Administration, I sent to Regional Administrator Kirby a memorandum suggesting that we try to move some projects on the basis that he complete a personal review of the projects himself.

If he concluded that he would have written the EIS the same way as the State had written it, and it was just to be a rewriting job in order to make it meet muster, then to try to pass that project. I have testified previously that it is my opinion that this procedure would not be invulnerable. It is a procedure that is very risky and I feel that the district courts would strike down projects passed under this procedure. But we felt that we should try to move something and not have a complete halt.

Even so, I feel that under the second circuit decision, if any project so approved is attacked in the Federal district court, that the project will be enjoined.

PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD

Senator STAFFORD. Do you know of any projects moving forward in the three-State area?

Mr. WELLS. When we testified, I think 2 weeks ago, one such project had been received by the regional administrator, and I believe he had approved it. Maybe Mr. Lamm has other information on that.

Mr. LAMM. There are projects moving in the three affected States, Senator Stafford, although there are, as well, other projects which are held up, even under the more permissive procedures which Mr. Wells has just enumerated. We have had indicated to us by the State of Vermont that they intend to put about $27 million worth of highway projects under obligation during fiscal 1975.

Now, that represents a $9-million increase over what their original share of the $4.6 billion program would have been. So as an illustration, the projects are certainly continuing to flow in Vermont as they can under the existing provisions of the second level advice we have given.

In the other two States in the second circuit, New York and Connecticut, the program is slow. Neither State would estimate at this time an ability to use funding over and above their share of the original $4.6 billion highway program.

The problems, though, in those States, tie more closely to specific problems in developing individual projects, and not entirely to the second circuit court decision.

PROJECTS IN OTHER AREAS

Senator STAFFORD. What about the rest of the country? Are projects going ahead in the other circuit court of appeals areas?

Mr. TIEMANN. There were five circuits that ruled favorablyagreed with our procedure, and those projects are going. I think there are two presently in litigation.

Mr. WELLS. We have a case pending in the seventh circuit which we understand simply by the grapevine is not going to be handed down because they are waiting to see what happens in Washington. But, nevertheless, the issue is pending there. It could be adverse. They could follow the second circuit. It is possible.

Mr. LAMM. The program in general is moving quite well around the country, Senator Stafford. Governor Tiemann's full remarks, which he did not read in their entirety, give you an estimate that as of last Friday, April 25, the highway program nationally had proceeded to the extent that a total of 32 States had already exceeded their original share of the $4.6 billion program, and in effect were beginning to benefit from the February release of the President's.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

Senator STAFFORD. At what point does the public have an opportunity and right to participate in the actions or decisions of the Federal district regional highway officials?

Mr. TIEMANN. Each State has prepared an action plan in which they have outlined the point in a project where the public participation is the most advantageous from the standpoint of the public. This would be at the public hearing stages of which there are at least two. In some cases there are more. So the public does in fact have ample opportunity to make comment.

Mr. WELLS. May I supplement that, Senator, by pointing out that our regulations require that when the draft environmental impact study is ready, the State is to hold a public hearing on the statement and the alternatives are then presented to the public at the hearing for comment. The public comes in and comments on the location, the various possible locations of the highway. And after that, the State selects the alternative that has the least adverse impact on the environment, and then the Federal Highway Administration reviews that and approves it.

EFFECT OF DECISION ON FHWA EMPLOYMENT

Senator STAFFORD. Can you give us any estimate as to how many additional employees FHWA would need to prepare environmental impact statements for projects in Vermont, Connecticut, and New York, or for that matter, the whole country?

Mr. WELLS. Senator, I cannot give you figures based on my own study, but Regional Administrator Kirby testified in a similar hearing recently that in his region, I believe it would take 300 additional people.

Mr. TIEMANN. I think as I recall in earlier testimony, Senator, that we concluded that nationwide we would probably have to add about 1,800 to 2,000 people.

STATE COSTS

Mr. COUPAL. It might be of interest to hear of the report of one of the States, California, on what it spent in direct costs for environmental impact statements, and that was $50 million.

Senator STAFFORD. Thank you.

Senator RANDOLPH. How was that money spent?

Mr. COUPAL. The cost of preparing the impact statements and the litigation involved, since the Environmental Impact Act has been adopted for highway projects.

Senator RANDOLPH. How many people involved?

Mr. COUPAL. We can find that out from the State of California and submit it to you.

Mr. TIEMANN. That is in 1 year.

[The following information was subsequently supplied:]

MANPOWER USED IN CALIFORNIA FOR PREPARING EIS STATEMENTS

The California Department of Transportation estimates that a total of 470 manyears were expended in F. Y. 1974 toward the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements. California also estimates that approximately 500 man-years will be exerted in F. Y. 1975.

The following paragraph relating to cost is extracted from a letter addressed to the FHWA by the Director of Transportation, State of California:

"In July 1973, we did a bench mark estimate of the identifiable costs incurred to that time by the emphasis on environmental issues brought about by Federal and State legislation, i.e., NEPA, CEQA, the Coastal Zone Protection Act, etc. The accumulative cost was approximately $38 million. We now find that upon completion of the 1974/75 Fiscal Year we will have expended another $22.8 million for a total of $60.8 million because of these issues."

CURRENT FHWA PROCEDURES

Senator STAFFORD. With respect to specific language in 3130, is it your opinion that current FHWA procedures require that Federal officials participate in the preparation of an impact statement?

Mr. TIEMANN. What we are essentially saying is that the legislation would in fact reinforce our procedures; that is, the Federal Highway Administration is involved in the preparation of this from its inception. As I indicated in my comments, the real impact of NEPA is the number of undesirable projects that do not surface as the result of the required preparation of an EIS.

INTERSTATE SYSTEM TRANSFER OF AUTHORITY

Senator STAFFORD. With respect to letting States use apportionments from one category on a different system, what is your opinion of extending the provisions in H.R. 3786 to include transfer of funds to and from the Interstate System category?

Mr. TIEMANN. We are opposed to transferring the apportionments from the Interstate System. The transfer between other categories, we fully support.

Senator STAFFOD. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony and I yield the floor.

TIME FRAME FOR TRANSFERS

Senator BENTSEN. Thank you very much, Senator Stafford.

Governor Tiemann, when you are talking about transfer of funds to the different categories, you said a good part of that flexibility would be lost and negated because of the time frame.

What if you had an extension of that beyond the July 1 date and put it out to September 30?

Mr. TIEMANN. Obviously, any additional time would be of benefit to the States as projects progress and are available for letting. This would be to the State's advantage.

Senator BENTSEN. Would you have a recommendation as to the time frame?

Mr. TIEMANN. Yes, generally speaking, we would support the provisions of the bill and whatever the time frame, the longer the time frame, the more beneficial to the States.

Senator BENTSEN. What do you think is reasonable in the way of a time frame?

Mr. TIEMANN. I would think that, as I indicated, June 30 is not sufficient time. September 30 would be a little more time. I suspect you should probably give the flexibility until the 38 categories are reduced to 4, by the 1975 legislation.

Mr. LAMM. Senator Bentsen, the problem that exists now will somewhat be alleviated from the State's point of view when the 1977 apportionment of regular Federal-aid funds is made. This is scheduled to take place before January 1, 1976. Any relief I would suppose ought to be extended no longer than the date at which the 1977 apportionments are made.

Senator BENTSEN. Now, one of the reasons you said you opposed the 100-percent match was that it might establish some kind of precedent. But it is true that we put that kind of an increase in, in the 1958 recession and it did not become permanent.

Mr. TIEMANN. That is correct. We still believe it is bad precedent, however, and the precedent could be set that every time there is a problem, the States come to the Federal Government for relief. That is a bad precedent.

1975 HIGHWAY LEGISLATION

Senator BENTSEN. You said in the administration's 1975 highway bill you would meet many of the problems we were talking about; and that would be before us shortly. As I recall, it was a couple of months ago it was going to be shortly. What does "short" mean? How shortly is shortly?

Mr. TIEMANN. I wish I could be more definitive. The FHWA input finished a long time ago. It went through the various stages before it finally progressed to its present position, which is on the desk of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Senator BENTSEN. We run into a real time problem here, as you know, Governor. We are having our hearings, trying to expedite, move along, and then to have it brought to us late in the game, then have the executive branch say, "Congress dragged its feet," this is hard to take.

Mr. TIEMANN. I think there was a mitigating circumstance I should point out. First, the legislative review by the Secretary was completed by Secretary Brinegar. At that time the Secretary resigned and Secretary Coleman came on board. During his confirmation hearing, he indicated he would re-review the 1975 legislation. That necessarily took additional time. There was a delay which was unaviodable.

PROJECT LEAD TIME

Senator BENTSEN. We have been told from time to time that the average time from the beginning of the planning of a project to the beginning of its construction is about 7 years.

Now, the House bill tries to define the responsibility on the environmental impact statement as to which agency.

If that legislation is not passed, what kind of time frame are we talking about then? How much do you think that adds to that 7 years? Mr. TIEMANN. It obviously would add some, at least initially. If we were to staff up, prepare all the EIS's ourselves, we would need to hire the additional 2,000 people. First of all, we would have to get the authorization to add that many positions.

Second, we would have to take the process and revamp it, though it is working very well. Even though 7 years is not a good number, we think the process of preparation is good. It would add to the 7 years. By what amount, I could not make a definitive determination at the moment. It certainly would add some time.

Mr. LAMM. One way of estimating the increase would be if it were presumed that the question of the level of the Federal involvement in EIS preparation remained an open issue, we could speculate that many more highway projects would come to litigation on that point. We found that the process of arriving at a judicial decision takes 2 to 3 years, during which time no work goes on in development of the projects. So that is a pure addition of time prior to the development of a project.

Senator BENTSEN. Senator Burdick, do you have a question?

APPLICABILITY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Senator BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, during the course of the questioning this morning, particularly with Senator Stafford, it was clearly developed that any change you should make should apply to all 50 States. Do you still adhere to that principle?

Mr. TIEMANN. Yes, sir.

INTERSYSTEM APPORTIONMENT TRANSFERS

Senator BURDICK. In your statement, you say you are referring to the feature of H.R. 3786 which permits a State to borrow for the period from February 12 to June 30, 1975. These are loans that must be repaid, you state.

You do not oppose this because it gives the States greater flexibility in the use of their apportionments.

You have just testified that only five States are not in a position to match. I presume those would be the five States you would make loans to? Who would be permitted to make these loans?

Mr. TIEMANN. The States would not be borrowing from one another.

Senator BURDICK. They would be borrowing from the funds.

Mr. TIEMANN. From whatever apportionment there is a surplus in. Senator BURDICK. What about the 45 States that either through their legislature or otherwise taxed their citizens, borrowed moneys, transferred funds to make this possible, and they will not be in a position to borrow the money.

Mr. LAMM. Senator Burdick, we have also inquired from the States as to which States would take advantage of this provision of H.R. 3786, which we call the mix provision. The entire bill might be called a mix-and-match bill. The mixing of apportionments also has a relatively small potential of States planning to use that between now and June 30, 1975.