up and would 

need to be separated prior to backing, an arduous task for drivers working for a long haul 

operation. The potential for driver injury when separating trailers and its 3,000-lb 

converter gear is high and would jeopardize any improvements to the health and wellbeing that our industry strives to make. 

The issue of truck parking will escalate if double 33 foot trailers are mandated. Truck 

parking is at a premium and can be very difficult to obtain, especially in a safe area. Current 

parking facilities are equipped to accommodate single 53 and double 28 food trailers. 

These facilities are often full, forcing drivers to park in unsafe areas like highway entrance 

and exit ramps and residential areas. Large scale safe parking facilities for double 33 foot 
113 


32989.030

trailers do not exist at this point in time. We will see more trucks parked in areas and 

circling local roads to find a safe area to park. 

As representatives of an industry tasked with delivering our nation's freight and doing so 

safely, the Truckload Carriers Association pledges to partner with our congressional 

leadership on discovering solutions that truly benefit our industry and the American 

public. Discussions surrounding the topic of productivity are certain to propagate over the 

coming months and years and TCA seeks to partner with all who have a vested interest in 

freight delivery solutions that work for everyone involved. 

We urge you, as the largest segment of the trucking industry, to oppose any increase in 

truck-trailer length, as it would be detrimental to our business model and the efficient 

movement of freight throughout North America. 

Sincerely, 

John Lyboldt 

President 
114 


32989.031

February 28. 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

ITS~ AMERICA 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

In anticipation of the Committee on Environment and Public Works upcoming hearing on "The 

Administration's Framework for Rebuilding Infrastructure in America," the Intelligent Transportation Society 

of America ("ITS America"}---the nation's leading association focused on the technological modernization of 

our transponation system through the research and deployment of intelligent transportation systems---<lffers its 

recommendations for an infrastructure bill. ITS America's unique membership includes cities, states, 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, established and emerging private sector companies in the automotive 

and technology industries, research organizations and academic institutions. 

Once the envy of the world, our increasingly outmoded roads, bridges, transit, freight, and intercity passenger 

systems are struggling to move the nation's technology-driven economy. Investment in far-sighted intelligent 

transportation technologies will enable scarce infrastructure funds to reach farther and with longer-lasting 

results. As owners, operators, builders, innovators, and users of transportation infrastructure, we urge Congress 

to pass, and the Administration to support, an infrastructure bill that prioritizes investments in intelligent 

transportation technologies. ITS America recommends that an infrastructure bill should: 

Leverage existing FAST Act programs: Increase funding for FAST Act programs. Intelligent 

transportation technologies, including vehicle-to-infrastructure, are eligible uses of most FAST Act 

highway program funds. Specifically increase funding for the Intelligent Transportation Systems 

Program, Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program, 

Technology and Innovation Deployment Program, and for the Surface Transportation Block Grant 

program, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program~ flexible programs that often fund 

intelligent transportation deployment activities. 

Create grants for emerging technologies that support congestion relief Provide new funding for 

intelligent transportation deployment activities that support congestion relief. The program would 

include both formula and grant funding. Eligible projects would include capital and operational 

investments that improve system safety and perfonnance. Examples include priced managed lanes; 

transportation demand management programs; strategic transit investments; advanced parking, freight 

delivery, and incident management systems; and programs to support the deployment of connected 

and autonomous vehicles, including vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure communications 

technologies. 

F..xpand opportunities for smart communities: Build on the successes of the 2015 Strengthening 

Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART) Cities Challenge administered by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation by including new federal funding to expand opportunities for 

communities~ large and small/urban and rural~ to compete for resources that will fund innovative 

and sustainable smart transportation projects. Projects should emphasize maturing technologies and 

perfonnancc goals. lncentivize the connection of smart cities and assist in the advancement of testing 

and deployment of autonomous vehicles. These investments have a great return on investment versus 

traditional infrastructure investments. 
115 


32989.032

ITS IVv\ERIO\ 

Increase development of Electric Vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure: Additional development of 

EV charging station corridors based on federal and state incentive projects as well as public private 

partnerships. Continue to look at new technologies such as inductive charging to speed the 

deployment ofEVs. 

Develop additional opportunities for broadband deployment: Provide new federal funding for 

broadband in unserved areas·--both rural and metropolitan-to suppm1 the deployment of intelligent 

transportation applications that depend on connectivity. 

Provide investments to stabili=e the Highway Trust Fund and more resources/or intelligent 

transportation technologies: Provide new and long-term investments to stabilize the Highway Trust 

Fund, increase federal funding for intelligent transportation technologies, and provide a multi-faceted 

approach to leveraging public and private resources. 

The nation is entering a technology revolution that will define the way people, goods, and services move for 

decades to come. It is a new transportation era as dramatic as the period where the car supplanted the horse and 

buggy. The nation must deploy intelligent transportation technologies on a large scale to remain competitive in 

an increasingly global economy. ITS America believes the infrastructure plan is the vehicle to increase the 

nation's investment in the transportation technologies that will shape mobility for decades to come. 

We thank the Committee on Environment and Public Works for its leadership on the FAST Act. which made 

technology investments eligible across highway programs. We stand ready to work with the Committee on an 

infrastructure bill that builds on those investments. 

Sincerely, 

Shailen Bhatt 

President and CEO 

ITS America 

Cc: U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

Ron Thaniel, Vice President, Legislative Affairs, ITS America, 11haniclu/litsa.org 

Intelligent Transportation Society of America Board of Oir~ctors 

AAA. Arizona Department ofTranspOI1ation. California Partners for Advanced Transportation Technology at University 

of California Berkeley. California Department of Transportation, Conduent, Cubic, G~ncral Motors. GRIDSMART. llELP 

Inc., Kapsch TrafficCom. I3ay Area Metropolitan Tnmsportation Commission, National Renewable Energy Laboratory. 

Nev.· York City Department ofTransp01tation, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. Qualcomm. Serco, Soutbv.Tst 

Research Institute. State Farm Insurance. Texas A&M Transportation Institute. Toyota. Utah Department of 

Transportation. Verizon, and Virginia Tech Transportation Institute 

1100 New Jersey Avenue SE. Suite 850. Washington, DC 20003 
116 


32989.033

February 28, 20 18 

The Honorable John Barrasso, Chairman 

The Honorable Thomas Carper, Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper: 

As you prepare for tomorrow's hearing, ·'The Administration's Framework for Rebuilding 

Infrastructure in America," our broad and diverse coalition would like to express our strong 

concern about a major threat to our Nation's infrastructure relentless efforts to increase federal 

truck size and weight lim its. These continuing attempts include proposals to increase current 

federal and state weight and length limits, to create "pilot programs," and to carve out special 

interest exemptions for certain states or industries. Any proposals to provide desperately needed 

improvements to our country's roads and bridges will be undermined if bigger and heavier trucks 

are allowed on the already-crumbling infrastructure. We respectfully request that this letter be 

included in the hearing record. 

Truck crash deaths have risen dramatically in recent years. Since 2009 there has been a 

staggering 28 percent increase in deaths from large truck crashes. In 2016 alone, more than 

4,300 people were killed in large truck crashes. This amounts to a major airplane crash every 

other week of the year. Additionally, data from 2015 (the most recent year available) shows that 

116,000 people were injured in truck crashes- representing a 57 percent increase since 2009. 

This death and injury toll would not be tolerated in any other mode of transportation. Further, 

truck crashes come with a significant economic burden. The cost to society from crashes 

involving commercial motor vehicles was estimated to be at $118 billion in 2015. This is 

completely unacceptable and represents a major public safety problem. 

Allowing the operation of bigger and heavier trucks runs counter to the goal of improving 

our Nation's infrastructure and will only cause further degradation. America's roads 

continue to receive a grade of"D" trom the American Society of Civil Engineers. One of every 

five miles of highway pavement is in poor condition and there is a significant and increasing 

backlog of rehabilitation needs. Additionally, one in eleven of the Nation's 615,000 bridges in 

the National Bridge Inventory was structurally deficient Increasing truck size and weight will 

exacerbate these problems and dilute potential benefits from investments in infrastructure. 

There is overwhelming opposition to bigger and heavier trucks. The public has consistently 

and strongly rejected any increases to truck size and weight In a nationwide poll released just 

last month, 7 of I 0 respondents opposed longer and heavier trucks. Just last week, a letter signed 

by over I ,000 local government officials was sent to Congress urging rejection of any attempts to 

increase truck size and weight And, both the House and Senate voted against attempts to allow 

bigger and heavier trucks in strong bipartisan votes during the last Congress. Furthermore, the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT) recommended that no changes be made to 

federal truck size and weight laws as recently as 2016. 
117 


32989.034

Larger and heavier trucks pose a myriad of problems for both safety and infrastructure. 

Trucks heavier than 80,000 pounds have a greater number of brake violations. which are a major 

reason for out-of-service violations. Alarmingly, trucks with out-of-service violations are 362 

percent more likely to be involved in a crash, according to a North Carolina study by the 

Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (lfHS). Tractor-trailers moving at 60 mph are required to 

stop in 310 feet-the length of a football field -once the brakes arc applied. Actual stopping 

distances are often much longer due to driver response time before braking and the common 

problem that truck brakes are often not in top working condition. In 2016. violations related to 

tires and/or brakes accounted for five of the top ten most common vehicle out-ot:servicc 

violations. Moreover, increasing the weight of a heavy truck by only 10 percent increases bridge 

damage by 33 percent. The Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) estimates that the 

investment backlog for bridges, to address all cost-beneficial bridge needs, is $123.1 billion. The 

U.S. would need to increase annual funding for bridges by 20 percent over current spending 

levels to eliminate the bridge backlog by 2032. 

The U.S. DOT Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Study found that introducing double 33 

foot trailer trucks, known as "Double 33s," would be projected to result in 2.478 bridges 

requiring strengthening or replacement at an estimated one-time cost of $1.1 billion. This figure 

does not even account for the additional, subsequent maintenance costs which will result from 

longer, heavier trucks. Double trailer trucks have an II percent higher fatal crash rate than 

single trailer trucks. They also require more stopping distance, take more time to pass. have 

bigger blind spots, cross into adjacent lanes and swing into opposing lanes on curves and when 

making right angle turns. 

Bigger trucks will not mean fewer trucks. A common and misleading argument made in 

support of bigger and heavier trucks is that it will result in fewer trucks on the road. History and 

experience tell us that this is simply not true. Since 1982, when Congress last increased the 

gross vehicle weight limit, truck registrations have more than doubled. The U.S. DOT study also 

addressed this assertion and found that any potential mileage ctllciencies from use of heavier 

trucks would be offset in just one year. 

Improving the Nation's infrastructure is a goal that we all share and should not be crippled by 

efforts to increase or evade truck size and weight limits. We urge you to reject any and all 

attempts to put bigger and heavier trucks on our roads. 

Sincerely, 

Catherine Chase, President 

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety 

Jeff Solheim, 2018 President 

Emergency Nurses Association 

Georges C. Benajmin. MD, Executive Director 

American Public Health Association 

Joan Claybrook, Chair 

Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH) and 

Former Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safet) 

Administration 

James P. Hoffa, General President 

International Brotherhood of Teamsters 
118 


32989.035

Linda Bauer Darr, President 

American Short Line and Regional Railroad 

Association 

John Risch, National Legislative Director 

SMART-TD (UTU) 

Jack Gillis, Director of Public Affairs 

Consumer Federation of America 

Dave Tennent, Executive Director and CEO 

Railway Engineering-Maintenance Suppliers 

Association 

Dawn King, President 

Truck Safety Coalition 

Janette Fennell, Founder and President 

KidsAndCars.org 

Andrew McGuire, Executive Director 

Trauma Foundation 

Daphne lzer, Co-Chair 

Parents Against Tired Truckers 

Linda Wilburn 

Weatherford, OK 

Board Member, PATT 

Mother ofOrbie Wilburn 

Killed in a truck crash 9/2/02 

Kate Brown 

Gurnee, IL 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Graham Brown 

Injured in a truck crash 5/2/05 

Morgan Lake 

Sunderland, MD 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 7/19/13 

Dominick Stokes, Vice President for 

Legislative AtTairs, Federal Law Enforcement 

Officers Association 

E. Michael O'Malley, President 

Railway Supply Institute 

Steve Owings, Co-Founder 

Road Safe America 

Chuck Baker, President 

National Railroad Construction and 

Maintenance Association 

Brad Roseberry, Vice President 

Coalition Against Bigger Trucks 

Jennifer Tierney, Board Member 

CRASH Foundation 

Jason Levine, Executive Director 

Center for Auto Safety 

Ed Slattery 

Lutherville, MD 

Board Member, PATT 

Husband of Susan Slattery 

Killed in a truck crash 8/16/10 

Sons Matthew & Peter Slattery critically 

injured in a truck crash 8/16/10 

Peter Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son ofRyszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 
119 


32989.036

Monica Malarczyk 

Hastings-on-Hudson, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Son ofRyszard and Anita Malarczyk 

Killed in a truck crash 12/29/15 

Larry Liberatore 

Severn, MD 

Board Member, P A TT 

Father of Nick Liberatore 

Killed in a truck crash 6/9/97 

Michelle Novak 

Delevan, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Aunt of Charles "Chuck" Novak 

Killed in a truck crash I 0/24/l 0 

Lisa Shrum 

Fayette, MO 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Daughter of Virginia Baker, Step-daughter of 

Randy Baker 

Killed in a truck crash l 0/10/06 

Wanda Lindsay 

New Braunfels, TX 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of John Lindsay 

Killed in a truck crash 517/10 

Beth Badger 

Columbus, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Daughter of Bill Badger 

Killed in truck crash 12/23/04 

Tami Friedrich Trakh 

Corona, CA 

Board Member, CRASH 

Sister of Kris Mercurio, Sister-in-Law of Alan 

Mercurio, Aunt of Brandie Rooker & Anthony 

Mercurio 

Killed in a truck crash 12/27/89 

Julie Branon Magnan 

South Burlington, VT 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 01/31/02 

Wife of David Magnan 

Killed in a truck crash 01131/02 

Alan Dana 

Plattsburgh, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Janet Dana, Uncle ofCaitlyn & 

Lauryn Dana, Brother-in-law of Laurie Dana 

Killed in a truck crash 7/19112 

Henry Steck 

Homer, NY 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Jane Mathis 

St. Augustine, FL 

Vice President, TSC 

Board Member, PATT 

Mother of David Mathis 

Mother-in-Law of Mary Kathryn Mathis 

Killed in a truck crash 3/25/04 

Ron Wood 

Washington, D.C. 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Betsy Wood. Brother of Lisa Wood 

Martin, Uncle of Chance, Brock, and Reid 

Martin 

Killed in a truck crash 9/20/04 

Jackie Novak 

Hendersonville, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Charles "Chuck" Novak 

Killed in a truck crash 10/24/10 

Christina Mahaney 

Jackman. ME 

Volunteer. Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 7/19/11 

Mother ofLiatn Mahaney 

Killed in a truck crash 7/19/11 
120 


32989.037

Nancy Meuleners 

Bloomington, MN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 12/19/89 

Debra Cruz 

Harlingen, TX 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 8/8/08 

Laurie Higginbotham 

Memphis. TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Michael lligginbotham 

Killed in a truck crash, 11/18/14 

Vickie Johnson 

Hartwell, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of Curt Johnson, Step-mother of Crystal 

Johnson 

Killed in a truck crash 10/l/09 

Randall Higginbotham 

Memphis, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Father of Michael Higginbotham 

Killed in a truck crash, ll/18/14 

Tina Silva 

Ontario. CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Sister of Kris Mercurio, Sister-in-Law of Alan 

Mercurio, Aunt of Brandie Rooker & Anthony 

Mercurio 

Killed in a truck crash 12/27/89 

Bruce King 

Davisburg, Ml 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son-in-law of Bill Badger 

Killed in truck crash 12/23/04 

Cindy Southern 

Cleveland, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of James Whitaker, sister-in-law 

Anthony Hixon and aunt of Amber Hixon 

Killed in a truck crash 9/18/09 

Amy Fletcher 

Perrysburg, Oil 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of John Fletcher 

Killed in a truck crash 1/24112 

Steve lzer 

Lisbon, ME 

Board Member, PATT 

Father of Jeff Izer 

Killed in a truck crash I 0/10/93 

Sandra Lance 

Chesterfield, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Kristen Belair 

Killed in a truck crash 8/26/09 

Bernadette Fox 

Davis, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Best friend of Daniel McGuire 

Killed in a truck crash 7/10/14 

Warren Huffman 

Odessa, Ml 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Brother of Tim Huffman 

Killed in a truck crash 5/6/13 

Paul Badger 

Davidson, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Son of Bill Badger 

Killed in truck crash 12/23/04 
121 


32989.038

Marc Johnson 

Hartwell, GA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Brother of Curt Johnson 

Killed in truck crash 10/1109 

Melissa Gouge 

Washington, D.C. 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Cousin of Amy Corbin 

Killed in a truck crash 8/18/97 

Kim Te1ep 

Harrisburg, PA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Wife of Bradley Telep 

Killed in a truck crash 8/29/12 

Marchelle Wood 

Falls Church, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Mother of Dana Wood 

Killed in a truck crash l 0/15/02 

Ashley McMillan 

Memphis, TN 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Girlfriend of Michael Higginbotham 

Killed in a truck crash ll/18/14 

Tammy Huffman 

Odessa, Ml 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Sister-in-law ofTim Huffman 

Killed in a truck crash 5/6113 

Frank Wood 

Falls Church, VA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Father of Dana Wood 

Killed in a truck crash 1 0/15/02 

Santiago Calderon 

Arcata, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

Injured in a truck crash 4/l 0114 

Michelle Lemus 

Los Angeles, CA 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

In jured in a truck crash 4/1 0114 

John Ramsey 

Edneyville, NC 

Volunteer, Truck Safety Coalition 

ee: Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 
122 


32989.039

REBUILD 

~ AMERICA'S 

SCHOOLS 

I \.urimwiCmJ!ifiou 

SCHOOl DlSTRICT" 

t\t..ron.OI! 

Al(!Jn~. TX 

Bmlllngham Ctty, AL 

B1rmmg:haml'uhlic.AL 

Bnswn. MA 

Bmwanl Count).!-'L 

Brown~\ ilk. TX 

Ch1cago.IL 

CmcinnaH,Oil 

CIJrk Coun!y. NV 

Compton.CA 

Corrus Chnst1. TX 

D:nton.OH 

Dctrll!t. ~11 

!'s(ambia, FL 

Houswn,TX 

Jefferson Pansh, LA 

Cny, N.l 

Mc!\l!en.TX 

~cmp!llS,Ti\ 

Mnnm-Dade. FL 

Mdw<Jukcc.V,'! 

Mmncapol1s. MN 

Montgomcry.AL 

Na~h• 1lk. TN 

Newark_ NJ 

Ne'v Orhoan~. l1\ 

:-.;cw York, NY 

Norfolk. VA 

Ot..lahnmaC!Iy, OK 

Omaha, NF 

l'han~San Juan-Alamo. TX 

f'hi!mklphm, PA 

l'ro~1denc.;. Rl 

Rtthmond, Vi\ 

Ri1Cht•qcr. NY 

Savannah-Chatham. GA 

St Louts, ~vtO 

St Paul, ~1N 

l'olcdo.Ol! 

Tulsa, OK 

Yskta. IX 

!-140\!Stll!d.N\V 

.Stntc!Olti 

Wa~hmgton. DC 20005 

202~62-5911 

1-.lci-JI/ 

Rcbmld:\mencasSchoob:IJ; 

cmncascn..:t 

Cal1formans for Sdwol Facilities 

March L 2018 

The Honorable Thomas Carper 

Ranking Member, C01mnittee on Environment and Public Works 

U.S. Senate 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Carper: 

Rebuild America's Schools (RAS) appreciates The Senate Committee on Environment and 

Public Works hearing on "The Administration's Framework for Rebuilding Infra-;tructure in 

America.·· Rebuild America's Schools supports investing in our national road, bridge, highway 

infrastructure including state and local school facility infrastructure. The need to modernize our 

nation's schools is extensive. School infrastructure needs are beyond the capacity of state and 

local communities. A 2013 Center for Green Schools Report State of Our Schools estimated 

that nationally schools face $271 billion in deferred maintenance costs. The Report estimated a 

$542 billion cost to bring schools into good repair over the next ten years. 

The American Society of Civil Engineers 2017 InfrastructLITe Report Card rated Schools with a 

D+. Summarizing "Every school day, nearly 50 million K-12 students and 6 million adults 

occupy close to 100,000 public school buildings .... While state and local governments make 

significant investment in public K-12 schools infrastructure and schools play important civic, 

educational, and public safety roles in communities, the nation continues to underinvest in 

school facilities, leaving an estimated $38 billion annual gap. As a result, 24% of public school 

buildings were rated as being in fair or poor condition." 

In a bipartisan letter Senators Reed~ Brown. Murkowski and 23 Senate colleagues mote to the 

White House supporting school infrastructure: "safe. healthy, modern, well·equipped schools 

are essential for advancing student achievement and for ensuring that the next generation can 

achieve the American Dream and meet the economic, social, environmental, and global 

challenges our nation faces." 

Rebuild America's Schools appreciates the emphasis in the President's Infrastructure Initiative 

on federal and state and local partnerships and state and local decision making. Today, states 

and local governments across the county are investing in school facility infrastructure 

advancing student achievement, success and career development while producing local 

construction jobs. Under the Administration's Infrastructure Initiative, federal, state and local 

governments should be able to decide to invest in schools as a priority. Federal partnerships 

will supplement state and local efforts to renovate. repair, modernize and build schools and 

classrooms promoting student success and generating jobs in local communities. 
123 


32989.040

Rebuild America's Schools supports federal investments through Grants. Tax Credit Bonds, Low interest loans. 

Infrastructure Banks and other financial incentives. Rebuild America's Schools supports The School Building 

Improvement Act (5.1674) sponsored by Senators Reed, Brown and Senate colleagues authorizing federal 

grants and bonds to renovate, repair, and construct public school infrastructure. S. 16 74 would provide federal 

financial support to partner with state and local projects renovating. repairing. modernizing and building 

schools and classrooms. 

Rebuild America's Schools looks forward to working with the Committee and the Administration to: 

Advance federal investments in our nation's infrastructure and school facilities. 

Invest in our nation's schools with state and local partners. 

Assist with Grants, Tax Credit bonds. Low interest loans. Infrastructure Banks. 

Renovate, repair. modernize and build technologically advanced. efficient. modern schools. 

Advance student achievement. success and 21st Century workforce preparation. 

Thank you for your work on this critical issue. We especially appreciate and agree with The Chairman's 

comments recognizing that "Infrastructure improvements will help all of America. This is not a Republican or 

Democrat issue. Let's work together to get this done." Rebuild America's Schools stands ready to assist as 

Congress works to improve our nation's school inti·astructure. 

Sincerely, 

13cC~ 

Robct1 !'. Cmavan 

Chair, Rebuild America's Schools 
124 


32989.041

American Fly Fishing Trade Association • American Sportfishing Association • American Woodcock Society • 

Archery Trade Association • Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies • California Waterfowl Association • 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers • Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (B.A.S.S.) • Bonefish & Tarpon Trust • 

Everglades Foundation • Fly Fishers International • Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation • International Game 

Fish Association • lzaak Walton League of America • National Deer Alliance • National Wildlife Federation • 

National Wildlife Refuge Association • The Nature Conservancy • Pope & Young Club • Quality Deer 

Management Association • Ruffed Grouse Society • Snook & Gamefish Foundation • Theodore Roosevelt 

Conservation Partnership • Trout Unlimited • Wild Salmon Center 

March 13, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

410 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Chairman Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper, 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

456 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20510 

On behalf of our millions of members and supporters, the undersigned hunting, fishing, and conservation 

organizations, and businesses comprising the outdoor recreation economy, write in support of policy 

recommendations for the upcoming Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) legislation. Additionally, 

we have identified three projects currently requiring congressional authorization that, when implemented, 

will advance long-held priorities from the sportsmen, conservation, and outdoor recreation communities. 

Investments in natural and nature-based infrastructure that serve to conserve and restore our nation's 

waterways will not only benefit the fish and wildlife habitat that allow sportsmen and women to pursue 

their passion, but also boost local economies and enhance the resiliency of communities across the 

country. We are eager to work with you on the below recommendations which we believe would constitute 

sound stewardship of our country's natural resources and preserve our hunting and fishing heritage for the 

next generation. 

Natural and Nature-Based Solutions 

We want to thank the Committee for the progress made in the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the 

Nation (WIIN) Act toward more appropriately assessing the use of natural infrastructure measures for Army 

Corps (Corps) projects. In the two years since enactment, evidence of natural infrastructure's costeffectiveness and public safety benefits has been produced nationwide- both coastal and inland. For 

example, a recent study demonstrates that during Hurricane Sandy, wetlands prevented $625 million in 

flood damages in 12 coastal states and reduced damages by 20 to 30 percent in the four states with the 

greatest wetland coverage. As a result, projects that utilize natural infrastructure measures are attracting 

an increasing interest by communities and non-federal partners. 

We hope Congress will take the opportunity to build on this momentum by including provisions in this 

year's WRDA that further facilitate and incentivize meaningful evaluation and use of natural infrastructure 

measures for flood and storm damage reduction projects. By applying nature-based ecosystem restoration 

techniques such as living shorelines, wetland and floodplain restoration, and sediment diversions, the Corps 

can reduce flood damages while enhancing fish and wildlife habitat and the outdoor recreation economy 

relying on it. 
125 


32989.042

Utilize Expertise of Federal and State Wildlife Experts 

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) review is a longstanding, mandatory, and critically important 

component of water resources planning. Unfortunately, the Corps and many other federal agencies subject 

to the Act often ignore the recommendations of state and federal fish and wildlife experts made pursuant 

to the FWCA during project planning, creating unnecessary, avoidable impacts and leading to inadequate 

mitigation plans. Agencies sometimes fail to consult at all with the federal and state fish and wildlife 

agencies on projects that affect the nation's waters, despite the FWCA's clear requirement to do so. 

In this year's WRDA, Congress should ensure that the Corps, and other federal agencies initiating water 

resources projects, utilize Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act recommendations derived from the special 

expertise of federal and state fish and wildlife experts, such as methods and metrics for assessing fish and 

wildlife impacts and mitigation opportunities. Congress should also reaffirm the importance of the FWCA 

consultation process and clarify that it applies to reassessments of project operations. Evaluating fish and 

wildlife impacts and mitigation opportunities early in the planning process, and in accordance with the 

extensive and carefully developed recommendations of federal and state fish and wildlife experts, is a 

common sense, cost-effective way to improve planning efficiency and reduce avoidable impacts. 

Benefit-Cost Ratios 

The Corps' assessments of project benefits and costs have significant shortcomings, leading to benefit-cost 

ratios (BCR) that do not provide a reliable assessment of whether or not a project is in the Federal interest. 

BCRs do not adequately account for a project's full life-cycle costs or the cost of lost ecosystem services, 

such as erosion prevention or water purification, and fail to account for construction needs identified in the 

detailed technical design phase. Additionally, BCRs fail to account for the public safety and economic 

benefits created and preserved by utilizing natural and nature-based infrastructure measures. Moreover, 

rather than using a BCR as just one of a number of decision-making tools, the Corps too often recommends 

projects for authorization and funding based solely on the project's BCR. These assessments are often 

wildly inaccurate and opaquely tilt the scales toward large-scale structural projects that benefit certain 

industry sectors while leaving others, including the outdoor economy, behind. 

We request that this year's WRDA modernize the BCR process. Congress should establish additional specific 

criteria to ensure that Corps BCRs fully account for project costs (including lost ecosystem services and full 

life-cycle costs), and exclude project benefits from activities that are contrary to law and policy. Congress 

should also establish a process to improve the accuracy of Corps BCR analyses and reaffirm that BCR is just 

one of several decision tools that should be utilized by the Corps. These changes would allow the Corps to 

more effectively fulfill its missions to reduce flood risk; ensure safe, reliable navigation of our nation's 

waterways; and conserve and restore the environment and outdoor economy and recreational 

opportunities that depend on healthy waters. 

Update Operating Plans 

Many major Corps projects are managed under decades-old water control manuals and navigation 

operating plans that are causing significant harm to fish and wildlife populations and their habitat, 

increasing flood risks for communities, and ignoring current conditions and needs. For example, major 

California reservoirs are being operated under fifty-year-old water control manuals and the vast majority of 

the Upper Mississippi River navigation system is being managed under forty-year old navigation operating 

plans that cannot account for decades of ecological changes and advancements in science and 

management techniques. 
126 


32989.043

We request that this year's WRDA require the Corps to evaluate and update operating plans and water 

control manuals for large-scale Corps projects at least every 10 years, in consultation with state and federal 

agencies. By working together, we can more accurately account for species life cycle needs, preclude 

listings under the Endangered Species Act, avoid the spread of aquatic invasive species (AIS) and provide for 

additional wildlife and water resource associated recreational opportunities that serve as the foundation 

for rural economies. We also recommend that Congress direct the Corps to assess the challenges to 

completing regular updates to manuals and plans and identify opportunities for optimizing timely 

completion of such updates. Regular updating of operating plans would ensure that the extensive array of 

federal water resources infrastructure is managed with state-of-the-art approaches that can improve 

operations, address modern needs and conditions, and protect habitat. 

Project and Study Authorizations 

Finally, we would like to draw the Committee's attention to three projects requiring congressional 

authorization- one requiring a feasibility study, the other two requiring Post Authorization Change Report 

(PACR) authorizations. These projects would restore and enhance natural processes, and would provide 

water quality and fish habitat benefits along hundreds of ecologically important river miles. 

Everglades Restoration 

South Florida's recreational economy relies on healthy fish and wildlife populations in the Everglades. There 

are two Everglades restoration project priorities that we request your attention to in this WRDA. 

First, the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) Storage Reservoir project, one of the project components 

authorized in the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), is a critical step in the effort to 

reduce the discharge of damaging freshwater from Lake Okeechobee into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie 

estuaries and send more water south into the Everglades system. Achieving these goals will depend on a 

final project plan that meets water quality requirements and federal cost-feasibility analyses. We anticipate 

a PACR to the Central Everglades Project (CEP) to meet these tremendous ecosystem goals will be ready for 

congressional approval in this current WRDA cycle. 

Second, completion of the Kissimmee River Restoration project is expected in FY 2020, which would 

improve the timing and distribution of water flows into the Everglades from the headwaters region. We 

request congressional authorization of an expected PACR in order for the South Florida Water Management 

District to receive credit for important engineering work for flow easements that they provided, enabling 

the project to move forward and resulting in lower project costs. 

Lower Mississippi River Feasibility Study 

The Lower Mississippi River (LMR) is a nationally significant ecosystem and vital for navigation, flood-risk 

reduction, and community well-being, but lacks a comprehensive ecosystem restoration program like that 

found on the Upper Mississippi. After years of progress, the Corps is now at a point to accelerate 

restoration of the natural resources of the LM R for the people and wildlife of the region. 

We ask Congress to take advantage of the opportunity present in this year's WRDA to establish an 

ecosystem restoration program by authorizing a study to address the feasibility and prioritization of vital 

habitat projects across the LMR. The preliminary non-federal sponsor submission was included in this year's 

Report to Congress on Future Water Resources Development, giving Congress the ability to green light this 

crucial ecosystem restoration project. 
127 


32989.044

We thank you for the opportunity to submit our recommendations. We look forward to working with you, 

your staff, and the entire Committee on Environment and Public Works to ensure that hunters and anglers 

have a voice in shaping upcoming WRDA legislation. 

Signed, 

American Fly Fishing Trade Association 

American Sportfishing Association 

American Woodcock Society 

Archery Trade Association 

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 

California Waterfowl Association 

Backcountry Hunters & Anglers 

Bass Anglers Sportsman Society (BAS.S.) 

Bonefish & Tarpon Trust 

Everglades Foundation 

Fly Fishers International 

Guy Harvey Ocean Foundation 

International Game Fish Association 

lzaak Walton League of America 

National Deer Alliance 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

The Nature Conservancy 

Pope & Young Club 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Ruffed Grouse Society 

Snook & Gamefish Foundation 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership 

Trout Unlimited 

Wild Salmon Center 
128 

Senator CARPER. No objection. 

Senator BARRASSO. Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I want to make two unanimous consent requests. 

I just want to say to both of you thanks for being here and 

thanks for your willingness to take on tough jobs. Albert Einstein 

used to say, ‘‘In adversity lies opportunity.’’ There is a lot of adversity here but actually a lot of opportunity. 

I think with your leadership—the leadership of our Chairman 

and other Democrats and Republicans—we can make progress. We 

really need to on these fronts. I look forward to doing that. 

In the spirit of that thought, Mr. Chairman, I have two unanimous consent requests to submit for the record. One, I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the White House infrastructure proposal summary document that states that overall, for highways, ‘‘28 percent of funding is Federal.’’ 

I would also note that the same document indicates that if we 

look at just capital expenditures, Federal funds currently support 

more than half of all spending on highways—not just in Delaware, 

but in the United States across the country. 

I have a second unanimous consent request, if I could, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record the 

January 2018 GAO report entitled Highways and Transit Projects. 

In that report, GAO notes that it previously reported that 99 percent of highway projects are not being held up by complex NEPA 

reviews. Meanwhile, Federal Highway Administration officials expressed ‘‘Categorical exclusions still constitute the vast majority of 

NEPA reviews for highway projects.’’ 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BARRASSO. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

129 


32989.045

THE WHITE HOUSE 

Office of the Press Secretary 

For Immediate Release February 10,2018 

BACKGROUND PRESS CALL 

BY SENIOR ADMINISTRATfON OFFICIALS 

ON THE PRESIDENT'S INFRASTRUCTURE PRINCIPLES 

Via Teleconference 

I :07 P.M. EST 

MS. STROM: Thank you. And, guys, I'm sorry if you're hearing a little extra noise on the line. That 

might just be me. But we'll make sure that's taken care ot; and we'll also have a transcript of this later. So 

reach out to me if you want that. 

But thanks for joining us on Saturday afternoon to talk about the upcoming release of the President's 

infrastructure principles. 
130 


32989.046

On the line with me is [senior administration official], and he'll start off by running through a summary 

of the infrastructure principles which will be released Monduv morning, and then we'll open it up to your 

questions. 

The infom1ation on this call is embargoed until5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Sunday. February 11. So 

without further ado, I'll let [senior administration ofticial] take it away so we can all get back to our 

Saturday as quickly as possible. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Natalie, and thank you everyone for joining 

for this. As Natalie mentioned, I'm going to walk through just, kind of, high-level overview of what we'll 

be releasing on Monday, and then we can open it up for questions and answers for anybody who wants 

more detail than what I cover initially. 

So let me start by just talking about why are we doing this. Infrastructure is obviously a critical 

component to the functioning of our economy. A lot of America's success is a result ofthe quality of the 

infrastructure we've had historically. But the current system is fundamentally broken, and it's broken in 

two different ways: We are under-investing in our infrastructure, and we have a permitting process that 

takes so long that even when funds are adequate, it can take a decade to build critical infrastructure. 

So the President's vision is to have a permanent fix for the problems that plague us in terms of underinvesting and the length of the permitting process, and not just kick the can down the road and pass things 

over for a couple of years, which has been the habit in infrastructure policy for the last couple of decades. 

So before we start talking about what we're doing, I think it's important to understand the context in 

which we're operating and understanding in terms of how infi·astructure is currently funded and 

developed. 

The federal government plays a huge role in permitting infrastructure. So virtually I 00 percent of 

major infrastructure in the U.S. requires some form of federal permitting, but we play a much smaller role 

when it comes to funding in that we only fund about 14 percent of infrastructure costs, and we own even 

less; we own in the single digits in terms of-- if you think of all the infrastructure in the U.S. and what 

does the federal government own. 
131 


32989.047

While we fund 14 percent, the other 86 percent is relatively evenly split between state and local 

governments and the private sector. So while the federal government is an important component, we're a 

minority player when it comes to investing in infrastructure. 

All of infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers, hy users of the intrastructure. And we have done-- if 

you go and a~k the public what their preference is, they would prefer to invest locally as opposed to 

sending money to Washington. And so the President's proposal, sort of, builds on what it is that the 

public is asking for, and that is an opportunity to improve their infrastructure but do it in a way that's 

accountable, do that in a way it's local, do that in a way where they can see tangible benefits for the 

investments that they're applying to infrastructure. 

So with that as a background, the President's proposal that will be rolled out on Monday has four 

major overarching objectives: We want to stimulate $1.5 trillion in new investment and 

infrastructure. We want to shorten the permitting process into two years. We want to invest in rural 

infrastructure. And we want to making improvements in training our workforce so Americans are 

prepared to take advantage of the jobs that will be created as we build out and improve our workforce. 

So the $1.5 trillion in new investment comes from an incentives package that we're proposing and 

from enhancing our loan programs federally. So the way that the $200 billion in new federal funds will 

be spent is it will be split down into -- $100 billion will be spent on incentives. And there, what we will 

do is we will match dollars that state and local governments are spending on infrastructure. So if they're 

creating new revenue streams and they want to build something, we will partner with them to help them 

to match and fulfill that one final gap in terms of financing infrastructure. 

And then, in addition to that. we get there through a $20 billion expansion in our loan programs and in 

private activity bonds. So, currently, our lending programs include TIFIA, WIFIA, and RRIF. TIFIA is a 

transportation lending program; WIFlA for water; RRIF for rail. 

In the case ofTIFIA, one federal taxpayer dollar of investment generates $40 of project being 

built. And so that is a great return in terms of taxpayer dollars to projects overall. That's how we get 

from a $100 billion investment in incentives and the $20 billion investment expanding our loan programs, 

to $1.5 trillion in new investment infrastructure nationwide. 

In addition, we want to invest $50 billion in rural infrastructure. That will be funded differently. The 

incentives programs will be applications that come to agencies asking for matching grants. The rural 

program will be block grants to governors, to allow governors to select what the priorities of 

infrastructure are in their respective states. 
132 


32989.048

One thing that-- the consistent feedback that we get from those that are interested in investing more in 

infrastructure is they would like to set their own priorities as opposed to have the federal government set 

priorities for them. So the rural program does that. 

We will also have $20 billion for transfonnative programs. That ensures that we're not focusing on just 

patching up the infrastructure that we have currently, but will we also have a vision towards the future, 

towards projects that can liti the American spirit, that arc the next-century-type of infrastructure as 

opposed to just rebuilding what we have currently. 

And then, finally, we're setting aside and proposing that Congress spend $10 billion and put it into a 

capital financing fund. That timd that helps us with those governmental accounting rules. And I can 

get more details if somebody wants to. In essence. it's a just more responsible way for us to actually fund 

the office-building infrastructure that the federal government is building currently. 

In addition to that, we also have a section that focuses on workforce, where we are removing obstacles 

and disincentives for people who don't want to go to a four-year college, and prefer to move in some type 

of trade, by expanding Pel! eligibility, changing the license requirements, and adding more flexibility. So 

if you're licensed to perforn1 a trade in one part of the country, you can move to another pa11 of the 

country and transfer that license, and then expand out the use of apprenticeships to help those that are 

interested in going to trades, develop their skills, and move more gradually into the workforce. So that's 

where the funding component of this is going. 

An equally significant component of what the President will be proposing on Monday touches on the 

environmental permitting process. You've heard him talking -- and he's mentioned it several times, in the 

State of the Union most recently-- that the process that we have in the U.S. just takes way too long, and 

it's not really focused on outcomes in terms of making sure we build projects responsibly and understand 

the environmental impact. It's focused more on preparing for litigation and building up massive 

documents. 

And so we want to shorten the process but, at the same time, preserve all of the environmental 

protections that current law has. And so we're going to move towards a process that we call "One 

Agency, One Decision," where we will create a lead federal agency that will have the authority to 

establish and move through a process so that that agency, working with the permitting agencies, can reach 

a collective decision. They would all sign a record of decision. That process would be done in 21 

months, and then the permitting would be done within three months after that. 
133 


32989.049

So we're making a number of changes that allow us to get there. And I can go into more detail about 

those if anyone is interested. But. really, the primary mission is having-- the primary way we get there is 

to have one agency lead. and then remove a whole series of duplicative requirements that are in law, 

where we will have one federal agency make a decision, and that decision will then be second-guessed by 

a second federal agency, which, of course, creates inevitable conflicts and inevitable delays as you have 

multiple agencies trying to make the same decision. 

So what we're going to do is. for every decision that needs to be made, find the agency that has the 

best expertise in terms of making that decision, give them the authority to make that decision, and then 

have other agencies partner with them and execute on that decision that's been made. 

We also would look to expand more delegation to states. Currently, we delegate relatively heavily for 

some highway permitting decisions. So the states would still be required to comply with federal 

requirements. but they would be able to do that and do the analysis themselves. And we would create 

some pilot programs to expand better ways to do environmental compliance than the way we're doing 

currently. 

Again. as I mentioned before, to circle back to how do we spend funds in a way to help us protect and 

enhance the environment as opposed to spending hundreds of millions of dollars on lawyers and 

accountants and engineers, to pull together massive documents that are limited utility in terms of helping 

the public understand the environmental impact that a specific project would have. 

Let me close with the fact that we're vety excited to be rolling this proposal out, and that we envision 

this will be a bipartisan push. And if you look at the proposals that have been out to date in tenns of--

from Senate Democrats and House Democrats, and the Problem Solvers Caucus in the House-- it is a 

remarkable overlap in terms of the objective that we want to accomplish. 

So in all of these programs we talk about, sort of, fixing the Highway Trust Fund and having stable 

funding for that; that we want to have competitive grants; increase loan funding; focus on waterways, on 

rural programs like broadband; to improve public lands; to have better facilities for veterans. 

So we find it quite encouraging that. if you look at our proposal, there's a significant amount of overlap in 

terms of the objectives that we want to accomplish. There's obviously a disagreement of the best way to 

get to those objectives, but I think that a debate around the method, as opposed to objective, is much more 

likely to be successful. And so we're encouraged by the fact that, to date, Republicans, Democrats, 

independents all seem to share in terms of what ought to be done to resolve the problem that the nation 

currently has with infrastructure. 
134 


32989.050

So with that as a high-level overview, I'll be happy to open it up and answer any questions. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thanks. Just before I open it up for questions, I wanted 

to quickly touch on the extensive outreach that DJ Gribbin, Gary Cohn, obviously, and the team at the 

NEC, the White House Office of Legislative Affairs, and really the President's whole team have been 

doing on the HilL on this issue. 

I know it isn't like them to brag, but the President's whole team has spent the last year meeting with 

members and staff from both parties, both sides of the Hill, keeping them apprised of the plan (inaudible), 

and incorporating their feedback to ensure that the principles we're presenting on Monday have the best 

chance for success. 

Since March of 2017, when we started formally tracking this, they've had over 40 meetings with 

members or their staff on infrastructure, many of which were with caucuses or other larger 

groups. Overwhelmingly, these numbers recognize the American people are calling for change from 

Washington when it comes to inthstructure. 

According to a poll from Harvard-Harris, 84 percent of Americans believe that the U.S. needs an 

investment in infrastructure, and 76 percent believe that funding should come from a combination of 

public funds, bonds. and public-private partnerships, all of which would be available under the President's 

plan. 

That same poll thinks that passing an infrastructure bill should be the second-highest priority for 

Congress, only behind stimulating American jobs, which, by the way, this plan also does a lot for as 

well. So it's not surprising that members of both parties are aligned with us in a lot of places. 

On Wednesday, the President will host a bipartisan group of members, including Republican and 

Democrat leadership, as well chairmen and ranking members from many of the relevant committees, to 

continue this conversation at the White House. 

Also on the line with us is [senior administration officials] from the White House Office of Legislative 

Affairs to work on the Senate and House side, respectively, on infrastructure. And they'll be available to 
135 


32989.051

answer some questions related to the legislative process on this, and some of that outreach. And they'll 

also be speaking as senior White House ofticials. 

So with that, we will open it up f(ll· questions. 

Q Thanks for having the call today. Two questions. Can you walk us through how you get to the 

$1.5 trillion or more in net infrastructure spending? And can you tell us what took so long? You 

mentioned you've been talking to people for a year. At one point, this plan was thought to come out last 

summer or fall. Walk us to through what led to the timing of the release on Monday. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Okay, so how do we get to the $1.5 trillion. As I 

mentioned before, some of the incentives package is designed to provide matching funds for states and 

localities who are, sort of, struggling to identify capital to expand on their infrastructure. So, for example, 

if a state says, hey, we want to build a certain project and we want to use this revenue stream for it, then 

they would come to us with that as a package. And the funds would be broken down into Department of 

Transportation, EPA, Corps of Engineers. 

So if it's a transpm1ation project, they'd go to DOT-- not unlike what they do currently with TIGER and 

with INFRA-- and say, here's the project that we are proposing; here are the funds that we'd like to spend 

on it. Federal government. we'd like you to pull out a match for that. 

But the match -- the way that we get to $1.5 trillion is we could be putting I 0 percent of-- or 20 

percent in terms of the cost of that project. So if it's 10 percent, that would be 10 to I; 20 percent would 

be 5 to 1. And so we envision that what we'll be doing is we'll be -- great return for federal taxpayer 

dollars, and that allows those dollars to go much, much further than the hundred billion dollars that's 

incentives. 

And then, in addition, on the lending side, as I mentioned before, TIFIA has a 40 to 1 ratio. So $10 

billion in TIFIA could be leveraged up to $400 billion in projects because of the way that TIFIA works. 

can walk through that if you want me to. 

So that's how-- so the focus is whether it's a trillion or 1.5, or a trillion higher, what that number 

represents is what do we think that state and local governments -- how will they likely respond to this 

program. And the reason we want from a trillion to $1.5 trillion is because we've actually received a, sort 

of, more enthusiastic response than we anticipated from state and local governments coming to us and 
136 


32989.052

saying, hey, we have this project, we have funding identified, but we'd love to pa11icipate in incentives to 

get that match to help tinish up the project and build the whole thing, 

And in terms of what took so long, 1'11 leave that up to the leg affairs team to answer. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Very simply, we got tax reform done last fall. and we're 

excited about rolling out on Monday. 

Q Hi, thanks for the call. Can you explain how the private activity bonds will be expanded or more 

utilized? And will there be any, sort of, specific limding for projects of regional or national importance, 

like the Gateway Program? Or is that just going to be eligible for matching funds under the grant 

program that you described? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So on the private activity bonds, or the PAB fund, what 

we're going to do is expand eligibility for them and increase the amount-- in fact, we'd lit! the state 

volume of caps. So, currently, PABs apply to a broad array of asset classes that include governmental 

and not necessarily governmental infrastructure. 

And so the thinking is, to the extent that we're applying them to governmental infrastructure, and 

therefore not distorting the market-- which is the concern that you have with PABS if you're operating 

outside of governmental infrastructure-- that we would lift the cap on those and then we would expand it 

to all governmental infrastructure. 

And in terms of the projects of regional and national signiticance, one of the underlying or overlaying 

themes of this whole thing is for the federal government not to pick and choose between projects, but to 

allow states and localities to advance what their priorities are. So the Gateway project would certainly be 

eligible for the incentives program. and, kind of, depending on what they do, they could potentially be 

eligible for the transformative project-- program, as well. 

But we want to stay away from what has been historical precedent and what undermines the public's 

trust in sending money to Washington, and that is Washington picking and choosing what we think 

priorities ought to be for states and communities across the country. 
137 


32989.053

Q Thanks for doing this call. Can you give us some more guidance on how the $200 billion in new 

money, how that will be paid for? Does that, kind of, come from shifting other resources in the federal 

budget around? Or will there be a specific plan for new revenue sources in this proposal? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Yes, so the $200 billion is in the President's budget, 

which will also be released on Monday. And the budget, as you know, includes a whole series of places 

where tbe administration is suggesting reducing funding and just a few places where it's suggesting 

increasing funding. And so the way it's currently envisioned is that we would pay for the $200 billion out 

of savings from other areas of the federal budget. 

Q Hi, good afternoon. Thanks so much for doing this call. I wanted to follow up on the last 

question-- and sorry I missed the top part. To clarify, $200 billion will be direct spending. Please clarify 

that. And then my other question is, what happens if states tbat do have infrastructure needs actually 

don't have the money to pay their half of it? What is the alternative in that scenario? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So, yeah. there is $200 billion in direct spending as part 

of the budget. The rural funds are advanced and moved faster. So there's a frontloading of the rural 

funds, but there's a typical, sort of. bell-shaped curve over the I 0 years of how the $200 billion would be 

spent. 

And then, sorry, what was the second half of your question? 

I think we lost Renee. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the second half was related to if there are state and 

local governments who can't raise the funds, what their alternative would be. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you. Yeah, so, going back to-- what I did 

mention at the top was, this is a program that sits on top of existing programs. So we're not going to--

we're not proposing eliminating the Highway Trust Fund, or changing the state revolving funds. So to the 

extent that communities are eligible for federal funds already, that eligibility remains. 
138 


32989.054

What this is, is for communities that say, hey, listen, we want to increase the revenue that we're raising 

and we'd like to the federal government to help match in that process. 

Q Hey, guys, a couple questions. One, you mentioned that this is supposed to be a sustainable eff011, 

not just kicking the can. !fit's paid for by offsets, by cuts in other programs, is that really sustainable, the 

idea to find $200 billion every I 0 years or so? And my other question is about the legislative 

strategy. Does this move through appropriations committees? And if so, how does the permitting part of 

it work? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So in terms of sustainability, when we're thinking of 

revenues at the state and local level, that could be property taxes; it could be user fees; it would be sales 

taxes. It could be a wide range of things. So a good case study would be Measure M in Los Angeles, 

where in the last year they passed ballot initiatives that ultimately will generate $120 billion in funding 

for infrastructure. That sales tax does not expire, so that is, kind of, the ultimate sustainable source of 

revenue for projects. 

One of the problems with federal funding, as you know, is it's very intermittent. So we'll throw money 

at it and then we'll back off. I mean, at one stage, we weren't spending everything; it was in the Highway 

Trust Fund. Now we're spending $10 billion, $12 billion over what comes in the Highway Trust Fund. 

So moving towards a more stable platform for funding is part of this initiative. And that more stable 

platform is at the state and local level. And then couple that with the fact that the public has said, hey, we 

prefer to invest at the state and local level. And so we should move·· if you're looking for sustainability, 

we should move •• you know, the federal government continues to play an important role, but we should 

move and rely more heavily on what state and local governments are doing. 

Q Is there a second part of that? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. This is [senior administration official, White House 

leg, specifically the House side. Just to, kind of, try and answer the second part of the question here·· 

and I'll tum it over to my counterpart who handles the Senate·· the House of Representatives will have, 

probably, at least six committees that will have parts of the infrastructure plan-- anywhere from the T&l 

committee to Education and Workforce, Veterans Affairs, Natural Resources, Energy and Commerce, and 

the Agriculture committee. 
139 


32989.055

So you can see that the plan will be a broad group of committees in the House that will have, hopefully, 

their own lanes and maybe some overlapping issues, like rural infrastructure and broadband that can touch 

T &I. ag. and energy and commerce. 

Within our discussions with members of Congress, staff directors, and chiefs of staff, everybody 

shares the goal that something has to be done. My colleagues spoke on the polling numbers that, I think, 

it was something about 84 percent of Americans know that infrastructure needs to be upgraded in this 

country. So there certainly is a desire to get something done this year. 

The permitting process·· again, my colleague and I have talked to either very conservative or very 

liberal members of Congress who understand and know that permitting needs to be retonned in this 

country. So there is an absolute desire to fix some of these issues and these problems to make America 

more innovative and competitive around the world. 

So our committees, they'll be up and ready to go and running as soon as we transmit stuff out this 

week. So that's, kind of, my pitch on the House side. I'll turn it over to my colleague of the Senate. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: From the Senate standpoint, we're looking at, at least, five 

core committees or jurisdictions. The two primary committees, I would say, out of those five would be 

the committee on environment and public works and the commerce committee. So the permitting side 

will cross those committees. 

Over the last year. my colleague and I, and other administration officials, have done extensive 

outreach to the Senate on a bipmtisan basis. We've met with committee staff for all of the relevant 

committees or jurisdictions. We've met with the chairmen. we've met with rank-and-file members. We 

have briefed committee members and groups. We've done extensive lunches at the White House with key 

stakeholders from Capitol Hill, senators, and senior staff members. So we feel that we've accomplished a 

lot in terms of socializing our plan a11d getting feedback, incorporating that feedback, and making changes 

in our plan as well. 

But we also want to emphasize that, with Monday's rollout, our plan is our opening in terms of providing 

ideas to Capitol Hill. And we look forward to working with the relevant committees through the regularorder process. through hearings and through additional feedback, through the markup process. And what 

we anticipate after we have hearings, after the committees write their bills, we'll be working very closely 

with Senator McConnell's team to determine a final legislative vehicle where we can put everything 

together and get it passed into law. 
140 


32989.056

Q Hi, thanks for doing this. I was wondering if you could be more specific about the programs that are 

being cut in order to come up with the $200 billion-- if you could give us some examples of that. And 

then, also, on the incentives grants, am I correct that states and local governments would be eligible to--

they would have to provide at least 80 percent, and the government would do no more than 20? So I was 

hoping you could address those two issues. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So in terms of the programs being cut for the $200 billion, 

they're not matched. So it's not like we have $200 billion for infrastructure and these are the programs 

that we're cutting to pay for that $200 billion. That's not the way the budget works. We just have a list of 

cuts, and then some increases on the other side. So they're not paired. 

There are some reductions in things like transit funding and TIGER grants, and things where the 

administration thinks that infrastructure funds haven't been spent efficaciously. And so, therefore, we 

want to do it in a better, more focused way. So there's not that matching. 

In terms of incentives, and state and local governments providing at least 80 percent, there is-- thank you 

for asking that question, because there is, sort of, counter-narrative that's going on right now in terms of 

what the federal government traditionally funds. 

Some critics of our approach have said we're going to move from an 80-20 formula to a 20-80 --you 

know, 80 percent federal to just 20 percent federal. That comment is, sort of, indicative of the problem 

that we have in the way that Washington currently thinks about infrastructure. because that comment is 

not talking about infrastructure, it's not talking about transportation, it's not talking about highways. It's 

talking about federal-aid highways that arc a small component of infrastructure overall that currently are 

eligible for an 80-20 mix. 

If you just look at highways not federal-aid highways, but highways in the U.S. as a total, 28 percent of 

the funding is federal, 72 percent is non-federal. If you look at water projects, 4 percent is federal, 96 

percent is non-federaL 

So part of this is a little bit of an expectations game. What we need to understand is, if we're saying to 

state and local governments, who are currently spending the vast majority of ftmds on intrastructure. that 

if' you, sort ot: increase what you're doing already, we want to partner and match with you. And a lot of 

communities have been doing this for a decade now, so there's a trend that's accelerating where they're 
141 


32989.057

increasing their investment in infrastructure. That's a very healthy trend and we want to encourage that 

trend. 

So the way the incentive program works is, come with revenue and come with a project, and your score is 

higher based upon the share of non-federal revenue that you have in your project. So there's not a 20 

percent minimum, or maximum federal, but it's all about how do we get people to compete around in 

projects that they truly care about. And how do we know they truly care about them? WelL because 

they've got a lot of skin in the game on the project-- as opposed to, a lot of comments I've received since 

starting this job are people who are going, this is an absolutely critical project, it has to be done, it's vital 

to our community; our economy will boom if we do this. And I ask how much you've invested in it. And 

they're like. no, we're not investing in anything; we'd like you to invest in it. 

So we, kind of, changed that dynamic and that culture to one-- since we talked about the (inaudible) more 

sustainable. The whole 80-20 is a little bit of a throwaway line that applies to a subset of a subset of a 

subset of infrastructure overall. 

Q Hi, thanks for holding the call. A couple weeks ago, there was a document that-- a leaked document 

that detailed a number of potential environmental permitting changes. I wanted to -- the White House 

said that that was an old document. I want to know specifically what changes need to be made through 

legislation that this proposal will do, that you couldn't already do through administrative deference. 

And then also, I wanted to know whether there were any, sort ot~ new requirements put in any of this 

infrastructure proposal that relates to some of the flooding and hurricanes that we saw this past fall, and 

with an eye towards reducing damage and better preparing communities for those types of events. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Good questions. So, on the permitting side, we're taking a 

four-pronged approach to helping with permitting: statutory changes, regulatory changes, policy changes, 

and cultural changes. And you really can't-- I mean, our process is so byzantine and so inefficient that 

we really can't address it short of doing activities on all four levels. 

So, unfortunately, even if we did the culture changes, the policy changes, or the regulatory changes, there 

are still components of code that need to be changed to help align this up better. And I should start by 

saying that we are not touching any of the fundamental requirements of any of the core infrastructure 

acts. We're not saying you can have a bigger impact on dangerous species, or the water can be dirtier or 

the air can be dirtier, or anything like that. So the core acts stay the same. We're talking about the 

process that's used to do the analysis around the environmental impact. 
142 


32989.058

So, some example are, we're going to require-- and we've actually done this administratively-- require 

everyone to sign a record of decision. So if you're an agency and you're looking at a project, and you're 

working with a lead federal agency, you need to be part of that team and sign off on the analysis, and not 

come back around after the record of decision is done, and say, "Oh, to issue my permit !need the 

following six additional things to do my analysis." So just getting people more coordinated up front. 

Currently, statute allows the EPA to do the 306 and 209 review of environmental impact statements. And 

that gets to the point where, if the federal government has gone through a process and made a decision, 

we don't want another component to second-guess that. You currently have, in 4(f), in (inaudible) 

property, you have overlapping jurisdictions of the Department of Interior, USDA. and !IUD. They're all 

doing very similar analysis on 4(1). Sometimes we require an agency like the Corps of Engineers to do a 

404 analysis and a 408 analysis, which essentially are looking at exactly the same things, but they have to 

be done separately because they're two different sections of the code. 

So the statutory changes really are focused on let's eliminate the duplicative analysis and let's be clear in 

terms of who has the decision-making responsibility. and let's be clear in deferring to agencies' expertise 

and not have agencies second-guessing other agencies. 

In terms of the flooding and the hurricane, there are provisions in here that expand the ability of the Corps 

of Engineers to partner with local communities and be more proactive. So, currently, if you're a 

community and there's a levee that's protecting your community, and you want to raise it a couple of feet. 

and you're willing to pay for all of it, the federal government will require you to jump through years and 

years and years of hoops before you're able to do that. We just think that's crazy and that-- there's going 

be limited Corps funding; there's been limited Corps funding for generations. It's likely that's going to 

continue. Let's give the Corps flexibility to allow others to participate in the improvement of that 

infrastructure. 

In terms of specitic funding tor flooding and hurricane, obviously that's for legislation. That's not part of 

this bill. 

Q Hello, thanks again for having the call. I guess, I was hoping to gel another reaction to potential 

criticism of this proposal. The heartburn I'd been hearing from expectations about the plan was both the 

80-20 match, switching to the, perhaps, 20-80, and also the notion of just finding cuts elsewhere in the 

budget, rather than finding a new channel of funding such as raising the gas tax. So basically, more 

simply, is the federal government walking away !rom its responsibilities to contribute to state and local 

construction projects? 
143 


32989.059

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Bart. That's a great question. So, as I mentioned 

before, the 80-20/20-80 is just not accurate and it's wildly inaccurate. The federal government does not 

fund 80 percent of infrastructure in the U.S. Again, if you look at infrastructure overall, transportation, 

highways, federal-aid highways -- you get all the way down to federal-aid highways, then you sec some 

80-20 responsibility for specific projects. But even then you have states spending without that federal 

match on highways. 

So I think that we're going to keep existing programs in place for the most part; we are going to eliminate 

a few things here and there. But for the most part, we're keeping everything stable. And the President has 

said that he is open to new sources of funding. And I should also say that we are going to roll out this 

package. We want it to be bipartisan. The President has four clear objectives that he wants to 

accomplish. And we will be quite tlexible in terms of how we accomplish those objectives. 

So this isn't-- this in no way, shape, or form should be considering a take-it-or-leave-it proposal. This is 

the start of a negotiation-- bicameral bipartisan negotiation-- to find the best solution for infrastructure in 

the U.S. 

But we are not-- not only are we not walking away from the federal responsibility; we're taking even 

more responsibility to ensure that we get infrastructure funding and permitting on a sustainable track for 

generations. 

Q Great, thanks. I have two questions. First, the President is always your best salesman. How are we 

going to see the President selling this? Will we see him taking trips to places with bridges crumbling and 

so on? And secondly, let me push back a little bit on the notion that the federal government won't be 

picking projects. The President has talked repeatedly, during the campaign and since, about this 

embarrassment at the state of American airpmts. Are we not going to see that priority by the President 

reflected at all? 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: So in terms of the best salesman-- I mean, absolutely, the 

President will be traveling. You'll see the Cabinet traveling. We will be talking about infrastructure all 

across the nation. I mean, unfortunately, we have infrastructure challenges in almost every corner of our 

country, so we'll be spending a lot of time talking about that. 

In terms of not picking projects, the President has mentioned airports. And the last administration, as you 

recall, highlighted the challenge we have with airports as well. That is a longstanding struggle. What 
144 


32989.060

we're doing as part of this package is making it easier-- and you'll see the provisions in there-- making it 

easier for airport projects to get permitted, to get approved, to get funded, and to get tinanced. 

So again, we're providing the opportunity and tools that currently are constraining infl·astructure 

(inaudible) from improving and bettering their infrastructure. So a large part of the problem, currently, is 

that the federal government's rules and restrictions get in the way of building a better America. So we 

want to get out of the way in that regard. And then, in addition that, with our matching fund and incentive 

program, we want to boost the amount of revenue that's flowing to infrastructure all across the nation. 

And one of the problems. when you pick specific projects. is that you then tend to pool federal resources 

in select areas, and everyone else gets !eli out. We're getting out of the project-picking primarily because 

we want everyone to have access to federal funds in terms of help, and to federal permitting systems. 

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: And let me just piggyback a little bit on the answer to the 

first question. I think-- you mentioned specifically would the President be going to places with 

infrastructure challenges. I think we're also looking for him to go to places where we can highlight the 

positive steps that a lot of state and local governments have already taken in order to really address this 

problem at the state and local level. and highlight them and hold them up, and show them as examples of 

things that we would like to see more of. and how this plan will enable more of those types of projects to 

find success. 
145 


32989.061

January 2018 

GA0-18-222 

United States Government Accountability Office 

Report to Congressional Committees 

HIGHWAY AND 

TRANSIT PROJECTS 

Evaluation Guidance 

Needed for States 

with National 

Environmental Policy 

Act Authority 
146 


32989.062

GAO 

Highlights 

Highlights ofGA0·18-222, a report to 

congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study 

Since 2005, over 30 provisions have 

been enacted in law to speed up the 

delivery of highway and transit 

projects, mainly by streamlining the 

NEPA review process. NEPA requires 

federal agencies to evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of 

proposed projects on the human 

environment. These project delivery 

provisions included new categorical 

exclusions to streamline the review 

process, and a provision allowing DOT 

to assign federal NEPA approval 

authority to states. 

Congress included provisions in statute 

for GAO to assess the use of these 

provisions and whether they have 

accelerated project delivery. This 

report examines: (1) which project 

delivery provisions were used by state 

DOTs and selected transit agencies 

and the reported effects, and (2) the 

extent to which DOT has assigned 

NEPA authority to states and the 

reported effects, among other 

objectives. GAO surveyed all state 

DOTs and interviewed federal and 

state DOT officials and 11 selected 

transit agencies GAO determined were 

likely to have been affected by the 

provisions, and analyzed information 

from NEPA assignment states. 

What GAO Recommends 

FHWA should offer and provide 

guidance or technical assistance to 

NEPA assignment states on 

developing evaluation methodologies, 

including baseline time frames and 

timeliness measures. DOT partially 

concurred with the recommendation, 

saying it would clarify environmental 

review start times. GAO continues to 

believe further evaluation guidance is 

needed, as discussed in the report. 

View GA0-18-222. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov. 

HIGHWAY AND TRANSIT PROJECTS 

Evaluation Guidance Needed for States with National 

Environmental Policy Act Authority 

What GAO Found 

The Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) are responsible for National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance on highway and transit projects. 

Project sponsors that receive federal funds, typically a state DOT or transit 

agency, develop documents necessary for NEPA compliance for FHWA and FTA 

to evaluate and approve. Project sponsors prepare an environmental impact 

statement (EIS) when a project will have a significant environmental impact, or 

an environmental assessment to determine if a project will have a significant 

impact Projects that fit within a category of activities pre-determined to have no 

significant impact (such as repaving a road) can receive a categorical exclusion, 

and an EIS or environment assessment is generally not needed. GAO found: 

State DOTs and selected transit agencies reported using provisions enacted 

in law to speed up the delivery of highway and transit projects, and while 

state DOTs reported that a number of provisions they used sped up delivery 

of highway projects, the effects on transit projects were less clear. For 

example, according to GAO's survey responses, 10 of 17 provisions that 

mainly created new "categorical exclusions" were used by 30 or more state 

DOTs and generally sped up projects. The provision state DOTs and transit 

agencies most often reported using was one that authorizes parkland or a 

historic site to be used for a transportation project if that project has a 

minimal impact on the environment. A majority of the 11 transit agencies 

GAO reviewed were not clear whether provisions they used sped up project 

delivery because these agencies did not track how long it took projects to 

complete the NEPA process, among other reasons. 

DOT assigned NEPA authority to six states: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, 

Texas, and Utah. Under agreements with FHWA, state DOTs calculate time 

savings by comparing NEPA completion times before (the baseline) and after 

assuming the authority. Only California and Texas have reported results; 

California reported that it reduced EIS review time 10 years from a 16-year 

baseline. However, these reported time savings are questionable because 

the comparisons do not consider other factors, such as funding, that can 

affect timelines, In establishing baselines, both states have also faced 

challenges, such as how many and which projects to include. California 

reported to its legislature that its baseline may not be meaningful because of 

the relatively small sample offive projects, but nevertheless presents these 

data on its web site as evidence of "significant" time savings. 

FHWA does not review the states' timeliness measures and time savings 

estimates, but has broad authority to offer guidance and technical 

assistance, which can include helping states develop sound evaluation 

methodologies and baselines. FHWA officials stated that they provide 

general technical assistance, but that no state has requested help developing 

evaluation methodologies. Offering and providing such assistance could help 

ensure that states considering applying for NEPA assignment base their 

decisions on reliable information, and that FHWA and Congress have reliable 

information to assess whether NEPA assignment results in more efficient 

environmental reviews. 

-------------United States Go\'ernment Accountability Office 
147 


32989.063

Contents 

Letter 

Background 4 

The Three Most Recent Transportation Authorizations Included 

Numerous Provisions for Accelerating Highway and Transit 

Project Delivery 8 

State DOTs Reported That a Number of Provisions They Used 

Sped Up Highway Project Delivery, While for Most Selected 

Transit Agencies Effects Were Unclear 11 

DOT's FHWA Has Assigned Six States NEPA Authority, and Two 

States Reported Time Savings, but FHWA Has Not Provided 

Guidance on Measuring Effects 27 

Conclusions 35 

Recommendation for Executive Action 35 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35 

Appendix I Available Information about the Number, Percentage, and Costs of 

NEPA Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 38 

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41 

Appendix Ill Project Delivery Provisions Included in the Three Most Recent 

Federal Transportation Reauthorization Acts That Apply to 

Highway and Transit Projects 47 

Appendix IV Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 55 

Appendix V Transit Agency Provisions Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 79 

Appendix VI Comments from the Department of Transportation 82 

Pagei GA0~18M222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
148 


32989.064

Appendix VII 

Tables 

Figures 

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

Table 1: Number of Project Delivery Provisions GAO Identified, 

Grouped by Category for Highway and Transit Projects 

Table 2: Project Delivery Provisions Included in Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: 

A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing 

America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) That 

84 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 47 

Figure 1: Number of States That Used Optional Project Delivery 

Provisions as Reported by Departments of Transportation 

in 50 States. the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 12 

Figure 2: Percentage of Departments of Transportation in 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That 

Reported Various Effects of Used Optional Highway 

Project Delivery Provisions 14 

Figure 3: Number of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported 

Various Effects of the Required Highway Project Delivery 

Provisions 18 

Figure 4: Number of 11 Selected Transit Agencies That Reported 

Using Transit Project Delivery Provisions 23 

Page ii GA0·18-222 Highway and Transit Projll!Ct Delivery 
149 


32989.065

Abbreviations 

AASHTO 

CTA 

DOT 

EIS 

FAST Act 

FHWA 

FTA 

MAP-21 

MOU 

MTA 

NEPA 

PAPAl 

SAFETEA-LU 

SEPTA 

state DOT 

TrAMS 

American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials 

Chicago Transit Authority 

Department of Transportation 

environmental impact statement 

Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act 

Federal Highway Administration 

Federal Transit Administration 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

memorandum of understanding 

New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Project and Program Action Information 

Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act A Legacy for Users 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation 

Authority 

state department of transportation 

Transit Award Management System 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product 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. 

Page iii GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
150 


32989.066

441 GSI. N.W. 

Washington, DC 20548 

U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE 

January 30, 2018 

The Honorable John Barrasso 

Chairman 

The Honorable Tom Carper 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Bill Shuster 

Chairman 

The Honorable Peter DeFazio 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)-which requires 

federal agencies to evaluate the potential environmental effects of 

proposed projects on the human environment-has been identified by 

critics as containing time-consuming requirements and praised by 

proponents for, among other things, helping protect the environment and 

bringing public participation into the government's decision making. The 

Department of Transportation's (DOT) Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) through its division offices in each state and the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) through its 10 regional offices are the federal 

agencies responsible for NEPA compliance on highway and transit 

projects, respectively. Project sponsors-typically a state department of 

transportation (state DOT) or a local transit agency-receive FHWA and 

FTA grant funds, oversee the construction of highway and transit projects, 

develop the documents on which FHWA and FTA base their evaluations 

of environmental effects, and collaborate with federal and state 

stakeholders. In short, project sponsors generally prepare the documents 

necessary for NEPA compliance, while the federal agencies must 

ultimately approve the documents. In this report we refer to these 

activities collectively as "environmental review" or "NEPA review." 

We have previously reported that environmental review is one of a 

number of factors affecting the time frame for completing transportation 

Page 1 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
151 


32989.067

projects (delivery).' The past three surface transportation 

reauthorizations-the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) in 2005; 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012; 

and the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) in 

2015-contain a number of provisions, called "project delivery 

provisions"-aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and transit 

projects, mainly by streamlining the NEPA review process-' These 

provisions include, for example, the NEPA Assignment Authority 

provision, which provides authority for the relevant DOT administration, 

under certain circumstances, to assign federal NEPA authority to states 

and thereby eliminate the federal approval role with respect to individual 

projects. 3 In this case, FHWA and FT A are the relevant DOT 

administrations to assign NEPA authority to states for highway and transit 

projects, respectively. 

MAP-21 and the FAST Act included provisions for GAO to assess, among 

other things, whether project sponsors have used the project delivery 

provisions and the extent to which the provisions have sped up the 

delivery of highway and transit projects• This report: 

identifies provisions aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and 

transit projects that were included in the last three surface 

transportation reauthorizations; 

examines which provisions were used by state DOTs and selected 

transit agencies and the provisions' reported effects, if any, on 

accelerating the delivery of projects; and 

evaluates the extent to which DOT has assigned NEPA authority to 

states and the reported effects. 

1GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite Completion 

Show Promise, GA0~12-593 (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 6, 2012). 

2

Pub. L. No.109-59, 119 Stat.1144 (2005), Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012), 

Pub. L. No.114-94, 129 Stat.1312 (2015). 

3This program is authorized in 23 U.S.C. § 327 and is called the "Surface Transportation 

Project Delivery Program." 

4Pub. L. No. 112-141 § 1323. 126 Stat. 405. 553-554 (2012), Pub. L. No. 114-94 § 1318, 

129 Stat. 1312, 1404-1405 (2015). 

Page 2 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
152 


32989.068

In addition, in appendix I, we identify available information on the number 

and percentage of the different types of NEPA reviews and the costs of 

conducting NEPA reviews. 

To address the first objective, we reviewed the past three surface 

reauthorizations to identify highway and transit project delivery provisions 

and categorized these provisions. To determine states' use and reported 

effects of the provisions on highway projects, we surveyed state DOTs 

within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We had a 

100 percent response rate. Based on the survey results, we conducted 

follow-up interviews with officials from 10 state DOTs to discuss their 

perceived effects of the provisions in greater detail. We selected these 

state DOTs to include geographically diverse states and states that 

reported varying levels of use of the provisions and effects. To determine 

use and the perceived effects of the provisions applicable to selected 

transit projects, we selected 11 transit agencies and interviewed officials 

at those agencies. We selected these agencies based primarily on the 

number of times they issued a notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) in the Federal Register from 2005 

through 2016 to identify those transit agencies that may have experience 

preparing EISs or some another NEPA review and experience using 

transit project delivery provisions. We also considered other factors, such 

as ridership and geographic location, to select the 11 transit agencies. 

The results of the states' and transit agencies' interviews are not 

generalizable. 

To evaluate the extent to which DOT has assigned NEPA authority to 

states, and the effects states have reported from assuming NEPA 

authority, we identified the states that have been assigned NEPA 

authority, based on information from FHWA, and interviewed state DOT 

officials in those states. However, we did not include one of these states 

because that state did not assume NEPA authority until November 2017. 

For the states we included, we interviewed state DOT officials and 

reviewed relevant documentation including memorandums of 

understanding and analyses the state DOTs conducted on NEPA 

assignment authority, such as methodologies for calculating NEPA 

assignment time savings. In addition, we interviewed FHWA officials 

about procedures to oversee the performance of NEPA assignment 

states and interviewed FHWA division officials from those states. We 

compared FHWA's procedures to oversee NEPA assignment states 

Page 3 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
153 


32989.069

Background 

against standards for information and communication contained in 

Standards for Infernal Control in the Federal Government. 5 

To determine available information on the number and percentage of the 

different NEPA reviews and costs of conducting NEPA reviews for 

highway and transit projects, we reviewed relevant publications, 

documents, and analyses, and discussed these with FHWA and FTA 

officials. 

For all objectives, we interviewed agency officials and stakeholders 

involved in highway and transit projects including FHWA, FTA, and 

relevant transportation and environmental organizations. We conducted 

this performance audit from August 2016 to January 2018 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. For more information on our objectives, scope, and 

methodology, see appendix II. 

FHWA and FTA fund and oversee highway and transit projects, 

respectively. FHWA funds highway projects through formula grants to 

state DOTs, provides technical expertise to state DOTs, and conducts 

oversight of highway projects through its division offices in each state. 

FTA funds a variety of transit programs through formula and competitive 

grants and conducts oversight of transit projects' planning and design 

through 10 regional offices. Completing major highway and transit 

projects involves complex processes that depend on a wide range of 

stakeholders conducting many tasks. Project sponsors-the state DOTs 

and local transit agencies-are the entities that develop the 

environmental review documents to be approved by the federal agencies. 

Examples of highway projects that may undergo environmental review 

are bridge construction or roadway repaving, and examples of transit 

projects include extension of light rail lines or construction of passenger 

ferry facilities. Project sponsors that do not use federal funds for a project 

5

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GA0-14-7040 

(Washington, D.C.: September 2014). 

Page4 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
154 


32989.070

generally do not need to meet NEPA requirements, but may still need to 

satisfy state or local environmental review requirements. 6 

As we have previously reported, highway projects typically include four 

phases, and transit projects also follow similar processes. 7 

1. Planning: Project sponsors assess the need for a project in relation to 

other potential transportation needs. 

2. Preliminary design and environmental review: Project sponsors 

identity potential transportation solutions based on identified needs, 

the potential environmental and social effects of those solutions, a 

project's cost, and construction location. They then analyze the effect, 

if any, of the project and potential alternatives on the environment. 

Based on the analysis as well as public input the preferred alternative 

is selected. 

3. Final design and right-of-way acquisition: Project sponsors finalize 

design plans and, if necessary, acquire private real property for the 

project right-of-way and relocate any affected residents and 

businesses. 

4. Construction: Project sponsors award construction contracts, oversee 

construction, and accept the completed project. 

In the preliminary design and environmental review phase, many activities 

are to be carried out by the project sponsor pursuant to NEPA and other 

federal laws. 8 NEPA's two principal purposes are to ensure (1) that an 

agency carefully considers detailed information concerning significant 

environmental impacts and (2) that environmental information is available 

to public officials and citizens before decisions are made and actions are 

6

There are numerous state and local laws that prOJects must comply w1th. For example, 

several states, including California and North Carolina, have laws roughly equivalent to 

NEPA. GA0-12-593. 

7 GA0-12-593. 

8

Agencies also use the NEPA framework to meet other environmental review 

requirements, such as requirements under the Endangered Spec1es Act, the Clean Water 

Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act. Federal resource agencies, such as the 

U.S Anny Corps of Engineers and Fish and Wi!dhfe Serv1ce, are responsible for 

managing and protecting natural and cultural resources !ike wetlands, historic properties, 

and wildhfe. We have ongoing work on the environmental permlttmg by federal resource 

agencies for highway and trans!! projects and plan to publish our work m spring 2018 

Page 5 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
155 


32989.071

taken' For highway and transit projects, the project sponsor is 

responsible for preparing documentation showing the extent of the 

project's environmental impacts, in accordance with NEPA, and 

determining which of the three following documentation types is needed: 

An environmental impact statement (EIS), the most comprehensive of 

the three documentation types, is required for projects that have a 

significant effect on the environment. In broad terms, the lead federal 

agency, FHWA or FT A, starts the EIS process by publishing a notice 

of intent in the Federal Register. The lead agency then must engage 

in an open process-inviting the participation of affected government 

agencies, Indian tribes, the proponent of the action, and other 

interested persons-for determining the scope of issues to be 

addressed and for identifying the significant issues related to a 

proposed action. The lead agency then is to coordinate as appropriate 

with resource agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or 

the Fish and Wildlife Service, solicit comments from the public on a 

draft EIS, incorporate comment responses as appropriate into a final 

EIS, and issue a record of decision. 10 

Project sponsors are to prepare environmental assessments when, 

among other things, it is not clear whether a project is expected to 

have significant environmental impacts. An environmental 

assessment is intended to be a concise document that, among other 

things, briefly provides sufficient evidence and analysis for 

determining whether to prepare an EIS. If the agency determines that 

there are no significant impacts from the proposed action, then the 

agency prepares a Finding of No Significant Impact that presents the 

reasons why the agency made that determination. If the agency 

determines the project may cause significant environmental impacts, it 

conducts an EIS. 

Categorical exclusions refer to projects that would not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. These 

projects generally require no or limited environmental review or 

documentation under NEPA. Examples of highway projects that are 

9

Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 

1Drhe EIS must, among other things, (1) describe the environment that will be affected, (2) 

identify alternatives to the proposed action, including the no action alternative, and identify 

the agency's preferred alternative, {3) present the environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives, {4) identify any adverse environmental impacts that cannot be 

avoided should the proposed action be implemented and discuss means to mitigate 

adverse impacts. 

Page6 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
156 


32989.072

generally processed as categorical exclusions include resurfacing 

roads, constructing bicycle lanes, installing noise barriers, and 

landscaping. 

While FHWA and FTA are the federal agencies responsible for ensuring 

NEPA compliance on highway and transit projects, if certain requirements 

are met, FHWA or FTA may assign a state and that state may assume 

federal NEPA authority. States assume this authority subject to the same 

procedural and substantive requirements as would apply to FHWA or 

FT A. Specifically, the NEPA Assignment Authority provision provides 

authority for FHWA to assign federal NEPA authority to states for 

approving an EIS, environmental assessment, or categorical exclusion. 

States must apply to FHWA or FT A, which reviews the state's suitability 

to assume the authority based on meeting certain regulatory 

requirements and the state's capability to assume the responsibility. 

States must enter into a written memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

and must, among other things, expressly consent to the jurisdiction of 

federal courts by waiving sovereign immunity for any responsibility 

assumed for NEPA. The MOU is for a term of not more than 5 years and 

is renewable. MOUs are unique to each state; however they all contain 

certain sections such as assignments of authority, acceptance of 

jurisdiction, and performance measures. For the first 4 years, FHWA is to 

conduct an annual audit to ensure compliance with the MOU, including 

compliance with all federal laws. After the fourth year, FHWA is to 

continue to monitor state compliance with the MOU, using a more limited 

review. 11 

In prior reports, we identified a number of factors that can affect the 

length of time required to complete transportation projects. For highway 

projects, we found that the large number of stakeholders and steps 

(which include environmental reviews) in the project delivery process, 

availability of funding, changing priorities, and public opposition can lead 

to longer project time frames. 12 For transit projects, we found that local 

factors specific to each project determine the project development time 

frame, including the extent of community support and extent of local 

planning prior to approval of funding. 13 We found that for 32 projects we 

11 23 U.S.C. § 327(h) 

12GA0-12-593 

13GAO, Public Transit: Length of Development Process, Cost Estimates, and Ridership 

Forecasts for Capital-Investment Grant Projects, GA0-14A72 (Washington D.C May 30, 

2014). 

Page 7 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
157 


32989.073

The Three Most 

Recent 

Transportation 

Authorizations 

Included Numerous 

Provisions for 

Accelerating Highway 

and Transit Project 

Delivery 

reviewed, the environmental review process was tied with stakeholder 

coordination as the third most frequently cited factor by transit project 

sponsors contributing to the length of the project development process. 

We identified 34 project delivery provisions that apply to highway projects 

and 29 such provisions that apply to transit projects." These provisions 

are intended to streamline various aspects of the NEPA process, making 

it more efficient and timely. Most of the provisions apply to both types of 

projects. Based on our review, we grouped the provisions into four 

general categories: Accelerated NEPA Review, Administrative and 

Coordination Changes, NEPA Assignment, and Advance Planning (see 

table 1 ). See appendix Ill for the full list and a description of each project 

delivery provision we identified. 

Table 1: Number of Project Delivery Provisions GAO Identified, Grouped by 

Category for Highway and Transit Projects 

Category Highway projects Transit projects 

Accelerated National Environmental Policy Act 12 10 

(NEPA) Reviewa 

Administrative and Coordination Changes 17 17 

NEPA Assignment 

Advance Planning 

Total provisions: 34 29 

Source GAO analys:s of Sale, Accou~table, FleXIble, Effie~ en! Transport.abon Equ1ty Act A LejJacy for Users, the Movmg Ahea6 for 

Progress on ttle 21stCemury Act, and the F1x•ng Amenca's Surface TrartsportabonAcl j GA0-18-222 

aln the Accelerated NEPA Review category, 5 provisions apply to both highway o:nd transit projects, 7 

apply exclusively to highway projects, and 5 apply exclusively to transit projects. 

The Accelerated NEPA Review category's provisions generally establish 

certain conditions that permit projects, if the specific conditions are 

applicable, to exclude certain actions from a more detailed NEPA review. 

For instance, these provisions are primarily comprised of new categorical 

141n order to separately identify each applicable provision, we combined provisions that 

were modified in later statutory language and did not specify among different versions of 

the provisions. 

Page 8 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
158 


32989.074

exclusions. Additionally, the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision authorizes a historic site, parkland, or refuge to be used for a 

transportation project if that project is determined to have a de minimis 

impact on the environment." 

The Administrative and Coordination Changes category's provisions are 

more process oriented. These provisions, for example: (1) establish time 

frames for parts of the NEPA review process, (2) encourage the use of 

planning documents and programmatic plans as well as a coordination 

plan for public and federal agency participation in the environmental 

review process, and (3) seek to avoid duplication in NEPA review 

documents. 

The NEPA Assignment category's provisions authorize FHWA or FTA, as 

discussed above, to assign their NEPA authority to states. The first of the 

two provisions-the 'NEPA Assignment Authority' provision-authorizes 

FHWA or FTA to assign federal NEPA authority to states for reviewing 

EIS, environmental assessment, and some categorical exclusion reviews, 

so long as the categorical exclusion does not require an air-quality review 

that involves the Environmental Protection Agency. The second 

provision-the Categorical Exclusion Determination Authority provisionallows FHWA or FTA to assign limited NEPA authority to states to review 

categorical exclusions. 16 This authority can apply to categorical 

exclusions with air-quality reviews, as well as all other categorical 

exclusions. 

The Advance Planning category's provisions are not part of the agency's 

environmental review process and are not applicable to transit projects. 

These provisions allow for certain activities in the highway project 

development cycle, such as land acquisition, to occur prior to NEPA 

approval. The three provisions in this category include the following: 

15This provision is commonty referred to as "4(f) de minimis." A de minimis impact is one 

that is minor in nature and after taking into account avoidance. minimization, mitigation, 

and enhancement measures results in no adverse effect to the activities, features, or 

attributes qualifying a park, recreat1on area, or Wildlife and waterfowl refuge for protection 

under Section 4(f) 

16A state can assume responsibility for certain categorical exclusions under 23 U.S. C. § 

326. This program is formally known as the "State Assumption of Responsibility for 

Categorical Exclusions " 

Page 9 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
159 


32989.075

The Advance Design-Build Contracting provision permits a state to 

release requests for proposals and award design-build contracts prior 

to completing the NEPA process; however, a contractor may not 

proceed with final design or construction during the NEPA process< 17 

The Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision authorizes states 

to acquire real property interests, such as land, for a project before 

completion of the NEPA process< 

The 2-phase Contracts provision authorizes the awarding of contracts 

on a competitive basis for preconstruction services and preliminary 

project design before the completion of the NEPA process. 

Most of the project delivery provisions are optional, which we define to 

mean that the relevant entities (a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency), can choose to use the provision if circumstances 

allow. For example, a state highway project within an existing operational 

right-of-way may have the option to use the categorical exclusion for 

projects within an existing operational right-of-way. Specifically, 22 of the 

34 highway project delivery provisions and 17 of the 29 transit project 

delivery provisions are optional. By contrast, 12 provisions are 

requirements for both highway and transit projects, which we define to 

mean that federal agencies, or state or local transportation agencies that 

are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and 

obligations in the provision, if all the conditions for its use have been 

satisfied. Required provisions are primarily contained in the 

Administrative and Coordination Changes category. For example, for 

highway projects, the Programmatic Agreements for Efficient 

Environmental Review provision, enacted in 2012, requires FHWA to 

seek opportunities with states to enter into agreements that establish 

streamlined processes for handling routine projects, such as highway 

repair. Prior to 2012, FHWA actively encouraged programmatic 

agreements between state DOTs and FHWA division offices, but seeking 

opportunities to enter such agreements were not required. 

"n""''"-"" "'" is a contracting method that combines the responsibilities for designing and 

constructing a project in a single contract instead of the more traditional approach of 

separating these responsibilities. 

Page 10 GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
160 


32989.076

State DOTs Reported 

That a Number of 

Provisions They Used 

Sped Up Highway 

Project Delivery, 

While for Most 

Selected Transit 

Agencies Effects 

Were Unclear 

More Than Half of 

Optional Provisions Were 

Reported to Be Used by a 

Majority of State DOTs on 

Highway Projects 

According to survey responses, 10 of the 17 optional provisions included 

in the survey-which primarily fall under the Accelerated NEPA Review 

category-were each used by 30 or more state DOTs (see fig. 1). 18 Fifty 

state DOTs reported using the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision-the most of any of the provisions. Some of the less widely 

used provisions-the 7 provisions reported to be used by 21 or fewer 

states-only apply to specific circumstances or highway projects that 

many state DOTs undertake less frequently. For example, the Categorical 

Exclusion for FHWA-funded Feny Facility Rehabilitation or 

Reconstruction provision would only apply to states that operate ferry 

services, a circumstance that may explain its relatively low use. Also, for 

3 of these 7 provisions, 10 or more states reported that they plan to use 

the provision in the future. For example, while 21 state DOTs used the 

Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detailed Consideration of Alternative 

Actions provision, an additional17 state DOTs reported that they plan to 

180ur survey of state DOTs included 17 ofthe 22 optional provistons and all12 required 

provisions that apply to highway projects. We did not mclude the 3 proviSions from the 

Advance Planning category, which do not directly relate to NEPA rev1ew, as part of our 

52-state DOT survey; we addressed these provisions in the follow~up interviews with the 

10 selected state DOTs and discuss our findings later in this section. We also did not 

include the 2 provisions from the NEPA Assignment category because we spoke 

individually with officials in all of the states that have implemented or are m the process of 

implementing these provisions. We discuss these provisions later in the report 

Page 11 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
161 


32989.077

use it. 19 All of the optional provisions were reported to be used by at least 

14 state DOTs. 

Figure 1: Number of States That Used Optional Project Delivery Provisions as Reported by Departments of Transportation in 

50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

Optio11al project delivery provisions• 

Mlnorimpacte to protoctiHi public land 

Elimin<~ting the documentation and prior 1!1pproval requireme11t for categorical exclusion for highway safetyb 

Eliminating the docume11tatlon and prlor approval requirement for categorical exciU9!on 

for highway modernization 

Categorical exclusion in am!l'rgencies 

Early coordination activities ill environmental review process 

Categorical exclusion for projects within the existi11g optHatlonal right-of-way< 

Eliminating the documentation and prior approval requirement for categorical exclu&lon for bridge projects at railway-highway crossings 

Planning documents used in N~tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review 

Use of feder<~l highway or tr<~nsit funds to support agencies participating in the environmental review process~ 

Categorical exclusion for projects with limited feder:tl funds 

Reduce duplication by eliminating detailed consideration of alternative actions 

Categorical exclusion for geotechnical and archeological inv&stigations 

Categorical exclusion for rnultimoda! projects 

Categorical eKcluslon for environmental restoration 

Categorical eKclusion for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)-funded ferry facility 

n~habilitation or reconstruction 

Environmi:!'nlal documents for use Categorical among Department exclusion of for Transportation FHWA-funded on similar 11dministrntlon.s ferry projects 

ve:osels •~====~[:::: :::~:: ;,!!••:::••::•:··········::•:•••·········;:!~!~:~i!,,ii,ii:·!,i·:!!!~~] 

Source GAO analySis of survey respo11ses from 52 state departmeo\ts. of transpmta!ooo. I GA0·18·222 

10 15 20 25 30 

Number of states 

1111 Used 

C]Plantouse 

L-:-JNoplanstouse 

c=J Unaware of provision or no response 

45 50 52 

"We define "optional" provisions to mean that the relevant entity (a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if circumstances aUow. 

19The Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detaded Consideration of Alternative Actions 

provision authorizes the lead agency to reduce duplication, by eliminating from detailed 

consideration an alternative proposed in an EIS if the alternative was already proposed in 

a planning process or state environmental review process. 

Page 12 GAOv18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
162 


32989.078

b"Categorical exclusion" means a category of actions that do not individuaUy or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment, and for which, therefore, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required 

cThe ex1sting operational right·of-way refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing 

transportation facility or is maintained for transportation purposes, such as a highway, public footpath, 

or rail bed, landscaping, or rest areas with direct access to a controlled access highway 

4

Funds may be provided. for transportation planning activities that precede the 1mt1ation of the 

environmental review process, for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for information 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements 

Some states reported that they have not used certain provisions and have 

no plans to do so. Our survey served as a nationwide review of the use of 

the provisions and was not designed to determine why each state did or 

did not use each provision. However, our discussions with selected states 

and optional comments provided in the survey provided some additional 

insight into states' use of the provisions. Officials at some state DOTs 

reported that they had not used certain categorical exclusions because 

other categorical exclusions could also apply to those projects. 

Specifically, officials in 4 state DOTs told us that they did not use 4 

categorical exclusion provisions for this reason. For example, officials at 

the Colorado DOT said that the Categorical Exclusion for Geotechnical 

and Archeological Investigations provision has not been used in Colorado 

because other categorical exclusions were more applicable. 20 Similarly, 

officials at the Oklahoma DOT said that they had not used the Categorical 

Exclusion for Projects within the Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

provision because most of those projects already qualify for a categorical 

exclusion under other criteria. 21 For other provisions, such as the 

Categorical Exclusion for Multimodal Projects provision, some state 

DOTs, such as the Nebraska DOT, indicated that they do not conduct 

multimodal projects and have no plans to do so for the foreseeable 

future-" 

20The Categoncaf Exclusion for Geotechnical and Archeological Investigations provision 

for highway projects designates a categorical exclusion for geotechmcal and archeological 

investigations to provide information for prelimmary design 

21The Categorical Exclusion for Projects within the Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

provision des1gnates a project w1thin an existing operational right-of-way as a categorical 

exclusion 

22The Categorical Exclusion for Multimodal Projects provision authorizes a DOT operatmg 

administration to apply a categorical exclusion of another DOT operating administration to 

a multimodal project 

Page 13 GA0-18-ZZ2 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
163 


32989.079

About Two-Thirds of the 

Optional Provisions 

Reportedly Sped Up 

Highway Project Delivery 

for the Majority of Users 

For 11 of the 17 optional provisions included in our survey, a majority of 

state DOTs that indicated they used the provisions (users) reported that 

the provisions sped up project delivery (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Percentage of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported Various Effects of Used Optional Highway Project Delivery Provisions 

Optional project delivery provislonsa 

Minor impacts to protected public !and 

Categorical exclusion for projects within the existing operational r!ght-of.way~ 

Use of federal highway or transit funds to support agencies panlc!patlng In the 

environmental revu!W process< 

Categorical exclusion in emergcndel'l 

Categorical exclusion for FHWA-funded ferry vessels 

Categori~;al exclusion for geotechnical and archeological investigations 

Categorical exclusion for mu!tlmodal projects 

Categorical exclusion for environmental restoration 

20 

Percentaga of states 

Sourc>J GAO ana!ys•s of survey responses from 52 state departrnems of tmnsp[]'(Uot>e•1. 1 GAD·t8·222 

Page 14 

Number of states reportedly using provision 

... 

50 

32 

41 

43 

30 

46 

14 

39 

21 

·i'~! " 

40 

" 

15 

iS 

19 

19 

40 60 eo 100 

GA0~18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
164 


32989.080

awe define "optional" provisions to mean that the relevant entity (a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if circumstances a !low 

b"Categorical exclusion' means a category of .actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment, and for which. therefore. ne1tt1er an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. The ex1sting operational right-of-way 

refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing transportation facility or is maintained 

for transportation purposes. such as a highway, public footpath, or rail bed. landscaping, or rest areas 

with direct access to a controlled access highway. 

cFunds may be provtded: for transportation planning activities that precede the initiation of the 

environmental rev1ew process. for dedtcated staffing, for traming of agency personnel, for informatton 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements 

Over 90 percent of users of the Minor Impacts to Protected Public Land 

provision reported that it sped up project delivery (46 out of 50 state 

DOTs using the provision). FHWA officials said that without the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision, a state DOT would need to 

complete an environmental assessment to show that performing even a 

small project, such as adding a small bus stop on the periphery of a park, 

would not have significant effects on the environment. 23 The Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision now allows a state DOT to 

complete transportation projects that have a minimal environmental effect 

on historic sites and parklands more quickly because the state DOT can 

bypass the environmental assessment process. In our survey and 

discussions with state DOTs, some officials noted how much time the 

provision can help them save. 24 Officials at the Virginia DOT estimated 

that a 9-month to 1-year review could be cut to 2 to 4 months." An official 

at the Colorado DOT said that reviews that used to take 6 months now 

take 30 days. And officials at the Mississippi DOT said that they used the 

provision when adding turn lanes near parks and were able to bypass a 

review process that previously took 6 to 12 months. 

Other examples of sped-up project delivery provided by state DOTs 

include the following: 

23Prior to the enactment of thts provision, we reported in May 2003 on stakeholders· v1ews 

about aspects of the environmental review process that add time to the process for 

transportation projects. We found that 9 of 16 selected stakeholders reported that the 

statutory "4(f)" requirement protectmg properties on historic sites and parkland was 

burdensome. GAO, Highway Infrastructure. Stakeholders' Views on T1me to Conduct 

Environmental Reviows of Highway Projects, GA0~03~534 (Washington, D.C .. May 23, 

2003) 

24We gathered examples of the effects of the provis1ons, including time savings, both 

through the follow-up interviews we conducted with officials at 10 state DOTs and in the 

optional areas for comments included in the survey 

2SWe did not independently verify state DOT officials' estimates of time savings 

Page 15 GAOw18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
165 


32989.081

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies provision: Mississippi DOT 

officials said that this provision has been helpful, particularly given 

project delivery lessons learned since Hurricane Katrina. They said 

the provision allows the state DOT to use a categorical exclusion, 

which takes 6 to 8 months for some projects, in place of an 

environmental assessment, which can take 12 to 18 months and 

involves additional review steps such as providing evidence and 

analysis as to why a project does not require an EIS. 26 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support Agencies 

Participating in the Environmental Review Process provision: Arizona 

DOT officials said that the state DOT funds positions in the Army 

Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service that help lessen 

the time it takes for those agencies to provide comments on Arizona 

DOT project's NEPA reviews. The officials estimated these positions 

reduce review time by about one month compared to when these 

agencies did not have Arizona DOT -funded positions. 27 

For the remaining six optional provisions, 41 to 58 percent of users 

reported that the provisions had no effect on project delivery. Based on 

discussions with selected state DOTs and comments included with survey 

responses, officials at some state DOTs reported that the provisions did 

not have any effect because the states had already developed similar 

processes, either through programmatic agreements with their FHWA 

division office or at their own initiative. As a resu~. the state DOTs did not 

realize any new time savings after the provisions were enacted in law. For 

example, for each of three provisions that allow for certain documentation 

to be eliminated for categorical exclusions, officials at seven state DOTs 

reported that they had already developed similar processes through 

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies provision designates the repair or 

reconstruction of any road, highway, or bridge that was damaged by an emergency as a 

categorical exclusion_ 

27The Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support Agencies Parlicipa.ting in the 

Environmental Review Process provision allows a public e11tity to use its federal highway 

or transit funds to support a federal or state agency or Indian tribe participating in the 

environmental review process on activities that directly contribute to expediting and 

improving project planning and delivery, 

Page 16 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
166 


32989.082

Among Required 

Provisions, about ThreeQuarters of State DOTs 

Reported That 

"Programmatic 

Agreements" Helped 

Speed Up Highway 

Projects, While the Effects 

Are Mixed for Other 

Provisions 

programmatic agreements with their FHWA division office." Further, five 

state DOTs reported that the Eariy Coordination Activities in 

Environmental Review Process provision had no effect because they 

already had a similar coordination process in place. Some states used 

such a process at their own initiative and others in conjunction with their 

FHWA division office. 29 

Of the 12 required provisions-which fall into the Administrative and 

Coordination Change category-only the Programmatic Agreements for 

Efficient Environmental Review provision was reported by a majority of 

state DOTs (39) to have sped up project delivery (see fig. 3). For 

example, officials at the Mississippi DOT reported that a programmatic 

agreement with the FHWA division office can allow it to save 6 to 8 

months when processing categorical exclusions for projects with minimal 

right-of-way acquisition. They explained that they no longer had to wait for 

the FHWA division office to process the categorical exclusion. As 

previously discussed, prior to 2012, FHWA actively encouraged, but did 

not require, programmatic agreements between state DOTs and FHWA 

division offices. In interviews and optional comments from the survey, 

officials reported that programmatic agreements, both those entered into 

before and after the enactment of the provision, had sped up project 

delivery. We did not determine the number of state DOTs that attributed 

the speed up in project delivery to the 2012 provision, as opposed to 

those who attributed it to the earlier programmatic agreements with their 

FHWA division offices. All of the required provisions reportedly sped up 

project delivery for at least 4 state DOTs. 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval Requirement for Categorical 

Exclusion for Bridge Projects at Railway~Highway Crossmgs provision designates bndge 

rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade separation to 

replace existing at-grade railroad crossings, as a categorical exclusion. The Eliminating 

the Documentation and Pn·ar Approval Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Modernization provision designates resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation. reconstruction. 

adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes as a categonca! exclusion. The Eliminating the 

Documentation and Prior Approval Requirement for Categorical Exclusmn for Highway 

Safety provision designates highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects, 

including the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting, as a categorical 

exclusion 

2

9--rhe Early Coordination Activities in Environmental Review Process provfs!on 

encourages early cooperation between DOT and other agencies, includmg states or !ocalplanmng agencies, in the environmental review process to avoid delay and duplication. 

and suggests early coordination activities. Early coordination mc!udes establishment of 

MOUs witn states or !ocal-planmng agenc1es. 

Page 17 GA0·1B·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
167 


32989.083

Figure 3: Number of Departments of Transportation in 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico That Reported 

Various Effects of the Required Highway Project Delivery Provisions 

Required project delivery provisions• 

150-daystatuteoflimitatioM• 

Combine final environmental impact statement and mcord of decision in certain cases" 

Use single National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document 

Resolved issues are not reconsidered without significant new informatioo 

Stakeholder agency comments in i!Tea of expertise 

Coordination plan for public and agency pi!rt!cipation 

Procedures for initiation of environmental review 

Programmatic mitigation plans used in NEPA rE!vieW' 

Enhanced technical assistance & accelerating project completion' 

45-day limit to identify resource agencies 

Issue resolution process 

Source·GAOanalysisolsurveyreo~ponsesfrom52statedBpartrnentsoftransportalic>n 1 Gl\0·18·222 

10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 52 

Number of states 

~~~~Sped up 

IIIII No effect 

~Slowed down 

C=:J Too soon to judge 

~ Unaware of provision or no response 

awe define "required" provisions to mean that federal agencies, or state or local transportation 

agencies that are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and obligations in the 

provision. if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied_ 

~>..Programmatic agreements" are agreements between state departments of transportation and their 

Federal Highway Administration division office on processes and procedures to carT)' out 

environmental reviews and other required project reviews. 

erhe provision bars judicial review of claims unless they are timely filed. 

"There may be instances in which a combined document is not the best option. 

~Once states or metropolitan planning organizations decide to use such plans. federal agencies must 

give substantial weight to the plans. 

1

0nce a project sponsor or governor requests assistance, the Department of Transportation is 

required to provide it. 

For 5 of the 12 provisions, between 1 0 and 18 states responded that the 

provisions sped up project delivery. For example, officials at the Ohio 

DOT estimated that the Combine Final Environmental impact Statement 

and Record of Decision in Certain Cases provision saves them a 

Page 18 GAOM18M222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
168 


32989.084

minimum of 3 months. For the remaining 6 provisions, between 4 and 7 

states reported that the provisions sped up project delivery, but each of 

these provisions also had at least 16 states that reported the provision 

had no effect on project delivery. Our survey served as a broad-based 

review of the effects of the provisions and was not designed to determine 

why each provision had the reported effects; however, some states 

provided voluntary comments in the survey. As with various optional 

provisions, some state DOT officials reported no effect because the state 

had already developed processes and practices that they said achieved 

what the provisions formalized, for example: 

Coordination Plan for Public and Agency Participation provision: In 

discussions and from optional comments, 4 state DOTs said that they 

already had a similar process in place. Officials at the Louisiana DOT 

stated that they performed a similar process prior to the 'Coordination 

Plan for Public and Agency Participation' provision's enactment in law 

in an effort to coordinate with the public and other government 

agencies. 30 

45-Day Limit to Identify Resource Agencies provision: In interviews 

and optional survey comments, officials at 2 state DOTs said that they 

already had a similar process in place to promptly identify stakeholder 

agencies. 31 

Issue Resolution Process provision: Wyoming DOT officials said that 

they had been performing a similar process prior to this provision's 

enactment in law to ensure consensus among stakeholders. 32 

Some state DOTs reported that it was too early to determine the effects of 

several provisions, particularly more recently enacted provisions. For 5 of 

the 12 required provisions, more than one third of state DOTs (over 17 

states) reported that it was too soon to judge the provisions' effects. Four 

of these 5 provisions were enacted in the FAST Act in 2015. 

Consequently, state DOTs that used the provision had a short window of 

3

o,-he Coordination Plan for Public and Agency Participation provision requires a 

coordination plan for public and agency participation in the environmental review process 

within 90 days of notice of intent or the initiation of an environmental assessment, 

including a schedule for completion of the environmental review process for the project. 

31The 45~Day Limit to Identify Resource Agencies provision establishes a 45-day limit 

after the notice of intent date for a lead agency to identify other agencies to participate i11 

the environmental review process on E!S projects 

32The Issue Resolution Process provision establishes procedures to resolve issues 

between state DOTs and relevant resource agencies 

Page 19 GA0~18v222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
169 


32989.085

time to assess any potential effect on project delivery-particularly given 

that highway projects often take a number of years to complete. Also, 

while our survey did not ask state DOTs when they had most recently 

initiated an EIS, several state DOTs voluntarily noted that they had not 

done so since the FAST Act. Certain provisions apply only to projects 

undergoing an EIS; states that have not done an EIS since such 

provisions were enacted would not have had the opportunity to use the 

provision. One such provision is the 45-Day Limit to Identify Resource 

Agencies provision, for which 19 state DOTs reported that it was too early 

to judge the effects. 

For 5 of the 12 provisions, a relatively few state DOTs, between one and 

eight, reported that the provision had slowed down project delivery. Eight 

states reported that the Coordination Plan for Public and Agency 

Participation provision slowed down project delivery, the most for any 

provision. According to the Minnesota DOT, this provision slowed down 

project delivery because it formalized and required a specific coordination 

process in addition to those that had already been voluntarily occurring 

with relevant federal and state resource agencies. Formalizing this 

process resulted in resource agencies taking longer to provide responses 

to the Minnesota DOT. Other states similarly said that this provision's 

additional formal processes slowed down project delivery. 

We defined required provisions to mean that federal agencies or state or 

local transportation agencies that are subject to the provision must 

adhere to requirements and obligations in the provision, if all the 

conditions for its use have been satisfied. States may not have had the 

opportunity to apply some of the required provisions that apply to them 

because they did not have exposure to the circumstances and conditions 

that would invoke this provision's use. For example, a state would not be 

exposed to the 150-Day Statute of Limitations provision if it had not been 

subject to a lawsuit. 33 Unlike the optional provisions, we did not ask states 

whether they elected to use the required provisions since state DOTs, if 

150 Day Statute of Limitations provision bars claims seeking judicia! review of a 

permit, license, or approval issued by a federal agency for highway projects unless they 

are filed within 150 days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing 

the final agency action, or unless a shorter time is specified in the federal law under which 

the judicial review is allowed, 

Page 20 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
170 


32989.086

Selected State DOTs 

Reported Using the Three 

Advance Planning 

Provisions That Affect 

Project Delivery but 

Precede NEPA Review 

subject to the provision, must adhere to the requirements and obligations 

in the provision. 34 

Two of the three provisions from the Advance Planning category were 

used by a majority of the 10 state DOTs we interviewed, and most of the 

state DOTs that used each provision stated that it sped up project 

delivery. This use is illustrated more specifically: 35 

Advance Design-Build Contracting provision: 8 state DOTs used this 

provision, 5 of which reported it sped up highway project delivery. 36 

Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision: 6 state DOTs used 

this provision, 4 of which reported it sped up highway project 

delivery. 37 

2-phase Contracts provision: 5 state DOTs used this provision, 4 of 

which reported it sped up highway project delivery. 38 

Some state DOT officials provided examples of how the provisions 

affected their project delivery. For example, California DOT officials said 

that the Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision saved them a few 

months on small projects, involving one or two parcels of land; for a large 

project involving hundreds of commercial and residential parcels, they 

estimated time savings of more than a year. Similarly, Illinois DOT 

officials said that the provision has yielded time savings of 6 months to a 

year in instances where the DOT needs to purchase residential property. 

34 Based on optional comments from the survey, we found that states that had not had the 

opportunity to apply a required provision may have responded that the provision either 

had no effect or that it was too soon to judge its effect 

3SWe did not include provisions from the Advance Pfanning category in our survey 

because the primary survey respondents were not cogntzant of these provis1ons, as they 

do not directly relate to the NEPA process 

36The Advance Design~Build Contracting provision permits states or local transportation 

agencies to release requests for proposals and award design-build contracts pnor to the 

completion of the NEPA process; however 1t precludes a contractor from proceeding with 

final design or construction before completion of the NEPA process 

37The Advance Acquisition of Real Properly provision authorizes states to acquire real 

property interests for a project before completion of the NEPA process 

38The 2-phase Contracts provision authonzes the awarding of 2-phase contracts 

(construction manager/ general contractor) with preconstruction services and preliminary 

design of a project using a competitive selection process before the completion of the 

NEPA process. 

Page 21 GA0·1B·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
171 


32989.087

Most Project Delivery 

Provisions Were Used by 

Selected Transit Agencies, 

but the Provisions' Effects 

on Project Delivery Were 

Generally Unclear 

More than two-thirds of the provisions designed to speed up transit 

project delivery were reportedly used by 11 selected transit agencies. We 

asked officials in selected transit agencies to report their use of 29 project 

delivery provisions applicable to transn agencies, 17 of which are optional 

and 12 of which are required. 39 Of the 29 provisions, 6 were used by 4 or 

more selected transit agencies (see fig. 4). The most used optional 

provision, by 7 transit agencies, was the Minor Impacts to Protected 

Public Land provision described earlier followed by the Planning 

Documents Used in NEPA Review provision, used by 6 transit agencies. 

39Setected transit agencies may report not using a required provision because the 

conditions stated in the provision are not present, as we mentioned earlier. For example, 

the Issue Resolution Process provision, a required provision, is only required when a 

dispute arises that cannot be resolved otherwise. 

Page 22 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
172 


32989.088

Figure 4: Number of 11 Selected Transit Agencies That Reported Using Transit Project Delivery Provisions 

optional 

Planning projact 

documents danvery used In 

provisions• 

National Environmental 

M!nor lmpa¢ts 

Polley 

to protected 

Act (NEPA) 

public 

ra'iiew 

land ~~~~~~~~~~~if:::J Ca~oriealexcfusion for projects within tM existing operational right-of-wayb 

Categorical exclUsion for geoteetmlcal and attheologicat Investigations 

Early coordination activities in erivironmental tevl$w process 

categorical exclusion for minor rail realignment 

Categorical exclttSlon for preventative maintenance to culverts and channels 

Environmental documents for use a':~~~~l:t~,:.n~~~T:'if:f:,~!!: 

Reduce duplication by eliminating detailed consideration of alternative a<:tlons 

Categorical exclusion for multimodal projects 

Categorical exclusion tor modernization of transit structures 

Use of fediual highway or transit fund& to suppo~:tJ,:~~~Cr;!~J:I~~~~ 

Categorl~l exclusion for projects with limited federal funds 

Required project delivery provisions" 

Programmatie agntements for efficient &nvfronmental revle\¥1 

Programmatic mitigation plans used ln NI:PA revlew" 

Enhanced technk:at assistance & accelerating pro~ct cornpletion1 

Reliolved lse.ues are not N:'lcon,sidered wftt1oQt slgnifkant new information 

Sourcs GAO analySIS a! responses from 11 sele<:ted transit agenc•es. 1 GA0·18"222 

,'1,~, ,'1',',''3~ ",\4,,',,t( '6 

Numberoftrahslt age'neles (out of'11 selected) 10 11 

"We define ~optionar provisions to mean that the relevant entity {a federal agency or state or local 

transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if circumstances allow. This figure does not 

include the two optional NEPA Ass1gnment category's provisions-NEPA Assignment Authority 

provision and CategonCal Exclusion Determmation Authority provision. 

b.Categorical exclusion" means a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment, and for which, therefore, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. The existing operational right-of-way 

refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing transportation facility or is maintained 

for transportation purposes, such as a highway, public footpath, or rail bed, landscaping, or rest areas 

with direct access to a controlled access highway. 

"Funds may be provided: for transportation planning activities that precede the initiation of the 

environmental review process, for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for information 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements_ 

Page 23 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
173 


32989.089

We define "required" provisions to mean that federal agencies or state or local transportation 

agencies that are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and obligations in the 

provision, if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied. 

eThe provision bars judicial review of claims unless they are timely filed. 

There may be instances !n which a combined document is not the best option. 

~~"Programmatic agreements" are agreements between state departments of transportation and their 

Federal Highway Administration division office on processes and procedures to carry out 

environmental reviews and other required project reviews. 

hOnce states or metropolitan planning organizations decide to use such plans federal agencies must 

give substantial weight to the plans. 

'Once a project sponsor or governor requests assistance, the Department of Transportation is 

required to provide it. 

Some transit agencies told us that the provisions they used sped up 

project delivery. In addition, some provided estimated time savings. 40 

Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) officials told us that the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision was extremely helpful for 

recent CT A projects involving historic properties. For example, CT A 

has implemented projects that involve track work at a station that is 

adjacent to a historic boulevard. They estimated that the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision has reduced the time to 

complete documentation by several months. Similarly, a Tri-County 

Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon official stated the Minor 

Impacts to Protected Public Land provision has been instrumental 

since in the past, the agency would have to stop the project if it 

affected a park land. 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) officials 

told us that they used the Categorical Exclusion for Minor Rail 

Realignment provision one or two times within the past 2 years. 

SEPTA estimated the provision saved the agency several months in 

time savings per project. Officials stated that the provision allowed the 

SEPTA to use a categorical exclusion in place of an environment 

assessment. SEPTA officials also said they saved staff time and 

approximately $100,000 a year in consultant fees and agency staff 

resources by using the Categorical Exclusion for Preventative 

Maintenance to Culverts and Channels provision. 

Capital Metro officials in Austin, Texas, told us they used the 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects within the Existing Operational 

Right-of-Way provision for a rail right-of-way project. They estimated 

the provision helped save at least 4 to 6 months in project delivery 

4

0We did not verify transit agencies' cost savings estimates resulting from the provisions. 

Page 24 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
174 


32989.090

because the agency was not required to do an environmental 

assessment. 

While some selected transit agencies reported using some provisions and 

added that this provision's use helped speed up project delivery or lower 

costs, the effects of the provisions-whether they sped up project delivery 

or streamlined the NEPA review process-were not clear to a majority of 

the selected transit agencies. Because transit agencies in our review do 

not track NEPA reviews-including their start and end dates-they were 

not able to assess how project time frames or costs were affected by the 

provisions. Officials from several selected transit agencies told us that 

their understanding of the project delivery provisions' effects was also 

limited by their reliance on engineering and environmental-planning 

consultants to prepare their NEPA documents. Officials from 4 of the 11 

transit agencies told us that they rely on these consultants' knowledge of 

the provisions to prepare their NEPA documents. Further, officials from 1 

transit agency said they required the assistance of their consultants to 

respond to our requests for information. 

Nine of the 29 provisions were not used by any of the agencies, and no 

provision was used by more than 7 agencies. Our discussions with 

selected transit agency and FTA officials provided some insight into 

transit agencies' use of the provisions, specifically: 

Limited transit projects needing EISs: Transit agencies that do not 

prepare EISs may have fewer opportunities to use some of the 

provisions. Following discussions with FTA officials, we examined the 

number of times transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an 

EIS in the Federal Register from 2005 through 2016 as a proxy to 

identify those transit agencies that would likely use a number of the 

project delivery provisions." We found that 48 transit agencies (out of 

several hundreds of transit agencies) filed notices of intent from fiscal 

year 2005 through 2016 but that of the 48 transit agencies, 34 had 

filed a notice of intent only once during that time. In general, the vast 

majority of transtt agencies have little recent experience preparing EIS 

documentation and using the provisions that are triggered by an 

41 FT A, as the lead federal agency, starts the EIS process by publishing a notice of intent 

m the Federal Register on behalf of the local transit agency. We used this approach 

because transit agencies that have prepared EIS documents would likely have experience 

and insight into environmental actions broadly speaking; however. we recognize that 

some transit agendes may have less experience with EIS provisions and more experience 

using other provisions related to categorical exclusions_ 

Page 25 GA0·18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
175 


32989.091

EIS. 42 For example, only one transit agency (Tri-County Metropolitan 

Transportation District of Oregon) had filed a notice of intent to 

prepare an EIS after the FAST Act was enacted in 2015. 

Duration of transit projects: Some instances where transit project 

delivery provisions were not used could be due to the number of years 

it takes to complete transit projects. According to FTA officials, where 

sponsors for highway projects may have new projects initiating and 

requiring NEPA reviews on a rolling basis, transit agencies operate 

differently. A transit agency may have a project that goes through a 

NEPA review and then begins construction of the project that can last 

a number of years. The transit agency may not have another project 

that requires an EIS for several years. For example, New York 

Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), the largest transit 

agency by ridership in the country, completed its last EIS review in 

2004 and has since been working on construction of that project, 

according to FTA officials. While MTA has been receiving FTA funds 

for construction, no additional project has undergone an EIS. 

Changing provisions and delayed guidance: Some transit agency 

officials told us that the changing provisions across the three enacted 

surface transportation authorization acts pose challenges to using the 

project delivery provisions. Understanding the changes in the project 

delivery provisions-for example, changes in categorical exclusionsincluded in SAFETEA-LU, MAP-21, and the FAST Act was 

challenging according to some selected transit agencies. Further, 

some transit agency officials stated that the lag time in receiving 

guidance from FTA on the changing provisions also posed challenges 

to using some of the provisions. 

42Ten agencies filed a notice of intent two times between these years and four agencies 

filed a notice of intent three or more times between these years. 

Page 26 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
176 


32989.092

DOT's FHWA Has 

Assigned Six States 

NEPAAuthority, and 

Two States Reported 

Time Savings, but 

FHWA Has Not 

Provided Guidance 

on Measuring Effects 

FHWA Has Assigned Six 

States NEPAAuthority, 

and Additional States Are 

Interested 

DOT, specifically FHWA, has assigned its NEPA approval authority to six 

states, and other states are interested in this authority. Of the six states, 

California and Texas have completed some NEPA reviews and 

determined they have achieved time savings through state approval of 

NEPA documents rather than federal approval. However, we found the 

reported time savings to be questionable for several reasons, including 

challenges faced by California and Texas in establishing sound baselines 

for comparison. Despite this finding, the reported time-savings information 

is used by other states to seek out NEPA authority and in reporting to 

DOT and Congress. FHWA focuses its oversight of NEPA assignment 

states on ensuring these states have the processes in place to carry out 

FHWA's NEPA responsibilities, according to a written agreement between 

each state and FHWA, and does not focus on determining whether states 

are achieving time savings. 

FHWA has assigned its NEPA authority to six states, enabling those state 

DOTs to assume FHWA's authority and approve state-prepared NEPA 

documentation for highway projects, in lieu of seeking federal approval. 43 

California's NEPA authority began in 2007, as the first state in the thenpilot program, and continued when the program was made permanent in 

2012. Once eligibility expanded to all states, Texas became the second 

state to be assigned NEPA authority, in 2014, followed more recently by 

Ohio in 2015, Florida in 2016, and Utah and Alaska in 2017. 44 

The 2005 Conference Report accompanying SAFETEA-LU indicates that 

the NEPA Assignment Authority provision was created to achieve more 

efficient and timely environmental reviews, which are a key benefit sought 

by participating states. The report states that the NEPA assignment 

program was initially created as a pilot program to provide information to 

Congress and the public as to whether delegation of DOT's 

environmental review responsibilities resulted in more efficient 

43The NEPA Assignment Authority provision authorizes FHWA to do this. As discussed 

above. another provision-the Categorical Exclusion Determination Authonty provisionauthorized FHWA to assign and a state to assume responsibility for determming if projects 

can be categorically excluded from NEPA review. Three states currently have assumed 

this authority-Alaska, California, and Utah. According to FTA officials, no state has 

assumed FTA's NEPA authority for document approval on transit projects 

44We did not include Alaska in our review because it did not assume NEPA authority unt!l 

November 2017. 

Page 27 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
177 


32989.093

environmental reviews45 In addition, in MAP-21, Congress declared that 

it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of surface 

transportation projects by substantially reducing the average length of the 

environmental review process'' State DOT officials from the five NEPA 

assignment states we reviewed cited anticipated time savings or greater 

efficiency in environmental review as a reason for taking on this authority. 

For example, Texas DOT officials said they expected to save time by 

eliminating FHWA approval processes that they described as time 

consuming. With NEPA authority, the state puts in place its own approval 

processes to carry out the federal government's NEPA review 

responsibilities, and agrees to take on the risk of legal liability for 

decisions made in this capacity. 

Additional states have expressed interest and have taken steps to apply 

for NEPA authority. Officials from three state DOTs told us they plan to 

apply for NEPA authority, and one of these, the Arizona DOT, has taken 

the first step in the process and obtained the requisite changes in state 

law47 In explaining the anticipated benefits of NEPA assignment to the 

state legislature, an Arizona DOT official cited time savings reported by 

California and Texas as a reason for taking on the application process. 

Time savings' results had been shared by California and Texas DOT 

officials during a peer exchange event held by an association of state 

highway officials in 2015 for states that are in the early stages or are 

considering applying for NEPA authority. Also, the Texas DOT had 

testified before a congressional committee in 2015 and described the time 

savings for environmental assessment reviews under its NEPA authority 

and its role communicating this information to other states pursuing NEPA 

authority. 48 

45H.R. Rep No. 109-203, at 1053 (2005) 

46Pub. l. No 114-121, § 1301(c), 126 Stat 405, 528, cocified at 23 U.S. C.§ 101(b)(4). 

47The Nebraska and Puerto Rico DOTs are also considering applying, according to 

officials in those states. States must, among other things, authorize a limited waiver of 

their sovere1gn immunity under the 11th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and consent 

to accepting the jurisdiction of the federal courts as a condition of assuming NEPA 

authority. 

48The Texas DOT testified before the House Oversight Committee on MAP-21 (Dec_ 8, 

2015). 

Page 28 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
178 


32989.094

State DOTs Calculate 

Time Savings, but 

Reported Savings Are 

Questionable 

The MOUs, signed with FHWA by each of the five states we reviewed, set 

out performance measures for comparing the time of completion for 

NEPA approvals before and after the assumption of NEPA responsibilities 

by the states. To calculate time savings, each state has established a 

baseline-{)! the time it took to complete NEPA review before it assumed 

NEPA authority-to compare to the time it takes to complete NEPA 

review after assuming NEPA authority. The baseline is to serve as a key 

reference point in determining the efficiency of state-led NEPA reviews. 

Thus far, the two states that have had NEPA authority long enough to 

report results are California and Texas, and only California has reported 

results for EISs. The California DOT reported that its EIS reviews now 

take about 6 years to approve, which it determined to be a 10-year 

improvement over the 16-year (15.9 years) baseline the state DOT 

established. For environmental assessment reviews, the California DOT 

reported completion times of about 3.5 years, which it determined to be a 

1-year improvement over the established baseline. The Texas DOT has 

not started and completed an EIS review since assuming NEPA authority 

but reported that its environmental assessment reviews have taken about 

1.5 years, compared to the baseline of almost 2.5 years. 

However, we found California and Texas DOTs' reported time savings to 

be questionable due to the methods used to compare time frames and 

challenges associated with establishing baselines. First, there is an 

inherent weakness in comparing the NEPA review time frames before 

and after NEPA authority because the comparison does not isolate the 

effect of assuming NEPA authority on NEPA review time frames from 

other possible factors. As discussed earlier, we have previously found 

that such factors include the extent of public opposition to a project and 

changes in transportation priorities, among other factors. 49 Further, 

according to a report from the American Association of State Highway 

and Transportation Officials, such a comparison does not include 

information to control for non-environmental factors that are important to 

project delivery time frames, including delay in completion of design work 

necessary to advance the environmental review and changes in project 

funding that put a project on hold. 50 Moreover, neither California nor 

Texas DOTs' time frame comparisons isolate the effects of NEPA 

49GA0-12-593 

50 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Lessons Learned 

from State DOT NEPA Assignment (May 2016). 

Page 29 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
179 


32989.095

assignment from other streamlining initiatives that may have helped 

accelerate delivery of projects, such as potential benefits realized from 

other project delivery provisions. 

Second, California and Texas have faced challenges creating appropriate 

baselines. States are responsible for determining how many and which 

projects to include in baseline calculations and adopting their own 

methodologies. While circumstances and conditions are different across 

states and states can be expected to have different experiences, 

California's current 16-year EIS baseline is over double that of Texas' EIS 

baseline. 51 In 2012, we found that for the 32 projects in which FHWA was 

the lead agency and signed the EIS in fiscal year 2009, the average time 

to complete the process was about 7 years. 52 According to information 

contained in California DOT reports to the state legislature from 2007 and 

2009, California's original baseline for EISs was comprised of 1 project 

that resulted in an EIS baseline of 2.5 years." In 2009 state DOT officials 

increased the number of EIS projects in order to achieve what they 

viewed as a more representative mix. This process increased California's 

EIS baseline six-fold, which has been consistently used since that time. 

Specifically, California used the median of five projects that had review 

times of around 2.5 years, 6.2 years, 15.9 years, 16.6 years, and 17.3 

years. These projects were selected because they were among the final 

EIS projects that were reviewed prior to California's assuming NEPA 

authority. 

However, the EIS baseline may not be meaningful. First, it includes outlier 

projects, which are projects that take much longer than usual to complete. 

According to California DOT officials, this factor is a limitation to 

determining time savings because the outliers increased the EIS baseline 

and therefore makes subsequent time savings look greater than they are. 

Next, despite the increase in EIS projects included in the baseline, a 2016 

California DOT report to the state legislature stated that this new EIS 

baseline may still not be meaningful because of the relatively small 

sample size, and therefore the inferences that can be made from EIS 

51The other NEPA assignment states have not publicly reported EIS baselines. 

52 GA0-12~593 

53ca!ifornia Department of Transportation, Report to the California Legislature Pursuant to 

Section 820.1 of the Calffornia Streets and Highways Code (November 2007); and 

California Department of Transportation, Second Report to the California Legislature 

Pursuant to Section 820.1 of the California Streets and Highways Code (Jan. 1, 2009). 

Page 30 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Projec.t Delivery 
180 


32989.096

analysis on time savings are limited. 54 The report caveats that "the EIS 

analysis should not be used as a major indicator of the effectiveness of 

NEPA assignment," but still reports the EIS analysis results. However, 

California DOT uses the figure in determining and reporting time savings. 

For example, information available on the California DOT's web site as of 

November 2017 presents these data and states that they are evidence of 

saving "significant time in reviewing and approving its NEPA documents 

since undertaking NEPA assignment." 55 

Moreover, the California DOT's reported median time frame of 6 years for 

EIS reviews only accounts for those projects that have both started and 

completed their environmental review since the state assumed NEPA 

authority. As only 10 years have passed since California assumed NEPA 

authority in 2007, all EIS reviews started and completed since 2007 

automatically have shorter time frames than the 16-year baseline. Thus, it 

will be 2023 before any EIS reviews in California could equal the 

baseline, let alone exceed it, making any EIS review started after 

assumption of NEPA authority and completed before 2023 appear to 

demonstrate time savings. 

Texas DOT officials stated that they had challenges determining a 

baseline for environmental assessments because there is no nationally 

accepted standard definition of when an environmental assessment 

begins. Moreover, Texas DOT recently revised its environmental 

assessment baseline, reducing it from 3 years to 2.5 years and including 

projects over a 2-year period instead of a longer 3-year period due to 

uncertainties with quality of the older data, according to Texas DOT 

officials. Texas also included, then excluded three outliers from its revised 

baseline (reviews that took between 6 and 9 years to complete) because 

officials determined they were not representative of typical environmental 

assessment reviews. While improving project data to create more 

accurate baselines is beneficial, it also results in different time savings' 

estimates over time and illustrates the challenges of constructing sound 

baselines. 

54Cahfornia Department of Transportation, 2016 Report to the Legislature. NEPA 

Assignment. July 2007~June 2014 (Jan. 1, 2016). 

55California Department of Transportation, Caltrans NEPA Assignment Fact Sheet 

(October 2017). 

Page 31 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delinry 
181 


32989.097

FHWA Has Focused on 

States' Compliance and 

Processes but Has Played 

a Limited Role in Time 

Savings Measures 

As previously discussed, states that are considering or have recently 

decided to assume NEPA assignment authority have relied, at least in 

part, on time savings reported by California and Texas. As additional 

NEPA assignment states begin calculating and reporting time savings as 

outlined in their MOUs with FHWA, the inherent weakness of a pre- and 

post-assignment baseline comparison, combined with challenges 

establishing sound baselines, creates the potential for questionable 

information about the program's effects to be reported and relied upon by 

other states considering applying for NEPA assignment. Questionable 

information also negatively affects DOT's and Congress' ability to 

detenmine whether NEPA assignment is having its intended effect and 

resulting in more efficient environmental reviews. 

FHWA focuses its oversight of NEPA assignment states through audits 

and monitoring to ensure that states have the processes in place to carry 

out FHWA's role in the NEPA process and that they comply with the MOU 

agreed to between FHWA and each of the NEPA assignment states. 

According to the MOUs, FHWA's annual audits include evaluating the 

attainment of performance measures contained in each MOU. Each of the 

five MOUs contains four performance measures including: (1) 

documenting compliance with NEPA and other federal laws and 

regulations, (2) maintaining internal quality control and assurance 

measures for NEPA decisions including legal reviews, (3) fostering 

communication with other agencies and the general public, and (4) 

documenting efficiency and timeliness in the NEPA process by comparing 

the completion of NEPA documents and approvals before and after NEPA 

assignment. 

According to FHWA officials, the agency interprets evaluating the 

attainment of performance measures contained in the MOU as ensuring 

that the state has a process in place to assess attainment. For the 

efficiency and timeliness measures, FHWA does not use its audits to 

measure whether the state is achieving performance goals. FHWA only 

ensures that the state has a process in place to track the completion of 

NEPA documents and approvals before and after NEPA assignment, and 

that states follow the process, according to FHWA officials. For example, 

FHWA officials from the California division office stated that they did not 

assess the baseline methodology or assess its validity or accuracy. 

FHWA's Texas division officials added that setting the baseline has not 

been an FHWA role. FHWA does not assess or collect information on 

states' calculations of their time savings from NEPA assignment. 

Page 32 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
182 


32989.098

FHWA officials stated that their focused approach on compliance and 

processes is consistent with the authority they have been granted and 

that it is not required by statute to measure environmental review 

efficiency and timeliness performance of participating states. Moreover, 

according to these officials, this authority limits their ability to request 

state information on issues related to, and otherwise assess, states' 

performance measures, including time savings, specifically: 

According to an FHWA program document, FHWA is statutorily 

authorized to require the state to provide any information that FHWA 

reasonably considers necessary to ensure that the state is adequately 

carrying out the responsibilities assigned to the state. 56 Further, a 

request for information is reasonable if it pertains to FHWA's 

reviewing the performance of the state in assuming NEPA assignment 

responsibilities. However, FHWA officials told us they do not consider 

an assessment of efficiency and timeliness measures to be necessary 

to ensure that the state is adequately carrying out its responsibilities. 

Additionally, FHWA considers timeliness performance measures to be 

a state role. FHWA officials told us that the timeliness performance 

measures in the NEPA assignment MOUs were added by the states, 

not FHWA. For instance, California added a timeliness performance 

measure based on its state legislature's reporting requirements. Each 

of the subsequent four NEPA assignment states we reviewed also 

included timeliness performance measures in their respective MOUs. 

However, the DOT Office of Inspector General reported in 2017 that 

while FHWA is not statutorily required to measure performance 

regarding the environmental review process for NEPA assignment 

states, the lack of data collection and tracking inhibits FHWA's ability 

to measure the effectiveness of NEPA assignment in accelerating 

project delivery. 57 The DOT Office of Inspector General recommended 

that FHWA develop and implement an oversight mechanism to 

periodically evaluate the performance of NEPA assignment states, 

which has not yet been implemented. 

While FHWA does not, according to officials, have the authority to assess 

states' measurement of timeliness performance, FHWA has a role and 

the authority to provide guidance or technical assistance to states to help 

find solutions to particular problems and to ensure complete and quality 

5623 U.S. C.§ 327(c)(4). 

57 DOT Office of Inspector General, Vulnerabilities Exist in Implementing Initiatives Under 

MAP-21 Subtitle C to Accelerate Project Delivery (ST2017029) (Mar. 6, 2017) 

Page JJ GA0*18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
183 


32989.099

information is provided to Congress, state DOTs, and the public to help 

make informed policy choices. Federal standards for internal control state 

that agencies should use quality information to determine the extent to 

which they are achieving their intended program outcomes. 58 

Characteristics of quality information include complete, appropriate, and 

accurate information that helps management make informed decisions 

and evaluate the entity's performance in achieving strategic outcomes. 

FHWA's mission to advance the federal-aid highway program is 

articulated in its national leadership strategic goal, which states that 

FHWA "leads in developing and advocating solutions to national 

transportation needs." To carry out its mission, FHWA engages in a range 

of activities to assist state DOTs in guiding projects through construction 

to improve the highway system. Specifically, according to agency 

documents, FHWA provides technical assistance and training to state 

DOTs and works with states to identify issues and develop and advocate 

solutions. Its broad authority to offer guidance and technical assistance 

can include helping states develop sound program methodologies. Such 

assistance or guidance could also include sharing best practices and 

lessons learned on evaluation methodologies, including creation of 

baselines, and potentially result in better quality information to assess the 

results of NEPA assignment. Without quality information reported from 

NEPA assignment states on time savings, questionable information about 

the program effects may be relied upon by other states considering 

applying for NEPA authority, and may negatively impact DOT's and 

Congress' ability to determine whether NEPA assignment is having its 

intended effect and resulting in more efficient environmental reviews. 

FHWA officials stated that they advise NEPA assignment states on 

process improvements and technical assistance, but that no state has 

requested assistance developing evaluation methodologies or baselines. 

However, offering guidance or technical assistance on evaluation 

methodologies to measure time savings can help ensure that states are 

basing decisions to participate on reliable information and that, in turn, 

those NEPA assignment states can provide reliable information to FHWA 

and Congress to help assess whether NEPA assignment results in more 

efficient environmental reviews. 

58GA0-14-704G. 

Page 34 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
184 


32989.100

Conclusions 

Recommendation for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

A number of factors can affect the time it takes to complete highway and 

transit projects, including the NEPA review process. Congress has stated 

that it is in the national interest to expedite the delivery of surface 

transportation projects by substantially reducing the average length of the 

environmental review process, and has taken a number of steps in this 

direction, including allowing DOT to assign NEPA authority to the states. 

We found that the time savings results publicly shared by current NEPA 

assignment states have spurred interest among other states seeking 

NEPA authority. However, states are making program decisions-taking 

on risk and assuming federal authority-based on questionable 

information and reports of success. 

Given questions about participating states' reported time savings, FHWA 

can help provide some assurance that the performance measures states 

develop and use to report out are based on sound methodologies. FHWA 

has the authority to issue program guidance and offer and provide 

technical assistance to help state DOTs find solutions to particular 

problems, including the development of sound evaluation methodologies. 

Without such assistance, states may continue to face difficulties 

establishing sound baselines. And without a sound baseline, the time 

savings states calculate-which may continue to be subsequently publicly 

reported-may be of questionable accuracy and value. And Congress, in 

turn, would not have reliable information on whether the assignment of 

NEPA authority to states is having its intended effect. 

The FHWA Administrator should offer and provide guidance or technical 

assistance to NEPA assignment states on developing evaluation 

methodologies. including baseline time frames and timeliness measures. 

(Recommendation 1) 

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT 

provided a written response (see app. VI), as well as technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT partially concurred with our 

recommendation. Specifically, DOT stated that it would clarify 

environmental review start times and communicate this to all FHWA 

Page 35 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
185 


32989.101

divisions and states. DOT also stated it would provide the NEPA 

assignment states with any new federal government-wide guidance 

developed on performance measures of environmental reviews. DOT also 

stated that it already provides technical assistance to NEPA assignment 

states in other areas and that FHWA is not required by statute to measure 

the environmental review efficiency and timeliness of NEPA assignment 

states. Further, DOT stated that focusing only on timeliness metrics for 

environmental reviews overlooks other significant benefits of NEPA 

assignment, such as state control over when and how to conduct 

environmental reviews, which according to DOT is one of the most 

significant factors that a state considers in deciding whether to request 

NEPA assignment authority. 

We are encouraged that DOT stated it would clarify environmental review 

start times. This step can improve the accuracy of environmental 

assessment review time frames, which is a part of developing sound 

baselines. In addition, while providing general guidance related to 

performance measures of environmental reviews would be helpful, we 

continue to believe that FHWA needs to provide further guidance or 

technical assistance to NEPA assignment states on developing sound 

evaluation methodologies. We recognize that FHWA has stated that it is 

not required by statute to measure environmental review efficiency; 

however, FHWA does have broad authority to offer guidance and 

technical assistance to help states develop sound program 

methodologies, including sharing practices and lessons learned on 

evaluation methodologies. As we reported, Congress indicated its interest 

in more efficient and timely environmental reviews when it created the 

NEPA assignment program. FHWA can help provide reasonable 

assurance that the performance measures states develop and use to 

report information are based on sound methodologies, which would in 

turn help provide Congress reliable information on whether the 

assignment of NEPA authority to states is having its intended effect 

Further, while we acknowledge that other benefits of NEPA assignment 

may be important to states, all the NEPA assignment states we reviewed 

consistently identified time savings as a reason for taking on this 

authority. Offering guidance on evaluation methodologies to measure 

time savings can help FHWA ensure that additional states interested in 

NEPA authority for this reason are basing decisions to participate on 

reliable information. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees, the Secretary of the Department of Transportation, and other 

Page 36 GA0~18»222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
186 


32989.102

interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on 

GAO's website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VII. 

Susan Fleming 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 37 GA0~1B-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
187 


32989.103

Appendix 1: Available Information about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 

Highway Projects 

Based on 2009 data, we previously reported that 96 percent of 

environmental reviews are completed through categorical exclusions and 

a smaller number of highway projects undergo EISs and environmental 

assessments, 1 and 3 percent respectively.' We have previously reported 

that government-wide data on the cost of NEPA reviews are not readily 

available because agencies do not routinely track the cost of completing 

NEPA reviews and there is no government-wide mechanism to do so. 2 To 

comply with congressional reporting requirements, FHWA maintains the 

Project and Program Action Information (PAPAl) system, which is a 

monitoring database that tracks projects' NEPA review progress at major 

milestones. FHWA developed PAPAl in 2013 in response to statutory 

reporting requirements on NEPA time frames. PAPAl tracks EIS and 

environmental assessment start and end dates, among other information, 

allowing FHWA to track the processing time for these reviews. FTA does 

not have a similar monitoring system that tracks NEPA reviews, but has 

developed a new grant management system, the Transit Award 

Management System (TrAMS), which FTA also uses to track EIS and 

environmental assessment start and end dates. However, FTA officials 

told us that TrAMS is still in the early phases of deployment and may 

contain incomplete information on NEPA time frames on transit projects. 

While some information is available on the number of NEPA reviews (i.e., 

NEPA review time frames) for highway projects, little to no information is 

known about the percentage breakdown of the three types of NEPA 

reviews that have been conducted for these projects and their associated 

costs. 

Number of NEPA Reviews: Some information is available regarding 

the number of EIS and environmental assessments; however, less is 

known about the number of categorical exclusions. In an October 

2017 report to Congress, FHWA stated that 29 EISs were initiated 

since 2012, of which 3 EISs were completed and 26 EISs remain 

active.' In its October 2013 report to Congress and consistent with 

1

GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Projects to Expedite Completion Show 

Progress, GA0-12-593 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2012). 

2

GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little lnformaUon Exists on NEPA Analyses, 

GA0-14-369 (Washington, D.C.: April15, 2014). 

3FHWA, Report to Congress: Review of Federal Project and Program Delivery Completion 

Time Assessments (Washington, D.C .. October 2017). 

Page 38 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
188 


32989.104

Appendix 1: Available lnfonnation about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 

MAP-21 reporting requirements, FHWA reported the number of EISs 

that state DOTs "initiated" from 2002 through 2012. In this report, 

FHWA stated that the number of EISs that initiated decreased over 

time' For example, FHWA reported that 38 EISs were initiated in 

fiscal year 2002 compared to 15 EISs that were initiated in 2012-' 

Regarding the number of environmental assessments state DOTs 

conduct for highway projects, FHWA's October 2017 report to 

Congress stated 232 environmental assessments were initiated since 

2012, of which 103 environmental assessments were completed and 

129 environmental assessments remain active. FHWA's October 

2013 report to Congress did not report on the number of 

environmental assessments. FHWA officials told us that prior to fiscal 

year 2013, FHWA division offices were not required to submit data on 

environmental assessments. 

While some information on categorical exclusions exists, the total 

number of categorical exclusions is unknown. FHWA does not actively 

track categorical exclusions because state DOTs process most 

categorical exclusions without involvement from FHWA, as allowed by 

established programmatic agreements. 6 

Percentage of NEPA Reviews by Type: The percentage breakdown of 

EIS, environmental assessments, and categorical exclusions 

conducted by state DOTs for federal-aid highway projects is largely 

unknown since FHWA has systematically collected numerical data 

only on EIS reviews and environmental assessments since fiscal year 

2013. We previously reported that, FHWA estimated that 

approximately 96 percent of NEPA reviews were categorical 

exclusions, 3 percent were environmental assessments, and 1 

percent were EISs. 7 While the current percentage breakdown of 

NEPA reviews is not known, FHWA officials told us that categorical 

exclusions still constitute the vast majority of NEPA reviews for 

highway projects. Furthermore, highway projects requiring an EIS 

4FHWA, Report to Congress: MAP·21 Review of Federal Project and Program Delivery 

Completion Time Assessments (Washington, DC.· Oct. 1, 2013) 

5MAP-21 required FHWA to report on the number of EIS reviews that were "initiated "each 

year 

6ln an October 2017 report to Congress, FHWA collected states' data and sampled more 

than 8,000 categorical exclusions, of which approximately 5,700 were initiated since 2012 

7 GA0-12-593 

Page 39 GA0-1B~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
189 


32989.105

Transit Projects 

Appendix 1: Available Information about the 

Number, Percentage, and Costs of NEPA 

Reviews for Highway and Transit Projects 

likely remain the smallest portion of all projects and are likely to be 

high-profile, complex, and expensive. 

Costs of NEPA Reviews: The costs of completing NEPA reviews are 

unknown according to officials we interviewed. Officials from FHWA 

and the National Association of Environmental Professionals believe 

that data on the cost of processing NEPA reviews do not exist and are 

not tracked. In our survey of state DOTs, we found that a majority (37 

of the 52 state DOTs surveyed) do not collect cost data. For example, 

officials from Virginia DOT stated that they do not track NEPA costs 

and that compiling this information would be difficult and laborintensive. 

Number and Percentage of NEPA Reviews: FTA has some data on 

the number of categorical exclusions that transit agencies process, 

but has just begun to collect data on the number of EIS reviews or 

environmental assessments. According to an August 2016 report, 

FTA reported that 24,426 categorical exclusions were processed for 

6,804 projects between February 2013 and September 20158 

However, the same report cited a number of limitations and 

challenges with the underlying data, and as a result, the data may not 

be accurate. FT A officials told us that its new internal grant 

management system, TrAMS, also has the capability to track EIS 

reviews and environment assessments, but they are in the early 

stages of collecting this information. Given that data on the number of 

NEPA reviews are either not available (EIS and environmental 

assessments) or potentially unreliable (categorical exclusions), data 

on the percentage of NEPA reviews are also not available. However, 

FTA officials believe that similar to highway projects, the most 

common type of NEPA reviews that transit agencies process are 

categorical exclusions. 

Costs of NEPA Reviews: FTA and transit agencies do not track costs 

of processing NEPA reviews for transit projects. According to FT A and 

our previously issued work, separating out the costs for NEPA reviews 

(versus "planning" costs or "preliminary design" costs) within the 

project delivery process would be difficult to determine. 9 

National Transportation Systems Center, Federal Transit Administration 

Categorical Exclusion Audit Synthesis Report (Cambridge, MA: August 2016). 

9GA0-14-369. 

Page 40 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
190 


32989.106

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Our work focused on federal-aid highway and transit projects and the 

provisions included in the past three surface transportation 

reauthorizations that are intended to accelerate the delivery of such 

projects (i.e., project delivery provisions). In particular, this report: (1) 

identifies the provisions aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and 

transit projects that were included in the last three surface transportation 

reauthorizations; (2) examines the extent to which the provisions were 

used by state departments of transportation (state DOT) and transit 

agencies and the provisions' reported effects, if any, on accelerating the 

delivery of projects; and (3) evaluates the extent to which DOT has 

assigned National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) authority to 

states and the reported effects. In addition, in appendix I, we identify 

available information on the number and percentage of the different types 

of NEPA reviews, and costs of conducting NEPA reviews. 

To identify all relevant project delivery provisions, we reviewed language 

in the three most recent surface transportation reauthorizations and 

included those provisions with the goal to accelerate the delivery of 

federal-aid highway or transit projects. The three reauthorizations we 

reviewed are as follows: 

the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)-the seven project delivery 

provisions we used were derived from provisions we had previously 

identified from SAFETEA-LU, Title VI, on Transportation Planning and 

Project Delivery;' 

the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 

Division A, Title 1, Subtitle C, entitled Acceleration of Project Delivery 

(Sections 1301 through 1323); and 

the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), Division 

A, Title 1, Subtitle C, entitled Acceleration of Project Delivery 

(Sections 1301 through 1318). 

One provision (MAP-21 §1318(a)-(c)) included statutory language 

directing the Department of Transportation (DOT) to develop additional 

project delivery provisions through rulemaking. Accordingly, we reviewed 

the DOT regulations promulgated in response to that requirement (23 

C.F.R. §§ 771.117(c)(24)-(30), 771118(c)(14)-(16), 771.118(d)(7)-(8) and 

identified 12 additional project delivery provisions. We combined 

1GA0-12-593 

Page 41 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
191 


32989.107

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

provisions that were modified in later statutory language and did not 

specify between different versions of the provisions, as this precision was 

not necessary for our purposes. For example, the 150-Day Statute of 

Limitations provision was created in SAFETEA-LU (section 6002) as a 

180-day statute of limitations and amended in MAP-21 (section 1308) to 

150 days, which is the version we used. We also grouped the provisions 

into categories for ease of understanding; determined if provisions were 

applicable to highway projects or transit projects, or both; and specified if 

provisions were required or optional, based on professional judgement 

and legal review. We define "required" provisions to mean that federal 

agencies or state or local transportation agencies that are subject to a 

provision must adhere to the requirements and obligations in the 

provision, if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied. We define 

"optional" provisions to mean that the relevant entity (a federal agency or 

state or local transportation agency) can choose to use the provision if 

circumstances allow. 

We met with officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to confirm that we had a 

complete list of project delivery provisions for highway and transit 

projects. 

To determine states' awareness, use, and perceived effects of the project 

delivery provisions on highway projects over the previous 5 years, we 

surveyed state DOTs within all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. We directed the survey to officials in state DOTs that 

oversee environmental compliance for highway projects under NEPA. 

Because these officials do not have responsibilities with respect to three 

Advance Planning category's provisions that allow certain activities to 

occur prior to the completion of a NEPA review, we excluded these 

project delivery provisions from the survey. 2 We also excluded two 

provisions from the survey that are related to DOT assignment of federal 

NEPA authority, because their use requires a written agreement between 

FHWA and state DOTs, and we addressed those provisions separately 

through interviews with states that have such written agreements in 

place. 3 Our survey response rate was 100 percent. In order to ensure that 

2

The three Advance Planning category's provisions are the: Design-Build Contracting 

provision, Advance Acquisition of Real Property provision, and 2-phase Contracts 

proVISIOn. 

3

The tv./a NEPA Assignment category's provisions are the NEPA Assignment Authority 

provision and the Categorical Exclusion Determination Authority provision. 

Page 42 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
192 


32989.108

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

respondents would interpret our questions as intended, prior to 

administering the survey, we conducted pretests with state DOTs in four 

states: Georgia, Ohio, Texas, and Washington. In each pretest, we 

conducted a session with state DOT officials during which the officials 

completed the survey and then provided feedback on the clarity of the 

questions. Based on the feedback, we refined some questions and 

restructured parts of the survey. After the four pretests were completed, 

we provided a draft copy of the survey to FHWA and the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) for 

their review and comment Both provided technical comments that we 

incorporated, as appropriate. Based on early interviews with highway 

project stakeholders and our pretests, we determined that the survey 

should be sent to environmental officials at the state DOTs. Additional 

information about our survey methodology includes the following: 

To determine whom we should send the pretest and survey to (i.e., 

the survey respondent), we used a list of environmental officials at the 

state DOTs compiled by AASHTO. We took steps, such as sending 

early notification e-mails, to help ensure that the list of respondents 

we created was accurate. 

We launched our survey on March 7, 2017. We sent e-mail reminders 

and telephoned survey respondents who had not completed the 

survey after two weeks, urging them to do so as soon as possible. We 

reviewed survey responses for omissions and analyzed the 

information provided. The survey and aggregated responses-with 

the exception of open-ended responses and information that would 

identify individual state DOTs-are provided in appendix IV. 

For each of the provisions included on the survey, we included 

references to legal citations in order to minimize confusion among 

provisions or versions of provisions. 

We provided space in the survey for respondents to provide optional 

comments for each individual provision and for each category of 

provisions. We analyzed these comments primarily for additional 

context and as a source of illustrative examples. 

Because all state DOTs were included in our survey, our analyses are 

not subject to sampling errors. However the practical difficulties of 

conducting any survey may introduce non-sampling errors. For 

example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or the 

sources of information available to respondents can introduce errors 

into the survey results. We included steps both in the data collection 

and data analysis stages, including pretesting, to minimize such nonPage 43 GA0~18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
193 


32989.109

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

sampling errors. We also sent a draft of the questionnaire to FHWA 

and AASHTO for review and comment. 

We examined the survey results, reviewed survey responses during 

follow-up interviews with selected states, and performed computer 

analyses to identify inconsistencies and other indications of error and 

addressed such issues, where necessary. A second, independent 

analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses to minimize 

the likelihood of errors in data processing. 

Based on the survey results, we conducted follow-up interviews with 

officials from 10 state DOTs to discuss their views about the effects the 

project delivery provisions had on the duration of highway projects in their 

states in the past 5 years. We did not independently verify state DOT 

officials' estimates of time savings. We selected state DOTs that reported 

a range of use and effects of the provisions; we also selected 

geographically diverse states. The 10 states we selected were Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, 

Virginia, and Wyoming. We also asked these state DOTs about their use 

and experiences with the three Advance Planning category's provisions 

we excluded from the survey. These interviews are not generalizable to 

all states but provide additional context for responses. 

To determine transit agencies' awareness, use, and views about the 

effects of the project delivery provisions applicable to transit, we selected 

a non-generalizable sample of 11 transit agencies, provided a "checklist" 

of the provisions to the officials regarding their awareness and use of the 

provisions, and interviewed officials at those agencies that oversee NEPA 

reviews for transit projects. We selected these agencies based primarily 

on the number of times they issued a notice of intent to prepare an EIS in 

the Federal Register from 2005 through 2016 to identify those transit 

agencies that may have experience preparing EISs or some another 

NEPA review and experience using transit project delivery provisions. 

While notices of intent to prepare an EIS do not always result in a transit 

agency's conducting an actual EIS review, they indicate instances in 

which a transit agency plans to conduct an EIS review. Other factors, 

such as ridership and geographic location, were also considered to select 

the 11 transit agencies. We identified contacts for the transit agencies by 

calling the transit agencies' Planning and Environmental Review 

departments and identifying individuals that had experience with 

environmental reviews and project delivery provisions. We interviewed 

officials at the following transit agencies: 

Capital Metro (Austin, Texas), 

Page 44 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
194 


32989.110

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Chicago Transit Authority, 

Houston Metropolitan Transit Authority, 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, 

Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, 

Sacramento Regional Transit District, 

San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority, 

San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, 

Sound Transit (Seattle, Washington), 

Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, and 

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon. 

Similar to the survey we provided to state DOTs regarding highway 

projects, we provided the transit agencies with a "checklist" of the 

provisions in which the transit agency officials indicated whether they had 

heard of and used the provisions. To understand why the provisions may 

not be used by selected transit agencies, we also examined the 

frequency in which transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an 

EIS in the Federal Register. After discussions with FT A, we used the 

number of times transit agencies filed a notice of intent to prepare an EIS 

as a proxy because agencies that have performed multiple EISs, which 

are typically complex in nature, are more likely to use the provisions and 

be able to offer insight Transit agencies may also have experience using 

provisions related to categorical exclusions since transit agencies process 

their NEPA reviews more commonly using categorical exclusions. 

However, we did not examine the extent to which categorical exclusions 

are used by transit agencies as a proxy to identify agencies that have 

experience using the provisions in part because FTA's current database. 

TrAMS, does not have comprehensive data on categorical exclusions. 

We discussed transit agency officials' views about the effects of the 

provisions during our interviews. These interviews are not generalizable 

to all transit agencies but provide anecdotal information and context 

To evaluate the extent that DOT has assigned NEPA authority to states 

and the effects states have reported from assuming NEPA authority, we 

identified states that have assumed NEPA authority based on information 

from FHWA: Alaska, California, Florida, Ohio, Texas. and Utah. We did 

not include Alaska in our review because that state did not assume NEPA 

authority until November 2017. For the five states we reviewed, we 

interviewed state DOT officials and reviewed relevant documentation 

Page 45 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
195 


32989.111

Appendix II; Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

including memorandums of understanding and analyses the state DOTs 

conducted on NEPA assignment authority, such as methodologies for 

calculating NEPA assignment time savings. We also surveyed the state 

DOTs that have not yet sought NEPA authority to assess their interest in 

assuming NEPA authority. In addition, we interviewed FHWA officials 

about procedures to oversee the performance of NEPA assignment 

states and interviewed FHWA division officials from those states. We 

compared FHWA's procedures to oversee NEPA assignment states 

against standards for information and communication contained in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. 4 

To determine available information on the number and percentage of the 

different NEPA reviews and costs of conducting NEPA reviews for 

highway and transit projects, we reviewed relevant publications, obtained 

documents and analyses from federal agencies, and interviewed federal 

officials and individuals from professional associations with expertise in 

conducting NEPA analyses. We also included a question on costs of 

conducting NEPA reviews in the survey we administered to state DOTs. 

For all objectives, we interviewed agency officials and stakeholders 

involved in highway and transit projects from FHWA and FT A 

headquarters and transportation industry and environmental 

organizations that are familiar with project delivery and environmental 

review, 

We conducted this performance audij from August 2016 to January 2018 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 46 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
196 


32989.112

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Table 2: Project Delivery Provisions Included in Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for 

Users {SAFETEA·LU), the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), and the Fixing America's Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST Act} That Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

Applies to: 

GAO category 

-::-:-'c:-c~e-;""'a~-eid-cn __ ""~-~,--~g·:r:!f::;:::~~i~~ Multimodal Projects Hig:way Tr~sit 

(Highway) (Transit) 

Required Optional Optional 

X X 

National Authorizes a Department of Transportation {DOT) 

Environmental operating administration to apply a categoncal exclusion 

Policy Act of another DOT operating administration to a multimodal 

(NEPA) Review project 

MAP·21: § 1314, as amended by 

FAST Act§ 1310 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 304) 

Categorical Exclusion in Emergencies 

Designates the repair reconstruction, restoration, 

retrofitting, or replacemen1 of any road, highway. bridge, 

tunnel, or trans1t facility that was damaged by an 

emergency as a categorical exclusion 

MAP-21: § 1315 (23 U.S C.§ 109 note) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(9) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(11) 

Categorical Exclusion for Projects within the Existing 

Operational Right~of-Wal 

Designates a project within an existing operational rightof-way as a categorical exclusion. 

MAP-21: § 1316 (23 U.S.C. § 109 note) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(18) 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(12) 

Categorical Exclusion for ProJects with Limited Federal 

Funds 

Authorizes the designation of a categorical exclusion for 

projects receiving less than $5 million in federal funds, or 

less than 15 percent federal funds for a project under $30 

million, subject to an annual inflation adjustment. 

MAP-21: § 1317, as amended by 

FAST Act:§ 1314 (23 U.S.C. § 109 note) 

23 C.F.R. § 771117(c)(23) 

23 C.F R. § 771.1 18(c)(13) 

Categorical Exclusion for Geotechn.lcal and Archeological 

Investigations 

For highway projects, designates a categorical exclusion 

for geotechnical and archeological mvestigatJons to 

provide information for preliminary design. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(24) 

Page 47 

X X X X 

X X X X 

X X X X 

X X 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
197 


32989.113

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendb:: II!: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included In the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

GAO tenn for provision Highway Transit Required 

(Transit) 

Optional 

Categorical Exclusion for Environmental Restoration 

For highway projects, designates environmental 

restoration and pollution abatement actions to minimize 

or mitigate the impact of any existing transportation 

facility. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(25) 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Modernization 

For highway projects, designates resurfacing, restoration, 

rehabilitation, reconstruction. adding shoulders, or adding 

auxiliary lanes as a categorical exclusion that does not 

require documentation or prior FHWA approvaL 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(c)(26) 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Highway 

Safety 

For highway projects, designates highway safety or traffic 

operations improvement projects, including the 

installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting, 

as a categorical exclusion that does not require 

documentation or prior FHWA approval 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(27) 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion for Bridge 

Projects at Railway.Highway Crossings 

For highway projects, designates bridge rehabilitation, 

reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of 

grade separation to replace existing at~grade rallroad 

crossings, as a categorical exclusion that does not 

requtre documentation or prior FHWA approvaL 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(c)(28) 

Categorical Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry Vessels 

For FHWA-funded ferry projects, designates the 

purchase, construction, replacement, or rehabilitation of 

ferry vessels that would not require a change in the 

function of the ferry tenninals as a categorical exclusion. 

23 C.F.R § 771.117(c)(29) 

Categoncal Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry Facility 

Rehabilitation or Reconstruction 

For FHWA-funded ferry terminal projects, designates the 

rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing ferry facilities 

that do not substantially enlarge the footprint or capacity 

as a categorical exclusion. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.117(c)(30) 

Page 48 

X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
198 


32989.114

GAO category 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

for provision GAO tenn for provision Highway Transit Required 

(Transit) 

Optional 

Categorical Exclusion for Bndge Removal 

Designates bridge removal and bridge removal related 

activities, such as in~channel work, disposal of materials 

and debris as a categorical exclusion 

23 C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(14) 

Categorical Exclusion for Preventative Maintenance to 

Culverts and Channels 

Designates preventative maintenance, including safety 

treatments, to culverts and channels within and adjacent 

to transportation right-of-way as a categorical exclusion. 

23C.F.R. § 771.118(c)(15) 

Categorical Exclusion for Geotechnical and Archeological 

Investigations 

For transit projects, designates geotechnical and 

archeological investigations to provide information for 

preliminary design, environmental analyses, and 

permitting purposes as a categorical excluSIOn 

23 C.F.R. § 771118(c)(16) 

Categorical Exclusion for Minor Rail Realignment 

Designates minor transportation facility realignment for 

rail safety reasons, such as improving vertical and 

horizontal alignment of railroad crossings, as a 

categorical exclusion. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.119(d)(7) 

Categorical Exclusion for Modernization of Transit 

Structures 

Designates modernization or minor expansions of trans1t 

structures and facilities outside existing right-of-way, 

such as ridges, stations, or rail yards, as a categorical 

exclusion. 

Authorizes a historic site, park. land, or refuge to be used 

for a transportatiOn program or project if it is determined 

that "de minimis" impact would result. 

SAFETEA-LU § 6009. as amended by 

FAST Act§§ 1301-1303 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 138(b)) 

Page 49 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

X X 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
199 


32989.115

GAO category 

for provision 

Administrative 

and Coordination 

Changes 

Appendix Ill: Projeet Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit 

150-Day Statute of Limitations 

Bars claims seekmg judicia! review of a permit, license. 

or approval issued by a federal agency for highway 

projects unless they are filed within 150 days after 

publication of a notice in the Federal Register 

announcing the final agency action, or unless a shorter 

time is specified in the federal law under which the 

judicial review is allowed 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6002, as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1308 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139(1)) 

Planning Documents Used in NEPA Review 

Authorizes the lead agency for a project to use planning 

products, such as planning decisions, analysis, or 

studies, in the environmental review process of the 

project. 

MAP-21: § 1310, as amended by 

FAST Act:§ 1305 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 168(b)) 

X X 

X X 

Required 

X 

X 

(Transit) 

Optional 

X 

23 C.F.R. Part450 

Programm:-:a7tic:-;;Mc:iti:::ga::t:::io:::n-;;P:::Ia:::ns::-;-;U:::se:::d:::in::-;;N;=E;;PA;;-;;R:::ev:::ie:-:w:-:----;:;X---;X;----;X;;,---------

Requires that any federal agency responsible for 

environmental review give substantial weight to the 

recommendations in a state or metropolitan 

programmatic mitigatwn plan, if one had been developed 

as part of the transportation planning process, when 

carrying out responsibilities under NEPA or other 

environmental law 

MAP-21: § 1311, as amended by 

FAST Act§ 1306 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 169(f)) 

Combine Final Env1ronmentallmpact Stateme11t (EIS) 

and Record of Decision in Certain Cases 

To the maximum extent practicable, the lead agency 

shall combine the final E!S and record of decision in 

certain cases< 

FAST Act:§§ 1311 &1304(codifted at49 U.S.C. § 

304a(aHb)) 

Environmental Documents for Use Among DOT 

Administrations on Similar Projects 

Authorizes the operating administrations of DOT to adopt 

a draft EIS, environmental assessment, or final EIS of 

another operating administration without recirculating the 

document for public review if the proposed action is 

substantially the same as the project considered in the 

document to be adopted. 

FAST Act: § 1311 (codified at 49 U.S.C. § 304a(c)) 

Page 50 

X X X 

X X X X 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project DelilJery 
200 


32989.116

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

(Transit) 

GAO term for provision Highway Transit Required Optional 

45~Day L1mit to Identify Resource Agencies X X X 

Establishes a 45-day limit after the notice of intent date 

for a lead agency to identify other agencies to participate 

in the environmental review process on EIS projects 

§ 1304(d)(1) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 

Requires to the maximum extent practicable and 

consistent with federal law, for the EIS project lead 

agency to develop a single NEPA document to satisfy the 

requirements for federal approval or other federal action, 

including permits, 

FAST Act:§ 1304(d)(2) (codified at 23 U.S C.§ 

139(d)(B)) 

Procedures for Initiation of Environmental Review X X X 

Creates several requirements at the start of an EIS 

project's environmental review process, such as 1) 

establishing a 45-day deadline for DOT to provide a 

written response to the project sponsor on initiation of the 

environmental review process; 2) establishing a 45-day 

deadline for DOT to respond to a request for designation 

of a lead agency; and 3) requiring the development of a 

checklist by the lead agency, as appropriate, to help 

identify natura!, cultural, and historic resources, to identify 

cooperating and participating agencies and improve 

interagency collaboration 

FAST Act: §1304(e) (codified at 23 U.S. C.§ 139(e)) 

Reduce Duplication by El!m1natmg Detailed X X X X 

Consideration of Alternative Actions 

Authorizes the lead agency to reduce duplication, by 

eliminating from detailed consideration an alternative 

proposed in an EIS if the alternative was already 

proposed in a planning process or state environmental 

review process. 

FAST Act· 1304(0(2)(C) (codified at 23 U.S C.§ 

Page 51 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
201 


32989.117

GAO category 

for provision 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

(Transit) 

GAO tenn for provision Highway Transit Required Optional 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to Support X X X Agencies Participating in the Environmental Review 

Process9 

Allows a public entity to use its federal highway or transit 

funds to support a federal or state agency or Indian tribe 

participating in the environmental review process on 

activities that directly contribute to expediting and 

improving project planning and delivery 

SAFETEA-LU: § 60020), as amended by 

MAP-21 § 1307 and 

FAST Act:§ 1304(i) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 139GI) 

Issue Resolution Process X X X 

Establishes procedures to resolve issues between state 

DOTs and relevant resource agencies. 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6002(a), as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1306 and 

FAST Act:§ 1304(h) (codified at 23 U.S C.§ 139(h)) 

Enhanced Technical Assistance & Accelerating Project X X X Completion 

At the request of a project sponsor or a governor of the 

state in which the project is located, requires DOT to 

provide additional technical assistance for a project 

where EIS review has taken 2 years, and establish a 

schedule for review completion within 4 years. 

MAP-21 § 1309 (codified at23 US.C. § 139(m)) 

Programmatic Agreements for Efficient Environmental X X X Review' 

Requires DOT to seek opportunities with states to enter 

into programmatic agreements to carry out environmental 

and other project reviews. 

MAP-21 §§ 1305(a) and 1318(d) (23 U.S.C. § 139 note) 

FAST Act: § 1 304(b) 

Early Coordmation Activities in Environmental Review X X X X Process 

Encourages early cooperation between DOT and other 

agencies, including states or local planning agencies, in 

the environmental review process to avoid delay and 

duplication, and suggests early coordination activities_ 

Early coordination includes establishment of MOUs with 

states or local planning agencies 

MAP-21: § 1320 (23 U.S.C. § 139 note) 

Page 52 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
202 


32989.118

GAO category 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included in the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

for provision GAO term for provision Highway Transit Required 

Advance 

Planning 

Stakeholder Agency Comments in Area of Expert1se 

Limits the comments of participating agencies to subject 

matter areas within the special expertise or jurisdiction of 

the agency. 

FAST Act:§ 1304(D(2)(A) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 

139(D(4)(A)(ii)) 

Coordination Plan for Pubhc and Agency Participation 

Requires a coordination plan for public and agency 

participation in the environmental rev1ew process withm 

90 days of notice of intent or the initiation of an 

Environmental Assessment, including a schedule for 

completion of the environmental review process for the 

project 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6002 as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1305, and 

FAST Act: § 1304(g)(1) (codified at 23 US. C. § 

139(g)(1)(A) and (B)) 

Resolved Issues are Not Reconsidered Without 

Significant New lnformatton 

Issues that are resolved by the lead agency with 

concurrence from stakeholder cannot be reconsidered 

unless there is significant new information or 

circumstances anse 

FAST Act:§ 1304(h)(1) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 

139(h)(4)) 

Advance Design-Build Contracting 

Permits states or local transportation agencies to release 

requests for proposals and award design-build contracts 

prior to the completion of the NEPA process; however, it 

precludes a contractor from proceeding with final design 

or construction before completion of the NEPA process 

SAFETEA-LU § 1503(2) (codined at 23 U.S C.§ 

112(b)(3)) 

Advance Acquisition of Real Property 

Authorizes states to acquire rea! property interests for a 

project before completion of the NEPA process 

MAP-21: 1302 (codified at23 U.S C. 

Authorizes the awarding of 2-phase contracts 

(construction manager/ general contractor) with 

preconstruction services and preliminary design of a 

project using a competitive selection process before the 

completion of the NEPA process 

MAP-21 § 1303(a) (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 112(b)(4)) 

X X X 

X X X 

X X X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

{Transit} 

Optional 

Page 53 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
203 


32989.119

GAO category 

for provision 

NEPA 

Assignment 

Total provisions 

Appendix Ill: Project Delivery Provisions 

Included In the Three Most Recent Federal 

Transportation Reauthorization Acts That 

Apply to Highway and Transit Projects 

GAO tenn for provision Highway 

CategoriCal Exclusion Determination Authority X 

Authorizes DOT to assign and a state to assume 

responsibility for detennining if projects can be 

categorically excluded from NEPA review 

SAFETEA-LU: § 6004(a), as amended by 

Authorizes DOT to assign and a state to assume many 

federal environmental review responsibilities for highway, 

public transportation, and railroad projects, to be 

administered in accordance with a written agreement 

between DOT and the participating state. 

SAFETEA-LU § 6005(a). as amended by 

MAP-21: § 1313, and 

FAST Act:§ 1308 (codified at 23 U.S.C. § 327) 

34 

(Transit) 

Transit Required Optional 

X X 

29 12 22 17 

Source GAO analySIS ol Safe Accountable Flelilble Efftoent Transpartallon Equ.ty Act A Legacy tr.r Users. !he Mo\llng Ahead mr Progress m the 21st Century Act. and ltle Ftxmg Amenca·s Surface 

Transportalt0!1Acl j GA0-18-222 

awe define "required" provisions to mean that federal agencies, or state or local transportation 

agencies that are subject to a provision must adhere to the requirements and ob!lgations in the 

provision, if all the conditions for its use have been satisfied. We define ~optional'" provisions to mean 

that the relevant entity (a federal agency or state or local transportation agency) can choose to use 

the provision if circumstances aUow. 

t.'Categorical exclusion" means a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human environment, and for which, therefore, neither an environmental 

assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required 

~The existing operational right-of-way refers to a strip of land that has been disturbed for an existing 

transportation facility or is maintained for transportation purposes, such as a highway, public footpath, 

rail bed, landscaping, or rest areas with direct access to a controlled access highway. 

~he provision bars judicial review of claims unless they are timely filed. 

eonce states or metropolitan planning organizations decide to use such plans federal agencies must 

give substantial weight to the plans. 

1

There may be instances in which a combined document is not the best option. 

~unds may be provided for transportation-planning activities that precede the initiation of the 

environmental review process, for dedicated staffing, for training of agency personnel, for infonnation 

gathering and mapping, and for development of programmatic agreements. 

hOnce a project sponsor or governor requests assistance, DOT is required to provide it. 

'"Programmatic agreements" are agreements between state departments of transportation and their 

Federal Highwc;~y Administration division offke oo processes and procedures to carry out 

environmental reviews and other required project reviews 

Page 54 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
204 


32989.120

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and 

Summarized Responses 

This appendix provides a copy of the survey sent to state departments of 

transportation in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

concerning their use of the project delivery provisions lor highway 

projects. The appendix also includes the responses received lor each of 

the provisions; it does not include information on non-responses, which 

resulted either from the survey's skip patterns or lrorn state officials 

voluntarily declining to respond. 

GAO also developed names lor the provisions in the survey; we 

subsequently modified the names of several of the provisions lor the text 

of our report to rnake thern rnore intuitive for readers. The following list 

matches the provisions that have different narnes in our report than in the 

survey. 

Report Name 

Categorical Exclusion lor Projects within the 

Existing Operational Right-of-Way 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement for Categorical Exclusion lor 

Highway Modernization 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement lor Categorical Exclusion lor 

Highway Safety 

Eliminating the Documentation and Prior Approval 

Requirement lor Categorical Exclusion lor Bridge 

Projects at Railway-Highway Crossings 

Categorical Exclusion lor FHWA-Iunded Ferry 

Vessels 

Categorical Exclusion for FHWA-funded Ferry 

Facility Rehabilitation or Reconstruction 

Planning Documents Used in National 

Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) Review 

Reduce Duplication by Eliminating Detailed 

Consideration of Alternative Actions 

Use of Federal Highway or Transit Funds to 

Support Agencies Participating in the 

Environmental Review Process 

Page 55 

Survey Name 

Categorical Exclusion lor Projects Within the 

Right-of-Way 

Categorical Exclusion lor Highway 

Modernization 

Categorical Exclusion lor Highway Safety and 

Operational Improvement 

Categorical Exclusion lor Bridge Projects at 

Railway-Highway Crossings 

Categorical Exclusion lor Ferry Vessels 

Categorical Exclusion lor Ferry Facilities 

Planning Products lor Use in NEPA Review 

Reduce Duplicate Consideration of Alternatives 

Offering Financial Assistance to Stakeholder 

Agencies 

GAD·18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
205 


32989.121

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and 

Summarized Responses 

Report Name Survey Name 

Use Single NEPA Document Single NEPA Document 

Procedures for Initiation of Environmental Review Initiation of Environmental Review Process 

Page 56 GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
206 


32989.122

Page 57 

Appendix JV; Highway Qoostionnalre and Summarized Responses 

United States Oovernment Accountability Offiee 

Highway Project Delivery Questionnaire 

Mafch7,.2017 

EthanLevya!(202)512-4807 (L<>vvf(Q)qiCuqcw) 

Bn"" Chung at (206) 267~4795 (Chu,•gC(B~q<.<o ~JI') 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
207 


32989.123

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page 58 GA0·18.222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
208 


32989.124

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Part L 

In Part I of the quest<onna.tre, piEa5e 5etect 'Yes No·. or 'No! Appl<cable' for each ques!<On 

1. OO&S y.:.ur state tra<::k the number of highway projects processed as categ:orleal 

ex<::tustons? 

2. Do..s your state trao:k the number of hiyhway projects prOCi!'5,.>!'d a.'!i 

environment>~! assessments? 

1

3. Does your state track the number of highway projects process..d as 

...,vlronmentallmpactstaternonts? 

S. Dt'loes your state eotlect data on the costs associated with NEPA revfewfor 

highw:ayprojects? 

46 4 

46 

44 7 

u have an comments or an in further to add on the trackin92f NEPA reviewtunefmmes 1.>r costs? 

(add pages <fneeded) 

Page 59 GA0·16~22Z Highway and Tram;!t Project Delivery 
209 


32989.125

Page60 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summari.led Responses 

Part !lA. 

111 Part iiA of the questiOnnaire, fnr wch rrovis1on Its~ d. GAO has paraphrased a pmvtstonttllo ancl descnpt1on. and mcluded c!lahons for the slatute(s) 

!hat created/amended Jt (In some C"dses. colat•ons for regulaltons ere onc!uded) We mc!uded lntemet l1yperhnK1> to U S Government Pubhshmg Office 

wet:>sttes, lor relerence to Cilaltont; 11 needed (You must be connected to the Internet to use thiS feilture) We then crealed our own eategorres to group the 

p!O\'!Sions For.,.,.ch prov•smnQucshon 'A' asks for a 'Yes· or No' response !f your response IS Yes', contmue to queslton 8' 

Questmn '8' asks for the response I hat best f.ts your agency's exper;ence It your response mdK:ates any use (1 e Frequen!ly, Somehmes, 

Rarely), conbnuetoqJEJs!ion C 

ouest1on 'C' asks for the response tnat Dest !Its your agency's expenerce 

At the end of each category of provJsloros, you 1'1<11 have an opportunny to e~pand upon any of your responses al"d prov1de any additional 

Categorical Exclusions 

1. Categork:al Exclusion for Multlmodal Projects 

Authonzes !he lead agency of a mu:t,mcxla! proJeCt to appry a 

catevoncalexdusJondes•gnahonto!heproJect 

MAP,21 Soc- T-114 {PDF p 547} 

Soc- 1310(3) {PnF p 1397j 

A Is your agency 8 ffYesto'A,'hoWoftmlinthe c lfanyusemarkedm B.' 

awan:: of this past five years has your agency 111 what way has this 

proVJ:iiOn? used this provisiOn across all proviSIOn affected the 

M~<k on 'I on~ t>o., highway p~ojects? spiled of project deUvery 

Yes 48 • 

No 4 

• 

;MsJ~ <mly 9'1<> b""l at your agency? 

oMo<kOlY<>ll~t><>'l 

F<eqcecUy 3} Sornet1mes 4 • 

Rarely 12 

Sped up greatly 2 

Sped up somewt:>at. 4 

No effect 11 

Notatall,butD!aPtousC! 12 Slowed down sorn~N~hat 0 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Oel!very 
210 


32989.126

Page61 

Appendix 1\1: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Destgnatestherepatrorreoorstruot•onofElnyrD<!d htghw;;ly,or 

brtdg" that WElS damaged by an emergency as a categoncal 

(Optl(lnal) Comments on your aroswcrs 

(Op!tOnEl!)Cormnentsoryou'answers 

Ye.-52 _. 

NcO 

• (Go to next 

prOVIS!Ol1) 

Ves52 _. 

NoO 

• (Golonoxt 

Spedupgreatly14 

SPE>d up somewr-,at 17 

Noef!!f'ct 13 

NolO!! all but plan to use2 SID'i>'tld dowr somewr>at 0 

Not at at! andnoplanstoUSP.6 Slowod down greatly 0 

• {Go to nexl PfD'-/I,'SIOrl) Toosoontojudge 0 

'''''""'''"} Snmett~R1S _. 

RaroclyB 

Spedupgreatly9 

S~d up somewhat 21 

Noeff<'ct 12 

Not at all t>u1 plan to '"""4 Slowed down somewhat 0 

Not at all and no plans:ouseS SlaweddownoreattyO 

• (Gvton.,.xtpruv's'on) ToosonnloJudgeO 

-------~--" ""-" --" 

GA0-16-222 Highway and Transit Project De!lvery 
211 


32989.127

Appendix IV; Highway Qu~tstlonnaire and Summaflzed R~tspon.!ies 

A Is your agency B ff Yes to 'A' how often in the C If any usa marked 1n 8,' 

!lWare of this past five YQars has your agetKy !n whffi way has this 

provision., used this provision across all provoslon affected the 

<Mml< orly ""~ 1x><1 lnghway pro}e<:ts? speed of proJect dei!Very 

<l!ltilok <>!'lyor.e btl'! at your agern:y? 

Mnr~on "'"'t"'"l 

S~dupgreatty2 

4. Categorical Exclusion for Projech> with L!m!tad Federal Funds 

Avthonzesthedesoonatlcnofacategorlcale><clusoonforPfOJects 

receJVmg less th<!n $5 m1ll10n m federal funds, o• loss than 15 

percent federal funds lor a projecl under $30 molhon, subject to an Yes 50 .. 

F•eq"'""'" } Scmel,mes7 

annual•nflatlonadJUStment 

M-'11"'·:.'1 Soc 1317{PDFp5mJ 

f. A':; I Ant Sa:: 1314 [PDF p 1402] No 2 

~ 

(Gorone>[t 

pmvm•on) 

Rarely14 

Notal all, bulpj<ln!o use6 

Notatall,i!lrdnoplanstouse 12 

(Go to next pn:;;v1s<or1) 

Noeffec:t8 

SIO'."ed down somewhat 0 

Slowed down greBtly 0 

Too soon!ojudge 3 

(Optional) Comments on y<'lur answers 

~have a~onvnents or an In turtner to add on tha statuto oriCat Exclusion rovlslons? 

(addpages•fneeded) 

Page62 GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Oel!very 
212 


32989.128

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summar1zed Responses 

A. Is your agency B If Yes to 'A' how often m the C If any use marked In 'B,' 

aware of this past five years has your agency In what way has this 

provts•on? used this provlslo!1 across all provtsion affected the 

M~<l< >nl:; "'e bo<o highway projects? speed of proJect delivery 

\Ma<l<"" ~on~ b<>.>:l at you~ agency? 

rMerkoolyo,.,box) 

The followmg Calegoncal E~cluS/ons \N€1re CrB<Jiod by rBgulaf1on as a result of teqcmemi'Jt'lt~ from MAP-21 Sac 1318 

5~-Categof!Ca! Exclo,.lon ;-;;, Geotechnic~t;;;,:. Archeological 

lnvestlgatkms 

ForhrghwayproJeCts,doslgnatesacategonca·,exclus•ontor 

geot.-chn1cal and archeological onves\lgatlall$ to provide tnformatoon 

forpreli-nJnar,'destgn 

(Op~lonal) Corr;me"lts on yout answers 

6.C~egorlcal Exclusion for Environmenu;l Rest-;;~atwn --

For highway proJects, deGignateseflVlronment<!lrastoraiKl<,ar.d 

Yes46 • 

No6 

• [Golonox/ 

pro••JS!ol1) 

polluti\Jn abatement actmns to m•nm11ze or ~•t Qat~ l'le ''"'"'"I o' ves 46 • anyex•stongt'ansp:>natlonfac•llty 

MAP 21 Sec 1:J1B(a)-{c) [PDF p 650] 

23 CFR Part T71 117(c){25) {PDF p 31 No 6 

(Go • to next 

p!OII!SJOf7) (GO to 

nexlprov!S!CX') 

Sped up greatly 2 

Sped up somewhat 4 

No effect 10 

Not at all, butplantouse7 Slowed down sm-new"'at 2 

Not at all. and no pla.ns to u~e 19 SICM'eddowngreat:yO 

• (Go ro ooxt proVIslorJ} Too soon to Judge 2 

-------~- ------------

''""'""•· } SametHT\f'SJ 

"<a rely 14 

Sped upgreatly3 

Sped upsome.vhat3 

"..oe!f!O"Ct11 

Notatfl:l, but plan to use9 Sln, .. eddownsom"""'hatO 

Not at ail, <'lfldr.o p!arcsto use 18 Sicweddowngreat'yO 

(Gc/onexlproviSJOI>) 

Tnosoonto)udge4 

---'O--p--"'--'a-lj-C--o-m--m---'-''_"_'_Yo_'"''_"_'_"'_"__L ______________ -____ ____j 

Page63 GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
213 


32989.129

Pilge64 

Appendix JV; Highway Questionnaire anQ Summarh.ed Responses 

7. Categorical Exclusion for HI-ghway Modernization 

1-'orh>ghwayprojects, destgnatesreaurfacmg,restorat>on 

rehab.lilatton reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary 

lancsasacategoncal exclUSion 

MJ1P ?1 Sa:; f31B(c}(1} [PDF p 550J 

?3 C'FR PcH1 77 I 11l(c)(?6) {mF p 3] 

(Op!fonal) Comments on yvur answers 

s. categorica'IE:'Xclu"Sion tor H-ighWllYSatetyaOdOp;rnHor;ar--- lmprovement 

Forhighwayprojects,.:".e!llgnateshlghwaysalctyortl<lfhc 

operatoor:s 'iTlprovement projects, Including Hle 1nstailat10n of ramp 

metenngcontroi(leVICesand:•ght>ng,a!lacatcgonC<llexclusoon 

(Opl.onal) Comments an your answers 

A lsyouragency S ffYE!!>to'A,'howoftenulthe C lfanyusemarkedln B,' 

aware of this past five years has your agency In what way has this 

provision'> used this provision aero'Ss all provision afft;)C"ted the 

1l> M< only oo~ t<hJ highway proJects? speed of proJect delivery 

Yes 52 .. 

NoO 

(G0/0/1<3X/ • prOVISion) 

iiMrk ool;<""<' b<>"l at your agency? 

<Mali<"' I)'"'~ l>ol;J 

Frequentiy31} 

Somet·mes 13 .. 

Rarely2 

Spctl up grelllly 13 

Sped up some......tlat 17 

No effect 15 

No\atatl, bw!pJanto use 1 Slowed Oown somewhat 2 

Not at illl, and no plans to use4 Sloweddowf'greatlyO 

• (Go to r>e-xt prows<on) ToosoonlaJudge 0 

----,----c:-----~----~-----

Frequently 22 } Sped up greatly 11 

Ycs62 .. 

NoO 

• 

Sornetlrnes18 .. 

Rarely 7 Sf'E'd up somewhat Hi 

No!G!all, bulplsntol.I'Se 1 

Notatall,andnoplllnstouse4 

Noelfect20 

Sloweddownsom.,..,rat1 

Slowed down greatly 0 

GA0-18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
214 


32989.130

Pagess 

Appendix IV; Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

a. Categorical Exclusion for Brld.g"' Proj.,<:ts at Raltw..y-Highway 

Crossings 

For highway proJects, deS1gnatesb<1dge rehabil.tiltlon, 

reconstrucUon, orrepl;;u;ementortheconstruct•onofgrade 

separa\lontorepJaceexlstlngat·graderaotroadcrossmgs, as a 

categoncal exclusion 

(Opuona')Comrr>e"ltsonyouran<,wers 

10. Categorical Exclusion for Ferry Vessels 

Fe• FHWA·fUnded feuy projects, demgnates ti".e purch<!ss 

construction, replacement. orrel1ab•illallonofterryvesse1slha! 

wowld not 'e<:i'-''n' a change In the hmct<on of lhe fNry term'""'s as 

acategoncalexclus<on 

MAP-21 Sec 1318(aj.(c) [PDF p 550] 

23 C:FR Part '171 117(c)(29) [PDF p 3j 

A lsyouragency B tfVesto'A.'howoftenlnthe C lfanyusemafkedm'B.' 

aware of thiS past five years has your agency in what way has thls 

prov•1>ion? used this prOvision across all prov•s•on affected the 

,M~r~ "'il' w~ 00< highway projects? speed of projed delivery 

Yl.->s 50 .. 

No2 

• (Go tv next 

proVIS!Dil) 

Y<Cs42 • 

No7 

(GotorJaJ\I • proviSion) 

tM~rk only on~ I>"'< I at your agency? 

<M!>•)Ionyoo,.~x>;) 

f.'r<..oqt.ently14} 

Somctln-es19 ... 

R-"rely 1 

Spedupgroatfy8 

Spedupso'Tlewhat 11 

No effect 18 

Not at all outp:antouse4 Slowood down somew,.,at 2 

t'.'Otat all andnoplanstouse5 Slowed down greatly 0 

• (Go to mxl nmVIS!on) 

ToosnDntoJudge 1 

;-requently2 

Sred upgrcat1yJ 

Somet•mes2 

Spedupso;new!-ont2 

No effectS 

Notatelll b•rtplantn t1se8 

Notata:l anctnoplanstouse 19 Sh:.,.....,eddowngreat!y 0 

• (Go to next prav1sron) roosoon\OJudge2 

GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project DeJiyery 
215 


32989.131

Page66 

Appeodh: N: Highway Questionnaire ~nd Summarized Responses 

11. Categorical Exclusion for F&rtY F.,.;llltlO'iii 

For tHWA-!uncted ferry terminal proJects, desrgr«~tes the 

rehab,htal!onmreconstruct;onofexlslmgferryracllltlesasa 

categoncalexclusmn 

MAP 21 S"': f31!l(a)·(c) [PDF p 550] 

2.1 CFH f'wt 711117(c)(30) [FOF p3] 

{Op!1onal) comments on your answers 

A lsy<>uragency B lfYesto'A,'Ilowoftenmthe C lfaoyusemarkedm B,' 

aware of this past five years has your ngeney In wh01t way has thls 

pn>vislon? used this provls1ot1 across all provision affected the 

Morl:"'"' O<>ebo>l highway ptojeCts? speed ofproJGCt delivery 

Yes45 ... 

No6 

• (Gotonmt 

pfOVISIQrl) 

iM<lrk <>l'lt®e b<>'l at your agency? 

<Mnrl<"' ~'""'"''"l 

e<eqcoo,y2 } 

Sometimes 3 

R1lrely1J 

Nolata!l, buto!antouse7 

Not at all and no plans to use 20 

(Go to next prows/on} 

ulatloo? 

S~dupgreatly3 

Sped up somewhat 4 

Noeffet.i9 

Slowed down scmew-Mt 0 

SloY.reddowngreatfyO 

Too soon !o Judge 3 

GA0-18-22:2 Highway and Transit Project Oelivel)' 
216 


32989.132

Page67 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire amJ Summartzed Response!! 

S/I.FET£!t LU Sec 6009 [PDF p 732} 

(Optlora!)Carnmerrtsonyauranswers 

A Is your agency S ffYesto'A,'howoftenmthe C tranyusemarkedm S,' 

aware of this past fiVe ~an; has your agency In what way has this 

pn;~vls1on"> used this provision across all prov•shm affe<:ted the 

<Mork .,...1, oo~<<>« highway pfl:lJ&cts? sp(led of project delivery 

NoO 

(Golone\t 

proVISHYJ) 

1M<>r1< 0<1!yone M.>l) at your agency? 

F'iXJL>e"liY31} 

Somenmc-s16 .. 

Rareiy3 

No! at all, butplantouse2 

Nol<>lall, and no plans touseO 

(C,c> tone~t prov/51011) 

IMor~Ot>!yON>bOX) 

Sped up greatly 33 

Spedupsomewhat13 

~Jo eifect 2 

Slowed down somewr.at1 

Slowed down greatly 0 

Toosoon:o)udge 0 

~;.~~:~::~~~~~,.e;or u"~;j~-NEPAR~I;w· .. ------,---·--·--r-~.;:;;~-~--} 

Yes 50 .. Some!l'l"'es 21 .. 

Rar<!ly14 Sped up somewhat 18 

Spedupgre<JtlyG 

MAP-? I Soc 1310 {PO! p 540} 

l-AS! Sac 1305{PDF p 1386} 

(Op!.onai)Comcnentsony<.Juranswers 

No2 

(Golonoxt • proVJSion) 

Noeffecr7 

Notata'i, butp~antouse9: SloNeddownscmewhat 1 

Nota! ail andnoplansiau5e2 Sloweddnwngreatly1 

(Go to net:/ pral'ston) Toosoonto1udge 6 

GA0·18-2l2 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
217 


32989.133

Page68 

Appendix IV: HighwayO .. estlonnalre and Summat1zed Responses 

fAS/ Act Sec 1311 &•304(J) [PDF p 139fl & 13BS/ 

(Opt,onal) Comments on your answers 

Administrations on SlmtiBr Project.. 

Authonzes the opcrattng admm1s~atrons of DOT to adopt a drMt 

EIS, FA, or frnal EIS of another operal•rtg ar1minlfllratlon ""1U1otrt 

rec,rculatlng the dJ:x:umentlor publtc rev1ew •f the proposed C~ctton 

1.:;: GubstantJal!y the sarr>e 01s the proJect cons•Oered m the document 

lobe adopted 

F4ST Act Soc 1311 [,"''F p 139[]] 

(OptiOnal) Comm,;,nts on your answer& 

(Gotonoxt 

prOVIS/Of1) 

Yes43,. 

Nc9 

.. (Golone;d 

p!'OV!SIOI>) 

Rare!y 12 

Notatsll tlut plan to use22 

Not at all, and no plans to use 7 

(Go to nexl pro<Jiston} 

FrequentlyO 

Somotlroos3 

Rarely 11 

Nota! all but plan to use 15 

.'\lot at all snd no plans to liSe 14 

.. (Gotoooxtprows1on) 

Spcdupsomevvtlat 12 

NaerfectO 

SIO'!"eddownsom,..,..llatO 

Stowed down greatly 0 

roo soon to judge 8 

Sped upgreat~3 

Sped 1.1p oomewhal 6 

Noeffect5 

SICJIO-ed down greatly 0 

Too soon to judge 1 

GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
218 


32989.134

App11ncliX !V: Highway Questionnaire ancl Summarized RlllipOmoes 

~~~:,:,~~::~:,~ ~;;;::~,:o~ ,~!e~d;~uce dt:pl~e>atoon, by ehrrunat.ng fro'ndetat!edconstderat>onanatte•ni:ltlvep<oposedmanEIS t!!he 

alterrratJvewas already proposedmaolarl<'!ngprocessorstate 

envwonrnentalrevlewpro,..ess 

FAST N;f Soc 1304(f)(2)(C) [PDF p 1387] 

(Op!ton<~I)Corrmentsoryou'ans"""'rs 

Yes46• 

No5 

• (Go/oncxt 

pfOV!SI0/1) 

R<Hely 15 

Not at coli blllp·d:nto use 17 

Not at all and no plt•nstouse8 

(Go to nml pmws1m) 

Spedllpsornewhat 11 

Noeffect2 

Slowed down somewhat 0 

Slowed down grea~y 0 

Toosoonto1udge8 

GA0-18·22:2 Highway ancl Transit Project Delivery 
219 


32989.135

Page7D 

Appeod!x IV: Highway Questiooo.llre and Summarized Responses 

Coordinatlon!Collabort~tlon 

17. Offering Fi~nchll A:ssi,..tance to StiDUlllmlde,- Ag""de:s 

Allows a stale to use rts fec:klralh<ghway funds to support a federal 

or state ::;.gen~ or lnd1an tnbe pa't!clp<'ltmg '"the e!Wironrmmt<'ll 

rewew proc.,ss on act.v1ttes that d•rechy contnbvte to e><:pecl<ltng 

and•mprovwogp<ojectplannmganddehvery 

SA!t:fi:A-LU 

MAI''·21 Sec 

1:199} 

{Optmnal) Comments on your answers 

1iC Early Coordination ActwltleS in Environmental Review Proce$s 

Encourages early oocperat>or, tootween OOT :::.no other agenC!Eii'S, 

<rdUdlng States or toc1l.l plann1ng agenc1es m the env•ronmenrnl 

revo~prooesstoavmddelayanddupi:catmn,andsuggestsearly 

coordlnatwnact•vltieos Earfyc:oord<natlonlnoluOesestabhshmeMof 

MOUs w1th States or local p:annn1g agono1es 

(O~ional) Comments on your <~nswE~rs 

A Is your agency B tfVesto'A,'howofteomthe C lf<~oyus<>m<ukedln'B,' 

aware of this past fiv~ years has yoLir agency In wh01t wa.y has this 

provision? os(ld this provision <~Cros\!0 all pro\lhi!OO aff...:;ted the 

EMo!l< anly <>t>e b<>xl highway projects? speed of project deUvery 

Ycs48 • 

No4 

• (Goronext 

prOVIHion) 

Yes 52 .. 

NoO 

• (GoronB,>(t 

pr<:!Ytslon) 

1MM~ <>~ y ""'" b~>~) at your agency? 

<Ma<ke>nlyi>l\elx>'l 

Frequently 16 

Sornetanes7 

Rarely9 

Nota\ all, t>ut plan to use8 

Notata!l, ao;:Jnoplanstouse9 

Samet mes 16 ... 

Spedupgre<~!1y13 

Spe!dUpsom""""at10 

Noeffect5 

Slowed down Sll"mewhat 0 

Slowed down greatly 1 

Toosoonloju<;lge4 

8<"0 "P9'"'"y10 

Rarely 7 Sped up sorncwhllt 17 

Noeffect12 

Notal all but pi<Jn louse 6 Stowed down>:<omewhat 0 

Not: all and no plaM to use 2 Slowed down greatly a 

Frequen!ly20} ;.u-- ---- Too soontojuelge 3 (Ga to next prr:N!Sior>} 

---'--~ - ---~~- ------~ 

GA0-1R·222 Hlghway and Tramdt Project Delivery 
220 


32989.136

Page71 

AppendiJI IV: HighWay Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

A Is your <"~gency S tl' Yes to 'A,' hoW often In the C If any use malked In B, 

aware of thts past five years has your agency m what way has this 

provlston? used thiS provtsion across all prov•sion affected the 

M•·~.., y <>r><>b<><J highway projects? speed of proJeet delivery 

1¥~rkony<)II"POX) at your aget~cy? 

•M~r1< anyor>ebc<l 

Do you have any comments or anything further to add on the coordination/collaboration provisions? 

{addpages,lneeded) 

GA0.18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
221 


32989.137

Pagl!72 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Resp011ses 

1n Part liB of the questmnnaire, for each prov1s•on 11&\ed, GAO has par'lpllresed a prov1s1on !ille and descnpt1on and Included O!tahons for the &tatute{s) 

that createdlamer-ded 1\ We 1ncludecr Internet hyperlinKs to Us Government Publishing Office webs.ltes, for reference to Citations 1f needed (You mvst be 

cormectE"dtothe!r,ternettouiilethiS!eE~turli.') 

• For "'""h ptQIIIsion· pho>:lse respunt1 to questions A' and 'C 'which are the same quest1ons from P<ut HA We E'xdudcd quest1on '0' from this 

secbon 

A Is your J:~ge:ncy C In What way has this 

awar~<> ofthl:s provision M'fucted the spi!ad 

pro\f\<s..t<m-1 <'>f pf<>}~-d~very at ycmt 

<Mari<MYMI ~<»:\ agency? 

IM~r\tooiYM*bO•t 

Sp«Jdupgreatly2 

Sped up somewh<~t 16 

No effect 14 

Slowed down somewhat 0 

SloweddowngreattyO 

ToosO(lnloJudge13 

GA0·18·222 Highway and Tra11slt Project Delivery 
222 


32989.138

Page73 

AppendiK IV: Highway QuesUonna.ire and Summarized Responses 

(Op!10nal) comrnonts Gn your answers 

No7 

{Go/Oncxt • proviSion) 

Sped up somewhat 3 

Slowed down .somewhat 0 

SlowP.ddowngr!c"atlyO 

Too soon t<J jiJ(Ig<:o 15 

SpedupgreiJ\Iy 1 

Sped up somewhat 3 

No >lffect20 

Slowed down gre<~tly 0 

Too soon tn JUdO<' 19 

GA0-18-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
223 


32989.139

Appendix: IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Page74 

Sped up somewhat 7 

Slowed down sam(1What 3 

SIOW€d down gre<~tly 0 

Too socm to Judgs 19 

Sped up greatly 2 

Spedupsornelo\ltlat4 

No effect 18 

Slowed down somewhat J 

Slawed down greotly 0 

Too soon to Judge 20 

GA0·1B·22.2 Highway ancl Transit Project Delivery 
224 


32989.140

Page75 

AppendiX IV; Highway Questionnaire and Summarl;::ed Responses 

~AFETEA-L U S6C 6002(a) [PDF p 715} 

MAP~21 Sec 1306[PDFp5.35] 

No5 

(Goconaxt • provtSK>O) 

Sped up somewhat 3 

Noeffect26 

SlowE-d down somewh01l 0 

S•oweddowngreatlyO 

ND\Olffect19 

Slowed down somewhat 0 

Slowed down greatly 0 

Toosoonto;udge 20 

GA0-1B-222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
225 


32989.141

Page76 

AppendiX IV: Highway Questionnaire and Sumlflarized Responses 

(Opt1onal) comments or, your answers 

No7 

• (GobMXt 

prowsmn) 

Toosoonto)udge 1 

Spedup~relltly1 

Sped up SDI'Tlewhat 9 

Slowed oown somewhat 0 

Slowed down grea~y 0 

GA0·18·222 Highway and Transit Project DeUvery 
226 


32989.142

Paga77 

Appendix IV: Highway Questionnaire and Summarized Responses 

Requtre'.i a coord1nal\on plan for pubhc and agency partKJipatoon 111 

theenvlronrnenta!reYiewprocess'Nithin90daysolnot'ceoln")!ent 

or the mlttalton of an EnY•ronmerrtal Assessment, lncltxling a 

schedulefoccompletmndtheerNoronm'lnlalrevlewprocessforttle 

prOjeCt 

FAST Acl Sec 1:J04{g)(1) [PDF p 1383] 

{Optmnal) comrrents on your answers ! 

New Information 

Issues that are resolved by the lead agency w<th concurrellCe from 

stakeholder cannot be reconsidered unless there IS "'gn•f•canl new 

mformat1on or Glrcumsmnces anse 

FAST Act Sec 1J04{h)(1) [PDF' p 138.3] 

{OptiOnal) comments on your answers 1 

No7 

• {Gofonoxt 

provrston) 

NoS 

(Gotonoxt • proVISion) 

Sped(lpsomewt\at 6 

No effect 16 

Slowed down somewhat 7 

Slowed down grea~y 1 

Toosoontojtldge 13 

Spe-dupgreatry2 

Spe-d up somewhat 8 

No effect 12 

Slowed ClOwn somewhat 1 

Slowed down greatly 0 

Too soon to Judge 21 

GA0-18-222 Highway aod Transit ProjEJCt Delivery 
227 


32989.143

Page78 

AppendiX IV; Highway Questionnaire and Summarized ResponSe$ 

Thank you. You havt- completed the Highw01y Project Delivo:ry Questionnaire. 

Internet Hyper!mks 

We pro\o1ded the followw.g ln!ernet hyperl1nks for reference to "'tatoons, •f needed You must be connected to t.>-oe Internet to use th•s feawrl' If the hyperhnk does 

not work, pleas.s copy aoo paste the fallowmg URLs Into your Internet brows-er 

U S Govemrnant Pub!H>hlf'Q Off•ce webs<tes 

SAFETEA-LU· "ttps 1/WW'"" !JPil govJI'OsyslpKgiK AW-1Q9ou~59/pdf!F l__AW-1D9publ59 pdf 

MAP-21 httpsl/www gpogov/f\J~ysfpKgiPLAW-112publ1~1/pd1JDLAW·112ou~i41 pdf 

FAST Act httro-,·fhNNI gp:J (lOV/h1t,ySipl<{]lr'lAW 114puhi94/Ddf/PLAW-11.!1publ9o1 paf 

23 CFR 7{1 11/ F-HWA Categoncal Exch.JSions 11t1ps /l..,.v..w gpo gov/I\"JsyslpKg/CFR-2016-totlc:'::J.voi1/IXlfiCf-'R·2016 lille23-vot1-5eC/11-11/ t!dt 

GA0·18·222 HI!JhW<ly and Translt Project Delivery 
228 


32989.144

Appendix V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Category 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

CE 

Admin 

changes 

Provision 

number 

11 

Are you aware 

of this project 

delivery 

provision? 

Description (Y or N) 

Authorizes the lead agency of a mult!modal proJect to 

apply categorical exclusions from the NEPA implementing 

regulations or procedures of a cooperating DOT operating 

administration. 

Oes1gnates the repair or reconstruction of any road, 

highway, or bridge that was damaged by an emergency as 

a categorical exclusion, subject to certain conditions. 

Designates a project Within an operational right-of-way as 

a categorical exclusion, subject to certain conditions 

Authorizes the designation of a categorical exclusion for 

projects receiving less than $5 million in federal funds, or 

less than 15 percent federal funds for a project under $30 

million, subject to an annual inflation adjustment 

For trans1t projects, designates bndge removal and bridge 

removal related activities, such as in~channe! work, 

disposal of matenals and debris as a categorical 

exclusion. 

For transit proJeCts. designates preventative maintenance, 

includtng safety treatments, !o culverts and channels 

within and adjacent to transportation right-of-way as a 

categorical exclus1on 

For trans1t projects, des1gnates geotechnical and 

archeological investigations to provide information for 

preliminary design, environmental analyses, and 

permitting purposes as a categorical exclusion 

For transit projects, designates minor transportation facility 

realignment for rail safety reasons, such as improving 

vertical and horizontal alignment of railroad crossings, as a 

categorical exclusion 

For transit proJects, destgnates modernization or minor 

expansions of transit structures and facihtJes outs1de 

existing such as bridges, stations, or ra!l 

as a 

Bars claims seeking judicial review of a permit, license, or 

approval issued by a federal agency for projects unless 

they are filed within 150 days after publication of a notice 

in the the final agency 

action, unless a is specified in the federal law 

under which review is allowed 

11 

11 

10 

Have you used 

this project 

delivery 

provision? 

(YarN) 

Page 79 GA0-18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
229 


32989.145

Category 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Admin 

changes 

Coordination 

Provision 

number 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Appendix V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Description 

Authorizes the lead agency for a project to use planning 

products, such as planning decisions, analysis, or studies, 

in the environmental review process of the project. 

Requires that any federal agency responsible for 

environmental review to give substantial weight to a state 

or metropolitan programmatic mitigation plan, if one had 

been developed as part of the transportation planning 

process, when carrying out responsibilities under NEPA or 

other environmental law. 

Allows the lead agency of a project, in order to expedite 

decisions, to use an errata sheet attached to a final EIS, 

instead of rewriting it, if the comments are minor. Also, to 

the maximum extent practicable, combines the final EIS 

and record of decision in certain cases 

Authonzes the operatmg administrations of DOT to adopt 

a draft EIS, EA, or final EIS of another operating 

admmistratlon without recirculating the document for public 

review If the proposed action is substantially the same as 

the project considered in the document to be adopted. 

Establishes a 45-day limit after the notice of intent date for 

a lead agency to identify other agencies to participate in 

the environmental review process on EIS projects. 

To the maxirTwm extent practicable and consistent with 

federal law, requires lead agencies to develop a single 

NEPA document to satisfy the requirements for federal 

approval or other federal action, including permits. 

Creates several requirements at the start of a project's 

Section 139 environmental review process, such as 1) 

establishing a 45~ay deadline for DOT to provide a 

written response to the project sponsor on initiation of the 

environmental review process; 2) establishing a 45-day 

deadline for DOT to respond to a request for designation 

of a lead agency: and 3) requiring the development of a 

checklist by the lead agency to help identify natural, 

cultural, and historic resources, to identify agencies and 

improve interagency collaboration 

Authorizes the lead agency to reduce duplication, by 

eliminating from detailed consideration an alternative 

proposed in an EIS if the alternative was already proposed 

in a planning process or state environmental review 

process, subject to certain conditions 

Allows a state to use its federal funds to support a federal 

or state agency or Indian tribe participating in the 

environmental review process on activities that directly 

contribute to expediting and improving project planning 

and delivery. 

10 

10 

you 

this project 

delivery 

provision? 

(YarN) 

Page 80 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Oeli'lery 
230 


32989.146

Provision 

Category number 

Coordination 21 

Coordination 22 

Coordination 23 

Coordination 24 

Coordination 25 

Coordination 26 

Coordination 27 

Project 28 

DeliVery 

Project 29 

AppendilC V: Transit Agency Provisions 

Checklist and Responses Regarding 

Awareness and Use 

Description 

Establishes procedures to resolve issues between project 

sponsors and relevant resource agencies. 

At the request of a project sponsor or a governor of the 

state in which the project is located, requires DOT to 

provide additional technical assistance for a project where 

EIS review has taken 2 years, and establish a schedule for 

review completion within 4 years 

Requires DOT to seek opportunities with states to enter 

into programmatic agreements to carry out environmental 

and other project reviews 

Encourages early cooperation between DOT and other 

agencies, including states or local planning agencies, in 

the environmental rev1ew process to avoid delay and 

duplication, and suggests early coordination activities 

Early coordmation includes establishment of MOUs with 

states or local planning agencies 

Limits the comments of participating agencies to subject 

matter areas w1thm the special expertise or jurisdiction of 

the agency 

Requires a coordination plan for public and agency 

participation in the Section 139 environmental review 

process within 90 days of a Notice of Intent or the initiation 

of an Environmental Assessment, including a schedule 

you 

this project 

delivery 

provision? 

(YorN) 

Issues that are resolved by the lead agency w1th -------,;------;;: 

concurrence from stakeholders cannot be reconsidered 

unless there is signlflcant new information or 

circumstances arise. 

Permits states or local transportation agencies to release 

requests for proposals and award designwbuild contracts 

prior to the completion ofthe NEPA process; however, it 

precludes a contractor from proceeding with final design or 

construction before completion of the NEPA process. 

10 

10 

Delivery 

Project 30 

Authorizes states to acquire real property interests for a 

project before completion of the NEPA process 

---;;-;;----'A;;-u-;;th:co-:cri""ze"s-;t;:-hec-a:cwarding of contra;=ts"""'to::'rcoth;:-e:------

Delivery 

Source GAOal'\atyS!S !GA0-16-222 

preconstruction services and preliminary design of a 

project using a competitive selection process before the 

completion of the NEPA process. 

Page 81 GA0w18·222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
231 


32989.147

Appendix VI: Comments from the 

Department of Transportation 

U.S. Departmental Transportation 

Susan Fleming 

Oirt.."Ctor. Physical Infrastructure Issu<o\s 

U.S. Government Accountability Office {GAO) 

441GStrcetNW 

Washington. DC 20548 

Dear Ms. Fleming; 

DEC 181017 

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is committed to accelerating project delivery while 

preserving and enhsncing the quality of the human and naturn! environments. Congress provided 

provisions in legislation aimed at accelerating the delivery of highway and transit projects. The 

Fedcrul Higfmay Administr.ttion (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) have 

considerable flex.ibi!itics to accclcmtc project delivery. including the Surface Transportation 

PnJject Delivery Program under section J27 of title 23, t:nitcd States Code (U.S.C.). commonly 

rc!Crred to as the National Environmental Policy Act {NEPA) Assignment Program. 

F! JW A provides continuous. timely. and constructive tedmical assist!Lnce to Stutes in the NEPA 

Assignment Program, to include the fol!oY..ing examples: 

Creating an Environmental Review Toolkit; 

Conducting NEP A Assignment State workshops: 

Conducting technkallrnining in NEPA.at the request ofth.e SLate; 

Conducting re::~d!ness assessments to identify areas of improvemems in aclnmce of taking 

nn assignment responsibilities under 23 U.S.C. 326 and )27; and 

('~)!laborating daily "1.\~th States th.at express interest in th.e pmgratn to ensure successful 

implementation. 

I"he t-;EPA Assignment Program statute requires the Secretary ofTransportution t~' conduct 

annual audits and monitoring til ensure compliance by a State with the agreement developed for 

program participation under 23 U.S.C. 327(g)(l) and (h). Huwevcr, the statute does not require 

FllV•/A to measure environmental review cllidency and timeliness of rmnicipating States. 

While accelerating projto.ct deliver)' remains important, ti.Jcusing only on timeliness metrics for 

environmental reviews in NEPA Assignment States overlooks other signiticant benefits of the 

Pwgran1. For example, the NEPA Assignment Program gives Stmes C<lntrol over when and how 

to conduct environmental reviC\\'S as long as they comply with th.e Federal requircmt:nts, This is 

one ufthe mt,st significtmt factors that a State considers in deciding whetl1erto request NEPA 

Assigtmlent. and it is particularly important for the States with !urge Federal-aid highway 

programs. 

Page 82 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
232 


32989.148

Appendix VI: Comments from the Department 

of Transportation 

A~;,i~tant SL'trcta.l"y !\1r Administr:1tion 

Page 83 GA0~1B~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
233 


32989.149

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

{101081) 

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen (Assistant Director); 

Brian Chung (Analyst-in-Charge); Rich Johnson; Delwen Jones; Hannah 

Laufe; Ethan Levy; Ned Malone; Josh Ormond; Tina Paek; Cheryl 

Peterson; and Joe Thompson made significant contributions to this report. 

Page 84 GA0~18~222 Highway and Transit Project Delivery 
234 


32989.150

GAO's Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone 

Connect with GAO 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison 

The Government Accountability 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 

through GAO's website {http.l/www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to http://www.gao.gov 

and select "E~mail Updates." 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO's actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO's website, http://W'WVV.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling {202) 512-6000, toll free {866) 801-7077, or 

TDD {202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Cal! for additional information. 

Connect with GAO on Facebook, F!ickr, Linked In, Twitter, and You Tube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E~mail Updates. Usten to our Podcasts 

Visit GAO on the web at www gao.gov and read The Watchblog. 

Contact: 

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet!fraudnet htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, {202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

James-Christian Blackwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814. 

Washington, DC 20548 

•• 

... ~ 

Please Print on Recycled Paper_ 
235 

Senator BARRASSO. The time has now expired on the vote, and 

we need to get to the floor. I do want to thank the members who 

have attended. 

I especially want to thank our esteemed guests, Madam Secretary, as well as Assistant Secretary James. I want to thank you 

for your time, and I want to thank you for this crucial discussion 

regarding the Administration’s infrastructure plans. 

People may submit additional questions for the record. The 

record will remain open for 2 weeks. 

Thank you again for being here and joining us. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

236 


32989.151

3115/2018 Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan \1\/ith PPP Comments to Democrats~ The Eno Center for Transportation 

Eno 

SearchEno 

The Natwnul Leader in Policy and Professional Development for the 

Transportation lndustl'!l 

About 

Donate 

News& 

Media 

I Events 

Menu 

> Articles > Week of September 25, 2017 > Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan With PPP Comments to Democrats 

1 16 

Eno Transportation Weekly Download PDF Version 

Week of September 25, 2017 

Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan 

With PPP Comments to Democrats 

By Jeff Davis 

Senior Fellow and Editor, Eno Transportation Weekly 

lntr,,<;trurture OMB P3 PPP 

September 29, 2017 

President Trump unexpectedly distanced himself from one of the core principles of his own 

Administration's infrastructure plan this week - an increased reliance on public-private partnerships 

to finance infrastructure. In a meeting with bipartisan members of the House Ways and Means 

Committee to discuss tax reform on September 26, Trump apparently said that most "PPPs" are 

"more trouble than they're worth." (Reps. Brian Higgins (D·NY) and Richard Neal (D·MA) gave the 

quotes and the story to the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post in separate articles the night 

of September 26. 

https:/lwww.enotrans.org/artideltrump*upends~infrastructure-plan-ppp-comments~democratsl 1/6 
237 


32989.152

3/15{2018 Trump Upends H1s Own Infrastructure Plan W!th PPP Comments to Democrats- The Eno Center for Transportation 

Vice President Mike Pence was also in the meeting, and according to the WSJ article, Trump singled 

out the big P3 in Pence's home state of Indiana -the lease of the 156-mile Indiana Toll Road to a 

private venture for 75 years (2006 to 2081) in exchange for $3.8 billion in cash up front, which was 

used by the Indiana DOT to pay for a 10-year program of building new transportation infrastructure 

throughout the state. Rep. Higgins told the WSJ that Trump said "They tried it in Mike's state and it 

didn't work:' 

(Ed. Note: In any two-party transaction, you need to be careful saying "it" didn't work. Financially. the 

agreement has worked as intended (so far) for the State of Indiana they got their $3.8 billion check. 

cashed it, and built roads with it. Whether it works for Indiana in the future depends on how much 

Indiana might need to build a road competing with the toll road between now and the year 2081 but 

will be forbidden to do so by the P3 lease agreement, and how well the private operator maintains 

the toll road. The venture did not work out for the original P3 partner, a joint venture of Cintra and 

Maquarie, which had some bad revenue and debt service assumptions in its business plan (see this 

Forbes article for details) and which may have overpaid for the toll road in the first place. The CintraMaquarie joint venture declared bankruptcy in 2014 and was bought for $5.7 billion in 2015 by IFM 

Investors. The original P3 was done under Governor Mitch Daniels (R) and the re-sale of the bankrupt 

private side was handled by Gov. Pence.) 

(Further Ed. Note: By dumping on the Indiana project in particular, Trump is especially distancing 

himself from the "asset recycling" concept, because of all the P3 infrastructure projects in America to 

date, it is the Indiana one that most resembles the asset recycling conceJLt as practiced in Australia 

and elsewhere.) 

It's hard to overstate how at odds this is from everything we thought we knew about the Trump 

Administration's forthcoming infrastructure plan. A brief timeline: 

• October 2016- Future Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and future White House trade advisor 

Peter Navarro release, through the Trump campaign, a white P..iJRer on infrastructure relying almost 

completely on private equity. backed with an 82 percent tax credit on private equity investments in 

infrastructure, the cost of which tax credit would be fully offset by overseas corporate income 

repatriation. The private equity would total $1 trillion. necessitating a federal tax credit of $121 

billion. 

• May 2017- The White House releases its full budget request for 2018, which includes $200 

billion in federal infrastructure funding in 2018 to leverage $800 million in "incentivized nonfederal funding" for a $1 trillion total. A fact sheet issued by OMB at the time said that "While 

public-private partnerships will not be the solution to all infrastructure needs, they can help 

advance the Nation's most important, regionally significant projects." 

eJuly 2017 DOT rewrites the guidelines for its annual FASTLANE grants into a new INFRA 

program with selection criteria that emphasize leverage: "In addition, the Department seeks to 

increase the sources of infrastructure funding by encouraging private infrastructure investment. 

Therefore projects that incorporate private sector contributions, including through a public-private 

partnership structure. are likely to be more competitive than those that rely solely on public nonhttps:ttwww.enotrans.org/article/!rump-upends-infrastructure-p!an-ppp-comments-democrats/ 216 
238 


32989.153

3/15/2018 Trump Upends His Own Infrastructure Plan With PPP Comments to Democrats- The Eno Center for Transportation 

Federal funding. Likewise. applicants who have pursued private funds for appropriate projects are 

likely to be more competitive under this program than applicants who have not. 

•August 2017- OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, and other 

Administration officials brief state and local government officials on the infrastructure plan, and 

continue to emphasize private equity investment. 

This reaction from the godfather of the privatization movement, Bob Poole of the Reason 

Foundation, was pretty typical: "I was both astonished and dismayed. Everything the administration 

had said up until yesterday was that public private partnerships and private investment in 

infrastructure improvements was going to be the core of the program." 

As noted above, the budget itself calls for $200 billion in real mandatory budget authority in 2018 

(pay-for TBD) to leverage an additional $800 billion in non-federal funding. It had been assumed by 

nearly everyone that a substantial chunk of that $800 billion, especially in major urban areas where 

there is a lot of passenger and freight through-put, would be private equity. If private equity is not 

going to fund a substantial chunk of that $800 billion, then there are only two options that can allow 

the "$1 trillion" top line number to stay in place: 

1. The White House needs to increase the actual amount of real federal dollars provided to well 

over $200 billion (some Democrats this week gJggested going to $500 billion), or 

2. State and local governments are going to have to pick up many billion (possibly several hundred 

billion) dollars more of the tab for the President's $1 trillion infrastructure plan than they had 

though as of last week. 

(Trump's about-face came the week after Maryland Governor Larry Hogan (R) unveiled his plan for 

the largest P3 project in U.S. history - see here for details.) 

Related Articles 

March 3. 2017 November 9, 2016 October 20,2017 May 19,2017 

Chao Outlines Guest Op-Ed: Automated Senate Passes FY18 Infrastructure 

US DOT Pl'iorities Vehicles and Minding the Budget After Dropping Week: How 

lor Infrastructure. Looming Infrastructure House Air Traffic Big is a $1 

Technology Funding Gap Control Provision Trillion Bill? 

Search Eno Transportation Weekly 

Search ETW 

https:/lwww.enotrans.org/articlellrump-upends-infrastructure-plan-ppp-cornments-democrats/ 316 
239 


32989.154

3/15/2018 Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say" POLITICO 

POLITICO 

President Donald Trump told members he would lead on promoting a 25-cent hike to the federal levy, the 

source said. I Chris Kleponis/Getty Images 

Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say 

The news triggers a backlash from anti-tax conservatives. 

By LAUREN GARDNER. TANYA SNYDER and BRIANNA GURCIULLO I 02/14/2018 03:44 PM EST I 

Updated 02114/201811:06 PM EST 

President Donald Trump endorsed the idea of a 25 cent-per-gallon gas tax increase at a 

meeting Wednesday with lawmakers, people who attended the session said- a move that 

could help pay for his big infrastructure plan but brought swift attacks from anti-tax 

conservatives. 

Trump's support came just two days after the White House released a long-awaited, $1.5 

trillion infrastructure plan that didn't endorse such a politically perilous increase, and less 

https:/!www.politico.com/story/2018/02/14/trump-gas·lax-409647 1/4 
240 


32989.155

3!15/2018 Trump endorses 25.-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say- POLITICO 

than two months after he signed a mammoth tax code overhaul that would have provided 

cover for lawmakers supporting it. The last president to hike the 18.4-cents-per-gallon 

federal gas tax was Bill Clinton in 1993, a year before Democrats lost both chambers of 

Congress in a crushing midterm defeat. 

A 25-cent hike phased in over five years would generate an additional $375 billion over the 

next 10 years, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which backs the idea. 

Sen. Tom Carper (D-Del.), one of several lawmakers of parties who attended the meeting, 

confirmed that Trump had indeed "offered his support for raising the gas and diesel tax by 

25 cents a gallon and dedicating that money to improve our roads, highways, and bridges." 

Carper added that Trump "came back to the idea of a 25 cent increase several times 

throughout the meeting," and that he "even offered to help provide the leadership 

necessary so that we could do something that has proven difficult in the past." 

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), the top Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, 

emerged from the meeting saying he was heartened by Trump's words. 

"He acknowledged that there needs to be more federal investment than is proposed in his 

plan- or not his plan; his staff's plan," DeFazio said. Trump's infrastructure proposal 

Monday called for using just szoo billion in federal money, which the White House has said 

would all be offset by budget cuts. 

ADVERTISING 

https:/ fwiNw .politico ,com/story/2 0 18./02/14/trump-gas-tax-40964 7 2/4 
241 


32989.156

3/15/2018 Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike, lawmakers say- POLITICO 

A White House official refused to confirm the president's comments in Wednesday's 

meeting. But the official noted that Trump has previously said everything is on the table to 

achieve his infrastructure goals and that the gas tax "has its pros and cons, and that's why 

the president is leading a thoughtful discussion on the right way to solve our nation's 

infrastructure problems." 

But anti-tax conservative groups quickly came out swinging against hiking the taxes 

motorists pay at the pump. 

"I'd hate to see a new tax siphon off 20 percent of the $1,000 tax reform bonuses back to the 

swamp this year," said Freedom Works President Adam Brandon in a statement issued 

within minutes after the news of Trump's change of heart. Similar statements came from 

groups including Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity. 

"President Trump will not be fooled into following the Democrat play book," Americans for 

Tax Reform President Grover Norquist said in a statement. 

The most reliable politics newsletter. a up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning -in your inbox. 

Your emaiL 

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POlfTICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. 

Support for raising the gasoline tax to pay for transportation projects crosses political 

boundaries, however. House Transportation Chairman Bill Shuster (R-Pa.) brought up the 

idea at a recent GOP retreat as one way of providing more federal money for infrastructure. 

DeFazio has also long called for a gas tax hike, his most recent proposal involving an 

increase of about a penny a year for 30 years. 

In Wednesday's meeting, DeFazio said, he and Shuster "both made the point that we need 

really strong support from the White House" to push a gas tax increase forward. That's 

especially true, DeFazio said he told Trump, because House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is 

"not interested" in considering it. 

If Trump follows through, it could mean billions of dollars in new revenue for 

infrastructure and help solve the intractable problem of the Highway Trust Fund's 

htlps :/lwww.poHtico .com/story/20 18/02/14ftrum p-ga s-tax-40964 7 3/4 
242 


32989.157

3/1512018 Trump endorses 25-cent gas tax hike. lawmaKers say. POLITICO 

shrinking potency, which is due in part to increasing fuel economy and alternative-fuel 

vehicles that don't pay gasoline taxes. 

Shuster said Trump also "understands you've got to find a pay-for, you've got to fix" the 

Highway Trust Fund. 

Raising the gas tax would only go so far by itself, because Highway Trust Fund money 

cannot go to waterways, broadband service, airports, veterans hospitals or any of the other 

broad array of project types that Trump's infrastructure plan seeks to fund. But it could 

achieve more than many infrastructure supporters had expected of Trump's planoffering a sustainable funding source instead of a short-term shot in the arm. 

Though DeFazio was heartened by Trump's comments, he was critical of portions of the 

plan that give preferential treatment and a higher federal match for rural areas even 

though some of those rural areas are in the Oregon Democrat's district. He also said he 

wants to see previously enacted regulatory streamlining provisions fully implemented 

before Congress approves more. 

Even Shuster said he had questions about the portion of the administration's proposal that 

would favor states and local governments that plan to pay for most of an infrastructure 

project themselves. 

"It doesn't work for all the states; Shuster said. "They're looking for the federal 

government to do its part." 

Shuster said that lawmakers and Trump "didn't put a timetable on" a package, though 

Shuster indicated that he hopes to finish legislation before the August recess. 

"We've got plenty of time to do it. I don't believe it's that difficult," Shuster said. 'We can get 

something done in fairly short order." 

Andrew Restuccia contributed to this report. 

https:/lwww.politico.com/story/2018/02f14ftrump-gas-tax-409647 414 
243 


32989.158

3/15/2018 Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize America's Infrastructure j U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Standing Up for American Enterprise 

https:/lwwvv<uschambeLcom/serieslabove-the-foldlhere-s-haw-the-us-chaJnber-would-rebuild-andmodernize-america-s-infrastructure 

Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild 

and Modernize America's Infrastructure 

E'J An SUV tows a bont on the fl"ecwny ln los Angel0s, Californi<J. Photo credit Putrick T Fu!!on/Bloornberg 

After decades of inaction, now is the time Washington should move on rebuilding__QD_Q 

modernizing Americn's infrastructure, the head of the U.S. Chamber declared. 

"It's tlrne to approach this as a national imperative for long-term growth and competitivenessnot an exercise in parochial politics." snid 12resident and CEO Tom Donohue at America's 

https:/lwww.uschamber.comfseries/above·the·foldlhere·s·how-the-us--dlamber·wou!d-rebuild-and-modernize-america·s-infrastructure 114 
244 


32989.159

3!15/2018 Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modern1ze America's Infrastructure j U.S, Chamber of Commerce 

The four-pmt plan would glve the countty i1 21't century mfrustructur0 systr::m for i1 2T"t C(~ntury 

economy 

Let's breflk 1t down. 

1. A modest increase in the federal fuel fee. 

"We need to increase the federal fuel USQf fee, which husn·t been !tli:,,(>d in 25 years,'' Donohue 

explained "Why? It's the simplest. fairest und rnost cffPcttVP woy to rulsc the money we need 

for rends, bndges, and trilnslt 

The user fee \N(JS !<1st r(lisccJ in 1993. Since then. inflution and vc:hlclc• fuel economy have erodr>d 

its value. As 21 result, Hw federt1llli9hvmy und transit t!llst fund fuo.>s (l st10rtfil!l of $138 b1Hion 

over the next decc1cle 

The Chdmber plan proposes a five-cent incn:>Jse over five years ''lncn;~)Stng the fee by a total of 

$.25 cents, indexed for inflation Jnd irnpmving fuel economy, would ruise $394 billion over the 

next 10 years," said Donol1ue 

From a cost-benefit perspective. this 111akes a lot ot sense. The ff'E' increase "would cost the 

average motorist e1bout $9 a month.'' Donohue said. But "our badly detc:noratinq roJds are 

causing approxm1ately $40 t'l month m JllcreRsecl maintenonce and Of)(-::rminq costs ., 

With that additionDI revenue, we can get better and sDf('l ro1:1ds. sorrH::thmg the~ pub!ic supports. 

''By a 22~point murgin 50 to 28 voters support 1mpiE:mcnting C1 fc:dcml fuel user fee, 

provided the money will go towmd modern!zmg our 1nfmstructure." ;,nid Donol1ue 

2. Expand financing options, like public/private partnerships, 

for local communities. 

Besides fixing crumbling roads and bridges, we need fl way to fund other projects like: airports. 

seaports, waterways. olectrical grids, broadbi:nld. Ei!ld more. The Ch<:Jrnbc~r propost-:-s 

irnplementtng a toolkit of options for suppiP.mcntCll fundinq oncl f1n<:mcing, including for the public 

to partner with the private sector 

"Wfwn it comes to privatP funding, thctc is huge potent10!. Betw0cn 2005 and 2015. 

infrastructure equity bonds raised obout $3SO billion, .. said Donotwc "Since Pquity IS t1bout 25'Y; 

of u typicill pub!ic-ptivote partnership. tl10t $350 billion could support ;)ro:ects vvorth $14 tnl!1on" 

https./fwww.uschamber.comfseriesfabove-the-fotd/here-s-how-the-us-chamber-would-rebuitd-and-modernlze-america-s-infrastructure 214 
245 


32989.160

3/15/2018 Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize America's Infrastructure 1 U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

The Chumber plan would strengthen and expand federal loan programs to facilitate publicprivate partnf~rships Also state and !oc\'11 governments should levera.ge public dollars with 

fedemlly·-backed loans. 

''InnovativE-~ financinq mechanisms will ullow us to !YH?ct today's infmstructure needs and build for 

the future while finsncing the costs ovPr the long·term," suld Donohue. 

3. Streamline the permitting process to get projects off the 

ground. 

But finding the money rs only half the bDttlc. 

One in1porti'lrlt bnrnc·r keeping us from modernizing America's infrostructure is reforming the 

perrnitting proces::>. "Without permitting reform, all tt1e funding tile financing you could dream of 

won't get the job done.'' Donohue implored. "Projects become seriously delqyed or even 

canceled and their budgets skyrocket due to an uncertain and seemingly endless permitting 

p1ocess.'' 

lnsteod of long, drawn-out pmmitting delays, the Chamber proposes permit streamlining, 

Donohue explains 

AlllPdor(ll infrastructure approvals should be completed within 2 yems. Stnte and local 

projects benefiting from federal funding or financing should also adhere to a two-year 

timeline, which should run concurrent to the fodernl process. And to help streamline 

permitting and eliminate duplicative reviews, D single lend agency should shepherd a 

project through HlP process from start to finish 

4. Develop a skilled workforce to build these projects. 

Ev0n if tho fundmg is in place. and the approval process is smooth and certain, infrastructure 

projects won't bE:' built if there aren't skilled work(?ts i':1Vf1ilable to do it 

'Ncmly 80% of construction firms report that they are having a hard time finding qualified 

workers." s,lid Donohue. '·At the some time, by some estimates, every $1 million in additional 

infrastructur-e spendinq, mezms nn fldditiona! six to seven construction jobs. Who 1s going to fill 

those positions?" 

To get moH? skiHed \Votkers, V.J<~ need more apprenticeship programs, allowing workers to learn 

on the job. Also. "policyrnakers should expand the network of sector-based construction 

partnerships unde1 federal workforce programs. They should also reform nnd boost support for 

fed ern! career dnd technical t:duGltlon programs. like the PPrkms Act." Donohue advised 

ht!ps:/lwww.uschamber.com/series/above-lhe-fold!here-s-how-the-us-chamber·wou!d-rebuild-and-modernize-america-s-infrastructure 314 
246 

Æ 


32989.161

3/15/2018 Here's How the U.S. Chamber Would Rebuild and Modernize Amenca's Infrastructure 1 U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

One thing the1t must be done is ''keep-110t kick out-thC'· skilk;cJ 1mmigrants who hove been 

legally contributing to our econorny for yents thanks to progwms hke DACA .:~ncl TPS' 

T~1is four-pc:Ht p!cm is intt.'llcled to sta1t tl1e c!bc.u:oslurl. Tt1e U.S. C!hnr:Ll\-'r wdl \'..'Ork V'liU1 anyone. 

Donohue said- any pc1rty. industry, lubot, !Octl! Dnd state lcudr>rs 

lnfrE~structure h~1s been iln issu0 nF:glectPd for too !on g. But 2018 bP the yeur that changes 

''This is the next grent opportunity to do sometf1ing significant somctlml~J long-lnsting, ilnd 

something long-overdue, for our nDtion's future. And it Ntl! bC'nt;fit all of 

Donohue 

concluded 

The Roadmap to RebuildinQ A mer fen's lnf"mstwctwe ccm be found nt L"t,,[<j)Jt'J!Qil<lli.'UGllil.'lJ. 

About the Author 

U.S. Chamber Staff 

©The U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

hltps:/!www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/here-s-how-the-us-chamber-would-rebUlld-and-modermze-amerfca-s-infrastructure 4/4