Mr. WRIGHT. Everything does affect environment. When you throw a cigarette in the street, when you litter, or almost anything you do affects the environment to some extent.

Mr. TURNER. Well, the instructions that have been put out, the orders that have been put out in interpreting this, have a listing of 14 items which are guidelines as to types of actions which are likely to be significant and come under that definition of "major Federal action." I believe that anybody who wants to take that position can assert these 14 items and say that every Federal-aid highway project proposed by anybody will have some major or significant impact on the environment and thus must have an environmental statement prepared with it.

Mr. WRIGHT. Frank, the easel to your right contains a large sheet of paper. If you had a card table, it could be a tablecloth. This piece of paper was circulated by the Department of the Interior, along with a press release on May 21, I believe, as a suggested form of making an environmental impact statement.

Now, across the top of the page appear 100 different listings, and vertically up and down the lefthand column appear 88 listings. This creates a grid or matrix of 8,800 squares. Now, it is not necessarily suggested that each of those must be filled out or checked, but that each of them must be analyzed to see its appropriateness of being filled out or checked. The instructions indicate that not only should a square be checked where an action crosses with an effect upon the environment, but that a diagonal line should be drawn across each such square and a quantitative computation arrived at by the local sponsor of the project, in which they place two numbers in the square; one above the diagonal line and one below the diagonal line, indicating the size of the impact and the importance of the impact, in numbers from one to 10.

This was circulated by the Department of the Interior as a proposed simplification of the environmental impact statement.

Does it occur to you that this will make the job simpler or more complicated?

Mr. TURNER. It looks even more complicated than ours, Mr. Wright. But in all seriousness, this is the problem that we have. We have, I believe, brought the definition down to the project level which I don't believe the Congress intended. It isn't necessary. It isn't workable. It won't necessarily achieve the laudable objective of protecting and considering the environment. I believe that the highway departments and Federal Highway Administration jointly, have considered the environment in the past. I know that we have the message, if that is the way you want to express it, with respect to the importance of environment in the minds of Congress and the public. I know that we are doing everything we know how to do to reasonably crank the environmental considerations into those other considerations with respect to a project.

I believe that we can decide when a project has major environmental impact. We can take the necessary steps to minimize that impact, within reason, and thus I believe that we could be trusted as a program group to look after these matters and to make decisions that are in the overall public interest; not only for environment but for all the thou

sands of other factors which we also will have to consider in making a judgment decision with respect to every project. I believe we are as qualified to do that as are any other agencies of the Government, State or Federal. I believe that we can and should substantially reduce this mass of paper that we pass back and forth from one desk to another, and wait on. We can delegate the authority to the State highway department people, into our Federal Highway Administration field people, and expect them to make some mistakes, expect them to make a decision that wouldn't necessarily be in agreement with the one that we might make if sitting in here. But that doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong. I think these people are well trained, capable, completely dependable and have the message. We ought to delegate this whole matter to our operating field people under general guidance controls and policy statements that we may prepare here in Washington headquarters in collaboration with other interested departments. Then let us do the job under that authority any way that we think is best to get the job done with minimum redtape and minimum time requirements.

Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Turner, I believe in your conversations earlier, preparatory to these hearings, with Mr. Yates and Mr. D'Amico of the committee staff, you expressed a sense of your own feeling of frustration about these crosscurrents and double and triple requirements with regard to yours and other agencies of the Government, and told them something to the effect that we don't seem to trust each other anymore.

What you are saying is that you believe the Federal Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration have the knowledge, the dedication, the ability to be trusted, to make wise decisions with this in mind, to protect the environment, minimize any harm to the environment, and maximize those things that will enhance and improve the environment without constantly being second-guessed and having to defend themselves against other agencies of our own Government. Is that essentially correct?

Mr. TURNER. That is well stated, Mr. Chairman. I would include in your list of those people, however, our partners of the State highway departments.

Mr. WRIGHT. I want to thank you very much for your extremely enlightening testimony. I think you have given me a clear, concise, as well as comprehensive picture of the task that you have undertaken in administering this, the biggest public works undertaking in the history of this or any other nation, since the beginning of civilized endeavor. I think I speak for the committee in saying that we feel that it is in good hands, and that you are making an earnest and conscientious and highly creditable effort to do a good job, with the congressional directives that you receive.

I should like to ask unanimous consent that the Information Matrix for Environmental Impact Assessment, referred to earlier and displayed on the easel, be made a part of the record of the hearings, and retained in the committee's file; also, the flow chart placed upon the wall.

(The items referred to were marked "Exhibits 1* and 2.*")

If there are no further questions or comments, we will adjourn until 2 o'clock this afternoon at which time the subcommittee will hear

*Retained in the Subcommittee file.

from Mr. Burmeister. Mr. W. J. Burmeister is president of the American Association of State Highway Officials. He will be speaking on behalf of that association which represents all the State highway officials in the United States, and we also will hear this afternoon from our colleague, Mr. Cleveland, who will present to us one case study in bureaucratic frustration or redtape proliferation in the area of Franconia Notch, N.H.

If there are no further questions, comments or observations, Mr. Turner

Mr. TURNER. No more except to say thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. WRIGHT. The subcommittee stands adjourned until 2 o'clock this afternoon.

(Whereupon at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. WRIGHT. The subcommittee will be in order. This morning Mr. Cleveland made reference to a particular case history in an area of New Hampshire known as Franconia Notch. He has a brief statement he wishes to make at this time with respect to that.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I realize that the wit nesses from AASHO have planes to catch; so I will be very brief. I thank the chairman for accommodating me. I am afraid we may have another matter on the floor rather shortly. Since I am going to be a witness, do you want to swear me in?

Mr. WRIGHT. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give to this subcommittee will be the truth, nothing but the truth. so help you God?

Mr. CLEVELAND. I do.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JAMES C. CLEVELAND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Mr. CLEVELAND. I take the witness stand to present to the subcommittee a documented picture of one State's frustration resulting from delay initiated by the Federal establishment. Most particularly I refer to a 10-mile section of I-93 in my own State of New Hampshire which, after 12 years of careful development with the environment in mind and with Federal approval at each step of the way, was placed in preconstruction limbo over a year with no hope for assured completion. This section is a needed link in New Hampshire's and the Nation's Interstate System. Its absence would create a serious safety hazard. It is also of vital importance to an important industry in New Hampshire-tourism-and to the economic development of the economically disadvantaged north country of New Hampshire. The expenditure of several hundred thousand dollars in studies and plans and several thousand man-hours had resulted in bringing this section to approval by the Federal Government and by all conservation groups involved. The location was specifically authorized by the statutes of the State.

I have attached to this statement a brief chronology of the development of this highway and a copy of a letter I have received from

R. H. Whitaker, commissioner of the Department of Public Works and Highways in New Hampshire, which outlines the development of the highway in more detail. These documents reveal how an environmentally minded State took every conceivable precaution in planning and designing a section of highway, complying with Federal requirements and the wishes of its citizenry. After years of compliance, it has found the ground cut out from under it by an all-powerful Federal bureaucracy, which is unwilling to trust or respect the judgment of conscientious State officials.

I ask leave, Mr. Chairman, that the chronology of Franconia Notch I-93 be included in this part of the record, together with the letter from Mr. Whitaker to me, dated May 12, 1971, which was a response to your letter to our Governor concerning the subject matter of this committee study.

Mr. WRIGHT. Without objection, these documents will appear at this point in the record.

(The documents referred to follow :)

FRANCONIA NOTCH I-93

1944-Interstate & Defense Highway System created.

1947-General location of Interstate System located (40,000 Miles). 1956-Interstate Highway Act-13 year period.

December, 1958-Route study completed by Clarkeson Engineering Company. Proved conclusively the feasibility of a location thru Notch. It put forth a scheme which would accomplish this without damage to the Notch's natural and points of interest while at the same time it provided a means of access to the area's important features.

May, 1959 Following many information meetings, the State Legislature by Laws of 1959 authorized the Commissioner to construct I-93 thru the Notch. March 30, 1966-Formal Public Hearing in Lincoln for complete 30 mile layout held (Campton to Franconia).

March 30, 1966-Ad Hoc Committee formed to advise the Department.

April 29, 1966-Governor King and Executive Council approved Special Committee report from Campton northerly to the Lincoln-Woodstock Town Line. Governor King also directed Commissioner John Morton to engage a competent consultant geologist to study Notch and submit a Geological Report by December 1, 1966.

June 1966-Drs. Casagrande and Deere engaged for geological study. June 21, 1966-Bureau of Public Roads approved layout (Campton to Woodstock).

July 27, 1966 Clarkeson engaged to design section-Campton to Thornton. November 30, 1966-Governor King and Executive Council approved the remainder of the Special Committee report for layout thru Notch.

November 30, 1966-Governor King and Executive Council appointed a Citizens Advisory Committee (Governor Adams, Mrs. Jean Hennessey, Paul Bofinger, Mr. Carter and Dr. McDade).

Adams, Hennessey and Bofinger were former members of "Ad Hoc" Committee formed at Lincoln Public Hearing. Committee was charged to act in an advisory capacity toward preserving the scenic beauty and recreational values of the Notch during the planning phase.

December 1, 1966-Drs. Casagrande and Deere submitted their report. Gave assurance that there were no geological reasons which would preclude construc tion thru Notch.

Recommended Cut and Cover protection at Profile Lake.

March 31, 1967-Governor and Council authorized State Parks Director Russell Tobey to hire Wirth Associates of Billings, Montana to prepare a master plan for Franconia State Park. Wirth Associates presented their preliminary report to the Advisory Committee in Lincoln on September 8, 1967. Recommendations were negative to Clarkeson's proposal and recommended a westerly route, bypassing the Notch. On October 17, 1967 the Department presented a

rebuttal to Wirth's suggestion. Would create serious indirection, steep grades
exceeding 5% in Bog Pond area.

August 1, 1967-Fay, Spofford and Thorndike engaged to design the Woodstock section.

September 8, 1967-Wirth submitted their report (see above). Westerly route or Tunnel under Eagle Cliff.

October 25, 1967-Clarkeson engaged to design Lincoln section.

January 17, 1968-Conference with Parks Division. Proposed plan from Flume to Profile Lake approved. Negotiations initiated with Edwards and Kelcey for design of this section.

March, ($90,000).

1968-U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey engaged to monitor Profile June 6, 1968-Edwards and Kelcey engaged for study and design ($385.000). Subcontracts by Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and Douglas for Tunnel feasibility study-Bolt, Beranek and Newman for noise environment study and Dr. Deere for geological studies.

October 2, 1968--Edwards and Kelcey instructed to add tunnel study ($62,000) December 5, 1968-Edwards and Kelcey presented studies to Department and D.R.E.D. 3 Studies presented :

Eagle Cliff Route; $88.2 million-9000' Tunnel.

Single Interchange Route 3; $28.3 million.

Slide Protection Structure; 2200'-500' open-1400'.
Double interchange Route 3; $26.1 million.

December 16, 1968-Edwards and Kelcey presented report of studies to Gov. ernor King and Council. Governor and Council approved the following Resolution : Resolved That, Governor and Council in furtherance of their action at their meeting of November 30, 1966 accept the recommendations made by Edwards and Kelcey, i.e., the surface route with double interchange, on this date for the treatment of I-93 through the Franconia Notch area. Such acceptance subject to receipt and considerations of the Franconia Notch Advisory Committee provided same is placed before the Governor and Council on or before December 20, 1968.

January 17, 1969-B.P.R. approval of design concept (Profile Lake to Echo Lake).

December 23 1968-The Governor and Counci1 accepted the report submitted by the Franconia Notch Advisory Committee and noted its contents and were in agreement without qualification.

January 1969-Department initiated negotiations with Edwards and Kelcey for design of the section from Profile Lake north.

June 16, 1969-Governor and Council approved Edwards and Kelcey's agreement for design.

Estimated construction cost.

Consultant fee (part A design).

Consultant fee (part B soi's).

Completion date, March 1, 1972

$26, 000, 000

1, 230, 000
200, 000

June 30, 1969-Bureau of Public Roads approval of Edwards and Kelcey's agreement.

August 6, 1969-Edwards and Ke'cey gave formal presentation of Notch Study to representatives of White Mountain Region Association:

Forestry and Recreation: A.M.C. Chapter: Counci'or Smith; North Al ternate Route Committee: N.H. Good Roads Association; N.H. Federation of Garden Club; Audubon Society of New Hampshire; Appalachian Mountain Club; National Park Service; Sierra Club; White Mountain "93" Associa tion; and U.N.H. Outing Club.

September 2, 1969-Edwards and Kelcey started soil borings.

October 1969-Preliminary negotiations with Edwards and Kelcey for single interchange at Echo Lake and road west of Echo Lake ($15,000).

November 19, 1969-E. & K. submitted soils study re: feasibility slide pro tection structure.

December 12, 1969-Meeting arranged by Councilor Smith to review I-93 from Flume to Echo Lake including Park Service Road. Those attending-Councilor Smith, Richard Hami'ton of Ski 93. Pau' Bofinger of Society for Protection of N.H. Forests. John Co`by of Littleton Courier and Terrance Briggs of Plymouth Record. This group very much in favor of a continuous Park Service Road from the Flume to Lafayette Campground.