proposed 2006 Connecticut state transportation bill. The State of Connecticut purchased, and still owns, the right-of-way for the project in Salem. The Final Environmental Impact Statement for extending Route 11 was issued on October 26, 2007. The EIS was published three months behind schedule due to a dispute between ConnDOT and the consulting firm that prepared the EIS—the Macguire Group—over payment for services rendered. A Record of Decision from federal officials was expected by the end of 2007, but the Environmental Protection Agency had expressed concern over the environmental mitigation plan for Route 11, and expressed it still favored the Route 82/85 upgrade over extending Route 11. Because the EPA has veto power over Army Corps of Engineers permits, EPA opposition could have forced the delay or cancellation of the Route 11 extension. In December 2007, Federal Highway Administration extended the FEIS review period through the end of January 2008 to provide the EPA with a detailed environmental mitigation plan. Additionally state and federal elected officials requested the FHWA and ConnDOT present a detailed financial management plan for activities related to the extension. In September 2009, ConnDOT indicated that due to funding constraints, it will indefinitely suspend further work on Route 11. In 2011, Governor Dan Malloy indicated that completing Route 11 to the I-95/I-395 interchange was a high priority for the state and ordered ConnDOT to resume environmental and funding studies. In August 2011, ConnDOT initiated a financial study that focused on building the Route 11 extension as a toll road, which could potentially accelerate construction of the extension by using a combination of funds from tolls and traditional state and federal highway funds. The final section of Route 11 was proposed to be built not to Interstate highway standards. While it would have been built as a fully controlled-access freeway, it would not have met Interstate standards due to two key design features: First, opposing lanes of traffic would have been separated by a concrete Jersey barrier versus the wide median on the existing Route 11 section. Secondly, the greenway was being planned to have curve radii that would have been tighter than what is allowed by Interstate standards, although it would have still had a design speed of . With these two features, Route 11 would have been built using a footprint that was less than half the size required for an expressway built to Interstate standards.