a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, 

House of Representatives

May 2003 HIGHWAY 

INFRASTRUCTURE

Stakeholders’ Views 

on Time to Conduct 

Environmental 

Reviews of Highway 

Projects

GAO-03-534
Environmental review activities typically consist of identifying and assessing 

environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, and gaining input and/or 

approvals from FHWA, resource agencies, and the public; and become more 

complex if significant environmental impacts are anticipated. For the 91 

percent of projects that are expected to have minimal environmental 

impacts, state departments of transportation need only to identify 

environmental features, assess possible impacts, address any resource 

agency and public concerns, and obtain permits, if needed. For the 6 

percent of projects where it is initially unclear whether significant 

environmental impacts may exist, additional activities occur, including 

evaluating alternatives to the proposed project and obtaining FHWA 

approval. For the 3 percent of highway projects with expected significant 

environmental impacts, states conduct extensive environmental review, 

including evaluating all reasonable alternatives and their environmental 

impacts and consult with resource agencies. 

Stakeholders we contacted identified 43 aspects that they said frequently 

(more than half the time) add more time than viewed as necessary to 

environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. A majority of 

stakeholders with primary responsibilities for environmental and historical 

preservation issues and those with primary responsibilities for 

transportation improvement identified five aspects as occurring frequently. 

However, there was no overall agreement about which aspects frequently 

add undue time to environmental reviews. A majority of environmental 

stakeholders told us that state departments of transportation waited too long 

to consider environmental impacts and involve important stakeholders. In 

contrast, a majority of transportation improvement stakeholders told us that 

state departments of transportation and federal resource agencies lack 

sufficient staff to handle their workloads and that meeting statutory criteria 

for historic preservation projects on public lands and obtaining wetlands 

permits are too time consuming. However, the stakeholders generally could 

not tell us how much time these aspects add to the reviews. 

Aspects Viewed as Frequently Adding Undue Time to Environmental Reviews 

The federal government has a longterm commitment to helping states 

construct, improve, and repair 

roads and bridges to meet the 

nation’s mobility needs. The 

Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) expects to provide states 

about $20 billion for highway 

construction projects in fiscal year 

2003. State departments of 

transportation are primarily 

responsible for initiating and 

completing projects. Many federal 

and state agencies with 

environmental responsibilities 

(called resource agencies) help 

ensure that environmental issues 

are considered. The environmental 

review of a federally funded 

highway project can take from 

several days to several years. 

GAO is reporting on the (1) 

activities involved in the 

environmental reviews of federally 

funded highway projects and (2) 

stakeholders’ views on the aspects 

of environmental review, if any, 

that unduly add time to gaining 

environmental approval. GAO 

obtained stakeholder views from 16 

transportation improvement and 12 

environmental officials from a 

variety of federal, state, and private 

organizations with responsibilities 

for or interests in constructing 

federally funded highways. The 

Department of Transportation had 

no comments on a draft of this 

report. Other agencies provided 

either technical comments or did 

not respond to our request for 

comments.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-534.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Katherine 

Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or 

siggerudk@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-534, a report to the 

Chairman, House Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure 

May 2003

HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE

Stakeholders’ Views on Time to Conduct 

Environmental Reviews of Highway 

Projects 
Page i GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2

Background 7

Environmental Reviews Become More Complex the Greater the 

Expected Impact on the Environment 10

Stakeholders’ Views Differed on Which Aspects Frequently Add 

Undue Time to Environmental Reviews 20

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 27

Appendix II: Environmental Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North 

Carolina Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement 31

Appendix III: Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly Adding Time to 

Environmental Reviews 35

Tables Table 1: Attributes of Categorical Exclusions and Environmental 

Assessments for Federally Funded Highway Projects 13

Table 2: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Environmental 

Stakeholders 22

Table 3: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Transportation 

Improvement Stakeholders 24

Table 4: Organizations Contacted 28

Table 5: Frequency of Occurrences of Aspects That Unduly Add 

Time to the Environmental Review, as Identified by 

Stakeholders, by Rating and Type of Stakeholder 35

Figures Figure 1: Key Activities under Different Types of Environmental 

Review 5

Figure 2: Stakeholders’ Views on Aspects That Frequently Add 

Undue Time to Environmental Review 6

Figure 3: Activities Involved in Completing Environmental 

Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North Carolina 

Requiring Environmental Impact Statements 32
Contents

Page ii GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Abbreviations

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. It may contain copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. 

Permission from the copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce 

copyrighted materials separately from GAO’s product.
Page 1 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

May 23, 2003 Lret

The Honorable Don Young

Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

In order to meet the mobility needs of the United States, the federal 

government has had a longtime commitment to helping fund needed 

maintenance and expansion of the nation’s road network—from interstate 

highways to rural roads—in an environmentally sound manner. Given the 

importance of transportation to the nation’s economy, mobility, and 

security and the need to improve the nation’s roads to meet these needs, 

many transportation improvement stakeholders—such as the Federal 

Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation, and 

others—have said that completing a federally funded highway project takes 

too long, and that the most time consuming aspect involves environmental 

review.1

 Transportation improvement stakeholders acknowledge that 

environmental reviews result in better project decisions, but say that 

reaching decisions is difficult and time consuming.2

 The Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century, enacted in 1998, contained provisions 

designed to streamline environmental reviews. As the reauthorization of 

this act approaches, the Congress may again consider measures for 

reducing the time it takes to complete a federally funded highway project 

so that transportation benefits are realized sooner. 

You requested that we (1) describe the activities involved in the 

environmental review of federally funded highway projects and (2) report 

on stakeholders’ views on which aspects of these environmental reviews, if 

any, unduly add time to gaining environmental approval. To carry out this 

work, we reviewed laws and documents related to environmental review. 

We asked officials from FHWA and the departments of transportation from 

Maryland and North Carolina to identify the activities involved in 

1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on 

Approaches to Reduce Highway Project Completion Time, GAO-03-398 (Washington, D.C.: 

April 9, 2003).

2

U.S. General Accounting Office, Highway Infrastructure: Preliminary Information on the 

Timely Completion of Highway Construction Projects, GAO-03-1067T (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 19, 2002).
Page 2 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

environmental review and to identify federal, state, and local agencies that 

routinely participate in reviews of federally funded highway projects.3

 To 

obtain stakeholders’ views on aspects that add undue time—more time 

than they view as necessary—to environmental reviews, we asked officials 

from federal and state agencies with responsibilities relating to the 

construction of federally funded roads, transportation professional 

organizations, historic preservation organizations, and environmental 

organizations to identify laws, behaviors, resource issues, or project 

management approaches, if any, that unduly add time to environmental 

review. We asked these officials to identify other stakeholders with 

expertise in such reviews and asked those individuals to identify aspects 

that they felt add undue time. Overall, 39 stakeholders identified 43 aspects 

they have encountered during environmental reviews that they felt add 

undue time to these reviews. We then asked these stakeholders to rate each 

aspect on how frequently, if at all, they occur. Twenty-eight officials 

representing different interests provided these ratings (of these 28, 16 

stakeholders had primary transportation improvement responsibilities or 

interests, and 12 stakeholders had primary environmental responsibilities 

or interests). The approach we used makes two contributions. First, it 

captures the views of a wide range of stakeholders that are identified by 

their peers as knowledgeable. Second, it provides a systematic assessment 

of the perceived frequency of the aspects that knowledgeable stakeholders 

indicated add undue time to environmental reviews. We did not attempt to 

corroborate whether or not particular aspects actually occur or the reasons 

why stakeholders rated individual aspects as occurring more or less 

frequently. In addition, because of the relatively small number of 

stakeholders who rated approaches, we did not extrapolate our results 

more broadly. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and 

methodology.)

Results in Brief Environmental review activities typically consist of (1) identifying and 

assessing the environmental impacts of projects, evaluating alternatives, 

gaining input or approvals from FHWA, federal and state agencies with 

3

We chose these two states because transportation officials that we interviewed identified 

these states as those that have studied their environmental review procedures and have 

taken steps to improve the timeliness of environmental reviews. When discussing activities 

involved in environmental review, we include environmentally related activities, such as 

determining whether environmental resources are present or obtaining permits, that may be 

undertaken before environmental reviews are started or after they are completed as well as 

the activities that take place during environmental review. 
Page 3 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

environmental responsibilities (resource agencies), and the public and (2) 

obtaining environmental permits. The activities become more complex if 

significant environmental impacts are anticipated. (See fig. 1.) FHWA 

estimates that:

• Approximately 91 percent of federally funded highway projects 

(representing about 76 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding 

distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) have 

minimal environmental impacts, and therefore receive “categorical 

exclusions,” qualifying them for limited environmental review. These 

projects are limited in scope—and some are so routine (such as 

installation of traffic signals) as to be pre approved by FHWA—and 

seldom add new miles of road to the road system, according to FHWA. 

For projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion, state departments 

of transportation need only identify environmental features, sufficiently 

establish that environmental impacts are minor, obtain approval for 

projects in some circumstances, and address known and foreseeable 

public and agency concerns. While there is no standard method for 

computing the length of time for environmental review, environmental 

review activities for these projects have been estimated to take an 

average of 6 to 8 months to complete, according to FHWA, and could 

take as long as an average of 22 months to complete, according to a 

report prepared for the American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials. 

• Approximately 6 percent of federally funded highway projects 

(representing about 15 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding 

distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) receive a 

more extensive environmental review when it is initially unclear 

whether significant environmental impacts may occur (called an 

environmental assessment). Projects that qualify for environmental 

assessments do not typically add new miles of road to the road system 

according to FHWA. For these projects, state departments of 

transportation conduct additional review activities, which include (1) 

evaluating the environmental impacts of one or more alternatives to the 

proposed project, (2) consulting with the public and affected federal and 

state resource agencies, and (3) obtaining FHWA approval. While there 

is no standard method for measuring length of time for environmental 

review, environmental review activities for these projects have been 

estimated to take an average of 14 to 18 months to complete, according 

to FHWA, and could take as long as an average of 41 months to 
Page 4 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

complete, according to a report prepared for the American Association 

of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 

• About 3 percent of federally funded highway projects (representing 

about 9 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to 

states for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) are likely to have 

significant environmental impacts. For these projects, state 

departments of transportation conduct the same types of additional 

activities as they do for environmental assessments, but on a more 

comprehensive basis, resulting in an environmental impact statement. 

For example, state departments of transportation evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives (rather than evaluating one or more alternatives 

as is done for environmental assessments) and, in Maryland and North 

Carolina, gain concurrence from affected federal and state resource 

agencies (rather than consulting with them). Other states may interact 

with resource agencies differently. Environmental review activities for 

these projects take an average of 5 years to complete, according to 

FHWA. This duration is measured using formal FHWA decision points. 

States, such as Maryland and North Carolina, may conduct some 

environmental review activities before or after these decision points, 

such as early identification of expected impacts and obtaining permits 

from federal agencies with responsibilities for such things as water 

quality and wetlands that extend this duration.
Page 5 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Figure 1: Key Activities under Different Types of Environmental Review

a

For an environmental assessment, states must evaluate one or more alternatives, whereas for 

environmental impact statements, states must evaluate all reasonable alternatives.

Transportation improvement and environmental stakeholders differed in 

their views of which of the 43 aspects they identified as frequently adding 

undue time to conducting environmental reviews. In no case did a majority 

of transportation improvement and a majority of environmental 

stakeholders agree. (See fig. 2.) A majority of environmental stakeholders, 

such as resource agencies, state historic preservation agencies, and 

environmental advocacy organizations, told us that undue time is added to 

environmental reviews because state departments of transportation do not 

consider environmental and historic preservation impacts early enough (7 

of 10 of these stakeholders responding or 70 percent), and they do not 

include important stakeholders early enough (7 of 11 stakeholders 

responding or 64 percent). In contrast, transportation improvement 

stakeholders, such as state departments of transportation, FHWA division 

offices, and transportation advocacy organizations, typically did not 

identify these aspects as adding undue time. A majority of transportation 

improvement stakeholders told us that a lack of sufficient staff at state 

departments of transportation and federal resource agencies (11 of 16 

responding or 69 percent), meeting the stringent statutory requirements for 

Activity

Categorical 

exclusion

Environmental 

assessment

Environmental 

impact statement

Identify environmental features

Evaluate alternativesa

Assess impacts

Public involvement

FHWA approval

Consult with affected agencies

Obtain permits, if needed

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA data.

Required

Required to some extent or under certain circumstances

Not required
Page 6 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

historic preservation projects on public lands (“section 4(f) requirements;” 

9 of 16 of these stakeholders or 56 percent) and obtaining permits for 

projects on wetlands (9 of 16 stakeholders or 56 percent) frequently added 

undue time to environmental reviews. Environmental stakeholders 

typically did not identify these aspects as frequently adding undue time. 

While stakeholders had identified these aspects as adding time to 

environmental review, generally they could not estimate how much time 

these aspects added. 

Figure 2: Stakeholders’ Views on Aspects That Frequently Add Undue Time to 

Environmental Review

Note: Not all stakeholders rated each aspect. At least 26 stakeholders (93 percent) rated each of the 5 

aspects shown in this figure.

The Department of Transportation responded that it had no comments on a 

draft of this report. Maryland offered several technical comments, which 

we have incorporated into this report. The Department of Interior and 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of stakeholders identifying aspects as occurring frequently

Transportation stakeholders

Source: GAO analysis of responses of 28 stakeholders.

Environmental stakeholders

56

56

69

19

13

0

30

50

70

64

State departments of 

transportation do not consider 

impacts early enough

State departments of 

transportation and federal 

resource agencies lack 

sufficient staff

The statutory section 4(f) 

requirement protecting historic 

properties on public lands is 

burdensome

Requirements for obtaining 

wetland permits are 

time consuming

State departments of 

transportation do not include 

important stakeholders 

early enough
Page 7 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

North Carolina did not provide a response to our request for comments on 

our report draft. 

Background Federally funded highway projects vary in size, from new lane striping or 

installing traffic signals to resurfacing an existing road or building a new 

road or interchange. Of the federally funded highway projects in 2000 that 

took place on approximately 27,000 miles of road (latest data available), 

about 26,000 miles (96 percent) involved either the addition of capacity, 

preservation, or improvements (such as widening lanes, resurfacing, and 

rehabilitating roadways) and the remaining 1,000 miles (4 percent) 

involved new road construction projects. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA 

expects to fund about $20 billion for highway infrastructure improvements 

and projects designed to relieve congestion. 

Regardless of their size and scope, federally funded highway projects are 

typically completed in four phases:

• Planning: State and local planning organizations and state departments 

of transportation assess a project’s purpose and need and consider its 

need in relation to other potential highway projects.

• Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of 

transportation identify project cost, level of service, and construction 

location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and 

alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative. 

• Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of 

transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate 

utilities.

• Construction: State departments of transportation award construction 

contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project. 

Local, state, and federal governments all have a role in the planning, 

designing, and construction of federally financed highway projects. Local 

governments carry out many transportation planning functions, such as 

scheduling improvements and maintenance for local streets and roads. 

State departments of transportation are typically the focal point for 

transportation project planning and construction and are responsible for 

setting the transportation goals for the state, planning safe and efficient 

transportation, designing most projects, identifying and mitigating 
Page 8 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

environmental impacts, acquiring property for highway projects, and 

awarding and overseeing construction contracts. At the federal level, 

FHWA is the primary agency providing funding, training, approving state 

transportation plans, and certifying that states have met requirements 

related to environmental protection and historical preservation. 

Many of the organizations with a role in highway project completion have 

concluded that completing major highway construction projects takes too 

long—in some cases about 20 years.4

 The construction of highway projects 

using federal funds can be complicated and time consuming because state 

departments of transportation must adhere to a number of federal laws 

pertaining to transportation, the environment, and historic preservation 

and involve multiple stakeholders representing all levels of government 

and the public; and for some controversial projects, this could involve 

litigation. 

As a condition of receiving federal funds for highway projects, state 

departments of transportation must comply with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires that federal 

agencies consider the potential impacts on environmental resources when 

considering approval of a proposed action. FHWA is responsible for 

ensuring that state departments of transportation identify, assess, and, if 

necessary, mitigate impacts to the natural and human (e.g., health) 

environment and historic properties that may result from the construction 

of a highway project. In this regard, state departments of transportation 

involve federal agencies with environmental responsibilities (called 

resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, in addition to FHWA and state resource agencies 

when assessing the potential impacts of a highway project in order to 

comply with NEPA and other federal and state environmental 

requirements. Along with NEPA, state departments of transportation must 

comply with other federal statutes that may apply to a highway project, 

including: 

• The Clean Water Act of 1977. The Clean Water Act of 1977 was 

designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological 

integrity of the nation’s waters through the prevention and elimination 

of pollution. Any project, including the construction of a highway 

4

GAO-03-398.
Page 9 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

project, that involves the discharge of pollutants into waters of the 

United States must comply with the Clean Water Act. The act generally 

prohibits the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States 

without obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency, 

or in the case of discharges involving dredge or fill material, from the 

Army Corps of Engineers under section 404. 

• The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966. Section 15(a) of the act, 

popularly known as section 4(f),5

 was designed to preserve publicly 

owned natural resources, such as parklands, recreation areas, 

waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and significant historic sites. Publicly 

owned lands may be used for federal highways only if there is no 

prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and the program or 

project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, 

recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site from the 

use. Each highway proposal developed by the state departments of 

transportation must include avoidance and mitigation alternatives for 

publicly owned lands that may be affected by the project. The 

Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban 

Development and state or local agencies have jurisdiction over natural 

resources. State historic preservation offices and the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation have jurisdiction over historic sites. 

• The National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consider the 

effect that a project may have on a property (e.g., districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects) that is included in, or eligible for 

inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. 

• The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of threatened or endangered species (including fish, wildlife, 

and plants facing extinction) or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat for these species. In some cases, FHWA 

and state departments of transportation work with the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies 

to ensure compliance with the act.

5

From section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, which contained similar 

language.
Page 10 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Environmental 

Reviews Become More 

Complex the Greater 

the Expected Impact 

on the Environment

Environmental review of federally funded highway projects typically 

begins when state departments of transportation, in consultation with 

FHWA, determine that a proposed project may or will affect the quality of 

the environment. For projects that state departments of transportation 

demonstrate are likely to have minimal environmental impacts or in 

situations in which the existence of significant environmental impacts is 

initially unclear, FHWA provides for a simplified and less structured review 

of environmental impacts.6 More extensive and structured environmental 

review is required from FHWA for projects in which significant 

environmental impacts are anticipated. This report describes 

environmental review activities that states carry out to meet NEPA and 

other federal environmental laws. States may carry out other 

environmental review activities to meet state environmental requirements. 

Projects with Minimal or 

Initially Unclear 

Environmental Impacts 

Require Limited 

Environmental Review

A highway project that is expected to have minimal environmental impacts 

may qualify for limited federal environmental review (called a categorical 

exclusion) under FHWA regulations implementing NEPA.7

 These projects 

are limited in scope—and some are so routine (such as installation of 

traffic signals) as to be preapproved by FHWA—and seldom add new miles 

of road to the road system. According to FHWA, approximately 91 percent 

of approximately 31,000 federally funded highway projects (representing 

6

According to Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the magnitude or significance 

of environmental impacts should be considered in the context of (1) society as a whole, the 

affected region, or the locality and (2) the intensity or severity of impacts, including the 

degree to which the project affects public health or safety; unique characteristics of the 

geographic area; resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic 

Places; an endangered species or threatened species or their habitat; or establishes a 

precedent for future actions with significant effects; level of controversy; relationship to 

other actions with cumulative impacts; presence of unique or unknown risks; or potential to 

threaten a violation of federal, state, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection 

of the environment. 

7

Under these regulations, states may determine that a project falls within a class or category 

of projects that do not have significant environmental impact. These determinations are 

called categorical exclusions. FHWA regulations define categorical exclusions as actions, 

which based on past experience with similar actions, do not induce significant impacts to 

planned growth or land use for the area; require the relocation of significant numbers of 

people; have a significant impact on any natural, cultural, recreational, historic or other 

resource; involve significant air, noise, or water quality impacts; have significant impacts on 

travel patterns; or otherwise, either individually or cumulatively, have significant 

environmental impacts. 
Page 11 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

about 76 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to states 

for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) received categorical exclusions in 

2001. 

In an informal survey conducted by FHWA in 1999, its division staff 

reported that it took an average of 6 months to complete the environmental 

review of projects that qualified for a categorical exclusion in 1998.8

 FHWA 

officials reported that it takes even less time, sometimes as little as several 

days, to complete categorical exclusions for projects that FHWA has 

preapproved for limited environmental review (for example, landscaping 

or installation of road signs). In a survey conducted for the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000, state 

transportation officials estimated that it took an average of 8 months to 

complete the activities involved in environmental review of categorical 

exclusion projects that they had classified as not delayed.9

 However, these 

state transportation officials also reported that, for projects they selected 

for the survey, it took an average of 22 months to complete activities 

involved in environmental review for categorical exclusion projects that 

they had identified as delayed. There is no standard method for measuring 

length of time for environmental review. 

Some of the projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion are considered 

by FHWA to be routine—with little or no environmental impact such as bus 

and rail car rehabilitation, construction of bike paths, landscaping, 

installation of traffic signals, ride-sharing activities, or improvements to 

existing rest areas—and have been preapproved by FHWA for limited 

environmental review. For preapproved projects, state department of 

transportation need only to sufficiently establish that there are no 

significant impacts. State departments of transportation do not need to 

identify mitigation measures, address public and agency concerns, or gain 

8

FHWA officials told us that these results should be considered as a general exploration of 

time frames, rather than a definitive assessment.

9

The researchers defined delay to mean the amount of time beyond what state officials 

estimated was a reasonable length of time for completing environmental review. State 

department of transportation officials were asked to estimate what would be a reasonable 

length of time for environmental review and also report the actual time for environmental 

review of two projects that typified delays their state had experienced with categorical 

exclusions. In total, 51 projects that qualified for categorical exclusions were identified. 

TransTech Management, Inc., Environmental Streamlining: A Report on Delays 

Associated with the Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Assessment Process

(Washington, D.C.: October 2000).
Page 12 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

FHWA’s approval of the state’s assessment of environmental impacts. Other 

projects—such as bridge rehabilitation, construction of bus or rail storage 

or maintenance facilities, or adding shoulders—have somewhat greater 

potential for environmental impact but may also qualify for a categorical 

exclusion. However, because of the greater potential to cause significant 

environmental impacts or generate substantial controversy, they are not 

preapproved by FHWA. Instead, for these types of projects, FHWA advises 

state departments of transportation to conduct environmental review 

activities commensurate with the level of impact, including (1) identifying 

environmental features that will be affected by the project (if any); (2) 

assessing the environmental impacts caused by the project to the extent 

that it is clearly established that impacts are minor; (3) addressing public, 

federal, and state resource agency concerns where adverse impacts are 

likely to occur; (4) gaining FHWA’s approval for classification as a 

categorical exclusion; and (5) obtaining permits, if needed, to clearly 

establish that there is little potential for significant impacts and that the 

project’s classification as a categorical exclusion is appropriate. (See table 

1.) 
Page 13 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Table 1: Attributes of Categorical Exclusions and Environmental Assessments for Federally Funded Highway Projects

Source: GAO analysis of FHWA regulations and technical guidance on preparing environmental documents.

If it is initially unclear whether a transportation project will have a 

significant impact on the environment, then FHWA requires that the state 

department of transportation prepare an environmental assessment. 

According to FHWA, projects that qualify for environmental assessments 

do not typically add new miles of road to the road system. FHWA estimates 

that approximately 6 percent of approximately 31,000 federally funded 

roadway projects (representing about 15 percent of the $17.6 billion in 

federal funding distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year 

2001) required an environmental assessment in 2001. In an informal survey 

conducted by FHWA in 1999, its division staff reported that it took an 

average of 18 months to complete the activities involved in an 

environmental assessment in 1998. In a survey conducted for the American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000, state 

transportation officials estimated that it took an average of 14 months to 

complete the review of environmental assessment projects that they 

Activity Categorical exclusion Environmental assessment

Identify environmental 

features

Identify environment features that may require 

additional environmental review.

Identify environment features that may require additional 

environmental review. 

Evaluate alternatives Not required. Consideration of alternatives is required and must include 

the impact of not building the project, but need not 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives. 

Assess impacts Projects that involve no construction or limited 

construction may automatically qualify for limited 

environmental review; for other projects, the level of 

analysis should be sufficient to clearly establish that 

impacts are minor.

For each alternative considered, determine the severity of 

impacts and any mitigation to reduce or eliminate 

unavoidable impacts, but need only address those 

features that have a reasonable possibility for significant 

impacts.

Involve public Where adverse impacts are likely to occur, public 

concerns should be addressed.

Environmental assessments do not need to be circulated 

for comment, but must be made available for public 

inspection and invite comments from the public. 

Obtain FHWA approval Not required for most categorical exclusion projects. 

However, for unusual circumstances, including 

significant impacts or substantial controversy, FHWA 

approval is needed to determine whether the 

classification is proper. 

FHWA must approve the environmental assessment 

before it is made available to the public. FHWA will either 

find that the project has no significant impact on the 

environment or that the impact is significant and an 

environmental impact statement must be prepared. 

Consult with resource 

agencies

Where adverse impacts are likely to occur, resource 

agency concerns should be addressed.

Obtain feedback from resource agencies on the scope of 

project, which aspects of the project have the potential for 

environmental impact, identify alternatives, and measures 

to mitigate.

Obtain permits, if 

needed

Required. Required. 
Page 14 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

classified as not delayed. However, state transportation officials also 

reported that, for projects they selected for the survey, it took an average of 

41 months to complete the review of environmental assessment projects 

that they classified as delayed.10

For projects that will likely require an environmental assessment, such as 

road widening or interchange construction projects, the state department 

of transportation, in consultation with FHWA, must conduct more 

extensive environmental review activities than are required for projects 

that receive a categorical exclusion, commensurate with the potential for 

significant environmental impact. For an environmental assessment, the 

state department of transportation must (1) identify environmental 

features that will be affected by the proposed project; (2) evaluate one or 

more alternatives (but need not evaluate all reasonable alternatives); (3) 

assess impacts to the environment caused by the project or any of its 

alternatives and determine measures to mitigate unavoidable 

environmental impacts; and (4) invite comments and obtain feedback from 

the public and interested federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally, 

states must obtain permits if required by other environmental laws. FHWA 

must approve the environmental assessment and it must be made available 

for public inspection. If FHWA determines that no significant 

environmental impacts have been identified, then it will issue a finding that 

there is no significant impact. If at any point during the assessment, FHWA 

determines that the project is likely to have a significant impact on the 

environment, then an environmental impact statement will be required. 

Significant Expected 

Environmental Impacts 

Require Substantial 

Environmental Review

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact 

statement for all actions (including federally funded highway projects) that 

are likely to significantly affect the environment. An environmental impact 

statement is a public document that discusses the purpose of and need for 

the project, alternatives to the project, the affected environment, the 

impacts of the alternatives to the affected environment and public and 

agency comments received. While the requirements for the information 

included in an environmental impact statement are consistent across 

states, the steps taken in the environmental review of projects requiring an 

environmental impact statement are not the same in all states, and there 

exists no common model among states for undertaking the review 

10In total, 50 projects that qualified for environmental assessments were identified. 
Page 15 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

activities that are required to produce an environmental impact statement. 

Federally funded highway projects that are likely to require an 

environmental impact statement include the construction of a new segment 

of controlled access freeway or fixed rail, or projects which make it likely 

that there will be significant environmental effects. Typically, state 

departments of transportation are responsible for coordinating the 

activities of environmental review involving environmental impact 

statements. 

According to FHWA, approximately 3 percent of approximately 31,000 

federally funded highway projects (representing about 9 percent of the 

$17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to states for highway projects in 

fiscal year 2001) required an environmental impact statement in 2001. 

According to FHWA, projects requiring an environmental impact statement 

and for which FHWA approved the environmental impact statement in 

2001, environmental review took an average of approximately 5 years to 

complete.11 While FHWA reports that the average time to complete an 

environmental review for these projects decreased by about 8 months 

between 1999 and 2001, it nevertheless still takes approximately twice as 

long to complete environmental review as it did in the 1970s.12 A report 

prepared for FHWA stated that for projects constructed in the last 30 years, 

environmental review for projects requiring an environmental impact 

statement accounted for 3.6 years, or approximately 28 percent of the 

overall time for project completion.13 

In this section of the report, we describe the steps that two states, 

Maryland and North Carolina, typically take in identifying and assessing 

significant environmental impacts and gaining concurrence for major 

transportation projects. (See app. II for a flow chart depicting these 

activities.) These two state departments of transportation typically carry 

11This duration is measured using formal FHWA decision points. States, such as Maryland 

and North Carolina, may conduct some environmental review activities before or after these 

decision points, such as early identification of expected impacts and obtaining permits from 

federal agencies with responsibilities for such things as water quality and wetlands that 

extend this duration.

12In 2002, the average time to complete an environmental review for projects requiring an 

environmental impact statement was 6.5 years, according to FHWA. 

13Federal Highway Administration, Evaluating the Performance of Environmental 

Streamlining: Development of a NEPA Baseline for Measuring Continuous Performance

(Washington, D.C.: May 8, 2001).
Page 16 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

out environmental review activities in four phases: (1) developing an 

understanding of the extent to which the project is expected to affect the 

environment, (2) identifying alternatives and assessing environmental 

impacts, (3) gaining approval on draft environmental impact statement and 

selecting the preferred alternative, and (4) gaining final approval for 

environmental analysis. Resource agencies, the public, and other 

stakeholders provide input at each of these phases. However, these states 

may carry out some environmental activities even before the first phase, 

such as considering whether environmental impacts are likely when they 

develop their state transportation improvement plan. Further, attention to 

environmental impacts may occur even after FHWA and permit agencies 

approve the project if the environmental analysis is challenged in court.14

Developing an understanding of expected environmental impacts. In 

this phase, the Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation 

develop the scope and purpose of and need for the proposed transportation 

project. To determine the potential for environmental impacts, the state 

department of transportation incorporates existing environmental 

information and feedback from stakeholders about the project that may 

have been obtained through the development of the state’s transportation 

improvement plan.15 In addition, Maryland and North Carolina departments 

of transportation identify preliminary information on environmental 

features and resources including wetlands, floodplains, historic sites, 

parklands, and endangered species, as well as the area to be affected by the 

proposed project. FHWA notifies the public through the Federal Register

that detailed environmental review is needed for the proposed highway 

project (called a notice of intent). In addition, Maryland and North Carolina 

departments of transportation invite local officials, federal, state, and local 

agencies with environmental responsibilities, and the public at large to 

discuss the purpose and need, the proposed scope, environmental features 

identified, and substantial issues related to the project. In addition to 

environmental review activities required by NEPA, permits or consultation 

required by other environmental laws may be needed (e.g., coastal 

14Federal law allows court challenges within 6 years of final federal approval of an 

environmental impact statement.

15States are statutorily required to undertake a continuous transportation planning process 

which, among other things, considers the environmental effects of transportation decisions 

to develop a transportation improvement program which identifies and prioritizes only 

those transportation projects proposed that are reasonably expected to have funding 

available. 
Page 17 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

resources). For projects in Maryland or North Carolina that require a 

permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the state department of 

transportation will also normally obtain concurrence on the purpose of and 

need for the proposed project from the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

FHWA. Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, Maryland and 

North Carolina state departments of transportation may also obtain 

concurrence from the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest 

Service, and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the 

vicinity of a geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction. 

Identifying alternatives and assessing environmental impacts. This 

phase typically begins with Maryland and North Carolina state departments 

of transportation identifying alternatives to the proposed project. 

Following guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality, FHWA 

requires that the state department of transportation consider a reasonable 

range of alternatives that accomplish its objectives, including an alternative 

of not building the project.16 For each alternative, state departments of 

transportation must identify the environment that will be affected. 

Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation then obtain 

feedback on the alternatives they have developed from the public and from 

federal, state, and local agencies that have environmental responsibilities. 

Maryland and North Carolina state departments of transportation evaluate 

comments from the public and agencies and select a subset of alternatives 

for more detailed study. For alternatives selected for detailed study, 

Maryland and North Carolina state departments of transportation conduct 

detailed engineering and environmental analyses of the impacts to natural, 

socioeconomic, and cultural resources, including historic resources and 

endangered species, and begin identifying measures to avoid, minimize, or 

mitigate impacts. The last activity in identifying alternatives and assessing 

environmental impacts is to invite the public, local officials, and federal, 

state, and local agencies with environmental responsibilities to discuss the 

rationale and issues related to the subset of alternatives selected. For 

projects in Maryland or North Carolina that require a permit under section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, the state department of transportation will also 

16According to the Council on Environmental Quality, which developed regulations 

implementing NEPA, reasonable alternatives are those that are practical or feasible from the 

technical and economic standpoint, rather than simply desirable from the standpoint of the 

agency. For example, reasonable alternatives for a major urban highway project could 

include considering options such as fringe parking, ridesharing, high occupancy vehicle 

lanes, and mass transit.
Page 18 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

normally obtain concurrence on the criteria for alternative selection and 

the alternatives to be evaluated from the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, and FHWA. 

Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, Maryland and North 

Carolina state departments of transportation may also obtain concurrence 

from the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest Service, and/or 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the vicinity of a 

geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction.

Gaining approval on draft environmental impact statement and 

selecting the preferred alternative. In this phase, Maryland and North 

Carolina state departments of transportation attempt to gain approval from 

FHWA on preliminary efforts to meet environmental requirements and 

concurrence from resource agencies on selecting the preferred alternative. 

If FHWA is satisfied that the state department of transportation has 

adequately identified all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and 

discusses the reasons why other alternatives were eliminated from detailed 

study, then FHWA will provide approval of the state’s preliminary efforts in 

meeting environmental requirements. After receiving FHWA’s approval, 

state departments of transportation will obtain and analyze comments from 

the public and from resource agencies to help the state department of 

transportation in selecting the preferred alternative.17 After Maryland and 

North Carolina state departments of transportation select the preferred 

alternative, they develop additional avoidance and mitigation efforts, if 

needed. Finally, Maryland and North Carolina state departments of 

transportation will obtain feedback from the public and agencies on its 

selection of the preferred alternative and address any concerns in the final 

environmental impact statement. For projects in Maryland or North 

Carolina that require a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the 

state department of transportation will also normally obtain concurrence 

on the preferred alternative from the Army Corps of Engineers, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

FHWA. Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, the state 

department of transportation may also obtain concurrence from the 

National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest Service, and/or the 

17According to the Council on Environmental Quality, the preferred alternative is the 

alternative which the state department of transportation believes would best fulfill its 

statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, 

technical, and other factors.
Page 19 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the vicinity of a 

geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction.

Gaining final approval for environmental analysis and permits. In 

this phase, the state department of transportation attempts to gain final 

approval from FHWA on its efforts to meet environmental review 

requirements. If FHWA is satisfied that the state department of 

transportation has adequately identified the preferred alternative; 

evaluated all reasonable alternatives considered; and complied, to the 

extent possible, with all applicable environmental laws and executive 

orders; or has provided reasonable assurance that these requirements can 

be met, then FHWA issues final approval on the state’s efforts in meeting 

environment review requirements. The state department of transportation 

will then circulate the final environmental impact statement for public and 

agency comment. The state department of transportation will respond to 

comments and FHWA will issue its decision (called a record of decision).18

In addition to the activities described above, state departments of 

transportation may need to undertake additional activities to consult with 

or obtain permits or approvals from federal, state, and local agencies 

before they can begin construction when a project may impact coastal 

resources, air quality, wetlands, historic and cultural resources, 

floodplains, ecosystems, national park lands, and endangered species, 

among others in order to complete environmental review. Finally, the 

environmental review process may have to be reopened in situations such 

as when a project does not move forward because of funding shortages and 

stakeholders believe that possible environmental impacts have changed 

and in cases of successful lawsuits involving environmental issues 

associated with the project. Only after lawsuits, funding, or other 

environmental issues have been resolved will Maryland and North Carolina 

state departments of transportation typically allocate funding to begin 

construction.

18FHWA cannot issue its decision until 30 days have elapsed from when the public and 

resource agencies had an opportunity to comment on the final environmental impact 

statement. 
Page 20 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Stakeholders’ Views 

Differed on Which 

Aspects Frequently 

Add Undue Time to 

Environmental 

Reviews 

Stakeholders of highway construction projects we contacted identified 43 

aspects that they said added undue time (more time than what 

stakeholders viewed as necessary to complete the review) to 

environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. A majority of 

stakeholders with primary responsibilities for environmental and historical 

preservation issues, and those with primary responsibilities for 

transportation improvement, identified five aspects as occurring 

frequently; but there was no agreement across groups about which aspects 

add undue time. (See table 5 in app. III for how stakeholders rated each of 

the 43 aspects.) 

The stakeholders we contacted indicated that aspects adding undue time to 

environmental reviews generally occurred at about the same frequency, 

regardless of whether the type of environmental review was a categorical 

exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. 

While the stakeholders we contacted identified various aspects of 

environmental reviews as adding undue time, generally, they could not 

estimate how much time these aspects add to environmental reviews. 

Environmental and 

Transportation 

Improvement Stakeholders 

Differed in Their Views of 

Which Aspects Frequently 

Add Undue Time 

While stakeholders with similar responsibilities or interests identified 

several aspects as frequently adding undue time to environmental reviews, 

no agreement existed across groups. For the most part, environmental 

stakeholders, such as resource agencies, state historic preservation 

agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations, told us that state 

departments of transportation waited too long to consider environmental 

impacts and involve important stakeholders. On the other hand, 

transportation improvement stakeholders, such as state departments of 

transportation, FHWA division offices, and transportation advocacy 

organizations, identified aspects related to environmental laws and staffing 

adequacy. 

Of the 43 aspects identified by all stakeholders, a majority of the 

environmental stakeholders identified 2 aspects as frequently adding undue 

time to environmental reviews.19 (See table 2.)

19Stakeholders rated each aspect according to the following scale: 1 = almost never or never; 

2 = less than half of the time; 3 = about half of the time; 4 = more than half of the time; 5 = all 

or almost all of the time. Stakeholders also could indicate that they did not know or that the 

aspect was not relevant.
Page 21 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

• Impacts not considered early enough. Seventy percent of the 

environmental stakeholders (7 of 10) who provided a rating for this 

aspect, told us that undue time is frequently added to environmental 

reviews because state departments of transportation generally do not 

consider environmental and historic preservation impacts early enough 

in the environmental review.20 An official with the Council on 

Environmental Quality, which oversees federal agency implementation 

of the environmental impact assessments, stated that when 

environmental activities related to NEPA are not considered during the 

planning phase of a highway project, agreements made during the 

planning phase must be revisited once a NEPA review starts, thus 

unduly adding time to environmental reviews. In contrast, 12 percent of 

transportation improvement stakeholders (2 of 16) cited this aspect as 

occurring frequently. 

• Important stakeholders not included early. Sixty-four percent of the 

environmental stakeholders (7 of 11) who provided a rating for this 

aspect told us that undue time is frequently added to environmental 

reviews because state departments of transportation generally do not 

include important stakeholders early in the environmental review. For 

example, a state historic preservation officer said that the state historic 

preservation office often was involved too late in the environmental 

review, leading to time delays on the project. The state department of 

transportation had spent time and money developing projects prior to 

allowing the state historical preservation office to review project plans. 

When the state historical preservation office had a concern with a 

project, the state department had to change or redesign its plans causing 

cost increases and time delays. In contrast, 19 percent of the 

transportation improvement stakeholders (3 of 16) cited this aspect as 

frequently adding undue time to reviews.

20Not all stakeholders rated each aspect. At least 25 stakeholders (89 percent) responded to 

every aspect.
Page 22 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Table 2: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Environmental Stakeholders

Source: GAO analysis of responses from 28 stakeholders.

Note: Includes only those aspects identified by a majority of the environmental stakeholders as 

occurring frequently. Percentages are based on the number of stakeholders rating each aspect. 

Of the 43 aspects identified overall, a majority of transportation 

improvement stakeholders identified 3 aspects as frequently adding undue 

time to environmental reviews. (See table 3.) 

• State departments and federal resource agencies lack sufficient 

staff. Sixty-nine percent of transportation improvement stakeholders 

(11 of 16) who provided a rating for this aspect told us that undue time is 

frequently added to environmental reviews because state departments 

of transportation and federal resource agencies lack sufficient staff to 

handle their responsibilities in a timely manner. This aspect was cited as 

occurring frequently by a majority of the transportation improvement 

stakeholders and by half of the environmental stakeholders (5 of the 10) 

who provided ratings for this aspect. According to FHWA, state 

departments of transportation are using different methods to attempt to 

provide sufficient staff to carry out environmental reviews, such as 

hiring consultants to complete environmental analyses when their own 

staff resources are limited. In addition, according to FHWA, 34 states are 

funding additional staff at state and federal environmental agencies to 

facilitate environmental reviews and approval. In a recent report, 

stakeholders identified this latter approach as a promising approach 

Aspect cited by 

stakeholders

Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring 

frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses)

Environmental 

stakeholders

Transportation 

improvement 

stakeholders

All 

stakeholders

State departments of 

transportation do not consider 

environmental and historic 

impacts early enough in the 

environmental review. 70 (7 of 10) 12 (2 of 16) 35 (9 of 26)

State departments of 

transportation do not include 

important stakeholders early 

in the environmental review. 64 (7 of 11) 19 (3 of 16) 37 (10 of 27)
Page 23 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

that states are using to reduce the overall time it takes to complete 

federally funded highway projects.21 

• Section 4(f) historic preservation requirement considered 

burdensome. Fifty-six percent of the transportation improvement 

stakeholders (9 of 16) told us that section 4(f) adds undue time to 

environmental reviews because it is inflexible and, therefore, 

burdensome to comply with. Section 4(f) prohibits the Department of 

Transportation from approving any highway project that uses, among 

other things, publicly owned land of an historic site of national, state, or 

local significance unless it finds that (1) there is no prudent and feasible 

alternative that avoids such resources or causes less harm to them and 

(2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those 

resources. In April 2003, we reported that many stakeholders consider 

these reviews as burdensome and inflexible and that alternative 

approaches could protect historic properties and take less time to reach 

resolution.22 In that report, a large majority of the stakeholders we 

contacted indicated that historic property protections under section 106 

of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (which requires that 

projects subject to federal agency jurisdiction or licensing consider the 

effects on any properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the 

National Register of Historic Places) offered a flexible mediation 

process that brings all parties into discussion and allowed for more 

productive outcomes that preserve the goals of the transportation 

project, while creating meaningful protections of historic properties. In 

contrast, 30 percent of the environmental stakeholders (3 of 10) who 

provided a rating for this aspect cited it as occurring frequently, 

resulting in undue time being added to environmental reviews.

• Obtaining wetlands permits considered time consuming. Fifty-six 

percent of the transportation improvement stakeholders (9 of 16) told 

us that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that projects 

receive a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers if water impacts 

exist, frequently adds undue time to environmental reviews. These 

stakeholders described a variety of issues, including that section 404 

adds undue time because the Corps requires extensive alternative 

analysis, even for minor projects, to demonstrate that there is no 

21GAO-03-398.

22GAO-03-398.
Page 24 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

practicable alternative to building on wetlands. None of the 

environmental stakeholders rated this aspect as occurring frequently in 

adding undue time to environmental reviews. 

Table 3: Aspects Identified by a Majority of Transportation Improvement 

Stakeholders

Source: GAO analysis of responses from 28 stakeholders.

Note: Includes only those aspects identified by a majority of the transportation improvement 

stakeholders as occurring frequently. 

In our April report on stakeholders’ perceptions of the most promising 

approaches for reducing highway project completion time (covering all 

aspects of a highway project from planning through construction), 

stakeholders identified 13 most promising approaches. Nine of these 

approaches involved environmental review, such as funding specialized 

staff at resource agencies and unifying section 404 and NEPA reviews. Four 

of the five aspects that stakeholders told us add undue time to 

environmental reviews relate specifically to promising approaches cited in 

the April report. These are approaches for increasing resource agency staff, 

providing early consideration of environmental impacts by state 

departments of transportation, inclusion of important stakeholders early in 

Aspect cited by 

stakeholders

Percent of stakeholders rating aspect as occurring 

frequently (number of stakeholders in parentheses)

Transportation 

improvement 

stakeholders

Environmental 

stakeholders All stakeholders

State departments of 

transportation and federal 

resource agencies lack 

sufficient staff to handle their 

responsibilities in a timely 

manner. 69 (11 of 16) 50 (5 of 10) 62 (16 of 26)

The section 4(f) requirement 

that the state department of 

transportation prove there is 

no prudent and feasible 

alternative is burdensome. 56 (9 of 16) 30 (3 of 10) 46 (12 of 26)

Section 404 causes delays 

since it values water 

resources over other 

resources leading state 

departments of transportation 

to complete time-consuming 

analysis. 56 (9 of 16) 0 (0 of 10) 35 (9 of 26)
Page 25 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

environmental review, and handling the exacting requirements of section 

4(f). In our April report, we recommended that FHWA consider the benefits 

of the 13 most promising approaches and act to foster the adoption of the 

most cost effective and feasible approaches. FHWA generally agreed with 

this recommendation and stated that most, if not all, of the promising 

approaches coincide with the streamlining activities that the department 

and its partners, such as state departments of transportation and resource 

agencies, have been developing and implementing under section 1309 of 

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. We believe that acting on 

that recommendation will address some of the concerns identified by the 

environmental and transportation improvement stakeholders in this report. 

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided the Departments of Transportation and Interior with a draft of 

this report for their review and comment. The Department of 

Transportation responded that it had no comments, and the Department of 

Interior did not provide a response to our request for comments. We also 

provided Maryland and North Carolina with the portion of the draft report 

dealing with environmental review activities in their states. Maryland 

offered several technical comments, which we have incorporated into this 

report. North Carolina did not provide a response to our request for 

comments. 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the 

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to 

congressional committees with responsibilities for highway and 

environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of 

Defense; the Secretary of the Interior; the Administrator, Federal Highway 

Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We 

will also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be 

available at no charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov. 
Page 26 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at 

siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834. 

Key contributors to this report were Samer Abbas, Michelle Dresben, 

Brandon Haller, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Gail Marnik, Kristen Massey, and James 

Ratzenberger.

Sincerely yours,

Katherine Siggerud

Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Page 27 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenendxIdeisi

To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing 

environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. We discussed 

the activities involved, the time it takes to complete environmental reviews, 

and aspects that may increase the time it takes to complete such reviews 

with officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state 

departments of transportation, federal resource agencies, transportation 

advocacy organizations, environmental advocacy organizations, and 

historic preservation agencies. We also reviewed federal, state, and private 

studies on environmental reviews of transportation projects. 

To determine the activities required to complete environmental reviews of 

federally funded highway projects and the stakeholders involved in the 

reviews, we obtained information from FHWA, the Maryland Department of 

Transportation, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We 

chose these states because officials we interviewed identified these states 

as those that have studied their environmental review procedures and 

taken steps to improve the timeliness of environmental reviews. While the 

general requirements for an environmental impact statement (identify 

environmental features, evaluate alternatives, assess impacts, involve the 

public, etc.) are the same for all states, each state may implement the 

requirements differently. 

To determine stakeholders’ views on the aspects that frequently add undue 

time to environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects, we 

contacted 51 organizations with a role or interest in highway project 

environmental reviews. (See table 4.) Of these 51 organizations, officials 

from 39 agreed to participate in interviews, including federal and state 

agencies with responsibilities relating to the construction of federally 

funded roads, federal agencies with responsibilities relating to the 

protection of the environment, transportation engineering organizations, 

transportation professional associations, environmental organizations, and 

historic preservation organizations. To identify the 51 organizations, we 

initially contacted agencies and organizations that have a role or interest in 

highway project environmental reviews or that have been vocal on the 

issue. We asked these officials to identify, for subsequent interviews, other 

agencies or organizations undertaking or knowledgeable about 

environmental reviews. We continued to ask for names from the 

subsequent organizations until we began getting duplicate referrals. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Table 4: Organizations Contacted 

Organizations

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

American Highway Users Alliance

American Road and Transportation Builders Association

American Society of Civil Engineers

ARCADIS

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study

California Department of Transportation

Colorado Department of Transportation

Connecticut Department of Transportation

Conservation Law Foundation

Council for Environmental Quality

Defenders of Wildlife

Denver Regional Council of Governments

East-West Gateway Coordinating Council

Endangered Species Coalition

Environmental Defense 

Federal Highway Administration – Connecticut Division

Federal Highway Administration – Texas Division

Federal Highway Administration – Virginia Division

Florida Department of Transportation, Environmental Management Office

Indiana Department of Natural Resources

Institute of Transportation Engineers

Kentucky State Historical Preservation Office

Kentucky Transportation Cabineta

Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, Environmental Section

Maryland State Highway Administration, Project Planning Division

Metroplan

National Coalition to Defend NEPA

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers

Natural Resources Defense Council

National Trust for Historic Preservation

New Hampshire Department of Transportation, Environmental Bureau

North Carolina Department of Transportation, Planning and Environmental Office
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Source: GAO.

a

The official from the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet participated as part of a group of officials from 

the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in the semi-structured 

interview to identify aspects and individually in rating the frequency of aspects.

Using a semi-structured interview, we asked knowledgeable stakeholders 

at each of the 39 organizations to provide information about the aspects of 

laws, stakeholders’ behaviors, resource availability, or project management 

approaches, if any, that unduly add time to environmental reviews. We used 

these categories because they are related to components of the 

environmental review process. For each aspect cited, we asked 

stakeholders to provide information on (1) how the aspect leads to an 

undue increase in review time; (2) the positive and negative outcomes, if 

any; (3) at what stage in the review the aspect occurred; (4) an example and 

the amount of time it added to the review; and (5) the type of 

environmental review (e.g., categorical exclusion, environmental 

assessment, or environmental impact statement) where the aspect 

occurred. We did not define the term undue time but relied on the 

stakeholders’ professional judgment to determine which aspects added 

time that would not be added ordinarily. Most stakeholders did not provide 

estimates of the amount of time the aspect added to the review. 

To determine how frequently the aspects occur, we compiled a list of 43 

aspects identified by stakeholders as adding unnecessary time to 

Ohio Department of Transportation, Office of Environmental Services

Oregon Department of Transportation, Environmental Services Section

Parsons Brinckerhoff

Puget Sound Regional Council

R.J. Behar & Company, Inc.

South Carolina Department of Transportation

Surface Transportation Policy Project

Texas Department of Transportation, Environmental Affairs Division

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New Orleans District

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Program Activities

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pennsylvania Ecological Services Field Office

U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution

Vermont Agency of Transportation, Technical Service Unit

Vermont Division for Historic Preservation

Washington State Department of Transportation

(Continued From Previous Page)

Organizations
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

environmental reviews and asked each of the 39 stakeholders we 

interviewed to rate how frequently each aspect adds undue time to 

environmental reviews for highway projects involving categorical 

exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact 

statements using a scale of 1 to 5.1 Twenty-eight stakeholders agreed to 

participate in this segment of our work. The 11 stakeholders who did not 

participate in this segment chose not to do so for a variety of reasons. At 

least 25 stakeholders (89 percent) rated each of the 43 aspects. We 

identified the most significant aspects as those where a majority of the 

stakeholders responding to the question indicated it occurred frequently 

(more than half to all or almost all the time). 

Stakeholders made a significant distinction by type review in less than 8 

percent of all responses. We defined a significant distinction as a response 

that had a greater than 1 point difference (on the 1-5 scale) between the 

rating of either the categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, and 

environmental impact statements from the rating averages of responses for 

a given aspect.

We did not attempt to corroborate whether or not particular aspects 

actually occur or the reasons why stakeholders rated individual aspects as 

occurring more or less frequently. We conducted our work from November 

2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

1

1 = almost never or never; 2 = less than half of the time; 3 = about half of the time; 4 = more 

than half of the time; 5 = all or almost all of the time. Stakeholders could also indicate that 

they did not know or that the aspect was not relevant.
Page 31 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Appendix II

Environmental Reviews of Projects in 

Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement ApenIdxi

Figure 3 depicts the types and duration (assuming no significant 

disagreements with stakeholders at key decision points) of all federally 

required, environmental-related review activities (including those that may 

be undertaken prior to notice of intent and after record of decision) 

involved in the environmental review of federally funded highway projects 

in Maryland and North Carolina requiring an environmental impact 

statement.1

 State requirements are not depicted. The flowchart depicts 

Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation undertaking 

permit-related activities early in the process. Other states may not do so. 

Maryland and North Carolina carry out some environmental activities even 

before the first phase, such as considering whether environmental impacts 

are likely when they develop their state transportation improvement plan. 

Further, attention to environmental impacts may occur even after FHWA 

and permit agencies approve the project if the environmental analysis is 

challenged in court. 

1

The duration of environmental reviews involving environmental impact statements is 

typically determined by measuring the length of time between when FHWA notifies the 

public that detailed environmental review of a project is needed (notice of intent) to when 

FHWA issues its decision that projects have complied with environmental laws (record of 

decision). FHWA reports that for highway projects requiring an environmental impact 

statement and for which FHWA signed a record of decision in 2001, environmental review 

took an average of approximately 5 years from notice of intent to record of decision. The 

flowchart should not be interpreted as suggesting that environmental review of projects (as 

measured from notice of intent to record of decision) in Maryland and North Carolina 

typically takes 7 years or more.
Appendix II

Environmental Reviews of Projects in 

Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement

Page 32 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Figure 3: Activities Involved in Completing Environmental Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North Carolina Requiring 

Environmental Impact Statements

ACHP: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (historic resources)

EIS: Environmental impact statement

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency (air and water quality;

 wetlands preservation)

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency (floodplains)

FHWA: Federal Highway Administration (financing, technical

 assistance, ensuring compliance with NEPA)

FS: Forest Service (national forest resources)

Total time: North Carolina 10.5 years; Maryland 7 years (assumes no significant disagreement; not to scale)

Consider 

likely 

environmental

impacts in 

STIP

Source: GAO's analysis of data from Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation.

Events related to environmental review

Events not related to environmental review

Events related to permit review

Identify alternatives and 

assess environmental impacts

Develop an understanding of

expected environmental impacts

Potential stakeholders Permit activities NEPA activities

Gain approval on draft EIS

and select preferred alternative

YES

YES YES

Revise draft EIS

NO

Draft EIS

approved

Select

alternatives

for detailed

study

Identify

and

develop

preliminary

alternatives

Develop

preliminary

design

Obtain 

environmental

information

Public

notice

Develop

transportation

purpose 

and need

Identify

project

need

Assess

environmental

impacts

Hold public

hearing on

corridor

and design

issues

Prepare

draft EIS

FHWA

Municipal

governments

Public 

County

governments

State

legislators

Regional

planning

agencies

12 months 9 months 12 months 24 months 9 months 7 months

5 months

North

Carolina

Maryland 1 month 15 months 4 months 3 months 9 months

Public

notice

Public FHWA FHWA FHWA FHWA

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

Resolve differences Resolve differences

NO NO

Environmental activities

• State identifies a reasonable range of alternatives to the 

project, including not building the project.

• State obtains and evaluates public and agency feedback 

 on alternatives identified. 

• State selects alternatives for detailed study.

• If permits are required, then state requests concurrence 

 within 30 days from resource agencies on alternatives 

 selected (for Maryland applies only to section 404 permits).

• State resolves differences on alternatives selected, if any, 

 with resource agencies.

• State develops preliminary design, including measures to

 avoid, minimize or mitigate environmental impacts for all

 alternatives selected.

• State identifies and assesses impact of alternatives on historical/ 

 archaeological sites, natural resources and endangered species.

Environmental activities

• State considers likely environmental impacts, including those

 identified during development of the STIP.

• State includes project in STIP after receiving public and 

 agency feedback. 

• State identifies essential environmental features, including 

 historical and archaeological sites and natural resources.

• FHWA notifies public that detailed environmental review is 

 needed (called notice of intent).

• State obtains public and agency feedback on purpose and need,

 scope of project and environmental features affected.

• If permits are required, then state requests concurrence within

 15 days from resource agencies on purpose and need (for

 Maryland applies only to section 404 permits).

• State resolves differences on purpose and need, if any, with

 resource agencies.

FHWA

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

Environmental activities

• State prepares draft EIS, including

 alternatives selected, environmental

 impacts identified, and mitigation 

 measures planned.

• FHWA reviews and approves draft EIS

 proposal for compliance with NEPA.

• State submits section 404 and other

 permit applications (such as for coastal

 management) to responsible

 agencies, where applicable.

• State holds public hearing and

 circulates draft EIS and permit

 applications for a minimum of 45 days

 for public and agency comment on the

 state’s environmental review efforts.

Apply for 

section 404 

 and other 

permits

Agree on

purpose and 

need

Agree on

alternatives 

for detailed

study
Appendix II

Environmental Reviews of Projects in 

Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement

Page 33 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

FWS: Fish and Wildlife Service (endangered species) 

NEPA: National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

NMFS: National Marine Fisheries Service (fish and 

 spawning grounds)

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 (coastal resources)

NPS: National Park Service (archaeological, cultural and

 historic resources in national parks)

STIP: State Transportation Improvement Program

USACE: Army Corps of Engineers (water resources,

 including wetlands) 

USCG: Coast Guard (bridge and navigation responsibilities)

Gain final approval for environmental analysis and permits

YES YES

Approve/

issue final

EIS

Select

preferred

alternative

Issue

record of

decision

30-day

public 

notice of

final EIS

Prepare

final

EIS

Develop

additional

avoidance and

minimization

efforts

Complete

right-ofway

design

plans

Potential stakeholders Permit activities NEPA activities

Environmental activities

• State prepares final EIS, including preferred alternative.

• FHWA reviews state’s final EIS proposal for compliance with NEPA.

• FHWA circulates final EIS for a minimum of 30 days for 

 public and agency comment.

• FHWA issues its decision on whether the project complies with NEPA 

 (called record of decision).

• State submits final section 404 and other permit applications (such as 

 for coastal management) to responsible agencies, where applicable.

• Resource agencies decide whether to issue permits.

• State resolves differences on final environmental review efforts, 

 if any, with resource agencies.

Gain approval on draft EIS

and select preferred alternative

...cont'd

YES

YES

Revise final EIS

NO

Resolve differences

NO

29 months

36 months

24 months

12 months

Resource

agencies

review

applications

FHWA FHWA FHWA FHWA Public FHWA

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

FHWA

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

FHWA

ACHP

EPA

FEMA

FWS

NMFS

NOAA

NPS

USACE

USCG

FS

State

agencies

 Public

Resolve differences Resolve differences

NO NO

Final

public

notice

Permit

decision

Complete

right-of-way 

acquisition and 

begin final plan

preparation

Environmental activities (continued)

• State obtains and evaluates public and

 agency feedback on preferred alternative.

• State selects preferred alternative.

• If permits are required then state requests 

 concurrence within 30 days on preferred

 alternatives (for Maryland applies only to

 section 404 permits).

• State resolves differences on preferred

 alternative, if any, with resource agencies.

• State addresses compensatory mitigation

 options.

• Responsible federal agencies review 

 permit applications.

Apply for 

section 404 

 and other 

permits

Submit 

final 

section 404 

 and other 

permits

Agree on

preferred 

alternative

Resolve any 

lawsuits, 

funding, or other 

issues/ begin 

construction
Appendix II

Environmental Reviews of Projects in 

Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an 

Environmental Impact Statement

Page 34 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Note: Activities not related to environmental review were compressed and can take a significant 

amount of time. According to FHWA, it typically takes between 9 to 19 years to plan, gain approval for, 

and construct a new, major federally funded highway project that has significant environmental 

impacts.
Page 35 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews ApenIdxi

Stakeholders with different primary interests or responsibilities typically 

had divergent views about aspects that unduly add time to environmental 

reviews. (See table 5.)

Table 5: Frequency of Occurrences of Aspects That Unduly Add Time to the Environmental Review, as Identified by 

Stakeholders, by Rating and Type of Stakeholder 

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 

State departments of 

transportation and federal 

resource agencies lack sufficient 

staff to handle their 

responsibilities in a timely 

manner. 5 1 3 1 11 3 2 0 26

The section 4(f) requirement that 

the state departments of 

transportation prove there is no 

prudent and feasible alternative 

is burdensome to a state 

department of transportation 3 0 6 1 9 1 6 0 26

State departments of 

transportation go to great 

lengths to avoid a project on 

public lands because they 

regard section 4(f) as too difficult 

to accommodate. 4 0 4 2 8 2 6 0 26

National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 and federal and 

state environmental and historic 

preservation laws are not 

administered concurrently. 4 1 5 0 7 3 5 1 26

State departments of 

transportation lack the ability to 

absorb budget increases from 

the Transportation Equity Act for 

the 21st Century. 3 0 2 5 8 3 4 1 26

FHWA has changed its role from 

being a “leader” to being a 

“facilitator.” 2 1 4 3 8 2 6 0 26
Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Page 36 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Section 4(f) standards do not 

associate requirements with the 

level of impact a project has on a 

historic resource. 2 1 5 2 8 3 5 0 26

State departments of 

transportation do not include 

important stakeholders early in 

the environmental review. 7 1 3 0 3 2 11 0 27

State historical preservation 

offices are not able to complete 

surveys of state historic 

resources and/or maintain 

database of historic properties 

due to resource constraints. 4 2 2 3 6 1 6 3 27

State departments of 

transportation do not consider 

environmental and historic 

impacts early enough in the 

environmental review. 7 0 3 0 2 1 13 0 26

Section 404 causes delays since 

it values water resources over 

other resources leading state 

departments of transportation to 

complete time-consuming 

analysis. 0 3 3 4 9 3 4 0 26

State departments of 

transportation and federal 

resource agencies are unable to 

maintain institutional expertise 

due to staff turnover. 3 1 4 2 6 4 5 1 26

State departments of 

transportation underestimate 

project costs and the review 

stalls while state seeks funding. 5 0 2 3 3 2 11 0 26

State departments of 

transportation and resource 

agencies do not provide agency 

comments in a timely manner. 1 2 6 1 7 1 8 0 26

(Continued From Previous Page)

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 
Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Page 37 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Federal environmental 

protection laws do not 

accommodate local 

transportation needs so 

additional coordination required 

to consider local needs. 1 1 6 1 6 1 8 1 25

A resource agency’s 

antitransportation agenda leads 

it to use permitting authority as a 

means of delaying transportation 

projects. 0 1 8 0 7 5 4 0 25

Advocacy groups use 

environmental laws as means to 

delay or stop projects even when 

their disagreement is not over 

environmental issues. 1 1 7 0 6 3 6 1 25

FHWA does not delegate 

approval authority to state 

departments of transportation 

for projects involving lower levels 

of environmental review. 2 0 3 5 5 1 8 2 26

Resource agencies wait until 

permitting requires their action 

to express concerns and 

opinions about a proposed 

project. 2 0 8 0 5 4 6 1 26

State departments of 

transportation and resource 

agencies interpret laws and 

regulations differently. 2 2 5 0 4 4 7 1 25

State laws protecting certain 

resources conflict with section 

404 regulations. 2 1 5 2 4 1 10 0 25

State departments of 

transportation and resource 

agency leaders follow personal 

agendas to the point where each 

decision must be elevated to 

headquarters for resolution. 0 0 8 1 6 2 7 1 25

(Continued From Previous Page)

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 
Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Page 38 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Issues are revisited because 

state departments of 

transportation and resource 

agencies back out of 

agreements or do not follow 

through on promises made. 0 1 7 1 6 3 7 0 25

Groups opposing a 

transportation project do not use 

public hearings to express 

concerns with a project but wait 

until after the environmental 

review is completed to file 

lawsuits. 1 2 5 1 5 1 10 0 25

Section 404 evaluates created 

and natural wetlands similarly so 

state departments of 

transportation must complete 

similar environmental reviews, 

regardless of environmental 

value. 0 1 5 4 6 1 9 0 26

State departments of 

transportation may have to wait 

up to a year or more for the 

appropriate season to 

demonstrate existence of 

species. 2 0 3 4 3 6 6 1 25

The permit application process 

is sequential. 1 2 3 4 4 0 10 2 26

Inadequate staff at FHWA 

division offices and state 

departments of transportation 

leads to inadequate 

environmental analysis. 3 0 3 4 2 3 10 1 26

State departments of 

transportation and resource 

agencies lack way to resolve 

disagreements about traffic 

models. 3 2 5 1 2 3 10 1 27

(Continued From Previous Page)

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 
Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Page 39 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

State departments of 

transportation and resource 

agencies do not work to resolve 

technical and analytical 

differences. 0 3 8 0 5 3 7 1 27

The National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 process does 

not readily accommodate 

unexpected issues during 

existing reviews. 1 1 5 2 3 1 12 0 25

Resource agency centralization 

of permit approval adds another 

level of review. 1 0 3 6 3 2 9 2 26

Environmental reviews are heldup because changes in state or 

local political leadership alters 

project’s priority and funding. 3 0 5 2 1 2 13 0 26

State departments of 

transportation fail to consult with 

Native American tribes during 

the environmental process. 3 1 3 3 0 1 12 3 26

FHWA division offices do not 

adequately verify state 

departments of transportation 

environmental categorization or 

oversee state review process. 3 2 4 1 0 1 15 0 26

Resource agencies and state 

departments of transportation 

are unable to communicate due 

to a lack of common 

understanding of technical 

terms. 2 2 4 2 1 1 13 1 26

Federal resource agencies’ lack 

of technical resources hampers 

their analytic performance. 1 4 3 2 2 5 8 1 26

(Continued From Previous Page)

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 
Appendix III

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly 

Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Page 40 GAO-03-534 Highway Project Environmental Review

Source: GAO analysis of Responses from 28 stakeholders.

a

Environmental stakeholders include federal resource agencies, environmental advocacy 

organizations, and state historic preservation agencies.

b

Transportation improvement stakeholders include transportation advocacy organizations, state 

departments of transportation, and FHWA division offices.

State departments of 

transportation find it difficult to 

resolve conflicting criteria 

inherent in projects covered 

under section 4(f) and section 

106. 1 0 9 1 2 4 10 0 27

State departments of 

transportation misclassify level 

of environmental review. 2 1 5 2 0 1 15 0 26

FHWA will require the state 

departments of transportation to 

conduct additional analysis of 

project alternatives that a state 

department of transportation 

has already discarded. 0 1 5 4 2 3 10 1 26

Resource agency field offices do 

not consult with headquarters to 

resolve disputes. 0 0 3 7 2 2 9 3 26

Metropolitan planning 

organizations and state 

departments of transportation 

struggle over leadership. 0 0 3 7 1 0 13 1 25

State departments of 

transportation don’t prioritize 

projects by size. 0 0 2 8 1 1 11 3 26

(Continued From Previous Page)

Aspects identified by 

stakeholders

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with environmental and historic 

preservation issuesa indicating that 

aspect occurs:

Number of stakeholders primarily 

affiliated with transportation 

improvement issuesb indicating that 

aspect occurs:

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant

More 

than half 

the time

About 

half the

time

Less 

than half 

the time

or

never

Did not 

know

/not 

relevant Total 

(542014)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO 

Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00