Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects
Published: 2003-05-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The federal government has a long-term commitment to helping states construct, improve, and repair roads and bridges to meet the nation's mobility needs. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) expects to provide states about $20 billion for highway construction projects in fiscal year 2003. State departments of transportation are primarily responsible for initiating and completing projects. Many federal and state agencies with environmental responsibilities (called resource agencies) help ensure that environmental issues are considered. The environmental review of a federally funded highway project can take from several days to several years. GAO is reporting on the (1) activities involved in the environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects and (2) stakeholders' views on the aspects of environmental review, if any, that unduly add time to gaining environmental approval. GAO obtained stakeholder views from 16 transportation improvement and 12 environmental officials from a variety of federal, state, and private organizations with responsibilities for or interests in constructing federally funded highways. The Department of Transportation had no comments on a draft of this report. Other agencies provided either technical comments or did not respond to our request for comments.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Environmental review activities typically consist of identifying and assessing environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, and gaining input and/or approvals from FHWA, resource agencies, and the public; and become more complex if significant environmental impacts are anticipated. For the 91 percent of projects that are expected to have minimal environmental impacts, state departments of transportation need only to identify environmental features, assess possible impacts, address any resource agency and public concerns, and obtain permits, if needed. For the 6 percent of projects where it is initially unclear whether significant environmental impacts may exist, additional activities occur, including evaluating alternatives to the proposed project and obtaining FHWA approval. For the 3 percent of highway projects with expected significant environmental impacts, states conduct extensive environmental review, including evaluating all reasonable alternatives and their environmental impacts and consult with resource agencies. Stakeholders we contacted identified 43 aspects that they said frequently (more than half the time) add more time than viewed as necessary to environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. A majority of stakeholders with primary responsibilities for environmental and historical preservation issues and those with primary responsibilities for transportation improvement identified five aspects as occurring frequently. However, there was no overall agreement about which aspects frequently add undue time to environmental reviews. A majority of environmental stakeholders told us that state departments of transportation waited too long to consider environmental impacts and involve important stakeholders. In contrast, a majority of transportation improvement stakeholders told us that state departments of transportation and federal resource agencies lack sufficient staff to handle their workloads and that meeting statutory criteria for historic preservation projects on public lands and obtaining wetlands permits are too time consuming. However, the stakeholders generally could not tell us how much time these aspects add to the reviews.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In order to meet the mobility needs of the United States, the federal  government has had a longtime commitment to helping fund needed  maintenance and expansion of the nation’s road network—from interstate  highways to rural roads—in an environmentally sound manner. Given the  importance of transportation to the nation’s economy, mobility, and  security and the need to improve the nation’s roads to meet these needs,  many transportation improvement stakeholders—such as the Federal  Highway Administration (FHWA), state departments of transportation, and  others—have said that completing a federally funded highway project takes  too long, and that the most time consuming aspect involves environmental  review. Transportation improvement stakeholders acknowledge that  environmental reviews result in better project decisions, but say that  reaching decisions is difficult and time consuming. The Transportation  Equity Act for the 21st Century, enacted in 1998, contained provisions  designed to streamline environmental reviews. As the reauthorization of  this act approaches, the Congress may again consider measures for  reducing the time it takes to complete a federally funded highway project  so that transportation benefits are realized sooner.
You requested that we (1) describe the activities involved in the  environmental review of federally funded highway projects and (2) report  on stakeholders’ views on which aspects of these environmental reviews, if  any, unduly add time to gaining environmental approval. To carry out this  work, we reviewed laws and documents related to environmental review.  We asked officials from FHWA and the departments of transportation from  Maryland and North Carolina to identify the activities involved in  environmental review and to identify federal, state, and local agencies that  routinely participate in reviews of federally funded highway projects. To  obtain stakeholders’ views on aspects that add undue time—more time  than they view as necessary—to environmental reviews, we asked officials  from federal and state agencies with responsibilities relating to the  construction of federally funded roads, transportation professional  organizations, historic preservation organizations, and environmental  organizations to identify laws, behaviors, resource issues, or project  management approaches, if any, that unduly add time to environmental  review. We asked these officials to identify other stakeholders with  expertise in such reviews and asked those individuals to identify aspects  that they felt add undue time. Overall, 39 stakeholders identified 43 aspects  they have encountered during environmental reviews that they felt add  undue time to these reviews. We then asked these stakeholders to rate each  aspect on how frequently, if at all, they occur. Twenty-eight officials  representing different interests provided these ratings (of these 28, 16  stakeholders had primary transportation improvement responsibilities or  interests, and 12 stakeholders had primary environmental responsibilities  or interests). The approach we used makes two contributions. First, it  captures the views of a wide range of stakeholders that are identified by  their peers as knowledgeable. Second, it provides a systematic assessment  of the perceived frequency of the aspects that knowledgeable stakeholders  indicated add undue time to environmental reviews. We did not attempt to  corroborate whether or not particular aspects actually occur or the reasons  why stakeholders rated individual aspects as occurring more or less  frequently. In addition, because of the relatively small number of  stakeholders who rated approaches, we did not extrapolate our results  more broadly. (See app. I for additional details on our scope and  methodology.)
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Federally funded highway projects vary in size, from new lane striping or  installing traffic signals to resurfacing an existing road or building a new  road or interchange. Of the federally funded highway projects in 2000 that  took place on approximately 27,000 miles of road (latest data available),  about 26,000 miles (96 percent) involved either the addition of capacity,  preservation, or improvements (such as widening lanes, resurfacing, and  rehabilitating roadways) and the remaining 1,000 miles (4 percent)  involved new road construction projects. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA  expects to fund about $20 billion for highway infrastructure improvements  and projects designed to relieve congestion.
Regardless of their size and scope, federally funded highway projects are  typically completed in four phases:  Planning: State and local planning organizations and state departments  of transportation assess a project’s purpose and need and consider its  need in relation to other potential highway projects.
Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of  transportation identify project cost, level of service, and construction  location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and  alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative.
Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of  transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate  utilities.
Construction: State departments of transportation award construction  contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.
Local, state, and federal governments all have a role in the planning,  designing, and construction of federally financed highway projects. Local  governments carry out many transportation planning functions, such as  scheduling improvements and maintenance for local streets and roads.  State departments of transportation are typically the focal point for  transportation project planning and construction and are responsible for  setting the transportation goals for the state, planning safe and efficient  transportation, designing most projects, identifying and mitigating  environmental impacts, acquiring property for highway projects, and  awarding and overseeing construction contracts. At the federal level,  FHWA is the primary agency providing funding, training, approving state  transportation plans, and certifying that states have met requirements  related to environmental protection and historical preservation.
Many of the organizations with a role in highway project completion have  concluded that completing major highway construction projects takes too  long—in some cases about 20 years. The construction of highway projects  using federal funds can be complicated and time consuming because state  departments of transportation must adhere to a number of federal laws  pertaining to transportation, the environment, and historic preservation  and involve multiple stakeholders representing all levels of government  and the public; and for some controversial projects, this could involve  litigation.
As a condition of receiving federal funds for highway projects, state  departments of transportation must comply with the National  Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires that federal  agencies consider the potential impacts on environmental resources when  considering approval of a proposed action. FHWA is responsible for  ensuring that state departments of transportation identify, assess, and, if  necessary, mitigate impacts to the natural and human (e.g., health)  environment and historic properties that may result from the construction  of a highway project. In this regard, state departments of transportation  involve federal agencies with environmental responsibilities (called  resource agencies), such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife  Service, Environmental Protection Agency, and Advisory Council on  Historic Preservation, in addition to FHWA and state resource agencies  when assessing the potential impacts of a highway project in order to  comply with NEPA and other federal and state environmental  requirements. Along with NEPA, state departments of transportation must  comply with other federal statutes that may apply to a highway project,  including:   The Clean Water Act of 1977. The Clean Water Act of 1977 was  designed to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological  integrity of the nation’s waters through the prevention and elimination  of pollution. Any project, including the construction of a highway  project, that involves the discharge of pollutants into waters of the  United States must comply with the Clean Water Act. The act generally  prohibits the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the United States  without obtaining a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency,  or in the case of discharges involving dredge or fill material, from the  Army Corps of Engineers under section 404.
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1966. Section 15(a) of the act,  popularly known as section 4(f), was designed to preserve publicly  owned natural resources, such as parklands, recreation areas,  waterfowl and wildlife refuges, and significant historic sites. Publicly  owned lands may be used for federal highways only if there is no  prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and the program or  project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,  recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site from the  use. Each highway proposal developed by the state departments of  transportation must include avoidance and mitigation alternatives for  publicly owned lands that may be affected by the project. The  Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban  Development and state or local agencies have jurisdiction over natural  resources. State historic preservation offices and the Advisory Council  on Historic Preservation have jurisdiction over historic sites.
The National Historic Preservation Act. Section 106 of the National  Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consider the  effect that a project may have on a property (e.g., districts, sites,  buildings, structures, and objects) that is included in, or eligible for  inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Section 7 of the Endangered  Species Act requires federal agencies to ensure that actions they  authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued  existence of threatened or endangered species (including fish, wildlife,  and plants facing extinction) or result in the destruction or adverse  modification of critical habitat for these species. In some cases, FHWA  and state departments of transportation work with the Fish and Wildlife  Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, and state resource agencies  to ensure compliance with the act.
section_title: Environmental Reviews Become More Complex the Greater the Expected Impact on the Environment
paragraphs: Environmental review of federally funded highway projects typically  begins when state departments of transportation, in consultation with  FHWA, determine that a proposed project may or will affect the quality of  the environment. For projects that state departments of transportation  demonstrate are likely to have minimal environmental impacts or in  situations in which the existence of significant environmental impacts is  initially unclear, FHWA provides for a simplified and less structured review  of environmental impacts. More extensive and structured environmental  review is required from FHWA for projects in which significant  environmental impacts are anticipated. This report describes  environmental review activities that states carry out to meet NEPA and  other federal environmental laws. States may carry out other  environmental review activities to meet state environmental requirements.
subsections: section_title: Projects with Minimal or Initially Unclear Environmental Impacts Require Limited Environmental Review
paragraphs: A highway project that is expected to have minimal environmental impacts  may qualify for limited federal environmental review (called a categorical  exclusion) under FHWA regulations implementing NEPA. These projects  are limited in scope—and some are so routine (such as installation of  traffic signals) as to be preapproved by FHWA—and seldom add new miles  of road to the road system. According to FHWA, approximately 91 percent  of approximately 31,000 federally funded highway projects (representing  about 76 percent of the $17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to states  for highway projects in fiscal year 2001) received categorical exclusions in  2001.
In an informal survey conducted by FHWA in 1999, its division staff  reported that it took an average of 6 months to complete the environmental  review of projects that qualified for a categorical exclusion in 1998. FHWA  officials reported that it takes even less time, sometimes as little as several  days, to complete categorical exclusions for projects that FHWA has  preapproved for limited environmental review (for example, landscaping  or installation of road signs). In a survey conducted for the American  Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000, state  transportation officials estimated that it took an average of 8 months to  complete the activities involved in environmental review of categorical  exclusion projects that they had classified as not delayed. However, these  state transportation officials also reported that, for projects they selected  for the survey, it took an average of 22 months to complete activities  involved in environmental review for categorical exclusion projects that  they had identified as delayed. There is no standard method for measuring  length of time for environmental review.
Some of the projects that qualify for a categorical exclusion are considered  by FHWA to be routine—with little or no environmental impact such as bus  and rail car rehabilitation, construction of bike paths, landscaping,  installation of traffic signals, ride-sharing activities, or improvements to  existing rest areas—and have been preapproved by FHWA for limited  environmental review. For preapproved projects, state department of  transportation need only to sufficiently establish that there are no  significant impacts. State departments of transportation do not need to  identify mitigation measures, address public and agency concerns, or gain  FHWA’s approval of the state’s assessment of environmental impacts. Other  projects—such as bridge rehabilitation, construction of bus or rail storage  or maintenance facilities, or adding shoulders—have somewhat greater  potential for environmental impact but may also qualify for a categorical  exclusion. However, because of the greater potential to cause significant  environmental impacts or generate substantial controversy, they are not  preapproved by FHWA. Instead, for these types of projects, FHWA advises  state departments of transportation to conduct environmental review  activities commensurate with the level of impact, including (1) identifying  environmental features that will be affected by the project (if any); (2)  assessing the environmental impacts caused by the project to the extent  that it is clearly established that impacts are minor; (3) addressing public,  federal, and state resource agency concerns where adverse impacts are  likely to occur; (4) gaining FHWA’s approval for classification as a  categorical exclusion; and (5) obtaining permits, if needed, to clearly  establish that there is little potential for significant impacts and that the  project’s classification as a categorical exclusion is appropriate. (See table  1.)
If it is initially unclear whether a transportation project will have a  significant impact on the environment, then FHWA requires that the state  department of transportation prepare an environmental assessment.  According to FHWA, projects that qualify for environmental assessments  do not typically add new miles of road to the road system. FHWA estimates  that approximately 6 percent of approximately 31,000 federally funded  roadway projects (representing about 15 percent of the $17.6 billion in  federal funding distributed to states for highway projects in fiscal year  2001) required an environmental assessment in 2001. In an informal survey  conducted by FHWA in 1999, its division staff reported that it took an  average of 18 months to complete the activities involved in an  environmental assessment in 1998. In a survey conducted for the American  Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in 2000, state  transportation officials estimated that it took an average of 14 months to  complete the review of environmental assessment projects that they  classified as not delayed. However, state transportation officials also  reported that, for projects they selected for the survey, it took an average of  41 months to complete the review of environmental assessment projects  that they classified as delayed.
For projects that will likely require an environmental assessment, such as  road widening or interchange construction projects, the state department  of transportation, in consultation with FHWA, must conduct more  extensive environmental review activities than are required for projects  that receive a categorical exclusion, commensurate with the potential for  significant environmental impact. For an environmental assessment, the  state department of transportation must (1) identify environmental  features that will be affected by the proposed project; (2) evaluate one or  more alternatives (but need not evaluate all reasonable alternatives); (3)  assess impacts to the environment caused by the project or any of its  alternatives and determine measures to mitigate unavoidable  environmental impacts; and (4) invite comments and obtain feedback from  the public and interested federal, state, and local agencies. Additionally,  states must obtain permits if required by other environmental laws. FHWA  must approve the environmental assessment and it must be made available  for public inspection. If FHWA determines that no significant  environmental impacts have been identified, then it will issue a finding that  there is no significant impact. If at any point during the assessment, FHWA  determines that the project is likely to have a significant impact on the  environment, then an environmental impact statement will be required.
section_title: Significant Expected Environmental Impacts Require Substantial Environmental Review
paragraphs: NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact  statement for all actions (including federally funded highway projects) that  are likely to significantly affect the environment. An environmental impact  statement is a public document that discusses the purpose of and need for  the project, alternatives to the project, the affected environment, the  impacts of the alternatives to the affected environment and public and  agency comments received. While the requirements for the information  included in an environmental impact statement are consistent across  states, the steps taken in the environmental review of projects requiring an  environmental impact statement are not the same in all states, and there  exists no common model among states for undertaking the review  activities that are required to produce an environmental impact statement.  Federally funded highway projects that are likely to require an  environmental impact statement include the construction of a new segment  of controlled access freeway or fixed rail, or projects which make it likely  that there will be significant environmental effects. Typically, state  departments of transportation are responsible for coordinating the  activities of environmental review involving environmental impact  statements.
According to FHWA, approximately 3 percent of approximately 31,000  federally funded highway projects (representing about 9 percent of the  $17.6 billion in federal funding distributed to states for highway projects in  fiscal year 2001) required an environmental impact statement in 2001.  According to FHWA, projects requiring an environmental impact statement  and for which FHWA approved the environmental impact statement in  2001, environmental review took an average of approximately 5 years to  complete. While FHWA reports that the average time to complete an  environmental review for these projects decreased by about 8 months  between 1999 and 2001, it nevertheless still takes approximately twice as  long to complete environmental review as it did in the 1970s. A report  prepared for FHWA stated that for projects constructed in the last 30 years,  environmental review for projects requiring an environmental impact  statement accounted for 3.6 years, or approximately 28 percent of the  overall time for project completion.
In this section of the report, we describe the steps that two states,  Maryland and North Carolina, typically take in identifying and assessing  significant environmental impacts and gaining concurrence for major  transportation projects. (See app. II for a flow chart depicting these  activities.) These two state departments of transportation typically carry  out environmental review activities in four phases: (1) developing an  understanding of the extent to which the project is expected to affect the  environment, (2) identifying alternatives and assessing environmental  impacts, (3) gaining approval on draft environmental impact statement and  selecting the preferred alternative, and (4) gaining final approval for  environmental analysis. Resource agencies, the public, and other  stakeholders provide input at each of these phases. However, these states  may carry out some environmental activities even before the first phase,  such as considering whether environmental impacts are likely when they  develop their state transportation improvement plan. Further, attention to  environmental impacts may occur even after FHWA and permit agencies  approve the project if the environmental analysis is challenged in court.
Developing an understanding of expected environmental impacts. In  this phase, the Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation  develop the scope and purpose of and need for the proposed transportation  project. To determine the potential for environmental impacts, the state  department of transportation incorporates existing environmental  information and feedback from stakeholders about the project that may  have been obtained through the development of the state’s transportation  improvement plan. In addition, Maryland and North Carolina departments  of transportation identify preliminary information on environmental  features and resources including wetlands, floodplains, historic sites,  parklands, and endangered species, as well as the area to be affected by the  proposed project. FHWA notifies the public through the Federal Register  that detailed environmental review is needed for the proposed highway  project (called a notice of intent). In addition, Maryland and North Carolina  departments of transportation invite local officials, federal, state, and local  agencies with environmental responsibilities, and the public at large to  discuss the purpose and need, the proposed scope, environmental features  identified, and substantial issues related to the project. In addition to  environmental review activities required by NEPA, permits or consultation  required by other environmental laws may be needed (e.g., coastal  resources). For projects in Maryland or North Carolina that require a  permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the state department of  transportation will also normally obtain concurrence on the purpose of and  need for the proposed project from the Army Corps of Engineers, the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and  FHWA. Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, Maryland and  North Carolina state departments of transportation may also obtain  concurrence from the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest  Service, and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the  vicinity of a geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction.
Identifying alternatives and assessing environmental impacts. This  phase typically begins with Maryland and North Carolina state departments  of transportation identifying alternatives to the proposed project.  Following guidance from the Council on Environmental Quality, FHWA  requires that the state department of transportation consider a reasonable  range of alternatives that accomplish its objectives, including an alternative  of not building the project. For each alternative, state departments of  transportation must identify the environment that will be affected.  Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation then obtain  feedback on the alternatives they have developed from the public and from  federal, state, and local agencies that have environmental responsibilities.  Maryland and North Carolina state departments of transportation evaluate  comments from the public and agencies and select a subset of alternatives  for more detailed study. For alternatives selected for detailed study,  Maryland and North Carolina state departments of transportation conduct  detailed engineering and environmental analyses of the impacts to natural,  socioeconomic, and cultural resources, including historic resources and  endangered species, and begin identifying measures to avoid, minimize, or  mitigate impacts. The last activity in identifying alternatives and assessing  environmental impacts is to invite the public, local officials, and federal,  state, and local agencies with environmental responsibilities to discuss the  rationale and issues related to the subset of alternatives selected. For  projects in Maryland or North Carolina that require a permit under section  404 of the Clean Water Act, the state department of transportation will also  normally obtain concurrence on the criteria for alternative selection and  the alternatives to be evaluated from the Army Corps of Engineers, the  Environmental Protection Agency, Fish and Wildlife Service, and FHWA.  Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, Maryland and North  Carolina state departments of transportation may also obtain concurrence  from the National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest Service, and/or  the National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the vicinity of a  geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction.
Gaining approval on draft environmental impact statement and  selecting the preferred alternative. In this phase, Maryland and North  Carolina state departments of transportation attempt to gain approval from  FHWA on  preliminary efforts to meet environmental requirements and  concurrence from resource agencies on selecting the preferred alternative.  If FHWA is satisfied that the state department of transportation has  adequately identified all reasonable alternatives to the proposed action and  discusses the reasons why other alternatives were eliminated from detailed  study, then FHWA will provide approval of the state’s preliminary efforts in  meeting environmental requirements. After receiving FHWA’s approval,  state departments of transportation will obtain and analyze comments from  the public and from resource agencies to help the state department of  transportation in selecting the preferred alternative. After Maryland and  North Carolina state departments of transportation select the preferred  alternative, they develop additional avoidance and mitigation efforts, if  needed. Finally, Maryland and North Carolina state departments of  transportation will obtain feedback from the public and agencies on its  selection of the preferred alternative and address any concerns in the final  environmental impact statement. For projects in Maryland or North  Carolina that require a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the  state department of transportation will also normally obtain concurrence  on the preferred alternative from the Army Corps of Engineers, the  Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and  FHWA. Other states may not obtain concurrence. In addition, the state  department of transportation may also obtain concurrence from the  National Park Service, the Coast Guard, the Forest Service, and/or the  National Marine Fisheries Service, if the project is in the vicinity of a  geographic area for which an agency has jurisdiction.
Gaining final approval for environmental analysis and permits. In  this phase, the state department of transportation attempts to gain final  approval from FHWA on its efforts to meet environmental review  requirements. If FHWA is satisfied that the state department of  transportation has adequately identified the preferred alternative;  evaluated all reasonable alternatives considered; and complied, to the  extent possible, with all applicable environmental laws and executive  orders; or has provided reasonable assurance that these requirements can  be met, then FHWA issues final approval on the state’s efforts in meeting  environment review requirements. The state department of transportation  will then circulate the final environmental impact statement for public and  agency comment. The state department of transportation will respond to  comments and FHWA will issue its decision (called a record of decision).
In addition to the activities described above, state departments of  transportation may need to undertake additional activities to consult with  or obtain permits or approvals from federal, state, and local agencies  before they can begin construction when a project may impact coastal  resources, air quality, wetlands, historic and cultural resources,  floodplains, ecosystems, national park lands, and endangered species,  among others in order to complete environmental review. Finally, the  environmental review process may have to be reopened in situations such  as when a project does not move forward because of funding shortages and  stakeholders believe that possible environmental impacts have changed  and in cases of successful lawsuits involving environmental issues  associated with the project. Only after lawsuits, funding, or other  environmental issues have been resolved will Maryland and North Carolina  state departments of transportation typically allocate funding to begin  construction.
section_title: Stakeholders’ Views Differed on Which Aspects Frequently Add Undue Time to Environmental Reviews
paragraphs: Stakeholders of highway construction projects we contacted identified 43  aspects that they said added undue time (more time than what  stakeholders viewed as necessary to complete the review) to  environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. A majority of  stakeholders with primary responsibilities for environmental and historical  preservation issues, and those with primary responsibilities for  transportation improvement, identified five aspects as occurring  frequently; but there was no agreement across groups about which aspects  add undue time. (See table 5 in app. III for how stakeholders rated each of  the 43 aspects.)
The stakeholders we contacted indicated that aspects adding undue time to  environmental reviews generally occurred at about the same frequency,  regardless of whether the type of environmental review was a categorical  exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement.  While the stakeholders we contacted identified various aspects of  environmental reviews as adding undue time, generally, they could not  estimate how much time these aspects add to environmental reviews.
subsections: section_title: Environmental and Transportation Improvement Stakeholders Differed in Their Views of Which Aspects Frequently Add Undue Time
paragraphs: While stakeholders with similar responsibilities or interests identified  several aspects as frequently adding undue time to environmental reviews,  no agreement existed across groups. For the most part, environmental  stakeholders, such as resource agencies, state historic preservation  agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations, told us that state  departments of transportation waited too long to consider environmental  impacts and involve important stakeholders. On the other hand,  transportation improvement stakeholders, such as state departments of  transportation, FHWA division offices, and transportation advocacy  organizations, identified aspects related to environmental laws and staffing  adequacy.
Of the 43 aspects identified by all stakeholders, a majority of the  environmental stakeholders identified 2 aspects as frequently adding undue  time to environmental reviews.  (See table 2.)
Impacts not considered early enough. Seventy percent of the  environmental stakeholders (7 of 10) who provided a rating for this  aspect, told us that undue time is frequently added to environmental  reviews because state departments of transportation generally do not  consider environmental and historic preservation impacts early enough  in the environmental review. An official with the Council on  Environmental Quality, which oversees federal agency implementation  of the environmental impact assessments, stated that when  environmental activities related to NEPA are not considered during the  planning phase of a highway project, agreements made during the  planning phase must be revisited once a NEPA review starts, thus  unduly adding time to environmental reviews. In contrast, 12 percent of  transportation improvement stakeholders (2 of 16) cited this aspect as  occurring frequently.
Important stakeholders not included early. Sixty-four percent of the  environmental stakeholders (7 of 11) who provided a rating for this  aspect told us that undue time is frequently added to environmental  reviews because state departments of transportation generally do not  include important stakeholders early in the environmental review. For  example, a state historic preservation officer said that the state historic  preservation office often was involved too late in the environmental  review, leading to time delays on the project. The state department of  transportation had spent time and money developing projects prior to  allowing the state historical preservation office to review project plans.  When the state historical preservation office had a concern with a  project, the state department had to change or redesign its plans causing  cost increases and time delays. In contrast, 19 percent of the  transportation improvement stakeholders (3 of 16) cited this aspect as  frequently adding undue time to reviews.
Of the 43 aspects identified overall, a majority of transportation  improvement stakeholders identified 3 aspects as frequently adding undue  time to environmental reviews. (See table 3.)
State departments and federal resource agencies lack sufficient  staff. Sixty-nine percent of transportation improvement stakeholders  (11 of 16) who provided a rating for this aspect told us that undue time is  frequently added to environmental reviews because state departments  of transportation and federal resource agencies lack sufficient staff to  handle their responsibilities in a timely manner. This aspect was cited as  occurring frequently by a majority of the transportation improvement  stakeholders and by half of the environmental stakeholders (5 of the 10)  who provided ratings for this aspect. According to FHWA, state  departments of transportation are using different methods to attempt to  provide sufficient staff to carry out environmental reviews, such as  hiring consultants to complete environmental analyses when their own  staff resources are limited. In addition, according to FHWA, 34 states are  funding additional staff at state and federal environmental agencies to  facilitate environmental reviews and approval. In a recent report,  stakeholders identified this latter approach as a promising approach  that states are using to reduce the overall time it takes to complete  federally funded highway projects.
Section 4(f) historic preservation requirement considered  burdensome. Fifty-six percent of the transportation improvement  stakeholders (9 of 16) told us that section 4(f) adds undue time to  environmental reviews because it is inflexible and, therefore,  burdensome to comply with. Section 4(f) prohibits the Department of  Transportation from approving any highway project that uses, among  other things, publicly owned land of an historic site of national, state, or  local significance unless it finds that (1) there is no prudent and feasible  alternative that avoids such resources or causes less harm to them and  (2) the project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to those  resources. In April 2003, we reported that many stakeholders consider  these reviews as burdensome and inflexible and that alternative  approaches could protect historic properties and take less time to reach  resolution.  In that report, a large majority of the stakeholders we  contacted indicated that historic property protections under section 106  of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (which requires that  projects subject to federal agency jurisdiction or licensing consider the  effects on any properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the  National Register of Historic Places) offered a flexible mediation  process that brings all parties into discussion and allowed for more  productive outcomes that preserve the goals of the transportation  project, while creating meaningful protections of historic properties. In  contrast, 30 percent of the environmental stakeholders (3 of 10) who  provided a rating for this aspect cited it as occurring frequently,  resulting in undue time being added to environmental reviews.
Obtaining wetlands permits considered time consuming. Fifty-six  percent of the transportation improvement stakeholders (9 of 16) told  us that section 404 of the Clean Water Act, which requires that projects  receive a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers if water impacts  exist, frequently adds undue time to environmental reviews. These  stakeholders described a variety of issues, including that section 404  adds undue time because the Corps requires extensive alternative  analysis, even for minor projects, to demonstrate that there is no  practicable alternative to building on wetlands. None of the  environmental stakeholders rated this aspect as occurring frequently in  adding undue time to environmental reviews.
In our April report on stakeholders’ perceptions of the most promising  approaches for reducing highway project completion time (covering all  aspects of a highway project from planning through construction),  stakeholders identified 13 most promising approaches. Nine of these  approaches involved environmental review, such as funding specialized  staff at resource agencies and unifying section 404 and NEPA reviews. Four  of the five aspects that stakeholders told us add undue time to  environmental reviews relate specifically to promising approaches cited in  the April report. These are approaches for increasing resource agency staff,  providing early consideration of environmental impacts by state  departments of transportation, inclusion of important stakeholders early in  environmental review, and handling the exacting requirements of section  4(f). In our April report, we recommended that FHWA consider the benefits  of the 13 most promising approaches and act to foster the adoption of the  most cost effective and feasible approaches. FHWA generally agreed with  this recommendation and stated that most, if not all, of the promising  approaches coincide with the streamlining activities that the department  and its partners, such as state departments of transportation and resource  agencies, have been developing and implementing under section 1309 of  the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. We believe that acting on  that recommendation will address some of the concerns identified by the  environmental and transportation improvement stakeholders in this report.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Departments of Transportation and Interior with a draft of  this report for their review and comment. The Department of  Transportation responded that it had no comments, and the Department of  Interior did not provide a response to our request for comments. We also  provided Maryland and North Carolina with the portion of the draft report  dealing with environmental review activities in their states. Maryland  offered several technical comments, which we have incorporated into this  report. North Carolina did not provide a response to our request for  comments.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to  congressional committees with responsibilities for highway and  environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of  Defense; the Secretary of the Interior; the Administrator, Federal Highway  Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We  will also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be  available at no charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  either James Ratzenberger at ratzenbergerj@gao.gov or me at  siggerudk@gao.gov. Alternatively, we may be reached at (202) 512-2834.  Key contributors to this report were Samer Abbas, Michelle Dresben,  Brandon Haller, Hiroshi Ishikawa, Gail Marnik, Kristen Massey, and James  Ratzenberger.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To perform our work, we reviewed laws and regulations governing  environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. We discussed  the activities involved, the time it takes to complete environmental reviews,  and aspects that may increase the time it takes to complete such reviews  with officials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), state  departments of transportation, federal resource agencies, transportation  advocacy organizations, environmental advocacy organizations, and  historic preservation agencies. We also reviewed federal, state, and private  studies on environmental reviews of transportation projects.
To determine the activities required to complete environmental reviews of  federally funded highway projects and the stakeholders involved in the  reviews, we obtained information from FHWA, the Maryland Department of  Transportation, and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. We  chose these states because officials we interviewed identified these states  as those that have studied their environmental review procedures and  taken steps to improve the timeliness of environmental reviews. While the  general requirements for an environmental impact statement (identify  environmental features, evaluate alternatives, assess impacts, involve the  public, etc.) are the same for all states, each state may implement the  requirements differently.
To determine stakeholders’ views on the aspects that frequently add undue  time to environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects, we  contacted 51 organizations with a role or interest in highway project  environmental reviews. (See table 4.)  Of these 51 organizations, officials  from 39 agreed to participate in interviews, including federal and state  agencies with responsibilities relating to the construction of federally  funded roads, federal agencies with responsibilities relating to the  protection of the environment, transportation engineering organizations,  transportation professional associations, environmental organizations, and  historic preservation organizations. To identify the 51 organizations, we  initially contacted agencies and organizations that have a role or interest in  highway project environmental reviews or that have been vocal on the  issue. We asked these officials to identify, for subsequent interviews, other  agencies or organizations undertaking or knowledgeable about  environmental reviews. We continued to ask for names from the  subsequent organizations until we began getting duplicate referrals.
Using a semi-structured interview, we asked knowledgeable stakeholders  at each of the 39 organizations to provide information about the aspects of  laws, stakeholders’ behaviors, resource availability, or project management  approaches, if any, that unduly add time to environmental reviews. We used  these categories because they are related to components of the  environmental review process. For each aspect cited, we asked  stakeholders to provide information on (1) how the aspect leads to an  undue increase in review time; (2) the positive and negative outcomes, if  any; (3) at what stage in the review the aspect occurred; (4) an example and  the amount of time it added to the review; and (5) the type of  environmental review (e.g., categorical exclusion, environmental  assessment, or environmental impact statement) where the aspect  occurred.  We did not define the term undue time but relied on the  stakeholders’ professional judgment to determine which aspects added  time that would not be added ordinarily. Most stakeholders did not provide  estimates of the amount of time the aspect added to the review.
To determine how frequently the aspects occur, we compiled a list of 43  aspects identified by stakeholders as adding unnecessary time to  environmental reviews and asked each of the 39 stakeholders we  interviewed to rate how frequently each aspect adds undue time to  environmental reviews for highway projects involving categorical  exclusions, environmental assessments, and environmental impact  statements using a scale of 1 to 5.  Twenty-eight stakeholders agreed to  participate in this segment of our work. The 11 stakeholders who did not  participate in this segment chose not to do so for a variety of reasons. At  least 25 stakeholders (89 percent) rated each of the 43 aspects. We  identified the most significant aspects as those where a majority of the  stakeholders responding to the question indicated it occurred frequently  (more than half to all or almost all the time).
Stakeholders made a significant distinction by type review in less than 8  percent of all responses. We defined a significant distinction as a response  that had a greater than 1 point difference (on the 1-5 scale) between the  rating of either the categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, and  environmental impact statements from the rating averages of responses for  a given aspect.
We did not attempt to corroborate whether or not particular aspects  actually occur or the reasons why stakeholders rated individual aspects as  occurring more or less frequently. We conducted our work from November  2002 through May 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
section_title: Environmental Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement
paragraphs: Figure 3 depicts the types and duration (assuming no significant  disagreements with stakeholders at key decision points) of all federally  required, environmental-related review activities (including those that may  be undertaken prior to notice of intent and after record of decision)  involved in the environmental review of federally funded highway projects  in Maryland and North Carolina requiring an environmental impact  statement.  State requirements are not depicted. The flowchart depicts  Maryland and North Carolina departments of transportation undertaking  permit-related activities early in the process. Other states may not do so.
Maryland and North Carolina carry out some environmental activities even  before the first phase, such as considering whether environmental impacts  are likely when they develop their state transportation improvement plan.  Further, attention to environmental impacts may occur even after FHWA  and permit agencies approve the project if the environmental analysis is  challenged in court.
section_title: Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly Adding Time to Environmental Reviews
paragraphs: Stakeholders with different primary interests or responsibilities typically  had divergent views about aspects that unduly add time to environmental  reviews. (See table 5.)
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older  products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents  using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,  including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and  correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site  daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this  list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to GAO  Mailing Lists” under “Order GAO Products” heading.
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Public Affairs