Transportation Planning: State and Metropolitan Planning Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider Ecosystem Conservation
Published: 2004-05-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The nation's roads, highways, and bridges are essential to mobility but can have negative effects on plants, animals, and the habitats that support them (collectively called ecosystems in this report). Federally funded transportation projects progress through three planning phases: long range (20 or more years), short range (3 to 5 years), and early project development, (collectively defined as planning in this report) before undergoing environmental review (which includes assessing air and water quality, ecosystems, and other impacts) required under the National Environmental Policy Act. Federal law requires planners to consider protecting and enhancing the environment in the first two phases, but does not specify how and does not require such consideration in the third phase. GAO reported on (1) the extent to which transportation planners consider ecosystem conservation in planning, (2) the effects of such consideration, and (3) the factors that encourage or discourage such consideration. GAO contacted 36 planning agencies (24 states and 12 of approximately 380 metropolitan planning organizations), as well as officials in 22 resource agencies that maintain ecological data and administer environmental laws. The Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the contents of our draft report.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Of the 36 transportation planning agencies that GAO contacted, 31 considered ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, using a variety of methods. For example, Colorado conducts studies that incorporate ecosystem issues to guide future transportation decisions, uses advance planning to avoid or reduce impacts, and actively involves stakeholders. New Mexico uses planning studies to identify locations where wildlife are likely to cross highways and design underpasses to allow safe crossings. In the absence of specific requirements, federal agencies encourage ecosystem consideration in planning. Planners and state resource agency officials most frequently reported reduced ecosystem impacts and improved cost and schedule estimates as positive effects. For example, planners in New York changed a planned fivelane highway to a lower-impact two-lane boulevard after weighing the area's mobility needs and the project's impact on the surrounding habitat. In Massachusetts, resource agency officials said that addressing ecological requirements in planning improved schedule certainty during the federally required environmental review. Furthermore, planners and resource agency officials reported that working together has improved relationships between their agencies, thereby allowing ecosystem concerns to be resolved in a more timely and predictable manner. Officials also listed negative effects, such as higher project costs and more work for resource agencies. Constituent support from agency staff, political appointees, or the public was the most frequently reported factor (27 instances) that encouraged planners to consider ecosystem conservation. For example, New Mexico's "pro-environment" culture reportedly encourages planners to consider ecosystem conservation. The cost in time and resources of considering ecosystem conservation was most often cited as a discouraging factor (23 instances). For example, Colorado planners cited the significant amount of time needed to collect and maintain access to ecosystem data.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The nation’s vast network of roads, highways, and bridges is essential to  interstate commerce, economic growth, national defense, and leisure  mobility. Yet the construction, improvement, rehabilitation, and even  maintenance of the tens of thousands of miles of this transportation  infrastructure each year can cause permanent environmental change by  disturbing plant and animal habitats, creating barriers to animal  movement, and producing other impacts. By one estimate, roads  ecologically affect about one-fifth of the U.S. land mass.
Although federal agencies must assess the environmental impact of  proposed federally funded transportation projects under the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), state and metropolitan planners have  the opportunity to consider these issues earlier during three planning  phases: (1) as they develop long-range (20 or more years) plans; (2) as they  develop short-range (3-5 years) plans known as transportation  improvement programs; and (3) as they conduct early project planning.  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century requires that planners  develop these long-range plans and short-range programs and that the  plans consider projects and strategies that will, among other things,  protect and enhance the environment. However, the act provides no  guidance on how planners should meet this requirement.
You requested that we identify the extent to which planners consider the  conservation of plants, animals, and the habitats that support them  (collectively called “ecosystems” in this report) in transportation  planning. In response, we asked transportation planners and others to  identify (1) the extent to which state and metropolitan area transportation  planners consider ecosystem conservation and how federal agencies are  involved; (2) the effects, if any, of considering ecosystem conservation  during transportation planning; and (3) the factors that encourage or  discourage transportation planners from considering ecosystem  conservation.
To carry out this work, we reviewed laws and regulations relating to  transportation planning and ecosystem conservation and spoke with  officials of federal transportation agencies, resource agencies (those  having responsibility for maintaining ecological data and administering  federal environmental laws) and transportation and environmental  conservation associations. We also selected a nonprobability sample of 24  states and 12 metropolitan planning organizations, primarily on the basis  of geographic diversity, to reflect a variety of ecosystems. We spoke with  officials in each of our sample states’ departments of transportation and  metropolitan planning organizations to ascertain (1) the extent to which, if  at all, they consider ecosystem conservation during state and metropolitan  area transportation planning before they are required to consider the  proposed project’s environmental impact under NEPA; (2) anticipated and  observed effects of considering ecosystems during transportation  planning; and (3) factors that may encourage or discourage planners from  considering ecosystems during transportation planning. To gain an  understanding of the breadth and depth of each sample states’ and  metropolitan planning organizations’ consideration of ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, we asked a variety of questions  about how planners implement this approach, whether and how they  involve stakeholders, what types and sources of data they consider, what  positive and negative effects they have observed or expect to observe, and  what factors encourage and discourage them from these efforts. (See app.  I for a complete listing of these questions.) To obtain an additional  perspective on the information that planning agencies reported, we  contacted officials in resource agencies in 22 of our sample states. We  asked these officials how they are involved in transportation planning,  whether they collect ecological data and make these data available to  transportation planners, what they believe are the effects of considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, and what factors  encourage and discourage them from participating in transportation  planning. (See app. II for a complete listing of these questions.) Finally, we  reviewed transportation plans that were available from the state  departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations in  our sample. Although we requested planners’ and resource agency  officials’ observations about the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, we did not evaluate the  effectiveness of their efforts, or determine whether one agency’s efforts  were more effective than another’s. We did not verify the statements of  state and metropolitan transportation planners or resource agency  officials because it was not practical to do so. The results of our work  cannot be projected to all states and metropolitan planning organizations.  In order to make reliable generalizations, we would have needed to  randomly select a larger sample of states and metropolitan planning  organizations than time allowed. We conducted our work from May 2003  through April 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. (See app. III for additional information on our scope  and methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federally funded highway projects are typically completed in four phases:     Planning: State departments of transportation and metropolitan planning  organizations begin with a vision and a set of long-term goals for their  future transportation system, and translate these into long-range  transportation plans and short-range plans known as transportation  improvement programs. Although not required by federal law, a state  department of transportation may perform additional planning once a  project is started, such as consulting with resource agencies to determine  the project’s potential ecosystem impacts. We refer to this final phase of  planning as “pre-NEPA planning” in this report.
Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of  transportation identify a project’s cost, level of service, and construction  location; assess the potential effects on environmental resources as  required by NEPA; and select the preferred alternative.
Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of  transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate  utilities.
Construction: State departments of transportation award construction  contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.  The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century lays out general  requirements for transportation planning and consideration of the  environment. The act requires that state and metropolitan area long-range  plans consider projects and strategies that will, among other things,  protect and enhance the environment. It also requires states and  metropolitan planning offices to provide the public with an opportunity to  comment on the transportation improvement programs. Governors review  and approve metropolitan transportation improvement programs within  their respective states.
However, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century does not  specifically address how ecosystem conservation should be considered in  transportation planning. The act does not require that long-range  transportation plans contain projects and strategies that protect and  enhance the environment, and provides no guidance on how planners are  to consider ecosystem conservation. Although the Federal Highway  Administration reviews and approves each state’s transportation  improvement program to, among other things, ensure that the plans meet  the requirements of the act, failure to meet these requirements is not  reviewable in court.
Congress is considering the 6-year surface transportation reauthorization  bill. Separate bills have passed in each chamber. The House bill leaves in  place the existing legislation’s framework of requiring planners to consider  the protection and enhancement of the environment in their plans. The  Senate bill provides more explicit language on environmental  considerations and new consultation requirements for planners.  Specifically, it indicates that protecting and enhancing the environment  includes “the protection of habitat, water quality, and agricultural and  forest land while minimizing invasive species.” Additionally, the Senate bill  requires that long-range transportation plans include a discussion of (1)  the types of potential habitat mitigation activities that may assist in  compensating for habitat loss and (2) the areas that may have the greatest  potential to restore and maintain habitat types affected by the plan.  Further, the bill requires planning agencies to consult with state and local  agencies responsible for protecting natural resources.
In addition to meeting the planning requirements of the Transportation  Equity Act for the 21st Century and NEPA, planning agencies must adhere  to a number of other federal laws pertaining to transportation and the  environment before construction can begin on federally funded projects,  including:    The Endangered Species Act of 1973 is intended to conserve threatened  and endangered species and the ecosystems on which they depend.  Section 7 of the act requires federal agencies to ensure that projects they  authorize, fund, or carry out, including transportation projects, are not  likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or  endangered species (including fish, wildlife, and plants) or result in the  destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat for these  species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine  Fisheries Service administer and enforce this law.
The Clean Water Act of 1977 is intended to restore and maintain the  chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters through  the prevention and elimination of pollution. Section 404 of the act pertains  to wetland development. Under this section, the Army Corps of Engineers  provides permits to transportation agencies whose projects affect  wetlands. To obtain permits, applicants must first attempt to avoid adverse  impacts to wetlands or, if this is not possible, to minimize the impacts to  the extent practicable and compensate for any unavoidable impacts  through mitigation.
To comply with these and other laws, transportation planners may  coordinate with a variety of state and federal agencies. They do so to  obtain ecological data, such as information on threatened and endangered  species and wetlands; advice on how to address adverse impacts of  transportation projects; or both.
section_title: Most Planners Contacted Reported Considering Ecosystem Conservation during Transportation Planning
paragraphs: Of the 36 transportation planners we interviewed, a total of 31 (21 out of  24 in state departments of transportation and 10 out of 12 in metropolitan  planning organizations) reported using various methods to consider  ecosystem conservation during transportation planning. Some of these 31  planning agencies begin considering ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning as they develop their long-range plans while  others begin considering ecosystems conservation just prior to starting the  federally required environmental review under NEPA. Four of these  agencies reported using multiple approaches to consider ecosystem  conservation, 22 stressed their use of corridor studies or project screening,  2 emphasized their consideration of the ecological resources of specific  interest in the surrounding area, and 3 reported using methods similar to  other agencies but do not use corridor studies or project screening or  focus on specific resources. (See fig. 2.) Planners in 5 agencies said they  do not consider ecosystem conservation during transportation planning. In  the absence of specific federal requirements to consider ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, federal agencies encourage state  and metropolitan area planners to do so and they provide technical  assistance.
subsections: section_title: Planning Agencies Vary on How Early They Consider Ecosystem Conservation
paragraphs: Of the 31 planning agencies that consider ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning, 21 (68 percent) first do so as they develop their  long-range plans. (See table 1.) Four agencies (13 percent) begin  considering ecosystem conservation as they develop transportation  improvement programs. The remaining six agencies (19 percent) begin just  before starting the federally required environmental review under NEPA  (pre-NEPA planning). Twenty of 31 agencies reported considering  ecosystem conservation at more than one point, and 14 reported  considering ecosystem conservation during corridor studies that begin at  varying times during planning.
section_title: Four State Planning Agencies Consider Ecosystem Conservation Using Several Approaches
paragraphs: Oregon, South Dakota, Colorado, and North Carolina reported extensively  considering ecosystem conservation in transportation planning using  several approaches. The Oregon Department of Transportation has  included a policy in its long-range plan to, among other things, maintain or  improve the natural and built environment, including fish passage and  habitat, wildlife habitat and migration routes, vegetation, and wetlands.  The long-range transportation plans of Colorado and North Carolina each  contain specific references to goals or policies to conserve ecosystems,  while South Dakota’s plan contains a less specific goal aimed at protecting  the environment.
Oregon planners said they meet monthly with state and federal resource  agencies and with the Federal Highway Administration to discuss project  proposals before beginning to address NEPA requirements. To plan for  each project’s potential impact, the planners said they obtain data from a  variety of sources, such as field studies led by biologists, the Oregon  Natural Heritage Data System, the National Wetlands Inventory, and the  state department of transportation’s ecological survey of all the roads in  the state. The planners then use these data and a set of criteria developed  by stakeholders to screen projects before programming them for  construction.
The South Dakota Department of Transportation becomes increasingly  involved with federal and state resource agency stakeholders—including  the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Army Corp of Engineers; U.S. Forest  Service; South Dakota Game, Fish, and Parks; and the South Dakota  Department of Natural Resources—as a project evolves from a conceptual  plan through final design. Initially, the department works with state  resource agency stakeholders to obtain ecological data in geographic  information system or paper formats that identify ecological resources  located within the study boundaries and uses these data to avoid sensitive  habitat. The department then develops plans to avoid, minimize, or  mitigate the project’s impact. Later, when more specific project design  plans become available, the department works with resource agency  stakeholders to determine habitat locations, adjust project alignments to  avoid habitat, or consider other design changes to minimize the project’s  impact before beginning the environmental review required under NEPA.
The Colorado Department of Transportation has assigned one of its  employees to work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to focus on  transportation issues, according to state transportation planners. The  planners said that numerous stakeholders from federal, state, and  nongovernmental agencies assist the department in determining species  and habitat locations throughout the state and in focusing efforts on  conservation and mitigation planning. The planners reported that the  department is conducting advance planning to integrate ecosystem issues  into corridor studies that they expect to develop over the life of the long- range plan. They also said that Colorado has established a revolving fund  to acquire habitat for mitigation before specific projects are actually  developed.
Finally, the North Carolina Department of Transportation considers  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning by making extensive  use of resource agency personnel and geographic information system data.  According to state planners, the department funds 33 resource agency  positions to help identify and resolve ecosystem issues early in project  development. The planners told us they use the geographic information  system data to identify where ecosystems may conflict with transportation  plans and determine the potential cost of addressing the conflicts. They  said that the department, in partnership with the Army Corps of Engineers,  also identifies and acquires property for future mitigation. Finally, the  planners said that the department assists small metropolitan planning  organizations and localities in broad-based ecosystem screening on all  projects to identify any ecological issues and potential costs associated  with those issues.
section_title: Most Planners Said They Considered Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning When Conducting Corridor Studies or Screening Projects
paragraphs: Twenty-two of the 31 planners who consider ecosystem conservation  during transportation planning conduct corridor studies or screen projects  for ecosystem impact. These planners survey ecosystems in the corridor  and take steps to avoid or mitigate ecological impacts. For example,  planners in New Mexico, with data from their Department of Game and  Fish, used corridor studies to identify areas of high potential for animal- vehicle crashes. Planners described how such planning studies led to the  construction of underpasses that allow bear and deer to pass beneath  highways in the state. (See fig. 3.) Nebraska reviews ecological databases  to identify potential impacts of planned transportation projects; considers  avoidance strategies; and, if avoidance is not possible, documents the  conflict so that project designers can develop mitigation measures,  according to state transportation planners.
Some planning agencies screen out projects from their plans that would  have undesirable ecosystem impacts. For example, metropolitan planners  for the Merrimack Valley area in Massachusetts told us that they use data  from a geographic information system in planning to identify ecological  resources in the path of proposed projects. Using this information,  together with public comments on the project, they determine whether the  ecological impacts require that the project be redesigned or terminated  prior to beginning the environmental review required under NEPA.
Nearly all planning agencies that develop corridor studies or use  ecosystem impacts to screen projects involve stakeholders in developing  their plans. For example, Alaska invites federal agenciesincluding the  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Army Corps of Engineers, National Park  Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Marine Fisheries  Serviceand its Departments of Fish and Game, and Natural Resources to  meetings to provide input for transportation plans. After a meeting, each  agency has the opportunity to write a letter of concern about specific  resources or areas. Metropolitan planning organizations, local  governments, municipal officials, tribes, elected officials, and anyone else  who has expressed interest in Alaska’s transportation planning are also  invited to review and comment on transportation plans.
Of the 22 planning agencies that consider ecosystems by conducting  corridor studies or project screening, 12 include ecosystem conservation  as a policy or goal in their long-range transportation plans. For example,  the Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization’s long-range  transportation plan calls for an assessment of the social and  environmental impacts of the transportation plan’s recommendations, and  establishes the policy of removing projects with unacceptably high  environmental or community impacts from planning consideration.
In addition to considering ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning through corridor studies or as a means to screen potential  projects, these 22 planning agencies reported using one or more of the  following common methods either in addition to or in combination with  corridor studies or screening:    using resource agencies as stakeholders in developing transportation    considering the views of environmental interest groups in developing    using resource agency data to determine mitigation requirements, develop  alternative locations, or to avoid planning projects with unacceptably high  ecosystem impact;   using geographic information systems to determine ecological resource    providing funding for ecological impact studies;    having planning agency or resource agency personnel conduct site visits to  determine or confirm the location of ecological resources; and  incorporating in transportation plans local plans that have considered  ecosystem conservation.
Six of these agencies reported using at least 4 of the methods listed above.  The remaining 16 used 3 or fewer methods. Because we did not evaluate  the effectiveness of these methods, the number of methods used by a  planning agency does not necessarily indicate effectiveness. (See table 4 in  app. IV for a summary of the specific methods that each agency reported  using.)
section_title: Two Agencies Focus on One or More Specific Ecological Concerns in the Area
paragraphs: Transportation planners in Georgia told us they focus on preserving the  state’s wetlands through mitigation banking. The state department of  transportation has established funding accounts to purchase land for  wetland mitigation banking and to pay for consultants to design wetland  mitigation banks, according to planners in Georgia. They told us that the  department has also entered into a memorandum of agreement with a  state resource agency for the long-term maintenance of these mitigation  banks. These planners said that nongovernmental organizations, including  The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Trust for Public Land, and Georgia  Conservancy, help identify properties for sale and conduct on-site reviews  of potential sites for wetland mitigation banks. Federal resource agencies  assist by reviewing proposed land acquisitions to determine if the land is  suitable for use as a wetland mitigation bank, according to the planners.  They added that, when transportation projects are at the conceptual  design stage, state resource agencies identify wetlands, streams, and  endangered species habitats that could be adversely affected by the  project and point out avoidance or mitigation opportunities.
Planners in Montana’s Yellowstone County/Billings metropolitan area told  us that their focus is on the natural resources of the Yellowstone River  corridor and the Rim Rocks. These planners said they consider ecosystem  conservation in planning transportation projects that would affect these  natural resources, primarily through consultations with stakeholders such  as the Yellowstone River Parks Association, Bike Net, local government  representatives, planning boards, and neighborhood task forces. The  planners said these planning boards and neighborhood task forces are  involved throughout transportation planning.
section_title: Three Agencies Consider Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning Through Other Methods
paragraphs: The Delaware Department of Transportation, Butte County Association of  Governments, California, and Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional  Transportation Study (the metropolitan planning organization in Athens,  Georgia) reported considering ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning by using some of the same methods used by other agencies but  do not use corridor studies, project screening, or focus on a specific  ecological resource. Each of these agencies includes ecosystem  conservation as a policy or goal in its long-range transportation plan.  Delaware Department of Transportation planners said they consider input  from resource agencies and environmental interest groups and use  geographic information system data to determine transportation projects’  potential impact on ecological resources and develop alternatives as  needed. Planners at the Butte County Association of Governments told us  they receive input from resource agencies to determine mitigation  requirements and use geographic information system data to determine  ecological resource locations. Finally, the Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee  Regional Transportation Study planners said that local land use plans  consider ecosystem conservation as it relates to transportation and they  incorporate the local plans in the metropolitan area’s transportation plans.
section_title: Five Agencies Do Not Consider Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning
paragraphs: Planners in the Arizona, New Hampshire, and Illinois departments of  transportation, as well as metropolitan planners in Great Falls City,  Montana, and Montachussett, Massachusetts, said they do not consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning and instead rely on  compliance with NEPA to address ecological issues. The reported factors  that discouraged these agencies from considering ecosystem conservation  in transportation planning include a lack of time and resources required or  guidance on how to do so. These factors are discussed in more detail in  the final section of this report.
section_title: State Resource Agency Officials Generally Agreed That They Are Involved in Transportation Planning but Would Like More Involvement
paragraphs: Resource agency officials in 19 of the 21 states that consider ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning generally agreed that they assist  transportation planners in doing so. (We were not able to contact resource  agency officials in the two remaining states.) However, over half (11) of  these resource agency officials said that they would like to be more  involved in transportation planning or that communication with their  state’s department of transportation could be improved. For example,  officials of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife Conservation explained  that they need to be involved early in transportation planning because the  pressure from supporters of transportation projects often results in  concerns about ecosystems surfacing as afterthoughts. Similarly, officials  in Utah’s Division of Wildlife Resources said that they are involved too late  in planning because the project design is already set and budgeting for  necessary mitigation sometimes has been inadequate.
section_title: Federal Agencies Encourage Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning
paragraphs: Although federal law does not specifically require planners to consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation plans, the Federal Highway  Administration encourages state and metropolitan planners to do so by  identifying and promoting exemplary initiatives that are unique,  innovative, attain a high-level environmental standard, or are recognized  as particularly valuable from an environmental perspective, according to  the agency’s fiscal year 2004 performance plan. These could be planning or  project-level initiatives that involve, for example, designing mitigation  projects that support wildlife movement and habitat connectivity,  developing watershed-based environmental assessment and mitigation  approaches, or using wetland banking. The agency has identified eight  such initiatives and plans to identify and promote at least 30 initiatives by  September 30, 2007.
North Carolina’s Ecosystem Enhancement Program is one of the eight  exemplary initiatives that the Federal Highway Administration has  identified. In view of a rapidly expanding transportation program with a  high volume of projects affecting an estimated 5,000 acres of wetlands and  900,000 feet of streams over 7 years, North Carolina plans to consider and  mitigate the potential impacts of many planned projects in a  comprehensive manner by assessing, restoring, enhancing, and preserving  ecosystem functions and compensating for impacts at the watershed level.  This approach to ecosystem conservation aims to decouple ecosystem  mitigation from individual project reviews.
Federal Highway Administration officials believe that such integrated  approaches help break down organizational barriers between state  departments of transportation and state resource agencies. They added  that publicizing exemplary initiatives helps show that addressing  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning improves working  relationships between these agencies and facilitates interagency  cooperation in the future. As noted in the next section of this report, many  planners and resource agency officials that we interviewed cited improved  interagency relationships as a positive effect of considering ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also encourages state departments of  transportation and state resource agencies to share project planning and  ecosystem information to incorporate more forethought to wildlife  habitats, before project designs are set and while flexibility still exists,  according to agency officials. To this end, the Service, in cooperation with  the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, has conducted  several regional workshops on state wildlife conservation plans. Officials  told us that during these workshops they discussed how the plans could  be used to provide transportation planners with important information  that they could consider in transportation planning.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other federal resource agencies also  administer and enforce environmental laws and generally help state  planners consider ecosystem conservation by responding to requests for  data and providing comments on transportation plans. The federal  agencies most frequently consulted by the transportation planners we  interviewed were the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of  Engineers. Transportation planners said they often ask these resource  agencies to provide ecological data from geographic information systems  or ecological maps to help identify and evaluate a project’s impact. Many  planners also said these federal resource agencies provide technical  expertise or actively participate in transportation planning. For example, a  New York Department of Transportation planner told us that the Fish and  Wildlife Service and the Army Corps of Engineers provide technical  expertise on the long-term impacts of transportation projects on  ecosystems.
section_title: Planners and Resource Agency Officials Reported Mainly Positive Effects of Considering Ecosystem Conservation
paragraphs: Regardless of the ways planning agencies consider ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, 29 of the 31 transportation  planners and 16 of 19 resource agency officials we interviewed reported  one or more positive effects of doing so. These officials listed fewer  negative effects.
Twenty-eight planners and resource agency officials reported that  considering ecosystem conservation in transportation planning enabled  them to avoid or reduce adverse impacts on ecological resources—the  most frequently reported positive effect. (See fig. 4.) For example,  planners and state resource agency officials reported    preventing irreparable habitat damage in New York by changing planning  from a five-lane highway to planning for a lower-impact two-lane  boulevard after a study revealed that the original project would be  detrimental to the surrounding habitat, and updated traffic studies  indicated that the wider highway was not needed to ensure mobility;   decreasing habitat fragmentation in North Carolina by using geographic  information system data on state ecological resources during project  planning to avoid or mitigate unacceptable potential impacts on habitat;  and   working with the state resource agency in Nebraska to identify preferred  times for construction in order to reduce impacts on the breeding of  certain species.
Fifteen transportation planners and state resource agency officials  reported that considering ecosystem conservation improves a project’s  cost and schedule estimates. For example, planners and state resource  agencies reported    better project cost estimating in Colorado because planners become aware  of, and can plan to avoid, unacceptable adverse impacts on ecological  resources; improved schedule certainty in Massachusetts, because addressing state  resource agency requirements during planning provides more certainty  that projects will not need to be redesigned to meet these requirements  later, during federally required environmental reviews; and improved preparedness to address ecological issues during the  development of a project in California by identifying those issues early in  planning.
In 13 instances, transportation planners and state resource agency officials  reported improved relationships between departments of transportation  and state resource agencies. For example, improved relationships through  partnership and coordination among stakeholders can help resolve  environmental issues in a timely and predictable manner. Additional  positive effects that planners and state resource agency officials cited  include an increased awareness of ecosystem conservation among the  transportation planning agency’s staff, an improved public image of the  department of transportation, and a stimulus to consider transportation  alternatives such as transit.
Compared with the number of positive effects attributed to considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, planners and resource  agency officials reported relatively few negative effects. Planners in South  Dakota and at the Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Washington,  told us that considering ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning requires additional cost and time. A resource agency official in  Iowa said that working with planners to determine project impacts and  select mitigation sites adds to the agency’s workload. Finally, planners in  Louisiana noted that the general public, as well as elected officials who  support specific projects, become dissatisfied with the state department of  transportation when environmental issues affect a project’s delivery.
section_title: Support from Constituents and Transportation Agency Personnel Most Often Encouraged Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation
paragraphs: Support from constituents and transportation agency personnel was the  most often reported factor that encouraged planners to consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning. The cost in staff time  and money was the most often reported discouraging factor for agencies  that reported considering ecosystem conservation. Planners at three of the  five agencies, who said they do not consider ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning, also cited the cost in time and resources, while  the remaining two listed other discouraging factors.
subsections: section_title: Planners Identified Support from Constituents and Transportation Agency Personnel and Other Encouraging Factors
paragraphs: Twenty-seven of the 31 transportation planners we interviewed, who said  they consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, cited  support from within their own agencies, from political appointees, or from  external constituents as a factor that motivated them to do so. (See table  2.) For example, transportation planners in Mississippi told us that their  agency is committed to being environmentally aware, and that this culture  has encouraged them to consider ecosystem conservation in planning.  Metropolitan planners in Albany, New York, noted that their corporate  culture provides a strong foundation to consider ecosystem conservation  as they develop transportation plans. Similarly, metropolitan planners in  central Virginia said that the planning commission’s staff are concerned  about being good stewards and maintaining a balance between  transportation and other concerns.
The views of elected officials and agency heads were another facet of  constituent support. For example, the governor of New York has strongly  encouraged planners there to improve their environmental performance,  and the governor of New Mexico has initiated a new program that  explores several environmental issues, according to planners in those  states. This support from elected officials has influenced planners in these  states to consider ecosystem conservation during transportation planning.  Finally, planners in Delaware and Oregon emphasized the importance of  their agency leaders’ support for ecosystem conservation.
In addition, the general public’s attitude toward ecosystem conservation  motivated planners to consider ecosystem conservation during  transportation planning. Planners in Oregon and New Mexico attributed  their consideration of ecosystem conservation partly to the pro- environment culture in their states. They told us, for example, that citizens  are concerned about wildlife protection and view the natural environment  as a major asset to the state. Metropolitan planners in Albany, New York,  told us that citizens are concerned about excessive land consumption  which is one factor that encourages them to consider ecosystem  conservation during transportation planning.
Transportation planners also listed encouraging factors that were similar  to the positive effects that were discussed earlier in this report. For  example, 18 planners said that they were encouraged to consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning by expectations of  more certain cost estimates and construction schedules. Nine of these  planners also listed positive effects that centered on developing more  accurate cost estimates and determining more predictable project delivery  dates. Similarly, seven planners listed having fewer adverse effects on  ecological resources as an encouraging factor, while five of these planners  also listed this as a positive effect. Planners also listed improved  relationships with the state resource agencies as an encouraging factor as  well as a positive effect of considering ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning.
section_title: Planners Identified Time and Resource Requirements and Other Discouraging Factors
paragraphs: Although most of the planners we interviewed reported that considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning was beneficial, doing  so presented challenges. Chief among these challenges was the staff time  and money required to consider ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning, reported by 23 planners, including those in Arizona, New  Hampshire, and Montachusett, Massachusetts, who do not consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning. (See table 3.) An  Arizona planner said that state reductions in funding and staffing have  discouraged the department from considering ecosystem conservation  during transportation planning, adding that the planning department staff  has been reduced by 75 percent since the mid-1990s. New Hampshire  planners said they do not have sufficient funds to enter into long-range  studies. Therefore, there is pressure to wait until NEPA, which requires,  among other things, an assessment of the impact of proposed  transportation projects on the natural and human environment.
The staff time and money required was also the major discouraging factor  for those planning agencies that do consider ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning. For example, planners in Colorado and North  Carolina told us that, while beneficial, it takes a significant amount of time  and effort to develop, maintain, and provide access to the data required to  consider ecosystem conservation during transportation planning.  Additionally, some metropolitan area planners told us that small planning  agencies are particularly hard-pressed, because of their small size, to  consider ecosystem conservation. For example, a metropolitan planner in  central Virginia noted that the limited funding his agency receives for long- range transportation planning precludes more focused activities to  address environmental factors, even though the agency would like to do  so. Similarly, metropolitan area planners in Athens, Georgia, told us their  ability to conduct detailed ecological analyses during planning is very  limited because they do not have enough staff.
Difficulties in obtaining involvement or guidance from stakeholders was  the second most often cited discouraging factor, according to the planners  we interviewed. This was the chief discouraging factor mentioned by a  planner in Montachusett, Massachusetts, a metropolitan planning  organization that does not consider ecosystem conservation before project  developers prepare environmental impact assessments under NEPA. The  planner stated that the planning organization lacks guidance from the state  or federal agencies on the priority of ecosystem conservation. The planner  noted that the planning organization addresses all federal requirements in  transportation planning, as well as those issues the state emphasizes, but  ecosystem consideration has not been one of them. Planners in Utah, a  state that does consider ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning, told us that resource agencies prefer to comment on projects  that are better defined than is typically the case when they appear in  transportation planning documents. On the other hand, a Utah resource  agency official told us that his agency would like to be involved in these  earlier planning phases, but the state department of transportation does  not notify it early enough in planning.
In addition, some planners told us that they lacked guidance from  stakeholders, namely state resource agencies, on how to consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning. They noted that long- term or comprehensive plans for managing the state’s ecological resources  would help them make decisions about what resources to consider during  planning; however, their state resource agencies had not completed such  plans. A few of the state and federal resource agencies we interviewed  noted, though, that some states are developing wildlife conservation plans  as part of a new federal program or other habitat management plans that  they believe will be useful to state departments of transportation.
Third, pressure from political leaders or project proponents to move  forward in spite of ecological concerns, or because of competing  priorities, also discouraged planners from considering ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning. For example, planners in North  Carolina told us that developers give little credence to environmental  concerns. Economic development in Iowa takes precedence over  ecosystem concerns, according to a planner there. A state resource agency  official in Oregon echoed these sentiments, stating that, in some instances,  regional transportation planners and the state department of  transportation value improving economic development over conserving  ecological resources.
A few other planners cited additional discouraging factors. Local  expectations that a project will be built, regardless of ecosystem concerns,  is a discouraging factor, according to a transportation planner in North  Carolina. Also, planners in three jurisdictions noted that circumstances  might change between early planning for a project and its implementation.
This was the chief discouraging factor for Illinois, where planners do not  consider ecosystem conservation before NEPA. Finally, planners in Great  Falls City-County, Montana, a jurisdiction that does not consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, stated that their  existing policy is to rely on NEPA to assess the ecosystem and other  environmental impacts of proposed transportation projects.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had  no comments on a draft of this report. The Department of the Interior  generally agreed with the information in a draft copy of this report and  provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated as appropriate.  See appendix V for a copy of the Department of Interior’s comments.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of this letter. At that time we will send copies of this report to  congressional committees with responsibilities for highway and  environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of the  Interior; the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; the Director,  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of  Engineers; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will  also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be  available at no charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at  siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834.  Key contributors to this report were Jaelith Hall-Rivera, Rebecca Hooper,  Jessica Lucas-Judy, Edmond Menoche, James Ratzenberger, and Michelle  K. Treistman.
section_title: Appendix I: Telephone Interview Questions for State and Metropolitan Area Planners
paragraphs: Before each telephone interview with officials at state departments of  transportation and metropolitan planning organizations, we provided  participants with the following questions and encouraged them to review  the questions and to invite others as appropriate to participate in the  interview in order to provide as accurate and complete answers as  possible. Question numbers preceded by “SLR” are those referring to the  development of the long-range transportation plan. Questions preceded by  “ST” are those referring to the development of the state transportation  improvement program. Finally, questions preceded by “SPN” refer to a  phase of project planning that immediately precedes NEPA, which we  termed “pre-NEPA planning.” Questions for metropolitan area planners  were similarly numbered except that they began with the letter “M” to  easily differentiate between the state and metropolitan planners’ questions  and responses.  1)  Please answer a, b and c, and follow the instructions as applicable.  a)  Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the creation  of the long-range transportation plan? Yes or No. If yes, answer all SLR  questions. If no, answer SLR 7 and SLR 8. In either case, please also  answer b and c below.  b)  Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the creation  of the state transportation improvement program? Yes or No. If yes,  answer all ST questions. If no, answer only ST 8 and ST 9. In either  case, please also answer a and c.  c)  Does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA  phase, or at any other time other than during and after NEPA? Yes or  No. If yes, answer all SPN questions. If no, answer only SPN 7 and SPN  8. In either case, please also answer a and b.
subsections: section_title: Long-Range Transportation Planning
paragraphs: (Answer if applicable.)
SLR1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the  creation of the long-range transportation plan?
SLR2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation in the long-range transportation plan (federal or  state agencies, non-government organizations, other)?
SLR3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation in the long-range transportation plan?
SLR4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the  development of the long-range transportation plan?
SLR5) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state  considers ecosystem conservation when developing the long-range  transportation plan.
We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in developing the long-range transportation plan.
SLR6) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or  negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem  conservation in the long-range transportation plan.
We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage  consideration of ecosystem conservation in long-range transportation  planning.
SLR7) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in  encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as the long- range transportation plan is developed.
SLR8) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most  important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation  as the long-range transportation plan is developed.
section_title: State Transportation Improvement Program Planning
paragraphs: We would like to learn about how your state considers ecosystem  conservation as it develops the state transportation improvement  program.  (Answer if applicable)
ST1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the  creation of the state transportation improvement program?
ST2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation in the state transportation improvement program  (federal or state agencies, non-government organizations, other)?
ST3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation in the state transportation improvement program?
ST4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the  development of the state transportation improvement program?
ST5) Do you use project criteria that incorporate ecosystem conservation  when determining which projects will be placed on the state  transportation improvement program?
ST6) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state  considers ecosystem conservation when developing the state  transportation improvement program.
We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in developing the state transportation improvement  program.
ST7) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or  negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem  conservation in the state transportation improvement program.
We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage  consideration of ecosystem conservation in the creation of the state  transportation improvement program.
ST8) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in  encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation as the state  transportation improvement program is developed.
ST9) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most  important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation  as the state transportation improvement program is developed.
section_title: Pre-NEPA Planning
paragraphs: We would like to learn about how your state considers ecosystem  conservation as it begins project development—after the project has been  listed on the state transportation improvement program, but before the  NEPA process begins. As previously discussed, we call this phase the  “pre-NEPA” phase.  (Answer if applicable)
SPN1) How does your state consider ecosystem conservation during the  pre-NEPA phase?
SPN2) What stakeholders, if any, are involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA phase (federal or state  agencies, non-government organizations, other)?
SPN3) How are these stakeholders involved in helping you consider  ecosystem conservation during the pre-NEPA phase?
SPN4) What type of ecosystem data, if any, do you include in the pre- NEPA phase?
SPN5) Please provide any other ways, not discussed above, that your state  considers ecosystem conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.
We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.
SPN6) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or  negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem  conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.
We would like to know about factors that encourage or discourage  consideration of ecosystem conservation in the pre-NEPA phase.
SPN7) Please list the three factors that have been the most important in  encouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation during the pre- NEPA phase.
SPN8) Similarly, please list the three factors that have been the most  important in discouraging your state to consider ecosystem conservation  during the pre-NEPA phase.
Is there anything else that you would like to tell us about considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning?
We would like to contact someone in the state resource agency  (Department of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental  Protection, etc.) that is most involved with your agency in considering  ecosystem conservation during the transportation planning process.  Please provide the name, official title, and contact information.
section_title: Appendix II: Telephone Interview Questions for Resource Agency Officials
paragraphs: Prior to each interview with officials at state resource agencies, we  provided participants with the following questions and encouraged them  to review the questions and to invite others as appropriate to participate in  the interview in order to provide as accurate and complete answers as  possible. “RA” precedes all question numbers so that we could easily  distinguish questions and responses as those pertaining to resource  agencies.
subsections: section_title: State Transportation Planning
paragraphs: RA1) The _____________ state department of transportation told us that  your agency is involved in transportation planning. Please describe your  involvement.
RA2) How did your agency become involved in state transportation  planning?
section_title: Metropolitan Planning Organization Transportation Planning
paragraphs: RA3) Is your agency involved with metropolitan planning organizations in  considering ecosystem conservation in the transportation planning  process? If yes, please continue. If no, please skip to RA7.
RA4) In what ways is your agency involved with metropolitan planning  organizations in considering ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning?
RA5) What metropolitan planning organizations are you involved with? (If  you do not know the names of the metropolitan planning organizations,  simply list the number that you are involved with.)
RA6) How did your agency become involved in metropolitan planning  organization transportation planning?
section_title: General Questions
paragraphs: RA7) Does your agency collect or generate ecosystem data? Yes or No.
Is it available to state departments of transportation?  Is it available to metropolitan planning organizations?
We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in any phase of transportation planning.
RA8) Please describe any anticipated or observed effects, positive or  negative, that you can attribute to the consideration of ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning prior to NEPA.
We would now like to ask you about factors that encourage or discourage  your participation in the consideration of ecosystem conservation in  transportation planning.
RA9) Please list the three factors that you consider to be the most  important in encouraging your agency to participate in consideration of  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning.
RA10) Please list the three factors that you consider the most important in  discouraging your agency from participating in consideration of ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning.
RA11) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning?
Thank you.
section_title: Appendix III: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain a basic understanding of how transportation planners consider  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning and how federal  agencies are involved, we discussed transportation laws, regulations, and  planning procedures with officials in the following agencies:    Federal Highway Administration in headquarters and Phoenix, Arizona;  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in headquarters, Phoenix and Tucson,  Arizona, and Denver, Colorado; and Army Corps of Engineers in  headquarters, Baltimore, Maryland, and Phoenix, Arizona.
State departments of transportation, resource agencies, and metropolitan  planning organizations in Virginia, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Mississippi,  and Colorado; the metropolitan planning organizations for the  Washington, D.C., area and Pima County, Arizona; and state departments  of transportation and resource agencies in Florida and Maryland.
The American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials,  Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, The Nature  Conservancy, International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and  Defenders of Wildlife.
At each of these locations, we also obtained and reviewed transportation  planning documents. We defined ecosystems as plants and animals and the  habitats that support them. We defined planning as activities associated  with developing the federally required long-range transportation plan,  short-range transportation improvement program, and the nonfederally  required project planning that some jurisdictions perform just prior to  beginning the environmental review required by the National  Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as well as any activities, such as  corridor studies, that are performed concurrently with, but independently  of, federally mandated transportation planning activities. Because federal  law already requires that states and local governments meet air and water  quality standards, our inquiry did not include identifying whether state  departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations  were considering these issues in transportation planning.
To ensure ecosystem diversity among the 12 metropolitan planning  organizations in our sample, we divided the nation into quadrants  containing a roughly equal number of states. Then, to ensure that our  sample would reflect the varying extent to which metropolitan planning  organizations consider ecosystem conservation in transportation planning,  we used the results from our 2002 survey of all metropolitan planning  organizations. The survey asked how much consideration, if any, they give  to the impact of transportation projects on environmentally sensitive  lands, such as wetlands, when they develop their transportation plans.  According to their answers, we divided the metropolitan planning  organizations in each quadrant into three subgroups: (1) those that  indicated little or no, or some consideration; (2) those that indicated  moderate consideration; and (3) those that indicated great or very great  consideration. We then randomly selected one metropolitan planning  organization from each of the 12 subgroups, resulting in the following  sample:    Benton-Franklin Council of Governments, Washington;    Butte County Association of Governments, California;    Capital District Transportation Commission, New York;    Central Virginia Metropolitan Planning Organization, Virginia;    Flagstaff Metropolitan Planning Organization, Arizona;    Great Falls City-County Planning, Montana;    Greensboro Transportation Advisory Committee, North Carolina;    Madison Athens-Clarke Oconee Regional Transportation Study, Georgia;    Merrimack Valley Planning Commission, Massachusetts;    Montachusett Regional Planning Commission, Massachusetts;    Waco Metropolitan Planning Organization, Texas; and    Yellowstone County/Billings Metropolitan Planning Organization,  Montana.
To gain an understanding of the breadth and depth of each sample state’s  and metropolitan planning organization’s consideration of ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, we developed a variety of  questions about how planners implement this consideration, whether and  how they involve stakeholders, what types and sources of data they  consider, what positive and negative effects they have observed or expect  to observe, and what factors encourage and discourage them from these  efforts. (See app. I for a complete listing of these questions.) Through  telephone interviews, we asked planners to address these questions for  each of three phases of transportation planning: (1) as they develop their  long-range transportation plans, (2) as they develop their short-range  transportation improvement programs, and (3) in the project planning  stage that immediately precedes the environmental review under NEPA.  Planners reported similar effects of considering ecosystem conservation in  transportation, planning and similar encouraging and discouraging factors  across these three phases. Therefore, we did not report answers to these  questions by phase. Appendix II contains the questions that we asked  planners who we interviewed in state departments of transportation and  metropolitan planning organizations. We also reviewed the available long- range transportation plans of each state and metropolitan planning  organization in our samples to determine whether these plans contained  goals related to ecosystem conservation.
To obtain the perspectives of state resource agency officials, we asked  officials at each department of transportation in our sample to identify the  official at the state resource agency who was most involved with the  department of transportation during planning. We conducted telephone  interviews with resource agency officials in 22 of our 24 sample states,  asking these officials how they participate in considering ecosystem  conservation in transportation planning, whether they collect ecological  data and make these data available to transportation planners, the effects  that they can attribute to considering ecosystem conservation, and the  factors that encourage or discourage their participation. See appendix II  for a complete listing of the questions that we asked resource agency  officials.
In analyzing our interview responses, we used content analysis and  consensus agreement among four analysts to categorize similar responses,  and grouped state and metropolitan planning organizations accordingly.  To increase the reliability of our coding of responses, we used consensus  agreement among the same four analysts. We did not verify the accuracy  of the information that we obtained in our interviews or determine  whether or how the consideration of ecosystem conservation that  planners described affected transportation projects or ecosystems  because it was not practical to do so. However, the variety of questions  that we asked of transportation planners, combined with the perspectives  of resource agency officials, mitigates the potential that our results portray  more extensive consideration of ecosystem conservation in transportation  planning than may actually exist. Although we requested planners’ and  resource agency officials’ observations about the effects of considering  ecosystem conservation in transportation planning, we did not evaluate  the effectiveness of their efforts, or determine whether one agency’s  efforts were more effective than another’s. The results of our work cannot  be projected to all states and metropolitan planning organizations. In order  to make reliable generalizations, we would have needed to randomly  select a larger sample of states and metropolitan planning organizations  than time allowed.
section_title: Appendix IV: Methods Used by Twenty-Two Agencies to Consider Ecosystem Conservation
section_title: Appendix V: Department of the Interior Comments GAO’s Mission