Highway Infrastructure: Stakeholders' Views on Time to Conduct Environmental Reviews of Highway Projects
Released: 2003-06-23T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Federally funded highway projects vary in size, from new lane striping or installing traffic signals to resurfacing an existing road or building a new road or interchange. Of the federally funded highway projects in 2000 that took place on approximately 27,000 miles of road (latest data available), about 26,000 miles (96 percent) involved either the addition of capacity, preservation, or improvements (such as widening lanes, resurfacing, and rehabilitating roadways) and the remaining 1,000 miles (4 percent) involved new road construction projects. For fiscal year 2003, FHWA expects to fund about $20 billion for highway infrastructure improvements and projects designed to relieve congestion.

Regardless of their size and scope, federally funded highway projects are typically completed in four phases: Planning: State and local planning organizations and state departments of transportation assess a project’s purpose and need and consider its need in relation to other potential highway projects.

Preliminary design and environmental review: State departments of transportation identify project cost, level of service, and construction location; identify the effect, if any, of the proposed project and alternatives on the environment; and select the preferred alternative.

Final design and right-of-way acquisition: State departments of transportation finalize design plans, acquire property, and relocate utilities.

Construction: State departments of transportation award construction contracts, oversee construction, and accept the completed project.

Local, state, and federal governments all have a role in the planning, designing, and construction of federally financed highway projects. Local governments carry out many transportation planning functions, such as scheduling improvements and maintenance for local streets and roads. State departments of transportation are typically the focal point for transportation project planning and construction and are responsible for setting the transportation goals for the state, planning safe and efficient transportation, designing most projects, identifying and mitigating 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.

Environmental Reviews Become More Complex the Greater the Expected Impact on the Environment

Environmental review of federally funded highway projects typically begins when state departments of transportation, in consultation with FHWA, determine that a proposed project may or will affect the quality of the environment. For projects that state departments of transportation demonstrate are likely to have minimal environmental impacts or in situations in which the existence of significant environmental impacts is initially unclear, FHWA provides for a simplified and less structured review of environmental impacts. More extensive and structured environmental review is required from FHWA for projects in which significant environmental impacts are anticipated. This report describes environmental review activities that states carry out to meet NEPA and other federal environmental laws. States may carry out other environmental review activities to meet state environmental requirements.

Projects with Minimal or Initially Unclear Environmental Impacts Require Limited Environmental Review

A highway project that is expected to have minimal environmental impacts may qualify for limited federal environmental review (called a categorical exclusion) under FHWA regulations implementing NEPA. 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.

Significant Expected Environmental Impacts Require Substantial Environmental Review

NEPA requires federal agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement for all actions (including federally funded highway projects) that are likely to significantly affect the environment. An environmental impact statement is a public document that discusses the purpose of and need for the project, alternatives to the project, the affected environment, the impacts of the alternatives to the affected environment and public and agency comments received. While the requirements for the information included in an environmental impact statement are consistent across states, the steps taken in the environmental review of projects requiring an environmental impact statement are not the same in all states, and there exists no common model among states for undertaking the review 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.

Stakeholders’ Views Differed on Which Aspects Frequently Add Undue Time to Environmental Reviews

Stakeholders of highway construction projects we contacted identified 43 aspects that they said added undue time (more time than what stakeholders viewed as necessary to complete the review) to environmental reviews of federally funded highway projects. A majority of stakeholders with primary responsibilities for environmental and historical preservation issues, and those with primary responsibilities for transportation improvement, identified five aspects as occurring frequently; but there was no agreement across groups about which aspects add undue time. (See table 5 in app. III for how stakeholders rated each of the 43 aspects.)

The stakeholders we contacted indicated that aspects adding undue time to environmental reviews generally occurred at about the same frequency, regardless of whether the type of environmental review was a categorical exclusion, environmental assessment, or environmental impact statement. While the stakeholders we contacted identified various aspects of environmental reviews as adding undue time, generally, they could not estimate how much time these aspects add to environmental reviews.

Environmental and Transportation Improvement Stakeholders Differed in Their Views of Which Aspects Frequently Add Undue Time

While stakeholders with similar responsibilities or interests identified several aspects as frequently adding undue time to environmental reviews, no agreement existed across groups. For the most part, environmental stakeholders, such as resource agencies, state historic preservation agencies, and environmental advocacy organizations, told us that state departments of transportation waited too long to consider environmental impacts and involve important stakeholders. On the other hand, transportation improvement stakeholders, such as state departments of transportation, FHWA division offices, and transportation advocacy organizations, identified aspects related to environmental laws and staffing adequacy.

Of the 43 aspects identified by all stakeholders, a majority of the environmental stakeholders identified 2 aspects as frequently adding undue time to environmental reviews. (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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided the Departments of Transportation and Interior with a draft of this report for their review and comment. The Department of Transportation responded that it had no comments, and the Department of Interior did not provide a response to our request for comments. We also provided Maryland and North Carolina with the portion of the draft report dealing with environmental review activities in their states. Maryland offered several technical comments, which we have incorporated into this report. North Carolina did not provide a response to our request for comments.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to congressional committees with responsibilities for highway and environmental issues; the Secretary of Transportation; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Interior; the Administrator, Federal Highway Administration; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. This report will be available at no charge on our home page at http://www.gao.gov.

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.

Scope and Methodology

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.

Environmental Reviews of Projects in Maryland and North Carolina Requiring an Environmental Impact Statement

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.

Aspects Identified by Stakeholders as Unduly Adding Time to Environmental Reviews

Stakeholders with different primary interests or responsibilities typically had divergent views about aspects that unduly add time to environmental reviews. (See table 5.)

GAO’s Mission

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and 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.

Order by Mail or Phone

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

Public Affairs