HIGHWAY 

PROJECTS

Many Federal and 

State Environmental 

Review Requirements 

Are Similar, and Little 

Duplication of Effort 

Occurs

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-71

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-71, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2014

HIGHWAY PROJECTS

Many Federal and State Environmental Review 

Requirements Are Similar, and Little Duplication of 

Effort Occurs

Why GAO Did This Study

Under NEPA, federal agencies 

evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts of proposed projects. FHWA 

has developed a process for NEPA 

reviews for federal-aid highway 

projects, such as roads or bridges. 

According to the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) and GAO 

analysis, 18 states have SEPAs that 

also require the review of 

environmental impacts of a variety of 

actions for highway projects. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 

21st Century Act (MAP-21) required 

GAO to examine state environmental 

reviews for highway projects, including 

whether they duplicate federal 

environmental reviews for federal-aid 

highway projects. This report focuses 

solely on environmental reviews of 

highway projects in states with SEPAs 

and addresses 1) factors determining 

whether federal or state environmental 

reviews are required; 2) how state and 

federal review requirements compare; 

and 3) the extent of any duplication in 

federal and state reviews, including 

frequency and cost. GAO reviewed 

FHWA and CEQ documents and

interviewed officials of these federal 

agencies; analyzed state laws and 

regulations; surveyed the 18 states 

with SEPAs required for highway 

projects; and interviewed selected 

state agencies within 9 of those states

based on the number of FHWA NEPA 

reviews underway and other factors. 

This report has no recommendations.

The U.S. Department of Transportation 

and CEQ provided technical 

corrections about federal and state 

environmental review requirements, 

which GAO incorporated as 

appropriate. 

What GAO Found

Three factors—project funding sources and project characteristics, and whether 

a state allows the adoption of federal review documents—generally determine 

whether a highway project needs a federal environmental review under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) or a state environmental review under 

state law, or both. Projects without federal highway funding usually do not require 

a Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) NEPA review, but NEPA reviews of 

highway projects may still be required to obtain federal permits. Thresholds for 

environmental review vary under state environmental policy acts (SEPA) and 

may include project cost or length, whereas NEPA focuses on the potential for 

significant environmental impacts. Eighteen states have SEPAs required for 

highway projects, and 17 of these allow for the partial or full adoption of FHWA

analyses or documentation to meet state environmental review requirements, 

according to GAO’s survey of these states. 

State environmental review requirements are generally similar to the FHWA 

NEPA process—including consideration of impacts, development and evaluation 

of project alternatives, mitigation of adverse project impacts, interagency 

coordination, and public involvement—although differences in specific 

requirements may affect key environmental decisions. For example, for the 

consideration of environmental impacts of a proposed highway project, a majority 

of states responding to GAO’s survey indicated that their requirements are 

similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall. However, officials in 7 states 

GAO surveyed reported that their SEPA requirements related to social and 

environmental justice impacts are less stringent than FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements. In addition, while state public involvement requirements are 

generally similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall, individual requirements 

vary, ranging from states that have no requirements to allow public involvement 

to others that may have more stringent requirements than FHWA’s. Officials in 3 

states told GAO that in practice they match FHWA’s NEPA public involvement 

requirements for state-only reviews to meet public expectations, even if state law 

requires less. Further, in the absence of required federal NEPA reviews, certain 

federal laws related to protection of parklands and historic preservation may not 

apply to a project, potentially affecting whether a project is determined to have 

significant impacts and whether those impacts are mitigated. 

Officials in 4 of the 18 states in GAO’s survey identified instances of potential 

federal–state duplication in environmental review processes, stemming either 

from supplemental state requirements or from the lack of alignment between 

required federal and state review documents. By contrast, 10 of the states in 

GAO’s survey reported that there was no duplication in environmental reviews. 

Generally, state officials explained that little duplication of effort occurs in state 

and federal review processes because these reviews are done concurrently by 

state officials able to address requirements with analyses used for different 

purposes without replicating effort. Further, 7 of the 10 states reporting no 

duplication allow for the adoption of a NEPA review to fulfill SEPA requirements.

Finally, 4 states pointed to potential duplication or overlap that did not stem from 

the interaction of state and federal requirements, such as the rework necessary

to keep environmental reviews up to date. 

View GAO-15-71. For more information, 

contact David J.Wise at (202) 512-2834 or 

wised@gao.gov or Susan Sawtelle at (202) 

512-6417 or sawtelles@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Letter 1 

Background 6

Three Factors Generally Affect the Types of Environmental 

Reviews Required for Highway Projects, and State 

Environmental Review Document Types Largely Mirror NEPA 15

Many State and Federal Requirements Are Similar, but 

Differences Could Affect State Environmental Reviews or 

Outcomes 22

Few Instances of Federal–State Duplication Were Reported; 

FHWA and States Have Improved Coordination 39

Agency Comments 46

Appendix I A Comparison of Federal NEPA Requirements and State 

Environmental Policy Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects 47

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 67

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 75

Tables

Table 1: States with State Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA) 

Required for Highway Projects 68

Table 2: States Agencies in Selected States with State 

Environmental Policy Laws (SEPA) Interviewed by GAO 73

Figures

Figure 1: The Federal Highway Administration’s Principles of the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process in 

Transportation Decision Making 8

Figure 2: National Environmental Policy Act Decision Making 

Process—Types of Documentation Required for Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 3: Federal-Aid Highway Projects by National Environmental 

Policy Act Review Type 13

Figure 4: States with State Environmental Policy Acts Required for 

Highway Projects, as of 2014 14

Figure 5: The Number of Surveyed States with State 

Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA) Reporting Extent of 

Adoption of Federal National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Reviews to Meet SEPA Requirements, as 

Indicated by State Departments of Transportation Survey 

Responses 19

Figure 6: Number of States with Environmental Review

Documents Used for Their Respective State 

Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA) That Are Similar to 

Those Used for the National Environmental Policy Act, as 

Indicated by State Department of Transportation Survey 

Responses 21

Figure 7: Comparison of State Environmental Review 

Requirements with Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

Requirements, as Indicated by State Departments of 

Transportation (state DOT) Survey Responses 24

Figure 8: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for the Consideration of 

Project Impacts, as Indicated by State Departments of 

Transportation (state DOT) Survey Responses 26

Figure 9: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for the Development 

and Evaluation of Alternatives, as Indicated by State 

Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey 

Responses 28

Figure 10: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for the Mitigation of 

Adverse Project Impacts, as Indicated by State 

Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey 

Responses 30

Figure 11: Hypothetical Example of an Avoidance Alternative for 

Parklands 33
Page iii GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 12: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for Interagency 

Coordination for Environmental Assessments (EA) and 

Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), as Indicated by 

State Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey 

Responses 34

Figure 13: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements for Public Involvement 

for Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental 

Impact Statements (EIS), as Indicated by State 

Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey 

Responses 37
Page iv GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Abbreviations

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

APA Administrative Procedure Act

Caltrans California’s DOT

CE categorical exclusion

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

Clean Water Act Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Act of June 30, 

1948

Coast Guard U.S. Coast Guard

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CRS Congressional Research Service

DOT U.S. Department of Transportation

EA environmental assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FHWA’s NEPA 

Toolkit

FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA and 

Transportation Decisionmaking

FONSI finding of no significant impact

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

PAPAI Project and Program Action Information 

ROD record of decision

SEPA state environmental policy act

state DOT state department of transportation

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 18, 2014

The Honorable Barbara Boxer

Chairman

The Honorable David Vitter

Ranking Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

When a state uses federal-aid highway funding for a highway project,1 the 

project becomes subject to federal requirements, including a requirement 

for environmental review established under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA).2 Roughly one-third of the states also have laws that 

require the review of environmental impacts under a variety of 

circumstances. Enacted in 1970, NEPA, and the subsequent Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) implementing regulations, set out an 

environmental review process that has two principal purposes: (1) to 

ensure that an agency carefully considers information concerning the 

potential environmental effects of proposed projects; and (2) to ensure 

that this information is made available to the public.3

 

1

Although most of the nation’s roads are owned by state and local governments, the 

federal government supports state investment in highway construction via a grant-based 

cost reimbursement system. In 2012, the most recent year for which data are available, 

$38 billion was obligated to states. For purposes of this report, we are focusing on federalaid highway projects (projects authorized under title 23 of the United States Code) such as 

projects involving highways or bridges. 

NEPA and CEQ 

2

Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. 

3

NEPA states that the purposes of the act are “to declare a national policy which will 

encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to 

promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere 

and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological 

systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on 

Environmental Quality.” 42 U.S.C. § 4321.
Page 2 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

regulations require federal agencies to analyze the nature and extent of a 

project’s potential environmental effects and, in many cases, document 

their analyses.4 NEPA environmental reviews have been identified by 

critics as a cause of delay for projects because of time-consuming 

environmental analysis requirements and praised by proponents for, 

among other things, bringing public participation into government decision 

making.5 Congress has also expressed ongoing interest in the cost of and 

time required for reviews completed under NEPA for federal-aid highway 

projects, and we have published several reports assessing available 

information on the cost and time frames of required reviews.6

In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP21)7 added provisions intended to accelerate highway project completion 

and reduce costs, while protecting the environment, among other things. 

Several of these provisions were aimed at expediting project delivery, 

including the reviews required under NEPA. MAP-21 required GAO to 

examine state environmental reviews to determine whether they duplicate 

federal environmental reviews for federal-aid highway projects.8

 

4

NEPA requirements apply to both major and minor projects. The level of review required 

for a project depends on the potential for environmental effects and several other factors, 

as discussed below. 

To 

5

NEPA applies to federal agency policies, programs, plans, and projects. Projects include 

actions approved by permit or other regulatory decisions as well as federal and federally

assisted activities, including projects or actions funded by or undertaken by FHWA. 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b). For more information about how NEPA reviews are carried out, 

see GAO, FAA Airspace Redesign: An Analysis of the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

Project, GAO-08-786 (Washington, D.C.: July 31, 2008) and Highway Infrastructure: 

Stakeholders’ Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects, 

GAO-03-534 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003).

6

See GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA 

Analyses, GAO-14-369 and GAO-14-370 (Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2014); GAO, 

Federal-Aid Highways: Federal Requirements for Highways May Influence Funding 

Decisions and Create Challenges, but Benefits and Costs Are Not Tracked, GAO-09-36

(Washington, D.C.: Dec 12, 2008); and GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State 

Practices to Expedite Completion Show Promise, GAO-12-593 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 

2012). 

7

MAP-21 authorized surface transportation programs, including federal-aid highway 

programs, through fiscal year 2014. Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405 (2012). Legislation 

was enacted in August 2014, extending highway and other surface transportation 

programs and funding through May 31, 2015, for programs authorized under MAP-21. 

Highway and Transportation Funding Act, Pub. L. No. 113-159, 128 Stat. 1839 (2014). 

8

Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 1322, 126 Stat. at 553. 
Page 3 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

respond to the MAP-21 mandate, we provided key preliminary information 

to your staff on September 25, 2014. This report transmits our final results 

related to this review. This report addresses: (1) the factors that 

determine whether federal or state environmental reviews are required for 

highway projects, and how the types of federal and state environmental 

review documents compare; (2) how state environmental review 

requirements and practices compare with federal requirements for 

assessing the environmental impact of federal-aid highway projects; and 

(3) the extent of any duplication in federal and state reviews, including 

frequency and cost, in states with environmental review requirements for 

highway projects.

We have defined duplication as occurring when two or more agencies or 

programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same 

services to the same beneficiaries.9

To respond to all three objectives, we reviewed relevant publications, 

obtained documents from CEQ, the Congressional Research Service 

(CRS), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), including the 

FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA and Transportation 

Decisionmaking, which provides guidance on FHWA’s NEPA 

environmental review process for state department of transportation 

(state DOT) officials.

This report focuses on duplication 

that might occur between state and federal processes for environmental 

review of highway projects.

10

 

9

See GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Strategies for Reducing 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieving Cost Savings,

We also interviewed officials within these agencies 

and representatives from the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO), as well as two academics identified 

GAO-13-631T

(Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2013). We have applied this definition in a body of work 

examining potentially duplicative activities in the federal government. See, for example, 

GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011); 2012 

Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 

Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and 

2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication 

and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013).

10FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking

(FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit) was accessed in 2014 at: 

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd3tdm.asp. 
Page 4 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

by CEQ as having expertise in federal and state environmental review 

requirements.

To respond to the first two objectives, we conducted a legal analysis and 

a survey, which included all 18 states that we and CEQ identified as 

having state environmental policy acts (SEPA) requiring environmental 

review of highway projects.11 Our legal analysis compared key elements 

of SEPAs and related state regulations to key elements of NEPA and 

FHWA regulations for NEPA reviews.12 We identified these elements by 

reviewing the relevant federal statutes and regulations in consultation with 

CEQ and FHWA. Specifically, we started with the statutory language of 

NEPA, which requires agencies to prepare, for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed 

statement on, among other things (1) the environmental impact of the 

proposed action, (2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented, and (3) alternatives to the 

proposed action.13

 

11We included entities which are defined as “states” under Title 23 and which have SEPAs 

required to be applied to highway projects. Thus, we did not include the 

Nevada/California–Tahoe Region, which has SEPA requirements, because it is not 

defined as a state under Title 23. We included New Jersey, which has an executive order 

that serves as a SEPA, and was included on CEQ’s list of states with SEPAs. We also 

included Texas, which has recently enacted a SEPA for transportation projects and which 

CEQ officials believed should be included. We excluded South Dakota because although 

its SEPA provides the option of preparing an environmental impact statement, there is no 

requirement to do so, and South Dakota DOT officials told us that they do not conduct 

environmental reviews under the state law. Some other states also have specialized 

environmental review requirements even in the absence of a SEPA. 

NEPA, CEQ regulations, and—for federal-aid highway 

projects—FHWA regulations then specify detailed environmental review 

processes, which include requirements for interagency coordination, 

avoiding duplication, and participation by state and local governments as 

well as the general public, among other things. Based on these statutory 

and regulatory requirements, and in consultation with CEQ and FHWA, 

we distilled 12 key elements of NEPA environmental review. Examples of 

these 12 elements include the type and level of detail required for 

environmental reviews, requirements to improve coordination and 

promote efficiency, and public participation. Details on all 12 elements 

12We did not examine all details of federal and state laws and practices, nor did we 

examine all details of other sources such as case law that could affect how laws are 

implemented at the state and federal levels. 

1342 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 
Page 5 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

and findings from our legal comparison of the NEPA and SEPA 

processes based on these elements are contained in appendix I, and we 

refer to these findings throughout this report as our legal analysis. To 

compare state environmental review requirements and practices in more 

detail for highway projects subject to FHWA requirements, we surveyed 

state DOTs in each of the 18 states that have SEPAs required for

highway projects on the degree of similarity between state requirements 

and federal requirements identified in FHWA’s Toolkit.14

To respond to the third objective, we included in our survey of the 18 

state DOTs with SEPAs questions related to duplication and included 

questions about duplication in our interviews of state officials and FHWA 

division officials in the nine states we selected for additional interviews. In 

the context of environmental review requirements, such duplication could 

occur if, for example, two separate—but similar—analyses were carried 

out to satisfy federal and state requirements, but would not occur if the 

same analysis could be used to satisfy both state and federal 

documentary (i.e., procedural) requirements. We inquired about 

duplication of review efforts within and among highway projects, as well 

as duplication that may occur across time within a project. We also asked 

FHWA and state officials for any data or analyses regarding the cost of 

any potential duplication (and how such cost might be measured) and the 

frequency of any potential duplication. Finally, in our survey we asked 

state officials about efforts to improve the efficiency and timeliness of the 

environmental review process, as well as any potential benefits from such 

efforts. See appendix II for additional details on our objectives, scope, 

and methodology.

For more 

information about how we conducted and used the survey, see appendix 

II. In addition to these analyses, we interviewed state DOT officials and 

officials with state resource agencies (e.g., state departments of natural 

resources) in 9 of the 18 SEPA states we surveyed, which we selected 

based on a range of factors, including the number of FHWA NEPA 

reviews underway. Our findings for these nine states are not 

generalizable to the other states with SEPAs but provide examples of 

varying state requirements and practices.

 

14All 18 states we contacted responded to our survey, although one state did not complete 

one portion of the questionnaire. 
Page 6 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to November 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Under NEPA, federal agencies generally are required to evaluate the 

potential environmental effects of proposed federal actions such as 

permitting, funding, approving, or carrying out of federal-aid highway 

projects. These evaluations allow decision makers to fully consider 

significant environmental impacts, develop and evaluate project 

alternatives, and consider mitigating adverse impacts before they decide 

whether to approve a proposed project. The NEPA process also provides 

a forum for ensuring that all applicable federal and state resource 

protection laws and requirements are addressed during the project 

development process, such as applicable provisions of the federal Clean 

Water Act

15 and Endangered Species Act.16 NEPA’s implementing 

regulations require coordination as a means to avoid duplication and 

increase efficiency. For example, they require all federal agencies to 

“cooperate with state and local agencies to the fullest extent possible to 

reduce duplication.”17

FHWA has statutory and regulatory requirements for conducting NEPA 

reviews, which include additional highway-specific requirements and put 

In addition, the environmental review of projects 

can include, among other things, seeking input, and in some cases 

approvals, from the public as well as federal and state agencies 

responsible for natural resources, environmental protection, and historic 

preservation, and obtaining approval of the environmental evaluation by 

the lead federal agency prior to making a decision, which in some cases 

results in the issuance of a record of decision (ROD).

 

15See Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Act of June 30, 1948, ch. 758, § 404, 62 Stat. 

1155, codified as amended at 33 U.S.C. § 1344 (Clean Water Act). 

16See Endangered Species Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-205, § 7, 87 Stat. 884 (1973), 

codified at 16 U.S.C. § 1536. 

1740 C.F.R. § 1506.2(c).

Background
Page 7 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

additional emphasis on an interagency decision-making process.18 For 

instance, FHWA regulations require that each project alternative 

considered in the review connect logical end points (e.g., involve the 

development of a highway that links with existing roads) and be of 

sufficient length to address environmental matters broadly.19 FHWA 

regulations and policy also include provisions to coordinate with other 

federal agencies with jurisdiction, expertise, or interest in the project, as 

well as non-federal actors, including state agencies and project 

sponsors.20 In addition, FHWA’s statutory authority includes a mechanism 

to limit the time frames available to challenge decisions in federal court as 

part of the judicial review process,21 as well as other provisions, such as 

permission to fund assistance to specific groups to improve interagency 

coordination.22

 

18FHWA administers the Federal-Aid Highway Program and distributes most funds to the 

states through annual apportionments established by statutory formulas. Once FHWA 

apportions these funds, the funds are available for obligation to fund state-selected 

projects, but these cannot proceed to construction until the NEPA process is completed. 

States are primarily responsible for selecting projects and administering federal-aid 

projects through their state DOTs, as well as for providing matching funds. While state 

DOTs are the recipients of federal funds and administer and oversee many of the projects 

funded by the federal-aid highway program, states sometimes allow local public agencies, 

such as towns, cities, and counties, to administer federally funded projects. In these 

instances, states continue to be responsible for ensuring that federal funds are spent in 

accordance with federal law. 

Figure 1 illustrates six principles of FHWA NEPA review 

from its Toolkit.

1923 C.F.R. § 771.111(f)(1).

20It is FHWA’s policy that to the fullest extent possible, all environmental investigations, 

reviews, and consultations be coordinated as a single process, and compliance with all 

applicable environmental requirements be reflected in the environmental document. 

23 C.F.R. §§ 771.105, 771.111(d).

2123 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1). Critics of NEPA have stated that those who disapprove of a 

federal project will use NEPA as the basis for litigation to delay or halt that project. Others 

argue that litigation only results when agencies do not comply with NEPA’s procedural 

requirements. See GAO-14-369 and GAO-14-370. 

22The statute permits states to fund assistance to affected federal or state agencies and 

Native American tribes participating in the environmental review process to support 

activities expediting and improving transportation project delivery, among other things. 

23 U.S.C. §139(j)(1).
Page 8 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 1: The Federal Highway Administration’s Principles of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process in Transportation Decision Making

According to CEQ and FHWA, establishing the purpose and need for the 

federal action takes into account the project sponsor’s purpose and need 

for a project and is essential in establishing a baseline for the 

development of the range of reasonable project alternatives required in 

environmental reviews. It also assists with the identification and eventual 

selection of a preferred alternative. For FHWA NEPA reviews for federalaid highway projects, the purpose and need for a proposed project might 

take into account the status of the project (e.g., the project’s history, 

funding, and schedules, as well as information on agencies involved); a 
Page 9 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

discussion of highway or bridge capacity, the project’s relationship to the 

larger transportation system, and traffic demand; as well as social 

demands or economic development.

23

In addition to the procedural requirements of NEPA, the decision to fund a 

federal-aid highway project also must comply with substantive 

environmental and natural resource protection laws, including applicable 

state laws.

• Federal environmental laws commonly applied to a proposed highway 

project such as the Clean Water Act (Section 404); the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (principally Section 7); Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act;24 and Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act (protecting publicly owned parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and public or private 

historic sites).25

 

23Social demands influencing a project may include its impacts on employment, schools, 

or recreational facilities and land uses that alter highway capacity needs. The project’s 

environmental justice analysis must identify and address all reasonably foreseeable 

adverse social, economic, and environmental effects on minority and low-income 

populations. See Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 16, 

1994); U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2, Environmental Justice in 

Minority and Low-Income Populations; and FHWA Order 6640.23A, FHWA Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations. 

Section 4(f) applies to DOT projects and Section 106 

applies to projects with federal funding and some projects that require 

federal permits. Other federal natural resource protection laws—

FHWA has identified over 40—can apply to federal and state or local 

projects, depending on characteristics of the project. For example, the 

24Section106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Pub. L. No. 89-665, § 106, 80 Stat. 

915 (1966), codified as amended at 16 U.S.C. § 470f, requires federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of a government-assisted or licensed project on any historic site, 

building, structure, or other object that is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. 

25Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-670, § 4(f), 

80 Stat. 931, the substance of which now appears at 23 U.S.C. § 138 and 49 U.S.C. § 

303, protects parklands from adverse effects of federal-aid highway projects. In general, 

section 4(f) requires that the impact be avoided or rendered de minimis, or that the state 

must show that there is no feasible and prudent alternative. The requirement dates from 

enactment of section 4(f) of the Act establishing DOT and predates NEPA. Pursuant to 

23 U.S.C. § 139, FHWA includes section 4(f) in its NEPA analysis as an environmental 

law with the same status as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act. 
Page 10 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protects designated and potential wild, 

scenic, and recreational rivers.26

• State environmental laws, such as laws related to the growth-inducing 

effects of agency actions may also apply to a proposed highway 

project. States may also have laws that protect certain resources, 

such as those designating protected or endangered species or those 

protecting tribal or other cultural resources.

For federal-aid highway projects, reviews are typically conducted by state 

DOT officials—or other project sponsors—who carry out analyses and 

coordinate with FHWA. FHWA generally serves as the federal lead 

agency for the NEPA process and approves the environmental impact 

documentation.27 Under NEPA, the level of review required depends on 

the potential significance of the environmental effects of the project.28

• Projects that have the potential for a significant effect: An 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared for a project 

that has the potential for a significant effect on the environment. Both 

CEQ and FHWA regulations identify EIS requirements related to 

public involvement (such as public participation in scoping, response 

to substantive public comment on a draft EIS, and public hearings 

when appropriate); interagency participation; consideration of project 

impacts (such as impacts on water quality or wildlife habitat); 

development and evaluation of alternatives; and the mitigation of 

adverse project impacts. Projects requiring an EIS are likely to be 

complex and expensive, as we have noted in prior work.29

 

2616 U.S.C. §§ 1271-1287.

The 

median time to complete a highway project EIS was over 7 years in 

27As applicable here, the terms “federal lead agency” and “lead agency” come from 

23 U.S.C. § 139, which governs these cases. The state DOT or other applicable state 

agency may serve with U.S. DOT as a “joint lead agency.” 

28To determine “significance” as defined by NEPA, responsible officials must consider 

both the context and intensity of an action’s impact. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.27. This means 

responsible officials must consider beneficial as well as adverse impacts, long- and shortterm, and cumulative impacts, as well as the impact of external requirements such as, for 

title 23-authorized projects, the impact on certain types of public lands and historic sites 

(see 23 U.S.C. § 138 and 49 U.S.C. § 303) and compliance with title 23-specific 

processes (see 23 U.S.C. § 139). 

29See GAO-12-593. 
Page 11 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

2013, according to FHWA data,30 and the EIS itself may cost several 

million dollars, as reported by FHWA.31

• Projects that may or may not have a significant effect: When project 

effects are uncertain, project sponsors (such as state DOTs or local 

highway departments) must prepare an environmental assessment 

(EA) to determine whether the project may have a potentially 

significant impact on the human environment. An EA briefly provides 

evidence and analysis sufficient to determine whether to prepare an 

EIS or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI). A FONSI presents 

the reasons why the agency has concluded that no significant 

environmental impacts will occur if the project is implemented. FHWA 

regulations governing EAs require early scoping and coordination 

activities, as well as making the EA publicly available. EA review 

activities have been estimated to take from 14 to 41 months, 

according to reports from FHWA and AASHTO.

• Projects that normally will not have a significant effect: These projects, 

by their very nature (e.g., the project fits within a category of activities 

that the agency has determined normally do not have the potential for 

significant environmental impacts), require limited review under NEPA 

to ensure—by considering any extraordinary circumstances—that a 

proposed project does not raise the potential for significant effects. 

Agencies promulgate categorical exclusions (CE) for such projects in 

their NEPA implementing procedures.32

 

30Some EISs are completed in less time. For example, in 2013, the median time to 

complete EISs started since the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, in 2005, was less than 4 

years.

The subsequent use of a 

categorical exclusion for a proposed project, as described in CEQ 

guidance, can reduce paperwork and delay by speeding the review 

process. CEs typically take much less time to prepare than EAs or 

EISs. Environmental review activities for categorically excluded 

projects have been estimated to take an average of 6 to 8 months to 

31FHWA, Report to Congress on Costs Associated with the Environmental Process: 

Impacts of Federal Environmental Requirements on Federal-aid Highway Project Costs. 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 25, 2006). FHWA does not include the time needed to approve 

project permits in its calculations of the median time needed to complete NEPA reviews. 

32FHWA regulations identify two types of CEs: listed CEs, which meet CEQ and FHWA 

requirements by regulation, and documented CEs, which only may be designated as CEs 

after FHWA approval of project-specific documentation. In some cases, states may be 

able to document a CE with minimal additional paperwork, while other documented CEs—

for more complex projects—may require formal submission of additional information from 

the state to allow the FHWA division office to conclude that the project will not cause a 

significant environmental impact. 
Page 12 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

complete, according to FHWA, and could take as long as an average 

of 22 months to complete, according to a report prepared for 

AASHTO. Federal-aid highway projects that are generally processed 

as CEs include resurfacing, constructing bicycle lanes, installing noise 

barriers, and landscaping projects.

Figure 2 illustrates FHWA’s NEPA decision-making process, including the 

three main types of highway project environmental review documentation.

Figure 2: National Environmental Policy Act Decision Making Process—Types of 

Documentation Required for Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Projects

For federal-aid highway projects, FHWA has found that the vast majority 

of projects (96 percent in 2009) qualify for environmental review as CEs, 

and only 1 percent require EIS reviews, as shown in figure 3 below. 

However, EIS projects, because of their high costs, account for a greater 

share of federal-aid funds than their numbers might suggest.
Page 13 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 3: Federal-Aid Highway Projects by National Environmental Policy Act 

Review Type

Note: According to the Federal Highway Administration, 2009 data are the most recent available, and 

the proportion of projects in each category has remained constant based on estimates made with 

fiscal data.

According to CEQ and our analysis, 18 states have adopted SEPAs that 

require environmental reviews for highway projects (see fig. 4). The 

majority of SEPAs were modeled on NEPA and require state and 

sometimes local public agencies to assess the impacts of projects (or 

other actions) affecting the quality of the environment within the state.33

 

33For more information about SEPAs, see e.g., Daniel R. Mandelker, et al., NEPA Law 

and Litigation, Thomson Reuters/West, Rel. 10, August 2012. 

Among other things, SEPAs may expand requirements for environmental 

reviews to projects (e.g., state, local, or private projects) that are not 

required to have such reviews under federal law.
Page 14 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 4: States with State Environmental Policy Acts Required for Highway Projects, as of 2014
Page 15 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Three factors—project funding sources, project characteristics, and rules 

allowing state adoption of federal review documents—generally 

determine whether a highway project needs a federal environmental 

review or a state environmental review, or both.34

Federal-aid highway projects are generally subject to environmental 

review under NEPA and the environmental provisions of title 23, with 

FHWA serving as the federal lead agency for the review. By contrast, 

when a project is funded solely through state or local funds, it rarely 

requires an FHWA NEPA review, although action by another federal 

agency may require an environmental review.35

 

34Some projects may be categorically excluded, or they may fall below a SEPA threshold 

for environmental review. 

35Federal permitting requirements can also trigger a NEPA review requirement for statefunded highway projects. For example, a highway project without federal-aid highway 

funding may still trigger a NEPA review if a federal permit is required from the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers (Corps) or the U.S. Coast Guard (Coast Guard) if it will affect a 

navigable waterway or wetland, among other resources. In these cases, the Corps or the 

Coast Guard, as applicable, could serve as the federal lead agency. 

Three Factors 

Generally Affect the 

Types of 

Environmental 

Reviews Required for 

Highway Projects, 

and State 

Environmental 

Review Document 

Types Largely Mirror 

NEPA

Three Factors Generally 

Affect Whether Federal or 

State Environmental 

Reviews Are Required for 

Highway Projects

Funding Sources
Page 16 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

To some extent, states can influence whether or not FHWA NEPA 

reviews are required by their selection of funding for a particular project. 

By using—or avoiding—federal-aid highway funds, states can determine 

whether their projects are subject to a FHWA NEPA review and even 

whether certain other federal environmental laws apply.36 For example, 

officials in some states told us that federal-aid highway funding was 

sometimes requested for a project requiring permits from other federal 

agencies specifically so that FHWA would serve as the federal lead 

agency for the NEPA review, rather than have a federal permitting agency 

(e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)) serve in that capacity. 

Officials in two states cited their positive working relationships with 

FHWA, or the lack of resources at other federal agencies, to explain such 

decisions. As another example, California officials explained that not 

having federal funding or not needing a federal permit—either of which 

would trigger NEPA—requires them to comply with more burdensome 

requirements of the Endangered Species Act. They therefore would have 

an incentive to include federal-aid highway funds to ensure NEPA would 

apply.37

Some state officials, however, identified reasons why they may seek not 

to use federal-aid highway funding for certain projects. For example, state 

officials in Massachusetts, Minnesota, and North Carolina told us that 

they chose not to use federal-aid highway funding on some projects 

mainly to avoid certain federal review requirements, notably Section 4(f) 

or Section 106, which can increase project costs or require additional time 

 

36Projects must comply with applicable substantive resource protection laws regardless of 

whether NEPA or a SEPA (if any) applies to the project.

37Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act mandates that federally authorized or funded 

actions must not jeopardize a threatened or endangered species, and it requires that 

FHWA or a state DOT consult with and submit biological assessments to the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service, as appropriate. Section 10 

of the Act applies to a project without federal authorization or funding—including projects 

with only state funding—and it requires a project sponsor to apply for a permit and submit 

a habitat conservation plan, which may be more burdensome, according to state officials. 

For more information on Section 7, see GAO, Endangered Species Act: The U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service Has Incomplete Information about Effects on Listed Species from Section 

7 Consultations, GAO-09-550 (Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009).
Page 17 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

for reviews to meet federal requirements.38

SEPAs vary with respect to which project characteristics trigger an 

environmental review as well as what type of review is required and the 

scope and extent of that review. These characteristics can include 

thresholds related to project costs, project length, and expected service 

impacts such as the volume of traffic affected, among other things. These 

requirements contrast with NEPA, which generally focuses on the 

potential for significant environmental impacts.

For similar reasons, officials in

three other states (California, Maryland, and New York) focused their 

federal funding on certain—often large—projects, resulting in fewer 

FHWA NEPA reviews overall. Some state officials told us that as a 

practical matter, there may not always be a choice to not use federal 

funding, even if they might otherwise choose to do so, because limited 

state funding may not cover the full cost for some large projects. Although 

only using state funds may preclude the need to meet certain federal 

requirements, other federal environmental requirements, such as 

compliance with the Clean Water Act, largely remain for state-funded 

projects.

39 For example, in Virginia, 

reviews are required for state projects costing $500,000 or more. Other 

dollar-value thresholds are built into the SEPA requirements of the District 

of Columbia, Georgia, and New Jersey. In Massachusetts, environmental 

reviews are required for the construction of new roadways 2 or more 

miles in length. Likewise, Minnesota requires an EIS-type review for new 

road projects four or more lanes in width and 2 or more miles in length.40

 

38We have previously found that states sometimes find it advantageous to use nonfederal 

funds for projects to avoid the costs or delays that may arise when complying with federal 

requirements such as Section 4(f). See 

Finally, in certain cases, states require particular environmental reviews 

for expected service impacts. For example, EA-type reviews are required 

for the construction of new roads over 1 mile in length that will function as 

collector roadways in Minnesota.

GAO-09-36 and GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: 

Federal Highway Administration Could Further Mitigate Locally Administered Project 

Risks, GAO-14-113 (Washington, D.C.: January 16, 2014).

39In January 2014, however, pursuant to MAP-21, FHWA adopted a regulation allowing a 

project that receives less than $5,000,000 of federal funds to be treated as a CE. 

40FHWA regulations cite examples of projects that normally require an EIS—a new 

controlled access freeway, a highway project of four or more lanes on a new location, and 

new construction or extension of a separate roadway for buses or high occupancy 

vehicles not located within an existing highway facility. 23 C.F.R. § 771.115(a). 

Project Characteristics
Page 18 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Almost all states with SEPAs responding to our survey (17 of 18) allow for 

the partial or full adoption of analyses or documentation produced in 

conducting federal reviews to meet state requirements for highway 

projects, while Massachusetts requires that a separate state review be 

completed. Figure 5 illustrates the number of states allowing for full 

adoption, in which the NEPA review fulfills the SEPA requirements; those

allowing for the adoption of the federal review with additional state 

analyses or documentation (i.e., partial adoption); and those requiring that 

state requirements be met separately from the FHWA NEPA review.41

 

41Under FHWA’s NEPA process, lead agencies are responsible for compliance with the 

requirements of all applicable environmental laws, including state laws. 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.133.

Several factors may affect whether a NEPA document can be accepted 

as a SEPA document in those states that allow for full or partial adoption. 

For example, state DOT officials reported that their ability to use a NEPA 

review to meet SEPA requirements varies based on the project sponsor, 

the type of review, and whether a similar type of environmental review 

document is required to satisfy federal and state environmental review

requirements. Finally, several states carry out and adopt federal analyses 

or documentation for state projects even in the absence of federal funding 

or permitting. Maryland DOT officials told us that in practice they adopt 

federal FHWA NEPA reviews for almost all highway projects—even those 

with only state funding—given staff familiarity with the federal 

requirements and public expectations, as well as the potential for funding 

sources to change between the preliminary engineering and construction 

phases of a project. Washington DOT officials also mentioned that using 

and adopting NEPA could be advantageous because they felt more 

certain about how FHWA’s NEPA requirements would be interpreted by 

courts should a legal challenge to the environmental review process be 

subsequently filed.

State Adoption of Federal 

Reviews
Page 19 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 5: The Number of Surveyed States with State Environmental Policy Acts 

(SEPA) Reporting Extent of Adoption of Federal National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Reviews to Meet SEPA Requirements, as Indicated by State Departments of 

Transportation Survey Responses

a

California indicated both that a NEPA review can be adopted with added SEPA items and that “it 

varies.” Based on the state’s added narrative comments, we included California with the states where 

a NEPA review can be adopted with added SEPA items, although the adoption process can vary 

depending on the project sponsor.

While the majority of states with SEPAs allow for the full adoption of 

federal NEPA reviews, some do not (see fig. 5). When separate federal 

and state reviews are required, the processes are often carried out 

concurrently, with joint planning processes, research and studies, and 

public hearings, as well as the use of blended documents. Both Montana 

and New York reported having integrated processes for state and federal 

reviews, for example. Likewise, officials with California’s DOT (Caltrans) 

stated that Caltrans has a long-standing practice of combining NEPA and 

the state’s SEPA processes to make the delivery of transportation 

projects more efficient. For example, Caltrans’s guidance for a blended or 

joint NEPA/SEPA EIS/EIS-type review describes use of a special chapter 

in the joint document to address required California-specific mitigation 

information. Finally, Hawaii’s environmental review statute requires 

coordination of state and federal reviews when both apply. The extent to 

which state SEPAs, like NEPA, require coordination is discussed in the 

next section of this report.
Page 20 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

When a project sponsor requests that a state review be adopted to satisfy 

federal requirements, FHWA conducts a legal sufficiency review to 

ensure that the analysis and documentation satisfy FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements, according to an official with FHWA’s Office of Project 

Development and Environmental Review. This legal review may happen 

when, for example, federal funding is added to an ongoing state project or 

when project requirements change, and a federal permit that was not 

originally required must now be obtained. State officials in several states 

we spoke with pointed to the potential for duplicative effort when ongoing 

state projects are subsequently “federalized” in this manner. According to

the FHWA official we spoke with, a case-by-case assessment is 

necessary because each situation is different when projects have been 

federalized. To avoid the risk of having to start the federal environmental 

impact assessment late in the project development process, FHWA 

encourages project sponsors to follow FHWA’s NEPA process from the 

beginning of project development. For this reason, officials in five states—

Hawaii, Maryland, North Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin—told us 

they preferred to review projects under FHWA NEPA—even in the 

absence of federal funding.

A majority of states we surveyed reported having state review document 

types that are similar to those used for NEPA reviews (see fig. 6). Most 

states (16 of 18) reported requiring documents that are similar to a NEPA 

EIS or a NEPA EA, although fewer states had similar documents for 

FONSI/EAs or CEs, and the level of analysis required varies by state, as 

discussed in more detail below.

State Review Document 

Types Largely Mirror 

NEPA Review Document 

Types
Page 21 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 6: Number of States with Environmental Review Documents Used for Their Respective State Environmental Policy 

Acts (SEPA) That Are Similar to Those Used for the National Environmental Policy Act, as Indicated by State Department of 

Transportation Survey Responses

Note: States may use different names for their documentation or review type.

While most states reported having an EA-type document, some state 

officials told us that their documentation requirements for that process 

can differ from the documentation requirements for an FHWA EA. 

FHWA’s EAs are to include brief discussions of the need for the proposed 

project, project alternatives, the environmental impacts of the proposed 

project and alternatives, and a listing of the agencies and persons 

consulted. Officials in six of nine states where we conducted interviews 

told us they use a checklist for their EA-type reviews. For example, 

Washington DOT’s checklist asks for narrative responses to 12 pages of 

questions on topics like water, plants, and historic and cultural 

preservation. Instructions direct the project sponsor—often the state 

DOT—to answer the questions briefly with the best description possible 

and to say “does not apply” if that is the case. As a result, these reviews 

may look more like a documented federal CE than a federal EA. Further, 

in some instances, these checklist reviews can involve less analysis than 

a federal EA. A Washington DOT official told us that the checklist allows 

impacts to not be assessed if they are deemed “not applicable.” By 

comparison, a federal EA requires more detailed documentation of 

findings. In Massachusetts, the state DOT prepares a 22-page checklist 

called an environmental notification form for projects meeting set criteria. 

This document has attached plans and is publicly circulated. Depending 

on whether the project exceeds certain thresholds, the document may 

require responses to questions, according to Massachusetts DOT 

officials. By contrast, New York requires more specific analysis as its 
Page 22 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

regulations require the state DOT to prepare a negative declaration that

can be supported by a NEPA FONSI.42 This document, a determination of 

no significant effect, must identify all the relevant areas of environmental 

concern and show why the project impact, if any, is not significant.

To compare state environmental review requirements to FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements for federal-aid highway projects, we reviewed relevant state 

statutes and regulations for each of the18 states that we identified as 

having a SEPA required for highway projects and compared those 

statutes and regulations with NEPA and FHWA regulations.43 In addition, 

we surveyed state DOTs in each of those 18 states about the degree of 

similarity between state requirements and federal requirements identified 

in FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit for five of FHWA’s six NEPA principles: 

assessment of project impacts, development and evaluation of project 

alternatives, mitigation of adverse project impacts, interagency 

coordination, and public involvement.44

 

42As mentioned above, a FONSI is a finding of no significant impact. A NEPA FONSI 

cannot be prepared without having completed an EA review, and the FONSI includes or 

provides a summary of the EA. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.13.

Seventeen of the 18 surveyed 

43See appendix I for further discussion of our legal analysis. 

44The requirements identified in FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit are not exhaustive of all of 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements; rather, FHWA highlights key requirements under each of six 

NEPA principles, including purpose and need, which was discussed above. We did not 

include questions related to purpose and need in our survey of state DOTs. 

Many State and 

Federal 

Requirements Are 

Similar, but 

Differences Could 

Affect State 

Environmental 

Reviews or Outcomes

State Requirements Are 

Generally Similar to 

FHWA’s NEPA 

Requirements
Page 23 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

states provided responses to this section of our survey.45 We used our 

legal analysis and interviews with state officials to supplement and 

confirm survey responses, as well as to provide illustrative examples of 

how state requirements or practices compare with NEPA and FHWA 

requirements.46 To identify which states have requirements that were 

“generally similar” to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall, we determined 

which states in our survey reported having environmental review 

requirements that were similar or somewhat similar to 42 individual 

requirements for FHWA NEPA reviews under the five NEPA principles.47

Based on our legal analysis and survey responses, for each of the five 

NEPA principles the majority of states have requirements that are 

generally similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall. More 

specifically, as shown in figure 7, for each of the five areas, survey results 

indicated that requirements in 10 or more of the 17 state SEPAs were 

generally similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall. Some similarity 

between state and federal requirements is to be expected since a majority 

of SEPAs were modeled on NEPA, as we discussed above. Further, 

 

45The survey asked states to categorize their requirements as “less stringent,” “similar,” or 

“more stringent” than FHWA’s NEPA requirements. States could also select “not 

applicable.” By comparing our legal analysis to the responses of states who most 

frequently indicated that FHWA’s NEPA requirements were “not applicable” to their SEPA, 

we determined that a “not applicable” response indicated less stringent requirements than 

FHWA NEPA or no comparable requirements. Therefore, we combined responses from 

the “less stringent” and “not applicable” categories.

46Officials with the Virginia DOT did not respond to the portion of our survey comparing 

the state’s and FHWA’s NEPA requirements. In our legal analysis, we found that Virginia’s 

requirements were not similar to CEQ’s or FHWA’s NEPA requirements for the majority (at 

least 9 of 12) of the key requirements we assessed, including consideration of 

alternatives, mitigation, and public involvement. This analysis did not include specific 

requirements within each of the NEPA principles from FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit. 

47Classification of requirements as “similar” or “generally similar” does not indicate that 

they are identical. Similar as the term is used in this report, conveys that two items share a 

general resemblance, not that they are alike in all respects. Thus, we characterized states’ 

survey responses as being similar if 75 percent or more of the questions about state 

requirements under a NEPA principle were marked as “similar” or “more stringent” than 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements. If 50 to 74 percent of the requirements were marked as 

“similar” or “more stringent,” we characterized states’ survey responses as somewhat 

similar. If 51 to 74 percent of the requirements were marked as “less stringent” or “not 

applicable,” we characterized states’ survey responses as somewhat less stringent. If 75 

percent or more of the requirements were marked as “less stringent” or “not applicable,” 

we characterized states’ survey responses as less stringent. Additional information about 

our methodology can be found in appendix II.
Page 24 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

some states may employ more stringent review processes in practice 

than state statutes and regulations require in order to satisfy public 

expectations or for other reasons. Based on our legal analysis and survey 

responses, we found that a number of states have SEPA requirements 

that are generally less stringent, however. In fact, survey results suggest 

that the divergence between state and FHWA’s NEPA requirements may 

be greatest for the NEPA principle of alternatives analysis, where 7 (of 

17) states had requirements they characterized as generally less 

stringent. Overall, no state reported having requirements more stringent 

than FHWA NEPA for more than 4 (of 42) individual requirements within 

the five NEPA principles included in our analysis. We discuss each of 

these NEPA principles—and the related requirements identified in the 

Toolkit—in more detail below.

Figure 7: Comparison of State Environmental Review Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Requirements, as Indicated by State Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey 

Responses

Note: We surveyed state DOTs in states with state environmental policy acts (SEPA) required for 

highway projects comparing state requirements and federal requirements identified in FHWA’s 

Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA and Transportation Decisionmaking.

In some cases, the divergence between state and federal requirements is 

more pronounced depending on the type of review being conducted. 

According to survey responses, state requirements for documentation 

and analyses are more likely to mirror FHWA’s NEPA requirements for 

higher level, more complex SEPA reviews (e.g., EIS-type reviews) than 

for less complex reviews. This difference reflects, in part, the differences 
Page 25 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

among various document types mentioned above, including the use of 

checklists for EA-type assessments in many states. Potential 

environmental impacts for the vast majority of projects at both the state 

and federal level are evaluated using CE or EA requirements, as only a 

small proportion of projects typically requires an EIS review, according to 

FHWA and state officials we interviewed. Where state and federal laws 

diverge, there is the potential for meaningful differences in how significant 

impacts are assessed or mitigated, which project alternative is selected, 

the level of interagency coordination, and opportunities for the public to 

affect or challenge decisions, among other things.

Most state requirements include some consideration of impacts, 

development and evaluation of alternatives, and mitigation for the 

analyses that inform environmental review documents, but the degree of 

similarity to FHWA’s NEPA requirements varies, and states generally lack 

protections comparable to federal parkland and historic preservation 

protections.

For each of the 5 individual requirements related to the consideration of 

project impacts, from 10 to 13 (of 17) states reported in our survey that 

their requirements for analyzing the environmental impacts of a proposed 

highway project are similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements, although 

other states reported having less stringent requirements.48

 

48In addition, legal requirements in Connecticut call for more limited consideration of 

cumulative impacts than NEPA (considering only those effects caused by the lead agency 

or the proposed projects), but state DOT officials told us that in practice the state DOT 

exceeds legal requirements when preparing an environmental analysis. 

Figure 8 

illustrates this variation among states for each of the five requirements 

associated with the consideration of project impacts.

Most States Require 

Some Evaluation of 

Impacts, Alternatives, and 

Mitigation, but 

Requirements Differ, and 

Comparable Parkland and 

Historic Preservation 

Protections Are Generally 

Absent

Consideration of Project 

Impacts
Page 26 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 8: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Requirements for the Consideration of Project Impacts, as Indicated by State Departments of Transportation (state 

DOT) Survey Responses

Impacts analysis provides decision makers with the information 

necessary to determine whether a proposed action will produce 

significant adverse impacts in certain identified areas, including impacts 

that are short-term, long-term, and cumulative.49

 

49As mentioned above, significance is measured by both its depth and breadth. In 

measuring whether a state’s law is similar to NEPA and its implementing regulations in 

defining significance, we looked in part to whether state law requires consideration of 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct effects are caused by and occur at the same 

time and place as the proposed action. Indirect effects are the secondary consequences 

on local or regional social, economic or natural conditions or resources that could result 

from additional activities (associated investments and changed patterns of social and 

economic activities) induced or stimulated by the proposed action, both in the short-term 

and in the long-term. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the human and physical 

environment that result from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to 

other past, present or reasonably foreseeable future action. We further discuss how the 

depth and breadth of an assessment of significant impacts varies among states in 

appendix I.

In our survey, 10 (of 17) 

states reported similarities with FHWA’s NEPA requirements to consider 

cultural or social impacts and to assess impacts relating to social and 

economic justice, but officials we interviewed in 3 states identified 

consideration of impacts related to social and environmental justice as a 
Page 27 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

key difference between state requirements and FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements. (See fig. 8.) These requirements assess potential effects 

on certain minority or low-income populations in FHWA NEPA reviews, 

among other things.50 For example, Caltrans officials explained that 

usually they are not required to look at social or economic impacts unless 

these impacts are triggered by a physical impact, which differs somewhat 

from federal requirements to address these impacts separately.51

Variations in state substantive environmental statutes and regulations 

(e.g., those managing growth or protecting certain species) can affect the 

determination of significant impacts. For example, North Carolina officials 

described substantive state environmental statutes and regulations that 

are more stringent than federal protections, such as higher permit 

standards to protect trout waters and stricter navigation requirements for 

public use of waterways. These statutes and regulations affect what must 

be considered during impacts analysis. Such requirements, while not part 

of SEPAs themselves, can affect the evaluation of project impacts when 

they are included in the SEPA or NEPA review processes. According to 

our legal analysis, Georgia regulations are less stringent because 

although they require consideration of the cumulative impacts of other 

proposed government actions, they do not address the actions of 

nongovernmental entities, for example.

Similarly, requirements in Wisconsin and Washington for assessing social 

justice impacts are less stringent than federal requirements, according to 

state DOT officials, although in practice DOT procedures for analysis in 

both states align with what is required by FHWA and NEPA.

For each of the five individual requirements related to the development 

and evaluation of project alternatives, from 9 to 11 (of 17) states reported 

in our survey that their respective requirements are similar or more 

 

50According to U.S. DOT, the principles of environmental justice are: (1) avoiding, 

minimizing, or mitigating disproportionately high and adverse human-health and 

environmental effects, including social and economic effects, on minority populations and 

low-income populations; (2) ensuring the full and fair participation by all potentially 

affected communities in the transportation decision-making process; and (3) preventing 

the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in the receipt of benefits by minority and 

low-income populations. 

51Under CEQ regulations, economic or social effects do not by themselves require 

preparation of an EIS. When an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or 

physical environmental effects are interrelated, then the EIS will discuss all of these 

effects on the human environment. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.14. 

Development and Evaluation of 

Project Alternatives
Page 28 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

stringent, although notable differences between state and FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements affect both the assessment of alternatives and the selection 

of the preferred alternative in some states. Figure 9 illustrates this 

variation among states for each of the five requirements associated with 

the development and evaluation of project alternatives.

Figure 9: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) Requirements for the Development and Evaluation of Alternatives, as Indicated by State Departments of 

Transportation (state DOT) Survey Responses

Note: In the course of project development, project sponsors determine end points to be rational or 

“logical termini” in the context of the purpose of the transportation improvement and the 

environmental impacts of a proposed project. FHWA requires that project sponsors use criteria to 

make this determination.

FHWA regulations require consideration and objective evaluation of all 

reasonable project alternatives to avoid any indication of bias toward a 

particular alternative, including the “no action” alternative.52 In our survey, 

10 (of 17) states reported similarities with FHWA’s NEPA requirements 

for the identification of a range of reasonable alternatives.53

 

52The “no action” alternative provides a benchmark, enabling decision makers to compare 

the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. 

(See fig. 9.) 

53In general, while some states address alternatives directly, others address them through 

regulations governing documentation requirements. Further, state documentation 

requirements sometimes distinguish between accounting for alternatives that were 

considered and reporting alternatives that were not considered.
Page 29 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

In our legal analysis, we found that the District of Columbia requires that 

EIS-type reviews include a discussion of reasonable alternatives to the 

proposed governmental action, including the option to take no action.54

However, about a third of the SEPA states reported less stringent 

standards for identifying alternatives in our survey, and we found in our 

legal analysis that just over half of states with SEPAs (10 of 18) require 

assessment of the “no action” alternative. In Minnesota, for example, only 

the preferred alternative is assessed for EA-type reviews, which, as state 

DOT officials agreed, is less stringent than FHWA’s NEPA requirements 

as it may preclude the consideration of some alternatives, although the 

state does require analysis of the no-action alternative for EIS-type 

reviews.55 In addition, we found that some states do not have detailed 

requirements for the consideration of alternatives, and two states—

Virginia and Indiana—do not include requirements for the identification of 

alternatives in their laws or regulations.56

In addition to the identification of alternatives, we also surveyed states 

about their requirements for selecting the preferred alternative. Seven (of 

17) states we surveyed reported that their requirements for alternatives 

selection are less stringent than FHWA’s NEPA regulations, which require 

that the alternative selection process lead to decisions that are in the best 

overall public interest.57 Even when state requirements are similar to 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements for the selection of alternatives generally, 

there can be some variation in requirements.58

 

54The District of Columbia’s EPA Guidelines note that as with the federal regulations for 

implementing NEPA, “reasonable” alternatives include those that are practical or feasible 

from the technical and economic standpoint and using common sense.

For example, officials in 

North Carolina told us that state requirements for alternative selection are 

55Minnesota requires that the scoping document for an EIS-type assessment address one 

or more alternatives for a number of alternative types (i.e., modified designs and 

alternative technologies).

56More information about the consideration and selection of alternatives can be found in 

appendix I. 

57FHWA policy provides that federal-aid highway decisions should be made “in the best 

overall public interest based upon a balanced consideration of the need for safe and 

efficient transportation; of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the 

proposed transportation improvement; and of national, state, and local environmental 

protection goals.” 23 C.F.R. § 771.105(b). 

58CEQ regulations also require a brief discussion of reasons why some alternatives were 

eliminated from consideration. 
Page 30 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements, and that in practice state officials

select the least environmentally damaging practical alternative as the 

preferred alternative, although the selection process differs from the 

FHWA NEPA process.

The extent to which states have requirements to consider mitigation of 

environmental impacts as part of their environmental review process that 

are similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements often varies by the type of 

review, and 4 of the 17 states reported in our survey that they do not have 

mitigation requirements similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements for any 

level of review. Figure 10 illustrates this variation among states for each 

of the seven requirements associated with considering mitigation of 

environmental impacts.

Figure 10: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Requirements for the Mitigation of Adverse Project Impacts, as Indicated by State Departments of Transportation 

(state DOT) Survey Responses

Note: One state reported two instances of having more stringent mitigation requirements than FHWA 

NEPA and another state reported one instance of having more stringent mitigation requirements.

Mitigation is intended to avoid or minimize any possible adverse 

environmental effects of an action where practicable. FHWA’s NEPA 

regulations require consideration of mitigation regardless of whether the 

Mitigation of Adverse Project 

Impacts
Page 31 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

impacts of a proposed project are found to be significant, and the 

regulations require implementation of mitigation measures if doing so 

represents a reasonable public expenditure.59 Based on our legal analysis 

of state requirements for mitigation, we found that some state 

requirements are similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements, but may include

different terms (potentially altering the thresholds for the consideration of 

and implementation of mitigation) or use different processes for the 

evaluation or identification of mitigation.60 For example, Hawaii’s laws 

require mitigation to be considered as part of its alternatives analysis, but 

this consideration is only required when mitigation measures are 

proposed.61

As previously discussed, two federal substantive resource protection laws 

generally do not apply in the absence of FHWA or other federal 

involvement: Section 4(f) protecting parklands and Section 106 for historic 

preservation. While other federal environmental laws, such as the Clean 

Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, apply to all federal, state, or 

local projects, Section 4(f) and Section 106 are generally not required for 

highway projects without federal involvement.

Moreover, an official in FHWA’s Hawaii Division Office told us 

that environmental mitigation measures, once considered, are not binding 

under Hawaii’s SEPA.

62

 

59NEPA requires consideration of mitigation, and FHWA requires implementation of 

mitigation measures if doing so represents a reasonable public expenditure. 

In 6 (of 9) states where 

we conducted in-depth interviews, officials reported that their state laws 

do not address or do not provide protection comparable to these federal 

laws. For example, in North Carolina, a state without comparable 

parkland protections, officials told us that for projects not subject to 

Section 4(f), the state does not require an analysis to provide alternatives 

that will specifically avoid affecting park or recreational land. (Figure 11 

illustrates what such an avoidance alternative might involve under 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements.) In addition, officials said that North 

Carolina has a much less stringent historic-preservation law than the 

federal Section 106. Officials in other states also indicated that state 

requirements were not as stringent as Section 106, particularly with 

60Appendix I provides examples of how states address mitigation. 

61HAW. ADMIN. CODE §§ 11-200-10(7), 11-200-17(b)(3), 11-200-17(m). 

62As mentioned above, different sections of the Endangered Species Act may apply, 

depending on whether the project involves federal authorizations or funding. 

Parkland and Historic 

Preservation Protections
Page 32 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

regard to the consideration of project impacts on resources that were 

eligible for protection, but were not yet on the federal registry of protected 

resources. Conversely, specific laws in some states provide protection 

that may be more stringent than what is required under federal law for 

certain resources. For example, Hawaii has an historic protection 

requirement for certain cultural resources that goes beyond the 

requirements in Section 106. Having less stringent or no state 

requirements for parkland protection and historic preservation may affect 

whether a project is determined to have significant impacts and therefore 

whether, for those states that require mitigation, those impacts are 

considered and mitigated. In addition, less stringent state requirements 

can provide an incentive to avoid using federal funds for a project, 

according to state officials in 3 of the 9 states where we conducted indepth interviews.
Page 33 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 11: Hypothetical Example of an Avoidance Alternative for Parklands

For each of the 13 individual requirements related to interagency 

coordination of environmental reviews, from 8 to 12 (of 17) states 

reported in our survey that their respective requirements are similar or 

more stringent. Figure 12 illustrates the variation among states for each of 

the 13 requirements associated with interagency coordination for 

environmental reviews.

State Interagency 

Coordination 

Requirements Are 

Generally Similar to 

FHWA’s NEPA 

Requirements, with 

Exceptions
Page 34 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 12: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Requirements for Interagency Coordination for Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS), as Indicated by State Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey Responses

a

Three different states account for the three instances in which states reported more stringent 

requirements.

b

Some survey response totals amount to fewer than 17 because some state DOTs did not respond to 

all of the questions.

Under NEPA, FHWA, as the lead federal agency, is required to 

coordinate the timing and scope of environmental reviews to develop 

consensus among a wide range of stakeholders with diverse interests. 

These coordination requirements are intended to make the review 

process more efficient, eliminate duplication, and reduce delays, by 
Page 35 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

including tribes, businesses, transportation or environmental interest 

groups, resource and regulatory agencies, neighborhoods, and affected 

populations, among others, in the environmental review process. As part 

of state requirements for interagency coordination, some states 

encourage cooperation and consultation with federal or state agencies, 

among others, but state requirements vary in how similar they are to 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements. (See fig. 12.) Specifically, state 

requirements regarding the coordination of outreach to specific 

populations—such as underserved or minority groups—are often less 

stringent than FHWA’s NEPA requirements. In fact, 9 (of 17) state DOTs 

we surveyed reported that for EAs, their state requirements for 

coordinating outreach to specific populations are less stringent than 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements, with 8 (of 17) state DOTs reporting less 

stringent requirements for EIS-type reviews. In states reporting less 

stringent requirements, there may be less involvement from minority or 

underserved populations, affecting how and whether potentially affected 

populations are involved in the review of proposed projects.

In our legal analysis, we found that a few states had requirements that 

corresponded to the “single-process review” included in FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements to promote efficiency and avoid delays by including insofar 

as practical, the completion of all environmental permits, approvals, 

reviews, or studies as part of the NEPA process, including those by other 

federal agencies such as permits from the Corps under the Clean Water 

Act. Some state officials we interviewed told us that their state 

encouraged, but did not require, cooperation and consultation with federal 

or state agencies during the environmental review process. For example, 

while not requiring the completion of all permits or reviews, Washington’s 

SEPA requires that environmental reviews include a list of all licenses 

(e.g., permits) that will be needed for the project.63

 

63This requirement is focused on ensuring that the state’s growth management process 

and Model Toxics Control Act are integrated into environmental reviews.

State DOT officials in 

several states told us that in practice they employ systems that may go 

beyond minimum state requirements to coordinate with federal and state 

agencies, including FHWA, for the review of highway projects. These 

officials described various state efforts to develop consensus among 

stakeholders, ranging from regularly scheduled meetings to the use of 

state clearinghouses to ensure timely stakeholder receipt of 

documentation for comment. For example, Wisconsin DOT officials have 
Page 36 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

developed an agreement with the state’s Department of Natural 

Resources to meet and coordinate on impacts analyses prior to issuing a 

draft EIS-type document. Also, in North Carolina, regulations empower 

the state agency responsible for compliance with the state’s SEPA to 

seek information from federal as well as local and special units of 

government. According to North Carolina officials, sometimes a formal 

interagency process is used, even in the absence of a federal NEPA 

review, because it allows for better coordination.

State environmental review requirements for public involvement are 

generally similar to FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall, although public 

involvement requirements for EA-type reviews varied. Figure 13 illustrates 

the variation among states for each of the 5 EA-type review requirements 

and 7 EIS-type review requirements associated with public involvement.

States’ Public Involvement 

Requirements Are 

Generally Similar to 

FHWA’s NEPA 

Requirements, Though a 

Number of States Have 

Less Stringent 

Requirements when 

Conducting EAs
Page 37 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Figure 13: Comparison of State Requirements with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) Requirements for Public Involvement for Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements 

(EIS), as Indicated by State Departments of Transportation (state DOT) Survey Responses

a

For the question on requirements for public hearings there was one state that did not respond.

b

Five states account for the eleven instances in which states reported more stringent requirements. 

The five instances in which three or fewer states reported less stringent requirements are divided 

among three states—the District of Columbia, Georgia, and New Jersey.

FHWA’s NEPA requirements allow for robust public involvement in the 

NEPA process, requiring reasonable notice of and an opportunity to 

participate in public hearings, where appropriate, and an adequate and 

meaningful opportunity to submit comments. State responses to our 

survey indicated that public involvement requirements vary, ranging from 

states that have no requirement to allow public involvement, to others that
Page 38 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

may have more stringent requirements than FHWA’s NEPA rules.

64

Moreover, we found as part of our legal analysis that requirements 

allowing public participation for state EIS-type reviews are more likely to 

parallel FHWA’s NEPA requirements than do such requirements for state 

EA-type reviews. Conversely, public involvement requirements for EAtype reviews in Wisconsin may exceed FHWA’s NEPA requirements in 

some circumstances as the state’s SEPA allows for additional hearings 

by request, while New York officials told us that they are not required to 

conduct a public hearing for either EA-type or EIS-type reviews. In 

several other states, hearings for EIS-type reviews are not automatic.65

Individual state requirements for notification and circulation of draft 

documents for comment also vary, as do requirements for public 

hearings. (See fig. 13.) While only 3 (of 17) states surveyed reported less 

stringent requirements for disseminating draft EIS-type documents than 

required by FHWA NEPA, 7 (of 17) states surveyed reported less 

stringent requirements for draft EA-type documents. By contrast, 

Massachusetts state officials reported having more stringent 

requirements for providing and circulating draft EA-type documents 

because the state posts environmental review documents on a public 

website and requires a written response to all comments by the lead 

agency. Some states have less stringent requirements governing public 

involvement, particularly regarding public hearings for EA-type reviews in 

which 10 (of 17) states surveyed reported less stringent requirements. In 

our legal analysis, we found that while Indiana requires EIS-type reviews 

to be made publicly available, it does not require the transportation 

agency to seek or respond to public comments on draft versions of these 

documents, and Virginia’s law contains no specific public notice and 

comment procedures for environmental review documents.

States with less stringent formal public participation requirements may in 

practice align with FHWA. Officials in three states told us that they match 

the higher standard of FHWA’s NEPA public involvement requirements 

for state-only reviews to meet public expectations, even if less was 

 

64For most projects, including projects requiring an EA or EIS, 23 U.S.C. § 128 requires 

that states afford an opportunity for a public hearing (with transcript) for federal-aid 

highway projects to consider, among other matters, environmental issues. 

65In several states, hearings are only held at the request of the project sponsor or an 

association with a minimum number of members (e.g., 25) who will be affected by the 

project. 
Page 39 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

required by state law. According to state officials in North Carolina, for 

example, this could mean holding a public hearing and addressing 

comments for a state-only EA when neither step is required by state law. 

According to New York state DOT officials, they conduct public hearings 

for EA- and EIS-type reviews, even though state law is less rigorous than 

NEPA and does not require hearings. Additionally, some state officials we 

interviewed reported practices that served to encourage public 

involvement, such as Washington’s on-line registry of ongoing and 

completed reviews, which allows citizens or groups to search for projects 

by location.66

 

66Washington DOT’s local project search allows the public to search for projects by 

location—either using an address or an interactive map—and provides information such 

as funding sources, as well project cost, status, and projected improvements, among other 

things. 

Few Instances of 

Federal–State 

Duplication Were 

Reported; FHWA and 

States Have 

Improved 

Coordination
Page 40 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Officials in 4 (of 18) states expressly identified instances of federal–state 

duplication in environmental review processes. For purposes of this 

report, we focused on duplication that might occur between state and 

federal processes where there is duplication of effort.67

• Two of the four states reporting potential federal–state duplication in 

our survey, Maryland and Washington, include a SEPA EA-checklist 

in addition to their federal review documents. State officials in both 

states explained that completing the checklist may be duplicative 

because it includes information that is similar to the information in the 

FHWA review, but noted that doing so is not burdensome in terms of 

time or resources. More specifically, in Washington, state officials said 

that the checklist serves a “due diligence” role for the state’s SEPA, 

while Maryland officials said the checklist is used to scope EIS-type 

reviews during the beginning of the review process.

In those instances 

where state officials identified duplication, it resulted either from 

supplemental state requirements or from the misalignment of federal and 

state environmental review documents, according to state officials. 

Officials in Washington reported duplication from both of these causes.

• Three states we surveyed, including Washington, reported that the 

lack of alignment between required state and federal document types 

for the same project could result in additional effort. For example, both 

Massachusetts and Minnesota sometimes use a different state review 

type for some projects than would be required for the FHWA NEPA 

process, depending on characteristics of the project. Consequently, in 

Minnesota, some projects are reviewed with a state EA-type process, 

while being categorically excluded by FHWA. In these situations, 

parallel efforts may be required to satisfy the different requirements—

which may be more stringent for one of the required reviews—

precluding the use of a blended process or combined document to 

coordinate similar processes. Washington has recently completed a 

rulemaking to align federal and state CEs to avoid this type of 

duplication.

Ten (of 18) states responding to our survey reported that there was no 

duplication in either the procedural steps or substantive tasks required by 

 

67We have defined duplication as occurring when two or more agencies or programs are 

engaged in the same activities or provide the same services to the same beneficiaries. 

See GAO-13-631T. 

Few States Reported 

Duplication Resulting from 

Federal and State 

Environmental Review 

Processes; More Than 

Half Reported No 

Duplication for Any 

Reason
Page 41 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

state or federal environmental review requirements.68 In seven of these 

states, adopting a NEPA review fulfills SEPA requirements, and state 

officials pointed to this adoption as the reason for reporting no duplication 

in their survey responses.69

We previously found that FHWA does not collect information on the cost 

of environmental reviews, and during the course of this review, FHWA 

officials at the headquarters and division levels confirmed that such data 

Connecticut and Hawaii allow for the adoption 

of the federal NEPA review as long as the review meets certain state 

SEPA requirements, according to state officials. Montana and New York 

reported that their processes are not duplicative because they have 

integrated or blended processes to meet both sets of requirements 

concurrently. According to state and federal officials we interviewed, 

several other reasons contribute to minimal duplication between state and 

federal processes. The development of required state and federal 

environmental review documents is typically carried out by the same state 

officials (or other project sponsors), who can use analyses for different 

purposes without replicating effort when federal and state requirements 

are similar. Finally, state and federal review processes frequently 

require—or encourage—coordination, as mentioned above, and officials 

pointed to this coordination as a reason for the lack of duplication. For 

example, officials in North Carolina described meetings held every 2 

months involving state and federal officials from the transportation and 

resource agencies that are typically involved in environmental review. At 

these meetings, officials are able to coordinate state and federal efforts, 

among other things.

 

68Officials from the District of Columbia reported duplication between state and federal 

requirements in their survey, but explained that the requirements overlap and that state 

requirements provide an exemption for projects that have completed and approved NEPA 

documents. As a result, there is no duplication of effort to satisfy state requirements, and 

we have included the District of Columbia among the states reporting no duplication. 

69State adoption of federal documents or analyses is discussed in more detail in 

appendix I.
Page 42 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

are not collected.70 Likewise, state officials we surveyed reported no 

information on the cost to states of any federal–state duplication, and, as 

mentioned above, officials in those states identifying instances of federal–

state duplication from the use of SEPA checklists described the additional 

effort as being negligible, although they were unable to quantify any 

additional costs.71

During the course of our review, we identified other examples of potential 

duplication or overlap, but these did not result from the interaction of 

federal and state environmental review requirements. In addition to the 

four states reporting federal–state duplication, four additional states 

reported other examples of potential duplication or overlap.72 For 

example, state DOT officials in Maryland noted that there may be 

potential duplication resulting from the need to keep federal reviews up to

date for projects taking a number of years, either because initial reviews 

have expired or because environmental conditions—or requirements—

have changed.73

 

70See GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA 

Analyses, 

In our survey, three states reported potential 

duplication—or overlap—when federal permitting agencies (e.g., the 

Corps) carried out additional analyses because they did not accept the 

GAO-14-369 and GAO-14-370 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2014), citing a 2003 

study funded by FHWA. The FHWA study evaluated the performance of environmental 

“streamlining” and noted that NEPA cost data would be difficult to segregate for analysis. 

(See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Evaluating the 

Performance of Environmental Streamlining: Phase II (Washington, D.C.: 2003).) We also 

reported that FHWA and its 52 division offices have traditionally used an internal data 

system to track EIS documents. At the time, FHWA officials told us that the agency is in 

the process of replacing the agency’s legacy system with the new Project and Program 

Action Information (PAPAI) system, which went online in March 2013. PAPAI is capable of 

tracking information on EISs, EAs, and CEs, including project completion time frames, but 

its use is not mandatory, according to DOT officials.

71In all, six of the nine states where we conducted in-depth interviews reported using 

checklists for their EA-type reviews, a practice that could result in some level of federal–

state duplication. 

72Puerto Rico in its survey responses identified duplication, but did not provide an 

explanation or examples of the duplication. Because we did not interview state DOT 

officials, we were unable to determine the type or cause of the potential duplication. 

73CEQ regulations require that an agency must prepare a supplemental EIS if (a) the 

agency makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant to 

environmental concerns, or (b) there are significant new circumstances or information 

relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts.

States Reported Other 

Examples of Duplication or 

Overlap
Page 43 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

FHWA-approved NEPA review. CEQ officials noted, however, that while 

the goal of the NEPA process may be that there is one NEPA review and 

approval process, often the level of detail required by one agency (e.g., 

FHWA) to review a proposed decision under NEPA may be different than 

what is required by another agency to issue a permit (e.g., the Corps or 

the Coast Guard).

Officials with Caltrans reported potential duplication in our survey, but did 

not provide examples of the cause or type of duplication. When we 

interviewed Caltrans officials, they explained that while additional 

analyses may be required for the state’s SEPA, there is no duplication of 

effort caused by the interaction of the state and federal requirements 

given the agency’s blended review process. Separately, officials with the 

California State Association of Counties contacted us regarding potential 

duplication in the development of state and federal reviews at the local 

level. Under the state’s SEPA, local governments prepare both state and 

FHWA NEPA environmental reviews for local projects, but they can 

approve only the SEPA reviews. FHWA or Caltrans has approval 

authority for FHWA NEPA reviews.74 County officials stated that they are 

not able to do a blended document given the different reviewers, a 

situation that results in potential duplication, adding time and additional 

cost to projects.75 We spoke with officials with the National Association of 

Counties, and they stated that this concern has not been raised by county 

officials outside of California.

 

74Through the NEPA Assignment and CE Assignment Memorandums of Understanding, 

Caltrans is now responsible for FHWA’s responsibilities under NEPA and other federal 

environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. This assignment was carried out under 23 U.S.C. §§ 326 and 

327. 

75According to officials with the California State Association of Counties, revisions add 

about $2,000 to $5,000 per technical report and typically delay highway projects by 1 to 

3 months. In California, approximately 40 percent of federal-aid highway funds are for 

projects sponsored by Caltrans, according to state officials, while the remainder of the 

funds is used for projects sponsored by counties or other non-state project sponsors. 

Under the state’s assumption of FHWA oversight responsibilities, Caltrans reviews and 

approves FHWA NEPA reviews for all projects receiving federal-aid highway funds.
Page 44 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

All 18 states we surveyed reported having agreements with FHWA or 

other federal agencies to improve coordination or make environmental 

review processes more efficient. Nearly all of these states (16 of 18) 

provided examples of programmatic agreements, such as those allowing 

state officials to review and approve CE determinations for FHWA or 

other efforts to improve interagency coordination for conducting reviews 

and obtaining permits.76 Many programmatic agreements and other 

improvement efforts were developed as part of FHWA’s Every Day 

Counts initiative,77 which is an effort to identify and deploy innovation 

aimed at shortening project delivery, enhancing the safety of roadways, 

and protecting the environment.78

• Two states in our survey have developed an interagency process to 

plan and review highway projects under the auspices of the Section 

404 merger process to reduce inefficiencies in assessment and 

permitting under the Clean Water Act. For example, officials in North 

Carolina told us that the state has been working to make 

environmental reviews more efficient through its Section 404 merger 

process since the 1990s, through which the state DOT coordinates 

with FHWA, the Corps, the U.S. EPA, and several other state and 

federal agencies, including the state’s Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources.

Examples of FHWA or state-led 

improvement efforts identified by state officials we surveyed and 

interviewed include the following:

• Three states in our survey reported having liaison positions with other 

state or federal agencies to alleviate resource challenges and to 

improve interagency coordination. For example, Texas funds a liaison 

 

76While states may approve categorical exclusions or make other decisions on FHWA’s 

behalf under these programmatic agreements, FHWA remains legally subject to challenge 

for these decisions. 

77According to FHWA, programmatic agreements are documents that establish a 

streamlined process for handling routine environmental requirements for commonly 

encountered project types. These agreements should clearly specify roles and 

responsibilities between state DOTs and other resource and regulatory agencies for 

consultation, review and compliance with one or more federal laws concerning cultural 

and historic preservation, environmental review processes and natural resource protection 

and conservation. The agreements usually set procedures for consultation, review and 

compliance with one or more federal laws. 

78The first round of Every Day Counts was launched in 2010. It was expanded in 2012 to 

include 13 other innovations to build higher-quality and longer-lasting roads. FHWA 

announced a third round of Every Day Counts initiatives in 2014.

States Reported Benefits 

from Efforts to Improve 

Coordination and 

Efficiency, Including 

Reduced Uncertainty in 

Projects’ Time Frames
Page 45 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

position at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Massachusetts also funds 

such positions with the Corps—in collaboration with FHWA—and the 

Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Protection and 

Fisheries and Wildlife. According to Massachusetts DOT officials, 

having a liaison with the Corps has facilitated coordination, reduced 

the time needed to review permit applications, and allowed for the use 

of more proactive protection for some endangered species, including 

turtles.79

• Eleven (of 18) states in our survey reported having programmatic 

agreements under Section 106 (assessing impacts on historic 

properties) with FHWA and other federal agencies. According to 

FHWA, Section 106 programmatic agreements are one way to 

expedite the environmental review process, while protecting and 

enhancing the environment. These agreements authorize state DOTs 

to conduct all or some Section 106 reviews on behalf of FHWA, when 

such reviews are required.

Officials in two other states, California and Wisconsin, also 

pointed to improved coordination by funding positions in coordinating 

agencies.

• Individual states have efforts to improve processes, as well. For 

example, officials with the California Office of Planning and Research 

worked with CEQ to develop a handbook on the interaction of state 

environmental review requirements and NEPA to smooth and better 

coordinate the dual reviews that are often required, which was 

released in 2014. According to a state official, many of the challenges 

in coordinating the two processes stemmed from a lack of 

understanding of the other requirements, and the state worked with 

CEQ to develop a guide to explain key differences and to define 

terminology.

Eleven (of 18) states responding to our survey reported benefits from 

efforts to improve coordination or to make state and federal processes 

more efficient, most notably decreased time frames. Other benefits 

included increased public involvement, increased agency engagement, 

and decreased costs. State officials were unable to quantify these 

benefits. State officials also pointed to increased certainty in project 

timelines, costs, and processes, as well as improved coordination with 

other agencies and tribes.

 

79Several turtles species are endangered in the state, including the plymouth red-bellied 

turtle entire (Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi), the sea turtle, hawksbill entire 

(Eretmochelys imbricata), the sea turtle, kemp’s ridley entire (Lepidochelys kempii), and 

the sea turtle, leatherback entire (Dermochelys coriacea). 
Page 46 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 

for review and comment. DOT and CEQ provided technical corrections 

about federal and state environmental review requirements, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Transportation, and the Chair of the Council 

on Environmental Quality. In addition, the report is available at no charge 

on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

us at (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov or at (202) 512-6417 or 

sawtelles@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in 

appendix III.

David J. Wise, 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

Susan Sawtelle, 

Managing Associate General Counsel

Agency Comments
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 47 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

As discussed in the body of this report, we identified state statutes, 

regulations, and orders in the 18 states where review of highway projects 

is required under a state environmental policy act (SEPA), and we 

compared those requirements to the federal requirements for federal-aid 

highway projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

and implementing regulations issued by the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). We 

focused our comparison on 12 key elements characterizing NEPA 

programs, which we developed in consultation with CEQ and FHWA. This 

appendix summarizes the results of our review of state legal 

requirements, not state practices, as discussed in the body of this report, 

and the examples are illustrative and are not intended to describe all 

aspects of each state’s SEPA program.

The key purposes of NEPA include:

• declaring a national policy which will encourage productive and 

enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; and

• promoting efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the 

environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of 

man and enriching understanding of the ecological systems and 

natural resources important to the nation.

42 U.S.C. § 4321.

A majority of SEPAs establish objectives that are at least somewhat 

similar to these NEPA goals, although a few states have more limited 

policy goals.1 Many states’ SEPAs establish a state policy that 

encourages harmony between humans and their environment or that 

enriches understanding of the natural environment.2

 

1

Under the Texas SEPA, for example, the Texas Department of Transportation must 

“focus on delivering safe, efficient transportation projects and making sound decisions 

based on a balanced consideration of transportation needs and of social, economic and 

environmental impacts of proposed transportation improvements.” 43 TEXAS ADMIN. CODE

§ 2.2.

In addition, SEPAs 

generally establish a state policy requiring that environmental concerns 

2

See, e.g., MINN. STAT. § 116D.01(a); Mont. Code Ann. § 75-1-102(2); N.Y. ENVTL.

CONSERV. LAW § 8-0101; WASH. REV. CODE § 43.21C.010.

Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy Act 

Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid Highway 

Projects

Element 1: Policy and 

purpose of the 

environmental review 

requirements
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 48 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

be evaluated in connection with state-funded or otherwise statesupported projects,3 although several do not.4

Several SEPAs establish a policy of avoiding or mitigating environmental 

damage. Others explicitly refer to the desirability of informing and 

involving the public in environmental decision making, and some SEPA 

purpose-and-policy statements specifically refer to management of 

natural resources, waste disposal or maintenance of the public health. A 

few SEPAs address local functions such as land use management and 

zoning. Finally, a few SEPAs have other declared objectives such as 

strengthening the state economy (Georgia, see GA. CODE ANN. § 12-16-

2(1)) or supporting the right to use and enjoy private property (Montana, 

see MONT. CODE ANN. § 75-1-102(2)).

NEPA generally requires review of “every recommendation or report on 

proposals for legislation and other major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c). 

Our review looked at how NEPA applies to projects authorized under Title 

23 of the U.S. Code, consisting primarily of federal-aid highway projects 

where FHWA provides funds to state or local governments and serves as 

the federal lead agency for the NEPA review. FHWA’s review also 

includes supplemental environmental requirements contained in Title 23.

When a project is funded solely with state or local funds, it rarely requires 

an FHWA NEPA review. Federal permitting requirements also can trigger 

a NEPA review, however, even when only state or local funds are used 

such as when U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) or U.S. Coast 

Guard (Coast Guard) approval is required due to the presence of a 

wetland or navigable waterway. In those cases, the Corps or Coast Guard 

could serve as the federal lead agency.

SEPAs vary with respect to which state or local “actions” trigger review. 

The California environmental assessment statute, for example, generally 

applies to any activity of any public agency that may have a substantial 

 

3

SEPAs in Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and North Carolina reflect this policy. 

See MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, § 61; N.J. GOV. KEAN, EXEC. ORDER No. 215; N.Y. ENVTL. 

CONSERV. LAW § 8-0109; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-4. 

4

Several states limit their SEPAs to legislative, appropriations or planning functions. See, 

e.g., MD. CODE ANN., NAT. RES. § 1-301(d).

Element 2: Types of 

projects covered
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 49 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

environmental impact, including highway projects. “Public agencies” 

include state agencies, boards and commissions, as well as local 

agencies including counties, cities, regional agencies, public districts, 

redevelopment agencies and other political subdivisions. CAL. PUB. RES. 

CODE § 21062. “Projects” include activities undertaken directly, financed 

in whole or in part, or requiring approval by a government agency and are 

generally any activity subject to the state statute. CAL. PUB. RES CODE. 

§ 21065. Certain projects in California have been excluded from review, 

however. See, e.g., CAL. PUB. RES. CODE. §§ 21080.01-21080.14. 

By comparison, Massachusetts’ SEPA covers all projects undertaken or 

financially assisted by a government agency, including any authority of 

any political subdivision. MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, §§ 61, 62. Minnesota 

requires an environmental impact study where there is potential for 

significant effects from major government actions, defined to include local 

and municipal agencies. MINN. STAT., § 116D.04, Subd. 1a(e). Some 

states’ SEPAs do not apply to locally managed and funded projects, for 

example Georgia (GA. CODE ANN. § 12-16-3(5)) and Maryland (Md. CODE 

ANN., NAT. RES. § 1-301(e)). Maryland’s SEPA also focuses primarily on 

providing environmental assessments to the state legislature. Md. CODE 

ANN., NAT. RES. § 1-301(d). One state’s SEPA—North Carolina’s—does 

not apply to local units of government unless they elect to be covered. 

See N.C. GEN STAT. § 113A-8(a).

Finally, SEPAs vary with respect to which project characteristics trigger 

an environmental review, as well as what type of review is required, and 

can include thresholds related to project costs and physical length, project 

use, and geographic area, among other things. These thresholds differ 

from the federal triggers for the type of review, which generally focus on 

the potential for significant environmental impacts rather than the scale or 

size of the project.5 For example, in Virginia, reviews are required for 

state projects costing $500,000 or more. VA. CODE ANN. § 10.1-1188(A). 

Other dollar-value thresholds are built into the SEPA requirements of the 

District of Columbia6

, Georgia,7 and New Jersey.8

 

5

In January 2014, pursuant to MAP-21, FHWA adopted a regulation allowing, among 

other things, projects that receive less than $5,000,000 of federal funds to be treated as a 

CE. 79 Fed. Reg. 2107, 2118-2119 (Jan. 13, 2014).

Some states, such as 

6

20 D.C. MUN. REGS. § 7201.1.

7

GA. CODE ANN. § 12-16-3(7)(B). 
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 50 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Massachusetts, require environmental impact reviews for the construction 

of new roadways 2 or more miles in length. 301 MASS. CODE REGS.,

tit.301, § 11.03(6)(a). Likewise, Minnesota requires an Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for new road projects four or more lanes in width 

and 2 or more miles in length. Minn. R. 4410.4400, Subp. 16. Minnesota 

also requires certain types of reviews for new roads over 1 mile in length 

that will function as collector roadways. Minn. R. 4410.4300, Subp. 22. 

New York’s SEPA does not apply to projects within the jurisdiction of the 

Adirondack Park Agency, N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 17, 

§ 15.2(l)(3), and no EIS is required under the District of Columbia’s SEPA 

if the project is located in what is known as the Central Employment Area, 

an area including but not limited to federal government facilities. D.C.

CODE § 8-109.06(a)(7). Finally, some states, such as Indiana, do not 

extend coverage to state licensed or permitted projects, see, e.g., IND.

CODE § 13-12-4-8, while Texas’ SEPA applies only to certain 

transportation projects.9

Under NEPA, an EIS must be prepared for a project that has the potential 

for a “significant” effect on the environment.10

 

8

N.J. GOV. KEAN, EXEC. ORDER NO. 215.

 “Categorical exclusions” 

(CEs) apply to projects fitting within a category of activities previously 

determined not to have the potential for significant environmental impacts. 

When project effects are uncertain, an “environmental assessment” (EA) 

is prepared to determine whether the project may have a potentially 

significant impact on the human environment. An EA briefly provides 

evidence and analysis sufficient to determine whether to prepare an EIS 

or a “finding of no significant impact” (FONSI). A FONSI presents the 

reasons why the agency has concluded that no significant environmental 

impacts will occur if the project is implemented.

9

Texas excludes transportation projects that are not on the state highway system and are 

funded solely with special funds or that are being developed by a local governmental 

entity with no state or federal funds. 43 TEXAS ADMIN. CODE § 2.3(b)(1). 

10CEQ’s regulations broadly define “human environment” to include the natural and 

physical environment and the relationship of people with that environment. Economic and 

social effects are not intended by themselves to require preparation of an EIS, but when 

an EIS is prepared and economic or social and natural or physical environmental effects 

are interrelated, the EIS must discuss all of these effects on the human environment. 

40 C.F.R. § 1508.14. 

Element 3: Level of detail 

(“depth”) of environmental 

impact evaluation
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 51 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

A majority of SEPA states have adopted processes that provide for 

analyses that are generally comparable to the federal approach. 

Connecticut, for example, requires an EIS-type report if there are effects 

that “could have a major impact on the state’s land, water, air, historic 

structure and landmarks, existing housing, or other environmental 

resources, or could serve short term to the disadvantage of long term 

environmental goals.” CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22A-1C. Wisconsin’s law, like 

NEPA, requires an EIS for “major actions significantly affecting the quality 

of the human environment,” see WIS. STAT § 1.11(2)(c), and its 

implementing regulations identify four types of analysis and specify 

numerous types of transportation projects for which each type of analysis 

must be performed.11 Texas’s environmental review process for highway 

projects is by definition similar to NEPA because Texas regulations defer 

to FHWA’s procedures whenever there would otherwise be any 

inconsistency between Texas’ and FHWA’s processes.12

Finally, several SEPA states leave the decision whether to prepare an 

EIS and the extent of any EIS largely to the discretion of state project 

management officials. Virginia determines environmental effects using 

what it calls a “Preliminary Environmental Inventory,” a computergenerated summary of environmental features derived from state 

See 43 TEXAS 

ADMIN. CODE § 2.84(f). The Massachusetts SEPA treats any damage to 

the environment as significant, excluding only that which is found to be 

“insignificant.” MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, § 61. 

 

11The types of analysis required are an EIS, EA, CE, and an environmental report, a brief 

document provided for under WisDOT regulations and used by WisDOT to demonstrate 

that a proposed action meets the criteria or conditions for a categorical exclusion. See

WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. §§ 400.04(9) (EIS), 400.07(2)(b) (EA), 400.04(3) (CE), 

400.04(10) (environmental report), 400.08 (categorization of transportation projects).

12Texas has applied for participation in the Surface Transportation Project Delivery 

Program, which allows for states to apply to assume, and for FHWA to assign, 

environmental review responsibilities under NEPA and part or all of FHWA’s 

responsibilities for environmental reviews, consultations, or other actions required under 

any federal environmental law with respect to one or more federal highway projects within 

the state. 79 Fed. Reg. 61370 (Oct. 10, 2014). FHWA has determined that the application 

is complete and has developed a draft Memorandum of Understanding with Texas, 

available for public comment, outlining how the state will implement the program with 

FHWA oversight. Id. 
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 52 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

databases and submitted to resource agencies. The agency project 

manager receives this information and may or may not prepare an EIS.13

NEPA and its implementing regulations require consideration of the 

significance of a project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. Direct 

effects are those “caused by the action and occur at the same time and 

place.” 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(a). Indirect effects are the secondary 

consequences on local or regional social, economic or natural conditions 

or resources which could result from additional activities (such as 

associated investments and changed patterns of social and economic 

activities) induced or stimulated by the proposed action, both in the shortterm and in the long-term. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.8(b). Cumulative impacts are 

the impacts on the human and physical environment which result from the 

incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable future action. 40 C.F.R. § 1508.7. 

Positive as well as negative impacts, and long-term as well as short-term 

impacts, must be considered. For federal-aid highway projects, Title 23 

and FHWA also require consideration of potential project impacts on 

certain types of pubic parklands and historic sites, see 23 U.S.C. § 138, 

49 U.S.C. § 303 (so-called “section 4(f) requirements”).14

Like NEPA, several SEPA states and jurisdictions, such as 

Massachusetts (MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, §§ 61, 62A), Minnesota (MINN.

R. 4410.1700, Subp 7), New York (N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 6, 

§ 617.7) and Puerto Rico (P.R. REGS. JCL REG. 7948, Rule 109 DD), 

require broad consideration of a project’s impacts. Requirements or 

practices in a number of states differ from NEPA requirements, however. 

For example, about half of the SEPA states limit consideration of indirect 

or cumulative impacts, the presence of which may increase the need for 

an EIS (their presence alone does not require an EIS under NEPA). In 

Connecticut, for example, cumulative effects do not need to be 

considered if they are not caused by the lead agency or the proposed 

 

13See Memorandum of Agreement for the Review of Highway Projects Undertaken by the 

Va. Dep’t of Transp. (Nov. 27, 2001).

14Section 4(f) refers to the Department of Transportation Act, Pub. L. No. 89-670, § 4(f), 

80 Stat. 931, 934 (1966), which restricted use of any land in a public park, recreation area, 

wildlife or waterfowl refuge, or historic site unless there was no feasible alternative. That 

statute and others were recodified and the substance of the “section 4(f)” parkland 

requirements are now contained in 23 U.S.C. § 138 and 49 U.S.C. § 303.

Element 4: Level of 

significance (“breadth”) 

addressed in 

environmental impact 

evaluation
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 53 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

project. See CONN. AGENCIES REGS. § 22a-1a-3(b) (cumulative impacts 

result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, 

present or reasonably foreseeable future actions “to be undertaken by the 

sponsoring agency”). See also Ga. CODE ANN. § 12-16-8(3); 326 IND.

ADMIN. CODE § 16-2.1-6(5); MONT. ADMIN. R.18.2.238(1). In addition, 

several states only consider environmental justice or economic impacts if 

they have a direct impact on physical conditions within the area affected 

by the project. For example, while the California statute requires 

consideration of “growth-inducing impacts,” the law also states that 

“evidence of social or economic impacts” can only be shown by evidence 

establishing “a physical impact on the environment.” Cal. Pub. Res. 

§ 21082.2(c). Nearly half of SEPA states (the District of Columbia,15

Georgia,16 Hawaii,17 Indiana,18 Maryland,19 New Jersey20, Virginia21, and 

Wisconsin22) have statutes, executive orders and regulations that include 

little or only general discussion of indirect or cumulative impacts.

NEPA requires an EIS to contain a detailed statement regarding 

“alternatives to the proposed action.” 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(c)(iii). The 

agency must rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all “reasonable” 

alternatives to the proposed action, including a “no action” alternative, in 

response to a specified underlying purpose and need. 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 1502.13, 1502.14; 23 C.F.R. §§ 771.123(c), 771.125. See generally 

Biodiversity Conservation Alliance v. Jiron, 762 F. 3d 1036 (10th Cir. 

2014). NEPA does not specifically require agencies to choose the most 

environmentally protective alternative, or indeed any specific alternative. 

FHWA policy provides that federal-aid highway decisions should be made 

“in the best overall public interest based upon a balanced consideration of 

 

1520 D.C. MUN. REGS. 7299.1.

16Ga. CODE ANN. § 12-16-8 (3).

17HAW. CODE R. § 11-200-12.

18326 IND. ADMIN. CODE § 16-2.1-6(5). 

19MD. CODE REGS. 11.01.08.03(B)(8)(c), 11.01.08.08.

20N.J. GOV. KEAN, EXEC. ORDER NO. 215. 

21VA. ANNO. CODE §§ 10.1-1188 to 10.1-1192. 

22WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. §§ 400.08(1)(d), 400.10(4)(7).

Element 5: Consideration 

of alternatives
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 54 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

the need for safe and efficient transportation; of the social, economic, and 

environmental impacts of the proposed transportation improvement; and 

of national, State, and local environmental protection goals.” 23 C.F.R. 

§ 771.105(b).

Most SEPAs also require the relevant agency (typically the state 

transportation agency) to analyze the environmental impacts of 

alternatives to the proposed project, in addition to impacts of the 

proposed project itself, and most require inclusion of a no-action 

alternative. Many SEPAs do not specify in detail how alternatives should 

be evaluated, although some states specify the types and characteristics 

of the alternatives that must be considered or not considered. For 

example, Minnesota regulations require the agency to consider 

alternative sites, technologies, and modified designs or layouts in 

preparing EISs. MINN. R. 4410.2300G. Many states, like NEPA, also 

require consideration only of reasonable or feasible alternatives.23

A few states favor selection of a particular alternative or prohibit selection 

of certain options. The California legislature, for example, has declared 

that “it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve 

projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives . . . available which 

would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such 

projects.” CAL. PUB. RES. § 21002. The District of Columbia prohibits 

selection of an alternative that would substantially endanger public health, 

safety, or welfare, unless those effects can be avoided or mitigated. D. C.

CODE § 8-109.04. Minnesota requires selection of any “feasible and 

prudent alternative consistent with the reasonable requirements of the 

public health, safety, and welfare.” 11D MINN. STAT. ANN. § 116D.04, 

subdiv. 6. And in Wisconsin, the agency must select the alternative that is 

in the best overall public interest, determined by a balanced consideration 

of several factors including the findings of the EIS and the need for a safe 

and efficient transportation system. WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS.

§ 400.06(3).

 

23See, e.g., MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, § 62B (requiring consideration of “reasonable 

alternatives to the proposed project and their environmental consequences”); WASH.

ADMIN. CODE § 197-11-440(5) (reasonable alternatives must be considered); N.Y. COMP.

CODES R. & REGS., tit. 6, § 617.9(b)(5)(v) (must consider a “range of reasonable 

alternatives to the action that are feasible, considering the objectives and capabilities of 

the project sponsor”); MONT. CODE ANN. § 75-1-201(1)(b)(iv)(C) (“Alternatives considered 

must be reasonable” and only those using current technology and which are economically 

feasible must be included). 
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 55 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

NEPA and its regulations require agencies to consider mitigation of 

adverse environmental impacts in some circumstances, but do not 

specifically require agencies to carry out mitigation. Mitigation is defined 

to include: (a) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action 

or parts of an action; (b) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or 

magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) rectifying the impact 

by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; 

(d) reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and 

maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) 

compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute 

resources or environments. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C)(ii); 40 C.F.R. 

§ 1508.20. FHWA requirements, by contrast, require reasonable 

mitigation measures to be taken, which are eligible for federal funding. 

23 C.F.R. § 771.105(d).

Likewise, many SEPAs require that a project’s environmental review 

documents identify mitigation measures that could lessen the 

environmental effects of a project. For example, in Wisconsin, a project’s 

Record of Decision (ROD) must indicate that all practicable means to 

avoid or mitigate environmental harm have been adopted or, if not 

adopted, include a statement explaining why. WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. 

§ 400.04(23). The ROD also must identify “mitigation measures selected” 

or the “reason for rejection of suggested reasonable mitigation 

measures.” 

Other state SEPA mitigation requirements vary. For example:

• The California legislature has declared that “it is it is the policy of the 

state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if 

there are . . . feasible mitigation measures available which would 

substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such 

projects.” CAL. PUB. RES. CODE § 21002. See also CAL. PUB. RES. 

CODE § 21100(b)(5); CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 14, § 15041 (authority to 

mitigate); cf. CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 14, § 15004(b) (prohibiting actions 

that would adversely affect or limit the viability of mitigation 

Element 6: Consideration 

of mitigation
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 56 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

measures). Massachusetts and New York have similar 

requirements.24

• The District of Columbia does not authorize approval of a project that 

would have a significant environmental effect unless mitigation 

measures are available that would reasonably eliminate the adverse 

effects. In particular, if the EIS identifies an adverse effect that would 

substantially endanger the public, the District government must 

disapprove the action unless the applicant proposes mitigating 

measures to avoid the danger. D.C. CODE ANN. § 8-109.04. 

• Some states link or combine identification of mitigation measures with 

identification of alternatives. Hawaii’s law, for example, requires 

mitigation to be considered as part of its alternatives analysis, but only 

if mitigation actions are proposed. HAW. REV. STAT. § 343-2 (EIS must 

include “measures proposed to minimize adverse effects”). Moreover, 

Hawaii officials told us that environmental mitigation actions, once 

considered, are not binding. Montana’s statute, by comparison, 

defines its alternative analysis to include mitigation, see MONT. CODE 

ANN. §§ 75-1-102(2), 75-1-220(1), and EAs can be used where the 

action is one that might normally require an EIS if the effects which 

might otherwise be deemed significant appear to be capable of 

mitigation by making design changes, imposing enforceable 

government controls or stipulations, or both. MONT. ADMIN. R. 

18.2.237(4).

 

24See MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, § 61 (state “shall use all practicable means and measures 

to minimize damage to the environment”); N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. § 8-0109.2(f); N.Y. COMP.

CODES R. & REGS., tit. 6, § 617.11(d)(5) (final EIS must “certify that consistent with social, 

economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives 

available, the action is one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to the 

maximum extent practicable.”).
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 57 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

To achieve efficiencies and to minimize duplication, CEQ’s and FHWA’s 

regulations require all federal agencies to collaborate with each other, 

and with state and local governments, to the fullest extent possible.25

Collaboration begins with consultation with other relevant federal and 

state agencies, Indian tribes, and the public; includes early identification 

of stakeholders, project scoping, and project planning; and extends 

through development of draft and final environmental impact 

documentation.26

The regulations reflect the federal government’s policy to encourage 

collaboration of all interested parties from the outset on projects that may 

require environmental impact analyses, including involvement of state 

agencies and other federal agencies. 23 U.S.C. § 139 codifies and 

expands the CEQ regulatory practices as statutory mandates for federalaid highway projects, designating the Department of Transportation 

(DOT) as the federal lead agency and requiring the Secretary to 

administer the NEPA process, including optional establishment of a 

schedule for completion of the environmental review process. The 

Secretary is also encouraged by statute to facilitate use of programmatic 

approaches through which states may be authorized to resolve issues 

that would otherwise require federal action.27

About half of SEPA states have policies that specifically promote or 

require collaboration. For example:

 

25See 40 C.F.R. §§ 1500.2(c) (integration of environmental review and planning 

procedures), 1501.5 (selection of lead agencies), 1501.6 (designation of cooperating 

agencies),1500.4(i) (use of tiering to reduce repetitive analyses; tiering means use of a 

broad EIS to frame multiple subsequent EISs; see 43 Fed. Reg. 55978, 55979 (Nov. 29, 

1978)), 1500.4(n) (joint preparation and adoption of environmental analyses to reduce 

duplication), 1500.5(h) (same, to reduce delay),1502.5(b) (encouraging federal agencies 

to begin preparation of environmental assessments or statements early, preferably jointly 

with applicable state or local agencies), 1506.2 (requiring cooperation to eliminate 

duplication with state and local procedures). For FHWA regulations, see 23 C.F.R. part 

771.

26This requirement for collaboration is viewed as enhancing the overall efficiency of the 

NEPA process as applied to federal-aid highway projects and is also reflected in the 

requirements for coordination and for a “single-process review,” discussed in Elements 8 

and 9 below, as well as in authorization by many SEPA states of the state’s use of some 

or all of a project’s NEPA documentation or analysis, discussed in Element 10 below.

2723 U.S.C. § 139(b)(3)(A). 

Element 7: Requirement 

for collaboration to 

enhance efficiency and 

avoid duplication
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 58 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

• California generally requires collaboration among lead, responsible 

and trustee agencies assisted by the Governor’s Office of Planning 

and Research. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 21080.1, 21080.3, 21080.4. 

In this regard, the California legislature has recognized the importance 

of processes such as tiering to avoid duplicative analysis of 

environmental effects. CAL. PUB. RES. Code § 21093.

• Minnesota requires responsible governmental units to collaborate to 

the extent practicable to avoid duplication of effort between state and 

federal environmental reviews and between environmental reviews 

and environmental permitting. MINN. STAT. § 116D.04, Subp. 2a(g).

• Other states with formal cooperation policies include Connecticut 

(CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22a-1; see also CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22a-1a); the 

District of Columbia (D.C. CODE § 8-109.07); New York (N.Y. COMP.

CODES R. & REGS., tit. 6, §§ 617.3(d), 617.6; N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. 

LAW § 8-0111.1); and Montana (through its rules, which include a 

section on cooperation with federal agencies, MONT. ADMIN. R.

18.2.250).

The law in some states is unclear regarding how broadly state agencies 

are required to cooperate with federal agencies, including federal 

resource agencies. For example, although the Hawaii SEPA lists 

cooperation and coordination as important government objectives, see

HAW. REV. STAT. § 343-1, the regulations refer specifically to the 

importance of cooperation and coordination between the state accepting 

authority or approving agency and other state authorities or agencies only 

in determining the applicability of requirements for supplemental 

environmental statements (see HAW. ADMIN. CODE § 11-200-27) and in 

avoiding duplication with NEPA requirements. The North Carolina 

regulations authorize but do not require state agencies to seek 

information from federal as well as local and special units of government. 

1 N.C. ADMIN. CODE § 25.0210. Puerto Rico requires consultation with 

federal and state agencies prior to submitting the environmental 

document but does make the recommendations of federal agencies within 

their areas of jurisdiction binding. P.R. Reg. 7948, Rule 118 E.

Finally, New York requires state cooperation with federal agencies. N.Y.

ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW. § 8-0111.1. Washington establishes as policy that 

the Department of Ecology is to “utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the 

services, facilities, and information (including statistical information) of 

public and private agencies, organizations, and individuals, in order to 

avoid duplication of effort and expense, overlap, or conflict with similar 

activities authorized by law and performed by established agencies.” 

WASH. REV. CODE § 43.21C.110(2)(b). Wisconsin incorporates CEQ’s (but 

not FHWA’s) processes, (see WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. § 400.06(b), App. 
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 59 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

citing 40 C.F.R. § 1500.5), while North Carolina authorizes but does not 

require that agencies seek information from federal as well as local and 

special units of government. (see 1 N.C. ADMIN. CODE § 25.0210(b)). 

Title 23 and CEQ regulations require the lead federal agency to 

coordinate the timing and scope of its reviews with cooperating agencies. 

23 U.S.C. § 139(g); 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7(a)(6). Generally, for Title 23 

funded projects, the lead federal agency is a modal administration within 

the Department of Transportation. See 23 U.S.C. § 139(c). See also

40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.1(b) (early and cooperative interagency consultation); 

1501.2(d)(2) (requiring federal agency consultation with state, local, and 

tribal authorities and private persons and organizations); 1501.5 (lead 

agencies); 1501.6 (cooperating agencies).

Some states’ SEPAs also provide for robust coordination. For example:

• California generally requires not only collaboration (as discussed in 

Element 7 above) but also requires coordination among lead, 

responsible and trustee agencies assisted by the Office of Planning 

and Research. See CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 14, § 15082(c). And when a 

proposed project is of sufficient statewide, regional, or area-wide 

environmental significance, California uses a clearinghouse process 

to facilitate and coordinate review of draft Environmental Impact 

Reports and other environmental documentation. CAL PUB. RES.

CODE, §§ 21083(d) (review of draft EIRs, negative declarations, or 

mitigated negative declarations); CAL. PUB. RES. §§ 21082.1(c) (4), 

21091. See also CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 14, §§ 15004(b) (timing), 15006 

(reducing delay and paperwork), 15083 (consulting), 15063(c)(2) 

(mitigating effects to facilitate documented CE or negative 

declaration).

• Hawaii requires that “[t]he [Office of Environmental Quality Control 

within the state Department of Health] and agencies shall cooperate 

with federal agencies to the fullest extent possible to reduce 

duplication between federal and state requirements.” Haw. Rev. Stat. 

§ 343-5(h).

• In Massachusetts, the SEPA review process “is intended to involve 

any interested Agency or Person as well as the Proponent and each 

Participating Agency.” Code of Mass Regs., tit. 301, § 11.01(b).

• In Minnesota, to the extent practicable, responsible governmental 

units must avoid duplication and ensure coordination between state 

and federal environmental review and between environmental review 

and environmental permitting. Minn. Stat. § 116D.04, Subd. 2a(g).

Element 8: Requirement 

for coordination to ensure 

involvement of all relevant 

agencies
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 60 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

In other states, the laws require little or no formal attention to coordination 

in applying their SEPA requirements. For example:

• The Maryland MDOT regulations only require that the lead agency 

describe “the coordination and liaison relationship established in 

developing the proposal,” with the content of the description largely up 

to the agency. There is no clear requirement defining the 

responsibilities that the lead agency assumes. 11 CODE OF MD. REGS. 

§ 01. 08.03(B)(9). See also 11 CODE OF MD. REGS. § 01.08.04(A)(3)

(“The timing and type of community and public agency involvement in 

this analysis will be determined on a case-by-case basis . . ..”).

• Virginia provides specifically for coordination between VDOT and 

state resource agencies only. VA. CODE ANN. § 10.1-1191.

• Coordination is not mentioned in the New Jersey executive order, 

N.J. GOV. KEAN, EXEC. ORDER No. 215, or in guidance.

Reflecting the requirements for federal coordination and collaboration 

discussed in Elements 7 and 8 above, federal environmental reviews of 

Title 23-funded highway projects also must include “completion of any 

environmental permit, approval, review, or study required for a project 

under any Federal law other than NEPA.” 23 U.S.C. § 139(a)(3)(B). This 

requirement reflects a policy that the NEPA process and the permitting 

processes should not be treated as separate and distinct processes but 

as one.

Most SEPA states do not require or conduct single-process reviews as 

such. As discussed in Element 8 above, the Minnesota statute requires 

that the responsible governmental unit shall, to the extent practicable, 

avoid duplication and ensure coordination between state and federal 

environmental review and between environmental review and 

environmental permitting. MINN. STAT. § 116D.04, Subp. 2a(g). North 

Carolina and Washington require a list of all licenses that the project is 

known to require, see 1 N.C. ADMIN. CODE § 25.0603(2), WASH. ADMIN.

CODE § 197-11-440(2)(d), and Washington has made significant efforts to 

integrate its Growth Management Act and Model Toxics Control Act 

processes with its SEPA processes.28

 

28Growth Management Act, WASH. REV. CODE Ch. 36.70A; Model Toxics Control Act, 

WASH. REV. CODE Ch. 70.105D.

In Puerto Rico the responsibility for 

issuing construction permits is centralized in a Permit Management 

Element 9: Requirement 

for single-process review
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 61 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Office. See P.R. LAWS ANN., tit.12, § 8001a(c). This office assesses 

compliance with Puerto Rico’s Environmental Public Policy Act. See id.

Finally, as noted in Element 3 above, Texas regulations defer to FHWA’s 

procedures whenever there would otherwise be any inconsistency 

between Texas’ and FHWA’s processes.

To avoid duplication that might otherwise result, a number of SEPAs 

authorize or encourage preparation of documentation that meets both 

federal and state NEPA and SEPA requirements, or use of information, 

documentation, or analyses developed for the NEPA review. The SEPA 

procedures vary from state to state, ranging from provisions allowing use 

of some or all of the paperwork prepared to meet federal requirements to 

full adoption of the federal process and results so that no separate state 

funds are required. These issues arise in the context of three basic 

scenarios:

• About half of SEPA states are authorized to forgo the SEPA process 

and determination entirely if the proposed project is covered by a 

completed NEPA review. For example, in Georgia, an agency is 

deemed to have complied with the requirements of the SEPA if the 

proposed government action requires and has received federal 

approval of an environmental document prepared in accordance with 

NEPA. See GA. CODE ANN. § 12-16-7. In Indiana, if any state agency 

is required by NEPA to file a federal EIS, it is not also required to file 

an EIS with the state government. See IND. CODE § 13-12-4-10.

• Some SEPA states are authorized to use NEPA documentation to 

meet their SEPA requirements but state officials must make some 

kind of independent decision under state law. For example, in 

Minnesota, if a federal EIS will be or has been prepared for a project, 

the state may use the draft or final federal EIS as the draft state EIS if 

the federal EIS addresses the scoped issues and satisfies the state

content standards for an EIS. See Minn. R. 4410.3900, Subp. 3; Minn. 

R. 4410.2300. In Montana, implementation of NEPA and the Montana 

SEPA are separate and distinct federal and state functions, but state 

agencies are required to coordinate with other state and federal 

agencies in the preparation of a single environmental review that is 

legally sufficient for both NEPA and MEPA. MONT. ADMIN. R.

18.2.250(c).

Element 10: State 

adoption of federal NEPA 

reviews
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 62 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

• Some SEPA states allow preparation of a single set of documentation 

meeting both the NEPA and additional SEPA requirements.29 The 

state must only prepare separate findings—in effect, a separate 

Record of Decision or similar documentation. For example, in 

California, the SEPA and regulations mandate use of NEPA EISs and 

other documentation in lieu of state Environmental Impact Reports 

and meeting other state requirements whenever possible. See CAL.

PUB. RES. §§ 21083.5-21083.7; CAL. CODE REGS., tit. 14, §§ 15063, 

15082, 15110, 15127, 15220-15528. The state SEPA does not, 

however, dispense with the need to meet its state-specific 

requirements. In New York, the SEPA requires cooperation between 

state and federal agencies in creating an environmental review and 

exempts a project from additional state review if a federal NEPA 

review is conducted. See N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW § 8-0111(1)-(2); 

N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit 17, § 15.10. If the proposed action is 

subject to NEPA, the statute is interpreted to require that NYDOT 

must comply with the federal requirements which then excuses further 

statutory obligations. See N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS. tit. 17, 

§ 15.6; see also N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW § 8-0111(1)-(2) (single 

combined document prepared along with state and federal report.). In 

Washington, state documentation is not required if federal 

documentation already has been prepared for the same project, see

WASH. REV. CODE § 43.21C.150, but the statute does not waive the 

requirement for a state decision concerning the adequacy of any prior 

NEPA review, even if that decision is based on NEPA documentation. 

Id.; see also WASH. ADMIN. CODE §§ 197-11-600, 197-11-630.

The federal NEPA process requires the opportunity for robust public 

participation. At the least, the public must be notified of the proposed 

project and given an opportunity to comment on it. See, e.g., 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 1501.4(b), (e) (EAs); 1502.19 (EISs); 1506.6 (NEPA implementation 

generally). There are also specific public participation requirements in 

Title 23 for federal-aid highway projects. See, e.g., 23 U.S.C. §§ 128, 

139; 23 C.F.R. §§ 771.111(h)(1)-(2), 771.113(a)(2). Moreover, 23 U.S.C. 

§ 128 requires that an opportunity for a public hearing be provided to 

 

29This is authorized at the federal level under CEQ’s regulations. See 40 C.F.R. 

§§ 1500.4(n), 1506.2, 1506.3 (eliminating duplication with State and local procedures, by 

providing for joint preparation, and with other federal procedures, by providing that a 

federal agency may adopt appropriate environmental documents prepared by another 

agency).

Element 11: Opportunity 

for public participation
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 63 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

consider the impact of each federal aid-highway project on the 

environment.

Similarly, almost all SEPAs or their implementing regulations provide for 

some degree of public participation. Three SEPA states do not require 

agencies to consider public input at all: Indiana (only authorized 

comments must be considered, 327 IND. ADMIN. Code §§ 11-1-4, 11-3-3), 

New Jersey (N.J. GOV. KEAN, EXEC. ORDER No. 215, and guidance), and 

Virginia (generally, comments are invited from interested agencies, 

planning district commissions and localities (VA Dept. of Env. Qual., 

Procedure Manual, July 2013)). The opportunities for public participation 

in other states vary. For example:

• In New York, public notice must be provided for all determinations that 

a project will have no significant effect; that a project may have a 

significant effect; that a draft or final EIS has been completed; and any 

subsequent notice of a negative declaration. N.Y. COMP. CODES R. &

REGS. tit. 17, § 15.10. Public notice of hearings also must be given, 

although this may be combined with a notice of completion of a draft 

EIS, and public comments must be permitted for draft and final EISs. 

N.Y. ENVTL. CONSERV. LAW § 8-0109 (4); N.Y. COMP. CODES R. &

REGS., tit. 17, §§ 15.6(d), 15.10(d). The regulations also provide for 

consideration of public comments on scoping and other matters. N.Y.

COMP. CODES R. & REGS., tit. 6, §§ 617.8(e), 617.7. 

• Washington State provides many opportunities for public participation 

and comment. See, e.g., WASH. REV. CODE § 43.21C.110(1); WASH.

ADMIN. CODE §§ 197-11-340(2)(c), 197-11-350(5), 197-11-355,197-

11-400(4), 197-11-405, 197-11-408, 197-11-455(6)-(8), 197-11-502, 

197-11-560. See also WASH. ADMIN. CODE § 197-11-410(1)(d).

• In Wisconsin, it is WisDOT’s policy that “public involvement, 

interagency coordination and consultation, and a systematic 

interdisciplinary approach to analysis of the issues shall be essential 

parts of the environmental process for proposed actions.” WIS. ADMIN.

CODE TRANS. § 400.06(4). As part of the scoping process, the 

Wisconsin regulations “establish a schedule for document preparation 

and for opportunities for public involvement.” WIS. ADMIN. CODE 

TRANS. § 400.09(4)(c). Public comment must be allowed on EISs and 

EAs, see WIS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. § 400.11(3)-(5), but not on 

FONSIs and Environmental Reports. See WiS. ADMIN. CODE TRANS. 

§ 400.11(6)-(7).

• In California, the importance of public participation in the SEPA 

process is specifically recognized in the regulations. CAL. CODE REGS,

tit. 14, § 15002(a)(1), (4). Key environmental review documents are 
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 64 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

classified as public documents. Id., § 15002(f), (j) (“Under [the 

California law], an agency must solicit and respond to comments from 

the public and from other agencies concerned with the project.”); see 

also id. § 15022(a)(5) (duty of California public agencies to consult 

with the public regarding environmental effects).

A number of SEPAs limit public participation to commenting on specific 

aspects of the process. For example, the Massachusetts statute and 

regulations provide notice-and-comment procedures at critical points in 

the process. See MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 30, § 62C; CODE OF MASS REGS.,

tit. 301, § 11.15. Several jurisdictions, such as Georgia, Connecticut, and 

the District of Columbia, authorize public hearings but base the decision 

to hold them on the number of requests received. See GA. CODE ANN.

§ 12-16-5; CONN. GEN. STAT. § 22a-1d; D.C. CODE § 8-109.03 (“If 25 

registered voters in an affected single member district request a public 

hearing on an EIS or supplemental EIS or there is significant public 

interest, the Mayor, board, commission, or authority shall conduct a public 

hearing.”). Montana provides for notice of EIS scoping to “affected 

federal, state, and local government agencies, Indian tribes, the applicant, 

if any, and interested persons or groups,” but not the general public. 

MONT. ADMIN. R. 18.2.241(2)(a). 

The opportunity to obtain meaningful review of agency action by a court is 

an important protection against arbitrary, capricious or otherwise unlawful 

agency decision making. At the federal level, judicial review of NEPA 

decisions issued by lead agencies and other involved federal agencies 

occurs under the federal Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-

706 (APA).30

 

30The APA allows aggrieved parties to challenge “final agency action for which there is no 

other adequate remedy in a court,” 5 U.S.C. § 704, which includes FHWA issuance of a 

NEPA Record of Decision. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Slater, 120 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 1997).

Not everyone who is dissatisfied with a NEPA decision may 

challenge it in court; only those who suffer specific and sufficient injury as 

a result of the decision, and thus have “standing,” may file suit. For 

federal-aid highway projects, a lawsuit generally must be filed within 150 

Element 12: Opportunity 

for judicial review of 

agency decisions
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 65 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

days after publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing a 

final approval, permit, or license. See 23 U.S.C. § 139(l)(1).31

Similarly, while some of the 18 states with SEPAs required for highway 

projects provide for court review of decisions in their SEPA legislation, 

most do so either in their general administrative agency procedure 

legislation (typically based on the Model State Administrative Procedure 

Act) or in specialized legislation. Most states also have followed federal 

law by limiting who may challenge the state agency decision, how the 

agency’s action will be reviewed, and what the scope of that review will 

be. In particular, as applied to state and federal-aid highway projects, 

SEPA laws based on the Model Act32

• The challenger must suffer particularized harm. For example, 

individuals owning property that might be acquired or adjacent to the 

project area, or organizations representing such persons (including 

environmental groups), likely could bring suit.

establish five key prerequisites to 

challenge a state agency decision:

• The agency decision must be final, that is, the challenger generally 

must have exhausted any dispute resolution process available at the 

agency.

• The court challenge generally must be based only on the evidence 

presented to the lead agency and the issues already raised to the 

agency (the administrative record).

• The challenge generally must allege that the agency’s decision was 

legally arbitrary and capricious, contrary to state or federal law, or not 

supported by the evidence before the agency.

• The remedy being requested generally must be limited to an order 

directing the agency to take a certain action, rather than seeking 

monetary damages.

An important difference between federal NEPA-decision judicial review 

requirements and state SEPA requirements is the difference in the time 

for filing a challenge. The federal period is generally 150 days, as noted 

above, while state laws typically provide only 30 days to appeal. See, 

 

31FHWA division offices, in consultation with state DOTs, can decide whether to publish a 

notice in the Federal Register. In the absence of a notice, a claim for judicial review must 

be filed within 6 years of the agency decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (general six-year 

statute of limitations for civil actions against the United States).

32Model State Admin. P. Act (1961), § 15; Model State Admin. P. Act (1981), §§ 5-101 to 

5-205.
Appendix I: A Comparison of Federal NEPA 

Requirements and State Environmental Policy 

Act Requirements as Applied to Federal-Aid 

Highway Projects

Page 66 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

e.g., IND. CODE § 4-21.5-5-5; IND. STAT § 116D.04, Subd. 10; 

N.C. GEN. STAT. § 150B-45. Washington provides only 21 days. WASH. 

REV. CODE § 43.21C.080(2)(a).
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 67 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) 

contains a mandate requiring that GAO review state laws and procedures 

for conducting environmental reviews with regard to projects funded 

under title 23 of the United States Code (primarily federal-aid highway 

projects).1

We identified 18 states with state environmental policy acts (SEPA) 

required for highway projects for inclusion in our review (see table 1). In 

these states, statutes or regulations require some assessment of potential 

environmental effects from highway projects that may mirror requirements 

under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

This report addresses: (1) the factors that determine whether 

federal or state environmental reviews are required for highway projects, 

and how the types of federal and state environmental review documents 

compare; (2) how state environmental review requirements and practices 

compare with federal requirements for assessing federal-aid highway 

projects; and (3) the extent of any duplication in federal and state reviews, 

including frequency and cost, in states with environmental review 

requirements for highway projects.

2 for federal-aid 

highway projects. The list of states with SEPAs derives largely from the 

18 states identified by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) as 

having SEPAs, including New Jersey, which has an executive order that 

requires environmental reviews. In addition, during the course of our 

work, we learned that Texas does not have a general state-level SEPA 

but does have a state statute and regulations that apply to transportation 

projects, and we confirmed with CEQ officials that we should include 

Texas in our scope. By contrast, we excluded South Dakota because its 

SEPA provides the option of preparing an environmental impact 

statement, but does not require one, and South Dakota Department of 

Transportation officials told us that they do not conduct environmental 

reviews under the state law.

 

1

Pub. L. No. 112-141, § 1322, 126 Stat. 405, 552 (2012). 

2

Pub. L. No. 91-190 (1970), codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347. 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 68 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Table 1: States with State Environmental Policy Acts (SEPA) Required for Highway 

Projects 

California Montana

Connecticut New Jersey

District of Columbia New York

Georgia North Carolina

Hawaii Puerto Rico

Indiana Texas

Maryland Virginia

Massachusetts Washington 

Minnesota Wisconsin

Source: GAO. | GAO-15-71

Note: We included entities that are defined as “states” under Title 23 and that have SEPAs required 

to be applied to highway projects. Thus, we did not include the Nevada/California-Tahoe Region, 

which has SEPA requirements, because it is not defined as a state under Title 23. We included New 

Jersey, which has an executive order that serves as a SEPA, and Texas, which does not have a 

general state SEPA but does have a state statute and regulations that apply to transportation 

projects. We excluded South Dakota because although its SEPA provides the option of preparing an 

environmental impact statement, there is no requirement to do so, and South Dakota DOT officials 

told us that they do not conduct environmental reviews under the state law.

For each of our objectives, we reviewed relevant publications, including 

our prior reports on NEPA and highway projects.3

 

3

See GAO, National Environmental Policy Act: Little Information Exists on NEPA 

Analyses,

We obtained 

documents and analysis from federal agencies related to NEPA reviews 

for federal-aid highway projects, including CEQ, the Congressional 

Research Service (CRS), and the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA), including FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA and 

Transportation Decisionmaking (FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit), which provides 

guidance on FHWA’s NEPA environmental review process for state 

department of transportation (state DOT) officials. In addition, we 

interviewed officials with FHWA, CEQ, and CRS. We also interviewed two 

academics who authored a treatise on environmental review 

requirements and were cited by CEQ as having expertise on NEPA and 

SEPAs—Professor Daniel Mandelker at Washington University and 

GAO-14-369 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2014); GAO, Federal-Aid Highways: 

Federal Requirements for Highways May Influence Funding Decisions and Create 

Challenges, but Benefits and Costs Are Not Tracked, GAO-09-36 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

12, 2008); and GAO, Highway Projects: Some Federal and State Practices to Expedite 

Completion Show Promise, GAO-12-593 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2012). 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 69 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Arianne Aughey—and representatives from two professional associations 

with expertise in federal or state environmental review requirements or 

state practices—the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and the National Association of 

Counties.

To respond to the first two objectives, we conducted a legal analysis and 

a survey, which included all 18 states that we identified as having SEPAs 

required for highway projects. Our legal analysis compared key elements 

of SEPAs and related state regulations with key elements of NEPA and 

FHWA regulations for federal-aid highway projects. Our comparison of 

NEPA and FHWA regulations with requirements in state statutes, 

regulations, and executive orders focused on the key NEPA statutory and 

regulatory requirements and did not systematically examine court 

decisions or legislative history. We identified the key NEPA elements by 

reviewing relevant federal statutes and regulations in consultation with 

CEQ and FHWA. Specifically, we started with the statutory language of 

NEPA, which requires agencies to prepare, for major federal actions 

significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed 

statement on, among other things: (1) the environmental impact of the 

proposed action, (2) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be 

avoided should the proposal be implemented, and (3) alternatives to the 

proposed action.4

1. Policy and purpose of the environmental review requirements

NEPA, CEQ regulations, and—for federal-aid highway 

projects—FHWA regulations then specify detailed environmental review 

processes, which include requirements for interagency coordination, 

avoiding duplication, and participation by state and local governments as 

well as the general public, among other things. In addition, the regulations 

provide for more efficient methods of environmental review and a process 

for determining when use of these methods is appropriate. Based on 

these statutory and regulatory requirements, and in consultation with 

CEQ and FHWA, we distilled 12 key elements of environmental review.

2. Types of projects covered

3. Level of detail (“depth”) of environmental impact evaluation

4. Level of significance (“breadth”) addressed in environmental impact 

evaluation

 

4

42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C).
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 70 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

5. Consideration of alternatives

6. Consideration of mitigation

7. Requirement for collaboration to enhance efficiency and avoid 

duplication

8. Requirement for agency coordination

9. Requirement for single-process review

10. State adoption of federal NEPA reviews

11. Opportunity for public participation

12. Opportunity for judicial review of agency decisions

In additional to this legal analysis, we conducted a survey of state DOTs 

in all the 18 states with SEPAs required for highway projects to compare 

in more detail state environmental review requirements with FHWA’s 

NEPA requirements for reviews of federal-aid highway projects. Using 

FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit as a guide, we developed survey questions to 

gather information comparing states’ environmental review requirements 

and practices with FHWA’s NEPA requirements.5 These requirements 

align with five of FHWA’s six principles of the NEPA process and reflect 

key elements in our legal analyses.6

• consideration of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of a 

proposed action or project; 

 

5

One state did not complete the portion of the survey comparing state and federal 

requirements. 

6

The six principles were derived from FHWA’s Environmental Review Toolkit for NEPA 

and Transportation Decision Making, which was accessed in 2014 at: 

http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/projdev/pd3tdm.asp. The requirements identified in 

FHWA’s NEPA Toolkit are not exhaustive of all FHWA’s NEPA requirements; rather, 

FHWA highlights key requirements under each of six areas identified as a NEPA principle, 

and discusses documentation and disclosure. We asked states to compare their 

requirements with FHWA requirements for five of these principles in our survey, among 

other things. A sixth principle—establishing the purpose and need of a project—is 

essential in establishing a baseline for the development of the range of reasonable project 

alternatives required in environmental reviews. In the survey, we asked state DOT officials 

to report on the whether their state requires documentation of their discussion about the 

purpose and need of a proposed project for EIS-type reviews, but we did not ask them to 

compare specific requirements associated with establishing the purpose and need for a 

project. 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 71 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

• development and evaluation of a range of reasonable alternatives to 

the proposed project, based on the applicants defined purpose and 

need for the project; 

• mitigation of project effect by means of avoidance, minimization and 

compensation; 

• interagency coordination and consultation; and

• public involvement including opportunities to participate and comment. 

For each of these principles, we developed questions to assess the 

extent to which state requirements were less stringent than, similar to, or 

more stringent than FHWA’s NEPA requirements.7

We administered the survey by emailing an electronic form to state DOT 

officials in all 18 states with SEPAs required for highway projects.

After we drafted the 

survey, we conducted pretests with state DOT officials in Maryland, 

Washington, and North Carolina to ensure that respondents interpreted 

our questions in the way we intended. That is, we verified that the 

questions were clear and unambiguous and that we used appropriate 

terminology in the survey, to ensure that respondents had the necessary 

information and ability to respond to the questions. Where necessary, we 

revised the screening tool to improve the survey instrument in response 

to feedback from the pretests and internal GAO review. We divided the 

final screening-tool questions into four parts: Part I: Contact Information; 

Part II: Documentation; Part III: Duplication and Coordination; and Part IV: 

Environmental Review Requirements.

8

 

7

Part IV of the survey asked states to categorize their requirements as “less stringent,” 

“similar,” or “more stringent” than FHWA’s NEPA requirements. States could also select 

“not applicable.” By comparing our legal analysis to the responses of states who most 

frequently indicated that FHWA’s NEPA requirements were “not applicable” to their SEPA, 

we determined that a “not applicable” response indicated less stringent requirements than 

FHWA NEPA or no comparable requirements. Therefore, we combined responses from 

the “less stringent” and “not applicable” categories. 

Two 

states provided clarifications or supplementary information along with 

their survey responses. To improve the accuracy and completeness of 

the data, we used the clarifying information provided by agency officials to 

update responses where necessary. Because this effort was not a sample 

survey, it has no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of 

conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred to as 

8

We surveyed South Dakota DOT officials before determining that the state does not have 

a SEPA that is mandatory for transportation projects. We excluded the state from our 

analysis. 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 72 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties in interpreting a particular 

question or sources of information that are unavailable to respondents 

can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps 

to minimize such nonsampling errors in developing the survey tool—

including using a social science survey specialist to help design and 

pretest the survey. We also minimized the nonsampling errors when 

analyzing the data, including using an independent analyst to review all 

computer programming related to the survey. Finally, there were a few 

instances where state DOTs should have indicated one response to a 

question and instead provided two. In these cases we followed up with 

the state DOT officials to clarify their response.

To identify which states had requirements that were “generally similar” to 

FHWA’s NEPA requirements overall, we determined which states in our 

survey reported having environmental review requirements that we found 

to be similar or somewhat similar to 42 individual requirements for FHWA 

NEPA reviews. We characterized state survey responses as being similar 

overall if 75 percent or more of the questions about individual state 

requirements under a NEPA principle were marked as “similar” or “more 

stringent” than FHWA’s NEPA requirements.9

 

9

For the purposes of reporting the survey results at a high level, we determined that a 

“more stringent” response is like a “similar” response in that the state requirement is at 

least comparable to FHWA’s NEPA requirements. In addition, for the 42 individual 

requirements about which we surveyed, no state reported more than 4 state requirements 

as more stringent than FHWA’s NEPA requirements. Therefore, for this analysis we 

combined responses from the “similar” and “more stringent” categories.

If 50 to 74 percent of the 

requirements were marked as “similar” or “more stringent,” we 

characterized state survey responses as somewhat similar. If 51 to 74 

percent of the requirements were marked as “less stringent” or “not 

applicable,” we characterized state survey responses as somewhat less 

stringent. If 75 percent or more of the requirements were marked as “less 

stringent” or “not applicable,” we characterized state survey responses as 

less stringent. Then we determined that states where officials indicated 

that at least half of their responses for each requirement within the 

principle were similar to or more stringent than FHWA’s NEPA 

requirements were “generally similar” to federal requirements. For 

example, regarding the consideration of impacts, we determined that 

state requirements were “generally similar” overall if the state DOT 

officials reported that 3 of the 5 individual requirements were at least 

similar (if not identical) to FHWA’s NEPA requirements: (1) identification 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 73 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

of impacts, as well as assessment of (2) cumulative effects, (3) context, 

(4) cultural or historical impacts, and (5) social or environmental justice.

In addition to these analyses, we interviewed state DOT officials and 

officials with state natural resource agencies in 9 of the 18 states with 

SEPAs. (See table 2.) We selected SEPA states for additional interviews 

and site visits based on four criteria: robustness (or lack thereof), number 

of active EIS reviews, “uniqueness,” and, in some cases, proximity to 

GAO offices. Our findings for these 9 states are not generalizable to the 

other 9 states with SEPAs but provide examples of varying state 

requirements and practices.

Table 2: States Agencies in Selected States with State Environmental Policy Laws 

(SEPA) Interviewed by GAO

State State Agencies Interviewed 

California California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

California State Association of Counties

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research 

Hawaii Hawaii Department of Transportation

Maryland Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, 

Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering, Environmental 

Planning Division

Critical Area Commission for the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal 

Bays

Massachusetts Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs, 

Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act

Massachusetts Department of Transportation, Highway Division 

Minnesota Minnesota Environmental Quality Board

Minnesota Department of Transportation

North Carolina North Carolina Department of Transportation

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources

New York New York State Department of Transportation 

Washington Washington State Department of Transportation 

Wisconsin Wisconsin Department of Transportation

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Source: GAO and state agencies. | GAO-15-71

To respond to the third objective, we included questions about duplication 

in our survey of state DOTs, as well as interviewing state officials and 

FHWA officials at the division offices in those states we selected for 

additional interviews. We have defined duplication as occurring when two 

or more agencies or programs are engaged in the same activities or 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 74 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

provide the same services to the same beneficiaries, in accordance with 

GAO’s body of work on duplication in the federal government.10

We conducted this performance audit from May 2013 to November 2014 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This 

report focuses on duplication that might occur between state and federal 

processes for environmental review of highway projects where there is 

duplication of effort. In the context of environmental review requirements, 

such duplication could occur if states were required to carry out two 

separate—but similar—analyses to satisfy federal and state 

requirements, for example, but not if the same analysis could be used to 

satisfy both state and federal documentary (i.e., procedural) 

requirements. In our interviews with state and FHWA officials, we inquired 

about duplication within and among highway projects, as well as 

duplication that may occur across time within a project. We also asked 

FHWA and state officials about the cost of any potential duplication (and 

how such cost might be measured) and the frequency of any potential 

duplication. Finally, we asked state officials about efforts to make the 

environmental review process more efficient in our survey, as well as the 

potential benefits of any such efforts.

 

10See GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Strategies for Reducing 

Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieving Cost Savings, GAO-13-631T

(Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2013). GAO has applied this definition in numerous reports 

examining potentially duplicative activities in the federal government. See also GAO, 

Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax 

Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011); 2012 

Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 

Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and 

2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication 

and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2013).
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 75 GAO-15-71 State Highway Reviews

Susan D. Sawtelle, (202) 512-6417 or sawtelles@gao.gov

David J. Wise, (202) 512-2834 or wised@gao.gov

In addition to the individuals named above, Susan Zimmerman (Assistant 

Director), Richard Calhoon, Heather Halliwell, Bert Japikse, Delwen 

Jones, Molly Laster, Hannah Laufe, Gerald B. Leverich, III, Jaclyn 

Nelson, Joshua Ormond, Richard P. Johnson, and Elizabeth Wood made 

key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(542220)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.