Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Streamlining: Phase II
table OF CONTENTS
1.0INTRODUCTION |
|
|
|
1.1 |
Background and Purpose |
1.2 |
Findings of the Phase I Research |
1.3 |
Purpose and Reorientation of the Phase II Research |
1.4 |
Organization of Report |
2.0RESEARCH APPROACH |
|
|
|
2.1 |
Research Approach Overview |
2.2 |
Description of Data Sources |
2.2.1
|
Northwestern University Transportation Library |
2.2.2
|
Lexis-Nexis Database |
2.3 |
Limitations of Available Data |
2.3.1
|
Unavailability of Record of Decision Dates |
2.3.2
|
Elimination of Select EISs from Database |
2.4 |
Data Collection Methodology |
2.4.1
|
Review of EIS Project Details |
2.4.2
|
Development and Verification of Database |
2.5 |
Statistical Analysis Methodology |
2.5.1
|
Identification of Descriptive Statistics |
2.5.2
|
Selection of Data Analysis Methods |
2.5.3
|
Statistical Relationship Test Between Variables |
LIST OF tableS |
|
|
|
table
1: |
Final Database Variables and their Definitions |
table
2: |
Statistical Tests Conducted for the Length of the NEPA Process |
table
3: |
Length of NEPA Process (In Years) |
table
4: |
Descriptive Statistics of NEPATIME by Region |
table
5: |
Relationship of Geographic Categories With NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM |
table
6: |
Descriptive Statistics for Selected Variables |
table
7: |
Relationships Between Length of NEPA Process and Selected
Other Regulatory Requirements |
table
8: |
Issues Variables and the Length of the NEPA Process |
APPENDICES
Appendices A through K are not available for viewing online at this time. Please
contact Kreig Larson at FHWA kreig.larson@fhwa.dot.gov
if you wish to receive them on CD-ROM.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) directs federal agencies, when planning projects or issuing permits, to conduct environmental reviews to consider the potential impacts on the environment by their proposed actions. The NEPA umbrella includes the use of federal funds for construction of highway and bridge projects falling under the purview of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (USDOT / FHWA).
NEPA significantly contributes to the environmental quality of federally funded projects. However, because the NEPA process requires coordination and consultation with other agencies as well as the public in making decisions on projects, it is widely perceived as complex and time-consuming, and thus as a major source of project delay and cost increase. This perception is further magnified when a project is subject to the requirements of other laws and regulations that are to be addressed as part of the NEPA project development process. Such regulatory complexities have led to a national initiative to streamline the environmental process and expedite project delivery. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and, more recently, Executive Order 13274: Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews emphasize making transportation decision-making and environmental review processes more effective and efficient.
To evaluate the relative success of ongoing and future environmental streamlining efforts pursuant to TEA-21 and other mandates, FHWA and the Louis Berger Group first undertook extensive research to establish a historical baseline related to the NEPA time frame. The initial phase of that research was published in January 2001. Phase I met most of its goals, except for determining the cost aspects of both the processes for NEPA and for overall project delivery; this was attributed to limitations of the data and to the difficulty of addressing cost compatibility over the 30-year research period. It was clear that a more in-depth and targeted analysis of compliance time frame trends, as well as the factors that impact time frame requirements, was needed.
The purpose of this Phase II study was to ascertain if the baseline results found in Phase I would be repeated, or if the new analysis produced a baseline that better reflected those factors that impact the NEPA process for transportation projects.
Conclusions
The Phase II study achieved the basic goals of expanding the baseline condition and identifying continuing trends. For example, the study shows that in comparison to earlier decades, the amount of time to complete the NEPA process has continued to increase in recent years. Findings further suggest that substantial opportunity exists for improvement in the overall process, but that improvement may only result in a total NEPA process time representative of an earlier decade.
However, this study was not able to achieve the identification and confirmation of factors and conditions that may have a direct or indirect impact on the NEPA process. Although the process seems to vary by broad geographic region, it does not seem to vary in relation to the majority of other variables tested in this data set. Some factors were found to have a statistically significant relationship to the time needed to complete the NEPA process, but the relationship was either weak or difficult to explain in a practical sense. Other factors were not found to have a significant statistical relationship to the time needed to complete the process, although they actually appear to influence it. The factors identified in this study as being related to the time needed to complete NEPA were different from those factors identified during the Phase I study; the reason for this is not entirely evident. In fact, the only factor that was found to have a noticeable effect on NEPA process time in both phases of the Study was the presence or absence of a Section 4(f) evaluation. Even so, in the current study this factor was not found to have a statistically significant relationship with NEPA process time.
Given the lack of statistical variation in the length of the NEPA process when considered in relation to other project- and process-related factors, it can perhaps be concluded that the process may have become more strongly affected by external social, economic, and attitudinal factors associated with broad geographic regions of the country. If true, this theory would account for the inability to explain with any certainty the causal relationships of specific factors tested in this study. Although such a theory may make it difficult to take better control of the process by refining or varying specific project- or process-related factors, it would make clear that environmental streamlining efforts should place more emphasis on social and economic conditions that could affect the process in a given location. If nothing else, it reinforces the overall complexity of the NEPA process and the broad zone of influence that external conditions may have on its application.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) marked the beginning of
the environmental review process for all federal actions, including the use of
federal funds for construction of highway and bridge projects falling under the
purview of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
(USDOT / FHWA). It is the goal of NEPA to ensure that all federal agencies take
the potential environmental implications of their actions into account in
advance of performing those actions, and to ensure that all reasonable means are
taken to minimize the adverse effects resulting from those actions. In the case
of highway and bridge projects specifically, NEPA ensures that FHWA will make
informed decisions with respect to the environment when considering the need
for, and proposed alignment and design of such projects.
Although NEPA has wide ranging benefits when it comes to the proper delivery
of federally-funded projects, it also has a long history of being criticized due
to its perception as an overwhelming, time-consuming process. In this regard,
NEPA has long been blamed as a major source of delay and inflationary cost
increase, especially when the entire project delivery process from beginning of
the NEPA process to the completion of construction is taken into consideration.
This criticism has been especially true when the most complex and time-consuming
level of environmental documentation required under NEPA, the Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS), is involved. The problem is further magnified when other
laws and regulations are required and addressed under the overall NEPA umbrella.
Special requirements such as Section 4(f) evaluation, Section 106 review,
Section 7 biological assessment, Section 404 wetlands permitting, Section 9
bridge permitting, etc. further add to the overall perception of NEPA as a major
source of project delay.
In recognition of the widespread perception of project delays, regulatory
complexities and the potential for improvement in implementing the NEPA process,
a national initiative for introducing "environmental streamlining" into the
process was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21, P.L. 105-178) in 1998. Section 1309 of that Act directs DOT to "develop
and implement a coordinated environmental review process for highway
construction projects." This requirement is especially applicable to projects for
which an EIS is to be prepared pursuant to NEPA.
More recently, in September 2002, President Bush signed an Executive Order
that requires Federal agencies to take appropriate actions to promote
environmental stewardship in the Nation's transportation system and expedite
environmental reviews of high-priority transportation infrastructure projects.
The Executive Order also creates a new "Transportation Infrastructure
Streamlining Task Force" to more closely coordinate federal reviews on projects
while simultaneously stressing the importance of improved environmental
stewardship at all levels of government. Similarly, both bodies of Congress have
recently introduced bills designed to streamline the environmental process and
expedite the project delivery process.
In order to evaluate the relative success of ongoing and future environmental
streamlining efforts pursuant to TEA-21 and other mandates, it was first deemed
necessary to establish a historical baseline against which to compare NEPA time
frames resulting from such efforts, thereby measuring continuous performance.
However, until recently, limited information has been available regarding the
actual time frame that has been required for preparing NEPA EIS documents from
beginning to end, and virtually no information existed to place that time frame
into the context of the overall project delivery process. Given the limited
information available in these regards, FHWA undertook an extensive research
endeavor to establish a historical baseline related to NEPA time frame,
specifically NEPA EIS time frame. The first phase of that research was published
in January 2001 while the second phase is the subject of this report.
1.2 Findings of the Phase I Research
The Phase I research was entitled Evaluating the Performance of
Environmental Streamlining: Development of a NEPA Baseline for Measuring
Continuous Performance, prepared by The Louis Berger Group, Inc. for
FHWA. The purpose of that initial effort, from the outset, had been to provide a
better understanding of the impacts of the NEPA process on the total time and
cost involved in delivering a federal-aid highway or bridge project. Several
basic goals for the initial research phase were identified as follows:
- To establish a baseline against which to assess future environmental
streamlining efforts;
- To identify what component of the time and cost of the overall project
delivery process is attributed to NEPA;
- To identify and assess a wide variety of factors and conditions that may
have a direct or indirect impact upon the NEPA process and the project
delivery process as a whole, and to determine the predictive strength of the
relationship between NEPA and those factors; and
- To identify appropriate data sources and formats that could be utilized
for developing the baseline conditions, as well as for monitoring future
progress of environmental streamlining.
That research met most of the identified goals, except for the cost aspects
of both NEPA and the overall project delivery process. Due to limitations of the
data and the difficulties of dealing with cost compatibility over a 30-year
research period, the portion of the overall project delivery process cost that
is attributed to NEPA could not be ascertained. In addition, the predictive
ability of the statistical correlations found to exist between NEPA and a
variety of other factors is considered to be relatively limited, although
several factors appear to have had some historical influence on the NEPA time
frame.
An extensive data collection process was developed and executed as part of
the Phase I research, and a statistical analysis was completed using the
database. A summary of the Phase I results is provided below:
- Based on the first 30 years of NEPA compliance, the typical length of time
for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has been either 3.0 or 3.6 years,
depending on whether the median or mean values are used, respectively;
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
between former FHWA regions, with the greatest time required in Region 1 (4.5
or 4.7 years, based on median or mean values, respectively) and the least time
required in Region 10 (1.0 or 2.2 years, based on median or mean values,
respectively);
- For those projects in which an EIS pursuant to NEPA was required, the mean
time required for the entire project development process has been
approximately 13.1 years;
- For those projects in which an EIS pursuant to NEPA was required, the NEPA
process accounted for approximately 27 to 28% of the total time required for
the entire project development process, depending on whether the median or
mean values are used, respectively;
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
between each of the three decades that have occurred since NEPA was
implemented, ranging from a mean of 2.2 years in the 1970s to a mean of 5.0
years in the early 1990s;
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
depending on whether or not a Section 404 permit was also required, ranging
from a mean of 2.4 years when no Section 404 permit was required to a mean of
4.3 years when a Section 404 permit was required;
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
depending on whether or not a Section 4(f) approval was also required, ranging
from a mean of 2.8 years when no Section 4(f) approval was required to a mean
of 4.7 years when Section 4(f) approval was required;
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
depending on the number of agency meetings held, ranging from a mean of 2.4
years when fewer than three agency meetings were held to a mean of 4.5 years
when three or more agency meetings were held; and
- The length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA has varied
depending on whether or not noise has been an issue, ranging from a mean of
3.2 years when noise was not an issue to a mean of 4.4 years when noise was an
issue.
1.3 Purpose and Reorientation of the Phase II Research
The desire to uncover more information that could further build on the
conclusions of the initial study led FHWA to pursue a second phase of research.
The second phase, which is the subject of this report, has changed its focus
somewhat from that of the first phase, since most of the original goals of that
research had already been met. Given that a major aspect of the first research
phase was to assess the relationship of NEPA and the overall project development
process, and that the basic relationship had already been established, it was
not considered to be prudent to continue focusing on that relationship in this
follow-on study. Similarly, since the entire 30-year period that NEPA has been
in effect was the focus of the original study, it was determined to be
unnecessary to cover the same period with an expanded sample size.
The basic intent of developing and refining a NEPA baseline time frame,
however, has not changed in this second phase. It is also still the intent of
this research to provide a baseline against which future EIS projects can be
compared in order to measure continuous performance of environmental
streamlining efforts. What has changed is the breadth of the research in terms
of historical time period considered and the level of detail sought to refine
the baseline for the universe of projects within that revised time period. As a
result of these fundamental changes, the methodology used in this Phase II study
has also changed from that used during Phase I. The main differences between the
two phases are listed below:
- Phase II has a revised focus on only the more recent EIS projects (i.e.,
those completed from 1995-2001) instead of the entire 30-year period following
inception of NEPA as in Phase I;
- Phase II involves analysis of the total universe of EIS projects completed
during the limited period of study instead of a random sample representing the
total universe of EIS projects during the broader period of study as in Phase
I;
- Phase II focuses only on the NEPA process itself, instead of the
relationship of NEPA to the overall project delivery process as was considered
in Phase I;
- Phase II eliminates the Phase I requirement that construction of the EIS
projects must have been completed in order to consider them, since the overall
project delivery process is not to be considered;
- Phase II improves upon the identification of a formal starting point for
the NEPA process for each studied project (i.e., Notice of Intent date),
thereby reducing the level of subjectivity inherent in Phase I; and
- Phase II eliminates the need to address those factors found during Phase I
to be of little value in explaining or describing the effect on the NEPA
compliance time frame.
By incorporating the above changes into the basic research structure of Phase
II, it was anticipated that a more concise and in-depth view of the NEPA
compliance time frame trends and the factors that impact upon NEPA time frame
requirements could be performed. Given this basic assumption, the overall
contribution of this second research phase to NEPA baseline development and
refinement will have substantial merit.
1.4 Organization of Report
Following this Introduction, Section 2.0 provides a detailed
discussion of the Research Approach used for this study. Specific aspects
of the Research Approach addressed include: a Research Approach Overview;
Description of Data Sources; Limitations of Available Data; Data Collection
Methodology; and Statistical Analysis Methodology.
Section 3.0, Results of Research, provides the basic findings of the
study. These findings include: Descriptive Statistics on the Length of the NEPA
Process; Descriptive Statistics on Other Factors Considered; Statistical
Relationship of Length of the NEPA Process with Other Factors; and Use of
Results as a Baseline for Evaluating Future Environmental Streamlining
Initiatives.
Section 4.0 provides a discussion of Conclusions and Recommendations.
This section presents a summary of the findings and offers recommendations, as
appropriate.
Section 5.0 provides a List of Preparers.
A series of Appendices that assist in illustrating details of the
research survey universe development, data collection, and statistical analysis
of the data conclude the report. These Appendices are denoted as Appendix A
through Appendix K and are available from FHWA on a separate CD-ROM.
2.0 RESEARCH APPROACH
2.1 Research Approach Overview
This current research study, like the original Phase I study, has been
designed to provide a comprehensive, objective, and statistically-based approach
to refining a baseline regarding the length of time required to comply with
NEPA. Similar to Phase I, this Phase II research only deals with projects
subjected to an EIS level of documentation, rather than those involving
Environmental Assessments (EAs) or Categorical Exclusions (CEs).
As stated in Section 1.3 above, there are a number of changes that have been
incorporated into the overall approach used for the Phase II research in
comparison to that used in Phase I. These changes are discussed in further
detail below.
- Concentration on More Recent Projects Only — Whereas the
Phase I research was very broad in terms of its historical perspective,
covering the entire period since inception of NEPA in 1969, this second phase
concentrates only on projects in which the EIS document was completed between
the years 1995 and 2001. Inclusion of these more recent projects in Phase II
results in a totally different data set from that used in Phase I, since no
projects having an EIS document completed later than the early 1990s was
addressed in that study. By concentrating only on the more recent projects
that were completed and approved through the NEPA process, it is perhaps
possible to draw comparisons between these projects and the earlier NEPA
projects studied in Phase I.
- Analysis of the Total Universe of NEPA Projects— Whereas the
Phase I research was based on a random, stratified sample of EIS projects
completed during the study period, the Phase II research is based on the
entire universe of EIS projects completed and approved during the study
period. Given the smaller study period involved in this current effort in
comparison to the earlier effort, the ability to consider the entire universe
is much more practical and feasible. Therefore, the entire list of 250 EIS
projects that were identified as having been completed during the 1995 — 2001
period have been included in Phase II. By including the entire universe of
projects, potential statistical issues related to sample size and error do not
exist. As a result, the statistical findings that result from the research
should theoretically reflect the real condition, rather than a sample
condition that could be argued doesn´t match with the real world.
- Concentration on NEPA Process Only— Whereas the Phase I
research took the overall project delivery process into account, the Phase II
research does not consider the overall project delivery process at all.
Instead, this current research focuses only on the actual NEPA process and
other regulatory requirements that fall under the NEPA umbrella, which
together, only comprises a portion of the overall project delivery process.
Since the relationship between the NEPA time frame and the overall project
delivery process time frame was already established in the earlier study, it
was concluded that it was unnecessary to consider that relationship again in
this study. As a result of this fundamental change, it became unnecessary to
collect and integrate specific information about the overall process into the
database. As a further result of this change, the need to deal with FHWA´s
Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS) database, which was an integral
part of the Phase I research, was also eliminated. This change also eliminated
the need to focus only on those EIS projects that have been fully constructed.
- Elimination of Project Construction Completion Requirement —
Whereas the nature and intent of the Phase I research required that it focus
only on EIS projects that have already been fully constructed, that
requirement did not apply to Phase II. In fact, the status of each project's
design and construction was unnecessary to know for the current research. It
was the elimination of the construction completion requirement in Phase II
that allowed the research to re-focus on the more recent NEPA projects, since
it is very unlikely that many of those projects have actually been constructed
yet.
- Refinement of NEPA Starting Date — Whereas the NEPA starting
date used in defining the total time frame for each EIS project in Phase I was
based on information of variable quality as presented in the actual EIS
documents, Phase II uses the official Notice of Intent (NOI) date. The ability
to standardize each project's start date in this current research eliminates
the subjectivity that was inherent with the former approach. The NOI dates
could not previously be considered because access to the primary source of
data for such information was not available at the time.
- Elimination of Extraneous Variables— Whereas the Phase I
study included a total of 74 separate data variables in the database, those
that were found to be of little value in explaining or describing the effect
on the NEPA compliance time frame were eliminated from consideration in Phase
II. For instance, this current research only addresses time aspects of NEPA,
rather than cost, as it was demonstrated during Phase I that cost really could
not be considered in a cost-effective manner given severe limitations and
general unavailability of cost data and difficulties in comparative cost
analysis over a period of time. Other variables for which it had previously
been shown to be difficult to obtain meaningful data have also been
eliminated.
As a result of the above changes, the overall methodology used in Phase II is
generally much less complex than that used in the Phase I research. This is
especially true in light of the elimination of the need to use the FMIS database
system, which was difficult and time-consuming in terms of integration of those
appropriation records into each EIS project. Other changes that reduced the
complexity of this effort was the use of the entire universe of projects during
the study period rather than developing a random and statistically-valid sample,
as well as the elimination of the need to determine which projects had already
been fully constructed. However, the reduction in complexity was countered by
the substantial increase in total number of EIS projects (from 100 to 250) for
which detailed data had to be collected and compiled. In addition, clarification
and standardization of the official NEPA start date for each project resulted in
increased effort as well.
The basic steps of the overall methodology used in this Phase II study, in
the order that they were followed, are presented below.
Identification of EIS Universe
- From the list of EIS projects available from the Northwestern University
Transportation Library, the total universe of EISs published between the years
1995 and 2001 was identified;
Data Collection
- Obtain and review the EIS document(s) associated with each potential
project to be included in the database in order to identify locational and
component parameters of the project;
- Identify EIS start dates for each project using NOI dates available from
the Federal Register;
- Enter all relevant project data collected from the EIS document(s) and the
Federal Register into a computerized database, and provide visual quality
control checks for anomalies in the entered data, and revise as
necessary;
Statistical Analysis
- Perform descriptive statistics analysis, including maximum and minimum
values and, in some cases, frequencies, to identify additional anomalies in
the data and to establish descriptive parameters of each data variable;
- Perform exploratory data techniques to look for differences in descriptive
parameters among different former FHWA regions;
- Create new data variables as necessary to complete statistical analysis by
manipulating entered data variables;
- Determine if the data appear to be normally distributed, which would allow
statistical analysis to be appropriately performed or, if not, transform data
to obtain surrogates that are normally distributed and can be appropriately
analyzed;
- Test for differences among former FHWA regions with regard to length of
the NEPA process and other variables;
- Examine relationships, including correlations between NEPA process time
and other data variables; and
NEPA Process Baseline
Refinement
- Utilizing the results of the statistical analysis, identify a refined NEPA
process baseline or set of baselines under various conditions against which to
evaluate future environmental streamlining efforts.
Tracing through the individual steps presented above provides a general
indication of the overall methodology utilized in undertaking this Phase II
research study. However, each individual component of the process involved its
own set of substeps and analyses. A detailed discussion of each of these steps,
including specific variables used, data limitations and problems encountered, is
provided in subsequent subsections of this report.
2.2 Description of Data Sources
There were two main sources of data used for undertaking this Phase II research:
1) the Northwestern University Transportation Library; and 2) the Lexis-Nexis
on-line commercial database service. The composition, format, and availability
of these data sources are discussed in detail below.
2.2.1 Northwestern University Transportation Library
As was the case with the Phase I study, the Northwestern University (NWU)
Transportation Library and its World Wide Web site served as the starting point
for undertaking this research. The NWU Library contains more than 4,000 EIS
documents prepared for Federal-aid highway projects, dating back to 1970 when
the requirements for NEPA documentation first went into effect. For the Phase II
study, only those EISs completed during the period beginning in 1995 and ending
in 2001 were requested, a total of seven years of EIS documents. It was found
that the NWU Library contains a total of 250 Final EIS documents related to FHWA
projects from that period.
Recognizing that the NWU Library collection of FHWA EIS documents could in
fact be somewhat different from the total number of FHWA EISs actually completed
during the study period, an analysis was performed to verify the relative
completeness of its collection. Given that the Phase II research is based on the
entire universe of EISs during the 1995 — 2001 period, it was decided that a
comparative review of the NWU Library documents should be made against those
EISs identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its list of
Notices of Availability and by FHWA in its annual surveys of completed EISs by
state since 1998. In this manner, an assessment of the degree of completeness of
the NWU source could be verified.
In the case of the comparative review between the NWU source and the EPA
source, an assessment for each year between 1995 and 2001 was conducted. It was
found that in addition to the 250 project document sets available at the NWU
Library, 33 EIS projects were identified from the EPA website which were not
identified by the NWU Library. On the other hand, 27 of the EIS projects
identified by the NWU Library were not identified on the EPA website.
In the case of the comparative review between the NWU source and the FHWA
annual breakdown of EISs between 1998 and 2000, it was found that 42 documents
listed by NWU as having been completed during those three years are missing from
the FHWA database. Alternately, a total of 15 documents on the FHWA list were
found not to be included on the NWU list of documents, at least during those
same years.
It should be noted that many of the documents that exist on both the NWU and
the FHWA lists do not match up in terms of completion year. In all such cases,
the FHWA list identifies a later date than the NWU list. For instance, a
particular project EIS identified as being completed in 1998 on the NWU list may
be identified as being completed in 1999 on the FHWA list. This difference is
probably attributable to the fact that the NWU list reflects the date of Final
EIS signature while the FHWA list reflects the date of the Record of Decision.
In a few cases, the EIS completion years shown on the FHWA list were two or more
years after the completion years indicated on the NWU list.
The staff from the NWU Library was unable to provide any conclusive reason
for the absence of some documents within its collection. In the case of those
documents identified on the EPA list which were missing from the NWU list, it is
suspected that the EPA, who provides the EIS documents to the NWU Library for
cataloging, had merely run out of copies before they could be forwarded.
Although it was concluded that some EIS documents that were completed during the
1995 — 2001 period are missing from the NWU Library and its computerized
database, its list of 250 EIS projects appears to be fairly representative of
the total actual universe of such projects during that period. The differences
between the NWU Library list and both the EPA and FHWA lists tend to cancel each
other out, indicating that the NWU Library documents collection is adequate for
representing the universe of FHWA EISs. It should be noted that no discernible
pattern of difference was identified between the NWU database and either of the
other two sources with regard to the geographic location or project type of the
missing EIS projects. Having concluded the relative completeness of its
database, the NWU Library again served as the backbone of this Phase II
research, just as it had during Phase I.
At the outset of the Phase II study, contacts made and procedures used during
the Phase I research were reestablished with the NWU Library. The NWU Library
staff prepared and arranged the entire universe of EIS projects for the 1995 —
2001 period in reverse chronological order. Each entry on the list generally
included: the title of the EIS project, which often included an indication of
its location as well; date of Final EIS signature; EIS call number, which also
identified the state responsible for implementing the EIS; the specific
documents on file for each EIS project; and the Library's availability status
for each document. A list of all 250 EISs available and requested from the NWU
Library is provided in Appendix A.
Upon receipt of the list of 250 EISs from the NWU Library, each EIS project
was assigned a number which was provided to the NWU Library in a manner that
would facilitate the requesting and receiving of documents for review. A system
was developed to ensure that an adequate number of documents were requested and
received each week in order to keep the research on schedule. The request for
EISs was generally made via e-mail. Upon arrival, the documents were reviewed,
analyzed and sent back, usually within the same week that they were received.
The EIS document sets available from the NWU Library generally included the
Draft EIS, Final EIS, Supplemental Draft and/or Final (as appropriate) and,
often, Technical Appendices.
Although the process of requesting and receiving EIS documents from the NWU
Library generally worked well, some delays in shipping, incomplete shipments and
missing volumes did occasionally occur, which resulted in delays during this
phase of the process. The delays were always short, and all the proper documents
were received.
2.2.2 Lexis-Nexis Database
One important type of data that was not uniformly available from the actual
EIS documents was the NOI date for each project. As a result, a different data
source was required to retrieve that data. NOI dates for most of the 250 EIS
projects were found in the Lexis-Nexis database system, which is a commercial
service that provides legal information, news, public records and business
information, including tax and regulatory publications, in on-line format. NOI
on-line retrieval was performed using the system database of Federal
Register documents. In a number of cases, the EIS project title used in the
Federal Register documents differed somewhat from that used in the actual
EIS document; however, even in those cases, the two datasets were ultimately
able to be matched.
Although NOI dates for all 250 projects were found within the Lexis-Nexis
database, there were approximately twenty occasions where the NOI dates and/or
other milestone dates included in the on-line Federal Register (e.g., the
Draft and/or Final EIS signature dates) did not correlate with those identified
from the actual EIS documents obtained from the NWU Library. For instance, the
NOI date stated in the Federal Register may have post-dated the signature
date of the actual Draft or Final EIS document, which obviously would not
reflect a proper chronology. The most common reason for this discrepancy was
when a Supplemental EIS (either Draft or Final) document was required for a
project. It was often the case that a new NOI date was issued and published in
the Federal Register for a supplemental document, although it was not
immediately obvious that such was the case.
In order to ensure that these projects were considered for their full NEPA
time, proper documentation of the NOI date was obtained. Two different methods
were used for obtaining the NOI dates for these particular cases. In most cases,
the original NOI dates were provided within the text of the actual EIS document,
so that the Federal Register-listed date was not even used. However, in
cases where the NOI date could not be found within the EIS document, inquiries
were made with the appropriate State DOT. After expending, sometimes, a
substantial effort to locate the appropriate individual with knowledge of that
particular project, or at least with knowledge about how to access information
on that project, the State DOT was generally able to provide the NOI dates
regarding these remaining few projects. In five cases, however, neither of these
approaches led to usable NOI dates (for more about how these projects were
addressed in the research, see Section 2.3.2 below).
Upon retrieval of the NOI dates from the Federal Register documents
or, when necessary, the EIS documents or relevant State DOTs, they were saved
into a central file for reference purposes. A sample of a Federal
Register page from the Lexis-Nexis system with NOI information included is
provided in Appendix B.
2.3 Limitations of Available Data
As indicated in Section 2.2 above, the availability of the two primary data
sources used for this research (i.e., the Northwestern University Transportation
Library and the Lexis-Nexis database system), was critical to the ability to
even undertake this research from the outset. However, even though these two
data sources allowed the research to move forward, there were some inherent
limitations, as discussed below.
2.3.1 Unavailability of Record of Decision Dates
One type of data that was found to be unavailable from any central source was
the Record of Decision (ROD) date, which is the official completion date of the
NEPA process. During the initial Phase I study, inquiries were made with FHWA
headquarters, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to determine if there is a central source that
exists for identifying this date for each EIS project, and determined that such
a source does not exist.
It was initially hoped that the on-line Federal Register database
available through the Lexis-Nexis system could possibly include ROD information.
However, it was verified during the preparation of this second phase of research
that ROD dates are not generally recorded in the Federal Register,
thereby eliminating the potential for using that source in this regard.
As was the case during the Phase I research, the possibility of uniformly
contacting FHWA division offices to obtain ROD dates for each EIS project was
considered but ultimately rejected based on the conclusion that the process
would not have been cost-effective. This conclusion was based on several
factors: the amount of time likely to be required to find the person(s) who has
the information; institutional memory problems; and the possibility of receiving
inconsistent data that could lead to statistical bias.
The potential for using the ROD dates available from FHWA´s surveyed list of
EISs by state since 1998 was also explored. However, as discussed in Section
2.2.1, there were differences between the NWU database of EIS projects and the
FHWA database of EIS projects, which made consistent use of the FHWA ROD dates
impossible. Since the FHWA database only covered the period between 1998 and
2000 at the time of data collection for this research, it is likely that many of
the 42 documents listed by NWU as having been completed during those three years
did not have official ROD dates until at least 2001, the results of which were
not available at that time. In addition, a total of 15 EIS projects shown on the
FHWA list to have approved ROD dates during the 1998 to 2000 period did not
appear on the NWU list of EIS projects, which served as the primary data source
for this research. Due to these differences between the two data sources and the
inability to collect consistent ROD date information, it was concluded that the
use of ROD dates to define the end point for some projects and the use of Final
EIS signature dates for other projects would be inappropriate.
It should be noted, however, that FHWA´s Office of Project Development and
Environmental Review conducted a spot check of the ROD dates provided by the
various FHWA Division offices for a total of 68 of the 244 projects included in
this study. The project documents in question were completed (i.e., FEIS signed)
during the years 1999 to 2001. The period between the approval of the FEIS and
the approval of the subsequent ROD was found to range from 1 to 9 months, with
the mean being approximately 3.3 months.
As a result of the various data limitations, it was decided, similar to the
Phase I study, that the end points of each EIS project should be based directly
on information available in the EIS documents themselves. In this manner, the
end points were easy, given that every Final EIS document has an FHWA signature
date identifying when it was completed. It was decided that the official date on
the Final EIS was selected as the end point, rather than arbitrarily attempting
to add some additional time period (probably a few months) after the signature
date to reflect the ROD date. Although it is likely that most RODs were approved
within a few months of the signature date, there is no basis to verify that
assumption without conducting a statistical analysis to further test the
assumption. Therefore, the EIS end date used for each of the projects included
in the research universe was the date of the Final EIS signature. Both the month
and year of the signature date were recorded for use in the analysis.
Therefore, the length of the NEPA process for purposes of this research was
based on the period of time between the official NOI date and the signature date
for the Final EIS. Although this time frame is slightly underestimated in
comparison to the real time frame because it does not reflect that relatively
short period after the Final EIS signature date and the ROD date, it is adequate
for the purposes of this research and is consistent for all projects. This
process, at least, is a refinement over the one used in the Phase I research,
where access to the NOI date was also unavailable, thereby resulting in a
somewhat subjective start date for each project as well.
2.3.2 Elimination of Select EISs from Database
There were a total of six projects out of the 250 projects included on the
NWU Library database for the 1995 — 2001 period that, due to a variety of
special circumstances, had to be eliminated from use in the Phase II study. Five
of these projects, as discussed in Section 2.2.2, were eliminated due to
inability to obtain accurate information regarding NOI date. For instance, EIS
number 960438 (New Jersey) was eliminated from the database because no record of
any NOI date for this project was able to be found in the on-line Federal
Register records. It is unclear why such documentation could not be located.
Similarly, four other projects, including EIS numbers FHWA-WV-990063,
FHWA-WV-960180, FHWA-IA-870460 and FHWA-MN-980115, were all eliminated due to
the fact that no NOI date could be found reflecting the start of the original
EIS process. The only NOI date that could be found for those projects was
related to a follow-on Supplemental EIS process. Since an official NEPA start
date could not be identified, it was concluded that those projects should not be
considered in the research.
The final project, EIS number FHWA-CA-000205, was eliminated due to its total
NEPA time of twenty years. This length of time was substantially longer than for
any other project in the database, and did not reflect any type of Supplemental
EIS process within that time frame. Technically then, this project was not
eliminated because of limitations in the data, but because the data that were
collected created a true anomaly in the compiled database. In order not to
incorrectly skew the statistical analysis conducted on the database, it was
determined that it was best to eliminate this project from further
consideration. This is a typical and acceptable statistical procedure when
anomalies in the data are identified, even if those particular data are correct
and explainable.
As a result of the elimination of the above six projects from further
consideration, a total of 244 projects were available for analysis.
2.4 Data Collection Methodology
2.4.1 Review of EIS Project Details
The EIS documents for each of the projects included in the database were
reviewed, and the pertinent data were extracted and recorded using a project
data sheet. Types of data recorded on the project data sheets included: project
setting and description; milestone dates within the NEPA process; agencies
involved in the NEPA process; permits required; environmental
issues/controversies; mitigation measures proposed; and details of the public
involvement process. A copy of the project data sheet form used in this regard
is provided in Appendix C.
Specific types of information that were recorded on the project data form,
and the criteria used to collect these data are described below.
- Reviewer — This field records the name of the person conducting
the EIS review.
- Date — This field shows day, month, and year of data sheet
completion.
- Project Name — The project name is the title as it appears
on the Final Environmental Impact Statement.
- Location — Gives the location of the EIS project by city,
county, and state.
- Generalized Land Use — Land use was determined by reading
the Land Use section in the Affected Environment chapter and by interpreting
the land use map. Three categories of land use were used:
- Rural: Any project that has land use dominated by agriculture
or vegetated areas.
- Small City: Any project that lies within a city having low to
medium population statistics or a suburban area.
- Urban: Any project that lies within a major metropolitan center.
- Generalized Setting — The project´s status with respect to
a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) was identified. To determine if a project
was within an MSA, the county or counties comprising the project area was/were
compared and referenced to the nationwide MSA table. The project was either
within an MSA, outside an MSA, or both.
- Population Change — Population change was determined in either
of two ways. The first way was to find the population data for the area, and
then find the percentage difference between the 1980 population statistics
and the 1990 population statistics, dividing by ten to find annual rate of
change. The second way, if raw data were not given, was by searching the Socioeconomic
section of the Affected Environment chapter of the EIS for any information
pertaining to population characteristics. If neither of these procedures was
possible, it was rated "NA."
- Type of Improvement — Type of improvement as either a highway
or bridge project, as well as specifics of that project were derived by reading
and understanding the Preferred Alternative. Many times a description of the
Preferred Alternative was found on the Final EIS Signature Page. If it was
not there, it was usually explained in the Executive Summary. More clarification
was found within the Preferred Alternative section of the Alternatives Considered
chapter.
- Length — The length of a project was often given on the Final
EIS Signature Page in conjunction with a description of the Preferred Alternative.
If the length was not on the Final EIS Signature Page, then it was either
in the Executive Summary or within the Preferred Alternative section of the
Alternatives Considered chapter.
- Land Acquisition Required — The amount of land required for
a project was not always stated. Many EISs would state acquisition numbers
for large impacts such as wetlands or farmland, but would not say exactly
what the total acreage taking would be. In some cases, however, the total
amount of acquisition would be clearly stated. This information was usually
found within the Executive Summary or the Land Use section of the Environmental
Consequences chapter. For those projects where land acquisition was not stated,
an "NA" was recorded.
- Notice of Intent — Notice of Intent (NOI) dates show exactly
when a project began the official NEPA process. The NOI dates are generally
published in the Federal Register. Searching for the NOI dates was
accomplished as discussed in Section 2.2.2 above. Some EISs identified the
NOI date in the Public Outreach section. Some even included a copy of the
NOI announcement page as it appeared in the Federal Register.
- Other Date Indicating Start of NEPA Process — This date, which
generally involved the date of initial scoping meetings, further indicated
when the NEPA process began. However, when a NOI date was available, this
field had little value.
- DEIS Signature Date — This was the date found on the DEIS Signature
Page that indicated the exact day an FHWA representative signed the Draft
EIS.
- FEIS Signature Date — This was the date found on the FEIS
Signature Page that indicated the exact day an FHWA representative signed
the Final EIS.
- Project Sponsor — The project sponsors were the primary agencies
involved at the federal and state levels. This information was found on the
Final EIS Signature Page with the federal agency listed above the state agency.
- Federal Agency: The federal agency was always FHWA.
- State Agency: The state agency was usually that state´s transportation
agency.
- Cooperating Agencies — Cooperating Agencies were government
agencies that were asked to play a major role with regards to the development
of the EIS. A Cooperating Agency was generally included when a project caused
specific and distinct impacts under its jurisdiction, or required other regulatory
approvals by that agency. Cooperating Agencies were generally identified either
on the Final EIS Signature Page or in the Final EIS Summary. In cases where
they were not specifically identified in either of those two locations, they
were sometimes identified in the Public Involvement section of the EIS.
- Commenting Agencies Number — Number of Commenting Agencies
were government, businesses, and local groups that have written formal comment
letters in regards to the information presented in the Draft EIS. These agencies
were generally identified in a list of Commenting Agencies included in the
Public Involvement section of the EIS. If such a list was not available, the
Number of Commenting Agencies was then determined by counting the formal comment
letters included in an appendix to the EIS document. The Commenting Agencies
were categorized as follows:
- Federal: Any agency that falls under federal jurisdiction.
- State: Any agency that falls under state jurisdiction
- Local Any agency that falls under local jurisdiction. Also included
in this number were businesses, and local groups.
- Total Number of Cooperating/Commenting Agencies — This number
was derived from the total number of cooperating agencies plus the total number
of federal, state, and local commenting agencies. However, this entry is not
part of the final database.
- USEPA Rating — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has developed a rating system which summarizes its level of concern regarding
a particular action, based on a given project´s Draft EIS document. The ratings
are a combination of alphabetical categories that signify EPA‘s evaluation
of the environmental impacts of the proposed project, and numerical categories
that signify an evaluation of the adequacy of the EIS. There are four different
rankings for the alphabetical portion of the rating:
- LO (Lack of Objections), where the review has not identified
any impacts that would necessitate changes to the Preferred Alternative.
- EC (Environmental Concerns), where the review had identified
environmental impacts that, if possible, should be avoided.
- EO (Environmental Objections), where the review noted severe
environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to properly protect
the environment.
- EU (Environmentally Unsatisfactory), where the review has determined
that the environmental impacts are significant enough to warrant a statement
regarding the project as something that should not continue as planned.
For the numerical portion of the rating, there are three different
categories:
- The 1 rating indicates that the EIS is adequate and that
no additional data collection is necessary, although some ideas on language
changes and information may be provided.
- The 2 rating indicates that the EIS has insufficient information.
This rating indicates that there is not enough information contained within
the text to make an adequate assessment of the impacts.
- The 3 rating indicates that the project is inadequate. This goes
as far as saying that the EIS does not meet the purpose of NEPA or the
Section 309 review.
The USEPA rating was generally found within the text of the EPA comment
letter.
- Permits — Permits were a main area of focus within the data
collection process, although the need for particular approvals were not always
specifically stated in the EIS. Finding out whether a permit was needed for
a certain project was often dependent upon the impacts of the Preferred Alternative.
Each permit has a different set of guidelines that helped determine if it
was necessary for the project or not.
Section 404: Section 404 permits were the most commonly required permits
for the universe of EISs sampled. The Section 404 permit is necessary when
any jurisdictional waters of the United States are to be impacted. Section
404 details were found in the Permits section. The Permits section was usually
found either in the Executive Summary or in the Environmental Consequences
chapter. If there was no Permits section, then Section 404 permit information
would be stated in or deduced from the Wetlands section of the Environmental
Consequences chapter.
Individual/Nationwide Permit: Individual and Nationwide are the two
basic types of Section 404 permits issued by the ACOE. Individual and Nationwide
permits are issued dependent on the size of the wetland impacted, nature of
the action and the quality of the wetlands impacted. Individual Permits indicate
a more severe impact while Nationwide Permits indicate a less severe impact.
This variable was not actually included in the database, due to the difficulty
in obtaining the information to differentiate, in most cases.
Section 9 Bridge: A Section 9 Bridge permit is issued under the authority
of U.S. Coast Guard. A Section 9 Bridge permit is required when the Preferred
Alternative impacts navigable waters. Information regarding this permit is
usually found within the Permits section of the EIS, if such a section is
included. If there is no Permits section, it can usually be deduced from the
Preferred Alternative section.
Section 4(f): A Section 4(f) evaluation is required when a Preferred
Alternative impacts any public park, recreation area, or wildlife / waterfowl
refuge, or any significant historic site. Most EISs identify the need for
a Section 4(f) on the Final EIS Signature Page. In addition, if a Section
4(f) evaluation was performed, it was usually included as a separate section
within the Final EIS document.
Section 106: Section 106 review is required if any National Register
or National Register-eligible historical or archeological site is impacted.
It is often not clearly stated in the text if Section 106 was required or
not. When such a statement was not specifically included in the EIS, Section
106 review was assumed if a number greater than zero was entered into field
6.6 of the project data sheet (i.e., Number of Eligible or Potentially Eligible
Historic/Archeological Sites Studied.
Section 7: A Section 7 consultation is required if any federally threatened
or endangered species are impacted within the project area. Similar to Section
106, it was unusual to find clear documentation of a Section 7 requirement
included in the Final EIS. To determine if a Section 7 was needed, research
was done within the Environmental Consequences chapter under the Threatened
and Endangered Species section. If within the text there is specific language
of any federally threatened or endangered species being impacted, then a Section
7 consultation was assumed.
NPDES: This permit is necessary to help alleviate storm water runoff
from impervious surfaces as they discharge into water resources. Information
on whether a NPDES permit was required could be found within the Permits section,
if such a section existed, or sometimes in the Executive Summary or the Water
Quality section of the Environmental Consequences chapter.
Other: This field is for any other state or federal permit that did
not fall within the above fields. These permits were often listed in the Permits
section, if such a section existed, or within the Water Quality section of
the Environmental Consequences chapter.
- Environmental Issues/Controversies — A sixstep methodology
was implemented in determining whether a particular topic would be classified
as an issue/controversy.
- The first step was to read the Final EIS Signature Page. On the Final
EIS Signature Page there was usually a brief description of the project
along with an explanation of what the project entails. There were also
a few sentences that summarized major adverse impacts. All major adverse
impacts were considered issues/controversies except wetlands and displacements.
These two impacts were looked at more closely before determining if the
impacts for a particular project warrant them to be considered as an issue/controversy.
- The second step was to read thoroughly through the Executive Summary.
Contained in the Executive Summary was (usually) a brief look at all of
the environmental impacts that would be involved with a certain project.
Usually within the Executive Summary, a synopsis was given on a specific
impact, which was usually a good indicator of what the issue/controversies
would be.
- The third step was to see if the EIS had a specific section for Controversies.
If an EIS had this section it was usually found at the very end of the
Executive Summary. Any impacts that were listed in this section were automatically
considered issues/controversies.
- The fourth step was to read the Environmental Consequences chapter for
each individual impact. The Environmental Consequences chapter gave detailed
information and mitigation strategies for all of the project impacts.
- The fifth step was to read through the Public Involvement chapter. This
chapter helped give an emotional pulse to the project. Individual letters
received on the project from commenting / regulatory agencies as well
as general public were reviewed for identification of specific issues
or areas of controversy that were mentioned.
-
The final step was to take all of the above steps under consideration
and decide which impacts warrant a label of issue/controversy. These
determinations were generally based on the geographical size or magnitude
of impacts, and the perceived significance of these impacts on the people
and/or environment within the proposed project area. In some cases,
the presence of an issue/controversy was identified in the comments
received from agencies, public interest groups or general public. Below
is a list of guidelines that were followed in order to help establish
which issues qualified.
- Land use: All 4(f) properties warranted either a land use
or cultural resource controversy. Any use of public land or Native-American
land warranted a controversy.
- Farmland: The three main factors used in determining if farmland
was an issue/controversy were: how much farmland was being acquired,
how much of that farmland was prime farmland, and how was the current
farmland zoned. Farmland was determined to be an issue/controversy only
when the impact was considered to be of direct economic and/or cultural
significance to the people and/or community surrounding the impacted farmland.
An exact acreage value could not be consistently applied as a threshold
point for all projects since impact varied greatly from one EIS to another.
- Economic/Fiscal Impacts: Economic and fiscal impacts become
a controversy if the businesses and people employed by the businesses,
within the project area, were economically hurt by a proposed project.
- Noise: Noise was always a factor when a roadway system
increased its capacity. Deciding on whether it was an issue/controversy
or not depended on how many homes were impacted and what type of setting
the roadway was in. In urban settings, noise was of greater importance
to the public than it was in most rural settings. Three major factors
were looked at when making a decision on this topic: new decibel levels,
amount of homes impacted, and amount of mitigation required. When considering
noise, it was important to note that although mitigation was sometimes
not feasible or reasonable it did not cancel out the fact that this impact
could still be an issue/controversy.
- Air Quality: Air quality was often difficult to define
as an issue/controversy because the air quality model used in the analysis
generally showed improvement as a result of constructing the project.
Such improvement was generally the result of reduced congestion and lowered
emissions. Therefore, air quality was considered an issue/controversy
only if an area was already in a non-attainment zone and getting worse,
or the main opponents of the new roadway used the lessening of air quality
as a major variable in their argument against a proposed Preferred Alternative.
- Visual Impacts: Defining whether visual impacts were an
issue/controversy depended on the alignment of the Preferred Alternative
and the type of setting it was in. Other large factors included: public
opinion, and the viewshed affected.
- Wetlands: Impacts to wetlands were very common to most
highway projects. Two factors where used when considering whether a wetland
impact would be an issue/controversy. The first was the amount of acreage
lost compared to total length of the project. The second was the quality
of wetlands impacted. If either one of those factors were found to be
lopsided than it was marked as an issue/controversy.
- Threatened and Endangered Species: Impacts to threatened
and endangered species were considered to be a controversy when a direct
impact to the existence of a species is threatened by a roadway project.
Direct mitigation, which included the physical movement of a species or
the rebuilding of a habitat, was a clear sign that this impact would be
an issue/controversy.
- Cultural Resources: Cultural resources were determined
to be an issue/controversy when a Preferred Alternative had an adverse
effect on an historical or archaeological site that was on the National
Register or considered to be eligible or potentially eligible for inclusion
on the National Register. Most Native American impacts also fell within
this category.
- Water Quality: Water quality was usually impacted in some
form by roadway projects. Any time an impervious surface is added there
is a chance for an increase in certain variables within waterways. However,
the use of Best Management Practices and the regulations found within
the NPDES permit mitigate much of the damage. Water Quality was generally
considered an area of issue/controversy when the waterways impacted were
used as part of the public water supply, or the waterway impacted was
of the most pristine nature.
- Indirect/Secondary/Cumulative Impacts: Indirect/Secondary/Cumulative
Impacts usually come under scrutiny when a roadway would directly help
expand development. Determining whether this was an issue or not depended
on whether or not new development was planned or zoned for, as well as
taking into consideration the public's opinion on the matter.
- Environmental Justice: Environmental justice impacts were based
on the socioeconomic make-up of the area surrounding the project. If a
project was proposed in a community that was characterized to consist
of predominately low income or minority population, then environmental
justice was considered to be an issue/controversy.
- Community Cohesion: Deciding on whether community cohesion
was an issue/ controversy depended on the magnitude of the impact to the
cohesion of a community. The magnitude and duration of new traffic patterns
had to be taken into account. If existing travel patterns were anticipated
to change as a result of the proposed project, the severity of the change
and the loss of access to community centers, businesses and/or government
buildings were taken into consideration. The severity of the impact was
based on such factors as increased travel time, disruption of community
travel patterns, segmentation of a community, magnitude of displacements,
etc., and was considered in determining if community cohesion was an issue/controversy.
- Vegetation Impacts: To determine whether a vegetation
impact occurred depended on where the project took place, the acreage
impacted, and the ecological value of the area impacted. If the acreage
impacted and/or the ecological value lost was high for that area, then
vegetation was considered an issue/controversy.
- Business Displacements: To determine if this field was
an impact, a couple of factors have to be examined. The first factor was
how many businesses were displaced compared to the total number of businesses
in the project area. The second factor dealt with the amount of adequate
replacement property for these businesses. If there were a large number
of displacements in comparison to the number of businesses in the project
area, and/or a lack of space to relocate displaced businesses elsewhere
within the project area, this became an issue/controversy.
- Residential Displacements: Residential displacements were
a common occurrence for most projects. Therefore, to determine if this
was an issue or not, certain guidelines were followed. The first guideline
was to look at the number of displacements compared to the total number
of residences within the project community. The second guideline was to
see if replacement housing was prevalent within the project community.
The third guideline was to see what kind of opposition neighborhood associations
and other like groups put forth. If the number of homes displaced was
high in comparison to the total number of homes in the project community,
or if there was no replacement housing available, or if there was opposition
from homeowners, residential displacements became an issue/controversy.
- Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials were usually
found within businesses, warehouses, etc. that were to be displaced or
were abandoned within the Preferred Alternative´s rightofway. If a substantial
amount of hazardous materials or a small amount of a very dangerous material
were found to be present, it was considered an issue/controversy.
- Floodplains: Floodplains were analyzed to see what types
of encroachments would occur as a result of the project. Two factors were
considered when identifying whether an issue/controversy existed: 1) the
acreage of floodplains impacted, and 2) the history of the area for flooding.
A sizeable encroachment and or a distinct history of flooding in the project
area were the triggers for classifying Floodplains as an issue/controversy.
-
Other: The "other" variable was reserved for any impacts
that did not fall under any of the above-mentioned categories. Reasons
for citing "other" as an issue/controversy were on a casebycase basis.
- Number of Transit or System Alternatives Given Serious Consideration
— In most cases, transit or system alternatives were considered and dismissed
as being not feasible or not capable of achieving the identified purpose and
need for a proposed project. Although many were considered, few were evaluated
in detail for environmental impacts. Only those alternatives that were advanced
for detailed analysis of environmental impacts were included in the total
number given "serious consideration."
- Number of Design/Location Alternatives Given Serious Consideration
— This was the total number of design/location alternatives that were given
"serious consideration". This information was found in the Executive Summary
or the Alternatives Chapter. The ones carried on for "serious consideration"
were those looked at for "final consideration" in the EIS.
- Did the Preferred Alternative Change Significantly — This
variable looked at whether the document made "significant changes" after a
given stage in the EIS process (i.e., after the Draft EIS, a Supplemental
Draft EIS and/or the Final EIS, in cases when a Supplemental Final EIS was
prepared). Changes were identified by comparing the Preferred Alternative
from each document stage and then cross referencing the Preferred Alternative
maps provided at each stage. Determining if it was a significant change depended
on the size and make-up of the change.
- Number of Households to be Relocated — This number was usually
found within the Executive Summary and/or in the Environmental Consequences
chapter as part of the Relocations section.
- Number of Businesses/Farms to be Relocated — This number,
similar to residential impacts, was usually found within the Executive Summary
and/or in the Environmental Consequences chapter as part of the Relocations
section.
- Other Relocation Assistance to be Carried Out — This field
includes any other relocation assistance that does not fall within the parameters
of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Properties Acquisition Act of
1970.
- Acres of Wetlands Impacted — This is the number of wetlands
impacted by the Preferred Alternative. This number was usually given in the
Executive Summary. However, if the acreage number was not in the Executive
Summary, it could usually be found in the Environmental Consequences chapter
as part of the Wetlands section.
- Acres of New Wetlands Created, Acres of Wetlands Enhanced/Restored
— Finding an exact acreage amount for these two variables was often times
very difficult. The acreage amounts, if found, would be within the Executive
Summary, the Mitigation section or, more specifically, the Wetland Mitigation
section. Most of the time there would be no acreage given, because the final
mitigation plan would be developed during the design phase of the project.
- Other Wetland Mitigation Measures — Other wetland mitigation
measures are any mitigation measures besides enhancement/restoration. Minimization
techniques such as culverts and bridging were not considered in this variable.
- Miles of Noise Barriers — This number was seldom given within
the Executive Summary. To find this number, the Environmental Consequences
chapter within the Noise section, and the mitigation portion of this section
were referenced. Often, instead of giving the actual miles of noise barriers
proposed for the project, the information was relayed via maps. If the maps
had a scale, a number would be obtained through measurement. If no scale was
given NA was entered onto the data collection sheet.
- Number of Eligible or Potentially Eligible Historic/Archaeological
Sites Studied — To render the number of potentially eligible historic/archaeological
sites requiring study, an understanding of the Cultural Resources section
in the Environmental Consequences chapter was obtained. Within this section
there is text outlining impacts to historic and archaeological sites. However,
it was imperative to make sure that only the sites that were considered eligible
or potentially eligible for inclusion in the National Register were included
in the count.
- Community Impact Mitigation Measures — Community Impact Mitigation
Measures were often mentioned in the Executive Summary of an EIS. They were
also discussed in greater detail in the Community Cohesion portion of the
Environmental Consequences chapter. If no specific Community Impact Mitigation
Measures were identified in these discussions, then it was assumed that no
such measures were applied.
- Visual Impacts Mitigation — Similar to Community Impact Mitigation
Measures, Visual Impact Mitigation measures were also found in the same two
locations within the EIS.
- Other Major Mitigation Measures — Other Major Mitigation Measures
used the same kind of methodology as Community Impact Mitigation Measures
and Visual Impacts Mitigation Measures. In this regard, only those mitigation
measures that were substantial or important in reducing/alleviating/counteracting
impacts resulting from the project were included. Within a project, if an
impact was being mitigated, it usually meant it played a role in the development
of the Preferred Alternative. Using this line of reason, most mitigation measures
were included in the Other Major Mitigation Measures field.
- Number of Public Meetings/Workshops, Public Hearings, Agency Meetings,
Public Official Meetings — Ascertaining the total number of meetings
varied from EIS to EIS. Each EIS approached revealing this information in
a different fashion. Some EISs set up a chronological table with dates and
documentation of every meeting. Other EISs used a summary format, and instead
of numerical values, used catch-all words such as "many", "several" or "numerous."
Other EISs would write of TAC meetings and CAC meetings that met monthly throughout
the process. However, there was no way of telling when the first meeting date
was, and the same could be said of the last meeting date. A numeric value
of all meetings was used in this field, and included the sum of all of the
individual types of meetings presented for the next several variables.
- Public Meetings/Workshops — This field included any meetings
where project officials and the general public met for an exchange of ideas,
or any meetings where information was updated by project officials to the
general public. These sessions also allowed a chance for suggestions by the
general public. A numeric value of all public meetings/workshops was used
in this field.
- Public Hearings — Official hearings dealt with comments and
issues raised within the Draft EIS. The hearings were governed over by project
leaders and representatives of both FHWA and state DOTs. An official court
reporter recorded all testimony given. Some EISs place the official transcripts
in the public involvement section of the Final EIS. A numeric value of all
public hearings was used in this field.
- Agency Meetings — These included any meetings that involved:
TAC, PAC, Federal Agencies, State Agencies, Local Agencies, Neighborhood Coalitions,
Activist Groups, and Local Companies. A numeric value of all agency meetings
was used in this field.
- Public Official Meetings — These included any meetings that
involved: Federally Elected Officials, State Elected Officials, City Councils,
Community Councils, and Town Managers. A numeric value of all public official
meetings was used in this field.
2.4.2 Development and Verification of Database
The information from the project data forms was entered into a Microsoft
Access database format that was suitable for statistical handling and analysis.
A total of 87 separate data fields of information, reflecting the types of
information included on the project data forms, were created from the outset. A
list of the variable names assigned to each of the data fields used and their
respective definitions is included in table 1. The actual final database
containing 244 records (250 minus the six records that were eliminated as
discussed in Section 2.3.2) and 87 fields per record is included in its entirety
in Appendix D.
Whenever a project was missing data for a given variable, either because that
variable didn´t apply to that project or because the answer could not be
determined, the entry was generally coded with a "999" so that it would be
excluded from any statistical analysis. The code "999" was used instead of "NA"
(Not Available) since the variables were primarily numerical in nature and
required a numerical value to indicate missing information as well. Once all of
the data were entered into the final database, a visual quality control check
was performed on the data to identify any anomalies such as milestone dates that
didn´t make sense in relation to other dates. When necessary, the original data
sources were consulted to verify that the data entered were correct. If a
transcription error was identified, the entered data was corrected. If the data
anomalies could not be explained or corrected, the data field entry was changed
to "999" in order to delete the data from further analysis.
table 1: Final Database Variables and Their
Definitions
PROJNAME |
Project Name |
PROJABBR |
Project Abbreviation |
REVNAME |
Reviewers Name |
CITY1 |
The city where the project was built |
CITY2 |
An additional city where the project was built. |
COUNTY1 |
The county where the project was built |
COUNTY2 |
An additional county where the project was built. |
COUNTY3 |
An additional county where the project was built. |
STATE1 |
The state where the project was built. |
STATE2 |
An additional state where the project was built. |
STATE3 |
An additional state where the project was built. |
LAND_USE |
Urban, suburban or rural use |
MSA |
A determination whether the project took place inside or
outside a metropolitan Statistical Area. |
GROWTH |
A determination whether the county where the project was
constructed was experiencing slow, moderate, or rapid growth or a decline
in population. |
FHWAREG |
Former FHWA region |
PROJTYP |
Project Type such as a new or widened highway, a new
interchange or bridge, etc. |
PROJTYP2 |
If the project had more than one major component, the
second was listed here. |
NEWLANES |
The number of new lanes added by the construction of the
project. |
LENGTH |
The length of the project. |
LAND_AQ |
The acres of land acquired for the project. |
NOI |
Notice of Intent Date. |
DEIS_YR |
The month and year the Draft EIS was signed. |
SDEIS_YR |
The month and year the Supplementary Draft EIS was signed.
(If applicable.) |
FEIS_YR |
The month and year the Final EIS was signed. |
DEIS_YR |
The month and year the Supplementary Final EIS was signed.
(If applicable.) |
OEIS_YR |
The month and year of any other document that was issued
in the EIS process. (If applicable.) |
PREVSTUDY |
A determination if any documents outside of the EIS
process were issued prior to the issue of an NOI date. Document such as
Needs Assessments, Environmental Assessments etc. would be included in
this category. |
FEIS_SIG |
The day, month, and year the Final EIS was signed. |
FED_SPSR |
Federal Agency in charge of overseeing EIS process. |
STATESPSR |
State Agency in charge of overseeing EIS
process. |
COOP_AG |
Number of Cooperating Agencies. |
COMM_AG |
Number of Commenting Agencies. |
COMMAGLOC |
Number of Local Commenting Agencies. |
COMAGSTA |
Number of State Commenting Agencies. |
COMAGFED |
Number of Federal Commenting Agencies. |
FED_AGEN |
Number of Federal Commenting Agencies. |
ST_AGEN |
Number of State Cooperating Agencies. |
EPA_RATE |
The EPA rating of the DEIS. |
PERM404 |
Whether or not a US Coast Guard permit was filed for the
project. |
PERMCG |
Whether or nota NPDES was filed for the project. |
PERM4F |
Whether or not a Section 4(f) was filed for the
project. |
PER106 |
Whether or not a Section 106 was filed for the
project. |
SECTION7 |
Whether or not a Section 7 was filed for the
project. |
PERMOTHR |
Whether or not any other permit was filed for the
project. |
ISSULAND |
Whether or not land use was a controversial issue in the
NEPA process. |
ISSUFARM |
Whether or not farmland was a controversial issue in the
NEPA process. |
ISSUECON |
Whether or not economic/fiscal impacts was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUNOIS |
Whether or not noise was a controversial issue in the NEPA
process. |
ISSUAQ |
Whether or not air quality was a controversial issue in
the NEPA process. |
ISSUVIS |
Whether or not visual impacts was a controversial issue in
the NEPA process. |
ISSUEWETL |
Whether or not wetlands was a controversial issue in the
NEPA process. |
ISSUT&E |
Whether or not threatened and endangered species was a
controversial issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUCULT |
Whether or not cultural resources was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUWQ |
Whether or not water quality was a controversial issue in
the NEPA process. |
ISSUINDR |
Whether or not indirect/secondary/cumulative impacts was a
controversial issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUEJ |
Whether or not environmental justice was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUCOM |
Whether or not community cohesion was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUVEG |
Whether or not vegetation impacts was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
BUSDISP |
Whether or not business displacements was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
RESDISP |
Whether or not residential displacements was a
controversial issue in the NEPA process. |
ISSUOTHR |
Whether or not other issues was a controversial issue in
the NEPA process. |
ISSUFLOODP |
Whether or not floodplain was a controversial issue in the
NEPA process. |
ISSUHAZMAT |
Whether or not hazardous materials was a controversial
issue in the NEPA process. |
PROJALT1 |
Number of transit system alternatives given serious
consideration. |
PROJALT2 |
Number of design/location alternatives given serious
consideration. |
CHGDEIS |
Whether or not the preferred alternative changed during
the SDEIS or FEIS. (If applicable.) |
CHGSDEIS |
Whether or not the preferred alternative changed during
the FEIS. (If applicable.) |
CHGFEIS |
Whether or not the preferred alternative changed during
the FEIS. (If applicable.) |
RELHH |
The number of households relocated. |
RELBUS |
The number of businesses relocated. |
RELOTHER |
The number of relocations other than those listed required
during the construction of the project. |
ACWETLI |
Acres of wetlands acquired. |
ACWETLR |
Acres of wetlands enhanced/restored. |
ACWETCRE |
Acres of wetlands created. |
OTHRWETL |
Other wetland mitigation. |
NOISES |
Miles of noise barriers. |
CRSITES |
Number of eligible or potentially eligible
historic/archeological sites studied. |
COMTYMIT |
Community impact mitigation measures. |
VISMIT |
Visual impacts mitigation. |
OTHERMIT |
Other significant mitigation measures. |
Public Meetings |
Number of public meetings/workshops. |
Public Hearings |
Number of public hearings. |
Agency Meetings |
Number of Agency meetings. |
Public Official |
Number of public official meetings. |
Other Public In |
Other significant public involvement. |
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2002
Upon completion of the visual quality control check, a computerized check to
further check for anomalies was conducted as described in Section 2.5.1 below.
In cases where the missing data were in a variable considered to be critical for
standardizing the database (e.g., Notice of Intent date), those records were
eliminated from further consideration. Details of the project records eliminated
from the originally-created 250 records in this manner are provided in Section
2.3.2.
Upon completion of the visual and computerized quality control checks, the
database was ready for undertaking statistical analysis.
2.5 Statistical Analysis MethodologyThe statistical analysis
methodology consists of several basic steps, as presented in summary fashion in
Section 2.1. The details of each basic step are provided in the following
subsections.
2.5.1 Identification of Descriptive Statistics
Similar to the Phase I Study, descriptive parameters of the database
variables were developed, first as a means to identify the general
characteristics of each variable and then as a method of identifying any further
anomalies in the data that were not caught during the visual quality control
check. In this regard, the final database was entered into the SPSS Base 10
statistical software package, which allows a variety of descriptive statistical
analyses to be performed.
The database was initially examined to determine if any values fell outside
of a range of values that was considered to be appropriate for a given variable.
Any values that suggested a potential error in the data or a suspicious outlier
were identified and flagged for further scrutiny. Values for variables measured
at the interval level were then examined in relation to the mean, standard
deviation, skewness, range, and maximum and minimum values. Histograms,
stemandleaf and boxandwhisker plots were created to provide a visual view of
the data (examples of these types of graphic representations are provided in the
Descriptive Statistics appendices). Probability plots, used to evaluate the
degree to which interval variables vary from the normal distribution, were
created for most continuous variables. In the case of nominal or ordinal
variables, a frequency analysis usually sufficed to indicate any anomalies.
Next, a number of computed variables were created from the original 87
variables included in the final database presented in table 1. One of these
variables, denoted as NEPATIME, was created to reflect the elapsed time
(calculated in seconds) between the date of the NOI and the date on the
signature page of the Final EIS. The resulting quantity was divided by
31,536,000 (24 hours x 60 minutes x 60 seconds x 365 days). The resulting number
was a close approximation to the years and fraction thereof between the EIS
start and end dates. This variable was designated NEPATIME and became the "raw"
dependent variable for most of the analysis. It was the only variable created in
this fashion.
In the above case, where one variable was subtracted from another, the
results were checked to ascertain if an inappropriate value resulted. For
example, if the year in which a process began was subtracted from the year in
which it ended and a negative result occurred, it indicates that the end date
was earlier than the begin date. An effort was then made to determine if there
was a data entry error or if the source data was incorrect. In every case, the
problem was corrected so that only those projects having positive NEPATIME
values was ultimately included in the database. In addition, NEPATIME for one
case was substantially longer than the others and represented a clear outlier.
Consistent with the procedure used in Phase 1, cases above 15 years of EIS
duration were eliminated from further analysis. As stated in Section 2.4.2
above, the final database contained 244 project records.
In addition to the new variable that was created to reflect the length of the
NEPA process, some computed variables were created by adding one variable to
another. These new variables included:
- TOTPERM = The sum of all permit and special studies variables for a given
project, to a maximum of 7 (i.e. those variables listed between and including
PERM404 and PERMOTHER in table 1).
- TOTISS = The sum of all issues variables for a given project, to a maximum
of 19 (i.e., those variables listed between and including ISSULAND and
ISSUHAZM in table 1).
- ALLREL = The sum of all relocations for a given project (i.e., total number
indicated by the variables RELHH, RELBUS and RELOTHER, in combination, in
table 1).
Some variables were transformed into different numeric equivalents such as
square roots or logarithms. The purpose of such transformation was to convert
interval variables that were not normally distributed into equivalents that
approximate the normal distribution. The following new variables were created
in this manner from either the initial variables listed in table 1 or other
created variables:
- SQRTNTIM = the square root of NEPATIME (Length of NEPA Process in Elapsed
Time)
- LGLENGTH = the log 10 of LENGTH (Length of the Project)
- CRTLNDAQ = the cube root of LAND_AQ (Acres of Land Acquired)
- LNALLREL = the natural log of ALLREL (All Relocations)
- LNWETACI = the natural log of ACWETLI (Acres of Wetlands Acquired)
The first of these became the transformed version of NEPATIME that would be
used in procedures that required a variable that approximated the normal
distribution. One problem with such transformations is that some values cannot
be transformed and become missing values; e.g. the square root of 0. In a data
set with a very large number of missing values to begin with, loss of further
data is not desirable and where such variables were used, other tests were
performed using the original data so as to minimize data loss.
A number of variables were reduced to categorical variables either because
their structure suggested categories or because no attempted transformation
succeeded in approximating a normal distribution. The categories were often
based on quartiles, sometimes on location of the median and sometimes on more
arbitrary grounds designed to avoid disproportionately large or small numbers
of cases in the categories. Of course, some original variables, such as FHWAREG,
MSA, GROWTH, and all of the permit and issues variables, as well as others were
categorical. Created variables and their categorized responses in parentheses
are presented below:
- CATCOOP = Number of Cooperating Agencies (COOP_AG in table 1), split into
four categories: (0) 0; (1) 1; (2) 2 and 3; (3) 4 or more.
- CATCOM = Number of Commenting Agencies (COMM_AG in table 1), split into
four categories: (1) 1—9; (2) 10—13; (3) 14—19; (4) 20 or more
- CATALT2 = Number of Design / Location Alternatives Given Serious
Consideration (PROJALT2 in table 1), split into two categories: (1) 0—3; (2) 4
or more
- CATWETLR = Acres of Wetlands Enhanced / Restored (ACWETLR in table 1),
split into two categories: (0) 0; (1) more than 0
- CATWETCR = Acres of Wetlands Created (ACWETCRE in table 1), split into two
categories: (0) 0; (1) more than 0
- CATNOIS = Miles of Noise Barriers (NOISEB in table 1), split into two
categories: (0) 0; (1) more than 0
- CATCRSIT = Number of Eligible or Potentially Eligible Historic /
Archaeological Sites Studied (CRSITES in table 1), split into four categories:
(0) 0; (1) 1—2; (2) 3—5; (3) 6—12; (4) 13 or more
- CATPUBM = Number of Public Meetings / Workshops (PUBLIC_M in table 1),
split into four categories: (1) 0—2; (2) 3—4; (3) 5—6; (4) 7 or more
- CATAGME = Number of Agency Meetings (AGENCY_M in table 1), split into four
categories: (1) 0—4; (2) 5—11; (3) 12—31; (4) 32 or more
- CATPUBH = Number of Public Hearings (PUBLIC_H in table 1), split into two
categories: (1) 0—1; (2) more than 1
- CATPUBO = Number of Public Official Meetings (PUBLIC_O in table 1) split
into four categories: (0) 0; (1) 1—2; (3) 3—7; (4) 8 or more
- NLCAT= Number of New Lanes Added (NEWLANES in table 1), split into four
categories: (0) 0; (1) 1—3; (2) 4; (3) 5 or more
- CATNPATI = Length of the NEPA Process in Elapsed Time (NEPATIME as a
created variable), split into four categories: (1) 0 — 3.1; (2) 3.1 — 4.7; (3)
4.7 — 6.6; (4) 6.6 or more
- GEOLOC 3 = Geographic Locations, derived from Former FHWA Regions (FHWAREG
in table 1) and split into three categories: (East) Regions 1—4; (Central)
Regions 5—8; (West) Regions 9 and 10
- GEOLOC = Geographic Locations, derived from Former FHWA Regions (FHWAREG
in table 1) and split into two regions: (Coastal) Regions 1—4, 9 and 10; (Central)
Regions 5—8.
Certain other variables were recoded to replace text values of the variables
with numerical values. These are not obvious, since the numerical values were
given text surrogates and appear as text even though they are actually
numerical. These variables, which were derived from some of the initial
variables presented in table 1, include the following:
- LUSE# = the numerical form of LAND_USE
- MSANUM = the numerical form of MSA
- GROW_NUM = the numerical form of GROWTH
- PROJTYP# = the numerical form of PROJTYP1
- RATE# = the numerical form of EPA_RATE
It should be noted that the addition of the created variables to the database
increased the total number of variables to 116, although not all of those
variables were used in the statistics analyses.
Interval variables, both computed and the original variables, were then run
through the SPSS program´s Exploratory Data module, which repeated some of the
descriptives, added others (e.g., medians, m-estimator measures, etc.) and
consolidated much of the information into a single set of tables. An additional
advantage of the Exploratory Data module is that it permits the compilation of
data by categories, so that exploratory data could be generated by former FHWA
Region and other categorical variables and then compare the results.
In developing the descriptive statistics, a number of assumptions were made.
These included the following:
- All data were drawn from a normal population
- All cases are independent of each other
- Significance level was set at 0.05 and, in cases where the statistical package
calculated the precise significance, it was provided.
- Assuming the data represent the entire population of available EISs, which
should be the case, randomness is not an issue.
2.5.2 Selection of Data Analysis Methods
Descriptive and analytical methods were limited to procedures available in
the SPSS Base 10 statistical package. The specific methods used from that
package are described below.
Identification of Data Distribution
Many statistical tests require that the data being analyzed be normally
distributed. Although the Central Limits Theorem technically would not apply
when an entire universe of cases is involved rather than a sample, an effort was
made to either transform non-normally distributed data to a form approximating a
normal distribution, or to test the data using procedures that do not require a
normal distribution. In addition, certain procedures, while formally assuming
normally distributed data, are in fact sufficiently robust to allow a departure
from this assumption. Examples include the ANOVA procedure and the T-test
procedure.
Interval data were examined for normalcy using both graphic and non-graphic
methods. First, the variable was subjected to a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test against
a theoretical normal distribution. If the significance level was greater than
0.05, the variable was assumed to not differ significantly from the normal
distribution. If the significance level was 0.05, the variable was treated as
being not normally distributed.
Data Transformations
Data identified as being nonnormally distributed were then visually examined
using one or more histograms and probability plots to identify the most likely
transformation method. If a given variable could be appropriately transformed
using the techniques available in the statistical package, this was done. In
some cases, the square root of the original variable resulted in a normal
distribution. In other cases, the logn, log10, reciprocal or exponential
transformations were tested. Transformation resulted in a new variable, but the
original variable was retained. The key variables created through such
transformation are identified above in Section 3.5.1.
Parametric Versus NonParametric Analyses
Some variables in the final database could not be easily transformed. Others
were clearly not interval data and were not normally distributed. For these
variables, nonparametric test procedures were utilized. Unlike parametric
procedures, non-parametric procedures do not require a normal distribution.
Non-parametric tests are generally considered to have less power than parametric
tests (i.e., there is a somewhat higher risk of a Type II error occurring, which
involves the failure to reject a hypothesis when it is actually false). Since
the norm in significance testing is to test a null hypothesis (e.g., there is
no difference in the length of the NEPA process between Regions 1 and 5),
the lower power of the non-parametric tests could result in failing to reject
that hypothesis. Therefore, wherever possible, parametric tests were used. In
each case, the transformed variable was tested parametrically and the original
variable was tested non-parametrically to compare the results.
2.5.3 Statistical Relationship Test Between Variables
Statistical relationship tests were conducted in order to answer a number of
questions, all of which relate to the length of the NEPA process. Specifically,
these tests were designed to identify which variables, if any, vary with the
length of the NEPA process, and which factors, if any, appear to differ with
respect to the length of the NEPA process. A list of the relationships that were
tested in this regard is shown in table 2.
The general approach to identifying any statistical relationships began by
first looking at the descriptive statistics as a whole, and then by looking at
the descriptive statistics broken down by categories suggested by the data
variables themselves. For example, a total of 244 cases of NEPATIME information
were available for analysis. These cases could then be grouped into categories
(e.g., by FHWA region) and the descriptive statistics could be obtained by
category (FHWA region) as well. The same process could then be followed for
dividing the cases into, for instance, those associated with a Section 4(f)
study and those not associated with a Section 4(f) study. Similar analyses could
be performed for a variety of other types of categories as well.
table 2 STATISTICAL TESTS CONDUCTED FOR THE LENGTH
OF THE NEPA PROCESS
PEARSON´S R TESTS |
SQRTNTIM by |
LGLENGTH |
|
|
|
CRTLNDAQ |
|
|
|
LNWETLI |
|
|
|
LNALLREL |
|
|
SPEARMAN´S RHO AND KENDALL´S TAU_b
TESTS |
NEPATIME by |
TOTPERM |
ACWETRE |
LAND_AQ |
|
ACWETLR |
NOISEB |
ACWETLI |
|
PUBLIC_M |
LENGTH |
TOTISS |
|
PUBLIC_H |
COOP_AG |
LENGTH |
|
ACWETLR |
NOISEB |
ACWETLI |
|
PUBLIC_M |
LENGTH |
TOTISS |
|
AGENCY_M |
COMM_AG |
COMSTA_AG |
|
PUBLIC_O |
PROJALT2 |
CONFED_AG |
|
ALLREL |
ACWETLI |
COMLOC_AG |
|
RELHH |
CRSITES |
RATE# |
|
RELBUS |
|
|
CATEGORICAL VARIABLES TESTED WITH
DIFFERENCE OF MEANS ANOVA |
|
GROWNUM |
CATCRSIT |
|
|
NLCAT |
CATPUBM |
|
|
CATCOOP |
CATPUBO |
|
|
CATCOM |
CATAGME |
|
|
CATPERM |
PROJTYPE |
|
|
CATCRSIT |
PROJTYPE2 |
|
DICHOTOMOUS VARIABLES TTESTED
VERSUS SQRTNTIM |
|
CATNOIS |
All Permit and Special |
|
|
CATALT2 |
Approval Variables |
|
|
CHGDEIS |
All Issues Variables |
|
|
COMTYMIT |
OTHERMIT |
|
|
VISMIT |
RELOTHER |
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002
The next step was to attempt to find significant differences in the length of
the NEPA process according to the categorical variables. The data for Phase II
of the study differ from those of Phase I in one important way. In Phase I, the
data were a sample drawn from a larger population.
It was appropriate, therefore to test the data to ascertain if two
independent samples (e.g., cases in which a Section 4(f) procedure was involved
and those for which it was not involved), were significantly different, that is,
drawn from the same or different populations. It was also important to learn if
the characteristics of the sample were likely to be the characteristics of the
population.
In the present instance, it can be argued that the data set is the
population, at least for the time period under study (i.e., 1995 — 2001).
Apparent differences in mean values are what they are and it is not really
necessary to test for significant differences. The counter argument is that
since FHWA-related EISs existed prior to the time period under study and
additional ones are being created and will continue to be created, the present
data set is a time-defined sample of a larger population (i.e., the entire
universe of FHWA-related EISs since implementation of NEPA through to the
present).
In cases where the data are categorical and ordinal, it is useful to run an
ANOVA using the SPSS Means procedure because, in addition to indicating whether
or not subgroups exist within the population, the difference of means test
(which involves an ANOVA) can show if the test variable varies with the
categorical variable. It can also show the extent to which the ordinal
categorical variable explains the variance of the test variable. That is to say,
is there a correlation? What is its direction and what is its strength? It can
also show if the correlation is linear or non-linear. These tests are only
available where there are more than two categories and they are ordinally
ranked. They produce both Pearson's R and Eta. The former requires a linear
correlation, and its square shows the proportion of variance in the one variable
that is explained by the other. Eta is analogous, but does not require a linear
relationship. Its square indicates the proportion of variance in the dependent
interval variable explained by the categorical variable. Eta may also be
calculated for a nominal variable versus an interval variable in the SPSS
Crosstabs procedure.
The means procedure was used for a number of categorical variables. The
results are found in Appendix E.
For nominal categorical variables involving more than two categories, the
SPSS one-way ANOVA procedure was used. The analysis of NEPATIME and SQRTNTIM by
former FHWA region is an example of the group of analysis. The results of these
ANOVAs and selected Post Hoc tests may be found in Appendix F.
T-tests were conducted for all dichotomous variables, not so much to
ascertain if they are from different populations, but to assess the probability
of obtaining differences in the dependent variable mean as large as those that
were obtained. Exact significances are provided in these cases. The results of
the various T-Tests may be found in Appendix G.
Finally, any correlations between the length of the NEPA process and other
interval variables were sought. First, the two variables to be tested were
placed in a scattergram. If a meaningful relationship between two variables
existed, the pattern would be seen in the scattergram. The results of the
scattergram were further confirmed either by obtaining Pearson´s R for
approximately normal data or ascertaining the correlation through use of
nonparametric procedures such as Spearman´s Rho. Spearman´s Rho also permits
calculating a correlation between ranked categorical variables and between
ranked categorical variables and interval variables.
A series of cross tabulations was also conducted using NEPATIME as a
dependent variable cross tabulated with a series of categorical variables and
using a categorized version of NEPATIME, CATNPATI. The Chi-square or variation
of this statistic was utilized in the purely categorical crosstabs. Where a
nominal categorical variable was cross-tabulated with an interval variable
(NEPATIME), the Eta coefficient was calculated. In some cases it was appropriate
to cross tabulate a nominal variable with an ordinal variable. In such cases the
Chi-square statistic was relied on merely to ascertain if the variables are
independent of each other.
3.0 RESULTS OF RESEARCH
This section presents the major results of the statistical analysis of this
research. The first set of findings relate to descriptive statistics on the
length of the NEPA process, which is really the heart of this entire analysis.
The second set of findings relates to descriptive statistics on factors
considered other than length of the NEPA process. The final set of findings
relate to the relationship between length of the NEPA process and other factors
considered.
3.1 Descriptive Statistics on the Length of the NEPA Process
The descriptive statistics on the length of the NEPA process for the country
as a whole during the period 1995—2001 are presented first within this section,
followed by descriptive statistics on the length of the NEPA process by the
individual former FHWA regions.
3.1.1 Overall Descriptive Statistics
As discussed in the previous section, the Length of the NEPA Process was
denoted in this analysis as the variable NEPATIME, which was calculated on the
basis of the following:
NEPATIME = FEIS_SIG (the signature date of the Final EIS) - NOI (Notice of
Intent date)
A descriptive analysis of NEPATIME was run. The results, which are presented
in table 3 below and in both tabular and graphic form in Appendix H, indicate
that the mean average value of NEPATIME during the 1995 — 2001 Phase II study
period is approximately 5.1 years, with a standard deviation of 2.6 years and
values ranging from 0.6 to 14.3 years. This mean value of NEPATIME is substantially
greater than the mean of 3.6 years for the entire study period considered in
Phase I. This is not surprising given that the Phase I mean of 3.6 years included
mostly EIS projects completed during the 1970s and 1980s, when there were fewer
specific regulatory requirements covered under the overall NEPA umbrella, and
no EIS projects completed more recently than the early 1990s.
table 3:
LENGTH OF NEPA PROCESS (In Years)
PARAMETER |
NEPATIME |
SQRTNTIM |
EQUIVALENT |
MEAN |
5.1 |
2.1819 |
4.8 |
MEDIAN |
4.7 |
2.1752 |
4.7 |
STANDARD DEVIATION |
2.6 |
0.5899 |
|
MIDRANGE (Interquartile range) |
3.5 |
0.7987 |
|
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002.
Similarly, the NEPATIME mean value of 5.1 years for the 1995 — 2001 Phase II
study period is substantially greater than the mean values of 2.2 years and 4.4
years for EIS projects completed in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, and
slightly higher than the mean value of 5.0 years for EIS projects completed in
the early 1990s. Once again, this is not a surprising finding.
It should be noted, however, that the NEPATIME variable was found to be not
normally distributed, indicating that the mean value may not be a true indicator
of central tendency for that variable, so other indicators of central tendency
were obtained. This was also the case in the Phase I analysis where the mean
value was determined not to be a true indicator of central tendency. Upon
further analysis, the median value, which is the midpoint among the full set of
NEPATIME values that divides the observations into two groups of equal numbers,
was determined to be about 4.7 years for the 1995 — 2001 Phase II study period,
as indicated in table 3.
The reason that the median value is somewhat less than the mean value is
because the higher values of NEPATIME that were included in the analysis (i.e.,
those approaching the highest value of 14.3 years considered in the analysis)
tend to skew the mean on the high side, even though such higher values are in
the minority. Therefore, in this case, the median value is likely to be a more
realistic indicator of the typical length required for complying with the NEPA
process during the 1995-2001 Phase II study period. This indication is confirmed
by a series of socalled mestimators generated by the SPSS statistical program.
These mestimators attach various weightings to ranges of values of a variable
to arrive at an estimate of the actual central value that is more valid than the
mean. In this case, the range of m-estimators was between 4.8 and 4.9 years.
The NEPATIME median value of 4.7 years for the 1995 — 2001 Phase II study
period compares to the Phase I median value of only 3.0 years. Once again, this
difference is not surprising given the difference in study years and the greater
procedural and technical requirements imposed on the NEPA process in more recent
years.
A KolmogorovSmirnov test comparing the distribution of NEPATIME with a
theoretical normal distribution was also run. This test indicated that NEPATIME
was significantly different from the normal distribution. A new variable, which
was not significantly different from the normal distribution, was created by
taking the square root of NEPATIME (SQRTNTIM). For many of the subsequent
statistical analyses, SQRTNTIM was utilized instead of NEPATIME due to the more
normal distribution of that variable, although equivalent NEPATIME values are
also reported when appropriate. If one takes the mean value of SQRTNTIM (almost
2.2) and expresses it in terms of NEPATIME by squaring it, one finds that the
mean SQRTNTIM is equivalent to almost 4.8 years in terms of NEPATIME. This is
consistent with the mestimators calculated for NEPATIME. Based on the mean and
standard deviation produced by SQRTNTIM, it appears that most cases under study
have a NEPATIME that lies between approximately 2.5 and 7.7 years.
Although the NEPATIME equivalent of 4.8 years is probably a better indicator
of the true mean value for the Phase II dataset, it is appropriate to use the
actual NEPATIME mean value of 5.1 years for purposes of comparison with the
Phase I mean values. This is due to the fact that the mean values presented in
Phase I reflected actual NEPATIME rather than NEPATIME equivalent.
The SQRTNTIM mean and median values, as well as SQRTNTIM standard deviation
and interquartile range values are presented in table 3. Similar values for its
NEPATIME equivalent are also presented in the table.
3.1.2 Descriptive Statistics by Region
The next step involved exploratory analysis of NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM
categorized according to the nine former FHWA regions. The results are
summarized in table 4 below, and are presented in greater detail in Appendix I.
Those regions exhibiting the highest mean NEPATIME values are clustered close
together, indicating that they have recently taken close to the same amount of
time to complete the NEPA process on average, but have taken longer than any of
the other regions. Region 4 (Southeast) demonstrated the highest NEPATIME value
at 5.6 years, followed closely by Regions 1 (Northeast), 3 (Mid-Atlantic) and 10
(Northwest) at approximately 5.5 years each, and then by Region 9 (Southwest) at
approximately 5.3 years. The median NEPATIME values for these five clustered
regions are also higher than the other regions, although they are not
necessarily in the same order as the mean values. The median values for these
five clustered regions range from a high of 6.0 years for Region 3
(Mid-Atlantic) to a low of 5.2 years for Region 9 (Southwest).
table 4:
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS OF NEPATIME BY REGION
REGION/VARIABLE |
CASES |
NEPATIME |
SQRTNTIM |
|
|
MEAN |
MEDIAN |
MEAN |
EQUIVALENT |
1 — Northwest |
23 |
5.5 |
5.3 |
2.2543 |
5.1 |
3 — MidAtlantic |
43 |
5.5 |
6.0 |
2.2491 |
5.1 |
4 — Southeast |
33 |
5.6 |
5.7 |
2.3177 |
5.4 |
5 — Midwest |
39 |
5.2 |
4.5 |
2.2023 |
4.8 |
6 — South Central |
20 |
3.8 |
3.6 |
1.8948 |
3.6 |
7 — Plain States |
22 |
4.4 |
3.9 |
2.0031 |
4.0 |
8 — Rocky Mtn. States |
12 |
3.8 |
3.3 |
1.8766 |
3.5 |
9 — Southwest |
34 |
5.3 |
5.2 |
2.2498 |
5.1 |
10 — Northwest |
18 |
5.5 |
5.4 |
2.2796 |
5.2 |
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002.
At the other end of the spectrum, Regions 6 (South Central) and 8 (Rocky
Mountain states) exhibited the lowest mean NEPATIME values of approximately 3.8
years, indicating that it has recently taken almost two years less to complete
the NEPA process in those regions than in the longest regions. Their median
NEPATIME values were also the lowest of all the regions, with values of 3.6 and
3.3 years for Regions 6 and 8, respectively.
On the basis of the NEPATIME mean and median values for all of the regions,
some interesting comparisons with the results of the Phase I research can be
made. Most interesting of all, perhaps, is the general magnitude of the values
for the regions in this study in comparison to those from the Phase I study. Of
the nine former FHWA regions, six of them are now shown to exhibit higher mean
and median values than the highest region previously. Whereas Region 1
(Northeast) had the highest mean and median values of 4.7 and 4.5 years,
respectively, in the Phase I study, the highest mean and median values of any
region in the current study are 5.6 and 6.0 years, respectively, with the
highest mean value in Region 4 (Southeast) and the highest median value in
Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic). This fact is probably an indication of the
ever-increasing complexity and difficulty in completing the NEPA process over
time. The Phase I study only covered NEPA projects that were completed from
inception of NEPA in the early 1970s through the early 1990s; in contrast, the
current study only covers NEPA projects that were completed in the late 1990s
and early 2000s. The general trend is similar to that for NEPA projects in all
former FHWA regions combined, as presented in Section 3.1.1 above.
The other interesting finding in comparison to the Phase I study is that the
particular regions that took the longest to complete the NEPA process during the
1970s through the early 1990s are still essentially those that have taken the
longest during the most recent years. Regions 1 (Northeast) and 4 (Southeast),
the two regions exhibiting the highest NEPATIME values in Phase I, still have
two of the higher NEPATIME values although not the highest. The clustering of
regions at the high end is probably an indication that other regions that
formerly exhibited lower NEPATIME values have caught up to Regions 1 (Northeast)
and 4 (Southeast) in terms of the difficulty in completing the process. This is
especially true for Region 10 (Northwest), which had the lowest NEPATIME values
in Phase I and now is among the highest.
As discussed previously in Section 3.1.1, the mean NEPATIME values presented
in table 4 are probably somewhat overstated due to the fact that they were found
to be not normally distributed. Therefore, the median values could be considered
better indicators of the central value of NEPATIME than the mean values. Even
better indicators are the SQRTNTIM mean values and, using those values,
developing NEPATIME equivalents of the mean values. These are better indicators
because the SQRTNTIM variable was found to be more normally distributed than
NEPATIME.
Using the SQRTNTIM / NEPATIME equivalent mean values as presented in table 4,
the results are fairly consistent with those found using the basic NEPATIME
values, although they are somewhat lower. Region 4 (Southeast) still
demonstrated the highest NEPATIME (equivalent) value at 5.4 years, followed by
Region 10 (Northwest) at 5.2 years and Regions 1 (Northeast), 3 (Mid-Atlantic)
and 9 (Southwest) at approximately 5.1 years. Similarly, at the other end of the
spectrum, Regions 8 (Rocky Mountains states) and 6 (South Central), still
demonstrated the lowest NEPATIME (equivalent) values at 3.5 and 3.6 years,
respectively.
As was the case for the entire dataset of all regions combined, the NEPATIME
equivalent mean values are somewhat better indicators of the true mean values
for the individual regions studied in Phase II. However, it is once again
appropriate to use the actual NEPATIME mean values for the individual regions in
Phase II for purposes of comparison with the mean values for the individual
regions in Phase I. This is also due to the fact that the mean values presented
in Phase I reflected actual NEPATIME rather than NEPATIME equivalent.
Further geographic analysis was also performed in an effort to obtain any
additional trends that may exist. A cross tabulation of the variables FHWAREG
(the former FHWA regions) with CATNPATI (a categorized version of NEPATIME)
provided some interesting geographical differences in the frequency of cases in
each region to upper and lower halves of NEPATIME range. For example, Regions 1
(Northeast), 3 (Mid-Atlantic) and 4 (Southeast) had approximately 52, 60 and 70
percent of their respective cases in the upper half of the NEPATIME
distribution. Conversely, Regions 5 (Midwest), 6 (South Central), 7 (Plains
states) and 8 (Rocky Mountain states) had 59, 75, 64 and 82 percent of their
cases, respectively, in the lower half of the NEPATIME range. Then, similar to
the distributions for the three eastern regions, Regions 9 (Southwest) and 10
(Northwest) had 59 and 56 percent of their cases, respectively, in the upper
half of the NEPATIME range. The Cramer's V had a significance of 0.01,
indicating that the regions and the quartiles of NEPATIME are not independent of
each other, although the low value of V (0.24) indicates a weak relationship.
The Eta value generated by examining NEPATIME by region finds that only about 5
percent of the variance in NEPATIME is accounted for by location within various
FHWA regions. Although the ANOVA that tested the difference in the means of the
dependent variables by each of the former FHWA regions did not find significant
differences at the .05 significance level, the actual significance level was
approximately 0.08. The individual regions were then collapsed into three
categories in a variable called GEOLOC3. Regions 1 - 4 are identified as "East"
Regions 5 - 8 are identified as "Central" and Regions 9 and 10 are identified as
"West. An ANOVA shows that there is a difference among the three categories with respect to the mean SQRTNTIM, with a significance of 0.02. Post hoc tests show that Category "East" forms one homogeneous group and Region "Central" forms another. Category "West" could belong to either group at the 0.05 significance level, but is clearly coupled with "East" if the test significance level is raised to 0.10. If the regions are collapsed into "Coastal" (Regions 1, 3, 4, 9 and 10) and "Central" (5, 6, 7 and 8) categories, a Ttest of the Coastal/Central variable GEOGLOC * SQRTNTIM shows a significance of 0.00. The mean SQRTNTIM for "Coastal" regions was approximately 2.3 (NEPATIME equivalent = 5.1 years) and for "Central" it was approximately 2.0 (NEPATIME equivalent = 4.2 years).
These results, which are presented in table 5, indicate that it may be more appropriate to consider geographical differences in the length of the NEPA process by geographical categories that are larger than the former FHWA regions. In the case of the three categories, "East," "Central" and "West," it appears that there may be a real difference in the amount of time required to comply with NEPA, with the greatest time required in the "East" and "West" areas. This finding is consistent with the analysis of "Coastal" and "Central" categories, where the Coastal areas were found to require the most time to comply.
table 5: RELATIONSHIP OF GEOGRAPHIC CATEGORIES WITH NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM
|
N |
Mean NEPATIME (years) |
Mean SQRTNTIM |
NEPATIME EQUIV. (years) |
GEOLOC3 |
|
|
|
|
East |
99 |
5.5 |
2.2732 |
5.2 |
Central |
93 |
4.5 |
2.0470 |
4.2 |
West |
52 |
5.4 |
2.22601 |
5.1 |
ANOVA Significance |
|
.03 |
.02 |
|
GEOLOC |
|
|
|
|
Coastal |
151 |
5.5 |
2.2687 |
5.1 |
Central |
93 |
4.5 |
2.0470 |
4.2 |
Ttest Significance |
|
.01 |
.00 |
|
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002.
3.2 Descriptive Statistics on Other Factors Considered
Similar to the NEPATIME variable, descriptive statistics were also analyzed
for the other factors to be tested for statistical relationships with NEPATIME
and/or its more normally distributed squareroot value, SQRTNTIM / NEPATIME
equivalent. Highlights of selected descriptive statistics, which include number
of valid cases and frequencies for categorical variables, as well as number of
valid cases and mean, median, standard deviation and inter-quartile range values
for continuous variables, are presented in table 6. The particular variables
presented in the table include those which were subsequently found to have
significant statistical relationships with NEPATIME and/or SQRTNTIM / NEPATIME
equivalent, as well as some others considered to be key variables which are not
presented in detail elsewhere in this section.
table 6:
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR SELECTED VARIABLES
Variable (N) |
Mean |
Median |
Standard Deviation |
Inter-Quartile Range |
Frequency |
LAND_USE (244) |
|
|
|
|
|
rural |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
115 |
small city |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
98 |
urban |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
31 |
MSA (244) |
|
|
|
|
|
within |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
157 |
without |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
63 |
both |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
24 |
GROWTH (227) |
|
|
|
|
|
declining |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
35 |
moderate |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
43 |
rapid |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
107 |
slow |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
42 |
CHGDEIS (244) |
|
|
|
|
|
yes |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
55 |
no |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
189 |
LENGTH (231) |
13.8 |
8.3 |
16.9 |
12.8 |
NA |
LAND_AQ (168) |
440.8 |
139.6 |
782.3 |
574.6 |
NA |
COOP_AG (244) |
1.7 |
1.0 |
1.9 |
2.0 |
NA |
COMM_AG (243) |
16.5 |
13.0 |
14.2 |
10.0 |
NA |
COMAGSTA (242) |
3.7 |
3.0 |
2.4 |
3.0 |
NA |
ISSUECON |
|
|
|
|
|
yes |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
31 |
no |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
213 |
ISSUWQ (244) |
|
|
|
|
|
yes |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
77 |
no |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
167 |
CATPUBH (236) |
|
|
|
|
|
01 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
160 |
>1 |
NA |
NA |
NA |
NA |
76 |
PUBLIC_M (225) |
6.1 |
4.0 |
15.6 |
4.0 |
NA |
Note: NA indicates "Not Applicable." Source: The Louis Berger
Group, Inc., 2002.
Frequencies for all categorical variables tested, including some not shown in
table 6, are presented in Appendix J. These frequencies indicate the number of
responses for each categorical response that were received within the sample.
For instance, in the case of the LAND_USE variable, 115 out of the 244 valid
responses were identified as being rural in character, while 98 were identified
as being suburban and 31 were identified as urban. Similar frequencies are
presented in Appendix J for additional variables as well. These frequencies were
then used to identify the appropriate types of further analyses to be performed
(i.e., whether to treat them as continuous or categorical variables in the
subsequent testing).
3.3 Statistical Relationship of the Length of the NEPA Process with Other
Factors
Having developed the descriptive statistics for the length of the NEPA
process and other factors, the next step was to refine the search for
correlations and relationships between NEPATIME (or its surrogate) and other
variables in the data set. The surrogate variable for NEPATIME, SQRTNTIM, which
represents the square root of NEPATIME, was used when the tests involved
indicated an assumption of a normal distribution. Since the interval variables
in the present dataset were not normally distributed and many were not easily
transformed to a nearnormal form, nonparametric tests were often used. When
this was the case, relationships were generally tested both with NEPATIME and
with its surrogate. The reason that SQRTNTIM was generally used in identifying
linear correlations using Pearson´s "R" correlations was because it more
closely approximates a normal distribution than NEPATIME.
After visual examination by means of a scattergram for most interval data
variables, Pearson (parametric) or Spearman (nonparametric) correlation tests
were run against NEPATIME and SQRTNTIM. Ranked (ordinal) categorical data were
compared with NEPATIME and SQRTNTIM to see if the dependent variable values
varied with the categories. The SPSS Means procedure is appropriate for use in
making such comparisons because it offers an optional ANOVA which
produces an estimate of the correlation between categorical variables and
continuous dependent variables such as NEPATIME or SQRTNTIM.
Unlike in the earlier Phase I research where a variety of other factors were
found to have a statistical correlation or relationship with the length of the
NEPA process, few correlations or relationships were found to exist in this
follow-up study within the 0.05 level of significance. In fact, only two
significant correlations with interval variables were found in this study, and
both were rather weak. One of those cases is relatively unexplainable as to why
such a correlation even exists. In addition, significant relationships between
three categorical variables and NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM were found to exist as well.
Once again, the connection between those variables and NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM is
not clear or easily explainable.
The reason for the current lack of correlations and/or relationships between
key factors that were previously found to have influence on the length of the
NEPA process (e.g., Section 404, Section 4(f), Noise issues, etc.) and the
dependent variables is unknown. Perhaps it is indicative of the fact that no
single factor can explain the length of the NEPA process in recent years, as
projects have become even more complex and other factors have become more
interrelated than in earlier years. Whatever the reason is, the fact remains
that only a few of the many factors considered can be used to explain the length
of the NEPA process in a statistical fashion.
Of all of the relationships tested, only two significant correlations were found between tested interval or continuous variables and the dependent variables. One was between COMAGSTA (the number of state agencies commenting on the EIS) and NEPATIME. Although the correlation between these two variables is statistically significant and the probability of its occurrence by chance is small, the strength of the correlation between the two variables is weak. The correlation between these two variables as determined by the Spearman method and the correlation coefficient, Rho, was 0.18 with a significance of 0.00 and n = 242. These results indicate that little of the variance in NEPATIME is explained by COMAGSTA. From a practical perspective, it is also unclear why a relationship exists between these two variables, although the number of state agencies commenting may be indicative of the level of complexity of the EIS project.
Utilizing the Pearson and Spearman methods of correlation, only one other
interval variable was found to correlate to either of the dependent variables at
the 0.05 confidence level. The second significant correlation identified was
between RATE# (numerical form of the EPA ratings variable, EPA_RATE) and
NEPATIME, utilizing the Spearman Rho and Kendall´s tau_b. EPA
ratings were converted to a numerical form and stored in a variable called
RATE#. The numbers ranged from 1 to 11, with 1 representing the least EPA level
of concern (LO1) and 11 representing the most EPA level of concern (EU3).
Labels were then assigned to the numbers so that they would appear as the
original ratings. It should be noted that there are more than eleven possible
EPA rating combinations, but only eleven existed within the research database.
RATE# was then correlated to NEPATIME using both Spearman Rho and
Kendall´s tau_b. Both tests demonstrated a significant but weak positive
correlation. Kendall´s tau_b presented a correlation of 0.14 with a
significance of 0.01. The Spearman Rho produced a correlation of 0.18
with a significance of 0.01. In both cases, n = 204.
The relationships between a variety of other variables and the dependent
variables, NEPATIME and / or SQRTNTIM, were also tested, using Ttests for the
dichotomous or categorical variables versus SQRTNTIM. As stated previously, the
purpose of these Ttests was not to determine if the values were derived from
different populations, but to estimate the probability of differences of the
size obtained. Only three variables showed differences in the mean values of
SQRTNTIM that were significant at the 0.05 level:
VARIABLE |
|
SIG. |
ISSUECON |
(Indicator of whether or not economic/fiscal impacts was a
controversial issue) |
0.02 |
ISSUWQ |
(Indicator of whether or not water quality was a controversial issue)
|
0.01 |
CATPUBH |
(Categorized version indicating number of public hearings) |
0.03 |
Another variable, CHGDEIS (Indicator of whether or not the Preferred
Alternative changed substantially after the DEIS), exhibited a significance
level of 0.06, which was just slightly over the 0.05 level used in this study.
Due to its proximity to the threshold level, it was determined that
variable merits further consideration as a factor affecting NEPA process
time.
Although a number of other significant correlations and/or relationships were
also detected in the tests, none of them involved either of the dependent
variables, NEPATIME or SQRTNTIM. Since these correlations did not involve a
variable indicating the length of the NEPA process, they were not of specific
interest to this study. Even so, a few examples of the other significant
correlations and/or relationships are presented below, while the full array of
correlations and relationships are presented in the matrices in Appendix K:
LGLENGTH (Log10 of LENGTH) * CRTLNDAQ (Cube root of
LAND_AQ) LNALLREL (Natural log of ALLREL) * LGLENGTH (Log10 of
LENGTH) ALLREL (Casewise sum of RELHH, RELBUS and RELOTHER) *
LAND_AQ (Acres of land acquired for the project) CRSITES (Number of
eligible or potentially eligible historic / archaeological sites) * TOTPERM
(Casewise sum of all permit and special studies
variables)
The results of all correlation tests between the various factors considered
and the dependent variables indicating length of the NEPA process are described
below, regardless of whether or not they were found to be statistically
significant correlations. These results are presented according to general
variable types:
- Geographical Setting Variables — The nominal variables LUSE#
(Numerical form of LAND_USE), MSANUM (Numerical form of MSA) and FHWAREG (Former
FHWA regions) were tested against NEPATIME using the Crosstabs procedure.
None showed an Eta value that demonstrated a significant relationship with
NEPATIME.
GROW_NUM (Numerical form of GROWTH), used as a ranked variable, was compared
with NEPATIME and SQRTNTIM using the SPSS Difference of Means procedure.
The ANOVA showed no significant difference among the GROWTH categories.
Tests for linearity showed no linear relationship and no clear non-linear
relationship. Eta, which does not require a linear relationship and which
predicts the variation in the interval variable due to the categorical variable,
suggests that GROWTH explains only two percent of NEPATIME variance.
- Project Type Variables — NLCAT (NEWLANES placed into four categories),
used as a ranked variable, was compared with NEPATIME and SQRTNTIM using the
SPSS Difference of Means procedure. The ANOVA showed no significant difference
among the NLCAT categories. Tests for linearity showed no linear relationship
and no clear nonlinear relationship. Eta, which does not require a linear
relationship and which predicts the variation in the interval variable due
to the categorical variable, suggests that NLCAT explains only 1.3 percent
of NEPATIME variance.
-
Project Alternatives Variables — No significant relationships
between the dependent variables and the number of project alternatives were
identified. The dependent variables were not tested against PROJALT1 (Number
of transit system alternatives given serious consideration) because of the
large number of projects not considering such alternatives (212) and those
that did (32). PROJALT2 (Number of design / location alternatives given
serious consideration) was only somewhat more evenly distributed, but considered
to be suitable for a correlation test using Spearman´s Rho. The results,
however, showed no significant relationship with the dependent variables.
- Permit and Special Approval Variables — A number of permit
and special approval requirements demonstrated sizeable differences in the
length of the NEPA process, reflecting whether or not such permit / approval
was required for a given project. Although none of these variables were found
to be statistically related to NEPATIME / SQRTNTIM within the 0.05 confidence
level, the fact that such sizeable differences in the length of the NEPA process
were found between those projects where particular permits and/or special
approval processes were involved and those projects where such permits and/or
special approval processes were not involved, it is worth considering these
relationships. Specifically, it is useful to examine both the mean and the
median differences among cases requiring particular permits or approvals and
those that did not.
These variables are all dichotomous nominal variables indicating whether
the case required the particular permit or approval ("True"), coded as a
"1", or did not ("False") coded as a "0." These are presented in their entirety
in Appendix K and are summarized in table 7.
In considering the mean values for NEPATIME, it was found that a
Coast Guard Bridge permit may extend the length of the NEPA process by more
than seven months. Whereas the mean NEPATIME value is 5.6 years for projects
involving a Coast Guard Bridge permit, those projects where no such permit
was required demonstrates a mean NEPATIME value of only 5.0 years. In the
case of the NEPATIME equivalents derived from SQRTNTIM, the difference between
those projects involving a Coast Guard Bridge permit and those not involving
such a permit is only about six months, with the actual mean values being
somewhat less than the regular NEPATIME mean values (i.e., 5.2 years and
4.7 years for those with and without the permit requirement, respectively).
In either case, however, a sizeable difference is indicated. It should be
noted that the number of projects requiring a Coast Guard permit during
the 1995 — 2001 period has been relatively small (197 "False" responses
versus 47 "True").
Section 4(f) evaluations also exhibited a sizeable, albeit not statistically
significant difference between those projects involving such evaluations
and those not involving such evaluations. In the case of mean values for
NEPATIME, approximately six months difference exists between the two groups
of projects, with those requiring the Section 4(f) evaluation being the
higher of the two (i.e., 5.4 years vs. 4.9 years). In the case of the mean
values for the NEPATIME equivalent derived from SQRTNTIM, less than five
months difference between the two groups is indicated. The mean values for
the NEPATIME equivalent are also somewhat lower in comparison to the actual
NEPATIME mean values as well (i.e., 5.0 years and 4.6 years for those with
and without the Section 4(f) evaluation required, respectively). The distribution
of "True" and "False" responses for this variable is more even than in the
case of the Coast Guard Bridge permits (i.e., 95 "True" responses and 149
"False" responses).
table 7:
RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LENGTH OF NEPA PROCESS AND SELECTED OTHER REGULATORY
REQUIREMENTS
|
Cases |
Mean
NEPATIME
(years) |
Median
NEPATIME
(years) |
Mean
SQRTNTIM |
Median
SQRTNTIM |
NEPATIME
Equivalent
(years) |
CG Bridge |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
47 |
5.6 |
4.8 |
2.2773 |
2.1802 |
5.2 |
False |
197 |
5.0 |
4.7 |
2.1620 |
2.1702 |
4.7 |
SECT 4(f) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
95 |
5.4 |
4.8 |
2.2404 |
2.1859 |
5.0 |
False |
149 |
4.9 |
4.7 |
2.1445 |
2.1702 |
4.6 |
SECT 7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
110 |
5.1 |
4.7 |
2.1962 |
2.2 |
4.8 |
False |
1134 |
5.1 |
4.8 |
2.1744 |
2.2 |
4.7 |
SECT 404 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
219 |
5.1 |
4.7 |
2.1832 |
2.2 |
4.8 |
False |
25 |
5.1 |
5.3 |
2.1930 |
2.3 |
4.8 |
SECT 106 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
200 |
5.1 |
4.8 |
2.1864 |
2.2 |
4.8 |
False |
44 |
5.1 |
4.4 |
2.1741 |
2.1 |
4.7 |
NPDES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
100 |
5.3 |
4.9 |
2.2240 |
2.2083 |
5.0 |
False |
144 |
5.3 |
4.9 |
2.1526 |
2.1594 |
4.7 |
-
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002.
Surprisingly, the other permit / special approval that showed a sizeable
difference in the length of the NEPA process between those projects with
and without such approval is NPDES. As with the Coast Guard Bridge permit
and the Section 4(f) evaluation variables, the relationship between NPDES
and any of the variables indicating length of the NEPA process is not significant
to the 0.05 level. Those projects requiring a NPDES approval were found
to exhibit a mean NEPATIME value of 5.3 years while those projects not requiring
a NPDES approval were found to exhibit a mean NEPATIME value of 5.0 years,
a difference of between 3 — 4 months. For the NEPATIME equivalent derived
from SQRTNTIM, the 3 — 4 month difference still applies, although the actual
mean values are less (i.e., 5.0 years for projects requiring NPDES and 4.7
years for projects not requiring NPDES). The distribution of "True" and
"False" responses for this variable is fairly even, with 100 "True" responses
and 144 "False" responses.
It should be noted that for each of the above three permit / special approval
variables, the median NEPATIME values were found to exhibit only a minor
difference between those projects requiring the approval and those projects
not requiring the approval. The median NEPATIME values for all three variables,
including those with and without the various permit / special approvals,
are somewhat lower than the corresponding mean values. In some cases, these
median values reflect NEPA process times that are as much as 7 — 10 months
shorter than when the mean values are considered. In all three cases, the
median NEPATIME differences between those projects requiring a particular
permit / special approval and those not requiring such permit / special
approval are less than when the mean values are considered.
In the case of Section 7 consultation, Section 106 approval and Section
404 permitting, it was found that virtually no difference exists in the
mean values of NEPATIME or the NEPATIME equivalent derived from SQRTNTIM.
The Section 404 finding, in particular, is surprising and impossible to
explain, given that a sizeable and statistically significant difference
in the length of the NEPA process was found between those projects with
and without the permit requirement during the Phase I research. When analyzing
the median values of NEPATIME associated with all three of these permit
/ special approval variables, the relationship becomes even more obscured
given that two of them (i.e., Section 7 and Section 404) exhibit higher
median values for projects not involving those particular approvals. Once
again, since no significant relationships to the 0.05 confidence level were
found for any of these three variables, the findings are likely to be meaningless.
- Issues Variables — The issues variables related to whether or not
specific issues were identified in the EIS. These variables were of the same
nature and were dealt with in the same manner as the permit and special approval
variables, above. Some of the issues variables showed remarkable differences
in the length of the NEPA process, depending upon whether or not the issue
was present in the EISs. These large differences are noted in table 8 below
for economic issues (ISSUECON) and water quality issues (ISSUWQ). As stated
previously, these are two of the few variables to demonstrate a statistically
significant relationship to the 0.05 confidence level with a variable indicating
the length of the NEPA process.
table 8:
ISSUES VARIABLES AND THE LENGTH OF THE NEPA PROCESS
|
Cases |
Mean
NEPATIME
(years) |
Median
NEPATIME
(years) |
Mean
SQRTNTIM |
Median
SQRTNTIM |
NEPATIME
Equivalent
(years) |
ISSUECON |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
31 |
6.1 |
5.9 |
2.4159 |
2.4304 |
5.8 |
False |
213 |
5.0 |
4.6 |
2.1505 |
2.1537 |
4.6 |
ISSUWQ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
True |
77 |
5.9 |
6.2 |
2.3371 |
2.4960 |
5.5 |
False |
167 |
4.8 |
4.5 |
2.1137 |
2.1171 |
4.5 |
Source: The Louis Berger Group, Inc., 2002.
The difference between the mean NEPATIME for cases for which ISSUECON is
"True" and those for which it is "False" is more than a year. Using the
median NEPATIME, the difference is more than 15 months. Using the mean NEPATIME
equivalent derived from SQRTNTIM, the difference is about 17 months. Similarly,
the difference between the mean NEPATIME for cases for which ISSUWQ is "True"
and those for which it is "False" is also more than a year. Using the median
NEPATIME, the difference is about 21 months. Using the mean NEPATIME equivalent
derived from SQRTNTIM, the difference is just over a year. The disproportionately
small number of cases coded as "True" may have some bearing on the differences
in the values reported.
Unlike the permit and special studies variables, the pattern is not consistent
among the issues variables. That is, many of these variables show longer
NEPA process times where a particular discipline was not identified as an
issue in the EIS. For example, for the flood plain variable (ISSUFLOODP),
the NEPA process time was found to take between 6 and 9 months longer when
there is no floodplain issue involved. Several other issues variables follow
this same example. This outcome, in reality, is not likely and can be explained,
at least partially, by the fact that these issues variables were not found
to have statistical relationships with SQRTNTIM that are significant to
the 0.05 level.
-
EIS Change Variables — There were three variables in this category;
namely, CHGDEIS (Indicator of whether or not the Preferred Alternative changed
substantially after the DEIS), CHGSDEIS (Indicator of whether or not the
Preferred Alternative changed substantially after the SDEIS) and CHGFEIS
(Indicator of whether or not the Preferred Alternative changed substantially
after the FEIS). Of these, only CHGDEIS was distributed in such a way as
to make any analysis meaningful (189 "No" to 55 "Yes" responses). The other
two variables were distributed 234 to 10 and 240 to 4, respectively. CHGDEIS
showed no significant relationship to either dependent variable at the 0.05
level, but as explained above, the actual significance level of 0.057 indicates
a low enough probability of finding so large a difference in the means,
that further investigation might be warranted. Cases requiring a substantial
change of the Preferred Alternative following the DEIS had a mean SQRTNTIM
of 2.3166 (NEPATIME equivalent = 5.4) versus 2.1457 (NEPATIME equivalent
= 4.6).
-
Relocation Variables — This group of variables included RELHH (Number
of households relocated), RELBUS (Number of businesses relocated) and ALLREL
(Number of all households and businesses relocated). Also considered was
RELOTHER (Other relocations), which was simply a "Yes" / "No" response variable.
No significant correlation or relationship between any of these variables
and any length of NEPA process variables at the 0.05 level was found using
a Ttest.
-
Cultural Resources Sites Variables — No correlation was found between
CRSITES (Number of eligible or potentially eligible historic / archaeological
sites studied) and NEPATIME utilizing the Spearman method. Likewise, using
the Difference of Means procedure, the ANOVA showed no significant differences
among the categories of CATCRSIT (the categorized version of CRSITES) in
the dependent mean values. Eta was only 0.116 for SQRTNTIM and 0.123 for
NEPATIME.
-
Mitigation Measures Variables — Ttests of the mean SQRTNTIM values
for dichotomous mitigation variables were run and no differences in mean
values were significant at or lower than a confidence level of 0.05. A Ttest
of CATNOIS (the categorized version of NOISEB, or miles of noise barriers)
against mean values of SQRTNTIM showed no significant differences in the
mean values for the length of the NEPA process.
The variable, COMTYMIT (Community impact mitigation measures), was the
closest of all of the mitigation variables to being significant, with a
significance of 0.07. The mean SQRTNTIM values for cases with COMTYMIT mitigations
was 2.2890 (NEPATIME equivalent = 5.2 years) versus 2.1412 (NEPATIME equivalent
= 4.6 years) for those without.
-
Meetings and Commenting Agencies Variables — Meetings of various
types accounted for four variables; namely, Public_M (Number of public meetings),
Public_H (Number of public hearings), Agency_M (Number of agency meetings)
and PUBLIC_O (Number of public official meetings). None of these variables
correlated strongly at the 0.05 significance level with the dependent variables.
Categorized versions of three of these (CATPUBM, CATAGME and CATPUBO) were
also tested, using the Means procedure. None showed a significant difference
among its group categories for either NEPATIME or SQRTNTIM. Categorized
forms of all four variables were tested against CATNPATI (categorized version
of NEPATIME) for the Chisquare statistic, which was found to be not significant
at the 0.05 significance level.
For the dichotomous variable, CATPUBH (categorized version of Public_H),
a Ttest was run against SQRTNTIM and the probability of a difference of
means as large as the one obtained is only about 0.03, thereby making the
relationship significant to the 0.05 confidence level. As stated previously,
CATPUBH is one of only a few variables tested in this study that were shown
to have a significant statistical relationship with the length of the NEPA
process. Cases requiring 01 public hearings were found to have a SQRTNTIM
mean of 2.1158 (NEPATIME equivalent = 4.5 years) in comparison to 2.2917
(NEPATIME equivalent = 5.2) for those requiring more than one hearing. Despite
the significant statistical relationship, it is not entirely clear how that
relationship really explains the effect that the number of public hearings
has on the length of the NEPA process, except that the number of public
hearings may be an indicator of complexity of the particular project and/or
the number of communities affected by the project. The number of public
hearings may also be affected by whether or not a supplemental EIS process
was involved. In any of these situations, it is reasonable then to conclude
that those projects exhibiting a greater number of public hearings could
result in a longer NEPA process time.
As stated earlier, one other variable that was found to have a statistically
significant correlation with the length of the NEPA process to the 0.05
confidence level was COMAGSTA (the number of state agencies commenting on
the EIS). Although tests for correlation were also made for variables indicating
the number of federal and local commenting agencies, as well as total commenting
agencies, the only one that was significant was the state agencies variable.
Although statistically significant, the correlation between COMAGSTA and
NEPATIME was found to be rather weak. As a result, the ability to explain
the relationship is also rather weak. It is possible, once again, that the
correlation may be related to the fact that the number of state agencies
commenting on a particular project may be indicative of the overall complexity
of the project.
- EPA Rating Variable — Only one EPA rating variable was considered,
which was RATE#, or the numerical form of EPA_RATE. As discussed previously,
a significant but weak positive correlation was found when correlated with
NEPATIME. Although this correlation indicates that the least severe ratings
could lead to a shorter length NEPA process and that the most severe ratings
could lead to a longer length NEPA process, the relationship is so weak that
it wouldn´t prove to be very useful or conclusive in making such a conclusion.
3.4 Use of Results as a Baseline for Evaluating Future Environmental
Streamlining Initiatives
Given the limited number of statistical correlations and relationships that
were found to be significant to the 0.05 confidence level, as well as the sometimes
unexplainable reasoning as to why those particular correlations and relationships
have been shown to exist, it continues to be premature on the basis of the present
data and findings to attempt to construct a predictive model of the length of
the NEPA process. Although the data lends itself well to be used as a baseline
against which to evaluate the relative degree of success of future environmental
streamlining initiatives, its usefulness as a predictive model for determining
the length of the NEPA process based on certain project or environmental factors
is limited at this point in time.
As with the Phase I findings, the results of this Phase II effort can easily
serve as a baseline from which additional analysis can be initiated and to which
additional data can be added. These results also continue to expand upon the
extensive FHWA database used for developing a historical baseline regarding
the length of time required for completing the NEPA process, at least from Notice
of Intent date to signature date of the Final EIS or Supplemental Final EIS,
as applicable. The strongest findings of this study are perhaps related to the
establishment of general descriptive statistics, including those presented by
geographic location. The findings in this regard are also generally compatible
and explainable with the findings of the Phase I research, in that the two sets
of data and conclusions work together to tell an entire story about how the
length of the NEPA process has continued to change over time. Therefore, the
results serve as an excellent baseline for evaluating future environmental streamlining
initiatives.
4.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
4.1 Summary of Findings
As presented in Section 3.0, this research has resulted in a number of interesting,
as well as number of less interesting findings related to the length of the
NEPA EIS process. A summary listing of the major findings is presented below.
- There were 250 FHWA projects resulting in signed Final EIS or Supplemental
Final EIS documents pursuant to NEPA that were found to comprise the study
universe of EIS projects during the 1995 — 2001 period.
- Based on the 1995 — 2001 study period, the average length of time for preparing
and completing an EIS pursuant to NEPA was either 5.1 years or 4.8 years,
depending on whether the mean value used was based on actual NEPA process
times or equivalent NEPA process times derived from the more normally distributed
square root values.
- Based on the 1995 — 2001 study period, the median length of time for preparing
and completing an EIS pursuant to NEPA was 4.7 years.
- The mean length of time to complete an EIS during the 1995 — 2001 Phase
II study period was substantially greater than that for EIS projects completed
during the period from the early 1970s to the early 1990s, which was the period
studied during Phase I. The mean of 5.1 years for the Phase II study period,
based on actual NEPA process times, compares to only 3.6 years for the Phase
I study period.
- The mean length of time to complete an EIS during the 1995 — 2001 Phase
II study period was greater than that for EIS projects completed during each
separate decade studied during Phase I. The mean of 5.1 years for the Phase
II study period, based on actual NEPA process times, compares to 2.2 years
in the 1970s, 4.4 years in the 1980s and 5.0 years during the early 1990s.
- The median length of time to complete an EIS during the 1995 — 2001 Phase
II study period was greater than that for EIS projects completed during the
1970 — early 1990s Phase I study period, with a median value of 4.7 years
in Phase II in comparison to only 3.0 years in Phase I.
- Former FHWA Region 4 (Southeast) exhibited the highest mean value (5.6 years
based on actual NEPA process times, or 5.4 years based on equivalent NEPA
process times derived from the more normally distributed square root values)
related to length of time to complete the EIS process during the 1995 — 2001
study period. Clustered together close behind were Regions 10 (Northwest),
1 (Northeast), 3 (MidAtlantic), and 9 (Southwest), in approximate descending
order.
- Former FHWA Regions 8 (Rocky Mountain states) and 6 (South Central) exhibited
the lowest mean values related to length of time to complete the EIS process
during the 1995 — 2001 study period. The mean value for both regions, based
on actual NEPA process times, was 3.8 years while the mean values based on
equivalent NEPA process times derived from the more normally distributed square
root values varied from 3.5 years for Region 8 to 3.6 years for Region 6.
- The same former FHWA regions exhibiting the highest mean values related
to length of time to complete the EIS process during the 1995 — 2001 period
also exhibited the highest median values, but not necessarily in the same
order. Similarly, the two former FHWA regions exhibiting the lowest mean values
also exhibited the lowest median values.
- Of the nine former FHWA regions, six of them were shown to exhibit higher
mean and median values during the 1995 — 2001 study period than the highest
region during the 1970 — early 1990s Phase I study period.
- Regions 1 (Northeast) and 4 (Southeast), the two regions exhibiting the
highest mean values related to length of time to complete the NEPA process
during the 1970 — early 1990s Phase I study period, are still among the cluster
of regions that have taken the longest during the 1995 — 2001 period.
- Geographical differences in the length of time to complete the NEPA process
can and probably should be considered on the basis of "East," "Central" and
"West" regions, with the longest times taken in the "East" region, followed
closely behind by the "West" region during the 1995 — 2001 study period. The
mean value for the highest region was 5.5 years, based on actual NEPA process
times, or 5.2 years, based on equivalent NEPA process times derived from the
more normally distributed square root values. The mean value for the lowest
region, "Central," was either 4.5 years or 4.2 years, depending on which base
of calculation was used.
- Geographical differences in the length of time to complete the NEPA process
can also be considered on the basis of "Coastal" and "Central" regions, with
the longest times taken in the "Coastal" region during the 1995 — 2001 study
period. The mean value for the "Coastal" region was 5.5 years, based on actual
NEPA process times, or 5.1 years, based on equivalent NEPA process times derived
from the more normally distributed square root values. The mean value for
the "Central" region was either 4.5 years or 4.2 years, depending on which
base of calculation was used.
- A significant but weak correlation was found between the number of state
agencies commenting on the EIS and the length of time to complete the NEPA
process.
- A significant but weak correlation was found between the EPA rating indicating
its level of concern for the EIS and the length of time to complete the NEPA
process.
- A significant and sizeable difference in the length of time to complete
the NEPA process was found between those projects completed during the 1995
— 2001 study period where economic / fiscal impacts were controversial issues
and those where they were not.
- A significant and sizeable difference in the length of time to complete
the NEPA process was found between those projects completed during the 1995
— 2001 study period where water quality impacts were controversial issues
and those where they were not.
- A significant and sizeable difference in the length of time to complete
the NEPA process was found between those projects completed during the 1995
— 2001 study period where more than one public hearing was held and those
where no more than one public hearing was held.
- Although not found to be a statistically significant finding, it was determined
that the requirement for a Coast Guard Bridge permit may extend the length
of the NEPA process by six months to more than seven months, depending on
which set of mean values is used.
- Although not found to be a statistically significant finding, it was determined
that the requirement for a Section 4(f) evaluation may extend the length of
the NEPA process by less than five months to as many as seven months, depending
on which set of mean values is used.
- Although not found to be a statistically significant finding, it was determined
that the requirement for a NPDES permit may extend the length of the NEPA
process by between three and four months, regardless of which set of mean
values is used.
- Two factors found to have an influence on the length of the NEPA process
during the Phase I study (i.e., whether or not a Section 404 permit was required
and whether or not noise was an issue) were not found to be significant nor
related factors in the 1995 — 2001 Phase II database.
4.2 Conclusions
The purpose of this Phase II NEPA baseline study was, at least in part, to
ascertain if the results found in Phase I would be repeated, or if a comparative
assessment could be made between the two sets of results, thereby further
identifying the baseline history of the length of time to complete the NEPA EIS
process. As it turned out, it was possible as a result of this most recent study
to get an even better understanding of the time involved in completing the
process, at least in terms of establishing a time trend. As discussed in Section
3.1 and summarized in Section 4.1 above, it can be concluded from this current
research that the length of time involved in fully complying with the NEPA
process has continued to get longer in recent years in comparison to earlier
decades. It can also be concluded that, whereas there previously existed a
substantial variation in the length of time to fully comply with NEPA in
different parts of the country, the various regions seem to have become much
more uniform in recent years in terms of NEPA time requirements. In fact, it
appears that the regional effect on the length of the NEPA process has become
much broader than may have been the case previously, with the differences
occurring primarily between the coastal states and the middle portion of the
country. Given these findings, this study achieved the basic goal of expanding
upon the baseline condition, and in identifying continuing trends.
As a result of these basic findings, it can also be concluded that the need
for ongoing and future environmental streamlining efforts has never been
greater. The fact that it has recently taken longer, on average, to prepare and
complete an EIS than ever before, and that six former FHWA regions recently
exhibited higher EIS completion times than did the highest region in the earlier
Phase I study period, may be indicative of the fact that there is substantial
opportunity for improvement in the overall process. The findings of this study
also suggest that any improvement in the process could potentially result in a
time reduction that would, at best, only achieve a total NEPA process time that
was representative of an earlier decade. Nevertheless, any improvement and
resulting time reduction would be a step in the right direction.
The one goal that was not successfully achieved by this study was the
identification and confirmation of factors and conditions that may have a direct
or indirect impact upon the NEPA process. Although the NEPA process seems to
vary by broad geographic region, it does not seem to vary with the majority of
the other variables tested in this data set. Those factors that were found to
have a statistically significant relationship with the length of time to
complete the NEPA process were either weak in their relationship, or difficult
to explain the relationship in a practical sense. Other factors were not found
to have a significant statistical relationship with the length of time to
complete NEPA, even though some of them actually appear to have an influence on
the length of the process. The factors identified in this study as being related
to the length of time to complete NEPA were also different from those factors
identified during the Phase I study, the reason for which is not entirely
evident. In fact, the only factor that was found to have a noticeable effect on
NEPA process time in both phases of study was the presence or absence of a
Section 4(f) evaluation. However, even in that case, the factor was not found to
have a statistically significant relationship with NEPA time in the current
study, although, as in Phase I, a substantial time difference between projects
involving 4(f) and those not involving 4(f) was found.
It can, perhaps, be further concluded from the lack of statistical variation
in the length of the NEPA process when considered in relation to other project
and processrelated factors, that the process may have become more closely
affected by external social, economic and attitude factors associated with broad
geographic regions of the country. If this theory is true, then it would account
for the inability to explain with any certainty, the causal relationships of
NEPA time with the specific factors tested in this study. Although such a theory
may make it difficult to take better control of the process by refining or
varying some of the specific project or process-related factors, it would at
least be understood that environmental streamlining efforts should also consider
more global conditions that could affect the process in a given location. If
nothing else, it reinforces the overall complexity of the NEPA process and the
broad zone of influence that external conditions may have on its
application.
In final conclusion, it is anticipated that the overall findings of this
study should make a useful contribution to the further understanding of the
length of the NEPA process, and in the refinement of a baseline for future
research in evaluating the performance of environmental streamlining.
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
Kreig Larson M.U.R.P., Urban and Regional Planning, University of Southern
California, 1975 B.S., Soil and Water Science, University of California —
Davis, 1972 Contribution: FHWA Project Coordinator
The Louis Berger Group, Inc.
Kenneth J. Hess, A.I.C.P., P.P. M.C.R.P., City and Regional Planning,
Rutgers University, 1977 B.A., Geography, University of Delaware,
1974 Contribution: Project Director
Antony B. Mason, Ph.D. Ph.D., Geography, Rutgers University,
1989 M.A., Geography, Rutgers University, 1983 B.A., History, Swarthmore
College, 1955 Contribution: Statistical Analysis
Wade Souders B.A., Communications, University of North Texas,
1999 Contribution: Data Collection
Natalia Valderrama M.A. candidate, Geography, City University of New York
Hunter College, 2003 (expected) B.A., Political Science, University of
California, 1992. Contribution: Data Collection
Matt Sumpter M.S., Transportation Technology and Policy, University of
California, Davis, 2000 B.S., Environmental Studies and Planning California
State University-Sonoma, 1997 Contribution: Data Collection
Robert S. Hutchinson M.S., Environmental Policy, NJIT, 1998 M.I.P.,
Infrastructure Planning, NJIT, 1997 B.S., STS, Environmental Studies, NJIT,
1995 Contribution: Data Collection Study Design
|
|