[socialentp]

That was the initial assessment completed in July of last year, but further environmental study was deemed required: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/87381a7d1abd4817a8991b0c8caea... "An assessment conducted last year determined the crossing would not have a significant impact on the environment. However, then-Assistant Army Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy on Dec. 4 declined to issue permission for the crossing, saying a broader environmental study was warranted."

[trothamel]

From reading the article, it looks like one political appointee decided that additional review was required, and her replacement decided that the original review was convincing. Given that it would be the replacement that evaluated the new review, is there any reason to wait for it if the original one is already convincing to him?

More to the point, is there a reason to trust Jo-Ellen Darcy's opinion over that of Douglas Lamont and Colonel John W. Henderson, P.E.? (It seems like of the three, the Colonel's opinion is the least likely to be politically biased and most likely to be based on engineering judgement.)

EDIT: Actually, I think I might have been overly harsh on Mr. Lamont here. He is also a PE, and was appointed in 2004, which makes me think he might not be in a political job, either. http://asacw.hqda.pentagon.mil/Lamont.aspx