Economic Recovery Home > Summary of FHWA EDA Implementation

Summary of FHWA EDA Implementation

March 2011

The priority for selecting projects located in Economically Distressed Areas (EDAs) was one of several priorities that States needed to address in making project selections under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act). Selection factors in the Recovery Act included giving priority not only to EDAs, but also to projects that could be completed in three years, to "quick-start" projects, to projects that maximize job creation and economic benefit, and to projects that were ready to be placed under obligation within the 120-day and 1-year time frames. In addition, as part of project selection, the States needed to satisfy Title 23 U.S.C. requirements, including the planning requirements.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) took several actions to implement the EDA provision in the Recovery Act, including development of an online tool for States to map projects by EDA counties. The online tool provided data (low per capita income and/or unemployment rate above national average) in a geographic information system map format to assist States in determining whether or not their projects were located in EDAs as defined in the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA), as amended. The maps are available online at: http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/.

The FHWA also issued guidance on the implementation of the EDA provision. Soon after the Recovery Act was enacted, guidance was provided via email to FHWA Division Offices to use in coordinating with States on the evaluation of EDAs in their project selection. Written questions and answers that address EDAs were provided on the FHWA Recovery website (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/edaqanda.htm). In addition, FHWA coordinated with the Department of Commerce on special needs designations under PWEDA. On August 24, 2009, FHWA issued guidance establishing criteria and procedures for EDA special needs designations (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/guidancedistressed.htm). The guidance also requested States identify the basis for any future EDA determination for a project. Additionally, guidance was issued via email to FHWA Divisions on June 10, 2010, that instructed States, going forward from the date of the email, not to code a project as an EDA project based on a "special need" criterion unless both the Division Office and Headquarters had reviewed and determined the adequacy of the documentation to meet the "special need".

Throughout the life of the Recovery Act, FHWA worked with States to encourage project selection in EDAs. Secretary LaHood contacted State Governors seeking their continued support and focus on prioritizing projects in EDAs. The FHWA Division Offices worked pro-actively with the States throughout the life of the Recovery Act to verify the States' procedures for making EDA designations and to improve States' levels of obligation of Recovery Act funding in EDAs.

The FHWA also provided oversight on States' use of special needs designations in accordance with the FHWA guidance issued August 24, 2009. When concerns arose that early State EDA special needs designations may not have satisfied PWEDA requirements, FHWA Headquarters reviewed the designations in question. Subsequently, FHWA issued the August 2009 guidance referenced above. The FHWA Division Offices continued to conduct first level reviews where States designated EDAs based on criteria other than the PWEDA per capita income and unemployment statutory standards. In those few States where questions arose about special needs designations, FHWA Headquarters worked with the Divisions to review the State's approach to the designations. Where a State's approach was determined to be inconsistent with the August 2009 guidance, FHWA asked the State either to provide data supporting a special need designation consistent with guidance or to correct the EDA status of the affected projects. FHWA also offered to work with those States (e.g., Arizona, California, and Illinois) to determine whether sub-county level unemployment and per capita income data supported an EDA designation.

On September 20, 2010, the General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report entitled "Recovery Act: Opportunities to Improve Management and Strengthen Accountability over States' and Localities' Use of Funds" (GAO-10-999). In that report, GAO recommended that FHWA make publicly available an accurate accounting and analysis of the extent to which States directed their Recovery Act funds to EDAs. Attached is the accounting of the extent to which States directed their Recovery Act funds to projects located in EDAs.

The FHWA requested that States designate in the Recovery Act Database System (RADS) whether a project that was receiving Highway Infrastructure Investment funds under the Recovery Act was located in an EDA at the time the Recovery Act funds were obligated. To verify the accuracy of the data, FHWA compared the EDA data with the maps of the EDA counties. Some counties were designated as an EDA the entire duration of the Recovery Act and all projects located in such counties were counted as being located in an EDA. Some counties were never designated as an EDA the entire duration of the Recovery Act and, unless other special circumstances applied, all projects located in these counties were not counted as being located in an EDA. Some counties were designated as an EDA during part, but not all, of the Recovery Act period and FHWA reviewed all projects in these counties. In all, the FHWA reviewed 4,213 projects (33% of all projects), which resulted in changes to the EDA designation for 959 projects (7% of all projects).

Review of the projects involved checking the obligation date in relation to the data source indicated for the States' EDA determination, and in a number of cases, comparing that information to the map as of the obligation date of the project to make a determination. When sufficient information was available, sub-county data, which applied the low per capita income/unemployment rate criteria to a political subdivision below the county level, was used to make an EDA determination. Where a State used special documentation, as was the case relative to natural disasters in Louisiana, a determination was made as to the acceptability of that information.

After the data in RADS was reviewed, adjustments were made to the cumulative state totals for projects located in EDAs. Based on the analysis described above, the nationwide percentage of highway Recovery Act-funded projects located in EDAs is 56% after the analysis (with rounding), compared to 57% before (also with rounding). The net change as a result of the FHWA review was a decrease of 125 projects designated EDA (marginally less than 1% of all projects). Of note are several States and territories that had significant increases/reductions (more than 25 projects) or percentage change (greater than 10%) in the number of projects designated EDA. These include California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Vermont.

This data constitutes the FHWA's accounting to the public of the percentage of highway Recovery Act projects that were located in EDAs at the time the Recovery Act funds were obligated to the project.

Economically Distressed Areas Project and Funding Distribution by State

State or Territory	Total Number of Projects	Total Number of Projects in EDA**	Total Number of Projects Not in EDA	Percent of Projects in EDA***	Total Percent EDA Population in the State***	Total Obligations (as of 3/21/11)	Total Expenditures (as of 3/21/11)
ALABAMA	328	235	93	71.65%	53%	$ 513,612,871.00	$ 367,124,156.00
ALASKA	28	18	10	64.29%	9%	173,001,625.00	156,572,471.24
AMERICAN SAMOA*	1	1	0	100.00%	N/A	4,500,000.00	4,500,000.00
ARIZONA	209	69	140	33.01%	20%	521,394,538.00	367,689,141.81
ARKANSAS	132	110	22	83.33%	59%	351,894,468.00	221,917,741.00
CALIFORNIA	990	766	224	77.37%	73%	2,541,559,691.30	1,342,924,093.04
COLORADO	114	48	66	42.11%	14%	385,934,130.00	332,435,255.00
CONNECTICUT	151	0	151	0.00%	0%	298,869,644.94	155,121,875.60
DELAWARE	44	8	36	18.18%	18%	121,828,650.00	80,984,649.08
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA	18	15	3	83.33%	0%	123,507,842.00	71,012,556.38
FLORIDA	680	304	376	44.71%	78%	1,345,983,968.00	714,340,042.35
GEORGIA	398	264	134	66.33%	48%	902,732,885.88	452,186,632.14
GUAM*	7	7	0	100.00%	N/A	19,560,000.00	3,166,939.52
HAWAII	26	3	23	11.54%	14%	125,580,958.00	39,897,536.02
IDAHO	85	64	21	75.29%	51%	179,033,409.00	150,671,136.86
ILLINOIS	820	337	483	41.10%	61%	936,437,203.86	786,456,767.60
INDIANA	1098	628	470	57.19%	44%	657,210,202.65	578,739,280.72
IOWA	235	78	157	33.19%	9%	357,605,436.07	341,282,324.70
KANSAS	152	75	77	49.34%	28%	348,242,169.00	236,969,301.09
KENTUCKY	110	32	78	29.09%	56%	420,829,347.00	316,410,802.75
LOUISIANA	121	111	10	91.74%	28%	433,016,357.00	248,514,637.09
MAINE	76	29	47	38.16%	22%	137,903,441.00	125,051,564.28
MARYLAND	172	36	136	20.93%	4%	415,764,777.00	269,825,049.00
MASSACHUSETTS	94	5	89	5.32%	8%	378,030,365.00	226,108,329.66
MICHIGAN	754	669	85	88.73%	91%	855,871,419.03	744,272,366.94
MINNESOTA	211	81	130	38.39%	12%	506,036,515.78	452,305,250.06
MISSISSIPPI	173	127	46	73.41%	61%	354,549,878.00	317,827,064.00
MISSOURI	337	252	85	74.78%	43%	638,709,879.81	486,920,109.60
MONTANA	86	26	60	30.23%	31%	212,835,558.00	192,786,904.15
N MARIANA*	2	1	1	50.00%	N/A	4,500,000.00	126,696.87
NEBRASKA	129	50	79	38.76%	6%	230,632,227.34	192,991,910.14
NEVADA	72	45	27	62.50%	96%	201,307,270.64	142,639,005.98
NEW HAMPSHIRE	34	0	34	0.00%	0%	129,440,556.00	110,155,735.94
NEW JERSEY	173	29	144	16.76%	28%	645,772,275.65	410,898,441.89
NEW MEXICO	103	80	23	77.67%	50%	252,628,987.54	201,404,901.68
NEW YORK	443	214	229	48.31%	14%	950,622,259.00	665,970,990.00
NORTH CAROLINA	402	198	204	49.25%	61%	730,030,939.00	531,565,364.00
NORTH DAKOTA	168	32	136	19.05%	5%	167,052,951.27	153,360,830.88
OHIO	425	318	107	74.82%	43%	919,722,451.98	540,076,932.33
OKLAHOMA	274	147	127	53.65%	34%	464,751,405.00	453,320,860.71
OREGON	333	192	141	57.66%	52%	274,577,721.88	229,919,390.40
PENNSYLVANIA	322	196	126	60.87%	33%	1,028,428,035.00	779,092,923.90
PUERTO RICO*	23	23	0	100.00%	N/A	105,000,000.00	45,623,100.38
RHODE ISLAND	70	53	17	75.71%	88%	137,433,564.47	111,939,608.59
SOUTH CAROLINA	187	137	50	73.26%	62%	463,519,259.00	342,990,081.46
SOUTH DAKOTA	52	21	31	40.38%	8%	186,689,867.39	178,583,831.45
TENNESSEE	323	182	141	56.35%	44%	573,227,456.04	436,620,577.30
TEXAS	527	239	288	45.35%	24%	2,240,369,484.41	1,386,181,905.74
UTAH	128	73	55	57.03%	40%	213,914,432.33	201,913,344.42
VERMONT	73	27	46	36.99%	1%	125,791,291.00	118,551,425.06
VIRGIN ISLANDS*	6	6	0	100.00%	N/A	15,462,845.00	6,743,487.33
VIRGINIA	141	43	98	30.50%	20%	634,110,364.00	208,731,966.95
WASHINGTON	225	172	53	76.44%	22%	490,620,097.47	421,434,652.20
WEST VIRGINIA	155	129	26	83.23%	59%	211,103,289.00	178,959,123.07
WISCONSIN	422	153	269	36.26%	19%	529,590,099.98	466,542,915.77
WYOMING	69	19	50	27.54%	2%	157,616,058.00	150,962,774.75
Grand Total	12931	7177	5754	55.50%	43%	$ 26,345,952,419	$ 18,451,316,757

* For these territories, EDA criteria not available. For purposes of this report, when not otherwise indicated for these territories, all ARRA funding and projects are shown as being in an EDA. The estimated percentage population in EDAs for these areas is not determined and is listed as N/A.
**EDA data includes projects with approved designations.
***EDA designations for territories and counties changed over the obligation period of the Recovery Act. The population estimates shown here are based on the FHWA August 6, 2010 EDA map. These changes contributed to fluctuations in the percent of projects in EDAs in a state over that period. The figures shown here are the cumulative percent of projects in EDAs over the Recovery Act obligation period.