THE GALLUP ORGANIZATION

for
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

FHWA Study - Results
Detailed Findings

Implementing Performance Measurement in Environmental Streamlining

Submitted to:

Federal Highway Administration
Planning and Environment, 3222 HEPE
400 7th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20590

August 2003

Submitted by:

The Gallup Organization
901 F Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20004

Copyright Standards

While you can use and copy this document for official FHWA business, including for use with your federal agency customers, it contains proprietary research, copyrighted materials, and literary property of The Gallup Organization. As such, it is not to be copied, quoted, published, or divulged to persons who are not FHWA employees or federal agency customers. Instead, it needs to be safeguarded, allowing no one to duplicate or change the contents in an effort to formulate an inferior product. No changes may be made to this document without the express written permission of The Gallup Organization.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background

Overview

The Questionnaire

Sampling Plan

Limitations of a Nonprobability Sample

Data Collection

Follow-Up Procedures

Respondents

Professions

Who Was Eligible and Whom Did They Rate?

Number of Completes

Analysis of Results - By Question Category

Problem Occurrence

Relationship Questions

Communication Questions

Timeliness Questions

Performance Questions

General Questions--Reviewers

General Questions--Managers

Analysis of Results by Region

Region 1

Region 2

Region 3

Region 4

Region 5

Region 6

Region 7

Region 8

Region 9

Region 10

Analysis of Results by Organization

FHWA

ACOE

USFW

SHPO

Background

Environmentally responsible transportation improvements, delivered on time and within budget, is a simple vision that all too often evades the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and its partner agencies. Public expectations and demands for effective transportation solutions on a reasonable time frame are understandable, given the magnitude and pervasiveness of America's highway transportation problems. Equally understandable is the public's desire for environmentally sound ways of providing for sustainable transport solutions. Inevitably, these two societal goals occasionally come into conflict.

"Environmental Streamlining" is the term used for a new way of doing business that brings together the timely delivery of transportation projects with the protection and enhancement of the environment. First enacted into legislation for highway and transit projects with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), Environmental Streamlining consists of cooperatively establishing realistic project development time frames among the transportation and environmental agencies, and then working together cooperatively to adhere to those time frames. Because major transportation projects are affected by dozens of Federal, State, and local environmental requirements administered by a multitude of agencies, improved inter-agency cooperation is critical to the success of environmental streamlining. Efforts currently underway within the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) of the U.S. DOT focus on solidifying the inter-agency partnership through a series of actions that include pilot efforts, process reinvention, alternative dispute resolution, and a focus on performance evaluation. Experience in implementing environmental streamlining will lead to critical policy choices that may point to the need for revisions to transportation or environmental laws or regulations.

The objectives of the environmental streamlining provisions, as described in the explanatory materials on TEA-21, prepared by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure are as follows:

• to establish an integrated review and permit process that identifies key decision points and potential conflicts as early as possible
• to integrate the NEPA process as early as possible
• to encourage full and early participation by all relevant agencies that must review a highway construction project or issue a permit, license, approval, or opinion relating to the project
• to establish coordinated time schedules for agencies to act on a project

As part of its response to the charge of Section 1309 for implementing a streamlined environmental process, FHWA is making several inquiries into the development of qualitative and quantitative information resources for the creation of sound, actionable performance measures for the project development process. These are the following:

1. A study focusing on establishing an historic baseline for assessing time frames for project development is currently underway. The goal of the investigation is to establish a baseline against which to assess project delays over time; to attempt to identify causes for such delays (reviews, applications for permits, etc.); and to assess through quantitative statistical analyses the trends and determinants of delays. The baseline study is examining those transportation projects for which Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) were prepared.
2. FHWA, in conjunction with the Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE), has proposed a series of informal interviews with Federal agencies as well as a limited number of non-Federal agencies/entities for the purpose of assessing the perspectives of and attitudes toward environmental streamlining that are held by those involved in the delivery and environmental review of transportation projects. The interviews will be designed to gather background information on the target stakeholders' perceived roles, expectations, problems, and obstacles (e.g., differing interpretation of rules) with regard to streamlining the project development process. This background information is expected to contribute to the development of performance measures and indicators to assess the effectiveness of environmental streamlining.
3. The Transportation Committee of the American Consulting Engineers Council (ACEC) proposed that an additional survey be conducted. This effort would attempt to measure the performance of stakeholders in the transportation project development process, i.e. resource and transportation agencies. This proposal intends to survey the perceptions of key participants in the project development process, and, by means of applying scientifically reliable and valid survey methods, explore how stakeholders in the process view the quality of the environmental work and services performed by their counterparts. The survey will include questions referring to:
   
   
   • If a resource agency believes that the state transportation agency is submitting thorough documentation in fulfillment of permit application requirements
   • If the state Department of Transportation (DOT) likewise perceives that the staff of the resource agency are providing timely and constructive responses to the permit process.
   
   These questions will allow both parties to communicate with each other throughout the process in an open and continuing fashion.

Overview

The Gallup Organization has undertaken this study with the intent:

1. To measure the performance of agencies involved in environmental streamlining in order to provide a benchmark for agencies to gauge their own performance and that of the process itself.
2. To focus on areas where improvement may be needed.

The project began in the second half of 2001 with qualitative focus groups conducted in Chicago, Denver, Atlanta, Boston, Dallas, and San Francisco. Using the results received from the qualitative findings, a questionnaire was drafted followed by cognitive interviews conducted with focus group participants. The cognitive interviews resulted in several drafts of the questionnaire being tested and reviewed before the questionnaire was finalized. A pilot study was then undertaken to further assess both the instrument and sample plan for the study.

The results in that report outline findings from the pilot study conducted in Region 5 using Department of Transportation's Standard Regional Boundaries². Once complete, the survey was modified slightly and reissued to the other nine regions. This report presents the findings of the nine regions integrating findings from the pilot study where needed.

These data should be considered benchmark information for an on-going performance measurement system on environmental streamlining. Subsequent data collection efforts will be able to compare improvement efforts going forward.

¹FHWA: Environmental Streamlining and the Development of Performance Measures: A Detailed Analysis of Focus Group Findings. The Gallup Organization, January 11, 2002.

²FHWA: Environmental Streamlining and the Development of Performance Measures: Pilot FHWA Study - Pilot Study Results. The Gallup Organization, October, 2002.

The Questionnaire

Questionnaire Development

This section provides a description of the questionnaires that were developed and used in the study. The instrument was designed as a telephone questionnaire with later expansion to a Web version. Gallup was principally responsible for developing and designing both the resource and transportation agency questionnaires. The topics and content of the instruments built upon input received in focus groups and then subsequently revised based on findings from the pilot study.

The survey was presented to the National Review Panel board and during the course of the review panel discussions, one question was deleted and another two added. The deleted question asked about the roles and responsibilities being clearly defined. Two additional questions were added regarding the timeliness of the project, namely:

• Did the respondent believe the process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA? If yes, to be followed-up with
• How could the process have been shortened? (asked in open-ended fashion).

Also, three questions were revised based on comments received from the Gallup interviewers, all in the screening section of the instrument. Specifically

• In S1, "do you work with documents to eventually become part of the NEPA document" was added to clarify exactly who we were interested in speaking with. The interviewers had mentioned some confusion with the specifics of qualifying a respondent. This addition helped to clarify that information.
• The addition of "day-to-day" in S1 to assist the interviewers in differentiating between respondent involvement.
• In S6, the addition of "if they are still in process, please do not count them" was added again, to assist the interviewers in helping to identify a project to ask about.
• Same as previous comment for S8.

Resource Agency and Transportation Agency Questionnaires

Two questionnaires were designed and used for this study, one intended for transportation officials and one intended for resource agency officials. The questionnaires were almost identical in their layout.

The questionnaires had four sections: screener, project-specific (for staff level only), agency-specific, and demographics. The screener section had 16 questions (compared to the typical 3-6 questions) making this set of respondents an extremely specialized group to interview (see questionnaire for further detail). The project-specific questions included an overall satisfaction question, 4 problem incidence questions, 7 general relationship evaluation questions, 10 communication questions, 5 timeliness questions, and 9 general project performance questions. The agency-specific questions included nine general relationship questions and 2 overall agency questions. Four questions comprised the demographic section.

The Questions

The questionnaire items were selected, in large part, based on the qualitative study findings. Responses from focus group participants revealed common themes in asking about streamlining efforts. In short, many of the themes revolved around relationships that were built between and among the sister agencies. For that reason, two sets of questions were developed: those involving relationship issues and those involving specific, controllable items. The controllable or quantifiable items included non-relationship type questions such as attendance at meetings and adherence to schedules. The relation ship items were much more subjective-oriented.

The first eight general relationship questions were drawn from a Gallup employee survey. The Gallup Q^12® instrument measures how engaged an employee is with their job. The 12 questions were reconstructed into eight questions for a similar purpose, namely, how engaged are respondents in working with their sister agencies. The questions were modified only for relevancy purposes. The next two sections, communications and timeliness, reflected specific items that were discussed repeatedly in the focus groups. The remaining nine general relationship questions reflected issues that emerged during the focus groups and the panel discussions.

Changes to the Questionnaire from the Pilot Study

From the pilot study several changes were recommended and incorporated into the final survey instrument. These included:

1. Deleting Q4, Q6I, Q10, and D4.
2. Adding 8D and 8a on timeliness.
3. Adding clarification to S2 so interviewers could better understand that respondents can be employed at the same agency and working with NEPA each for two years, but not necessarily in the exact same role (as government employees tend to move around in their job titles and functions).
4. Adding additional clarification language to S8 to better understand which permits or completed NEPA documents we should target (completed ones only).

Respondent Burden

The length of time the questionnaire averaged was about 13 minutes in total. The average amount of time respondents took for each survey was 10.1 minutes with up to an additional 5 minutes to complete the snowball sampling technique at the end of the questionnaire.

Sampling Plan

Gathering Names

Because no listed sample of potential respondents existed, the sampling plan for this study was constructed using several techniques. First, FHWA and Gallup assembled a list of agencies deemed most relevant for this study. Gallup staff then generated phone numbers by looking up both resource and transportation agencies on the Internet, calling to confirm the correct individual, and then logging the name and phone number into a database. Members from the National Technical Review Board also supplied names and phone numbers for likely sample members.

Respondent Eligibility

To determine if a respondent was eligible for the survey, a phone call was made to an Internet phone number (most agencies make reference to their environmental streamlining practice on their national or state Web site) and a Gallup recruiter asked for the person at the agency who "works most with environmental streamlining issues." From there, that person was contacted and oftentimes, additional people were added depending on the recommendations from the initial agency contact. If no one at the agency knew about environmental streamlining, the Gallup recruiter would either go back to the Web site or try to contact another person at the agency through the Review Panel or through other agency referrals. This process continued until the agency in that region had at least one person listed on our database.

The list of agencies contacted for the transportation survey included:

Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Authority
State's Department of Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration
Mass Transit Agencies
City and/or County Transportation Authorities

The list of agencies contacted for the resource survey included:

National Park Service
National Forest Service
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Land Management
National Marine Fisheries
Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Federal Lands Program
U.S. Coast Guard
State Department of Natural Resources/Department of Environment
State Historic Preservation Organizations

Once a respondent completed the questionnaire, the snowball sampling technique was implemented whereby respondents were asked if they knew of additional people who would qualify for this survey. If so, names and phone numbers were taken and the new respondents called.

Snowball Sampling Technique

The snowball technique is a type of nonprobability sample. A nonprobability sample involves personal judgment somewhere in the selection process. The fact that the elements are not selected through probability methods precludes an assessment of sampling error or, an inability to place bounds on the precision of the estimates. In this case, we do not know the population of respondents. Therefore, precision estimates will not apply although the sample will include the most complete set of respondents known to be directly working with NEPA in both the Federal and State governments.

"The snowball sample is a judgment sample that is sometimes used to sample special populations. This sample relies on the researcher's ability to locate an initial set of respondents with the desired characteristics. These individuals are then used as informants to identify others with the desired characteristics... those initially asked to participate would also be asked for names of others whose cooperation would be solicited. Thus, the sample "snowballs" by getting larger as participants identify still other possible respondents."³

³Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations. p.582. Sixth Edition. Churchill, Gilbert, A. The Dryden Press: Florida. 1995.

Limitations of a Nonprobability Sample

Many limitations exist with a nonprobability sample and they are outlined below. However, when there is no known population, there is no alternative to the nonprobability sampling technique. Limitations include:

• There is no way of ensuring that the sample is representative of the population at large. Therefore, there is no way of estimating the probability that any population element will be included in the sample
• There is no sampling error or significance since the elements are not selected probabilistically.
• This sample should not be confused with a probability sampling in any manner.
• In addition, because this is a not a probability sample, there is no weighting techniques that are applied to these data. As such, we do not present the data in a combined format but rather as the sample was taken, by region or by agency.

Data Collection

Gallup's executive telephone interviewing center was responsible for all telephone activities. An interviewer-training manual was prepared by project staff to provide a set of project-specific guidelines for training staff and implementing the telephone surveys.

Pre-notification Letters

Pre-notification letters were sent to all respondents identified in the sample. The letters were signed by the FHWA Administrator explaining the purpose of the survey and asking for cooperation. A copy of the Administrator's letter is attached to this report.

Selection and Training of Interviewers

Five interviewers were selected to conduct the interviews. All were chosen based upon their prior interviewing and CATI (computer-assisted telephone interviewing) experience, with each having at least four years of experience with Gallup's Survent system. Training occurred on April 10, 2002 in Lincoln, Nebraska with a videoconference from Washington, D.C. attended by Gallup and FHWA project staff for the pilot study. Interviewers were trained for three hours on the use of the FHWA questionnaires, techniques for understanding screening procedures, and a review of standard responses to commonly asked questions associated with the questionnaires. The training materials included a complete dictionary of acronyms for agencies that they would be working with as well as an explanation for each of the questions. A review of procedures was then given to interviewers for the final study in December 2002

CATI Interviews

Telephone interviewing was primarily conducted using a CATI system and secondarily using web interviews. Telephone interviewing began on October 28, 2002 and continued through April 18, 2003 for transportation and thru May 16, 2003 for resource. However, interviewing was stopped from November 1, 2002 thru February 1, 2003 in order to obtain an OMB extension. A total of 541 resource and 576 transportation agency interviews were completed using CATI.

Prior to interviewing, all potential respondents received a pre-notification letter of the survey, signed by the FHWA Administrator (a copy of the letter is attached to this document). The letters were sent on original FHWA letterhead in FHWA envelopes.

Web Interviews

To ensure maximum response rates, a Web site was designed to give respondents an alternative mode to use. The Web site was initiated on November 10, 2002 and available for respondents to use as of that date. Respondents were sent to the Web who were referred to us from other respondents that we spoke with. In other words, only referrals were given the option of answering the questionnaire on the Web so that we could include the name of the person who referred us to them, as well as a code for them to access the Web site.

In total, 8% of respondents chose to use the Web rather than the CATI system. An analysis of the modal effects of the survey showed that, as expected, Web respondents did, tend to have less positive responses than did CATI respondents. Differing modal effects is a common result of a survey of this nature and the important consideration is the extent that those effects play on the results. And, although modal differences were expected in this data, it was deemed more important to reach as many people as possible than to maintain the exactness of the survey mode.

Web responses by region were examined and in only one region, Region 10, did the number of Web responses go above 15% of total responses (Web responses in Region 10 were 20% of the total transportation sample). However, Region 10, in the data does not show up as a region with extensive difficulties and so, the modal effects are not considered a hindrance to the results. It is something that needs to be carefully considered in the future and among future survey work done for this group of respondents.

Follow-Up Procedures

The surveys used a 7x7 call design. Seven attempts were made to contact an eligible respondent and an additional seven attempts were made to interview that person. All calls were outbound with an 800 number left on answering machines to call Gallup back at the respondent's convenience. If the interviewer discovered a number was either disconnected or ineligible in some manner, the number was returned to the Gallup recruiter and the number checked for accuracy. If there was still a problem, the Gallup recruiter would contact the agency for another phone number.

The final completion rates for this study follow in Table 1. Final completion rates were 71% for the transportation agency study and 61% for the resource agency study.

Table 1. Final Completion Rates

	Transportation	Resource
Completes -- Phone	576	541
Completes -- Web	79	13
Total Completes	655	554
Screen Failure/Ineligible	54	71
Screen Failure/Don't Know-Refuse	17	26
Call Back/Answering Machine/No Answer	212	302
Other	117	494
Refusal	14	31
Disconnected #	9	11
Web Completes	(79)	(13)
Total Phone Contacts	999	1476

Respondents

Professions

Respondents from the surveys, for both transportation and resource agencies, were in a variety of professions. For the resource agencies, these included:

• Archaeologist
• Biologist
• Chief Environmental Officer
• Design Engineer
• Director of Planning
• District Engineer
• Division Chief
• Engineering Manager/Supervisor
• Environmental Assessment Manager
• Environmental Coordinator/Program Manager/Specialist/Analyst
• Environmental Manager/Supervisor
• Environmental Policy
• Environmental/Civil Engineer
• Fish and Wildlife Biologist
• Landscape Architect
• Preservation Specialist
• Transportation Planner/Specialist

For transportation, the professions of respondents included:

• Chief Environmental Officer
• Design Engineer
• Director of Planning
• District Engineer
• Division Chief
• Engineer/Senior Engineer
• Environmental Policy/Planner/Coordinator/Specialist/Analyst/Program Manager
• Environmental Engineer/Manager/Supervisor
• Transportation Specialist
• Archaeologist
• Environmental Planner
• Biologist
• Civil Engineer
• Operations Engineer
• Transportation Planner/Engineer

Who Was Eligible and Whom Did They Rate?

In order to qualify to participate in this survey, respondents had to meet one of the top two and the third condition:

1. A staff-level individual who works directly with NEPA-related documents, reviews or comments on NEPA-related documents, or somehow is directly related with the completion of these documents.
2. A manager at either a resource or transportation agency who reviews the documents upon completion.
3. In addition, the respondent had to be working with NEPA in some capacity for at least two years to qualify.

At this point, if the respondent qualified, he or she was asked if he or she had completed either an EIS, EA, or CE in the past 90 days/six months. If so, he or she was qualified to complete the interview.

Eligible respondents were asked to choose a project that they completed within the selected time frame about which they were comfortable speaking and about which they had the most interaction with other agencies. Respondents then listed agencies that they worked with during the project, and Gallup randomly selected an agency for the interview. This project and selected agency were then queried in the first set of questions.

Number of Completes

Being a nonprobability sample, statistical terms such as significance and sampling error do not apply. However, there are still some considerations to be made in presentation of the data. For example the threshold of five respondents was set for presenting data. Any subgroup with less than five respondents was not shown for confidentiality purposes.

For the charts and figures shown in the following pages, the following sample sizes were used on the graphs. There are a few graphs where sample sizes varied by one or two respondents, but these sample sizes were fairly consistent across questions.

Table 2. Sample Sizes

	Number of Completes (n)	Number of Completes (n)
Region	Resource Survey	Transportation Survey
Region 1 -- Reviewers	20	23
Region 2 -- Reviewers	11	24
Region 3 -- Reviewers	32	39
Region 4 -- Reviewers	33	41
Region 5 -- Reviewers	33	36
Region 6 -- Reviewers	33	52
Region 7 -- Reviewers	21	29
Region 8 -- Reviewers	30	47
Region 9 -- Reviewers	37	60
Region 10 -- Reviewers	32	40
Region 1 -- Managers	30	41
Region 2 -- Managers	27	41
Region 3 -- Managers	37	34
Region 4 -- Managers	32	38
Region 5 -- Managers	21	18
Region 6 -- Managers	44	27
Region 7 -- Managers	33	25
Region 8 -- Managers	20	33
Region 9 -- Managers	38	20
Region 10 -- Managers	44	41
Project Type
EIS Projects	98	105
EA FONSI Projects	92	135
CE Projects	19	123
Programmatic Agreements	28	20
Agency Being Rated
FHWA	31
Region 1 -- DOT	17
Region 2 -- DOT	10
Region 3 -- DOT	28
Region 4 -- DOT	31
Region 5 -- DOT	26
Region 6 -- DOT	25
Region 7 -- DOT	16
Region 8 -- DOT	25
Region 9 -- DOT	21
Region 10 -- DOT	27
EPA		17
US Fish & Wildlife		60
Army Corps of Engineers		75
State Historic Preservation Agencies		55

Analysis of Results - By Question Category

Considering the questions, by category, some interesting results emerge. In total, six categories of questions were asked, problem occurrence, relationship, communication, timeliness, performance, and a general set of attributes. Each of these areas is considered in-depth, by region below. Graphs for this analysis are shown in the Reviewer Data and Manager Data sections of this report.

The analysis begins with findings from the overall satisfaction question and proceeds to the problem occurrence sections, which due to small sample sizes were not considered on a regional basis.

A national assessment of these results is found in the abridged report of this study. This report focuses mainly on regional results.

Overall Satisfaction

There was some variation in the overall satisfaction scores asked, more so among the transportation reviewers. The question asked of both transportation and resource reviewers was "Overall, how satisfied were you with [named organization]'s performance on this project? Please use a scale from one-to-five, where 1 is 'very satisfied,' and 5 is 'very unsatisfied'". Among transportation reviewers, 67 percent stated a positive response (either very or somewhat satisfied). Regional variation fluctuated between Region 3 (54 percent positive response) at 13 percentage points below the overall average, and Region 5 (at 81 percent) at 14 percentage points above. However, most of the DOT regions were within the range of 4 percentage points below and 7 percentage points above the overall average.

On the other end of the spectrum, 12 percent of transportation reviewers reported they were "unsatisfied" or "very unsatisfied" with the performance of the named resource organization. This percentage varied by a maximum of +/- 6 percentage points from the mean across all 10 regions, from 6 percent in Region 6 to 18 percent in Region 9. The combined dissatisfaction levels for most of the DOT Regions were within 4 percentage points of the overall percentage (12 percent), supporting the conclusion that dissatisfaction with NEPA project interactions is at a relatively low level in all regions.

For the smaller number (282) of resource reviewers, regional variation in satisfaction distributions appeared slightly larger than for transportation reviewers, but this is primarily a consequence of the smaller numbers of resource reviewers. Among resource reviewers 64 percent stated a positive response (either very or somewhat satisfied). Variations from the overall results were mostly due to the small cell sizes (zero to 3 cases) occurring in Regions with very few respondents. Despite the smaller cell sizes, the regional distributions of satisfaction for resource reviewers were sometimes similar and sometimes different from those of transportation reviewers. Resource reviewers in Regions 1, 3, and 7 reported higher levels of satisfaction, and those in Regions 2, 8, and 10 indicated lower percentages of satisfaction than the overall average. Conversely Regions 2, 9, and 10 showed somewhat higher levels of dissatisfaction, while Regions 3, 4, and 7 reported lower levels of dissatisfaction compared to the overall average.

On balance, reviewers from both types of organizations report moderately high satisfaction in their interactions with counterpart agencies on recent projects. However, there is clearly room for process improvements that could further increase the satisfaction of these key officials.

Problem Occurrence

Reviewers for both types of organizations were asked:

"Did you experience any problems with [named organization] during the [cited project]?"

Just over one-third (36 percent) of transportation agency reviewers reported that they experienced problems with the named organizations on their cited projects, while nearly two-thirds (64 percent) indicated that they had not encountered problems.

Similarly, 37 percent of resource reviewers indicated that they had experienced problems dealing with their counterpart agencies on their cited projects, and 63 percent reported no problems.

An examination of problem occurrence was completed against satisfaction to determine the relative correlations. As expected, the correlations between the responses were very high, but they were not perfect, so satisfaction and problem occurrence are not measuring precisely the same reactions. Not surprisingly, the transportation and resource reviewers who reported experiencing project problems were much more likely to also report being "dissatisfied" or "very dissatisfied" with the performance of the named organization on the cited project. Fully 34 percent of transportation reviewers who reported problems with their resource counterparts also reported being dissatisfied with their performance, and another 36 percent gave a neutral response to the satisfaction question. Among resource reviewers, 40 percent of those who reported problems with their transportation counterparts also reported being dissatisfied or very dissatisfied. An additional 31 percent of resource reviewers who reported problems gave a neutral response to the satisfaction question.

We note that about 30 percent of both types of reviewers who reported having project problems also indicated they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with their counterpart organizations.

For both transportation and resource reviewers who did not report problems, less than 1 percent indicated that they were dissatisfied, and only 12 to 14 percent gave neutral responses (lower than the 20 percent giving neutral scores overall).

We believe at least two types of reviewer reactions lead to these results. First, some reviewers (of both types) may have experienced problems with the named organizations on their projects that were so minor that they did not preclude a satisfactory process and/or outcome. Second, based on results of focus group sessions held prior to the survey, we understand that many reviewers involved in NEPA projects expect to experience problems with their counterpart organizations. Because these problems are anticipated, and may be viewed by some reviewers as unavoidable and inherent in the process, they are not sufficient to cause expressions of dissatisfaction as measured in the 2003 survey.

Yet, it is clear that the occurrence of project problems with the named organization is strongly associated with overall satisfaction levels reported by reviewers. Among transportation reviewers, 87 percent of those who did not experience problems indicated that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their named counterpart organizations. Similarly, among resource reviewers who did not experience problems, 85 percent indicated they were satisfied or very satisfied with the performance of their named counterpart organizations. It is reasonable to expect that reducing or eliminating problems by examining root causes and assisting transportation and resource organizations to achieve better, faster responses will be the primary key to improving overall performance and the satisfaction ratings given in response to evaluation survey questions.

Chart 1. Transportation Reviewers: Problem Occurrence and Corresponding Levels of Satisfaction
with the Performance of Named Counterpart Organizations on the Cited NEPA Project

Chart 2. Resource Reviewers: Problem Occurrence and Corresponding Levels of Satisfaction
with the Performance of Named Counterpart Organizations on the Cited NEPA Project

Timing and Nature of Project Problems Reported by Reviewers

To probe the associations between problem occurrence and satisfaction with the named organizations, the 140 transportation reviewers and the 105 resource reviewers who reported project problems were asked a series of questions about the nature of the problems they experienced.

First, they were asked:

"At what stage of the process did the problem occur?" and then were read the following series of eight stages of project development when problems might be expected to arise:

1. Early project planning or scoping
2. Defining purpose and need
3. Information or data collection
4. Development and analysis of alternatives
5. Analysis of impacts
6. Selection of preferred alternatives
7. Commitment to mitigation measures
8. Finalizing documents or responses to comments

Reviewers were allowed to report problem occurrence at any or all of the eight listed project stages or activities. The following distributions of problem occurrence were reported by transportation and resource reviewers.

Transportation and resource reviewers thus showed some similarities, but also some important differences in their reports on the stages of NEPA projects when problems arose. For both groups of reviewers, the stage of "defining purpose and need" of the project was the least likely point for perceived problems to occur and the stage of "analysis of impacts" was rated as one of the most frequent problem stages. Nearly two-thirds of the transportation reviewers who reported project problems indicated that they occurred at both the "analysis of impacts" and the "finalizing documents or responses to comments" stages.

On the resource side, nearly two-thirds of reviewers cited problems at the "analysis of impacts" stage and the "information or data collection" stage.

Transportation reviewers were more likely than resource reviewers to report that problems occurred at the "commitment to mitigation measures" stage.

Resource reviewers were more likely than transportation reviewers to report that problems arose at one of the remaining three stages listed, including "early project planning or scoping," "development and analysis of alternatives," and "selection of preferred alternatives."

At least one-third of the reviewers of one type or the other cited problems in all 8 of the project stages listed in the survey question, indicating that problems occur with significant frequency at all stages of NEPA projects. At least 40 percent of the reviewers of one type or the other cited problems at 7 of the 8 stages listed. Over half of the reviewers of one type or the other cited problems at 5 of the 8 listed stages.

More than half of the reviewers from both types of organizations reported problems with "analysis of impacts" and "finalizing documents or responses to comments," a fact that we believe deserves attention. Beyond these general observations, there are significant differences in the views of the two sides concerning the most problematic stages in NEPA projects.

It is also important to keep in mind, however, that the percentages reported in the prior paragraphs were calculated based only on the 1/3 of transportation and resource reviewers who reported experiencing any problems in a recent project that required the most interaction with counterpart agencies. In other words, even the most common problems were cited by just over 20 percent of all the reviewers who were interviewed. Put differently, about 80 percent of the reviewers on both sides of the NEPA projects did not experience problems with "analysis of impacts." This fact may increase the difficulty of developing effective, targeted interventions that provide universal improvements at this stage of future NEPA projects. That said, data and information collection, impact analysis, and finalizing documents are clearly three areas that may benefit most from management attention on process improvement.

Reviewers were then asked to "please summarize what the (problem was / problems were) in just a few words." Based on earlier focus group sessions, our interviewers were prepared to field-code several "expected" types of responses shown in Table 4 (along with the percentage of transportation and resource reviewers who named each type):

For transportation reviewers, "lack of timely response" was cited more than twice as often as any other issue, and three to five times as often as most of the other types of problems that were mentioned. "Staff turnover or availability" was the second most common type of issue reported by transportation reviewers, a symptom that could be closely related to the timeliness complaint. Issues such as "problems with mitigation," "poor communications," "wrong or incomplete information," and "disagreements or differences of opinion" were mentioned by 6 to 9 percent of the transportation reviewers who reported project problems. In fact, however, these matters were only mentioned by 9 to 12 reviewers out of the 391 who were interviewed, so they do not appear to us to be very frequent causes of problems.

Among resource reviewers, there was a more even distribution mentioning each of the listed problems, with "wrong or incomplete information" topping the list, followed by "lack of timely response," "poor communications," "poor coordination," and "problems with alternative interpretation" cited about equally by 11-12 percent. Again, these four latter types of problems were each mentioned by only 11 or 12 resources reviewers, suggesting that they are not widespread problems.

In summary, from the transportation side, the single dominant problem associated with dissatisfaction with the performance of counterpart organizations seems to be timeliness of response, which may be related (in the view of transportation reviewers) to staffing problems at the resource permitting agencies and may in turn lead to problems with mitigation efforts. From the resource side, project problems that are associated with dissatisfaction with the performance of transportation agencies appear to be a broader mix of process issues led by quality of information provided and timeliness of response, but also including communications, coordination, and other process matters. This understanding provides a framework for the analysis of other ratings collected from transportation agency and resource organization reviewers, as detailed further below and by region.

Relationship Questions

The relationship questions focused on the organization's ability to get along with each other throughout a specific project. Seven questions in total were asked:

1. My agency knew what was expected of it in this process
2. [Named Organization] provided my agency with the materials, information, or documentation that we needed
3. [Named Organization] appreciated our contribution to the process
4. [Named Organization] encouraged us to play an active role in the process
5. My agency's opinions seemed to count in the process
6. [Named Organization] helped to move this project forward
7. [Named Organization] made efforts to improve the process during this project

Among these questions, the strongest agreement was expressed for the first question, "my agency knew what was expected of it in this process" with 51% of transportation reviewers rating a '5' to their resource counterparts and 61% of resource reviewers rating a '5' to their transportation counterparts.

Communication Questions

The communication questions focused on the organization's ability to keep in contact with one another, both in terms of attending meetings and on going throughout the project itself. Eleven questions in total were asked.

1. [Named Organization] involved us early on in the process (asked of resource agencies only)
2. [Named Organization] responded in a timely way to our requests
3. [Named Organization] invited our participation in key meetings
4. [Named Organization] kept us informed of their progress
5. [Named Organization] was open and honest with us
6. [Named Organization] was open to our suggestions or alternatives
7. [Named Organization] gave reasonable suggestions or alternatives
8. [Named Organization] gave clear explanations if they did not agree with our recommendations
9. [Named Organization] was willing to compromise
10. [Named Organization] had adequate participation at key meetings
11. Overall, there was a sufficient level of communication between the two agencies on this project

The one item that received the highest positive ratings was the "open and honest" question. Seventy six percent of both transportation and resource reviewers agreed (or strongly agreed) that their named counterpart organization "was open and honest with us." Forty-nine percent of transportation reviewers strongly agreed with this statement, compared to only 38 percent of resource reviewers. This is the second highest level of agreement shown by both types of reviewers to the 21 evaluation items, with only the first item ("My agency knew what was expected of it") receiving higher levels of agreement from both groups.

In general, a substantial majority of both types of reviewers appeared to be satisfied with interagency communications on their cited projects. On the summary item, "Overall, there was a sufficient level of communication between the two agencies on this project," there was strong similarity in the response distributions of both types of reviewers, with approximately 70 percent in agreement, 20 percent giving a neutral response, and about 10 percent disagreeing.

Timeliness Questions

The timeliness questions focused on the organizations ability to move the project along and to stick to deadlines set throughout the process. A total of four questions were asked in this section.

1. [Named Organization] adhered to schedules that were set throughout the process
2. [Named Organization] gave your agency enough time to accomplish tasks
3. The entire process took a reasonable amount of time
4. The process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA

In these timeliness questions, we see one of the most important questions asked of respondents, namely, the respondent's opinion of if the process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA. In that question the two types of reviewers displayed not only large differences of opinion, but a strong division of opinion within each of the two groups. While 55 percent of transportation reviewers agreed (or strongly agreed) with the statement, only 35 percent of resource reviewers shared that view. Conversely, 32 percent of transportation reviewers disagreed (or strongly disagreed) with this statement, while 46 percent of resource reviewers also indicated disagreement.

Performance Questions

The performance attributes asked a variety of questions on how the organizations perceived each other to be contributing to the project overall, as well as some of the day-to-day workings of the project itself. Nine questions in total were asked of respondents:

1. The quality of information [Named Organization] provided to your agency
2. The completeness of information they provided
3. The competence of their agency staff who you interacted with
4. Their ability to stay organized throughout the project
5. Their understanding of your agency's requirements
6. The level of resources they devoted to this project
7. The range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project
8. Their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures
9. How good of a job they did at protecting the environment (asked of resource reviewers only)

The most positive rating received among these performance attributes was with the question "competence of their agency staff who you interacted with". For this question, 76 percent of transportation reviewers and 81 percent of resource reviewers gave rating scores of 4 or 5. This strongly suggests that reviewers do not view the capabilities and experience of counterpart staff as an impediment to successful NEPA processes. These are among the most positive ratings provided by respondents to any item in the survey.

General Questions--Reviewers

A series of nine questions were asked with regard to general questions about the sister organizations. These did not include any specific project related questions, rather, referred to the general relationship between the two agencies. These nine questions include:

1. [Named Organization] understands your agency's mission
2. [Named Organization] cares about your agency's mission
3. [Named Organization] is committed to doing quality work
4. [Named Organization] has competent staff
5. There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies
6. [Named Organization] is committed to making the environmental review process a timely one while ensuring environmentally sound projects
7. [Named Organization] is willing to compromise
8. There is a sufficient level of communication between our two agencies
9. [Named Organization] is committed to protecting the environment/committed to transportation improvements (asked of resource/transportation participants respectively)

One of the most crucial questions in this group is the perception on the level of commitment of the other agency to "making the environmental review process a timely one..." The response distributions on whether the counterpart organization is committed to making the environmental review process run efficiently has 46% of transportation reviewers and 51% of resource reviewers giving a positive response.

Another 26% of transportation and 33% of resource reviewers gave neutral responses to the item on commitment to making the environmental review process run efficiently.

General Questions--Managers

The same set of nine "general" questions asked of reviewers was asked of managers (see section above). The managers only had this set of questions to answer as they were not involved in day-to-day dealings with projects.

Considering the same important question for managers as for reviewers, we see transportation and resource managers differ significantly in their assessment of this question. Transportation managers gave less positive responses, with only 37 percent agreeing (or strongly agreeing) with the statement while resource managers were more in line with the reviewers having 55% give a positive response. Conversely, 34 percent of transportation managers disagreed (or strongly disagreed) with the statement - well over twice the percentage of resource managers who expressed any level of disagreement.

Analysis of Results by Region

The following analysis examines the findings by each region for reviewers and managers. The reviewer analysis includes all of the attributes asked of respondents with regard to a specific project (relationship, communication, timeliness, and performance). There are additional questions asked about the overall relationship that exists between the two agencies.

NOTE: Due to the few number of cases per region, the regional analysis that follows should be considered carefully. The population of NEPA reviewers and managers across the nation is small; when considered by region, it is even smaller. When small cell sizes are analyzed, changes of one or two individuals can have a strong effect on results. Nonetheless, we believe that some information by region is better than none for the NEPA reviewers and managers in their efforts to improve and therefore, have supplied the results herein. The regional analysis that follows was undertaken when only a given regional cell size contained at least 27-30 responses.

The manager analysis only includes questions about the overall relationship between the two agencies since managers are not involved in day-to-day interactions of a NEPA project and therefore, have fewer questions to consider.

Gallup performed an optimization analysis to determine which of the attributes asked were considered "optimal" and which were considered "opportunities" (see definitions below). For this quadrant map, the integral question was efficiency and specifically, to what extent did respondents believe the process they had just completed was an efficient one. When, throughout the quadrant map discussion, we use the term "efficiency variables" we refer to the respondent's perceptions of the efficiency of the NEPA process with the completed project being reviewed.

The analysis involved creating quadrant maps for each region separately and then displaying the importance or correlation of each attribute in predicting the efficiency variables compared to how the region scored on that item. The outcome variable in this analysis is a measure of efficiency of the NEPA process. It is defined by three survey items, agree/disagree questions, rated on a five-point scale where '5' is strongly agree and '1' is strongly disagree:

Efficiency Variables for Reviewers

NEPA Reviewers
Q8c. The entire process took a reasonable amount of time
Q8d. The process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA
(NOTE: The data for Q8d was reversed for analysis purposes)
Q11f. The agency is committed to making the environmental review process run efficiently

The efficiency variable for managers, however, was Q11f since the project level questions were not of this group.

Efficiency Variables for Managers

Managers
Q11f. The agency is committed to making the environmental review process run efficiently

The quadrant map below is split by means for each region. The horizontal mean split is "importance", calculated based on the average of the correlations to the three efficiency variables. If an attribute correlated higher than the mean correlation of all attributes, it is considered important to respondents in determining efficiency. If it correlated lower, it is considered less important. The vertical mean split is performance, or how the agency was rated in performing on that attribute. The %5s were used for performance and the mean %5s for all attributes the mean vertical line. So, if an attribute scored above the mean %5s, the agencies are considered to be performing well on this attribute. If it scored below the mean %5s, the agencies are scored as performing low on this attribute. The intersection of these two mean scores provides the access for determining importance and performance for the attributes. The means for each region's map are shown in the analysis that follows. In addition, a quadrant map was constructed for each region and for the individual agencies where we had enough sample (FHWA, ACOE, USFW, and SHPO). The efficiency variables were not included as attributes in the analysis.

The sample quadrant map below displays an "optimal" attribute versus an "opportunity" attribute. An "optimal" attribute is one in which respondents perceptions are that the agency is performing efficiently (PERFORMANCE), and the attributes are important contributors to perceptions of efficiency (IMPORTANCE). These attributes would appear in the upper right hand quadrant. An "opportunity" attribute is one in which respondents did not rate the agency as performing efficiently, but considered the attribute to be extremely important to those perceptions of efficiency, lending itself to opportunities for improvement (upper left hand quadrant). Although a quadrant map was constructed for each region, for purposes of simplicity, the quadrant maps are not presented in this report. Instead, the top three "optimal" and top three "opportunity" areas are summarized for each region.

The mean rating for each region is shown on the top line of each box.

Sample Quadrant Map

Region 1

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=23)
There were insufficient transportation reviewers in Region 1 to conduct this analysis.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=20)
There were insufficient resource reviewers in Region 1 to conduct this analysis.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=41)
Transportation managers in Region 1 did not rate resource agencies optimal on any of the survey variables, which means that transportation managers in Region 1did not believe that the resource agencies were performing above average on any of the important attributes. However, managers in Region 1 did identify some improvement opportunities for its sister resource agencies in Region 1. These included increasing the level of trust between the two agencies, increasing the level of commitment by resource agencies to transportation improvements, and caring more about the mission of the transportation agency.

Transportation Managers - Region 1

OPTIMAL	OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=24%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
		Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies	20%
		Q11J. Agency is committed to transportation improvements	15%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	15%

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=30)
Managers in the resource agencies had an almost entirely different set of priorities. In addition, they rated their transportation counterparts as performing well in one important area, being committed to performing quality work (compared to the transportation managers who rated the resource agencies as performing well in none of the important areas).

According to the managers of resource agencies, the best opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 1 would be focusing on increasing their commitment to protecting the environment, caring more about the resource agency's mission, and being more willing to compromise.

Resource Managers - Region 1

OPTIMAL (mean %5=19%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=19%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11C. Agency is committed to doing quality work	28%	Q11I. Agency is committed to protecting the environment	14%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	14%
		Q11G. Agency is willing to compromise	7%

Region 2

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=24 )
There were insufficient transportation reviewers in Region 2 to conduct this analysis.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=11)
There were insufficient resource reviewers in Region 2 to conduct this analysis.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=41)
In a show of support for their sister resource agencies, transportation managers in Region 2 rated resource agencies as optimal on having competent staff. It was the only important attribute where transportation managers rated the resource agencies as performing above average. There were, however, three items that appeared as opportunities for the resource agencies in Region 2 to work on. They included, achieving a better understanding of the transportation agency's mission, having a willingness to compromise, and caring about the transportation agency's mission.

Transportation Managers - Region 2

OPTIMAL (mean %5=11%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=11%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11D. Agency has competent staff	17%	Q11A. Agency understands your agency's mission	7%
		Q11G. Agency is willing to compromise	5%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	2%

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=27)
Resource managers have a slightly different agenda. In a similar show of support, they rated transportation agencies on doing very well with being committed to quality work, an integral ingredient for organizations working together.

However, the resource managers suggested attributes for transportation managers to work on differs from that suggested by the transportation managers with one similarity. The resource managers suggest opportunities for improvement exist with the agencies trusting each other, caring about the resource agencies' mission, and being more committed to protecting the environment.

Resource Managers - Region 2

OPTIMAL (mean %5=24%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=24%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11C. Agency is committed to doing quality work	37%	Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies	19%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	19%
		Q11I. Agency is committed to protecting the environment	15%

Region 3

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=39)
Transportation reviewers in Region 3 rated resource agencies as optimal on sticking to schedules, responding in a timely way to requests, and devoting sufficient resources to the project. In essence, the transportation reviewers see the resource agencies as responding in a timely manner. The suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 3 are to focus on being more open to suggestions or alternatives, keeping the transportation agency informed of their progress, and caring about the mission of the transportation agency.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=32)
Resource reviewers in Region 3 rated transportation agencies as performing well on having competent staff, being committed to doing quality work and sticking to schedules set throughout the process. And, the suggested opportunities for transportation agencies to improve in Region 3 are to focus on responding to requests, staying organized throughout the project, and being flexible in considering a range of mitigation measures.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=34)
Transportation managers in Region 3 rated resource agencies as doing very well in being committed to quality work, having competent staff, and having a high level of trust between the agencies. According to transportation managers, the best opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 3 would be to focus on being more willing to compromise, caring more about the mission of the transportation agency, and increasing the level of communication between the two agencies.

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=37)
Resource managers in Region 3 agree with the transportation managers that a solid level of trust exists. In addition, they also believed that the transportation agencies understood what their mission was about. However, what the resource managers saw as a strength, a sufficient level of communication, the transportation managers saw as an opportunity for improvement. According to resource managers, the best opportunities for transportation agencies to improve in Region 3 are to have them increase their commitment to protecting the environment, as well as being more willing to compromise throughout the process.

Resource Managers - Region 3

OPTIMAL (mean %5=27%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=27%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11A. Agency understands your agency's mission	35%	Q11I. Agency is committed to protecting the environment	25%
Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies	30%	Q11G. Agency is willing to compromise	19%
Q11H. There is a sufficient level of communication between your two agencies	30%

Region 4

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=41)
Transportation reviewers in Region 4 rated resource agencies as performing well on having a sufficient level of communication, helping to move this project forward, and sticking to schedules. The suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 4 are to focus on understanding the transportation agency's requirements, keeping the transportation agency informed of their progress, and devoting a sufficient level of resources to the project.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=33)
Resource reviewers in Region 4 are focused on different areas of importance. Of the top six important attributes, one-half of them concern the overall agencies, and not specific project level items. The resource reviewers in Region 4 rated transportation agencies as optimal in appreciating their contribution, giving the resource agency sufficient time to accomplish tasks, and being committed to quality work. The suggested opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 4 are to focus on increasing levels of trust, caring about the mission of the resource agency, and sticking to schedules.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=38)
Transportation managers in Region 4 rated resource agencies as performing well on only one attribute--having a sufficient level of communication between the two agencies. However, three suggested opportunities for improvement emerged, focus on increasing their commitment to transportation improvements, caring more about the mission of the transportation agency, and increasing the level of trust between the two agencies.

Transportation Managers - Region 4

OPTIMAL (mean %5=13%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=13%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11H. There is a sufficient level of communication between our two agencies	15%	Q11J. Agency is committed to transportation improvements	10%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	10%
		Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between your two agencies	5%

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=32)
Resource managers in Region 4 found two attributes where transportation agencies performed very well: being committed to doing quality work and having competent staff. Two additional attributes were suggested as opportunities for improvement transportation agencies in Region 4 to improve upon. These would be to focus on being more committed to protecting the environment and being more willing to compromise.

Region 5

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=36)
Transportation reviewers in Region 5 rated resource agencies as optimal on giving the transportation agency enough time to accomplish tasks, sticking to schedules, and giving clear explanations when they disagreed. The suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 5 are to focus on a greater understanding of the requirements of the transportation agency, making efforts to help move the project forward, and keeping the transportation agency informed of their progress. Note that in Region 5, the importance measure was only defined by questions 8D (The entire process took a reasonable amount of time) and 11F (Agency is committed to making the environmental review process run more efficiently). Question 8D (The process could have been shortened without compromising the intent of NEPA) was not asked of Region 5 officials during the pilot (the question was added subsequent to the pilot test).

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=32)
Resource reviewers in Region 5 rated transportation agencies as optimal on having competent staff, being open and honest, and understanding the resource agency's requirements. The suggested opportunities for improvement among transportation agencies in Region 5 are to focus on increasing their commitment to the environment, being more willing to compromise, and caring more about the resource agency's mission.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=18)
There were insufficient transportation managers in Region 5 to conduct this analysis.

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=21)
There were insufficient resource managers in Region 5 to conduct this analysis.

Region 6

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=52)
Transportation reviewers in Region 6 rated resource agencies as performing well on being willing to consider a range of mitigation measures, providing necessary materials and information, and being open to suggestions or alternatives. The best opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 6 would be to focus on sticking to schedules, being more willing to compromise, and devoting more resources.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=33)
Similarly, resource reviewers in Region 6 rated transportation agencies as performing well on the getting the materials and equipment to them as needed. The additional areas where they rated the transportation agencies well included the competence of their staff and helping to move the project forward. Suggested opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 6 are to focus on increasing their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures, sticking to schedules, and making efforts to improve the process. It is interesting to note that although the transportation officials were rated as performing well with moving the specific project forward, they were rated poorly on making efforts to improve the process overall.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=27)
Transportation managers in Region 6 rated resource agencies as performing well on only one attribute, being committed to doing work. However, three areas of suggested improvement did arise. Those areas for the resource agencies in Region 6 to work on include focusing on a greater understanding, concern for the transportation agency's mission, and being more committed to transportation improvements.

Transportation Managers - Region 6

OPTIMAL (mean %5=23%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=23%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11C. Agency is committed to doing quality work	44%	Q11A. Agency understands your agency's mission	22%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	15%
		Q11J. Agency is committed to transportation improvements	7%

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=40)
Resource managers in Region 6 rated transportation agencies as performing well on being committed to protecting the environment and doing quality work. The best opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 6 would be to focus on increasing the levels of communication between the two agencies and being willing to compromise.

Region 7

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=29)
Transportation reviewers in Region 7 rated resource agencies as performing well on responding in a timely way to requests, having competent staff and sticking to schedules. Suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 7 are to focus on providing more reasonable suggestions or alternatives, being more willing to consider a range of mitigation measures, and having a better understanding of the transportation agency's requirements.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=21)
There were insufficient resource reviewers in Region 7 to conduct this analysis.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=25)
There were insufficient managers in Region 7 to conduct this analysis.

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=44)
Resource managers in Region 7 rated transportation agencies as performing well on having sufficient levels of trust and communication between the agencies. Suggested opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 7 would be to focus on willingness to compromise, being more committed to protecting the environment, and caring more about the mission of the transportation agency.

Resource Managers - Region 7

OPTIMAL (mean %5=26%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=26%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between the two agencies	33%	Q11G. Agency is willing to compromise	23%
Q11H. There is a sufficient level of communication between the two agencies	27%	Q11I. Agency is committed to protecting the environment	18%
		Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	7%

Region 8

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=47)
Transportation reviewers in Region 8 rated resource agencies as performing well on communication throughout the project, sticking to schedules, and responding quickly to requests. Suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 8 would be to focus on providing necessary information and materials, staying organized, and being more willing to compromise.

RESOURCE: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=30)
In an interesting note, resource and transportation reviewers had two of the same three top attributes in the optimal category. These similar two attributes were responding quickly to requests and sticking to schedules. An additional item that resource reviewers said the transportation agencies did well on was their ability to stay organized. Suggested opportunities for improvement for transportation agencies in Region 8 are to focus on caring more about the mission of the transportation agency, increasing communication, and doing more to protect the environment.

TRANSPORTATION: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=33)
Transportation managers in Region 8 rated resource agencies as performing well on only one item, having a sufficient level of trust. The best opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 8 would be to focus on caring more about the transportation agency's mission, being more willing to compromise, and increasing levels of communication.

Transportation Managers - Region 8

OPTIMAL (mean %5=11%)		OPPORTUNITY (mean %5=11%)
Survey item	% rating 5	Survey item	% rating 5
Q11E. There is a sufficient level of trust between the two agencies	15%	Q11B. Agency cares about your agency's mission	6%
		Q11G. Agency is willing to compromise	6%
		Q11H. There is a sufficient level of communication between the two agencies	6%

RESOURCE: MANAGERS (CELL SIZE=20)
There were insufficient managers in Region 8 to conduct this analysis.

Region 9

TRANSPORTATION: NEPA REVIEWERS (CELL SIZE=60)
Transportation reviewers in Region 9 rated resource agencies as performing well on communications, responding quickly to requests, and sticking to schedules. Suggested opportunities for improvement for resource agencies in Region 9 would be to focus on doing more to help move the project forward, devoting more resources, and in general, communicating more between agencies.