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. 2.) 3.) 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. Federal Agencies Encourage Consideration of Ecosystem Conservation in Transportation Planning

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 officials listed fewer  negative effects. 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, improved relationships through  partnership and coordination among stakeholders can help resolve  environmental issues in a timely and predictable manner. The cost in staff time  and money was the most often reported discouraging factor for agencies  that reported considering ecosystem conservation. Planners in Oregon and New Mexico attributed  their consideration of ecosystem conservation partly to the pro- environment culture in their states. Transportation planners also listed encouraging factors that were similar  to the positive effects that were discussed earlier in this report. A few other planners cited additional discouraging factors. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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. We would now like to discuss the effects of considering ecosystem  conservation in the pre-NEPA phase. RA5) What metropolitan planning organizations are you involved with? 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.