United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

April 25, 2008 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Subject: Highways and Environment: Transportation Agencies Are Acting to 

Involve Others in Planning and Environmental Decisions 

Dear Senator Inhofe: 

Meeting the nation’s mobility needs requires constructing, improving, and repairing 

roads and bridges. However, these actions can have serious environmental 

impacts, such as harming water quality and wildlife and their habitats. The federal 

government’s policy is to carry out federally funded highway projects in an 

environmentally responsible manner, as directed by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and other environmental and natural resource 

protection laws. The environmental review of projects, as required by the act, 

involves identifying and assessing environmental impacts; evaluating alternatives; 

seeking input, and in some cases approvals, from federal and state agencies 

responsible for natural resources, environmental protection, and historic 

preservation (referred to hereafter as resource agencies); and obtaining approval 

from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These reviews provide 

important environmental protections, yet it is generally agreed that it often takes 

too long to complete the most complex highway projects and the environmental 

review is the most time-consuming aspect.1

 

In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A 

Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) made a number of changes to the planning and 

environmental review processes required of state and local transportation agencies. 

These changes were intended to facilitate more efficient reviews of transportation 

projects, allowing them to be completed more quickly without diminishing 

environmental protections. For example, since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, federal 

law has required that state departments of transportation and metropolitan 

 1

GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Perceptions of Stakeholders on Approaches to Reduce Highway 

Project Completion Time, GAO-03-398 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 2003). 

GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
planning organizations2

 (MPO) consult with federal and state resource agencies, among 

other things, in developing their long-range transportation plans. The law also requires 

that agencies charged with gaining environmental approval (such as FHWA and the state 

departments of transportation that sponsor the projects—called lead agencies) of the 

most complex highway projects—those requiring environmental impact statements 

(EIS)—invite resource agencies that have an interest in the project to participate in 

defining the purpose and need for the project, the alternatives to be considered, and the 

methodology for conducting the environmental review. The law also imposes a limit of 

180 days for the filing of a lawsuit challenging final federal agency decisions, including 

environmental decisions, on a highway project. These activities were not required 

before SAFETEA-LU was enacted. 

You asked that we assess whether the changes Congress envisioned for transportation 

planning and the environmental review and approval of highway projects are being 

effectively carried out. Accordingly, we assessed (1) the progress that selected state 

departments of transportation, MPOs, and FHWA have made in incorporating 

environmental considerations in transportation planning and (2) the progress that 

selected states and FHWA have made in implementing changes in the environmental 

review of highway projects. We focused our work on six states, which we chose based 

on geographic diversity and their varying amounts of experience with implementing the 

new transportation planning and environmental review requirements. For the most part, 

our assessments were based on interviews of federal, state, and local agency officials 

responsible for the implementation of SAFETEA-LU changes within those states, since 

the agencies were still in the early stages of implementing these changes and little data 

were available.3

 In addition, as part of our work on changes in environmental reviews, 

we gathered information on the implementation of SAFETEA-LU’s provisions which 

allow for state departments of transportation to assume responsibility for determining 

that certain highway projects that will not have a significant impact on the environment 

(e.g., maintenance of existing highways) as well as a pilot program which allows certain 

states the ability to assume all or part of FHWA’s environmental review responsibilities. 

We briefed your office on March 13, 2008, on the results of our work, which this report 

transmits. A copy of the briefing is enclosed. (See encl. I.) The slides have been 

updated to reflect current status. 

 2

MPOs are organizations that include representatives of local governments for the purpose of 

transportation planning and coordination of highway and transit projects. According to FHWA, there are 

almost 400 MPOs nationwide. 

3

We interviewed state department of transportation officials; one MPO in the most populous, urbanized 

area in each state; and officials of two to three federal and state resource agencies responsible for 

resources within each state. See the scope and methodology section at the end of this letter on why our 

work was limited to a small number of states and MPOs and for further information on how we selected

states and agencies to cover. 

2 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
Results in Brief 

All six state departments of transportation and the six MPOs that we contacted are 

taking or considering initial steps to incorporate environmental considerations into longrange transportation planning, and FHWA has carried out a number of implementation 

and educational activities to guide their efforts. Four of these agencies (two state 

departments of transportation and two MPOs) have issued long-range plans that comply 

with the post-SAFETEA-LU planning requirements, according to FHWA. 4 The others 

expect to do so by 2010, in line with their planning cycles. Several of the transportation 

planners and most of the resource agencies5

 told us that getting early input from

resource agencies could be beneficial in identifying potentially affected resources at an 

early stage so that mitigation or avoidance measures, if needed, could be identified early. 

However, they cited several challenges in getting such input, most notably (1) the limited 

availability of funding and staff at resource agencies;6

 (2) limited incentives for resource 

agencies to contribute during planning, since early involvement is not part of these 

agencies’ missions or experience; and (3) unfamiliarity on the part of resource agencies 

and planners with each other’s roles and processes. State department of transportation 

and MPO planners’ progress in developing consultation relationships with resource 

agencies has varied, and those that had strong prior relationships with resource agencies 

are advancing more quickly. For example, the North Carolina Department of 

Transportation told us it had started consulting with resource agencies as part of its 

planning process in 2004—before SAFETEA-LU was enacted. FHWA’s implementation 

and educational activities include issuing regulations and guidance, disseminating 

leading practices, presenting Web-based seminars and other educational activities, and 

conducting oversight of state department of transportation and MPO transportation 

planning activities. State departments of transportation, MPOs, and other stakeholders 

that we contacted generally gave positive reviews of FHWA’s efforts. According to 

FHWA officials, because of the long-term nature of the transportation planning process, 

it will likely take years before any benefits from these changes are apparent. 

The six state departments of transportation that we contacted are implementing the 

revised environmental review requirements for all applicable highway projects, and 

FHWA has carried out a number of activities to promote and guide implementation.7

 

Specifically, for the 24 new highway projects in these states that require EISs, these 

agencies are taking steps to enhance the involvement of resource agencies and develop 

plans to coordinate and schedule their involvement. State departments of 

 4

FHWA does not collect this information nationwide. 

5

Because we performed our work at a small number of states and MPOs (six of each), for the most part we

did not attempt to quantify our findings. 

6

Federal funding is available for transportation-related positions at resource agencies and, if approved by

FHWA, is taken out of the state’s normal share of federal-aid highway funds. In 2005, the American

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) surveyed all 50 states and reported 

that 68 percent of them fund positions at resource agencies. Two-thirds of these positions were at state 

resource agencies and the remainder were at federal resource agencies. 

7

According to FHWA, 109 projects nationwide fall under these requirements. 

3 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
transportation, resource agencies, and other transportation stakeholders recognized 

potential benefits from the 2005 act, such as (1) improved project management, (2) an 

increased likelihood of weeding out flawed alternatives early, and (3) increased 

opportunities for resource agencies to be informed and involved. Challenges to 

implementing the post-SAFETEA-LU environmental review requirements in these six 

states include resource agencies’ limited resources and limited knowledge about their 

changed role. Some state departments of transportation fund positions at resource 

agencies to help complete environmental reviews, using their federal-aid funds, and 

FHWA is studying best practices for doing so. FHWA’s implementation and educational 

activities include issuing guidance; conducting outreach to federal, state, and local 

agencies to familiarize them with SAFETEA-LU’s changes; disseminating leading 

practices through its Web site; and conducting oversight of the environmental review 

activities of state departments of transportation. As with the revised planning 

provisions, state officials we contacted generally viewed FHWA’s activities positively. In 

addition, the agency is considering developing performance measures to monitor the 

implementation and impacts of changes made by SAFETEA-LU in environmental 

reviews. However, it will likely take at least 3 to 5 years before impacts can be 

determined. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation and five federal 

resource agencies that have been involved in SAFETEA-LU implementation and that are 

responsible for resources important to the states we contacted. The department and 

two of the resource agencies agreed with the draft report, while the other three resource 

agencies did not express an overall opinion. 

Background 

Federal funding for highway projects represents a large investment—about $40 billion in 

fiscal year 2007. In addition, states will likely invest about $8 billion in fiscal year 2007 

for federally funded highway projects. Federally funded highway projects are typically 

completed in four phases: 

(1) Planning. State departments of transportation and MPOs assess the need for a 

project in relation to other potential highway project needs. 

(2) Preliminary design and environmental review. State departments of 

transportation identify potential solutions based on needs identified during 

planning, potential environmental and social effects, project cost, and 

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

potential alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative.

(3) Final design and right-of-way acquisition. State departments of transportation

finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate residents and businesses. 

(4) Construction. State departments of transportation award construction contracts, 

oversee construction, and accept the completed project.

4 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
FHWA plays a key role in funding and overseeing the completion of highway projects. In 

addition to providing financial assistance for state departments of transportation to build 

and improve highways and roads, typically equal to about 80 percent of the cost, FHWA 

establishes standards for transportation planning, project design, environmental review, 

and construction. FWHA also provides state agencies with planning and design support 

for federally funded highway projects. State departments of transportation, in 

coordination with MPOs, are responsible for planning, designing, and completing these 

projects. 

Federal law requires that state departments of transportation, along with MPOs, develop 

long-range plans, covering at least 20 years, for their vision of transportation needs for 

their states and metropolitan areas, respectively. Additionally, state departments of 

transportation and MPOs are required to develop shorter-term transportation plans 

(typically covering 4 years) that identify specific projects to be funded.8

 

The review of potential environmental impacts is an important step and must be 

completed before state departments of transportation begin building federally funded 

highway projects or projects that require a federal permit or approval.9

 Specifically, state 

departments of transportation must assess the consequences of transportation projects 

and possible alternatives on the natural and human (e.g., health and community impacts) 

environment and historic properties. For the small number of projects that FHWA 

deems to have a significant impact on the environment—about 7 percent of all highway 

projects in 2005 (latest data available)—the state department of transportation prepares 

an EIS, which FHWA must approve before the project can be built.10 The EIS describes 

the project, characterizes the surrounding environment, analyzes the environmental 

impacts of a range of project alternatives, and indicates plans for complying with 

environmental laws and mitigating any environmental damage caused by the project. 

(See fig. 1.) Federal resource agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation, and their state counterparts, participate in and review these 

detailed assessments of environmental impacts, in accordance with their responsibilities 

 8

The state departments of transportation develop Statewide Transportation Improvement Programs (STIP). 

MPOs develop similar short-term plans, called Transportation Improvement Programs, which feed into the

STIPs.

9

Permits are written approvals for projects which may impact the environment. For example, permits

would be required for highway projects that potentially impact water quality. 

10For highway projects for which there is no significant environmental impact, the time required for 

environmental approval is much less. A highway project that is expected to have a minimal environmental

impact may qualify for a categorical exclusion, requiring a more limited environmental review. Categorical

exclusions represent 84 percent of highway projects. If it is unclear whether a project will have a

significant environmental impact, the state department of transportation must conduct an environmental 

assessment (9 percent of highway projects), which currently takes a median time of 26 months to 

complete, according to FHWA. 

5 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
under federal or state laws. (See table 1 for examples of the responsibilities of resource 

agencies relating to the environmental review of federal highway projects.11) 

Figure 1: Examples of Efforts to Mitigate Potential Harm to Wildlife 

Table 1: Examples of Federal Resource Agency Responsibilities in Environmental Reviews of Highway 

Projects 

Agency Responsibility

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Reviews and facilitates agreement on projects to ensure that 

preservation values are factored into projects

Army Corps of Engineers Reviews and approves projects, through issuing a permit, that 

affect navigable waters, in coordination with NEPA reviews

Environmental Protection Agency Reviews and comments on the environmental impacts of major 

federal actions for which an EIS is required 

Fish and Wildlife Service Provides technical assistance to help maintain the sustainability 

of fish and wildlife and their habitats 

Source: GAO.

For federal highway projects requiring an EIS, FHWA is a steward of the process and 

responsible for ensuring that the statement is in compliance with applicable 

environmental laws and other requirements. FHWA is the lead federal agency and 

supports the project applicant—typically the state department of transportation—which 

participates as a joint lead agency. The state department of transportation is responsible 

for producing the environmental documentation for a highway project, whereas FHWA 

guides the process to ensure appropriate scope and the content of the documentation. 

FHWA also is responsible for ensuring that the EIS contains documentation on 

coordination with the appropriate federal, state, and local resource agencies and the 

public. EPA is responsible for reviewing and commenting on all major federal actions 

 11See app. II of GAO, Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders’ Views on Time to Conduct Environmental 

Reviews of Highway Projects, GAO-03-534 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2003), for examples of other 

resource agencies that may play a role in the environmental review of highway projects.

6 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
for which an EIS is required and working with FWHA to ensure that environmental 

statutes are met. FHWA has the final approval and determines when the statement is in 

compliance with applicable environmental laws and other requirements. 

Because of the complex and often controversial issues involved, the data that need to be 

analyzed, and the number of stakeholders involved, it typically takes years for an EIS to 

be completed and approved. According to FHWA, these reviews have taken an average 

of about 6 years since fiscal year 1999 and about 12 percent of them have taken longer 

than 10 years. (See fig. 2.) For EISs approved in 2007, the average time taken to 

complete the statements and gain approval was about 7 years, according to FHWA.12

Figure 2: Completion Times for EISs by Fiscal Year 

Note: Completion times are for the year in which the EIS was approved. This figure does not include any highway projects 

requiring EISs initiated after the enactment of SAFETEA-LU, because none have progressed to this point. 

Concerns about the time taken to complete environmental reviews led to congressional 

and executive branch efforts to make environmental reviews more efficient and timely 

without diminishing environmental protections. Congress included provisions to make 

environmental reviews more efficient and timely in adopting the 1998 Transportation 

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). For example, these provisions required FHWA 

to work cooperatively with federal resource agencies to establish project time frames 

 12We have reported on issues involving environmental reviews in transportation planning and the time 

taken to complete environmental reviews; see GAO, Transportation Planning: State and Metropolitan 

Planning Agencies Report Using Varied Methods to Consider Ecosystem Conservation, GAO-04-536

(Washington, D.C.: May 17, 2004); GAO-03-534; Environmental Protection: Federal Planning 

Requirements for Transportation and Air Quality Protection Could Potentially Be More Efficient and 

Better Linked, GAO-03-581 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 2003); and GAO-03-398.

7 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
and to meet these agreed-upon time frames. The law allows state agencies to participate 

in these efforts. Finally, FHWA may approve requests from states to use their federal-aid 

highway funds to provide additional resource agency personnel dedicated to conducting 

environmental reviews of transportation projects in order to expedite these reviews.13

 

SAFETEA-LU made further changes to expedite highway project decision making and 

completion while continuing to ensure environmental protection. In the transportation 

planning stage, the act made changes to enhance consideration of environmental issues 

by states and MPOs during planning in order to identify and potentially avoid or

minimize impacts on resources and thereby facilitate more efficient environmental 

reviews of individual projects. Key changes include the following: 

• State departments of transportation and MPOs must consult with federal, state 

and local resource agencies in developing their long-range transportation plans, 

using available resource plans and data.14 Such consultation was not required 

before SAFETEA-LU, but some agencies may have done so. 

• Consultation with resource agencies should include discussions of potential 

environmental mitigation activities, and the results of these discussions are to be 

included in long-range plans. Such consultation was not required before 

SAFETEA-LU. 

In the environmental review stage, the act made changes to enhance the involvement of 

resource agencies, better define roles and responsibilities, and limit time frames for 

challenging agency decisions in order to facilitate more efficient and timely decision 

making about highway projects, while protecting environmental resources.15 The 

legislation, however, did not change the mission of resource agencies. 

Key changes, which state departments of transportation generally carry out with FHWA 

participation, include the following: 

• Established a new category of involved resource agencies, known as participating 

agencies, which can be any agency with an interest in a highway project, allowing

involvement from a broader range of interested parties. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, 

agencies with jurisdiction either through law or special expertise (called 

“cooperating agencies”) were to be involved; SAFETEA-LU broadened 

 13In addition, Executive Order 13274 was issued in 2002 to promote the development and implementation 

of transportation infrastructure projects in an efficient and environmentally sound manner. An

interagency task force oversees the implementation of the order and monitors the environmental reviews

of certain high-priority projects. This task force is composed of officials from the Departments of

Agriculture, Commerce, Interior, Defense, and Transportation; EPA; the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation; and the Council on Environmental Quality. 

14States and MPOs are not required to update their long-range plans out of their normal planning cycles to

comply with SAFETEA-LU changes, but must comply in any update of their plans after July 1, 2007. 

15These changes apply to projects for which environmental impact statement reviews were initiated after

the law was enacted. 

8 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
participation to include those that may not qualify as cooperating agencies but 

may still have an interest in the project. 

• Required plans for coordinating public and agency participation in and comment 

on environmental reviews of projects. Prior to SAFETEA-LU, coordination with 

the public and agencies with jurisdiction was required, but plans for this 

coordination were not required. 

• Provided participating agencies and the public with an opportunity for early 

involvement in defining a project’s purpose and need and in developing 

alternatives. This was not required prior to SAFETEA-LU although it may have 

occurred. 

• Encouraged collaboration between state departments of transportation and 

participating agencies on methodologies for conducting environmental reviews. 

This was not required prior to SAFETEA-LU although it may have occurred. 

• Imposed a 180-day limit on filing lawsuits that challenge final federal agency 

decisions, including environmental decisions.16 Prior to SAFETEA-LU, lawsuits 

could be filed as much as 6 years after the decision. 

Through these new transportation planning and environmental review requirements, 

SAFETEA-LU strengthened linkages between (1) transportation planning by states and 

MPOs and (2) environmental issues affecting decisions about individual highway 

projects resulting from environmental reviews. The new requirements also provided 

opportunities for resource agencies to play a greater role in these activities to achieve 

more efficient decision making on environmental issues related to transportation 

projects. Overall, these strengthened linkages promote a more integrated approach to 

transportation planning, environmental reviews, and the incorporation of resource 

agency input. (See fig. 3.) 

 16The 180-day limitation is triggered by the publication of a notice in the Federal Register announcing a 

final federal agency action, such as the issuance of a permit or approval. FHWA division offices, in

consultation with state departments of transportation and other joint lead agencies, decide whether to 

publish this notice. FHWA’s interpretation of this provision gives it and state departments of 

transportation discretion in deciding whether, and when, to apply this limit to highway project decisions. 

9 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
Figure 3: Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-LU 

Resource

agencies

Source: GAO adaptation of FHWA graphic.

Individual 

highway project 

decisions

Statewide and 

metropolitan 

transportation 

planning

Greater integration of 

transportation planning and 

project-level decisions

Early con rly consultation to tion to 

inentify environment inentify environmental

concern concerns

Early consultation to 

identify environmental 

concerns

Enhanced participation in tion in 

environment environmental reviewsto 

have better, more efficient etter, more efficient 

decision-making on 

environment environmental issues

Enhanced participation in 

environmental reviews to 

have better, more efficient 

decision making on 

environmental issues

SAFETEA-LU added other requirements to make environmental reviews more efficient 

and allow state departments of transportation to assume greater responsibility for 

federal environmental requirements related to highway projects. These provisions, 

among others, include (1) allowing state departments of transportation, with FHWA 

approval and monitoring, and using criteria established by FHWA, to assume the 

responsibility for determining whether certain highway projects (designated in 

regulations or approved by FHWA) will not have a significant impact on the 

environment, referred to as categorical exclusions;17 and (2) establishing a pilot 

program—called the surface transportation project delivery pilot program—that allows 

up to five designated states, with agreement from FHWA and subject to FHWA’s periodic 

review, to assume FHWA’s environmental responsibilities for highway projects under 

NEPA and other federal laws.18 For a state’s assumption of categorical exclusion 

authority and the pilot program, the terms of the state’s authority are specified in a 

memorandum of understanding with FHWA. SAFETEA-LU further allows for financial 

 17To assume this responsibility, the state department of transportation must waive its sovereign immunity 

and enter into a memorandum of understanding with FWHA. Sovereign immunity refers to governments’, 

including state governments’, right not to be sued without consent. 

18These states, if interested in participating in the pilot program, include Alaska, California, Ohio, 

Oklahoma, and Texas. 

10 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
assistance to affected federal, state, or tribal agencies to support activities that expedite 

and improve transportation project planning and the completion of individual highway 

projects.19

 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation and to five federal 

resource agencies that have been involved in SAFETEA-LU implementation and that are 

responsible for resources important to the states we contacted: the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior, EPA, 

and the Forest Service. The Department of the Interior provided a response for FWS and 

other agencies of that department that we had dealt with. The Advisory Council , 

Interior, and the Forest Service agreed with the draft report, while the other three 

agencies did not express an overall opinion. The Department of Transportation and EPA 

provided several technical and clarifying comments, which we included where 

appropriate. 

Scope and Methodology 

To determine the progress made in implementing key changes called for by SAFETEALU in transportation planning to incorporate environmental considerations and in 

environmental reviews of highway projects, we reviewed the act and its legislative 

history and FHWA regulations and other guidance and documentation. In addition, we 

interviewed officials of FHWA headquarters, organizations representing transportation 

and environmental interests, FHWA division offices, and state departments of 

transportation and MPOs20 in six states—Alabama, Iowa, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, 

and Utah. We chose these states based on geographic diversity and their varying 

amounts of experience with implementing the new transportation planning and 

environmental review requirements. To determine states’ experience with these 

requirements, we considered their level of experience with the development of EISs 

since SAFETEA-LU was enacted, their usage of the 180-day limitation on lawsuits 

challenging highway project environmental approvals since the limitation became law, 

and the extent of the changes the state needed to carry out in order to comply with 

planning and environmental review requirements added by SAFETEA-LU.21 We used 

 19This requirement explicitly authorizes funding for a broader set of activities than did TEA-21, but retains

similar conditions on the approval of funding. Funding may now be used for a variety of project-specific 

and more general activities—including transportation planning—as long as these activities contribute to 

expediting the review of projects that are subject to the revised environmental review process. 

20We did not discuss the implementation of environmental review requirements added by SAFETEA-LU 

with MPOs, since they generally are not involved in these reviews. 

21We excluded two leading states, California and Florida, from the above efforts. California has unique

state requirements and procedures for planning and environmental reviews. FHWA exempted Florida

from the new environmental review provisions. States that re-engineered their environmental review

process to streamline transportation decision making under section 1309 of TEA-21 could request a 

“grandfathering” exemption to continue operating under their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes. Only Florida 

requested this exemption and this request was approved by FHWA.

11 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
information from the six states for illustrative purposes—we cannot generalize the 

experiences of these states to nationwide efforts. We obtained information from one 

MPO and two to three resource agencies responsible for natural and historic resources in 

each of the six states in our study. We chose the MPOs in the most populous, urbanized 

areas of each of the states, potentially with the highest volume of highway projects, for 

our review. We selected resource agencies responsible for resources important to the 

state and also considered their frequency of interaction with state departments of 

transportation and MPOs on transportation planning and environmental reviews and 

chose at least one federal resource agency in each of the states. Additionally, we 

interviewed headquarters officials of key federal resource agencies. We also interviewed

a California Department of Transportation official about the department’s assumption of 

all federal environmental review responsibilities, since California is the only state to date 

to assume these responsibilities. See enclosure II for a list of organizations contacted. 

We gathered much of the information for this report through interviews because data on 

the implementation of SAFETEA-LU’s changes are limited. In addition, it was not 

practical to gather information from a large number of states and MPOs and resource 

agencies that interact with them. Given that states and MPOs were not required to 

incorporate SAFETEA-LU’s transportation planning provisions until they amended or 

updated their transportation plans on or after July 1, 2007, many of the states are just 

starting to implement these provisions. We did not review the implementation of 

significant changes made by SAFETEA-LU in environmental review requirements 

specifically related to public parks and historic sites, mainly because the act required 

that FHWA evaluate the implementation of these changes and report to Congress.22 As 

part of our overall work, we assessed how FHWA measures progress toward improving 

and expediting environmental review processes under SAFETEA-LU. To do this, we 

interviewed FHWA officials about how the agency is monitoring this progress and its 

plans for any future efforts in this area and reviewed agency documents. 

We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 through April 2008 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that 

we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

 22FHWA is planning to provide its first such report to Congress in November 2008. 

12 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and subcommittees 

with responsibility for highway infrastructure and environmental issues; the Secretary of 

Transportation; the Secretary of Interior; the Administrator, Environmental Protection 

Agency; the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Executive Director, 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; the Chief, Forest Service; the Administrator, 

FHWA; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Should you or your staff have any questions on matters discussed in this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

Key contributors to this report were Stephanie Fain, Jacqueline Garza, Judy GuillamsTapia, Brandon Haller, Bert Japikse, Marietta Mayfield, Patricia McClure, Erica Miles, 

James Ratzenberger, and Ilga Semeiks. 

Sincerely yours, 

Katherine A. Siggerud 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Enclosures 

13 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
Enclosure I 

Briefing for Congressional Staff 

HIGHWAYS AND ENVIRONMENT 

Transportation Agencies Are Acting to Involve Others in 

Planning and Environmental Decisions 

Objectives 

With SAFETEA-LU, the Congress 

made a number of changes to how

state DOTs and MPOs carry out 

transportation planning and conduct 

environmental reviews of

transportation projects to facilitate

quicker and more efficient project 

completion without diminishing 

environmental protections. A key 

concept was stronger linkages 

between long-range transportation

planning and project-level decisions. 

(See graphic below.) 

We determined (1) the progress that 

selected states, MPOs, and FHWA 

have made in incorporating

environmental considerations in

transportation planning and (2) the

progress selected states and FHWA 

have made in implementing key 

changes in the environmental review

of highway projects.

Scope and Methodology 

Our work was mainly based on

interviews of federal, state, and local 

agency officials, since the agencies 

were still in the early stages of 

implementing SAFETEA-LU changes

and available data were limited. 

Overall, to carry out our work, we

(1) reviewed surface transportation 

legal materials, including SAFETEALU and FHWA regulations; (2)

interviewed officials of FHWA 

headquarters and key stakeholder 

organizations; and (3) interviewed

officials of FHWA division offices, 

state DOTs, and MPOs in six 

states—Alabama, Iowa, North 

Carolina, Ohio, Texas, and Utah—as

well as selected federal and state 

resource agency officials responsible 

for natural and historic resources in 

these states. In addition, we

interviewed California DOT officials 

about California’s assumption of

certain authorities for environmental

reviews. 

Summary of Results 

All six state DOTs and six MPOs that we contacted are taking or considering 

initial steps to incorporate environmental considerations into long-range 

transportation planning. 

• Four have issued long-range plans that are compliant with the new 

requirements; the others expect to do so by 2010, in line with their 

planning cycles. 

• Challenges include (1) resource agencies’ limited resources and limited 

incentive to contribute at the planning stage and (2) lack of knowledge by 

resource agencies and planners of each other’s roles and processes. 

• FHWA has undertaken a variety of implementation efforts, such as issuing 

guidance and conducting outreach to affected agencies. State DOTs and 

others we contacted generally gave positive reviews of FHWA’s efforts. 

• Because of the long-term nature of the planning process, it will likely take 

years before any benefits of these changes are apparent. 

The six state DOTs are implementing the revised environmental review 

requirements for those new highway projects that require EISs. 

• State DOTs are meeting the new requirements by increasing the 

involvement of resource agencies and the public and preparing plans to 

coordinate this involvement. 

• Challenges include limited resource agency resources and knowledge 

about the revised requirements affecting them. 

• As it has for the planning provisions, FHWA has undertaken a number of 

efforts to implement the environmental review provisions. The state 

officials we contacted generally viewed these efforts positively. 

• In addition, the agency is considering developing performance measures 

to monitor the implementation and impacts of changes made by 

SAFETEA-LU in environmental reviews. However, it will likely take at

least 3 to 5 years before impacts can be determined. 

Linkages Encouraged by SAFETEA-LU 

Resource

agencies

Source: GAO adaptation of FHWA graphic.

Individual 

highway project 

decisions

Statewide and 

metropolitan 

transportation 

planning

Greater integration of 

transportation planning and 

project-level decisions

Early consultation to Early consultation to 

inentify environmental inentify environmental 

concerns concerns

Early consultation to 

identify environmental 

concerns

Enhanced participation in Enhanced participation in 

environmental reviews to environmental reviews to 

have better, more efficient have better, more efficient 

decision-making on decision-making on 

environmental issues environmental issues

Enhanced participation in 

environmental reviews to 

have better, more efficient 

decision making on 

environmental issues

14 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and 

Environment Transportation Planning 

Key Changes Overall Assessment of Progress 

State DOTs and MPOs are now 

required to consult with resource 

agencies about avoiding or

mitigating impacts of transportation 

projects on natural and historic 

resources in developing their longrange transportation plans, using 

available resource plans and data. 

Resource agencies include federal,

state, tribal, and local agencies

responsible for land-use 

management, natural resources, 

environmental protection, 

conservation, and historic 

preservation. Potential

environmental impacts of

transportation projects that are of

concern include damage to

wetlands, waterways, wildlife, and

endangered or threatened species. 

Consultation with resource agencies 

should include discussions of 

potential environmental mitigation

activities, and results of these 

discussions are to be included in 

long-range plans. 

State DOTs and MPOs are not

required to update their plans 

outside of their normal planning 

cycles but must comply when 

preparing any updates of their plans 

issued after July 1, 2007. 

These provisions were designed to

enhance consideration of

environmental issues in the planning

stage to avoid or minimize impacts

on resources and thereby facilitate

more efficient environmental

reviews of individual projects. 

All six states and six MPOs we covered are taking or considering initial steps 

to fulfill transportation planning requirements. 

• Some are further along than others: 

o Two states and two MPOs have issued long-range plans that 

comply with the new requirements, according to FHWA. 

o The others expect to update their plans over the next several years 

(2008-2010).

o Progress depends on the planning update cycle of individual states 

and MPOs. 

• 

• Date of Issued or Expected Long-range Plan Update for the States 

• and MPOs We Contacted

State State DOT MPO

Alabama May 2008 June 2009 

Iowa September 2008 September 2009 

North Carolina 2009 or 2010 June 2009 

Ohio July 2007* May 2008 

Texas December 2008 June 2007* 

Utah June 2007* June 2007* 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state DOTs, MPOs, and FHWA. 

*Issued. 

Progress also depends on the existence and strength of relationships 

between DOTs or MPOs and resource agencies. According to FHWA 

officials, since the planning process is lengthy, nationwide it could take until 

2009-2010 for most states and MPOs to fulfill these requirements. 

• According to FHWA, some DOTs and MPOs updated their plans before 

the July 2007 deadline in order to “start the clock over” and give

themselves more time to meet the new planning requirements. 

• FHWA does not have nationwide data on progress in fulfilling these

requirements. 

Varied Progress in Consulting with Resource Agencies 

State DOTs and MPOs we interviewed vary in their progress in developing 

relationships with resource agencies. 

• Some DOTs with strong pre-SAFETEA-LU relationships with resource 

agencies reported not needing to make changes in their processes to 

comply. 

o For example, the North Carolina DOT told us it had begun 

modifying its planning process in 2004 to include consultation 

with resource agencies. 

• Some agencies have already held one or more group meetings with 

resource agencies. 

o For example, the Des Moines Area MPO has recently formed a

working group of stakeholders, including resource agencies, to

discuss issues early in the planning process and provide advice.

15 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and 

Environment Transportation Planning (con’t.)

Varied Progress in Consulting with Resource Agencies (con’t.) 

Geographic information systems

are computer systems capable of

capturing, storing, analyzing, and 

displaying geographic information 

and can be used to compare the 

location of natural resources to

transportation plans. 

Mitigation banking is a system in

which unavoidable damage to

wetlands, waterways, habitat, and

other natural resources can be 

compensated for through the 

purchase of credits for the 

preservation, restoration, or creation

of a comparable resource elsewhere. 

Transportation or other developers 

purchase credits from these banks, 

which assume responsibility for the 

long-term maintenance of these 

natural resources. 

• Other agencies have only considered how they might consult with 

resource agencies. 

Some environmental data are available, but data gaps are a concern. 

• A key to incorporating environmental considerations into transportation 

planning is good data on the location of natural, historic, and archeological 

resources, such as wetlands locations. 

• Some planners we contacted are working with resource agencies to get or 

improve maps of resources to be compared with transportation plans. 

o All six states reported some geographic information systems

data available. 

o Most states said they needed better data or were improving their 

data. 

• Data gaps occur because data are 

o scattered, unavailable, outdated, and incomplete or 

o withheld (e.g., archaeological data withheld to protect sensitive 

sites). Withheld data can often be obtained by planners, but with 

additional effort. 

• Federal resource agencies have data initiatives that may provide support 

for transportation planning efforts. For example, EPA has developed a 

Web-based geographic information system called “NEPAssist” that 

captures resource data throughout the United States in a single system 

and was created to assist agencies participating in environmental reviews 

with the preparation and review of NEPA documents. It also may be used 

by state and MPO transportation planners to identify resources that may 

be impacted by highway projects. A broad range of geographic resource 

information is included, such as the location of wetlands and other water 

resources, wildlife refuges, critical habitat for endangered species, federal 

and state forests, archeological sites, and EPA-regulated sites, such as

Superfund sites and air quality nonattainment areas. EPA has piloted the 

system in several areas and plans to gradually roll it out nationally. 

In addition, progress in developing mitigation strategies among planners we 

contacted is limited because consultations with resource agencies are 

generally in the beginning stages. 

• Most DOTs and MPOs we contacted have not yet held discussions with 

resource agencies on potential mitigation activities. 

• Two DOTs and two MPOs with long-range plans that FHWA has 

determined comply with the changes made by SAFETEA-LU have 

included these discussions in their plans. 

• Planners are required to identify potential environmental mitigation 

activities with resource agencies but are not required to carry out these 

activities. However, some states already have mitigation banks that 

DOTs or MPOs have indicated they could utilize. 

16 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Transportation Planning (con’t.)

Environment 

Views on Planning Requirements 

Some transportation planners and most resource agency officials told us that 

early input from resource agencies into planning could be beneficial by 

identifying potentially affected resources at an early stage so that mitigation or 

avoidance measures can be identified early. 

According to FHWA, the changes to the planning process, especially 

consultations with resource agencies—including discussions of environmental 

mitigation—are intended to produce better and more inclusive transportation 

decision making. FHWA expects that these changes will result in better 

relationships between transportation and resource agencies, better 

transportation projects, more effective conservation of natural and cultural 

resources, and more efficient environmental reviews. 

Planners and resource agencies generally cited three challenges in involving 

resource agencies in planning. 

(1) Resource agency resources are limited. 

Federal funding for positions at 

resource agencies for

transportation-related work is 

available. 

• Since TEA-21, state DOTs have

been allowed to use federal-aid 

highway funding for positions at 

federal and state resource

agencies for the purpose of

conducting environmental 

reviews of highway projects. 

State DOTs must obtain the 

approval of FHWA division

offices for such uses of these 

funds. In 2005 (the latest data

available), 34 states funded

positions at resource agencies. 

Many of these positions were 

funded solely with state funds, 

according to FHWA. One-third 

of all positions were at federal 

agencies; two-thirds were at

state agencies. 

• SAFETEA-LU expanded the 

possible use of such funded 

positions to include consultation 

on long-range planning and the 

development of natural resource 

mapping systems, among other

things, as long as these funded

activities contribute to 

expediting environmental 

reviews.

• SAFETEA-LU did not authorize 

any additional funds specifically 

for this purpose, however. 

States proposing to use this

authority must take the funds 

out of their normal allocation of

federal-aid highway funds. As 

was the case previously, FHWA 

must approve such uses of these 

funds. 

• The primary challenge is limited resource agency resources, including 

funding, staff, and time. 

o This challenge is exacerbated by the one-to-many relationship of 

resource agencies to MPOs.

o Resource agencies may be inundated with new MPO 

requests to participate in planning. 

o For example, Texas has 25 MPOs, each of which may

contact the same resource agency. 

 Number of MPOs in Each State 

State

Number 

of MPOs

Alabama 11

Iowa 9 

Ohio 17

North Carolina 17

Texas 25

Utah 4 

Source: FHWA. 

• States have mixed views on using funded positions at resource 

agencies for planning work. 

o North Carolina DOT, for example, funds 30 positions at resource 

agencies for environmental reviews of highways and hopes to use 

these staff for planning as well. 

o Some states, on the other hand, believe resource agencies should 

fund their own activities. 

o However, most resource agencies we spoke with said that they do 

not have enough resources to carry out their new roles.

17 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Transportation Planning (con’t.) Environment 

Views on Planning Requirements (con’t.) 

Consideration of environmental 

resources in transportation planning 

can result in the early identification 

of possible adverse effects of 

projects and the identification and

eventual implementation of

mitigation measures to address 

them. For example, such

consideration might indicate a need 

to mitigate runoff from new 

highways that could result in

localized flooding or violation of

water quality standards. One

mitigation measure might be to 

retrofit storm water collection 

systems to capture and pass highway 

water runoff through a system of 

newly created wetlands. Such a 

retrofit is shown in the photograph 

above. 

• Also, like resource agencies, MPOs have limited resources to deal with 

their new duties. 

• FHWA recognizes that limited resources and competing priorities may 

hinder resource agencies’ participation in transportation planning. 

Officials point out that state DOTs’ use of federal-aid funds for resource 

agency positions could be helpful, but the actual use of funded positions 

for transportation planning activities could be controversial and remains 

to be seen, since such positions have been used for project-specific 

environmental review work. FHWA is sponsoring a study of how state 

DOTs manage the resource agency positions they fund; this study will 

cover whether DOTs are using or expect to use resource agency

positions for transportation planning activities. FHWA anticipates that a

report will be issued in August 2008. 

(2) Resource agencies may find it difficult to contribute at the planning stage. 

• Transportation planning has not been a mission for resource agencies

and may not be a priority. 

o The enactment of SAFETEA-LU changed agency relationships, but 

did not change resource agency missions. 

• Although state DOTs and MPOs are required to invite resource agencies 

to participate in transportation planning, their participation is not 

required. 

o Historically, resource agencies have been required by law to give

input at the environmental review stage. 

• Resource agencies are not used to long-range transportation planning. 

o It is difficult for resource agencies to be definitive about possible 

impacts of long-term transportation plans, since these plans are 

broad in scope, covering whole metropolitan areas or states. These 

agencies are used to having project-specific information before 

signing off on a project during environmental review. 

• Some resource agencies do not see the added benefit of giving broader 

planning input when they are already required to give project-specific 

input at the environmental review stage. 

• FHWA officials told us they recognize that providing input into 

transportation planning takes time and may not be in harmony with 

resource agencies’ missions and need to participate in environmental 

reviews of specific projects. 

18 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Transportation Planning (con’t.) Environment 

Views on Planning Requirements (con’t.) 

(3) Planners sometimes lack knowledge of resource agencies’ roles and 

processes, and resource agencies sometimes lack knowledge of planners’ 

roles and processes. 

• Some resource agency offices we contacted lack knowledge of the 

transportation planning process and participants. 

o FHWA has tried to educate resource agencies on changes made by 

SAFETEA-LU through various means, including correspondence, 

Web-based seminar presentations, and workshops. We recognize 

that it is a challenge for FHWA to reach all agency officials that 

could be affected by these changes, given their large number and 

existence at different levels of government. 

o State DOTs also have provided training, such as a forum in 

Colorado, to improve communication among the state’s 

transportation planning agencies and resource agencies. 

• Some planners we spoke with lack knowledge of who to contact at 

resource agencies. 

o MPOs, which do not generally play a role in environmental reviews, 

may not be familiar with resource agencies and their missions. 

• Some MPOs have raised questions about how to incorporate resource 

agencies into planning, such as how much consultation is enough and 

what to do if resource agencies do not respond. 

• However, the absence of prescriptive requirements provides flexibility,

which some transportation officials welcome. 

• FHWA has made a number of efforts to inform transportation planners, 

including MPOs, about how best to implement the revised planning 

requirements, as described in the next section. 

19 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Transportation Planning (con’t.)

Environment 

FHWA Actions to Promote and Oversee Implementation 

FHWA has taken a variety of actions to promote the implementation of the 

revised transportation planning requirements, including 

Certification reviews are used to

determine whether aspects of the 

planning process are in compliance 

with the law and to identify areas

needing improvement. The reviews

are conducted every 4 years and 

cover planning by MPOs as well as

states. 

• issuing regulations on statewide and metropolitan transportation 

planning in February 2007; 

• providing additional guidance on its Planning and Environmental 

Linkages Web site; 

• conducting outreach to state DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies to 

familiarize them with the changes made by SAFETEA-LU. These 

activities have included 

o workshops held in 24 states in which state DOT, MPO, and resource 

agency staff discussed how to strengthen linkages between 

transportation planning and environmental reviews; 

o workshops, held in 5 states to date, that brought together and trained 

resource agencies and state transportation planners to improve 

collaboration and promote data sharing; 

o letters to federal resource agencies notifying them of their new role 

in planning; and 

o Web-based seminar presentations to EPA and FWS, with plans for 

additional presentations for other federal resource agencies. 

• disseminating leading practices through its Web site as well as through 

funding of a grant program, called Eco-Logical, to support innovative 

efforts; and 

• funding activities of AASHTO’s Center for Environmental Excellence. 

These activities have included 

o educating transportation planners and resource agencies about each 

other’s processes, 

o providing technical assistance to transportation planners, and 

o developing a practitioner’s handbook for state DOTs and MPOs on 

incorporating environmental considerations into planning. 

FHWA division offices mainly use two methods to oversee implementation: 

• Certification reviews of the planning processes for transportation 

management areas (urbanized areas with populations of over 200,000) are 

FHWA’s main method of determining progress in implementing the new 

planning requirements. 

• Approval by division offices of STIPs is another key method of overseeing

progress. According to FHWA, division offices determine whether states

are making progress in complying with the revised planning requirements 

in making STIP approval decisions. FHWA does not maintain nationwide 

data on these approvals. However, determinations regarding compliance 

progress are documented in any findings about planning that accompany 

STIP approval.

We did not evaluate the adequacy of FHWA’s actions to promote or oversee 

the implementation of these SAFETEA-LU provisions.

20 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
DOTs’ and MPOs’ Views on FHWA Actions 

DOTs and MPOs we contacted generally gave positive reviews of actions by

FHWA headquarters and division offices. 

Highways and Transportation Planning (con’t.) Environment 

• Generally, the DOTs and MPOs we contacted reported good 

communication or good relationships with FHWA headquarters and 

division offices. 

State DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies suggested some further actions to 

facilitate implementation: 

• Expand funding of resource agencies. 

• Provide additional training for resource agencies to familiarize them with 

the revised requirements that affect them. 

• Further clarify what types of activities fulfill the requirement to consult 

with resource agencies. 

• Disseminate more information on leading practices for MPOs. 

As discussed, FHWA is taking a number of actions in these areas and 

recognizes the need for continued efforts to facilitate implementation. 

Time Needed to Show Benefits of SAFETEA-LU Changes 

According to FHWA, since the transportation planning process is long term, it 

will take some time and a number of planning update efforts for the value of 

these changes to become apparent. 

State and local transportation planners we contacted have mixed views on 

whether the changes made by SAFETEA-LU will improve planning outcomes,

while resource agencies are generally positive. Some planners said that it will 

be many years before any potential benefits will be seen. 

21 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Overall Assessment of Progress 

From August 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was enacted, through December 2007, 

109 new projects nationwide had been identified as requiring an EIS, 

according to FHWA. The environmental reviews for these projects must 

follow revised requirements. These projects are moving through the stages of 

preparing an EIS, which, on average, takes over 6 years.1

 As of December

2007, 2 projects had reached the final EIS stage and 2 more had reached the 

draft EIS stage. 

In the six states that we contacted, 30 new projects were identified as

requiring an EIS during this period. 

Highways and Environmental Review 

Environment 

Key Changes 

SAFETEA-LU defined roles and 

responsibilities and enhanced 

resource agency and public 

involvement during environmental

reviews by 

• establishing a new category of 

resource agency involvement, 

known as participating agencies; 

• requiring plans for coordinating 

and scheduling agency and

public participation, known as

coordination plans; 

• requiring opportunities for early

involvement of resource

agencies and the public in

defining a project’s purpose and 

need and in developing

alternatives; 

• requiring collaboration with 

resource agencies on 

methodologies for conducting 

environmental reviews. 

These changes apply to projects 

requiring an EIS for which reviews 

were initiated after the law was 

enacted. 

The overall intent of these 

provisions was to facilitate more 

efficient and timely project decision

making while protecting

environmental resources.

• Of these, 24 are actively moving forward in the post-SAFETEA-LU 

environmental review process; the remaining 6 are on hold or are being 

cancelled. 

• A draft EIS has been prepared for 1 of these projects. 

Number of Active EIS Projects 

Subject to SAFETEA-LU Requirements, 

as of December 2007 

State Number

Alabama 2

Iowa 4

North Carolina 6

Ohio 2

Texas 5

Utah 5

Total 24

Source: State DOTs and FHWA. 

State DOTs Are Completing New Required Steps 

The state DOTs that we contacted have taken a number of actions to complete 

required steps as they develop EISs for the 24 active projects. 

• All six state DOTs have invited participating agencies to be involved in 

environmental reviews and have developed coordination plans. 

• All six states also are working to provide opportunities for agencies and 

the public to be involved early in defining their projects’ purpose and need 

and the alternatives to be considered and to collaborate with agencies in 

developing review methodologies. 

• The 24 projects are at different stages, so a few have not yet completed 

each step, as shown in the following table. 

 1

This figure applies to projects for which EIS reviews were completed in fiscal 

year 2007. 

22 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

State DOTs Are Completing New Required Steps (con’t.) 

Total Number of EIS Projects in Six States for Which Key Steps Required by 

SAFETEA-LU Have Been Completed, as of December 2007 

Early participation by resource

agencies in environmental reviews

of highway projects may help 

identify and mitigate possible 

harmful environmental effects. For 

example, resource agencies may 

identify the possibility of erosion 

and sedimentation into trout 

streams. Specific mitigation 

measures, such as sediment basins

like this one to catch runoff, could 

be identified during environmental

review and subsequently be 

implemented during construction. 

Step Total

Invite participating agencies 23 

Develop coordination plan 23 

Involve agencies and public in defining purpose and need 22 

Involve agencies and public in developing the range of alternatives 20

Collaborate with agencies on review methodology 22 

Total number of active EIS projects subject to SAFETEA-LU

requirements

24 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by state DOTs and FHWA. 

• Although these states had varied ways of conducting environmental 

reviews, most believed they did not need to make major changes to their 

existing processes to comply with the requirements added by SAFETEALU. For example, prior to SAFETEA-LU, some states (Iowa, North 

Carolina, and Ohio) had already developed processes that provided early

opportunities for resource agencies and the public to be involved. 

Views on Environmental Review Requirements 

State DOTs, resource agencies, and other transportation stakeholders we 

contacted recognized some potential benefits of post-SAFETEA-LU changes in 

environmental reviews, including 

• improved project management, 

• increased likelihood of weeding out flawed alternatives early, and 

• better informed and more involved resource agencies. 

According to FHWA, these changes institutionalize more disciplined project 

management, essentially “tightening up” the environmental review process. In 

addition, these changes put FHWA in a stronger management role. 

State DOTs and resource agencies cited four main challenges in their efforts 

to implement the post-SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews. 

(1) Resource agency resources are limited. 

• Resource agencies cited their core regulatory duties as their main

responsibility and told us that resource constraints hamper their ability to 

take on extra responsibilities. These constraints may limit their ability to 

fully participate in the early stages of environmental reviews. 

23 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Views on Environmental Review Requirements (con’t.) 

• FHWA recognizes that resource constraints may limit the ability of 

resource agencies to participate more fully in environmental reviews. 

FHWA officials noted that some state DOTs fund positions at resource 

agencies, using federal-aid funds, while others do not. AASHTO plans 

to survey states by the summer of 2008 to obtain updated information 

on the extent to which state DOTs fund positions at resource agencies. 

As noted previously, FHWA is sponsoring a study of how states 

manage these positions; this study will identify useful practices, 

including practices for evaluating the services performed. 

(2) Resource agencies’ and local public authorities’ knowledge of postSAFETEA-LU requirements is incomplete. 

• Many resource agencies we contacted told us that they need more 

education and training on the changes. 

• Some local public authorities leading EIS projects that we contacted 

say they have received limited guidance or training from state DOT and 

FHWA officials on how to implement the revised requirements.

• FHWA officials have told us that they are aware of these needs and 

therefore have made and continue to make efforts to educate resource 

agencies and other stakeholders on the new requirements, through 

Web-based seminars, for example. 

(3) Existing processes must be adapted to meet the revised requirements. 

• Some state DOTs said they have had difficulty reaching agreement with 

FHWA division offices on the extent to which their existing processes 

need to be changed to comply. 

• FHWA officials told us that determining whether or not state DOT 

processes are compliant has presented a challenge in some cases. For 

example, some states have maintained that their existing environmental 

review processes do not need to be changed because they are already in 

compliance with post-SAFETEA-LU requirements.

• States that re-engineered their environmental review process under 

certain provisions in TEA-21 could request a “grandfathering” exemption 

to continue operating under their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes. Only 

Florida requested this exemption and this request was approved by 

FHWA. Some of the states we covered had made major changes in their 

environmental review processes prior to SAFETEA-LU. One state DOT 

official told us that his agency did not request this exemption because

complying with the SAFETEA-LU requirements did not negatively impact 

its processes and it would not have been worthwhile to make such a 

request. An official from another state DOT told us that the DOT decided 

to make required changes, which were not substantial, to its process in 

order to realize potential efficiencies.

24 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Views on Environmental Review Requirements (con’t.) 

(4) Documentation requirements have increased. 

SAFETEA-LU also placed a 180-day

limit on lawsuits challenging final 

federal agency environmental

decisions—such as the approval of 

an EIS—on highway projects, when 

notices of those decisions are 

published in the Federal Register. 

FHWA has interpreted this provision 

so as to give it and state DOTs 

discretion in deciding whether, and

when, to apply this limit to highway 

project decisions. 

• Some state DOTs and local public agencies we contacted are concerned 

that requirements for more correspondence with resource agencies and 

the public, as well as a documented coordination plan, create an increased 

paperwork burden—slowing down their efforts to complete 

environmental reviews. 

• Some state DOTs also expressed a concern that the additional paperwork 

burden could open them to lawsuits if this paperwork is considered 

deficient in any way. 

• Some transportation officials in the states we covered believe that 

changes in the environmental review process can result in better project 

decisions. However, some cautioned that the process will not necessarily

be more efficient or timely since the extra steps required to comply with 

the environmental review provisions add time to environmental reviews. 

• FHWA headquarters officials told us that they had heard indirectly of such 

concerns but do not believe that the additional documentation 

requirements are overly burdensome. They noted that the new documents 

required, especially the coordination plan, help to achieve better 

management and oversight of projects. 

Use of 180-Day Limitation Is Varied 

• According to FHWA, the 180-day statute of limitations had been used 

96 times as of December 2007. 

 FHWA does not have information on the 

number of projects for which a decision was taken but no published 

notice given. 

• The 180-day limitation has been used to a varying degree in the six states 

to limit lawsuits challenging federal decisions on highway projects. (See 

table below.) Most limitations apply to decisions made between 2005 and 

2007. FHWA has interpreted this provision to also allow its use for final 

agency decisions made before SAFETEA-LU was enacted. Some 

limitations have been applied to decisions made as far back as 1990. 

Extent of Use of the 180-Day Statute of Limitations 

in the Six States, as of December 2007

State 

Number of projects to

which the limitation was 

applied

Alabama *

Iowa *

North Carolina 4

Ohio 6

Texas 12

Utah 8

Total 30

Source: FHWA. 

*Not applied.

25 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Use of 180-Day Limitation Is Varied (con’t.) 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Other Key Changes 

Approximately 90 percent of all 

surface transportation projects have 

minimal environmental impacts and 

therefore receive “categorical 

exclusions,” qualifying them for 

limited environmental review. 

SAFETEA-LU allowed state DOTs to 

assume the responsibility for 

determining whether certain 

highway projects can receive a

categorical exclusion, in accordance

with criteria to be established by 

FHWA and with FHWA in a 

monitoring role. States can assume 

this responsibility after waiving their 

sovereign immunity and entering 

into a memorandum of 

understanding with FHWA. The 

intent of this change is to reduce

processing time for categorical

exclusions. 

• Officials from one state told us that they determine whether to ask FHWA 

to trigger the statute of limitations (by publishing a notice) on a projectby-project basis and did not make broader use of this provision in order to 

avoid the unintended consequence of encouraging litigation. Officials 

from another state said that they have plans to use the provision for all 

eligible projects.

• Some transportation officials in the states we covered noted that the new 

statute of limitations could lead to cost savings. It limits lawsuits to a 

period when it would not cost as much to change project plans and, after 

this period, work can proceed on a project without the risk of lawsuit. 

They did not cite challenges in implementing the statute of limitations. 

Assessment of Progress in State Assumption of Categorical 

Exclusion Authority 

Some states are pursuing increased responsibilities for categorical 

exclusions, but overall interest has been limited. 

• To date, only the California DOT has assumed authority for 

categorical exclusions and, in addition, according to FHWA, only the 

Utah DOT and the Alaska DOT are actively seeking this same

authority. 

• Several state DOTs we contacted did not see a need to take on the 

authority to approve categorical exclusions because they were using 

programmatic agreements with FHWA and resource agencies that

streamline review and approvals for many projects classified as 

categorical exclusions. 

• State DOTs also identified the requirement to waive sovereign 

immunity as an obstacle to taking advantage of the categorical 

exclusion approval authority. 

o Some states were interested in applying for categorical

exclusion approval authority (e.g., Ohio and Texas), but the 

state DOTs were not able to rally enough support in their state 

legislatures to waive sovereign immunity, as required to 

assume approval authority for categorical exclusions. 

• In discussing with resource agency officials their views on states

assuming responsibility for categorical exclusion decisions, most did 

not express any concern about this change. However, officials from 

one agency said that state assumption of responsibility for these 

decisions could decrease input from resource agencies in addressing 

environmental concerns.

26 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Assessment of Pilot Program Progress 

To date, only the California DOT has received FHWA approval to participate

in the surface transportation project delivery pilot program. 

Other Key Changes (con’t.) 

A pilot program—called the surface 

transportation project delivery

pilot program—has been 

established to allow up to five states 

(to include, if interested: Alaska, 

California, Ohio, Oklahoma, and 

Texas) to assume FHWA’s 

environmental responsibilities for 

highway projects under NEPA and 

other federal laws, after entering

into a memorandum of 

understanding with FHWA and with 

continuing oversight by the agency. 

This program is designed to provide

information on whether delegating 

these responsibilities to the states 

will result in more efficient 

environmental reviews while

meeting all federal requirements for 

these reviews.

• Ohio and Texas declined to participate because their state legislatures did 

not approve a waiver of sovereign immunity, which is required for 

participation in the program. 

• According to FHWA, Alaska and Oklahoma are still interested and may 

decide to participate. Alaska is waiting until it has completed a 

memorandum of understanding with FHWA on the authority for 

categorical exclusions, and Oklahoma is seeking the approval it needs 

from its legislature to waive sovereign immunity. 

The California DOT began the pilot program on July 1, 2007, and has taken 

steps to implement its new authorities.

• It added a NEPA quality control review step to its process, in which 

specialists use the same criteria that FHWA would have used to review the 

state DOT’s EIS. 

• These specialists must (1) meet qualification standards and (2) complete a 

3-day training course cofacilitated by the California DOT and FHWA 

division staff. 

• It created a NEPA Delegation Manager position to act as the point person 

for all delegation responsibilities. 

After Ohio and Texas declined to participate, FHWA issued a Federal Register

notice in July 2007 soliciting interest from other states to participate in the 

program and conducted outreach at national meetings. 

• According to FHWA officials, no states have expressed interest. 

• FHWA officials told us that they believe concern about the need to waive

sovereign immunity is the main reason for the lack of interest, but that 

states also are concerned about the amount of work required to set up 

such a program and want to wait and see how the program works in 

California. 

According to state and FHWA officials we spoke with, an additional reason 

why states have not pursued either of these new authorities is that, to avoid 

conflicts of interest, FHWA has prohibited state DOTs with these authorities 

from making advance purchases of rights of way for highway projects. 

According to FHWA, this practice presents a conflict of interest because the 

state then has a stake in environmental decisions. 

• States sometimes make such advance purchases in order to accelerate the 

completion of a project and avoid inflation. According to some state 

officials, not being able to make such advance purchases would increase

the time and cost associated with completing projects. 

• According to FHWA officials, they suggested that state DOTs develop a 

“firewall” to divide those who make environmental review decisions from 

those who purchase rights of way, but states indicated that they could not 

do this. 

27 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Assessment of Pilot Program Progress (con’t.) 

• In discussing with resource agency officials their views about the pilot 

program, they expressed little or no concern about it. Officials in 

several agencies noted that this program could be beneficial. For 

example, one official said that environmental reviews of projects 

could be more efficient with a reduced FHWA role. 

FHWA Actions to Promote and Oversee Implementation 

FHWA has taken a variety of actions to promote the implementation of the 

post-SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews, including 

• issuing various types of guidance on the implementation of these 

provisions and posting this guidance on its Environmental Review

Toolkit Web site; 

• proposing revised regulations for environmental reviews and issuing a 

regulation regarding the surface transportation project delivery pilot 

program; 

• conducting outreach to federal, state, and local agencies involved in 

environmental reviews to familiarize them with the post-SAFETEA-LU 

changes through training (both in person and via Webcast), 

conference presentations, and technical assistance;

• disseminating leading practices through its Web site; and 

• funding activities of AASHTO’s Center for Environmental Excellence, 

including 

o issuing a new practitioner’s guide on the revised 

environmental review requirements and 

o identifying leading practices in implementing these 

requirements to put on the Center’s Web site. 

FHWA oversees implementation mainly by conducting 

• day-to-day oversight of state DOT environmental review activities 

through, for example, division office review and approval of EISs and 

monitoring of states’ assumption of responsibility for categorical 

exclusions; 

• reviews by FHWA attorneys of the legal sufficiency of EISs, including 

compliance with the new requirements, as applicable; and 

• audits of states’ performance in the surface transportation project 

delivery pilot program. The first audit, of California DOT’s 

performance in the pilot program, was conducted in January 2008, and 

the report is scheduled to be completed by June 2008. 

We did not evaluate the adequacy of FHWA’s actions to promote or oversee 

the implementation of these changes.

28 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Views on FHWA Actions 

Transportation officials and other stakeholders we contacted generally gave 

positive reviews of FHWA’s efforts to inform them about the key SAFETEALU changes in environmental reviews. 

The state DOTs, local public agencies responsible for environmental reviews, 

and resource agencies we contacted suggested possible additional actions to 

further facilitate implementation of the changes made by SAFETEA-LU. As

for transportation planning, expanded funding of and training for resource 

agencies were suggested. In addition, they cited the following actions: 

 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

• Some state officials told us that they would like more flexibility to follow 

their pre-SAFETEA-LU processes, which they say accomplish the act’s

goals and the new requirements in spirit. 

• Some states have also suggested that, to increase states’ interest in 

assuming authority for categorical exclusions and in participating in the 

pilot program, the requirement to waive sovereign immunity could be 

eliminated and states could be allowed to make advance purchases of 

rights of way and to assume the associated risk. 

FHWA’s views on concerns raised by various stakeholders and the agency’s 

efforts to address them were discussed above. 

29 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
FHWA Efforts to Track Progress 

According to FHWA data, since fiscal year 1999, EIS reviews have averaged 

between 5 and 7 years to complete and over 12 percent of them have taken 

longer than 10 years. 

Completion Times for EISs by Fiscal Year 

Note: Completion times represent the time required to prepare and obtain final approval 

of EISs and apply to the year in which the EIS was approved. This figure does not include

any highway projects for which EIS reviews were initiated after the enactment of 

SAFETEA-LU, because none have progressed to this point. 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

The various environmental review

changes made by SAFETEA-LU were

designed to achieve more efficient

and timely project decision making, 

particularly for projects undergoing

an EIS review, while maintaining

environmental protections. 

30 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
FHWA Efforts to Track Progress (con’t.) 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

According to FHWA, its contextsensitive solutions initiative is a 

collaborative, interdisciplinary

approach that involves all

stakeholders to develop a 

transportation facility that fits its 

physical setting and preserves

scenic, aesthetic, historic, and 

environmental resources while

maintaining safety and mobility. 

• FHWA currently has two main methods for monitoring progress in 

expediting and improving environmental reviews:2

o measures of the timeliness of EIS completion, based on data 

collected by its division offices, and 

o measures of the quality of interagency coordination, based on 

surveys, conducted in 2003 and 2006, of resource and 

transportation agency staff views on environmental reviews of 

transportation projects. 

o These measures covered a range of topics, such as

whether communication among agencies was 

sufficient, how well transportation staff protected the 

environment, and whether reviews were completed in a 

reasonable amount of time. 

• FHWA also has related environmental measures, such as measures of 

efforts to reduce pollution and other adverse environmental effects 

from transportation projects.3

 These include 

o the number of exemplary context-sensitive solution projects 

and programs and 

o the number of areas not meeting mobile source emissions 

targets in their state implementation plans4

 (goal is to minimize 

this number). 

Measures Being Considered 

• FHWA is planning and considering developing several other measures 

specifically to track progress in implementing, and the impacts of, 

changes made by SAFETEA-LU in environmental reviews. (See

following table.) 

 2

FHWA has performance goals related to the EIS completion time measures and the results of these

measures are reported in its budget request and on its Web site, among other places. The quality of 

interagency coordination measures are published in a report on these survey results. See Gallup 

Organization, Final Report: Implementing Performance Measurement in Environmental 

Streamlining (Washington, D.C., May 2007). 3

FHWA has performance goals related to these measures and reports its results in its budget request 

and in Performance and Accountability Reports of the U.S. DOT, among other places. 4

These plans are air quality plans that explain how an area that is not in compliance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act will come into compliance. 

31 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Measures Being Considered (con’t.) 

 New Environmental Review Performance Measures Related to SAFETEA-LU That 

 Are under Consideration 

Type of 

measure Description of measure Status 

Timeliness

of EISs 

Median EIS completion time for projects

undergoing environmental review under 

the post-SAFETEA-LU EIS process

Plans to report results of 

such a measure starting 

in fiscal year 2009 in

agency performance 

reports and on its Web

site 

Quality of 

interagency 

coordination 

Inclusion of questions related to 

implementation of the post-SAFETEALU EIS process in follow-on survey of 

resource and transportation agency 

environmental review staff 

May repeat survey in 

2009 and may include 

such questions and their 

responses in final report 

on survey 

Compliance 

with new 

requirements

States’ implementation of new steps

required under the post-SAFETEA-LU 

EIS process and ratings of the 

effectiveness of various aspects of this

process, based on information collected 

semi-annually 

Has started to develop 

such measures and plans

to include results in 

report to Congress on the 

effectiveness of 

SAFETEA-LU 

environmental provisions

and on its Web site 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA. 

• In addition, FHWA is tracking, for internal management use, the 

number of projects for which 180-day limitation on claims notices has 

been filed in order to monitor the use of this limitation. 

Studies and Reviews Underway or Planned 

• The agency also is sponsoring several studies and reviews that may 

provide additional information on progress in implementing, as well as 

impacts of, SAFETEA-LU changes in environmental reviews. (See

following table.) 

32 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
 

Highways and Environmental Review (con’t.)

Environment 

Studies and Reviews Underway or Planned (con’t.) 

Key FHWA Initiatives That May Provide Information on the Implementation and 

Impacts of SAFETEA-LU Changes in Environmental Reviews 

Type of initiative Description Status 

Program delivery 

improvement tool 

In March 2007, FHWA piloted this standard tool 

in five states. All state DOTs and FHWA

division offices can now use this tool, which is in 

a checklist format, to monitor the 

implementation of recommended environmental 

review activities—including post-SAFETEA-LU 

requirements—and identify successful practices

and opportunities for improvement. 

Underway; 

FHWA is

encouraging 

the voluntary 

use of the tool. 

Monitoring of 

states’ 

assumption of 

responsibility for 

categorical 

exclusions

FHWA will monitor the compliance of states with 

the memorandums of understanding (MOU) 

they enter into with the agency and will consider 

the results in deciding whether to renew the 

MOU. Monitoring will include measures of 

various aspects of MOU compliance and 

performance, including timeliness. 

Underway; 

first report, on 

the California

DOT, expected

in spring 2008.

Audits of the 

California DOT’s

performance in

surface 

transportation 

project delivery

pilot program 

FHWA will conduct audits of the California DOT 

to ensure compliance in meeting all federal laws

for which the state has been assigned 

responsibility. FHWA will conduct semi-annual 

audits during the first 2 years and annual audits

thereafter. Audits will include measures of 

various aspects of performance, including 

timeliness. 

Underway; 

first report 

expected in 

June 2008. 

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by FHWA. 

In Time, Measures and Studies Should Show Impacts 

• As can be seen from the information presented, FHWA is making a 

number of efforts to track progress in improving and expediting 

environmental reviews. However, its efforts to specifically measure 

or study the implementation and impacts of changes made by 

SAFETEA-LU are in the early stages of development or 

implementation, and it is too early to assess them. 

• FHWA anticipates that the results of new measures and studies 

related to SAFETEA-LU will start becoming available during the next 

year or two. 

• Agency headquarters officials also noted that it will take at least 3 to 5 

years before the effects of the act’s changes in the environmental

review process can begin to be discerned. 

• Some other transportation stakeholders we interviewed agreed that it 

will take years to see the effects of the new requirements because the 

environmental review process is lengthy and it will take some time to 

get the current highway projects through the entire process. 

Page 33 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment
Enclosure II 

Organizations Contacted 

In performing our work we contacted the following agencies and organizations: 

Federal Transportation and Resource Agencies 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Department of the Interior 

Department of Transportation 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Federal Highway Administration 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Forest Service 

National Park Service 

Army Corps of Engineers 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

State Transportation Agencies 

Alabama Department of Transportation 

California Department of Transportation 

Iowa Department of Transportation

North Carolina Department of Transportation

Ohio Department of Transportation

Texas Department of Transportation 

Utah Department of Transportation

State Resource Agencies 

Alabama Department of Environmental Management 

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 

State Historical Society of Iowa 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality 

Texas Parks and Wildlife Department 

Utah State Historic Preservation Office 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

Birmingham Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Commission 

North Carolina Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 

North Central Texas Council of Governments 

Wasatch Front Regional Council 

34 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
Local Public Agencies and Consultants 

Houston Grand Parkway Association 

North Carolina Turnpike Authority 

Solid Civil Design 

Snyder and Associates, Inc. 

Other Organizations 

Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Environmental Defense 

National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers 

National Trust for Historic Preservation 

(542116) 

35 GAO-08-512R Highways and Environment 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

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. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, DC 20548 

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

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER