Respondents were asked about perceptions of their performance with the agency with which they worked. The following questions comprised the performance questions for both 2003 and 2006:
1. The quality of information provided to your agency. (Resource and Transportation)
2. The completeness of information they provided. (Resource and Transportation)
3. The level of Resources they devoted to this project. (Transportation only)
4. The range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project. (Resource only)
5. Their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures. (Resource and Transportation)
6. How good of a job they did at protecting the environment. (Resource only)
Comparing data received in 2003 with data received this year, an evaluation of the overall perception of the performance between agencies, by both Resource and Transportation Reviewers, can be estimated. Overall perception of the performance between agencies by Resource Reviewers was higher than that of Transportation Reviewers. Changes that occurred between specific regions include:
· Among Resource Reviewers, Regions 2, 3, and 7 overall, rated the perception of the performance between agencies higher than other regions of Resource Reviewers.
· Transportation Reviewers in Region 5, rated the perception of the performance between agencies higher than other regions of Transportation Reviewers.
· The largest change noted by Transportation Reviewers was in Region 2 regarding the range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project by other agency (from 35% to 46% top two box, an 11-percentage-point increase).
· Among Resource Reviewers, the changes seen over time were less pronounced than among Transportation Reviewers.
Tables 6 and 6a show the percentages of Reviewers who agreed with the survey item listed for Resource and Transportation. Specifically, the tables show the percentages of respondents who &147;Somewhat Agreed&148; and who &147;Strongly Agreed.&148;
Table 6: Performance With Transportation Agencies as Rated by Resource Agencies for 2006
|
Resource Agencies Rating Communication With Transportation Agencies |
Very Good |
Excellent |
|---|---|---|
| Transportation AgencyThe quality of information provided to your agency |
46% |
27% |
| Transportation AgencyThe completeness of information they provided |
41% |
23% |
| Transportation AgencyThe level of Resources they devoted to this project |
40% |
36% |
|
Transportation AgencyThe range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project |
35% |
26% |
| Transportation AgencyTheir willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures |
35% |
31% |
| Transportation Agency How good of a job they did at protecting the environment |
35% |
26% |
Table 6a: Performance With Resource Agencies as Rated by Transportation Agencies for 2006
|
Transportation Agencies Rating Performance With Resource Agencies |
Very Good |
Excellent |
|---|---|---|
| Resource Agency The quality of information provided to your agency |
40% |
23% |
| Resource AgencyThe completeness of information they provided |
40% |
24% |
| Resource AgencyThe level of Resources they devoted to this project |
28% |
23% |
| Resource AgencyThe range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project |
28% |
15% |
| Resource AgencyTheir willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures |
34% |
24% |
Chart 46: The Quality Of Information Provided To Your Agency &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
34 |
44% |
24% |
20 |
70% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
50% |
38% |
11 |
27% |
|
Region 3 |
48 |
56% |
31% |
32 |
84% |
|
Region 4 |
39 |
51% |
23% |
34 |
71% |
|
Region 5 |
35 |
49% |
29% |
32 |
66% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
33% |
31% |
33 |
60% |
|
Region 7 |
26 |
50% |
27% |
21 |
81% |
|
Region 8 |
27 |
56% |
22% |
30 |
50% |
|
Region 9 |
33 |
46% |
21% |
36 |
60% |
|
Region 10 |
40 |
33% |
28% |
32 |
57% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 46a: The Quality Of Information Provided To Your Agency &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
54 |
37% |
20% |
23 |
67% |
|
Region 2 |
33 |
42% |
18% |
24 |
45% |
|
Region 3 |
54 |
44% |
19% |
39 |
63% |
|
Region 4 |
62 |
37% |
32% |
41 |
76% |
|
Region 5 |
44 |
57% |
25% |
36 |
63% |
|
Region 6 |
57 |
37% |
33% |
52 |
73% |
|
Region 7 |
21 |
29% |
19% |
29 |
65% |
|
Region 8 |
51 |
28% |
31% |
47 |
71% |
|
Region 9 |
60 |
45% |
12% |
60 |
58% |
|
Region 10 |
49 |
45% |
16% |
40 |
57% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Resource: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 2, 5, and 8. Increases in the top two box responses were seen in Regions 2 (from 27% to 88% top two box, a 61-point increase), Region 5 (from 66% to 78%, a 12-point increase), and Region 8 (from 50% to 78% top two box, a 28-point increase). Overall, Region 2 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 88% saying their sister agency provided quality information.
Transportation: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Transportation Reviewers in Regions 2, 5, 7, and 8. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 7 (from 65% to 48%, a 17-point decline) and Region 8 (from 71% to 59%, a 12-point decline). Increases occurred in Region 2 (from 45% to 60% top two box, a 15-point increase) and Region 5 (from 63% to 82% top two box, a 19-point increase). Overall, Region 5 Transportation Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 82% saying their sister agency provided quality information.
Summary: Discrepancies of more than 10% were seen among Resource and Transportation Reviewers in Regions 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 9. Percentages represent the differences between Resource and Transportation Reviewers who agreed that their sister agency provided their agency with quality information. Overall, Resource Reviewers rated: provided quality information higher than did Transportation Reviewers. Region 1 saw 57% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 68% of Resource Reviewers. Region 2 saw 60% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 88% of Resource Reviewers. Region 3 saw 63% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 87% of Resource Reviewers. Region 7 saw 48% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 77% of Resource Reviewers. Region 8 saw 59% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 78% of Resource Reviewers. Region 9 saw 57% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 67% of Resource Reviewers.
Chart 47: [Transportation Agency] The Completeness Of Information They Provided &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
34 |
44% |
18% |
20 |
75% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
44% |
38% |
11 |
36% |
|
Region 3 |
48 |
46% |
21% |
32 |
82% |
|
Region 4 |
39 |
36% |
28% |
34 |
53% |
|
Region 5 |
34 |
57% |
23% |
32 |
57% |
|
Region 6 |
42 |
41% |
21% |
33 |
60% |
|
Region 7 |
26 |
39% |
35% |
21 |
71% |
|
Region 8 |
27 |
44% |
22% |
30 |
63% |
|
Region 9 |
33 |
39% |
18% |
37 |
43% |
|
Region 10 |
40 |
25% |
20% |
31 |
48% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 47a: [Resource Agency] The Completeness Of Information They Provided &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
55 |
40% |
22% |
23 |
62% |
|
Region 2 |
33 |
52% |
28% |
24 |
61% |
|
Region 3 |
51 |
47% |
20% |
39 |
72% |
|
Region 4 |
62 |
37% |
32% |
41 |
71% |
|
Region 5 |
43 |
51% |
31% |
36 |
63% |
|
Region 6 |
57 |
39% |
30% |
52 |
61% |
|
Region 7 |
21 |
29% |
19% |
29 |
63% |
|
Region 8 |
51 |
33% |
29% |
47 |
68% |
|
Region 9 |
58 |
40% |
14% |
60 |
68% |
|
Region 10 |
48 |
38% |
15% |
40 |
62% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
The Completeness of Information They Provided______________________________
Resource: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 9. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 1 (from 75% to 62% top two box, a 13-point decline) and Region 3 (from 82% to 67%, a 15-point decline). Increases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 2 (from 36% to 82% top two box, a 46-point increase), Region 4 (from 53% to 64%, an 11-point increase), Region 5 (from 57% to 80% top two box, a 23-point increase), and Region 9 (from 43% to 57% top two box, a 14-point increase). Overall, Region 2 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 82% saying their sister agency provided complete information.
Transportation: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Transportation Reviewers in Regions 5, 7, and 9. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 7 (from 63% to 48% top two box, a 15-point decline) and Region 9 (from 68% to 54%, a 14-point decline). Increases occurred in Region 5 (from 63% to 82% top two box, a 19-point increase). Overall, Region 5 Transportation Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 82% saying their sister agency provided complete information.
Summary: Discrepancies of more than 10% were seen among Resource and Transportation Reviewers in Regions 2 and 7. Percentages represent the differences between Resource and Transportation Reviewers who agreed that their sister agency provided their agency with quality information. Overall, Resource Reviewers rated: provided quality information higher than did Transportation Reviewers. Region 2 saw 70% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 82% of Resource Reviewers. Region 7 saw 48% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 74% of Resource Reviewers.
Chart 48: [Transportation Agency] The Level Of Resources They Devoted To This Project &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
32 |
38% |
32% |
19 |
73% |
|
Region 2 |
15 |
20% |
47% |
11 |
54% |
|
Region 3 |
44 |
46% |
46% |
29 |
72% |
|
Region 4 |
35 |
46% |
31% |
27 |
81% |
|
Region 5 |
31 |
53% |
31% |
27 |
85% |
|
Region 6 |
37 |
35% |
38% |
31 |
61% |
|
Region 7 |
23 |
35% |
48% |
18 |
84% |
|
Region 8 |
21 |
52% |
19% |
27 |
71% |
|
Region 9 |
29 |
35% |
31% |
33 |
72% |
|
Region 10 |
37 |
32% |
41% |
30 |
50% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 48a: [Resource Agency] The Level Of Resources They Devoted To This Project &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
54 |
19% |
17% |
23 |
50% |
|
Region 2 |
33 |
39% |
12% |
24 |
46% |
|
Region 3 |
51 |
29% |
26% |
39 |
50% |
|
Region 4 |
61 |
41% |
25% |
41 |
48% |
|
Region 5 |
41 |
34% |
31% |
36 |
42% |
|
Region 6 |
54 |
26% |
28% |
52 |
58% |
|
Region 7 |
20 |
10% |
20% |
29 |
44% |
|
Region 8 |
50 |
24% |
36% |
47 |
47% |
|
Region 9 |
55 |
18% |
13% |
60 |
35% |
|
Region 10 |
52 |
31% |
19% |
40 |
53% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
The Level of Resources They Devoted to This Project__________________________
Resource: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 2, 3, 6, and 10. Increases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 2 (from 54% to 67% top two box, a 13-point increase), Region 3 (from 72% to 92%, a 20-point increase), Region 6 (from 61% to 73% top two box, a 12-point increase), and Region 10 (from 50% to 73% top two box, a 23-point increase). Overall, Region 3 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 92% saying they agreed with the level of Resources their sister agency devoted to this project.
Transportation: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Transportation Reviewers in Regions 1, 4, 5, 7, and 8. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 1 (from 50% to 36% top two box, a 14-point decline) and Region 7 (from 44% to 30%, a 14-point decline). Increases occurred in Region 4 (from 48% to 66% top two box, an 18-point increase), Region 5 (from 42% to 65% top two box, a 23-point increase), and Region 8 (from 47% to 60% top two box, a 13-point increase). Overall, Region 4 Transportation Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 66% saying they agreed with the level of Resources their sister agency devoted to this project.
Summary: Discrepancies of more than 10% were seen among Resource and Transportation Reviewers in every region.
Chart 49: [Transportation Agency] The Range Of Reasonable Alternatives They Suggested For This Project &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
33 |
42% |
21% |
16 |
69% |
|
Region 2 |
14 |
36% |
36% |
10 |
40% |
|
Region 3 |
46 |
46% |
26% |
26 |
94% |
|
Region 4 |
38 |
37% |
29% |
26 |
62% |
|
Region 5 |
34 |
32% |
31% |
28 |
32% |
|
Region 6 |
39 |
28% |
21% |
28 |
46% |
|
Region 7 |
25 |
28% |
52% |
19 |
64% |
|
Region 8 |
24 |
46% |
21% |
27 |
26% |
|
Region 9 |
31 |
36% |
16% |
31 |
60% |
|
Region 10 |
40 |
23% |
25% |
31 |
42% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 49a: [Resource Agency] The Range Of Reasonable Alternatives They Suggested For This Project &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
36 |
28% |
3% |
23 |
19% |
|
Region 2 |
26 |
31% |
15% |
24 |
35% |
|
Region 3 |
45 |
20% |
13% |
39 |
45% |
|
Region 4 |
52 |
29% |
21% |
41 |
48% |
|
Region 5 |
30 |
47% |
19% |
36 |
31% |
|
Region 6 |
40 |
33% |
20% |
52 |
61% |
|
Region 7 |
15 |
27% |
13% |
29 |
50% |
|
Region 8 |
36 |
14% |
22% |
47 |
27% |
|
Region 9 |
31 |
19% |
10% |
60 |
46% |
|
Region 10 |
36 |
39% |
6% |
40 |
39% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
The Range of Reasonable Alternatives They Suggested for This Project___________
Resource: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 2, 3, 5, and 8. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 3 (from 94% to 72%, a 22-point decline). Increases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 2 (from 40% to 72% top two box, a 32-point increase), Region 5 (from 32% to 65%, an 33-point increase), and Region 8 (from 26% to 67% top two box, a 41-point increase). Overall, Regions 2 and 3 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 72% agreeing with the range of reasonable alternatives that their sister agency suggested for this project.
Transportation: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Transportation Reviewers in Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 3 (from 45% to 33% top two box, a 12-point decline), Region 7 (from 50% to 40% top two box, a 10-point decline), and Region 9 (from 46% to 29%, a 17-point decline). Increases occurred in Region 1 (from 19% to 31% top two box, a 12-point increase), Region 2 (from 35% to 46% top two box, an 11-point increase), and Region 5 (from 31% to 66% top two box, a 35-point increase). Overall, Region 5 Transportation Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 66% agreeing with the range of reasonable alternatives that their sister agency suggested for this project.
Summary: Discrepancies of more than 10% were seen among all Resource and Transportation Reviewers with the exception of Regions 5 and 10.
Chart 50: Their Willingness To Consider A Range Of Mitigation &151; Resource
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
28 |
32% |
18% |
18 |
56% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
31% |
50% |
9 |
33% |
|
Region 3 |
41 |
37% |
42% |
24 |
62% |
|
Region 4 |
36 |
44% |
22% |
25 |
56% |
|
Region 5 |
34 |
37% |
32% |
26 |
61% |
|
Region 6 |
34 |
32% |
27% |
28 |
65% |
|
Region 7 |
25 |
44% |
40% |
19 |
79% |
|
Region 8 |
25 |
40% |
24% |
28 |
50% |
|
Region 9 |
32 |
28% |
28% |
29 |
68% |
|
Region 10 |
39 |
23% |
28% |
30 |
40% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Chart 50a: Their Willingness To Consider A Range Of Mitigation Measures &151; Transportation
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Very Good |
2006 Excellent |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
30 |
30% |
13% |
23 |
70% |
|
Region 2 |
36 |
36% |
18% |
24 |
53% |
|
Region 3 |
42 |
42% |
23% |
39 |
42% |
|
Region 4 |
34 |
34% |
29% |
41 |
64% |
|
Region 5 |
45 |
45% |
37% |
36 |
74% |
|
Region 6 |
34 |
34% |
32% |
52 |
72% |
|
Region 7 |
21 |
21% |
16% |
29 |
50% |
|
Region 8 |
26 |
26% |
37% |
47 |
49% |
|
Region 9 |
26 |
26% |
16% |
60 |
46% |
|
Region 10 |
42 |
42% |
19% |
40 |
75% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
Their Willingness to Consider a Range of Mitigation Measures__________________
Resource: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Resource Reviewers in Regions 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 9 (from 68% to 56% top two box, a 12-point decline). Increases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 2 (from 33% to 81% top two box, a 48-point increase), Region 3 (from 62% to 79%, a 17-point increase), Region 8 (from 50% to 64% top two box, a 14-point increase), and Region 10 (from 40% to 51% top two box, an 11-point increase). Overall, Region 7 Resource Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 84% saying their sister agency was willing to consider a range of mitigation measures.
Transportation: Large changes of more than 10% were seen among Transportation Reviewers in Regions 1, 3, 7, 8, and 10. Decreases in the top two box responses were seen in Region 1 (from 70% to 43% top two box, a 27-point decline), Region 7 (from 50% to 37%, a 13-point decline), and Region 10 (from 75% to 61%, a 14-point decline). Increases occurred in Region 3 (from 42% to 65% top two box, a 23-point increase) and Region 8 (from 49% to 63% top two box, a 14-point increase). Overall, Region 5 Transportation Reviewers gave the highest top two box score with 82% saying their sister agency was willing to consider a range of mitigation measures.
Summary: Discrepancies of more than 10% were seen among Resource and Transportation Reviewers in Regions 2, 3, 7, and 9. The percentages represent the differences between Resource and Transportation Reviewers who agreed that their sister agency was willing to consider a range of mitigation measures. Overall, Resource Reviewers rated: was willing to consider a range of mitigation measures higher than did Transportation Reviewers. Region 2 saw 54% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 81% of Resource Reviewers. Region 3 saw 65% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 79% of Resource Reviewers. Region 7 saw 37% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 84% of Resource Reviewers. Region 9 saw 42% of Transportation Reviewers agree vs. 56% of Resource Reviewers.
Chart 51: How Good Of A Job They [Transportation Agency] Did At Protecting The Environment &151; Resource Only
|
|
2006 N Size |
2006 Somewhat Agree |
2006 Strongly Agree |
2003 N Size |
2003 %4s and %5s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Region 1 |
30 |
47% |
20% |
48 |
75% |
|
Region 2 |
16 |
25% |
44% |
38 |
30% |
|
Region 3 |
44 |
36% |
27% |
68 |
71% |
|
Region 4 |
34 |
44% |
15% |
63 |
56% |
|
Region 5 |
33 |
48% |
21% |
32 |
54% |
|
Region 6 |
40 |
28% |
28% |
76 |
58% |
|
Region 7 |
24 |
29% |
42% |
54 |
70% |
|
Region 8 |
26 |
27% |
27% |
49 |
41% |
|
Region 9 |
31 |
42% |
23% |
72 |
60% |
|
Region 10 |
39 |
21% |
26% |
76 |
45% |
* NOTE: &147;N size&148; refers to the number of Reviewers responding to the question.
How Good of a Job They Did at Protecting the Environment____________________
Resource: On average, the Resource Reviewers believed that the Transportation staff did a good job at protecting the environment. Six of the 10 regions had at least 8 in 10 Reviewers giving this item top two box scores. Three regions had dramatic changes over the three-year period. Region 2 increased from 30% of Resource Reviewers giving top two box scores in 2003 to 69% in 2006. Region 8 increased 13 points going from 41% in 2003 to 54% in 2006. Region 7 had the highest scores with 7 in 10 (71%) of Resource Reviewers saying their Transportation counterparts did a good job at protecting the environment.
Type Of Project And Performance
There were also differences seen in Performance based on the type of project. The project categories asked included:
· Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
· Environmental Assessment &151; Finding of No Significant Impact (EA FONSI)
· Categorical Exclusion (CE)
· Programmatic Agreement (PA) &151; However, there were not enough completes in this area to provide any analysis
Chart 52: EIS Performance Transportation vs. Resource
|
|
Transportation % 5 |
Resource %5 |
|---|---|---|
|
How good of a job they did at protecting the environment |
N/A |
22% |
|
Their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures |
24% |
30% |
|
The range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project |
11% |
27% |
|
The level of resources they devoted to this project |
23% |
37% |
|
The completeness of information they provided |
19% |
21% |
|
The quality of information provided to your agency |
19% |
27% |
Chart 53: EA FONSI Performance Transportation vs. Resource
|
|
Transportation % 5 |
Resource %5 |
|---|---|---|
|
How good of a job they did at protecting the environment |
N/A |
34% |
|
Their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures |
22% |
36% |
|
The range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project |
13% |
32% |
|
The level of resources they devoted to this project |
19% |
39% |
|
The completeness of information they provided |
22% |
29% |
|
The quality of information provided to your agency |
21% |
34% |
Chart 54: CE Performance Transportation vs. Resource
|
|
Transportation % 5 |
Resource %5 |
|---|---|---|
|
How good of a job they did at protecting the environment |
N/A |
23% |
|
Their willingness to consider a range of mitigation measures |
28% |
24% |
|
The range of reasonable alternatives they suggested for this project |
20% |
9% |
|
The level of resources they devoted to this project |
26% |
12% |
|
The completeness of information they provided |
28% |
22% |
|
The quality of information provided to your agency |
28% |
11% |
Summary: Over a third of Resource Reviewers involved in EA FONSI projects strongly agreed with: How Good of a Job The Transportation Agency Did at Protecting The Environment; whereas only a fifth of Resource Reviewers on EIS and CE projects strongly agreed with the same statement. Another interesting finding was that Transportation Agencies were seen as being less likely to Consider a Range of Mitigation Measures, The Quality of Information Provided to Your Agency, and The Range of Reasonable Alternatives They Suggested For This Project in CE projects than in EIS and EA FONSI projects.