A tranquil spot for fishing—one of over 100 lakes in the “Chain O Lakes” along I-80 in Nebraska. These lakes resulted from borrow pits, used during the highway construction. They have since been developed into water oriented recreation areas and wildlife sanctuaries.
adequate consideration was being given to possible social, economic and environmental effects of proposed highway projects. Guidelines were issued by FHWA, and the States developed Action Plans that document the process for assessing the environmental impacts. The Action Plan explains how social, economic, and environmental factors are identified and studied, how the assistance of a wide range of professional skills is obtained and utilized, and how interested groups and citizens are involved or can participate in the highway development process.
As an integral part of the location study process, the State highway department, in consultation with the FHWA Division Engineer, must first determine whether the highway project will be a major action requiring an evaluation of its potential environmental impact. For those projects found to be major under established criteria, a study will be conducted to see if the environmental impact is significant, If it is determined that a significant impact may occur, then a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) is prepared prior to corridor public hearings. The draft is distributed for comments to interested State and Federal agencies. After comments from the reviewing agencies and from the public hearings are available, a final version of the EIS is prepared and made available to the general public. The final statement insures that appropriate consideration has been given to the views expressed and to the anticipated effects. Only after the final EIS is approved can the route locations be approved. If it is found during the environmental evaluation that there is no significant impact, a negative declaration is prepared to document this conclusion.
In the beginning a major issue arose as to whether or not the States could prepare environmental impact statements under Federal supervision. At first the Second Circuit Court of Appeals said no, that it was the responsibility of the Federal Highway Adminstration to prepare the EIS’s. Later this was changed by act of Congress to permit the States to prepare the EIS’s under the guidance and supervision of the involved Federal agency.
Highway system statutory management requirements that do not involve Federal funding have expanded also since 1956. Initially, as already mentioned, the States were only required to properly maintain federally assisted projects. Since 1956 the States are also required to enforce maximum weight and width limits for vehicles operating on the Interstate System and to certify annually to FHWA that they are doing so. In January 1975 a provision was added to highway law effecting a nationwide maximum speed limit of 55 m.p.h. for all public highways, and the States must certify annually that they are enforcing this speed limit. In addition, all States are required to have an approved highway safety program designed to reduce the frequency and severity of traffic accidents and which must meet certain Federal performance criteria. Inventories of accident locations, bridge structural conditions and railroad-highway crossings are required to assure funding of highway priority needs. Each State must have a schedule for updating traffic signs, signals and pavement markings to meet uniform standards.
As the Federal Highway Administration turned its attention to the administration of the foregoing requirements, the States progressively assumed effective design and construction responsibility without close Federal supervision. This is the significant result of the successful Federal–State partnership.
The Secondary Road Plan
Legislation enacted in 1954 permitted the first major change since 1916 in the basic Federal–State roles in project procedures through the initiation of The Secondary Road Plan. Under the Plan, any State could request the Bureau of Public Roads to relinquish most of its engineering and administrative review and approval responsibilities for secondary road system projects by accepting a certification by the State that the projects had been designed and constructed in accordance with State standards and procedures established for general application to all projects on the Secondary System. To qualify for this procedure, a State had to submit its Secondary Road Plan for review and approval by BPR, The BPR review and concurrence actions under the Plan were limited to system changes, programs of proposed projects, program changes, project agreement, a final inspection, and a fiscal review and audit of voucher claims. All the States adopted this greatly simplified plan, although one State has since dropped it.
The philosophy behind the Secondary Road Plan was to let the States assume more independent responsibility and to permit the BPR staff to devote its principal efforts to the more nationally significant Primary System, including the National System of Interstate Highways which, it was anticipated, would soon be authorized funds. Secondary projects accounted for 30 percent of all Federal-aid projects administered by the BPR in 1954 prior to enactment of legislation permitting the Secondary Road Plan.
Certification Acceptance
The Secondary Road Plan not withstanding, by the 1970’s a growing sentiment was developing among the State highway administrators, FHWA officials, and the involved congressional committees that something had to be done to reduce the complexity and red tape that was rapidly growing in the administration of the Federal-aid highway program. At the same time, however, support for the protection of social values was becoming stronger and much more vocal. As it gained momentum, considerable anti-highway sentiment arose. The many additional controls, requirements, considerations and clearances added to the administration of the highway program in response to the public demands were inescapable.
Congress reflected its definite awareness of the problems by including in the 1973 Highway Act a new procedure called Certification Acceptance, an effort
225
